Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[DaleSpam]

Not to sound like a completely ignorant person uneducated on this subject, but I am...

Minus scientific process and proof, I look at these theories. This argument always annoys me because it seems painfully obvious that an event happens as it happens no matter who is watching from where. That means that there is an ultimate truth to it and it cannot be relative. Relativity would be the ILLUSION of a difference caused by the interference of various positions and perspectives. Object x travels the rate it is travelling no matter how it LOOKS to you. If you we can't PROVE that from where we are, ok. Fine. But that doesn't change what the reality is.

I just can't believe people push an idea (relativity) that is trying to make illusion into fact instead of working on finding out what the actual reality is.

Your attitude is a very common-sense approach. Unfortunately, the biggest legacy of 20th century physics is probably that our common-sense view of reality simply does not work in the realms of the very fast (relativity) and very small (quantum mechanics). Relativity introduces the rather bizzare ideas of time dilation, length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity, and curved spacetime. QM introduces the even more strange ideas of a single electron passing through two slits at the same time and interfering with itself (and more strangeness, but I am still stuck there).

The problem with you claiming that these theories don't reflect reality is simply that they work. Not only do they predict in advance the results of physics experiments with amazing accuracy, but they also have been used to build actual working devices. Every time someone turns on a computer, laser pointer, or other solid-state device they demonstrate the reality of technology developed using QM. Every time someone uses GPS they demonstrate SR and GR. Every time someone gets power from a nuclear reactor or gets a PET scan they demonstrate relativity. The list goes on and on.

I have no doubt that relativity and QM will be overturned at some point in a manner similar to the way that classical physics was overturned by relativity and QM. There is a lot of work going on by some of the world's best minds trying to figure out "what the actual reality is". However, you should realize that when Einstein overturned Newton what he actually did is confirm that Newton was right in the limit of velocities much less than the speed of light. Similarly, the future overthrow of relativity will undoubtedly show that Einstein was right in some specific limit. We just have not yet been able to reach beyond that limit experimentally.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

4 - O'Razor and logic favor my view over yours and there is no emperical data which contests my view.

Oh really?!? Occam's razor is one of the biggest arguments in favor of SR. SR has exactly 2 postulates. There are other theories that explain the same observations, but none have yet been developed that are so simple. Let's hear your single postulate. If you can explain muon decay, cyclotron momentum increase, transverse Doppler effect, etc. with a single postulate, then you have a huge breakthrough manuscript to prepare. Your biggest problem will be deciding which journal is prestigous enough for such an idea.

-Dale

 

[Pete]

My device is very simular to Billy T's detonator controls, it simply operates off of light signals.

The device is located at the center of the train and has a complimentary component located on the embankment at the location required to ascertain the timing of the explosions from the embankment view.

The complimentary controller is wired in an "OR" configuration with the train controls. These devices use computers to remove any propagation delay and are simply functioning as a matter of simultaneity regards the train explosions.

So your doomsday device has two triggers. Each trigger has two detectors - one detects the arrival of the flash from one explosion, one detects the arrival of the flash from the other explosion.

Would you like to explain in detail how the computers determine from these inputs whether the explosions were simultaneous or not? I can think of several right ways (some of which don't rely on relativity at all, and none of which lead to any contradictions according to SR) and several slightly wrong ways it could be done.

 

[Pete]

Mac, do you understand that the rules of special relativity dictate that simultaneity is absolute for events the happen at the same place and the same time?

Your Doomsday device computers, for example... If a flash from a bomb arrives at a detector at the same time as a clock at that location (if there is one) ticks to a particular value, then that is true in all frames.

I'd really like to see you detail a scheme that leads to a contradiction in relativity.

 

[Pete]

Not to sound like a completely ignorant person uneducated on this subject, but I am...

Minus scientific process and proof, I look at these theories. This argument always annoys me because it seems painfully obvious that an event happens as it happens no matter who is watching from where.

Hi girl,
You'll be interested to know that this is in accord with the theory of relativity.

That means that there is an ultimate truth to it and it cannot be relative.

But surely some aspects of events are relative?
For example, if you said "the event happened ten minutes ago and 15 metres away"... that statement is true, but only relative to a particular reference point, right?

So where did the event really happen? Can you describe its position in absolute terms?

Events obviously have a real position, but I think it's not possible to talk about that position except relative to other events.

Object x travels the rate it is travelling no matter how it LOOKS to you.

Do you mean that rate of travel is absolute? How do you know?
How would you go about finding out the real rate of travel of some object?
What if it can't be done? If not, then does it matter anyway?

I just can't believe people push an idea (relativity) that is trying to make illusion into fact instead of working on finding out what the actual reality is.

And you're right not to believe it, because it's not true

 

[MacM]

Oh really?!? Occam's razor is one of the biggest arguments in favor of SR. SR has exactly 2 postulates. There are other theories that explain the same observations, but none have yet been developed that are so simple. Let's hear your single postulate. If you can explain muon decay, cyclotron momentum increase, transverse Doppler effect, etc. with a single postulate, then you have a huge breakthrough manuscript to prepare. Your biggest problem will be deciding which journal is prestigous enough for such an idea.

-Dale

You seem to have a limited view of O'Razor. It would not depend upon the number of postulates but the simplicity or complexiety of the underlying theory.

My view merely requires that the invariance of light have a physical explanation other than relativity.

Gee. That is one postulate and it eliminates all the "Counter Intuitive" and physically unsupported and impossible claims of relativity.

 

[MacM]

So your doomsday device has two triggers. Each trigger has two detectors - one detects the arrival of the flash from one explosion, one detects the arrival of the flash from the other explosion.

Correct. Then the light flashes are analyzed by computer to determine if they were simultaneous in each frame or not. Those inputs are then fed into the master control by an OR gate.

Would you like to explain in detail how the computers determine from these inputs whether the explosions were simultaneous or not? I can think of several right ways (some of which don't rely on relativity at all, and none of which lead to any contradictions according to SR) and several slightly wrong ways it could be done.

I don't think an exercise is in order. We both know it can mathematically be determined. We both know that the results show a conflict for relativity in that in one frame the planet gets destroyed and in the other nothing happens.

 

[MacM]

Mac, do you understand that the rules of special relativity dictate that simultaneity is absolute for events the happen at the same place and the same time?

Your Doomsday device computers, for example... If a flash from a bomb arrives at a detector at the same time as a clock at that location (if there is one) ticks to a particular value, then that is true in all frames.

I'd really like to see you detail a scheme that leads to a contradiction in relativity.

That shouldn't be so hard for you since you ran the thread on a train spitting out printed time tickets. Now all you need do is do the same thing and run your data through a computer, compare the results of two explosion flashes in each frame, feed the result into the OR Gate and see what happens.

If you think having two dramatically different consequences aren't a conflict then what can I say.

In one view (frame) the planet survives. In the other the planet was destroyed. Why on earth would I find that to be a conflict. :bugeye:

 

[Pete]

We both know that the results show a conflict for relativity in that in one frame the planet gets destroyed and in the other nothing happens.

No Mac, I know no such thing. Please spell out for me how the computer determines whether or not to detonate the device.

I suspect that you'll find that you rely on one or more clocks, and that you're either forgetting that the tick rate is frame dependent, or not following it through properly.

 

[Pete]

That shouldn't be so hard for you since you ran the thread on a train spitting out printed time tickets. Now all you need do is do the same thing and run your data through a computer, compare the results of two explosion flashes in each frame, feed the result into the OR Gate and see what happens.

The result is that the device detonates, or it doesn't... according to my calculations it's not possible to devise a situation which results in a detonation in one frame but not the other.
But perhaps I'm thick. Perhaps you can spell out for me how this conflict is supposed to arise?

"Calculate whether the explosions were simultaneous" is not adequate. You need to spell out how this calculation is done if you expect to convince anyone.

 

[Pete]

The device is located at the center of the train and has a complimentary component located on the embankment at the location required to ascertain the timing of the explosions from the embankment view.

The complimentary controller is wired in an "OR" configuration with the train controls. These devices use computers to remove any propagation delay and are simply functioning as a matter of simultaneity regards the train explosions.

Hang on a minute... does this mean that the device detonates if the explosions are either non-simultaneous in the train frame or non-simultaneous in the embankment frame?

How exactly is that supposed to raise a conflict? An observer on the embankment can still determine that the explosions were not simultaneous in the train frame if they are smart.

 

[MacM]

No Mac, I know no such thing. Please spell out for me how the computer determines whether or not to detonate the device.

Lets not try and confuse people. You have argued for "Relativity of Simultaneity". Lets see you support it. What are the consequences of Billy T's scenario if relativity is to be accepted.

1 - Are the explosions simultaneous in the train frame?

2 - Are the explosions simultaneous in the embankment frame?

Simple questions. Give us an answer.

I suspect that you'll find that you rely on one or more clocks, and that you're either forgetting that the tick rate is frame dependent, or not following it through properly.

And I suspect you are starting to run into a hard wall and would like to confuse the issue. Do you still advocate different realities in the different frames?

 

[MacM]

The result is that the device detonates, or it doesn't... according to my calculations it's not possible to devise a situation which results in a detonation in one frame but not the other.
But perhaps I'm thick. Perhaps you can spell out for me how this conflict is supposed to arise?

"Calculate whether the explosions were simultaneous" is not adequate. You need to spell out how this calculation is done if you expect to convince anyone.

To the contrary. You need to justify your assertions that the explosions are simultaneous in one frame but not simultaeneous in the other. It is really that simple.

 

[MacM]

Hang on a minute... does this mean that the device detonates if the explosions are either non-simultaneous in the train frame or non-simultaneous in the embankment frame?

It really doesn't matter. The computer system analyzes the data from flashes in both frames and if the frames disagree "KaaBoooM".

How exactly is that supposed to raise a conflict? An observer on the embankment can still determine that the explosions were not simultaneous in the train frame if they are smart.

WHAT??? :bugeye:

 

[Kron]

Newton based his laws on the fact that there is one ultimate frame of reference from which all velocities and positions can be compared. Einstein disagreed, saying that not only is there no ultimate frame, there are also different frames for the observation of time. It seems to me that this thread is simply a war between Einstein and Newton.

Am I getting warmer?

Also, wouldn't the discovery of an infinitely fast form of communication (hyperwaves, subspace, yada yada yada...) prove simultaneous-ness? Then this argument isn't about the laws of the universe, but more about the laws of perception isn't it? Should it really be in Physics and Math ???

 

[DaleSpam]

You seem to have a limited view of O'Razor. It would not depend upon the number of postulates but the simplicity or complexiety of the underlying theory.

On the contrary you have an incorrect view of what a theory is. The complexity of a theory is unrelated to the number of things that a theory explains. That is what determines a theory's usefulness. The complexity of a theory, on the other hand, is only related to the logical core of the theory and its presuppositions or assumptions. Relativity has only 2. What you fail to understand is that the postulates are "the underlying theory". Everything else, like time dilation, is a result of the theory, not the theory itself.

My view merely requires that the invariance of light have a physical explanation other than relativity.

This is another example of how you have confused the idea of what constitutes a theory. Relativity is not an explanation for the invariance of c. That is an unproven assumption of the theory, one of the two postulates. It does not matter what the physical explanation is, if c is invariant for any reason then relativity is a logical necessity. If you (like Maxwell) were to find a physical explanation for the invariance of c then you would only strengthen relativity.

You should talk to your NASA friend a bit. He understands this idea well and has attacked relativity correctly, by rejecting one of the postulates. He understands that c must be variant or relativity is correct.

Gee. That is one postulate and it eliminates all the "Counter Intuitive" and physically unsupported and impossible claims of relativity.

Hahaha! "Not relativity" as a postulate. That is very funny!

If only I really thought you meant it as a joke.

-Dale

 

[Pete]

Lets not try and confuse people. You have argued for "Relativity of Simultaneity". Lets see you support it. What are the consequences of Billy T's scenario if relativity is to be accepted.

1 - Are the explosions simultaneous in the train frame?

2 - Are the explosions simultaneous in the embankment frame?

Simple questions. Give us an answer.

Back to basics?

Acording to special relativity, the explosions in the scenario the original post are simultaneous in the train frame.
Acording to special relativity, the explosions in the scenario the original post are not simultaneous in the embankment frame.

Do you still advocate different realities in the different frames?

The reality is the same but relative.

Here's a simple analogy:
Two people talk about a tree.
One person truthfully says "the tree is here".
Another truthfully says "the tree is not here".

So which is it? Is the tree here or not? If both are true, then does this mean that the tree has two different realities for the two people?
Of course not. The tree has the same reality, but its real position is relative to the two people. All it means is that the term "here" is relative to some position, or more generally that position is relative to position.

Similarly, special relativity suggests "simultaneous" is relative to some velocity, or more generally that time is relative to velocity. Does this mean different realities in different frames? No. It means that "simultaneous" is much like "here"... it's relative.

You need to justify your assertions that the explosions are simultaneous in one frame but not simultaeneous in the other. It is really that simple.

Very unconvincing, since we're dealing with your assertion that your vaguely described Doomsday device will detonate in one frame but not the other.

The computer system analyzes the data from flashes in both frames and if the frames disagree "KaaBoooM".

In that case it is very easy.
According to special relativity, the frames disagree. Kaboom. Where's the conflict?

An observer on the embankment can still determine that the explosions were not simultaneous in the train frame if they are smart.

WHAT??? :bugeye:

Mistake. Erase "not".

 

[MacM]

The reality is the same but relative.

Double talk. Being simultaneous or not simultaneous IS NOT the same thing.

Very unconvincing, since we're dealing with your assertion that your vaguely described Doomsday device will detonate in one frame but not the other.

What is vauge about linking the detonation to non-simultaneous results?

In that case it is very easy.
According to special relativity, the frames disagree. Kaboom. Where's the conflict?

You can't be this blind. In the train frame there is no Boom in the embankment frame there is. Part of relativity's assertions is that all physics are the same in each frame. I think destroying the planet in one frame and not in the other shows that the same physics are not maintained in relativity.

 

[Pete]

Double talk. Being simultaneous or not simultaneous IS NOT the same thing.

You're welcome to your opinion.

What is vague about linking the detonation to non-simultaneous results?

The devil is in the details. You've acknowledged that simultaneity can't be directly for events at a distance, but you are being very coy about exactly how it's determined. I assume at least one clock is involved?

You can't be this blind. In the train frame there is no Boom in the embankment frame there is.

Please explain how you reach that conclusion.
According to SR, te frames disagree, right?
According to your logic, if the frames disagree there is a Kaboom, right?
It is clear to me that according to your specified logic and special relativity, there is an unambiguous Kaboom.

Or do you think there is a frame in which the frames do not disagree? :bugeye:

 

[2inquisitive]

from previous post on page 32 in which Pete responded to my post:

“ Originally Posted by 2inquisitive
OK Pete, let's remove the observer. The emission of the photons from the flash propagate at the speed of light from the event. This event does not move in spacetime. If there is no relative velocity between the event and the bombs at the ends of the train, they will explode simultaneously. Notice I said the 'event', not the device that emitts the photons. Now let the bombs be moving while the 'event' takes place. The event does not move in spacetime, but the bombs do in this case. The rear bomb is approaching the event while the photons propagate, reducing the flight time needed for the photons to reach the bomb. The forward bomb is retreating from the event while the photons are propagating, increasing the flight time of the photons. This IS the Sagnac effect, used in GPS and NASA's deep space network where space vehicles are at great distances from the Earth. ”


So if the bombs are stationary (train frame), they explode simultaneously.
If the bombs are moving (embankment frame), they do not.

What's your point?
=============================================================

Now I will give my point. It took me a while to find evidence to support my claim. To recap, my claim was that the 'train' frame was not truly at rest. This is the problem with the use of 'rest' frames that are not at rest, only inertial. Most astronomers use the rest frame of the nearest gravitating object to pick the 'preferred' frame of reference. In the gedankins above, that frame is the embankment frame. That is why MacM's doomsday device goes off. The train frame is not at rest, it is moving through spacetime. It moves relative to the 'event', the flash of light which is fixed in local spacetime.

Now you want my 'evidence', correct?

Are any of you familiar with the LISA project, the upcomming experiment to detect gravity waves? I will give a brief overview.

LISA ia a NASA mission that will use coherent laser beams exchanged between three identical spacecraft. The three spacecraft form a giant equilateral triangle with a distance of 5 million kilometers between each spacecraft. The triangle of spacecraft orbit the sun at the same distance from the sun as the Earth, following Earth's orbit but 20% behind Earth in the orbital plane. The laser beams exchanged between the spacecraft in the triangle form a Sagnac interferometer. Number the spacecraft 1,2 and 3 to get an idea of what I am about to explain. This particular interferometer doesn't use a 'split' beam propagating in opposite directions, but sends a laser beam from one to the next in sequence. The laser beams are sent in both directions, from 1 to 2 to 3 and back to 1 in one direction, say clockwise, and another beam is sent in a counterclockwise sequence. Remember, these spacecraft are far removed from Earth, not orbiting the Earth but the sun instead. If the triangle formed by the spacecraft is not rotating, the time required for the laser beam to complete a clockwise sequence will be identical to the time required for a counterclockwise sequence. The laser beams are propagating in the vacuum of space at 'c'. Now what happens when the triangle is rotated to maintain orbital stability? The triangle itself is not rotating 'around' anything in it's orbit, the whole triangle is orbiting the sun. When the triangle is rotated, the time required for the laser beam to complete a clockwise circuit is NOT the same as the time reguired for the beam to complete a counterclockwise circuit. The clock on the number 1 spacecraft itself registers the difference in time.

A link to NASA's website to expalin the orbits:
http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/STRATEGY/getThere.html

And now a link to back up what I have posted about the time difference, section 5:

"5. Time-Delay Interferometry with Moving Spacecraft
The rotational motion of the LISA array results in a difference of the light travel times in the two directions around a Sagnac circuit [24, 5]. Two time delays along each arm must be used, say and for clockwise or counter-clockwise propagation as they enter in any of the TDI combinations."
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-4/index.html