SRT and the use of relative zero?

[Quantum Quack]

I just told you that the zero produced by that equation, $$\gamma \,-\, \frac{1}{1 \,-\, v^{2}/c^{2}} \,=\, 0$$, is not arbitrary or relative. That is why we can test it (assuming you are thinking of $$\gamma$$ as a physically measurable quantity such as the time dilation factor, since that equation is usually taken as the definition of $$\gamma$$).

excellent at least we can agree that the test using absolute zero is necessary to grant the equation equivalancy.

In general, every general equation in relativity, and every other theory in physics for that matter, states something that is absolute: equations state something that a theory holds is always true within that equation's domain of applicability. That doesn't prevent quantities appearing in the equations from being relative. The equation in that case just states that those relative quantities are related in a way that is absolute and fixed. For example, you can pick a reference frame in which the speed and Lorentz factor of a body in motion are whatever you want them to be, but you cannot choose $$v$$ and $$\gamma$$ independently of one another. If you fix one, you also fix the other, since they must always be related by $$\gamma \,-\, \frac{1}{1 \,-\, v^{2}/c^{2}} \,=\, 0$$.

It is silly to ask how an "absolute", testable equation can contain relative quantities when just about every equation in relativity is an example of how that is possible.

and this is the issue I am wishing to discuss or highlight.

the L transforms generates an out come that requires t=0 for both observers to be relative. That is to say t & t' are equal to two different and relative 0's [ if relative v=>0 ]

Correct me if I am wrong,

the L transform start with a presumtpion that t=0 is absolute for both observers and then calculates how relative velocity changes that t=0 for each observer to t=0 & t'=0 [ a diffent (t) for each observer]

is this a correct way of putting it?

2 case sample:
observer A and observer B relative v= 0, t=0 for both observers. [absolute time]

observer A and observer B relative v = > 0 therefore t=0 for observer A is relative and no longer the same as t'=0 for observer B. [aka : relative time]

 

[przyk]

excellent at least we can agree that the test using absolute zero is necessary to grant the equation equivalancy.

The relation between relative quantities expressed by that equation is "absolute". I have no idea what you mean by it "using absolute zero". The only "absolute zero" in common parlance I am aware of in physics is the temperature on the Kelvin scale.

the L transforms generates an out come that requires t=0 for both observers to be relative. That is to say t & t' are equal to two different and relative 0's [ if relative v=>0 ]

No it doesn't. Lorentz transformations preserve the coordinate origin (t, x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0, 0), but even that is arbitrary and a matter of definition. Lorentz transformations are not the most general symmetry allowed by relativity. Poincaré transformations include translations and in general do not require the coordinate origin to be invariant. It is simply a matter of definition and convenience that we often choose to make the coordinate origins of two reference frames the same and use Lorentz transformations in relativity-related problems.

observer A and observer B relative v= 0, t=0 for both observers. [absolute time]

It is true that for a Lorentz transformation with v = 0, t' = t, but that's just the special case of v = 0, and even there, like I said, Lorentz transformations are not the most general symmetries allowed by relativity. For v = 0, Poincaré transformations do not require t' = t. The most general transformation between time coordinates in that case is t' = t + constant.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am waiting on JamesR before continuing this discussion.

 

[James R]

QQ:

I am waiting on JamesR before continuing this discussion.

I'm not sure what you're waiting for, exactly. I'll reply to your posts, though.

It certainly does....

Look, I don't want to pry into your private life, but if you want to chat about anything you can always PM me.

Unfortunately you are not the only person reading these threads nor are you privy to the support I receive in raising these issues.

The only support I've seen (public support) has been from people like wlminex, who'll support anything he views as anti-mainstream.

I would strongly suggest that you seek alternative advice concerning your own understanding and test these posts utilising independent resources.
Surely you do not operate in a vacuum....I don't ....
and besides I feel fine... not a problem...
when your paranoia about my state of mind has settled possibly you would care to address my lengthy response to your lengthy series of questions...

I addressed your points about zero and zero time in relativity right at the start of this thread, in detail, and I have reiterated in bried several times since then.

Your most recent posts, as I said above, sound like somebody who is manic. I'm glad that's not you, but I was concerned for you and thought I should check.

I can't really make much sense of those latest posts. They read like unfocussed rambles, and they also repeat the false claims that zero is a length, zero is a time, zero is just about anything except what it is: a number. Time is relativity, space is relative, but zero isn't relative. Zero is a number.

Can I make a suggestion?

I will start a thread in free thoughts titled:

Am I insane?

and you and others can post your concerns about my mental health there...
and provide evidence accordingly....

Bad idea. You'll just be inviting trolls. If you want to discuss your mental state, you can PM me if you like, but bear in mind that I'm not a mental health professional. Also, I have very limited time available.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ:



I'm not sure what you're waiting for, exactly. I'll reply to your posts, though.



Look, I don't want to pry into your private life, but if you want to chat about anything you can always PM me.



The only support I've seen (public support) has been from people like wlminex, who'll support anything he views as anti-mainstream.



I addressed your points about zero and zero time in relativity right at the start of this thread, in detail, and I have reiterated in bried several times since then.

Your most recent posts, as I said above, sound like somebody who is manic. I'm glad that's not you, but I was concerned for you and thought I should check.

I can't really make much sense of those latest posts. They read like unfocussed rambles, and they also repeat the false claims that zero is a length, zero is a time, zero is just about anything except what it is: a number. Time is relativity, space is relative, but zero isn't relative. Zero is a number.



Bad idea. You'll just be inviting trolls. If you want to discuss your mental state, you can PM me if you like, but bear in mind that I'm not a mental health professional. Also, I have very limited time available.

I was refering to your post #130 that I responded to [my post#134]
I'll wait until you post a response to my response....

 

[James R]

Quantum Quack:

The issue I am raising is contraversial and as far as I know can not be found in a wiki article ...

I was specifically referring to your question about centre of gravity. The definition of centre of gravity is easily found on the web.

the simlpe test of equivalency taught in primary schools around the world is indictaed by for example the value 5 is tested as [5-5=0] therefore 5 has a consistant numerical value of (1*5 = 5) -5 = 0

Rearranging the equation 5 = 5 to become 5 - 5 = 0 is not a test of equivalency or of the validity of the number 5. It's just simple algebra, or arithmetic when you're dealing with numbers rather than variables.

If you wish to you can look a little deeper to how the "centre of mass" or Center of Gravity is derived in both single and multiple systems. This is up to you.
The centre of mass can only be "pseudo" located by infiinite reduction to zero. Even though a fixed point can be defined, the centre both exists and non-exists. [philosophy of mathematics and physics]

I'm well aware of how centre of gravity is defined (and centre of mass, which is not quite the same thing).

I have no idea what "infinite reduction to zero" is - that sounds like something you made up.

The centre of gravity/mass is well defined for any given object. It doesn't "non-exist".

It's certainly a concept. Maybe it's also physical reality. Tell me: what makes a concept a physical reality?

It is made an object of reality not by it. Substance but only by it's effect....a bit like the so called Photon, or even gravitational force itself.
What makes a photon a reality? what makes gravity a reality? effect only no substance....

It sounds like you're saying that anything that has no mass has physical reality, and that having no mass is a requirement of physical reality. That doesn't make much sense.

Zero is a number. How big something is is a length. You can't compare the two.

the size is only able to be determined by comparison with zero. eeg. 15, [15-15=0]

You missed the point: you can't compare the size of something to a number. A number isn't a length - it's a number.

It's like saying I can only determine the colour green by comparison to a wombat.

If you're asking how much longer the boson is compared to something that has no length, then the answer is the length of the boson, obviously.

but why is this so obvious pray tell?

If the boson has length L, then the difference between that and an object of length zero is L minus zero, which gives L. Again, basic maths. How is this not obvious, pray tell?

What is this relative or arbitrary zero you're talking about? I don't think there's any such thing.

it is the t= 0 used in the relativity of simutaneity as per SRT [ it exists as an issue no where else as far as I know]

But the zero there is not arbitrary. If anything, it's the t that is arbitrary. Or, to get to the nub of the matter, it's the time at which you choose to set the variable t to the value zero that is arbitrary. Can't you tell the difference between choosing a particular time to call zero time and choosing a value for the number zero?

Again, zero is a number, and 100 kph is a speed. 100 kph is 100 kph faster than 0 kph, if that's what you're asking. Seems simple enough to me.

but if the zero you use is a floating value [ not absolute] relative to 100 mph then what basis is there for determning that 100mph - asnwer = none

Zero isn't a floating value. It's a number.

Perhaps you're confused about what a reference frame is. If so, I started a handy thread on that topic quite recently, titled "What is a reference frame?"

The issue raised by this thread is indeed contraversial and even though resolved over 8000 years ago could still cause an issue for contemporary physics and mathematics especially when that zero's integrity is threatened by something like SRT via the L. transforms. The history of the L transforms needs to be considered here as well as they were originally constructed to be used in Newtonian space [ absolute time]

Zero's integrity is not threatened by the Lorentz transforms. Zero is a number. The Lorentz transforms deal with space and time coordinates in different frames of reference.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ok... I surrender.... I have read what you posted and I give up.....I'll work with it somewhere else...

 

[James R]

Ok... I surrender.... I have read what you posted and I give up.....I'll work with it somewhere else...

Fine.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The issue I am raising is contraversial

No, it isn't. It isn't causing any controversy, other than in your mind.

and as far as I know can not be found in a wiki article all though various articles on set theory, category theory, and other theorems all indicate the implied nature of absolute zero to maintain validity of the equaivalence. Yet suprisingly none appear to indicate a position on that equivalancy as they simply presume it and not prove it.

Please don't try to pretend you've been reading Wikipedia and understanding those topics. You don't even know the origin and construction of zero within the arithmetic system nor the meaning of 'equivalence relation', both of which you could have got from Wikipedia but you never bothered. You have already shown you will ignore when people put information in front of you, thus you give no reason for anyone to think you've read such stuff.

the simlpe test of equivalency taught in primary schools around the world is indictaed by for example the value 5 is tested as [5-5=0] therefore 5 has a consistant numerical value of (1*5 = 5) -5 = 0

Thus proving you haven't read and understood the material you just listed.

The issue raised by this thread is indeed contraversial

No, it isn't. You aren't raising controversy any more than someone standing on a street corner yelling "The end is neigh! Repent!" sparks 'controversy' about nuclear weapon defence policy. You are raising problems you have with understanding stuff you haven't read or understood. A few of us who have read and understood (and even added to) such stuff have been trying to explain your misconceptions and misrepresentations to you but you won't listen. That isn't controversy, it's bloody mindedness on your part, never mind the repeated unjustified, even demonstrably false, statements you've made about maths, physics and the people who do it.

and even though resolved over 8000 years ago could still cause an issue for contemporary physics and mathematics especially when that zero's integrity is threatened by something like SRT via the L. transforms. The history of the L transforms needs to be considered here as well as they were originally constructed to be used in Newtonian space [ absolute time]

There's so much wrong with those sentences it isn't even worth trying. Clearly you don't want to learn, you aren't willing to listen and, as James has commented and I've mentioned a few times, something is up with your behaviour and whatever it is is not a good thing. Since you aren't interested in discussion there's no reason to continue and if there's something the matter with you I suspect it'll do you some good if you stop thinking about it too, it doesn't seem to be doing you any good.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, it isn't. It isn't causing any controversy, other than in your mind.

Please don't try to pretend you've been reading Wikipedia and understanding those topics. You don't even know the origin and construction of zero within the arithmetic system nor the meaning of 'equivalence relation', both of which you could have got from Wikipedia but you never bothered. You have already shown you will ignore when people put information in front of you, thus you give no reason for anyone to think you've read such stuff.

Thus proving you haven't read and understood the material you just listed.

No, it isn't. You aren't raising controversy any more than someone standing on a street corner yelling "The end is neigh! Repent!" sparks 'controversy' about nuclear weapon defence policy. You are raising problems you have with understanding stuff you haven't read or understood. A few of us who have read and understood (and even added to) such stuff have been trying to explain your misconceptions and misrepresentations to you but you won't listen. That isn't controversy, it's bloody mindedness on your part, never mind the repeated unjustified, even demonstrably false, statements you've made about maths, physics and the people who do it.


There's so much wrong with those sentences it isn't even worth trying. Clearly you don't want to learn, you aren't willing to listen and, as James has commented and I've mentioned a few times, something is up with your behaviour and whatever it is is not a good thing. Since you aren't interested in discussion there's no reason to continue and if there's something the matter with you I suspect it'll do you some good if you stop thinking about it too, it doesn't seem to be doing you any good.

another useless post and not worth reading...
take my word for it he says, the car is a great car, you'll enjoy the repair bill later...

if you want to continue to post nonsense about a subject you are only proving you know nothing about , I suggest you post in the thread about
QM entanglement I started and see how your denial regarding absolute time and zero stacks up and start dealing with infinitesimals etc....
see this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?117389-Quantum-teleportation

a bit like comparing "flat Earthers" [ SRT ] with science that actually knows what it is doing [QM]

for those interested in the "spin" on absolute zero see : Zero Point Theory

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have been considering the issue over night and it can be summed up using the following image:
My contention is as follows:

where zero is absolute. [absolute time]
the zero the equation needs to be equivalent is a relative zero [as in relative time]

any way that's the summary of the contention in one rendering...

I am only stating or demonstrating the issue as I see it, and have no intention of explaining it any more other than what has already been explained in this thread.

 

[James R]

QQ:

The equation you have given defines what is meant by $$\gamma$$. It is equal to zero in every frame of reference. Your contention that it is not equal to zero is equivalent to saying that $$\gamma$$ is defined in some other way. It isn't - at least not by physicists.

But I thought you said you were going to "work with this somewhere else"? Why are you still posting?

If you're going to continue posting, do me the courtesy of responding to the lengthy reply I wrote to you above.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ:

The equation you have given defines what is meant by $$\gamma$$. It is equal to zero in every frame of reference. Your contention that it is not equal to zero is equivalent to saying that $$\gamma$$ is defined in some other way. It isn't - at least not by physicists.

But I thought you said you were going to "work with this somewhere else"? Why are you still posting?

and certainly I am....

If you're going to continue posting, do me the courtesy of responding to the lengthy reply I wrote to you above.

I am still attempting to fathom how and why you posted as you did... and if I get to it I will posts a response to it...Personally I think the posted response is just way to difficult to unravel to even bother which is why I surrended in the first place...

 

[Quantum Quack]

@JameR I did a strip down of all the to and fro of our conversation and unfortunately it appears we, that is You and I, are unable to discuss this issue in a way that is constructive or productive..so unless you have specific questions that I can answer for you there is not much more I can say to you about this issue..

Maybe if you wish to ask specific questions we might get somewhere... with out having to gather stuff from other posts directed at other posters [loss of context]

by the way zero is not just an ordinary number...

 

[James R]

QQ:

by the way zero is not just an ordinary number...

This is the essence of our disagreement.

Tell me why zero is not just an ordinary number like 6 or 3.45 or 263.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

take my word for it he says, the car is a great car, you'll enjoy the repair bill later...

I've explained to you specific examples of mathematical detail, you didn't listen and likely didn't understand. You're also ignoring lengthy posts by James.

You cannot complain people aren't giving you specifics when it's you who is ignoring when those specifics are provided. I'm more than happy to explain to you how zero (or more generalise concepts relating to it) is constructed within mathematical structures such as rings, groups and fields. I can point you at lecture notes, give you book references, there's plenty of things freely available online. But the problem is you've shown you won't use such sources of information when provided to you. You claim there is controversy but there isn't. People need only to read this thread (and others by you) to see how you avoid posts by others which contain details and how you make assertions without evidence, all the while complaining others are supposedly doing that.

if you want to continue to post nonsense about a subject you are only proving you know nothing about ,

I have nothing to hide about me knowledge. I've given examples of a working understanding of this stuff, all of which you ignored. The fact you do not understand such explanations doesn't mean they are not valid and coherent. Your modus operandi might be to wax lyrical about stuff you don't understand and which you are never required to demonstrate capabilities in but doing maths is how I put food on the table and a roof over my head.

QM entanglement I started and see how your denial regarding absolute time and zero stacks up and start dealing with infinitesimals etc....
see this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?117389-Quantum-teleportation

So you've got another thread where you can ignore explanations, not bother to look up what science says and generally make assertions you cannot back up?

a bit like comparing "flat Earthers" [ SRT ] with science that actually knows what it is doing [QM]

The flat earthers ignore or don't look at the evidence presented by scientists. You're showing you don't even look up the definitions of words and terms. James just pointed out you're arguing against a definition. It's one thing to say "I do not believe this mathematical model is a valid description of nature", it's another thing to say "I disagree with the definition of this thing". If I define x=1 then you arguing "But x=2!!" is ridiculous, ie deserving of ridicule.

If you really want to engage the scientific community in discussion, to get them, us, to question some of our work then you're going to have to be coherent and honest. If you refuse to even find out what certain terminology means or you repeatedly misrepresent people then no one is going to give you the time of day, no matter how valid your claims might be, because you'll make worthwhile discussion with you impossible. Just like you're doing now. James and I have both given lengthy, detailed responses to you and you are either unwilling or unable to discuss them.

Of course if you don't really want to get the scientific community to consider certain things, you just want to make a lot of noise on forums and issue your dishonest challenges, in order to delude yourself, then so be it. But that too renders discussion with you pointless. Each time you just reply with a 'body swerve', an attempt to avoid addressing these points I'm raising, you show you aren't interested in discussion, you just want to be some nut on a street corner yell at clouds.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I've explained to you specific examples of mathematical detail, you didn't listen and likely didn't understand. You're also ignoring lengthy posts by James.

You cannot complain people aren't giving you specifics when it's you who is ignoring when those specifics are provided. I'm more than happy to explain to you how zero (or more generalise concepts relating to it) is constructed within mathematical structures such as rings, groups and fields. I can point you at lecture notes, give you book references, there's plenty of things freely available online. But the problem is you've shown you won't use such sources of information when provided to you. You claim there is controversy but there isn't. People need only to read this thread (and others by you) to see how you avoid posts by others which contain details and how you make assertions without evidence, all the while complaining others are supposedly doing that.

I have nothing to hide about me knowledge. I've given examples of a working understanding of this stuff, all of which you ignored. The fact you do not understand such explanations doesn't mean they are not valid and coherent. Your modus operandi might be to wax lyrical about stuff you don't understand and which you are never required to demonstrate capabilities in but doing maths is how I put food on the table and a roof over my head.

So you've got another thread where you can ignore explanations, not bother to look up what science says and generally make assertions you cannot back up?

The flat earthers ignore or don't look at the evidence presented by scientists. You're showing you don't even look up the definitions of words and terms. James just pointed out you're arguing against a definition. It's one thing to say "I do not believe this mathematical model is a valid description of nature", it's another thing to say "I disagree with the definition of this thing". If I define x=1 then you arguing "But x=2!!" is ridiculous, ie deserving of ridicule.

If you really want to engage the scientific community in discussion, to get them, us, to question some of our work then you're going to have to be coherent and honest. If you refuse to even find out what certain terminology means or you repeatedly misrepresent people then no one is going to give you the time of day, no matter how valid your claims might be, because you'll make worthwhile discussion with you impossible. Just like you're doing now. James and I have both given lengthy, detailed responses to you and you are either unwilling or unable to discuss them.

Of course if you don't really want to get the scientific community to consider certain things, you just want to make a lot of noise on forums and issue your dishonest challenges, in order to delude yourself, then so be it. But that too renders discussion with you pointless. Each time you just reply with a 'body swerve', an attempt to avoid addressing these points I'm raising, you show you aren't interested in discussion, you just want to be some nut on a street corner yell at clouds.

By all means please list the points in list form directly related to zero.[the topic]...so the board can discuss this issue...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Tell me why zero is not just an ordinary number like 6 or 3.45 or 263.

The best way to describe a quick answer for you to contemplate on is to refer to the metric expansion of the universe or the contraction experienced in a reference frame involving SRT as only one example.

If zero is absolute, metric expansion contaction can occur unobserved as zero always remains the same immutable value where as "normal numbers" change.[ extend the notion to time dialation ]
see image below:

Zero is a constant through out the universe, it is irreducable, immutable and utterly impervious to change.
It can never hold a value.
Normal numbers are a value
Normal numbers in fact only have value of any certainty because zero holds no value and is constant.
Zero IS the benchmak of all values in all fields of human endeavour, from ecconomics, to metaphysics, philosophy, engineering etc and even religion.
Normal numbers can change in value, where as zero can not [ re: metric expansion ]

is the above enough or do you need more?

Try infiinitesimals and why they are required?
Refer to the work of Archimedies: "method of exhaustion" - infinite reduction.

refer to the work of Isaac Newton: Infinitesimal calculus

and mathematical physics. In mathematical physics zero can not exist as to do so means absolute rest.
As shown in the above diagram it is only zero that can remain constant in a universe that is undergoing metric expansion.
It is ony the center of gravity [absolute zero] that can remain constant in a universe undergoing metric expansion.
zero is the universal constant. as per Zero Point Theory.

@ Alphanumeric: Have I made my point?
Are you going to apologise for your vitriolic nonsense...

 

[James R]

QQ:

You're still confusing numbers with other stuff. Zero is a number. It is nothing other than a number.

The best way to describe a quick answer for you to contemplate on is to refer to the metric expansion of the universe or the contraction experienced in a reference frame involving SRT as only one example.

I need to know about the "metric expansion of the universe" in order to understand the difference between the number zero and the number 3? Really?

Zero is a constant through out the universe, it is irreducable, immutable and utterly impervious to change.

I thought that was what I was saying. Zero is just a number: immutable and impervious to change. [What would it mean to "reduce" a number?]

It can never hold a value.

Zero is a value. It's a number, just like 3 or 17.

Normal numbers are a value
Normal numbers in fact only have value of any certainty because zero holds no value and is constant.

Explain to me why the value of the number 3 depends on zero having no value.

I say that zero has value .... zero!

Zero IS the benchmak of all values in all fields of human endeavour, from ecconomics, to metaphysics, philosophy, engineering etc and even religion.

No. It's just a number. All of the above is mystical obfuscatory nonsense.

Normal numbers can change in value, where as zero can not [ re: metric expansion ]

That's what I'm saying. You are the one arguing that zero is relative, or something. I say zero is just a number: zero.

Try infiinitesimals and why they are required?

How is that relevant to "relative zero"?

In mathematical physics zero can not exist as to do so means absolute rest.

Rest has to do with speed, not numbers. If absolute rest doesn't exist, then nothing has zero speed. But that doesn't mean that the number zero has been abolished all of a sudden. It just means that a speed can't take the value zero. Understand?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I need to know about the "metric expansion of the universe" in order to understand the difference between the number zero and the number 3? Really?

actually in your case yes you do...