# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?  (Read 5936 times)

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #175 on: 29/08/2016 21:40:27 »
Yeah, I'll discuss with a psychologist how messed up I am by having had a full education on mathematics and physics rather than having self-taught myself part of it and imagining that there is nothing beyond my limited reading.

I should really put out a warning about psychologists here: be aware that many of them are parasites who mess with their customer's minds in order to go on and on making more money out of them, so don't get sucked in too deep.

Quote
Of course there is proof that you are wrong: in any given reference frame, the events of the past determine the events of the future without difficulty. This is something established a century ago.

You're missing the point again as you have no ability to analyse properly. This is all about the coordination of how events play out on different paths. If you're running time slower on one path than another in order to make events mesh, you can't also be running time more quickly on the former path than on the other. You can either do one or the other, but not both.

Quote
That the frames disagree about event order is not a conflict: we have a guaranteed way to generate the information for any frame from the information from any other frame, the Lorentz transformations. Any frame provides the objective information to determine physical events. You don't seem to acknowledge this.

Yes, you have a guaranteed way to generate useful information, but it's a preferred-frame method of generating that information. The point you're still missing is that the universe actually has to run on rules itself, and if it's going to run on a preferred-frame method, it needs to have a preferred frame.

Quote
Quote
Computers work just fine on LET, as does everything else, but if we're pretending that SR is reality, the Eculidean views of things that we get from frames of reference are not the fundamental reality - the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant.
Please provide a source to support this claim.

If you don't believe there's a non-Euclidean reality there which trumps the naive Euclidean views we get of it, how can you believe in SR at all? You're arguing against SR.

Quote
Sure, if one uses David Cooper relativity, then there are contradictions.

And since model 2 is SR, you're acknowledging that SR generates contradictions.

Quote
But do not lie to us and claim that David Cooper relativity is SR.

Well, what on Earth do you imagine SR is if it's different from the models I've provided? All I've done is take SR and show it off using its own rules, forcing it to conform to them instead of cheating by ignoring the issue.

Quote

They're computer simulations.

Quote
...put the events of two different frames in one frame without transformation.

Spectacular fail again! When you change frame with those buttons that offer frame changes, they apply the transformations using maths, and that maths generates the same results as anyone else who simulates the same frame changes.

Quote
It is part of a deception to make false claims about SR.

You're the one making false claims, and it's a shocking hatchet job that you're attempting to carry out. I ask the moderators to allow this to continue though as it is very revealing.

Quote
Perhaps you don't even realize this, since you seem to have a number of cognitive difficulties.

It is always hard for the inferior mind to recognise the superiority of the superior mind, and that's why the world's in such a mess.

Quote
However, your character is so poor here that it doesn't seem out of line to identify your statements as lies.

Anyone who wants to identify the liar here can do the maths and see if my diagrams are correct or not. PhysBang will never provide any of his own for the scenario my interactive diagram covers because if he ever does work through the maths, he'll find that they are fully correct in every detail.

Quote
So, if we take your crazy scheme, we get contradictions. This is a great day for David Cooper relativity.

My "crazy scheme" here is called SR.

Quote
In David Cooper relativity, not in SR, where one cannot compare events in different frames without using a transformation to consider the events in the same frame.

And a fully correct transformation has been used, so your attack is off target. Take your teeth out of your foot.

Quote
Just like in Galilean relativity, where one cannot compare different frames without translation. It would be absurd to say that the mast on a ship is never in motion because it is never moving relative to the ship, even in a frame where the ship is in motion.

An inadequate analogy is an inadequate analogy which sheds no light on the issue.

Quote
And yet every cause-and-effect chain exists in the model. It is a lie to say that these chains do not exist.

In the static block model, the chains are of apparent causation rather than real causation - the block exists eternally by magic having never been generated. As soon as you try to account for the generation of the block in cause-and-effect order, you have to add more laws of physics to the model in order to allow that, at which point it becomes one of the other models.

Quote
Not true. Sadly obviously not true. Try again.

You can say it's not true all you like, and now you've trapped yourself in a position where that's all you can do unless you're prepared to own up to being wrong (and thereby demonstrate that you're not a crank). My diagrams are correct and you cannot create a model of your own to show a better way of doing the job which will make SR work - the models I've provided are as good as it gets.

Quote
No, I do not need self-taught selfish jerks to be on the search for truth. You want to make yourself look better than other people, that's why you "search for truth".

Again I ask moderators to allow PhysBang to go on displaying himself in full. Some day we will all find out who he is, because AGI will be able to trace everyone who hides behind a fake name and it will not hold back from exposing anyone who has been abusive of others.

Quote
Your entire website is a horror: you have absolutely no experience with education, yet you want to revise all of it.

It has the backing of someone who used to work at a very high level in education, in charge of most of the schools in a large region of scotland. He actually insists on paying for the webhosting costs.

Quote
You don't want to learn any of the mathematics of physics or of SR, yet you think that without this knowledge you can raise yourself above a century of work of academics and practicing scientists.

I keep on learning more and more, but this is just a hobby for me, so I don't have as wide a range of physics knowledge as you do, but I certainly know how to apply what I know a lot better than you do, and I seek out knowledge that's directly related to the issue I'm looking into, finding people who know their stuff in order to make sure I've covered the necessary ground. What I'm doing is looking to see if the experts have done the job properly, and pointing at places where it doesn't look as if they have. In some areas I've found incompetence, but in other's I've found things that look like incompetence that turn out not to be. You've seen for yourself that I am able to recognise where I'm wrong and change position on things. With this other issue though (which I had no intention of discussing here), we're dealing with something that's been put to the test continually for many years and which hasn't cracked at all. I'm looking for someone (anyone) who can prise open a crack in it and destroy it, but the argument has proved to be too robust for anyone who's come up against it. Most importantly though, I'm simply asking the awkward questions which everyone should be asking and which the experts are running away from answering.

Quote
So, no, please stay away from my search for truth: I don't need your attitude and nor does anyone else.

You just don't want to be exposed as someone who believes in magic, and like all religious people you have an attitude problem when your irrational beliefs are challenged.

Quote
You are a liar.

No - your interpretation skills are terrible. What I said was,

"Where can I find an animation/simulation that does the job in a way you approve of then? How do they perform the magic trick of avoiding generating contradictions? The reality is that they don't exist, and that's why there are so many people out there who regard SR as fantasy physics."

The key part of the first sentence is "that does the job", and the second sentence spells out exactly what that means. None of those links led to anything that did the job without cheating. There is no program anywhere out there that does the job without cheating because the job is impossible. It is equally impossible for the real universe to do the job without using a preferred frame or having a means of tolerating event-meshing failures.

Quote
Because it looks horrible. It is essentially unreadable. It is definitely reflective of the fact that you are self-taught and not really interested in getting to know other people: you simply want to vomit information at them and you expect them to "get it". It gets your intellect across fine.

Some people like to learn inefficiently by having their time wasted with a hundred tons of sugar for every gram of pill. Other people find it easier just to take a moment to swallow the pill and then get on with other things. As people grow up, they learn to avoid the sugar and go straight for the pill, but it's better to learn that at the start instead of wasting the most important part of your life on empty and fake education which teaches next to nothing for years before suddenly vomiting information over them at a late stage in a highly indigestable and defective form far inferior to anything I'm providing. My aim was simply to prove the principle and hope that other people would get involved to improve the site, adding content and building alternative paths for all of it too so that it would suit different people's learning preferences, but most people are stick-in-the-muds who simply trust the experts who run schools and allow their children to be abused there for over a decade. But you attack me for trying to do something really positive to change the world for the better, and that sums you up nicely.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #176 on: 29/08/2016 23:10:44 »
Test post due to the forum software objecting to a blacklisted term without telling me what it is. Perhaps it's a number, so what I'll do is edit this post repeatedly and keep adding paragraphs until I find out what this blacklisted term is.

It doesn't matter which line you choose, what matters is by how much longer or shorter a second is.  The lines are representing seconds that are getting longer and then shorter again.  The spaces created on the line's are representing time frames of that second.  The lines are not all equal in length.  The spaces are equal in length for all the lines.

At the moment I can't be sure I've got my diagram right because you're not giving me the numbers I need to see if mine matches up. I want to know what proportions you're reading off each line. Without that, it's like trying to wrestle an octopus in the dark - I just can't get a proper picture of it and I can't tell what you're getting from your diagram or how it tells you anything useful.

Quote
So you see that this method could be very precise if the proportionality were to be apportioned correctly.

I can't see it at all at the moment, and I can't see how you're getting anything useful out of the proportions on just 25 lines where one of them can be tied to the speed 0.866c without shedding any light on the speeds that might be tied to any of the others. You need to provide a list of 25 sets of numbers, each set containing the proportion (which I assume comes from two measurements made there, so you could give both of those numbers instead), and any other number that you can generate from that that you think is useful for anything. Without this information, it continues to be a wrestle with an invisible octopode.

Quote
(Now this may be where you are saying I am being imprecise, I appreciate, and maybe I am.)

It was actually your 10/15=2.5 that I had in mind. The old cobblers' division method of adding the 10 and the 15 together before moving the decimal point one place to the left shouldn't be trusted as it doesn't always work.
« Last Edit: 29/08/2016 23:13:31 by David Cooper »

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #177 on: 29/08/2016 23:19:19 »
Right, it seems to be a list of deeply offensive numbers like as 0.99875 that caused the problem, so I can't post them, although that particular one can't have been quite so unacceptable. (By the way, none of them have a six followed by, dare I say it, a nine.) I'll see if I can send them in a PM instead as no one else will need them. Here's the rest of my post then, beyond all those disgusting numbers:-

Quote
If a 50% reduction in length is now associated with a 100% increase in a standard second, then a100% reduction in length associated with the speed of light, is a standard second times 4.

If one second is linked to 100% length and 100% of the length of a standard second, then your 50% length is associated with 200% of the length of a standard second (which is you 100% increase), so a 75% reduction in length is associated with 400% of the length of a standard second, and an 87.5% reduction in length is associated with 800% of the length of a standard second, etc. By the time you've reached a 100% reduction in length, your second is not 4 times longer than a standard second, but is infinitely long.

Quote
What I'd like this type of ratio to represent is a second dilating via the inverse square law with addition of speed.  Does it?

No. Inverse square law will get you nowhere with this. In any case, all we're actually doing here is calculating reciprocals. My previous paragraph can be turned into: 1 is associated with 1 (because 1 = 1/1), 0.5 is associated with 2 (because 0.5 = 1/2, 0.25 is associated with 4 (because 0.25 = 1/4), 0.125 is associated with 8 (becaue 0.125 = 1/8), and 0 is associated with infinity (because 0 = 1/infinity).

Copy out the numbers I've given you in my fourth and fifth paragraphs [edit: now relegated to a PM, or an email if the PM system takes a dislike to them too] and don't lose them. See if you can match them usefully with your diagram, because that's what you need to be able to do if it is to be of any use for your theory.

[Edit: the PM system let all those filthy numbers through without objecting.]
« Last Edit: 29/08/2016 23:29:47 by David Cooper »

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #178 on: 29/08/2016 23:25:28 »
Dispense with the diagram...

Let's approach a different way and just in bits.

You can tell me that a speed of 0.866c causes a length contraction of 50%, and a time dilation of 50%.  The occupants in that rocket are supposed to be moving in a slow motion of half the speed.

What length of a second is this extended length of second, that is associated with a speed of 0.866c, held relative to?

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #179 on: 29/08/2016 23:41:36 »
Dispense with the diagram...

Let's approach a different way and just in bits.

You can tell me that a speed of 0.866c causes a length contraction of 50%, and a time dilation of 50%.  The occupants in that rocket are supposed to be moving in a slow motion of half the speed.

What length of a second is this extended length of second, that is associated with a speed of 0.866c, held relative to?

The observer's clock (at rest in that frame of reference) ticks out two seconds while the clock in the rocket only ticks out one second, so you can say that the second in that rocket is twice as long as the second of a clock at rest. I usually work with the relative number of ticks, so I use the exact same number for time changes as for length contraction, but if you want to think in terms of longer seconds being stretched out (which is what "time dilation" refers to), then you should use the reciprocal of the length contraction factor, which means you divide it into 1.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #180 on: 30/08/2016 00:18:52 »
Hey thanks David.  I'll look out for the pm, my email is locked since my phone got smashed and my long forgotten password is written in my phones notes, so I won't be receiving emails.

Given that you have taken the trouble, I'll get my graph paper out and get cracking.  I told you before I haven't actually made a physical diagram of what I'm describing.  I'm just working from what I'm creating in my head, and the basis of another diagram I have physically made that is far more complex describing Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation in relation to mass and distance, rather than SR related time dilation, and speed, in relation to an observational time frame dependency that is proportional to the difference in rate of time between reference frames.

I'll get back to you with my results.

In the meantime concerning the different approach, in answer to your post above:

So let's state the frame of reference where the observers clock ticks at 2 ticks to the rockets 1 tick at speed of 0.866c as having the length of a standard second.

A standard second can be broken down into time frames of subdivisions of a second.  We'll work in divisions of 100 000 microseconds.  A standard second will have ten of these divisions.  The rocket will therefore have 20 divisions.

What I'm doing is standardising the standard second so that we may take measurement of all other time dilations, (GR, SR and VR*), from this standard.

Are we all good so far?

(*Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation)

#### Dmitri Martila

• First timers
• Posts: 3
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #181 on: 30/08/2016 04:24:15 »
Please let me know what you learn if you choose to study Ehrenfest's paradox. I'd be very interested.
So interested, what we would study some cases together? Nice. Very nice! I have the T.E.Phipps experimental paper, he has photographed the rotating disk to test the Ehrenfest paradox. I have the theoretical explanation of his result.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 579
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #182 on: 30/08/2016 14:00:02 »
I should really put out a warning about psychologists here: be aware that many of them are parasites who mess with their customer's minds in order to go on and on making more money out of them, so don't get sucked in too deep.
Now how did I guess that you had experience with psychologists and didn't like what they had to say?

David, you are an angry person who is, briefly, fooling himself that he has found a contradiction in something that has been discussed in incredible depth for over a century. You need some help.

Quote
Quote
Of course there is proof that you are wrong: in any given reference frame, the events of the past determine the events of the future without difficulty. This is something established a century ago.

You're missing the point again as you have no ability to analyse properly. This is all about the coordination of how events play out on different paths. If you're running time slower on one path than another in order to make events mesh, you can't also be running time more quickly on the former path than on the other. You can either do one or the other, but not both.
Paths exist in frames of reference, or it is better to say that one cannot describe a path without also given the frame of reference for one's description. There is no problem coordinating paths: this is an artefact of you continuing to make aphyisical comparisons between frames that have no consistent meaning.

Quote
Quote
That the frames disagree about event order is not a conflict: we have a guaranteed way to generate the information for any frame from the information from any other frame, the Lorentz transformations. Any frame provides the objective information to determine physical events. You don't seem to acknowledge this.

Yes, you have a guaranteed way to generate useful information, but it's a preferred-frame method of generating that information.
This is just more of your crazy talk. No frame is preferred, each one is equally legitimate and one can start from any state at any time in one frame and evolve a physical system and get the same results (taking the proper translations into account) in any other frame. The only way that you generate a contradiction is by pointing out that different frames assign different coordinates to events. It takes no great intellect to do this and one can equally show that Galilean relativity is incorrect in the same way.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Computers work just fine on LET, as does everything else, but if we're pretending that SR is reality, the Eculidean views of things that we get from frames of reference are not the fundamental reality - the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant.
Please provide a source to support this claim.

If you don't believe there's a non-Euclidean reality there which trumps the naive Euclidean views we get of it, how can you believe in SR at all? You're arguing against SR.
Please provide a reference to support your claim that in SR, "the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant". You either read this somewhere or you made it up yourself. Did some crank tell you this?

Quote
And since model 2 is SR, you're acknowledging that SR generates contradictions.
None  of your models are SR< since they show multiple locations for events in one frame. That is not SR. So, please, stop lying to us.
Quote
Quote

They're computer simulations.
Please. You are creating little animations. They are little cartoon lies that you use to mislead others and yourself.
Quote
Quote
Just like in Galilean relativity, where one cannot compare different frames without translation. It would be absurd to say that the mast on a ship is never in motion because it is never moving relative to the ship, even in a frame where the ship is in motion.

An inadequate analogy is an inadequate analogy which sheds no light on the issue.
It is not an analogy: applying your reasoning, Galilean relativity fails because the locations in one frame do not equal the locations in another frame.

Quote
In the static block model, the chains are of apparent causation rather than real causation - the block exists eternally by magic having never been generated. As soon as you try to account for the generation of the block in cause-and-effect order, you have to add more laws of physics to the model in order to allow that, at which point it becomes one of the other models.
People always misunderstand the block universe model like this. Cause and effect does not need to be weaker in the block universe model: the same restrictions on event order can be in place. Some people even argue that cause and effect is stronger in the block universe model. Regardless, this is not required for SR.

Quote
It has the backing of someone who used to work at a very high level in education, in charge of most of the schools in a large region of scotland. He actually insists on paying for the webhosting costs.
I am glad that you have supporters to help you make your way through life, but I worry that their indulgence will do you harm.

Quote
Most importantly though, I'm simply asking the awkward questions which everyone should be asking and which the experts are running away from answering.
Except that they have answered: one can't compare values from different frames without applying the correct translation. Only you refuse to listen.

Quote
"Where can I find an animation/simulation that does the job in a way you approve of then? How do they perform the magic trick of avoiding generating contradictions? The reality is that they don't exist, and that's why there are so many people out there who regard SR as fantasy physics."

The key part of the first sentence is "that does the job", and the second sentence spells out exactly what that means. None of those links led to anything that did the job without cheating. There is no program anywhere out there that does the job without cheating because the job is impossible. It is equally impossible for the real universe to do the job without using a preferred frame or having a means of tolerating event-meshing failures.
So, by "cheating", you mean that they merely applied the transformations and did not try to combine the events of two frames in one frame?

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #183 on: 30/08/2016 23:07:00 »
So let's state the frame of reference where the observers clock ticks at 2 ticks to the rockets 1 tick at speed of 0.866c as having the length of a standard second.

A standard second can be broken down into time frames of subdivisions of a second.  We'll work in divisions of 100 000 microseconds.  A standard second will have ten of these divisions.  The rocket will therefore have 20 divisions.

But from the rocket's point of view, its only going to have 10 of your divisions while the "standard second" will look as if it has 20. Can you handle that?

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #184 on: 31/08/2016 00:15:52 »
Now how did I guess that you had experience with psychologists and didn't like what they had to say?

My knowledge of psychologists comes only from what I've heard from others, including someone I know who was talked into hating all his relatives while his shrink systematically undermined him in order to take more and more cash from him. Having initially mentioned them as if they're a positive thing (and I'm sure many of them are), I thought I ought to put the other side for balance.

Quote
David, you are an angry person who is, briefly, fooling himself that he has found a contradiction in something that has been discussed in incredible depth for over a century. You need some help.

Angry? No one who knows me would describe me that way - I certainly am angry about many things, but everyone moral should be. As for needing help, no - there are billions of people out there who need help, and I'm doing everything I can to get it to them.

Quote
Paths exist in frames of reference, or it is better to say that one cannot describe a path without also given the frame of reference for one's description. There is no problem coordinating paths: this is an artefact of you continuing to make aphyisical comparisons between frames that have no consistent meaning.

I'm simply doing what you are unable to do: I'm running through the events of a simple scenario with planets and rockets and looking to see how it's arranged that a rocket can be reunited with its planet when its clocks tick half as many times as clocks on the planet while it's away. That takes coordination, and there are different ways of trying to do it which are not compatible with each other. If you are running events such that the rocket's progress is slowed equally along both legs of its path in order to avoid event-meshing failure at the reunion point, you are using the planet's frame as a preferred frame as a mechanism for how the universe runs and not merely as a way of analysing the events that play out in it (where you don't care about whether you're getting a true account or not). There's a big difference between those two things.

Quote
Quote
That the frames disagree about event order is not a conflict: we have a guaranteed way to generate the information for any frame from the information from any other frame, the Lorentz transformations. Any frame provides the objective information to determine physical events. You don't seem to acknowledge this.

This is just more of your crazy talk. No frame is preferred, each one is equally legitimate and one can start from any state at any time in one frame and evolve a physical system and get the same results (taking the proper translations into account) in any other frame.

That doesn't work for the universe. It has to have events play out in one single way and not in an infinite number of different ways that contradict each other. This is totally different from naive analysis by observers who don't care which account of events is true because it makes no difference to them. The universe has to have a true account of what it's doing which doesn't involve contradictions when a frame is changed. Changing the frame you're using to analyse things can't change what's actually happened and what has yet to happen.

Quote
The only way that you generate a contradiction is by pointing out that different frames assign different coordinates to events. It takes no great intellect to do this and one can equally show that Galilean relativity is incorrect in the same way.

If the stay-at-home twin is half way between the parting point and reunion point, his travelling twin may or may not have made the turn, but changing the frame of reference he's using for his analysis isn't going to change what's happened for his twin. The universe has done something definite with the travelling twin and doesn't make and undo his progress past the turning point every time his brother flips the frame in his calculations. The accounts generated by the calculations from different frames are not all valid - only one of them can be true and the rest are wrong. We can't know which account is true, but the universe must have a true answer that it is working with. To claim that all the accounts are valid is ludicrous - it means that every time you change the frame you're using for analysis, the universe unmakes events while hurrying to make others in order to conform with the frame you're now using, and that's magic rather than physics. The only sane way out of that if you don't want to accept that there's a preferred frame is to switch to model one which is Lorentz invariant.

Quote
Please provide a reference to support your claim that in SR, "the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant". You either read this somewhere or you made it up yourself. Did some crank tell you this?

I heard it from a more rational SR expert than the majority who said it was contested, but it is also clear that it is correct. He then introduced me to model zero (the eternal static block). There is a non-Euclidean reality in SR which involves a 4D Spacetime in which there should be no frames of reference because the model is supposed to be Lorentz invariant. The frames of reference only come into play when looking at that non-Euclidean reality it in ways that make it appear Euclidean. If you want the Euclidean geometry to have prededence over the non-Euclidean one, why on Earth are you pushing SR? It appears that you don't trust the non-Euclidean part of the theory.

Quote
Please. You are creating little animations. They are little cartoon lies that you use to mislead others and yourself.

It can generate the diagram for hundreds of different frames of reference and you call it an animation! It's a simulation that crunches all the numbers. If it could be done without all that maths, it would have to run on magic to produce what it shows. You call it lies, but you are foolishly attacking the very thing you're supposedly defending, because the diagram shows you SR.

Quote
It is not an analogy: applying your reasoning, Galilean relativity fails because the locations in one frame do not equal the locations in another frame.

It is only if you have are generating contradictions and assert that all the accounts are true that you have a problem. If you have a preferred frame, the contradictions merely tell you that some accounts are false, and they do this even if you assert that there is no preferred frame (although you can escape into model one).

Quote
People always misunderstand the block universe model like this. Cause and effect does not need to be weaker in the block universe model: the same restrictions on event order can be in place. Some people even argue that cause and effect is stronger in the block universe model. Regardless, this is not required for SR.

Model zero, the static, eternal block universe, has no causality involved in it because it was not generated in cause-and-effect order, or indeed in any order at all as it was never generated in any way but has simply existed forever. Model one though is a different block universe model in which the causation works fine, and model 3 can also work fine as a block universe, so defending model zero on the basis that some block universe models are viable just doesn't hack it. Model zero cannot do causality.

Quote
I am glad that you have supporters to help you make your way through life, but I worry that their indulgence will do you harm.

I have a lot of backing from people who have worked in education and spent their lives trying to improve things only to have others come along behind them to dismantle everything they've built and bin it all. My site is only one part of a much larger project involving a number of other people which is still coming together.

Quote
Except that they have answered: one can't compare values from different frames without applying the correct translation. Only you refuse to listen.

All the correct translations are being done. You try to make out that they aren't, so how come they work? For example, do you imagine that this program works by magic rather than doing proper maths?

http://magicschoolbook.com/science/ref-frame-camera.htm

It isn't complete and doesn't work properly as a result, but click on the first button to load the example shapes, then click on the third and select different frames of reference. Try the values 0.866 and 0 first, then try 0 and 0.866, and then try 0.433 and 0.866. These are the squares form the thought experiment in post #2, and now we can see them from Frames A, A', B and B'. No doubt you'll say it isn't doing proper maths and that it works by magic.

Quote
So, by "cheating", you mean that they merely applied the transformations and did not try to combine the events of two frames in one frame?

I mean that they're using a preferred frame mechanism where the time of that frame governs all the others, making their clocks run slow.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 579
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #185 on: 31/08/2016 01:21:12 »
I'm simply doing what you are unable to do: I'm running through the events of a simple scenario with planets and rockets and looking to see how it's arranged that a rocket can be reunited with its planet when its clocks tick half as many times as clocks on the planet while it's away.
You may be trying to do this, but you are using David Cooper relativity, not SR. In SR, these tasks are accomplished relatively straightforwardly by the Lorentz transformations.
Quote
That takes coordination, and there are different ways of trying to do it which are not compatible with each other.
Again, you are free to use whatever mean you wish, but do not lie to use and claim that David Cooper relativity is SR.

Quote
If you are running events such that the rocket's progress is slowed equally along both legs of its path in order to avoid event-meshing failure at the reunion point, you are using the planet's frame as a preferred frame as a mechanism for how the universe runs and not merely as a way of analysing the events that play out in it (where you don't care about whether you're getting a true account or not). There's a big difference between those two things.
In SR, one is free to use whatever frame of reference one wishes; no frame of reference is preferred and all frames produce consistent results (they are identical under transformation). You do not like this but we are not bound by your aesthetic preferences.

Quote
That doesn't work for the universe. It has to have events play out in one single way and not in an infinite number of different ways that contradict each other.
This is your aesthetic preference. The evidence is that the universe doesn't particularly care about event order for spatially separated events.

Quote
Changing the frame you're using to analyse things can't change what's actually happened and what has yet to happen.
Nobody thinks that the choice of reference frame changes the actual world, it only changes the description. You want to prevent people from using certain descriptions without offering any actual alternative.

Quote
If the stay-at-home twin is half way between the parting point and reunion point, his travelling twin may or may not have made the turn, but changing the frame of reference he's using for his analysis isn't going to change what's happened for his twin.
When you say this, you are assuming that there is some absolute frame of reference. According to SR, what has "happened" for a certain even is only those events in the past light cone of that event. This set of past events is invariant and is definitely causally connected to the given event. You are demanding, against all evidence, that there is some preferred reference frame where, even though there is no possible causal connection between two events, there is nonetheless a fact of the matter with regards to their time order. The evidence does not support that there is such a link.

You are just making a circular argument: there must be a preferred reference frame because there is a preferred reference frame.

Quote
Quote
Please provide a reference to support your claim that in SR, "the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant". You either read this somewhere or you made it up yourself. Did some crank tell you this?

I heard it from a more rational SR expert than the majority who said it was contested, but it is also clear that it is correct.
So, you "heard" it. That's exactly the sort of scholarship I expected.

Quote
Model zero, the static, eternal block universe, has no causality involved in it because it was not generated in cause-and-effect order,
Saying that over nad over again does not make it true. You are simply repeating that the block universe is a block universe.

Quote
Quote
So, by "cheating", you mean that they merely applied the transformations and did not try to combine the events of two frames in one frame?

I mean that they're using a preferred frame mechanism where the time of that frame governs all the others, making their clocks run slow.
Why are you lying about all those links. None of them do that. They all begin with an arbitrary frame, not a preferred frame. If one were to apply an inverse translation, then one could recover the original information from the secondary frame. You just can't understand how people can be content without a preferred reference frame, so you just say that they are using one when they start from an arbitrary frame. Real good reasoning.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #186 on: 31/08/2016 02:44:47 »
So let's state the frame of reference where the observers clock ticks at 2 ticks to the rockets 1 tick at speed of 0.866c as having the length of a standard second.

A standard second can be broken down into time frames of subdivisions of a second.  We'll work in divisions of 100 000 microseconds.  A standard second will have ten of these divisions.  The rocket will therefore have 20 divisions.

But from the rocket's point of view, its only going to have 10 of your divisions while the "standard second" will look as if it has 20. Can you handle that?

Yup, absobloominlutely!

The remit of my concept of observational time frame dependency being proportional to the difference in rate of time relies on this observation.

That each will observe the other as being twice as slow, and half as long, or every other time frame missing.

The rocket does not know how long a second is when it is observing a standard second of our observation point from its own.  It just views relative to it's own experience.  But we know how long a standard second is as per our observation point (or any variable of this standard second), and we also know how long the second on the rocket at speed 0.866c is.

An observation that is proportional to the difference in rate of time will be 50% whether twice as long, or half as long.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #187 on: 31/08/2016 03:05:59 »
This means that you can keep the speed of the rocket relative to a standard second, and move your observation point to a reference frame that is of a different gravity potential and time dilation to the standard second, but at rest relative to earth, (or not for more complexity), and calculate what this length of seconds proportions are in relation to the rockets and the observable  proportions will no longer be 50% each way.

#### timey

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1119
• Thanked: 5 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #188 on: 31/08/2016 03:25:18 »
...and then, adding in Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation that my time theory proposes, this affords longer seconds in the weaker gravity field that the rocket must travel through.
The rocket will be travelling at mph as per standard second.  As seconds get longer in the locations of space, the percentage of the speed of light that the rocket is travelling at will increase as per reference frame of increasingly longer seconds, and the rockets rate of time will further slow.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #189 on: 01/09/2016 00:06:09 »
You may be trying to do this, but you are using David Cooper relativity, not SR. In SR, these tasks are accomplished relatively straightforwardly by the Lorentz transformations.

You're attacking SR again, because that's what I'm using.

Quote
Again, you are free to use whatever mean you wish, but do not lie to use and claim that David Cooper relativity is SR.

You're the one lying by claiming that it isn't. I'm simply putting SR to the test and finding that it generates contradictions.

Quote
In SR, one is free to use whatever frame of reference one wishes; no frame of reference is preferred and all frames produce consistent results (they are identical under transformation). You do not like this but we are not bound by your aesthetic preferences.

The universe is not free to use a preferred frame mechanism without having a preferred frame.

Quote
This is your aesthetic preference. The evidence is that the universe doesn't particularly care about event order for spatially separated events.

It has nothing to do with aesthetics, but about things confroming to the norms of logic.

Quote
Nobody thinks that the choice of reference frame changes the actual world, it only changes the description. You want to prevent people from using certain descriptions without offering any actual alternative.

I'm simply refusing to be fooled into thinking that the universe can run itself on a preferred frame mechanism without a preferred frame. If it tries to do it with all frames being preferred at once (or even more than one) it is contradicting itself in terms of what it's done and what it's yet to do.

Quote
When you say this, you are assuming that there is some absolute frame of reference. According to SR, what has "happened" for a certain even is only those events in the past light cone of that event. This set of past events is invariant and is definitely causally connected to the given event. You are demanding, against all evidence, that there is some preferred reference frame where, even though there is no possible causal connection between two events, there is nonetheless a fact of the matter with regards to their time order. The evidence does not support that there is such a link.

The universe cannot play such ludicrous games of not knowing how much it has allowed the action to play out on different paths. It has to commit to allowing events to run and pick a rate to run them at, and it is not possible for it to conform to the accounts generated from more than one frame at a time when it does this as they contradict each other. To believe that it can is to believe in magic.

Quote
You are just making a circular argument: there must be a preferred reference frame because there is a preferred reference frame.

Contradictions, therefore something's false. That's how reasoning works and it is not circular. You should not tolerate 2=3.

Quote
So, you "heard" it. That's exactly the sort of scholarship I expected.

From someone a lot better at this stuff than you. But I actually think you may have a point - he may have been wrong. It may be that all models require a preferred frame.

Quote
Saying that over nad over again does not make it true. You are simply repeating that the block universe is a block universe.

You keep misrepresenting what I've said - I was talking very specifically about the static, eternal block model in which time doesn't run.

Quote
Why are you lying about all those links. None of them do that. They all begin with an arbitrary frame, not a preferred frame. If one were to apply an inverse translation, then one could recover the original information from the secondary frame. You just can't understand how people can be content without a preferred reference frame, so you just say that they are using one when they start from an arbitrary frame. Real good reasoning.

They are using a preferred frame mechanism regardless of which frame they choose to work with, and that's where they're cheating. If they run the whole thing using a different frame, it will develop events in a way that contradicts the original version. The universe cannot contradict itself in that way, and that's where you're failing to get your head round the problem - you've been brainwashed into ignoring the problem and pretending it isn't there. The universe cannot extend the action on path A more quickly than on path B while also extending the action more quickly on path B than on path A. To believe that it can is to have a mental disability.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #190 on: 01/09/2016 00:17:45 »
And in case anyone missed it, my reference-frame camera software is now online, and although it's not complete, it does enough to justify putting it there now. The bug that was still in it yesterday (due to incompletion - it couldn't handle frames where one vector was negative and the other positive) has gone, so what you see should now be correct in every aspect.

http://magicschoolbook.com/science/ref-frame-camera.htm

Click on the first button to load the example shapes, then click on the third button to select different frames of reference. Try the values 0.866 and 0 first (two vectors to select a new frame), then try 0 and 0.866, and then try 0.433 and 0.866. These are the squares from the thought experiment in post #2, and now we can see them from Frames A, A', B and B'.

I will add more functionality to it over time, such as being able to run time (at the moment all you get is t=0 for everything by the time of the selected frame, though that means you are seeing a range of different Frame A times for different parts of the scene as you change away from Frame A, for the only point that's the same in all frames is the origin, and even that is only the case when t=0). I may also add edges to the shapes and allow objects to be accelerated. I plan to show time passing differently for different objects too, perhaps by using periodic colour changes.

Edit: as of now, the program allows you to run events like video, and the keyboard can be used to control it in a more convenient way than clicking on screen buttons, so "S" is used to stop and start, while "D" is used to change direction (to run things forwards/backwards in time).
« Last Edit: 02/09/2016 17:56:13 by David Cooper »

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 267
• Thanked: 32 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #191 on: 03/09/2016 15:48:18 »
There is only one fixed frame where mass is concerned and that being c. Mass can never reach c so a fixed frame for the position of mass is impossible. Moving 0.4 c in one vector while moving 0.8 c in another vector violates relativity postulates unless they are in opposite directions on the same vector.

Assuming contraction is actually physical rather than just a visual interpretation caused by the finite speed of light is a exercise in futility. The same reason why you cannot measure the position and the speed of an electron applies to all objects in motion. All things are always in motion so there is no fixed frame.

Why would you believe the image produced is the physical description when there is no frame of reference. the faster an object moves the greater the angle of view past 90 degrees. Even when two trains are moving at the same speed there is no 90 degree view. If you just follow the math without understanding the process causing the math your conclusions will remain invalid.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #192 on: 03/09/2016 23:18:57 »
There is only one fixed frame where mass is concerned and that being c. Mass can never reach c so a fixed frame for the position of mass is impossible. Moving 0.4 c in one vector while moving 0.8 c in another vector violates relativity postulates unless they are in opposite directions on the same vector.

The vectors 0.4c east and 0.8c north combine to a speed of 0.8944c (at an angle 26.56 degrees east of north), so where's the problem with that? Matter is fully entitled to move at such a speed and does so with ease in particle accelerators (a search result tells me that 0.99999999c has been achieved in this way), and there's nothing in mathematics that bans you from describing that speed using two vectors (each bigger than the ones you've provided).

Quote
Assuming contraction is actually physical rather than just a visual interpretation caused by the finite speed of light is a exercise in futility. The same reason why you cannot measure the position and the speed of an electron applies to all objects in motion. All things are always in motion so there is no fixed frame.

You're merely parroting assertions. Logic tells you though that the first and third of those assertions are wrong. The universe has to use a preferred frame of reference in order to coordinate events without generating contradictions, just as all computer simulations have to.

Quote
Why would you believe the image produced is the physical description when there is no frame of reference.

You shouldn't believe that the image produced is the correct physical description of the object as you can't know which frame is the preferred frame, but that doesn't remove the need for there to be a preferred frame. The universe has to pick one to use to control events, and if it wants to use another frame to do it at the same time it will produce contradictions in what's happened and what has yet to happen, with the problem getting worse the more frames it tries to use as the base for coordinating the action.

Quote
the faster an object moves the greater the angle of view past 90 degrees. Even when two trains are moving at the same speed there is no 90 degree view. If you just follow the math without understanding the process causing the math your conclusions will remain invalid.

Given that I understand and have fully taken into account all the optical effects with angles changing and not being as they appear to be to observers, you shouldn't be aiming that objection my way at all, quite apart from the fact that it has no bearing whatsoever on the argument I've set out.

The issue is really simple. If I write a computer simulation to deal with how objects behave in relativity with Spacetime, I have three choices: I can use model 3 and have a preferred frame of reference whose time is used to govern time for all other frames, or I can use model 1 and allow time to run at the same rate on all paths (which allows the frame of reference to be changed without changing anything in relation to which events have taken place and which have yet to happen), or I can pretend to use model 2 while actually using model 3 and just assert that it is model 2 even though it isn't. It's exactly the same for the real universe: it can use model 3 as its mechanism or model 1, but it cannot use model 2 because to do so would mean it has to use every frame as a preferred frame and govern all other frames under the time of the preferred frames, and that means having an infinite number of copies of each frame so that events can develop at different rates in each copy depending on which frame they're governed by. It actually means having an infinite number of duplicate universes each with a different preferred frame, all duplicating the same action but with all that action playing out with a different pattern of coordination in each copy of the universe in order to be doing all of them at once, and all this for the sole purpose of backing some monkeys' dogma about there being no preferred frame of reference. Even then it fails though, because each copy of the universe is still using a preferred frame of reference.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #193 on: 04/09/2016 04:51:52 »
Light is the reference frame of space!

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 267
• Thanked: 32 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #194 on: 04/09/2016 16:18:02 »
David,

I understand your dilemma with SR. I was confused also until I followed Euclidean geometry in all frames. A photon travels the same distance through space at a constant speed. Lets term that a light second and round off to 186,000 miles per second. Whose second? Lights second in lights frame. Now we have to ask whose distance? Lights distance/lights second. Now the confusion starts. When using light and time as a measuring stick between different speeds both the distance of the stick and the to measure the speed of light tick rate of time change in a confounding way to measure the speed of light the same in every frame. Lets take two frames one moving at 1/2 the speed of light and one at rest. Here is the confusion the observer at rest views the 1/2 speed of light object as contracted by 13.3075% which is the Lorentz contraction of 0.866025. Lets look at the Euclidean geometry. A 90 degree view would measure 186,000 length and a 90 degree observer lets say 93,000 length centimeters, miles it does not matter as long as the space distance for each direction are the same. This gives us a right triangle so we can use Pythagoras to measure the actual view. It creates a 30,60,90 triangle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 same as the Lorentz contraction. So we can now understand that we view objects using light as the hypotenuse rather than the leg in differences of speed. The angle of view reduces the objects length by 13.3075% at half the speed of light.

Here there is the question relative to what? A light second and light length in lights frame.

Now lets take the view from the space ship inside the ship going 1/2 the speed of light. Lets look at the light on the ship as Euclidean space from the light frame and lets use the length of the ship to determine the length of your measuring stick. Light starts from the back in the direction of the ship. The light reaches the front by two lengths of the ship. It hits a mirror and returns to the back in 0.66... length of the ship. So relative to a light second and length through space the measuring stick becomes 2.66... in the two way length. We divide by two  and get 1.33.. length relative to Euclidean light length trough space. But wait 0.33... length of space the ship traveled without light or 1/3 the length. So the length of your measuring stick is 2 2/3 - 1/6 because light did not follow in the second direction we get a Euclidean relative to a light second and distance of 2.5 ships length divided by 2 = 1.25 length for the change in your measuring stick.

So your measuring stick is increased by 0.25 total length. Lets look at the light clock. First we have to follow relativity's light being independent of the source. The vector direction of the light wave fires and the mirror moves forward following the same measurements through space so the length of a second in your frame is the same 1.25. 1.25/1.25 = 1. The longer tick rate is confounded with the longer distance of your measuring stick causing you to measure the same speed of light in every frame. This is a increase in the visual length of your measuring stick matching your change in tick rate.

Since the mechanical and light clock remain synchronous in every frame there must be a control mechanism in space that affects both the electron and photon equally suggesting an energy state of space.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 267
• Thanked: 32 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #195 on: 04/09/2016 16:52:58 »
Continuing from above we can never measure our speed through space using light. The ratio between frames is our only reference. Rather than finding a fixed frame we only have a moving frame of the photon as a constant.

Energy of space would suggest a photon is just a wave sphere of vector directions rather than a single particle we describe as a virtual photon. A wave on energy independent of the source is the very definition of a virtual photon.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3773
• Thanked: 47 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #196 on: 04/09/2016 17:26:01 »
Ah GoC! The hypotenuse to measure light. There you have the problem of deflection from a straight line path even moving directly away from a source. How can the path be recovered?

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 267
• Thanked: 32 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #197 on: 04/09/2016 19:06:33 »
jeffreyH,

Depending on what you believe is a photon your understanding of light will change. I suspect light to be a wave on energy particles expanding as a sphere from a light bulb. So any vector will be a straight line of view. The size of the  image will be the inverse square of the distance with the Lorentz contraction.

Any direction the clock is placed in the ship will give the same increased distance for light to travel from perpendicular to the same direction of the ship. This can be proven with synchronization of clocks and Euclidean geometry for travel distance of light. Mechanical clocks stay in synchronization with light clocks in the same frame. Is that a coincidence in every frame or are the two (photons and electrons) controlled by the same energy source.

While you cannot ever recover the same path the same measurement will be recovered in all frames.

There is no stationary frame of value zero relative to motion. The spin motion (energy) of space to propel electrons and photons has the value of c. Electrons travel in a cork screw motion confounded with the vector speed of light wave rippling through the energy of space.

I will need a specific issue in math or mechanics to understand your questioning my math results or mechanics.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #198 on: 04/09/2016 22:30:12 »
Hi GoC,

I suspect that we're talking at cross-purposes here. My original question related to something I'd found that appeared to show a way of identifying the preferred frame, but I'd missed the hidden rotation that occurs when something is accelerated one way and then accelerated sideways off that path, and once that is taken into account, the preferred frame remains unidentifiable. That was resolved by page 5 of this thread, and then it moved on into a discussion of another argument after PhysBang read a webpage of mine (that I'd linked to to illustrate a point) and attempted to rubbish it. That page can be found at www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity and it makes the argument that SR and GR both depend either on a preferred frame of reference or on Bringing in Newtonian time to work in combination with the time dimension. So, where you're trying to show that the preferred frame can't be detected, there is no need to do so as it is not contested. I questioned it for a short time when I thought there might be a way of pinning it down, but have since "unquestioned" it. That means this thread has served its purpose and provided the answer "no" (or at least, not by the method I had proposed). The remaining issue then is not the one of the thread title, but of whether there has to be a preferred frame of reference, and I have shown that the only models that make it possible for there not to be such a frame require Newtonian time to be added to them to enable them to generate the future out of the past and/or to handle event-meshing failures.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 267
• Thanked: 32 times
##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #199 on: 05/09/2016 02:40:55 »
Thanks David I came to the party late.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #199 on: 05/09/2016 02:40:55 »