Time is Invariant. SR is wrong!

Grumpy said:
Robittybob1

Yes, the length of a meter in any frame will be measured the same, but those frames moving relative to your frame will be seen by you as having meters that are shorter than yours, the faster they move, the shorter their meter.

Quantum Quack



To have relativity you must have two separate frames to be relative to each other. In your own frame of reference there can be no relationship(by definition), you are always at rest in your own frame, period. Anything you compare your frame with is, by definition, NOT in your frame, it is in a separate frame from yours(even if it is the mote of dust floating by your nose). That is not relativity, it is definition. Absolute rest does exist, it just must be narrowly defined and it only applies within that narrow definition. Absolute rest applied between frames is what does not exist(except in very narrow and specific definitions), absolute rest with your own frame is specified in the definition of a frame. Rest and motion have no effect on whether something exists, it is not intrinsic to existence. That all things are in relative motion with everything else is a RESULT of existence, not it's CAUSE.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...
Grumpy, thanks for your posts!
Think of a box with a few marbles inside it.
The marbles are traveling at 'c' bouncing around inside the box.

What would be you assessment of the rest status of the box?
1] relative?
2] absolute?
3] relative absolute?

Now given that the box itself is made up of energy that is also traveling at 'c'
how would that change your assessment?

The box and the marbles inside are all traveling at 'c.

Is the box then at relative rest, absolute rest or absolute relative rest?

I might add, I think and I may be wrong, that this is in some way a small step towards understanding how Einstein derived E=mc^2 as a necessary outcome of Minkowski/Einstein space time
 
What would be you assessment of the rest status of the box?
1] relative?
2] absolute?
3] relative absolute?

Now given that the box itself is made up of energy that is also traveling at 'c'
how would that change your assessment?

The box and the marbles inside are all traveling at 'c.

Is the box then at relative rest, absolute rest or absolute relative rest?
Click to expand...

The box is at rest in the frame of the box(by definition), it is moving in relation to the marbles(and vice versa). Not enough information was given to determine any motion it has to the rest of the Universe, but very few things in this Universe that have mass are moving at relativistic speed relative to their immediate environment. None are travelling at c. Massive objects that travel at relativistic speeds are called Gamma Rays. They aren't really energy or electromagnetic radiation at all, they are particles(protons or ions)travelling near light speed, but none of them travel AT light speed. The energy it took to accelerate them so near light speed is the energy they release when they collide with something, otherwise they experience the Universe exactly as you do, with themselves stationary in empty space and everything else moving quite rapidly through time and space. Relative rest, absolute rest or absolute relative rest are undefined concepts that provide insufficient information to even understand the question you are asking. There is only rest in relation to ___? And there is rest of being in your own frame of reference. Relative rest is the only kind available outside your own frame, period. There is no "absolute rest" and "absolute relative rest" is redundant.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
The box is at rest in the frame of the box(by definition), it is moving in relation to the marbles(and vice versa). Not enough information was given to determine any motion it has to the rest of the Universe, but very few things in this Universe that have mass are moving at relativistic speed relative to their immediate environment. None are travelling at c. Massive objects that travel at relativistic speeds are called Gamma Rays. They aren't really energy or electromagnetic radiation at all, they are particles(protons or ions)travelling near light speed, but none of them travel AT light speed. The energy it took to accelerate them so near light speed is the energy they release when they collide with something, otherwise they experience the Universe exactly as you do, with themselves stationary in empty space and everything else moving quite rapidly through time and space. Relative rest, absolute rest or absolute relative rest are undefined concepts that provide insufficient information to even understand the question you are asking. There is only rest in relation to ___? And there is rest of being in your own frame of reference. Relative rest is the only kind available outside your own frame, period. There is no "absolute rest" and "absolute relative rest" is redundant.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the box can only be deemed to be at rest [ relative-ness is irrelevant ] unless there are other inertial reference frames to consider. e.g."The box is at rest relative to the other box"
If there is no other box then the term "rest" is all that is needed. [implying "the box is at rest unto itself"]

if one could stand outside the universe and perceive a white dot and called this dot "universe" and no other universe is present to relate it to that universe white dot would be considered as at rest.
However if one wishes to include all the reference frames with in that white dot called universe the question is is that white dot still at rest or is it now "relative rest"?
 
We take our Box called Universe and ask:
At what rate is this box changing?
apply same logic to a smaller box , an apple for example....
According to SRT that rate of change for both the universe box or the Apple box .....must be 'c'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top