Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[DaleSpam]

We certainly disagree on this issue. If they are different photons then there is no linkage between the respective time of arrivals at common points between frames.

That sounds like the relativity of simultaneity. I'm not trying to twist your words here. I just think that relativity is going to be inevitable for any mechanism of frame invariant c. I suspect that your comment was an accidental hint in that direction.

But it is a valid point which suggests the idea of frame dependant photons may well be the correct answer.

Again, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea, but I don't think it will accomplish your goal of avoiding relativity. I mentioned the Unruh effect because it has frame-dependent photons and is fully compatible with relativity. So the mere fact that different frames see different photons is insufficient to show incompatibility.

We can go on like this as long as we like. The fact is that to believe your idea does not lead inevitably to relativity I would have to see the math, but handwaving and arguments are sufficient for you. Unfortunately I am not about to get into doing your math for you and you are uninterested in doing your own math, so we are at an impasse.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

I just think that relativity is going to be inevitable for any mechanism of frame invariant c. I suspect that your comment was an accidental hint in that direction.

My comments have not been accidental. The point you seem to be missing is we are not talking about an invariant 'c' but a measured invariant 'c'. that measurement is not a physical reality in that you are comparing two different photons.

Again, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea, but I don't think it will accomplish your goal of avoiding relativity. I mentioned the Unruh effect because it has frame-dependent photons and is fully compatible with relativity. So the mere fact that different frames see different photons is insufficient to show incompatibility.

Comparability is not the issue. The point is if invariance is an illusion created by viewing different photons between frames then relativity is not required.

Some relativity is still indicated. i.e. One way time dilation (no reciprocity) but all relavistic affects supported by actual emperical data can equally be accounted for by an absolute system versus a relative system of motion.

The fact is that to believe your idea does not lead inevitably to relativity I would have to see the math, but handwaving and arguments are sufficient for you.

Logical discussions are not hand waving. Where logic favors certain conclusions mathematics are not required to confirm the logical conclusion.

You are at an impasse in that you seem to require some mathematical trail. Mathematics are fine and necessary to follow up but they are neither required nor relevant to initial logical thought processes.

 

[DaleSpam]

I don't believe this statement is true. If you are think Sagnac affect it is accounted for in the frames of referance and does not represent an invariance of light itself.

If not what are you referring to?

What I mean is that if you take the position of a photon traveling on the positive x axis in an inertial frame then x(t) = c t and v(t) = dx/dt = c. However, when you translate that into a rotating frame you and find x' and then v' you can get v' > c.

Again, if you spin at about 1 cycle/s then the moon is going in a circle a little faster than c in your rest frame. Light reflected from the moon is going at over 2c in one direction and actually a little backwards in the other. But the distance between the light and the moon is increasing at c in both cases. Similarly for distant stars. The nearest star ~4 lightyears away would be traveling ~25 lightyears/s or ~8E8 c.

Therefore the invariance of c is for inertial frames only. (and maybe for linearly accelerating frames in GR, I don't know)

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

The point is if invariance is an illusion created by viewing different photons between frames then relativity is not required.

Why not?

-Dale

 

[MacM]

What I mean is that if you take the position of a photon traveling on the positive x axis in an inertial frame then x(t) = c t and v(t) = dx/dt = c. However, when you translate that into a rotating frame you and find x' and then v' you can get v' > c.

Again, if you spin at about 1 cycle/s then the moon is going in a circle a little faster than c in your rest frame. Light reflected from the moon is going at over 2c in one direction and actually a little backwards in the other. But the distance between the light and the moon is increasing at c in both cases. Similarly for distant stars. The nearest star ~4 lightyears away would be traveling ~25 lightyears/s or ~8E8 c.

Therefore the invariance of c is for inertial frames only. (and maybe for linearly accelerating frames in GR, I don't know)

-Dale

You of course are welcome to any perversion but I do not subscribe to the idea that when I spin around and the room appears to be rotating to me that the room is rotating. It isn't. This is the same problem with those that accept relativity and relative velocity concepts.

Relative velocity is an illusionary condition created by actual velocity of at least one object which has undergone acceleration in the form of F = ma.

It is this perversion of physics that creates the intolerable reciprocity in SR time dilation, etc.

You talk about physics being the same in all frames but yet you grant an object acceleration or velocity when it has had no change in its energy. That is it has remained inertial in reality.

 

[DaleSpam]

Therefore the invariance of c is for inertial frames only.

You talk about physics being the same in all frames

Whatever.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

Why not?

-Dale

Are you being deliberately obstinate?

To make it understandable Mustangs are photons. The highway is the fabric of space. One Mustang is going 80 Mph relative to the highway, I am in my Corvette going 30 Mph relative to the highway and I note that the Mustang goes 50 Mph relative to me in the Corvette.

Now I change lanes and must drive 50 Mph relative to the highway and a different Mustang but of the same model and year, color etc., passes me going 100 Mph relative to the highway and I notice that the Mustang is going 50 Mph faster relative to me in my Corvette.

Am I correct to come to the conclusion that Mustangs have an invariant speed? Or that relativity must exist to explain the two different Mustangs having the same relative velocity to me?

I think not.

 

[Billy T]

... if you rotate at 1 cycle/s then the moon is traveling faster than c in your frame.-Dale

"in your frame", true, but not the way I would look at it, but not a totally unreasonable view either, just a misleading one.

I would recognize this appearance of greater than c speed as a "frame effect" - no different from selecting an inertial frame of reference (They are just math constructs, not solids, you know.) moving at 1.5 c wrt to Earth. Again this inertial "frame effect" makes the moon appear to move at greater than c.

What is the difference? I can make the moon appear to move at 1000c, if you like, using an inertial frame. I know this, so I always correct for "frame effects" rather than take things as they appear to be.

 

[MacM]

"in your frame", true, but not the way I would look at it, but not a totally unreasonable view either, just a misleading one.

I would recognize this appearance of greater than c speed as a "frame effect" - no different from selecting an inertial frame of reference (They are just math constructs, not solids, you know.) moving at 1.5 c wrt to Earth. Again this inertial "frame effect" makes the moon appear to move at greater than c.

What is the difference? I can make the moon appear to move at 1000c, if you like, using an inertial frame. I know this, so I always correct for "frame effects" rather than take things as they appear to be.

I have to make a note here for others. I not only disagree with the concept of FTL based on a rotating observer but point out that this is precisely the same thing being done in arguements regarding the station accelerating away from the train and having velocity when it was the train and only the train that underwent F = ma.

 

[Billy T]

....this is precisely the same thing being done in arguements regarding the station accelerating away from the train and having velocity when it was the train and only the train that underwent F = ma.

Nice to see you have not forgotten your old "duck" and "weave" about "velocity history."

I can not remember, was that number 5 or 7? All I remember is that it was an "odd one."

BTW, this this thread uses “thought experiment equipment“. The train does not actually exist.

If I can conjure up an imaginary train, why must it initially be stationary in the frame in which the station is stationary? I made up in a different frame - the one in which it is still stationary. It was never subject to F = ma force.

I.e. its "velocity history" is that it has always been and still is "at rest" in the frame I made it.

Are you trying to tell me that thought experiments must only involve objects "made up" in one single frame? If yes, how can there be observers in two different frames?

You messed up on this resurrection of an old "duck and weave"5 (or 7?) - MHO.

Come on MacM, you are smart. You can do better than this. I still waiting for duck and weave 16.

 

[MacM]

Nice to see you have not forgotten your old "duck" and "weave" about "velocity history."

I can not remember, was that number 5 or 7? All I remember is that it was an "odd one."

BTW, this this thread uses “thought experiment equipment“. The train does not actually exist.

If I can conjure up an imaginary train, why must it initially be stationary in the frame in which the station is stationary? I made up in a different frame - the one in which it is still stationary. It was never subject to F = ma force.

I.e. its "velocity history" is that it has always been and still is "at rest" in the frame I made it.

Are you trying to tell me that thought experiments must only involve objects "made up" in one single frame? If yes, how can there be observers in two different frames?

You messed up on this resurrection of an old "duck and weave"5 (or 7?) - MHO.

Come on MacM, you are smart. You can do better than this. I still waiting for duck and weave 16.

Are you mentally handicapped? You want to create a scenario where the train was never at rest to the station. LOL. So now the train was built in space in a moving station and transported to earth and landed on the tracks already in motion.

I have no problem with that. If you synchronize the clocks at some point you would be able to tell the net changes in velocity relative to the station by which had less accumulated time. If you do not synchronize clocks you can never tell anything by any theory.

What is your point?

 

[DaleSpam]

Are you being deliberately obstinate?

No, I just don't think that your idea will avoid relativity.

To make it understandable Mustangs are photons. The highway is the fabric of space. One Mustang is going 80 Mph relative to the highway, I am in my Corvette going 30 Mph relative to the highway and I note that the Mustang goes 50 Mph relative to me in the Corvette.

Now I change lanes and must drive 50 Mph relative to the highway and a different Mustang but of the same model and year, color etc., passes me going 100 Mph relative to the highway and I notice that the Mustang is going 50 Mph faster relative to me in my Corvette.

Am I correct to come to the conclusion that Mustangs have an invariant speed? Or that relativity must exist to explain the two different Mustangs having the same relative velocity to me?

I think not.

I like the Mustang analogy except for two small points. Even if the highway is there we can't see it so we don't know how fast we are going relative to the highway. Second, the Mustangs need to come in different colors.

So, I am driving around and I see a bunch of different Mustangs, all different colors, and I whip out my radar gun. I quickly notice that all Mustangs move at 50 mph, no matter if I speed up or slow down. My buddy, passing me by going 10 mph faster notices that all the Mustangs move at 50 mph by his radar gun also. He points at a blue one in front of him and says that it is going faster than him by 50 mph. He is pointing right at it, but we must be looking at different cars because it looks red to me. Well, in any case, the red car he is pointing at and calling blue is also going 50 mph faster than me. We therefore conclude that his group of Mustangs is different from mine, since they all have different colors. But we both agree that Mustangs only go 50 mph. There are no Mustangs going at any speed other than 50 mph no matter how fast my buddy passes me.

I get the analogy, I get the idea. I just don't see why you think it obviates relativity. It all seems exactly in keeping with relativity to me. I mean, we can hypothesize that the Mustang has special paint that looks blue to him and red to me or we can hypothesize that they are two separate cars with different colors of paint, but either way we agree about the properties of their motion.

-Dale

PS It seems a shame to have the Mustangs go faster than the Corvette

 

[DaleSpam]

I would recognize this appearance of greater than c speed as a "frame effect" - no different from selecting an inertial frame of reference (They are just math constructs, not solids, you know.) moving at 1.5 c wrt to Earth. Again this inertial "frame effect" makes the moon appear to move at greater than c.

Correct. Especially the part about them being math constructs. We often talk about frames where a particular object is at rest, but there is no requirement for a frame to be referenced to anything material. I can just as easily put my axis of rotation through empty space halfway between Earth and Venus and spin it at a billion cycles per second. It is just a coordinate system.

Inertial frames are just a special kind of coordinate system. The kind that, when used in physics, has no frame effects. The Lorentz transform is just a special method of transforming between inertial frames. The method that preserves c.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

I like the Mustang analogy except for two small points. Even if the highway is there we can't see it so we don't know how fast we are going relative to the highway. Second, the Mustangs need to come in different colors.

But then it would be obvious that they are different Mustangs and you couldn't be fooled into believing the Mustang has an invariant speed relative to you.

I get the analogy, I get the idea. I just don't see why you think it obviates relativity. It all seems exactly in keeping with relativity to me. I mean, we can hypothesize that the Mustang has special paint that looks blue to him and red to me or we can hypothesize that they are two separate cars with different colors of paint, but either way we agree about the properties of their motion.

That is because you have destroyed the example by having your buddy see the same mustang that you see even though you are in different frames.

For sake of arguement lets keep the different colors for a moment. You don't see the green Mustang, you don't even see it as being red. It isn't on the road as far as you can tell it only exists to him at the 50 MpH relative velocity.

It does not exist to you at a 50 Mph relative velocity. It doesn't exist at all. Likewise the Mustang that you see going 50 Mph relative to you does not exist in your friends frame.

PS It seems a shame to have the Mustangs go faster than the Corvette

Actually I thought about that when I wrote the scenario. My oldest brother had a 1953 Corvette.

 

[DaleSpam]

That is because you have destroyed the example by having your buddy see the same mustang that you see even though you are in different frames.
...
It does not exist to you at a 50 Mph relative velocity. It doesn't exist at all. Likewise the Mustang that you see going 50 Mph relative to you does not exist in your friends frame.

No MacM, I got that point. That's the key point of your idea. That's why I said:

He is pointing right at it, but we must be looking at different cars because it looks red to me. ... We therefore conclude that his group of Mustangs is different from mine, since they all have different colors.

My final point (which may have led you to think that I missed your whole argument) is just that the rest of the world subscribes to the "special paint on the same Mustang" view while you are pushing the "separate Mustangs with different colors of paint" perspective. Both views seem to require relativity to me.

What if light were not photons but purely waves? What if it were not waves but purely particles? Either way, as long as the invariance of c is preserved then relativity is required. After all, relativity is not based on the identity of photons but on their motion. So a change in identity that keeps the properties of motion, like you are proposing, should have no effect on relativity.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

DalwSpam,

No MacM, I got that point. That's the key point of your idea. That's why I said:

“ Originally Posted by DaleSpam
He is pointing right at it, but we must be looking at different cars because it looks red to me. ... We therefore conclude that his group of Mustangs is different from mine, since they all have different colors. ”

You really seem to be missing it. You are still trying to make them the same Mustang but different color (Doppler Shifted color). What I am telling you is the Green (Red) Mustang DOES NOT EXIST in your frame - period.

Relativity requires the same Mustang maintain 50 Mph to any and all observers at different veloicties to each other. Having different Mustangs maintain the 50 Mph velocity relative to you breaks the relativity link.

My final point (which may have led you to think that I missed your whole argument) is just that the rest of the world subscribes to the "special paint on the same Mustang" view while you are pushing the "separate Mustangs with different colors of paint" perspective. Both views seem to require relativity to me.

I didn't specify different colors of paint you did. I specified they all looked identical.

What if light were not photons but purely waves? What if it were not waves but purely particles? Either way, as long as the invariance of c is preserved then relativity is required. After all, relativity is not based on the identity of photons but on their motion. So a change in identity that keeps the properties of motion, like you are proposing, should have no effect on relativity.

Unbelievable. There is no relativity between the two seperate Mustangs.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

You really seem to be missing it. You are still trying to make them the same Mustang but different color (Doppler Shifted color). What I am telling you is the Green (Red) Mustang DOES NOT EXIST in your frame - period.

No I'm not. What part of my words "different cars" and "his group of Mustangs is different from mine" don't you get (or don't you think I get). I understand your idea. The two Mustangs that me and my buddy see are completely different Mustangs. One is blue and one is red, but even if I were colorblind they would still be different Mustangs. Too bad it is hard to read those VIN's zipping by at 50 mph, that and the windows are all tinted so we can't see the interior. Your idea is basically that the fact that they are in more or less the same spot is just confusing other people into inventing something silly like the special color-changing paint instead of being reasonable like you and realizing that they are different Mustangs.

There is no relativity between the two seperate Mustangs.

Why not? Again relativity is not based on any properties of the identity of light, just its motion. You aren't changing the motion so you won't be changing the conclusions of relativity.

-Dale

 

[Billy T]

...What is your point?

That your duck and weave #5, "velocity history," is one of your most silly attempts to avoid discusion of the issue.

Sad to see you drag it up again.

Come on MacM - you can do it!
I am rooting for you.

Bring out NEW duck and weave #16.

 

[2inquisitive]

General Relativity is too hard for me, so I make no strong claims about what can or does happen in accelerating frames, but I do believe that the speed of light does not change if observed from or measured in an accelerated frame.

I believe this because any given accelerating frame is approximately the same as the inertial frame that for that instant has the same velocity. The only difference I see is that the accelerating frame has some false gravity, but I do not think gravity affects the speed of light, only its color. If you measure very quickly, it would seem to me that the speed of light in two frames, one accelerating and one inertial, should measure to be the same, if both are essentailly briefly moving at essentailly the same speed.

OK, when you state that the speed of light does not change when measured in an accelerated frame, or any frame for that matter, you are simply stating that the speed of light is measured as a constant in co-moving frames. The statement does not say the speed of light is invariant for all observers, only that observers will measure the speed of light as a constant in their own frame. Do you believe that the speed of light in a frame that is moving relative to the observer's own frame is the same constant?

You state you do not think gravity affects the speed of light, only its 'color'.

Let's design two identical light clocks. Place a device in each clock that is capable of emitting single photons directed toward a mirror placed exactly 5 meters from the laser. One 'tick' of the clock is the time required for the photon to reach the mirror and be directed back to a detector on the laser, again exactly 5 meters. A 'tick' would thus be 2.99792458 nano seconds in a vacuum. Synchronize the clocks. Place one clock in low Earth orbit and the other clock in high Earth orbit. Do you believe the clocks will continue to be synchronized?
Edit: It should be obvious, but ignore relativity velocity effects, only consider gravitational potential.

 

[Billy T]

(1)Do you believe that the speed of light in a frame that is moving relative to the observer's own frame is the same constant?

You state you do not think gravity affects the speed of light, only its 'color'.

(2)Let's design two identical light clocks. Place a device in each clock that is capable of emitting single photons directed toward a mirror placed exactly 5 meters from the laser. One 'tick' of the clock is the time required for the photon to reach the mirror and be directed back to a detector on the laser, again exactly 5 meters. A 'tick' would thus be 2.99792458 nano seconds in a vacuum. Synchronize the clocks. Place one clock in low Earth orbit and the other clock in high Earth orbit. Do you believe the clocks will continue to be synchronized?
Edit: It should be obvious, but ignore relativity velocity effects, only consider gravitational potential.

On (1):
Simple answer is YES; however, "speed of light in a frame that is moving relative to the observer's own frame" has me a little confused as to what you are asking.

Are you asking me what does the observer, who is able to see the instruments in another frame,which are being used in that frame to measure speed of light in that frame conclude? or asking if the light was produced in the other frame, What the observer would measure as the light passed him in his frame? I think my answer will continue to be Yes, but as I am not really sure of the question, I hesitate to answer without this note. Ask again if you like.

On (2):Unqualfied NO. Even with your edit. I am almost sure that the gravitational shift of time passing rate is greater than the SR velocity time dilations. (It may seem strange, But I will refer you to MacM as he looks at these facts much more than me, even though he does not accept SR, I think he knows what it states about this.)