Because the frames ARE NOT interchangable according to SRT. They are infact a function of which accelerates or accelerates more. Emperical data (i./e. - what clock always loses time) determines which frame had motion and which did not.
Believers Beware
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
Because the frames ARE NOT interchangable according to SRT. They are infact a function of which accelerates or accelerates more. Emperical data (i./e. - what clock always loses time) determines which frame had motion and which did not.
If you know what happens in an inertial frame, then in principle you're a coordinate substitution away from knowing what things look like in an accelerating frame.
This also means that finding a contradiction in relativity by considering accelerating frames would be like finding a contradiction in Euclidean geometry by switching to polar coordinates. It's impossible simply because the act of performing a coordinate substitution doesn't create any new information, so if you think you've found a paradox, it's because you inadvertently inserted an assumption of your own somewhere.
STR and the equivalence principle are the basis for formulating GR. For instance, STR predicts that a clock's "tick rate" should increase dramatically if you accelerate towards it, depending on the magnitude of your acceleration and the distance between you and the clock (you obtain the twin paradox by ignoring this and inserting your own erroneous assumptions here). Add the equivalence postulate and you get GR's gravitational time dilation.
No - not just because the time dilation formula has been tested a bit. Because all the widely accepted general theories in physics (QFT, electromagnetism, relativistic mechanics, etc.) can be expressed in covariant form. This is a serious mathematical constraint that has had over a century now to prove itself a nuisance to theoretical physics - and hasn't. For example, as I understand it there are only so many ways of constructing Lorentz invariant Lagrangians in quantum field theory, and they're all the standard model needs to make predictions in accord with experimental results. Quantum electrodynamics in particular is well known for the accuracy of its predictions.
All the laws of physics satisfying the condition of Lorentz covariance, in turn, implies that different inertial observers applying any operational definition of a coordinate system will use reference frames related to one another by transformations in the Poincaré group. Loosely speaking, STR's reference frames, skewed and mixing time and space as they do, are the most natural coordinate systems for inertial observers to utilize because all of physics, including the observers, will skew the same way.
All this is in addition to the many tests of some of STR's more direct and (to the layman) well known predictions (invariance of c, time dilation, lack of a detectable preferred frame - that kind of thing).
Personally, "absolute" velocity doesn't mean much to me if it can't be detected. Einstein was just thinking like a typical physicist here. (Look up "verificationism".)
STR only mandates reciprocity between inertial frames. Reciprocity is demonstrably lost if at least one of the two frames considered is non-inertial.
I hope you're aware that Lorentz Ether Theory is experimentally indistinguishable from STR. In retrospect, all LET does is call one of STR's inertial frames the "rest frame" and the others "illusions" (without explaining how the "rest frame" is identified). If you understand this then I suppose you're entitled to adopt the LET view if you prefer to see things that way.
Last edited:
Pathetic.
The contridiction is the concept of relative veloicty causing physical change. That concept has physical change occuring to objects forwhich have not moved. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN GOT IT? That is not me just saying so it is all data from every test over the past 100 years + since the stupid idea was advanced and accepted by even more stupid people because they lack common sense.
Pardon me but it is NOT my erroneous idea. I know damn well how STR works and that clocks increase tick rate when you move toward them. However, what you and your mentors seem to want to ignore is the fact that when you use acceleration and vectoral +/- mathematics you have just imposed an absolute motion.
I have never claimed predictions used from STR are inaccurate. I have said and I still say (prove me wrong if you can and stop with the dogmatic rhetoric) that the relative velocity claim of STR is nonsense and unsupported by data.
Go ahead post ONE case where relative veloicty caused an unaccelerated clock to lose time. GO AHEAD SMART GUY.
Great, I have said I don't object to using it's mathematical utility but that doesn't make it a valid physical concept. It isn't.
Babble, Dogmatic rhetoric. Answer the damn question. Which test confirms the reciprocity of the relative velocity view? For the last time you can only avoid reciprocity if you consdier acceleration of the observer which establishes which observer actually has motion. It is no longer merely "Relative" veloicty, it correctly becomes "Actual" veloicty and it and only it has any permanent physical affects.
Stop the babble and answer that point.
Personally "Relative Velocity" is obviously incapable of causing physical change, even if you are incapable of understanding that simple fact. Ever heard of Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance". Well STR is "Spooky action without a cause". End of arguement.
You fail to appreciate that whatever is written in books and claimed by anyone doesn't make it a fact. The fact is simple basic physics are violated and you cannot simply disregard that and ignore it to accomodate STR.
Especially since LR doesn't have the same problems since it assumed a preferred frame and prohibits reciprocity.
The assumption that "Absence of Evidence" IS "Evidence of Absense" is simply gross stupidity.
Your "If I can't see it, feel it, smell, hear or taste it, then it doesn't exits" just eliminated any knowlege of physics on a microscopic scale.
Correct. Now run two cases.
1 - Clock "A" and "B" are equally accelerated in a comoving direction away from and relative to cock "C".
Both "A" & "B" go inertial simultaneously according to "C" and one hour later according to "C" "A" stops his clock. "B" dosen't stop his clock for one additional hour.
Don't need numbers here because regardless of how long each had inertial relative velocity both accumulated less time than "C". Yet while inertial "C" according to STR should accumulate less time than "A" and "B".
2 - "A" & "B" again accelerate equally away from "C" and go inertial but in opposite directions and for the same duration according to"C".
"A" & "B" will emperically and equally both accumulate less time than "C" and both will have accumulated the same amount of time according to "C" even though they jpossessed "Relative Velocity" during thetest. NO PHYSICAL CHANGE EVEN WITH RELATIVE VELOCITY.
Why because physical change is a function of who accelerated and by how much - NOT THEIR RELATIVE VELOCITY -SHSSSSH!
I do understand that for crist sake. And I've said in clear language many times that a simple absolute frme concept doesn't work either.
BUT faiure to posit a working absolute concept does not (and should not) preclude pointing out that STR is flawed andis not correct wither.
To do as you want to do insures we will never discover the truth because you have stopped looking.
Fortunately someothers haven't and for example the muon ansitropy study which was used to compute the earth's motion in the universe to other gallaxies (some 300+km/sec I believe) was achieved by using an absolute muon veloicty relative to the CMB - Hmmmmm. Maybe we should take a deeper look and stop with the appeal to authority - For it means jack crap.
Nothing you have said here is news but more importantly nor is it news worthy.
So. You don't know what a coordinate transformation is. No wonder STR is giving you so much grief.
No, just an absolute acceleration - there's a difference. It's just like the way potential energy is only defined with respect to some reference point, but any change in potential energy is absolute.
What, prove a negative? You prove that we can detect absolute motion.
I just explained the physical justification behind the use of the Lorentz transformation, which can be shown to imply reciprocity. As far as direct confirmation of reciprocity is concerned, there aren't any tests I'm aware of (which likely means there are none, period). But reciprocity is consistent with the rest of physics and what you're claiming is not. So do you have evidence that I have anything to worry about, or are you going to keep acting like a creationist insisting we should throw out "Darwinism" because only "microevolution" has been directly observed?
I know. That's why I have little regard for all your unsupported claims denying reciprocity and relative velocity - even the ones you C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-Z-E.
Maybe BOLD RED ARIAL BLACK will make you more convincing.
What basic physics? Every time you go on about STR confusing some concept or getting at length contraction by fudging some velocity calculation, you always end up describing a theory I've never seen before. You want babble? This:
is babble.
LET uses the Lorentz transformation. It predicts that a moving observer will use x' and t' coordinates (call them "virtual" coordinates or "illusion" if you must) that (for a boost in the x-direction, give or take a translation) are related to the x and t coordinates of the preferred frame by:
$$t' = \gamma \left( t - \frac{v}{c^2} x \right)$$
$$x' = \gamma \left( x - v t \right)$$
$$x' = \gamma \left( x - v t \right)$$
Set $$x' = 0$$ or equivalently $$x = v t$$ (equation of a clock in "absolute" motion) and we get:
$$t' = \gamma \left( t - \frac{v}{c^2} v t \right) = \gamma \left( 1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) t = \gamma \frac{1}{\gamma^2} t$$
or $$\frac{ \mathrm{d} t' }{ \mathrm{d} t } = \frac{1}{\gamma}$$, which is just the time dilation factor of a moving clock as seen in the rest frame.
Now we set $$x = 0$$ (movement equation of a stationary clock):
$$t' = \gamma t$$
or $$\frac{ \mathrm{d} t }{ \mathrm{d} t' } = \frac{1}{\gamma}$$ : the time dilation factor of the rest clock as seen by the moving observer.
Lorentz Ether Theory most definitely predicts reciprocity.
If I remember correctly, that paper you brought up in your last thread used back-of-the-envelope calculations which even the author attributed an error of around 20% to. Substituting STR for a theory that claims "absolute" time dilation results in a difference in the muon's predicted half-life on the order of a few parts per million. Am I still expected to take this seriously?
Babble.
"Relative Motion while inertial is the basis of STR. IT DOES NOT WORK. You MUST consider acceleration. I am not the one that wrote the theory or has written all books since. THEY improperly present STR as a valid physical concept. IT IS NOT.
Nobody said "Prove" anything. In fact I said just the opposite and that is common sense and emperical data confirms an absolute type function. That says nothing about being able to directly sense or measure it.
It is not proving a negative to point out the failure of STR's reciprocity prediction. That has and says nothi8ng about any replacment theory or concept - ONLY that STR is invalid.
What???? Reciprocity is prohibited in Lorentz. Don't try to mask the truth.
WOW - Finally the truth. Now convince yourself it is justifiable under the "Can't prove a negative" argument that after literally millions of tests over 100+ years that failute to see even ONE case of reciprocity doesn't invalidate the concept as a practical matter.
It is no different than the argument against an absolute refereance frame. Failure to find one or measure it over the same number of years is your basis for saying it has been proven it doesn't exist.
That is stupidity and BS. Emperical data certainly mandates (not merely implies) one. It is not necessary to actually measure it to know it must be there. Data and common sense and physical possibilities, dictates it PERIOD.
More unsubstantiated babble.
Holly Molly! What a bunch of crap.
1 - My views are without a doubt at the opposite exterme of creationisim. Attemps to deman my view by false association shows desperation.
2 - I have not said throw out STR. I in fact have stated the opposite. I have said it has valuable utility mathematically but it's interpretation as a valid physical concept must be thrown out if we are to advance our understanding of the universe.
Case in point is yourself. You will NEVER discover anything because you refuse to think or look.
My claims are 100% supported. Show ONE case which is not mathematically according to my specifications. Try addressing the issue, not attacking the messenger.
"Verily, verily, I say to thee, he who looks but cannot see" - REQUIRES emphasis.
You have never seen it because you refuse to look. PS: I don't confuse concepts. I correctly point out what STR based on mere relative veloicty will actually require and then show how that is implausable as a physical concept; plus suggest a direction to consider. I do not and have not claimed to have a replacment theory and there is no obligation to have one to merely point out the short falls in current theory.
False. Your transformation exhanges which has motion. LET ONLY correctly used if you only compute one case . You cannot correctly exchange which has motion. That is both views are NEVER allowed inthe same set of calculation - I THINK YOU KNOW THAT AND YOU SHOULD APPOLOGIZE TO READERS FOR YOUR DECEPTION.
Yep. The 20% wasn't cast as an error. It was cast as producing results withing 20%of other methods. BTW: Of the other methods there are several and they all deviate by more than 20% in range. Hence you again try to distort facts.
Continue your higher than thou attitude and I will not reply further. Readers now see facts for what they are.
:roflmao:
In other words, you can't find a fault in the math, so invent some superficial excuse for ignoring it because you don't like the conclusions. If LET really wanted to prohibit all but one view, why exactly do you think it came packaged with a coordinate transformation formula? Here you're either being downright silly, or you're doing a brilliant job proving my point: you don't know how to deal with coordinate transforms.
Most of the rest of your post follows in the same vein: direct contradiction of anything I say, insults when you've got nothing better to offer, and an obvious agenda-driven attitude when considering evidence.
The only point I can find to agree with you on is that there's little point continuing this discussion.
Enough is enough. You really are either deliberately lying or at least misrepresenting things OR you simply are to ill informed to know jor understand history and facts.
The differen in STR and LET is that even though LET provides a transform it was bgased on the idea that there is an absolute rest frame and ONLY ONE clock has motion. TAhe transform merely shows that the affect on the other clock WOULD be the same IF it had the motion. It at NO time suggests or even allows for the frames to be treated equal or claims relative motion between such frames is the cause of the relavisitc function.
Now read, learn and knock jor the dogma rhetoric.
******************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, .....
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/abditorium/lorentz-ether-theory.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)‘As history buffs may know, the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) appeared a year before Einstein’s 1905 publication of SR. Of course, LET incorporated both the relativity principle (taken from Poincare, but it was first formulated about a generation earlier) and the Lorentz transformations that bear his name. The essential new element introduced by Einstein the following year was the equivalence of all inertial frames, thereby eliminating the need for the luminiferous ether. This first postulate of SR makes the Lorentz transformations reciprocal; i.e., they work equally well from any inertial frame to any other, then back again; so it has no meaning to ask which of two identical clocks in different frames is ticking slower in any absolute sense. The second postulate of SR makes the speed of light independent of not only the speed of the source (which is also true generally for waves in any medium, including luminiferous ether), but also independent of the speed of the observer (which is a feature unique to SR).
Today, many physicists and students of physics have acquired the impression that these two postulates have been confirmed by observations. However, that is not the case. In fact, none of the eleven independent experiments verifying some aspect of SR is able to verify either postulate. It is now widely believed that no experiment is capable of verifying these postulates even in principle, because they become automatically true by convention if one adopts the Einstein clock-synchronization method, and they become just as automatically false if one adopts a different synchronization convention such as the ‘universal time’ postulate of Lorentz. Of interest here is the point that the GPS uses the latter synchronization convention for pragmatic reasons ...’.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
MacM:
I find it interesting that you respond to przyk's careful defence of relativity with lots of angry accusations of "babble" and "nonsense" and the like. You're looking really desperate. You have no good arguments, only the ones you're been peddling for years without ever actually learning the basics of SR. Still don't understand co-ordinate transformations, after all this time? Give me a break!
You constantly make statements saying that "STR" is "mathematically valid", while at the same time making silly claims such as that "basic physics are violated". Both of these things cannot be simultaneously true, since the mathematics depends on the physics and is inextricably entangled with it.
All your heated claims that "basic physics are violated" come to nothing, because you have never once managed to demonstrate a single such violation.
It's always fun to watch you get all hot under the collar though, when the conversation starts to go over your head.
I find it interesting that you respond to przyk's careful defence of relativity with lots of angry accusations of "babble" and "nonsense" and the like. You're looking really desperate. You have no good arguments, only the ones you're been peddling for years without ever actually learning the basics of SR. Still don't understand co-ordinate transformations, after all this time? Give me a break!
You constantly make statements saying that "STR" is "mathematically valid", while at the same time making silly claims such as that "basic physics are violated". Both of these things cannot be simultaneously true, since the mathematics depends on the physics and is inextricably entangled with it.
All your heated claims that "basic physics are violated" come to nothing, because you have never once managed to demonstrate a single such violation.
It's always fun to watch you get all hot under the collar though, when the conversation starts to go over your head.
Not at all. I simply do not have to tolerate anybody trying to talk down to me making false innuendo about my understanding and pretending to teach me things I already know. Saying I have said things I clearly have not said, etc.
I don't call that defence I call it foul offense and deserving of being told where to go.
Ditto. I have sucessfully debated physicists that seem to be more knowledable than yourself. You too tend to use innuendo as a tatic rather than address the actual issue.
In those debatesI have secured an admission that SRT is "What moving observers SEE and that is not what is the physical reality to the actual clock". That position is in agreemnt with emprical data.
WOW are you lost. There is a BIG difference between "mathematically consitant" and "physically valid". I have not once said it is mathematically valid, only mathematically consistant.
But you omit the fact that I point out that the mathematical process makes rather stupid assumptions and actually switches measurement standards between frames and thereby incorrectly allegies spatial contraction.
v1 = delta d / delta t1 and v2 = delta d / delta t2. Emperical data is rather clear - i.e. t2 is is dilated and accumulates less time than t1. Hence t2 is ticking slower therfore by some very basic math "d" cannot be different since the accumulated time accounts to the trip time.
d and t are physicl parameters and "v" is a computation based on those enities. The logical instinct to think v1 must equal v2 (which SR does for relative motion) ignores the very origin of the value for v.
Every "v" is determined by the observer using his accumulated time by his local proper tick rate and hence will compute a different (higher) velocity if it his clock that is running slower during the trip over the same distance.
There really is no other rational view here.
And you have never ONCE posted data showing the resting clock lost time. Shsssh!.
That is actually funny. LIke I said certain jpeople simly cannot address issues and MUST use personal insults and attacks and unsupported innuendo.
Now for once post at least ONE case of emperical data that disproves my position regarding reciprocity and spatial contraction.
Have fun - YOU CANNOT.
MacM:
Well, as they say, appearances can be deceiving!
That's just a physicist not being careful enough with his words, I'm guessing. That's if you understood him correctly in the first place.
Most likely, what was meant is that observers co-moving with a clock see a different time to those that watch the clock moving past. Which is just basic SR.
If you agree that SR is "mathematically consistent" then you admit that it is impossible to for you refute SR without refuting one of the two fundamental postulates of SR.
But you've never attempted to do that. All you have ever done is to make spurious attacks on what you perceive are deficiencies in SR, which have in fact never turned out to be a problem for SR but have always shown up your own lack of understanding of the theory.
It does no such thing.
You have obviously forgotten that length contraction exists. A basic error.
I explained time dilation to you years ago. I was quite careful in my lengthy explanations. You ought to go back and review my old threads on this topic. Maybe you'll learn something this time.
Good luck!
Well, as they say, appearances can be deceiving!
That's just a physicist not being careful enough with his words, I'm guessing. That's if you understood him correctly in the first place.
Most likely, what was meant is that observers co-moving with a clock see a different time to those that watch the clock moving past. Which is just basic SR.
If you agree that SR is "mathematically consistent" then you admit that it is impossible to for you refute SR without refuting one of the two fundamental postulates of SR.
But you've never attempted to do that. All you have ever done is to make spurious attacks on what you perceive are deficiencies in SR, which have in fact never turned out to be a problem for SR but have always shown up your own lack of understanding of the theory.
It does no such thing.
You have obviously forgotten that length contraction exists. A basic error.
I explained time dilation to you years ago. I was quite careful in my lengthy explanations. You ought to go back and review my old threads on this topic. Maybe you'll learn something this time.
Good luck!
MacM:
Well, as they say, appearances can be deceiving!
So are off topic replies.
Which in in agreement with the view that these differing perceptions are not, and cannot, all be physical realities to the clock. Each clock has it's own distinct tick rate and accumulates time accordingly and those tick rates are NOT what the SR observer sees. What they see IS mere perception and not physical reality.
Emperical data confirms this. It is really pathetic that so many seem unable to grasp such simple principles. Emperical data proves that ONLY velocity created relative to the universe at large due to acceleration (F = ma) causes physical change to the a clock - NOT to all other resting inertial clocks in the universe.
Your continued babble doesn't change these facts.
More babble. The invariance of light does not have the affect assumed. That is it's "Apparent" invariance is an illusion caused by the process by which photons are created or percieved and hence has nothing to do with relativity perse'.
Photons are quantum objects and are only sensed at v = c energies. An observers motion therefore is +v or -v energy relative to the source and thereby alters where photons are created or measured.
S12345678901234567890>[O]...................[O]...................................>
V1--------------------------------> {t = 1}
S1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0>[O]...................................>
V2--------------------------------------------------> {t = 1/2}
BUT V1 and V2 do not see the same photon and hence the invariance in measurement has no implication for the balance of the universe in terms of relativity. This is a common sense perspective and really is far more "Intuitive" than SR's "Counter Intuitive" view. Shame you lack the foresight to apprecite it.
Frankly your failure to ever actually address the issues raised and to try and turn the discussion into AD HOC personal innuendo and attacks of the messenger really fall short of an intelligent response.
WHAT? Say it again so all will know what you just said. "Relative Velocity" is not recipocal and as such either observer may not be deemed at rest and the other have the motion. ?????????
You are trying to confuse people by masking the fact that SR makes it's claims via a shift in simulatianeity without clarifying what is being done.
Due to simultaneity shift the "Observations" predicted by SR for moving observers, or observers at a distance, are not at the same time or place.
It is not "Counter Intuitive" to understand that viewing a clock at a differnt time or from a distance will cause it not to read the same for the respective observers. It is really a stupid strawman tatic and has nothing to do withe the local proper tick rate of each clock.
This is not and never has been about observations of moving observers where simualtaniety persists. You seem to dodge that issue. It is about the proper tick rate of each clock and the fact that ONLY the accelerated clock ever loses time. Not about what time you think the clock says because you are viewing it while in motion or at a distance.
1 - No emperical evidence of spatiallength contraction.
2 - Spatial contraction of distance ONLY occurs if you switch measurement standards between frames.
You declare (and emperical data supports) that a clock once accelerated will dilate and lose time. That is it may tick only once for every two ticks of a clock that was and remains at an initial common rest condition.
Under that simple basic physical fact one can see that the resting clock will time the trip as requiring twice as much time but only if the moving observer travels THE SAME DISTANCE.
The consequence of that is also VERY logical, not "Counter Intuitive". Since velocity is a computed value of the relationship between two physical properties (change in distance over change in time. or v = delta d / delta t) then a moving observer (2) where his local proper tick rate is only 1/2 of the resting observer (1) rate will in fact over the same course distance traveled, where d = 1.000n and resting t = 1.000n compute velocity as v2 = dd/ dt2 = 1 / 0.5 = 2.000n compared to v1 = 1 / 1 = 1.000n.
What you have here are two distinct properties. An absolute universal relative velocity which is equal and opposite but two different computed velocities by observers in different frames because of the change in absolute velocity by the accelerated clock which now is physically ticking slower or is using a different measurement standard.
While you and others try and deny it the fact is when you apply + or - vectors to your relative velocity you are in fact applying an absolute motion. If it weren't absolute motion and was mere relative velocity direction of vector would not alter the result.
The only thing you have ever done is pretend to talk down and teach when in fact I already knew and understood ALL those issues apparently better than yoursellf and have been able to see past it's flaws, which you can't.
So don't pretend to be superior, actually address the issue and stop dodging it using rhetoric and personnal atacks and innuendo.
Address the actual issues I have raised.
1 - Disprove that v1 does not equal v2.
2 - Prove spatial contraction or take a back seat and learn.
3 - Prove that the measured invariance of light isn't the consequence of a quantum energy origin or underpinning of EM.
Last edited:
Hello all
Absolute velocity can be measured by a simple experiment.
Take two atomic clocks, A and B, separated by a long tether that is kept taught by centrifugal force with a rotational period of say 4 hours. Have clock A send a signal to clock B every 1000 counts. (The count is from the atomic clock's operational frequency.) Clock B records clock A's signal and compares it with an internal count.
Since the time of flight (TOF) for the signal depends on the motion of clock B between the time of emission from A to the detection by B then the count comparison will vary about the 1000 count point. A trailing B will have a count lower than 1000 and a leading B will have a count over 1000. The period of the variance will be 4 hours. The magnitude of the variance gives a speed with respect to the speed of light.
Multiple runs at varying orientations with respect to a standard frame of reference will be needed to complete the experiment. The maximum and minimum variances will give a direction.
The accuracy of the measurement is determined by the length of the tether, the count number, the stability of and the frequency used by the atomic clocks.
P.S. What got me thinking about this experiment was reading about the GPS system and the need to apply corrections to the system on a periodic basis. The Earth's gravity is the tether. Could "absolute motion" be a cause for some of the accuracy problems within the current system?
Absolute velocity can be measured by a simple experiment.
Take two atomic clocks, A and B, separated by a long tether that is kept taught by centrifugal force with a rotational period of say 4 hours. Have clock A send a signal to clock B every 1000 counts. (The count is from the atomic clock's operational frequency.) Clock B records clock A's signal and compares it with an internal count.
Since the time of flight (TOF) for the signal depends on the motion of clock B between the time of emission from A to the detection by B then the count comparison will vary about the 1000 count point. A trailing B will have a count lower than 1000 and a leading B will have a count over 1000. The period of the variance will be 4 hours. The magnitude of the variance gives a speed with respect to the speed of light.
Multiple runs at varying orientations with respect to a standard frame of reference will be needed to complete the experiment. The maximum and minimum variances will give a direction.
The accuracy of the measurement is determined by the length of the tether, the count number, the stability of and the frequency used by the atomic clocks.
P.S. What got me thinking about this experiment was reading about the GPS system and the need to apply corrections to the system on a periodic basis. The Earth's gravity is the tether. Could "absolute motion" be a cause for some of the accuracy problems within the current system?
Hello all
Absolute velocity can be measured by a simple experiment.
Take two atomic clocks, A and B, separated by a long tether that is kept taught by centrifugal force with a rotational period of say 4 hours. Have clock A send a signal to clock B every 1000 counts. (The count is from the atomic clock's operational frequency.) Clock B records clock A's signal and compares it with an internal count.
Since the time of flight (TOF) for the signal depends on the motion of clock B between the time of emission from A to the detection by B then the count comparison will vary about the 1000 count point. A trailing B will have a count lower than 1000 and a leading B will have a count over 1000. The period of the variance will be 4 hours. The magnitude of the variance gives a speed with respect to the speed of light.
Multiple runs at varying orientations with respect to a standard frame of reference will be needed to complete the experiment. The maximum and minimum variances will give a direction.
The accuracy of the measurement is determined by the length of the tether, the count number, the stability of and the frequency used by the atomic clocks.
P.S. What got me thinking about this experiment was reading about the GPS system and the need to apply corrections to the system on a periodic basis. The Earth's gravity is the tether. Could "absolute motion" be a cause for some of the accuracy problems within the current system?
I haven't digested your experiment enough to actually comment but just want to note that you are going to receive objections to the fact that the rotation producing centrifugal force is an accelerating frame and being "non-inertial" is not in the perview of SR.
But when they do claim that I hope you keep in mind their argument for the resolution to the Twin Paradox which MUST consider acceleration and they wanted to claim SR could handle that just fine. ?????
They speak with forked tounges and say whatever best defends their position. Very inconsistant.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Just like the skeptic who watches a magician perform illusions, we would have to remain critical, and consider whether what we think we are observing is, in fact, what is actually occurring. Furthermore, with relativity, whether something is happening at the time we think it is happening.
This is a good example, because it clearly suggests some kind of optical illusion. I will not rely on the obvious objection that the distant clock cannot be affected by my accelerating toward it in any real way. I understand that relativity is more complicated than that, and that it involves three different but related phenonenon: time dilation, length contraction, and disagreement of simultaneaty.
The objection I am about to make is more subtle: It seems implausible that the more distant a clock is from me, the more its "tick rate" changes (in reality) based on my accelerating toward it. A less-distant clock in the same reference frame would have a less dramatic tick rate change. This suggests optical illusion because we know that those clocks are synchronized in their own reference frame. However, this is actually a minor objection compared to the one I tried to make in my ealier post:
If we ever see a clock run backwards, we definitely have a strong case for optical illusion. When the sands in an hour glass naturally pour upward, defying gravity, I believe that even real physicists should consider it to be optical illusion until proven otherwise, rather than accepting it as reality over the objections of a few metaphysicists and philosophers.
And unless am mistaken, relativity predicts that distant clocks actually run backwards when we accelerate away from them. Hopefully those of you who understand relativity much better than I do will correct me on that if I am mistaken. Thank you.
Excellent post overall. It seems implausable that relativists can vouch so strongly for SR considering they have never seen space contract or two clocks both tick slower (acutally accumulate less time) and yet decline to acknowledge that these are artifacts of a mathematical concept based on certain assumptions.
Yet are so positive that the invarance of light isn't just an unknown energy based production artifact of EM waves. That view makes physics sensible once again.
MacM:
i.e. each clock has a proper time, and a time observed in a relatively-moving frame. That's exactly what SR says.
So, give us a method for seeing the "physical reality", then. What measuring apparatus and method should I use to make sure I always see "physical reality"?
No. My statement was totally coherent and logical. I note you have no meaningful response.
What a mess. Are you presuming to appoint yourself as an expert in quantum electrodynamics as well, now?
Did you know that QED is itself a relativistic theory?
What are you on about?
A simple derivation of the relativity of simultaneity can be found in any introductory physics text covering special relativity. There is no "masking" or failing to clarify.
Get yourself a basic physic textbook and read it.
This talk of clocks "losing time" is silly. Time is not a substance that is bottled up in a clock, such that each clock has its own "amount" of time, inbuilt.
If you compare the readings on two clocks, where one moves relative to the other, you will see that the clocks do not remain synchronised. The degree to which they do not remain synchronised, and the reason why, is well understood.
This is another point where you are wrong, and simply need to read an introductory textbook. I can't do the work for you. You'll have to put in some effort on your own.
I don't know what you're talking about. Be specific.
Refer to any introductory text on special relativity. Length contraction is proved there, based on the postulates of special relativity.
I can't prove the second half of this, because Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is inherently a relativistic theory. Therefore, SR and all its consequences do underpin standard EM.
As for the first part, if you're making the claim that the invariance of the speed of light is the consequence of some kind of quantum effect, then the onus is on YOU to prove it, not on me to disprove your latest crazy idea.
i.e. each clock has a proper time, and a time observed in a relatively-moving frame. That's exactly what SR says.
So, give us a method for seeing the "physical reality", then. What measuring apparatus and method should I use to make sure I always see "physical reality"?
No. My statement was totally coherent and logical. I note you have no meaningful response.
What a mess. Are you presuming to appoint yourself as an expert in quantum electrodynamics as well, now?
Did you know that QED is itself a relativistic theory?
What are you on about?
A simple derivation of the relativity of simultaneity can be found in any introductory physics text covering special relativity. There is no "masking" or failing to clarify.
Get yourself a basic physic textbook and read it.
This talk of clocks "losing time" is silly. Time is not a substance that is bottled up in a clock, such that each clock has its own "amount" of time, inbuilt.
If you compare the readings on two clocks, where one moves relative to the other, you will see that the clocks do not remain synchronised. The degree to which they do not remain synchronised, and the reason why, is well understood.
This is another point where you are wrong, and simply need to read an introductory textbook. I can't do the work for you. You'll have to put in some effort on your own.
I don't know what you're talking about. Be specific.
Refer to any introductory text on special relativity. Length contraction is proved there, based on the postulates of special relativity.
I can't prove the second half of this, because Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is inherently a relativistic theory. Therefore, SR and all its consequences do underpin standard EM.
As for the first part, if you're making the claim that the invariance of the speed of light is the consequence of some kind of quantum effect, then the onus is on YOU to prove it, not on me to disprove your latest crazy idea.
Hello MacM
Hehe, SR does not have much (if any) effect for this experiment since all measurements are done in the same frame. The rotation period can be reduced to once a day or once a week or whatever if the atomic clocks are stable enough.
Reduction of the rotational period, for a given tether length, will also reduce any transverse doppler effects.
This pdf seems to indicate that there are no SR effects from centrifugal forces.
Hehe, SR does not have much (if any) effect for this experiment since all measurements are done in the same frame. The rotation period can be reduced to once a day or once a week or whatever if the atomic clocks are stable enough.
Reduction of the rotational period, for a given tether length, will also reduce any transverse doppler effects.
This pdf seems to indicate that there are no SR effects from centrifugal forces.
Correct. It is just that they generally refuse to consider any SR type claims if the frame is rotating or accelerating. Even though SR CAN be applied in non-inertial frames.
James R,
Finally you have responded correctly. I have made the claim numerous times over the years and you always wanted to claim what SR predicted for a moving observer WAS physical reality. It isn't the only reality for the clock IS the proper tick rate.
That proper tick rate emperical data proves that relative velocity doesn't alter clocks because ONLY the accelerated clock dilates.
Now that is a rather simple request. Just read the clock locally and at relative rest. You must either observer it's "Proper" time or you must compensate you observation for all affects of measurement while in motion.
If you do the later you find that mathematically compensating for SR - Guess what neither clock dilates - Hmmmmmm. Somethingelse must have caused the one clock to actually dilate then - Hmmmmm.
It is really amazing that you don't understand that mathematical results only predict what occurs based on the assumption used to formulate the mathematics. It has nothing to do with the physical reality. You don't shape reality to fit mathematics you use mathematics to explore reality and if mathematics result in luancy then there is something wrong with the assum[ption used to formulate the mathematics.
So once again, and I really hope you learn this time - Mathematical consistancy IS NOT the equilvelent of physical validity.
I have asserted nothing about QED. I have only suggested that the measured invariance may well be the consequence of EM only being produced based on precise energy levels and that when you moved +/- relative to the source you therefore alter when and where photon or EM is generated or measured. You now have the invariance but that has NO implication for the theory of relativity.
It is far from a mess, certainly less messy than SR and getting closer to an object the faster you fly away from it, etc.
As far as QED being a relavistic theory so what? I have not said there is NO relativity. I have said just the opposite but that Einstien's relativity makes rather stupid assumptions and it's formulation produces ludricrus predictions and proclaimed physical realities. Further that the mathematics of SR is only consistant if you turn a blind eye to sound measurement principles and ignore relative time standards (tick rates) of clocks in motion so as to then claim spatial contraction. It only happens mathematically because you impose a common "v" between frames when "v" is a computed value of the relationship between two physical parameters "distance" / "time". When one clock is operating on a differt proper tick rate standard it will record a different time for travelling a course and that time is only valid if the distance DOES NOT change.
I have not claimed simultaenity doesn exist. I said and I mean, that it is not generally pointed out that the claimed conditionof clocks between observers in relative motion is observed conditions and not the actual condition of the clock. That is the observed condition is based on readings at different times or distance apart.
Very simular to seeing a carpenter's hammer rising up as you hear him hit the nail. That is what you see and hear is not what is actually happening at the local proper time.
I have NO complaint about that issue. My complaint is the false claim that this shift in perception due to measurement during motion affects clocks in any real way with permant change. It DOES NOT. The only change is in the clock that has experienced F=ma and universally has changed energy levels, not the inertially resting clock(s) {the rest of the entire univers BTW} which have mere relative velocity.
Bad advice when it is the basic physics books which are preaching assinine theories in the first place. Advocate first to use common sense and explore better alterantive concepts.
WHAT????? Boy you are confused or are just trying to confuse others. No time is not bottled up. But time DOES only tick at a local proper tick rate and observered tick rates while in relative motion or from a distant remote locate ARE NOT the correct tick rate of the clock.
Not so well understood I suggest. Because you are using a false premis for the change and doing flip flops on time tick standards between frames causing the ridicolus and unsupport emperically condition of spatial contraction. Get real. Get rid of that phony aspect of SR.
I don't need to read a book. I have read the book and see through the falsehood. You read the book and are completely bamfoolsald by it. You need to get your nose out of the book ande actually think for yourself for a change.
Simple. Prove that if you retain the dilated tick rate of the accelerted clock that it's accumulated time for a trip is also valid if distance DOES NOT change and that the moving observer will merely compute a different velocity during the trip. That is he is using a slow clock to time the trip and the accumulated time is only valid if distance did not change. Furhter combine this simple (not counter intuitive) logic is consistant tiw emperical data where the clock accumulated less time and hence was therefore ticking slower.
v1 = do / t1 v2 = do / t2 v1 does not equal v2 when t1 does not equal t2 even with distance do not changing. There is NO inconsistancy here and it is far more logical than claiming spatial contraction which has never been observed.
WHAT???? You now want to claim that the postulates (another word for assumptions) PROVE the theory. ????? Great my theory must be proven too.
Good then it is an alternative and should be considered in depth to determines it's applicability.
Well this really is a cop out. It is not my oblligation to prove anything. You have a complete right to turn a blind eye and ignore the advantages of an alternative conept. It is not incumbent on me to convert you. I have no desire to convert you. but I do hope to reach those not yet brainwashed and teach them to think.
Perhaps one of them will pick up the ball and make a home run with a new formalization of the concept and we can finally bury SR.
Have a nice day.
Finally you have responded correctly. I have made the claim numerous times over the years and you always wanted to claim what SR predicted for a moving observer WAS physical reality. It isn't the only reality for the clock IS the proper tick rate.
That proper tick rate emperical data proves that relative velocity doesn't alter clocks because ONLY the accelerated clock dilates.
Now that is a rather simple request. Just read the clock locally and at relative rest. You must either observer it's "Proper" time or you must compensate you observation for all affects of measurement while in motion.
If you do the later you find that mathematically compensating for SR - Guess what neither clock dilates - Hmmmmmm. Somethingelse must have caused the one clock to actually dilate then - Hmmmmm.
It is really amazing that you don't understand that mathematical results only predict what occurs based on the assumption used to formulate the mathematics. It has nothing to do with the physical reality. You don't shape reality to fit mathematics you use mathematics to explore reality and if mathematics result in luancy then there is something wrong with the assum[ption used to formulate the mathematics.
So once again, and I really hope you learn this time - Mathematical consistancy IS NOT the equilvelent of physical validity.
I have asserted nothing about QED. I have only suggested that the measured invariance may well be the consequence of EM only being produced based on precise energy levels and that when you moved +/- relative to the source you therefore alter when and where photon or EM is generated or measured. You now have the invariance but that has NO implication for the theory of relativity.
It is far from a mess, certainly less messy than SR and getting closer to an object the faster you fly away from it, etc.
As far as QED being a relavistic theory so what? I have not said there is NO relativity. I have said just the opposite but that Einstien's relativity makes rather stupid assumptions and it's formulation produces ludricrus predictions and proclaimed physical realities. Further that the mathematics of SR is only consistant if you turn a blind eye to sound measurement principles and ignore relative time standards (tick rates) of clocks in motion so as to then claim spatial contraction. It only happens mathematically because you impose a common "v" between frames when "v" is a computed value of the relationship between two physical parameters "distance" / "time". When one clock is operating on a differt proper tick rate standard it will record a different time for travelling a course and that time is only valid if the distance DOES NOT change.
I have not claimed simultaenity doesn exist. I said and I mean, that it is not generally pointed out that the claimed conditionof clocks between observers in relative motion is observed conditions and not the actual condition of the clock. That is the observed condition is based on readings at different times or distance apart.
Very simular to seeing a carpenter's hammer rising up as you hear him hit the nail. That is what you see and hear is not what is actually happening at the local proper time.
I have NO complaint about that issue. My complaint is the false claim that this shift in perception due to measurement during motion affects clocks in any real way with permant change. It DOES NOT. The only change is in the clock that has experienced F=ma and universally has changed energy levels, not the inertially resting clock(s) {the rest of the entire univers BTW} which have mere relative velocity.
Bad advice when it is the basic physics books which are preaching assinine theories in the first place. Advocate first to use common sense and explore better alterantive concepts.
WHAT????? Boy you are confused or are just trying to confuse others. No time is not bottled up. But time DOES only tick at a local proper tick rate and observered tick rates while in relative motion or from a distant remote locate ARE NOT the correct tick rate of the clock.
Not so well understood I suggest. Because you are using a false premis for the change and doing flip flops on time tick standards between frames causing the ridicolus and unsupport emperically condition of spatial contraction. Get real. Get rid of that phony aspect of SR.
I don't need to read a book. I have read the book and see through the falsehood. You read the book and are completely bamfoolsald by it. You need to get your nose out of the book ande actually think for yourself for a change.
Simple. Prove that if you retain the dilated tick rate of the accelerted clock that it's accumulated time for a trip is also valid if distance DOES NOT change and that the moving observer will merely compute a different velocity during the trip. That is he is using a slow clock to time the trip and the accumulated time is only valid if distance did not change. Furhter combine this simple (not counter intuitive) logic is consistant tiw emperical data where the clock accumulated less time and hence was therefore ticking slower.
v1 = do / t1 v2 = do / t2 v1 does not equal v2 when t1 does not equal t2 even with distance do not changing. There is NO inconsistancy here and it is far more logical than claiming spatial contraction which has never been observed.
WHAT???? You now want to claim that the postulates (another word for assumptions) PROVE the theory. ????? Great my theory must be proven too.
Good then it is an alternative and should be considered in depth to determines it's applicability.
Well this really is a cop out. It is not my oblligation to prove anything. You have a complete right to turn a blind eye and ignore the advantages of an alternative conept. It is not incumbent on me to convert you. I have no desire to convert you. but I do hope to reach those not yet brainwashed and teach them to think.
Perhaps one of them will pick up the ball and make a home run with a new formalization of the concept and we can finally bury SR.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
MacM:
As usual, you're tying yourself in logical knots.
That statement is false. Which clock dilates depends on your frame of reference.
That's exactly what SR does. It tells you what a clock will read when you observe it from a frame other than its rest frame. That's the whole point of relativity.
Correct. But SR makes predictions that have been tested and verified over and over for 100 years and found to be correct.
You use of the term "energy levels" sounds like how a new-age nut would use the term. I doubt you know what an "energy level" is. You're so vague that your statement is useless.
Now you're arguing against yourself.
You have previously agreed that the postulates of SR are correct, on multiple occasions.
You can't have it both ways. Either the postulates are "rather stupid assumptions", or they are not. If you say they are rather stupid, you need to show that they lead to some kind of inconsistency or unphysical result. But if you agree with them, then you implicitly agree with all results that follow from them.
On the contrary, any introductory text on relativity explains exactly these things, carefully and explicitly.
Your "common sense" has got you nowhere. And you have failed to show any deficiency in SR, despite your labelling it as "assinine".
This is your idea of simple, is it?
I remind you again: you agree that the postulates are correct.
Hence, you leave yourself no wiggle room. You are logically compelled to agree with all results derived from the postulates that you agree are correct.
I have never agreed with your postulates. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a clear statement of them.
You're the one trying to overturn 100 years of accepted physics, not me.
If you don't mind that every respectable physicist considers you to be a crank, that's fine. But do I wonder why you keep rabbiting on about something you say you don't care about.
Thankyou for your kind thoughts. Same to you.
As usual, you're tying yourself in logical knots.
That statement is false. Which clock dilates depends on your frame of reference.
That's exactly what SR does. It tells you what a clock will read when you observe it from a frame other than its rest frame. That's the whole point of relativity.
Correct. But SR makes predictions that have been tested and verified over and over for 100 years and found to be correct.
You use of the term "energy levels" sounds like how a new-age nut would use the term. I doubt you know what an "energy level" is. You're so vague that your statement is useless.
Now you're arguing against yourself.
You have previously agreed that the postulates of SR are correct, on multiple occasions.
You can't have it both ways. Either the postulates are "rather stupid assumptions", or they are not. If you say they are rather stupid, you need to show that they lead to some kind of inconsistency or unphysical result. But if you agree with them, then you implicitly agree with all results that follow from them.
On the contrary, any introductory text on relativity explains exactly these things, carefully and explicitly.
Your "common sense" has got you nowhere. And you have failed to show any deficiency in SR, despite your labelling it as "assinine".
This is your idea of simple, is it?
I remind you again: you agree that the postulates are correct.
Hence, you leave yourself no wiggle room. You are logically compelled to agree with all results derived from the postulates that you agree are correct.
I have never agreed with your postulates. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a clear statement of them.
You're the one trying to overturn 100 years of accepted physics, not me.
If you don't mind that every respectable physicist considers you to be a crank, that's fine. But do I wonder why you keep rabbiting on about something you say you don't care about.
Thankyou for your kind thoughts. Same to you.