[Ken Hughes]

Thankyou Yor_on,

Yes, I understand we normally deal with relative motion by considering motion between two bodies, then translate the effects by defining the metrics.
But, do we really have to do this?

Non mainstream questioning from now on
If a ship is passing through a gravitational field, why can we not consider the motion relative to some particular reference frame within the field? Perhaps you might argue that the field in question is directly related to the body producing it, but is the field any less real than the (planet)?
Would it not be possible to develop relativity based on relative motion between reference frames or is this already implicit within the theory?

I don't want to re create the Aether, but surely there are frames of reference within space-time that we could use as datums?


Regarding observed redshift, if we consider the possibility that time itself might be passing more rapidly now than in the past, then this could not only give us the same redshift observations, but it would do so without the necessity for an expanding space. Occams Razor would prefer this option and I certainly do as I have a problem accepting the expansion of nothing.
There is no scientific justification for assuming that time has always passed at the same relative rate throughout the eons. If we extrapolate in the same way as we have done to deduce expansion, then we get the slowing down of time to a standstill at the beginning. No Big Bang, just a Slow Temporal Eruption (STE).

[imatfaal]

Ken would you mind if I moved the above post to New Theories? - as you acknowledged it really has moved away from the OP and from mainstream knowledge.

[Ken Hughes]

That's fine thanks, but I was asking for a mainstream response to the non mainstrean idea.

[yor_on]

There are several difficulties, some of them directly related to how we define motion from a relativistic perspective. But the uppermost is that space is what you find everywhere. Without space nothing can exist, it's in your cup of coffee, it's in your molecules, it's whats make up 99 ~ of a atom. And there are no distinguishing signs to space. It's the same in outer space as in that atom. If we found a way to distinguish one point of space from another we would have a new theory.

And you can't use gravity as that is a dynamic phenomena, coupled to energy, invariant mass and motion. Actually space confuses me, if I would define from a QM perspective I could mumble something about 'zero energy' and a sea of 'virtual particles' but that is nothing we can measure. That's a theory explaining some really strange properties at a minuscule plane, not anything we can hold up and say. "This is a virtual particle".

Space is without friction, Space is empty, there is none proven it to be otherwise macroscopically yet. And being so there is nowhere space will differ from any other point of space. You could assume, as I do, that 'space' is 'gravity'. To me 'space' has two qualities, it has a distance and it contain 'gravity' even when unmeasurable.
==

Gravity is in fact a 'resistance' of sorts, and what any object will do when moving in a space is to adapt to least energy expended, meaning that it will follow a geodesic (free fall/ weightless). As the universe prefers it that way you could say that for a universe in equilibrium all motion will be 'uniform' .

Electro magnetic energy is 'everywhere' if you like. But it does not leave itself to be observed in the same manner as macroscopic objects. A football will be observed as it comes, a photon will only be observed as it annihilates/interacts. That leaves you two ways to define EM. From a point of 'propagating' or just from a point of 'interacting'. Most theories today treat it as 'propagating' and so we find ourselves in a quagmire of definitions when it comes to its duality waves/particles containing a plethora of extremely confusing and clever theories. If you define EM as it actually is then it is 'everywhere' but there is 'nothing' propagating as such, instead you have something directly coupled to 'times arrow' that will present you with a effect that you directly can translate into 'propagation'.

A football is in some ways also a bundle of 'photons' as it is those that will define the football to your eyes, as it moves in the air. But invariant mass and energy/photons is not the absolute same, and that you prove each time you lift your cup looking down at the 'light' dancing on its surfaces.

[Ken Hughes]

Hi Yor_on,

It seems we completely agree on space being totally............. NOTHING!

That's great because it is the first assumption in my new theory which I cannot discuss here. (Yeah, I know, everyone's got a theory, but one may be true!)(Yeah, I know everyone thinks their theory is true, but that still doesn't mean that one (or more) of them can't be)

I do not agree with you that gravity is the only thing in space, although we very nearly do agree.

It is TIME that is the only reality in space, not gravity, but then, since Newtonian gravitation can be regarded as the curvature of time,(this is mainstream), I think it could be said that we agree on this also.

Oh, and by the way, we do have a way of distinguishing one point in space from another and that is by comparing the passage of time between each frame. (ie, the time rate in one frame of reference compared to the time rate in another. Mainstream scince agrees they are different)

In other words, space-time is the time rate field within the void.

I don't think I've strayed from the mainstream.

Oh, and another thing, space cannot exist on its own, not without the passage of time. Therefore we have our space-time continuum.

[yor_on]

Yep time is most important
Without it no causality.

Without causality no motion.
==

As for the way you want to narrow it down to 'time'.
I don't know? Go to 'New Theories' and define what you think

I see 'time' as one of the most confusing phenomena I know.
But 'times arrow' seems also to be a property directly coupled to 'SpaceTime'.
And it and radiation keeps the same count, to me that is

They goes hand in hand, both being 'constants' from your own 'frame of reference'.
Then there is one more thing, we need to differ between 'conceptual truths' and those we actually can measure first handedly. A conceptual truth is a 'time dilation' to me. A measurable truth is that at no time will you find your time to differ, using your wrist watch against your heartbeats for example

But write it up in New Theories, and we will see.

[Ken Hughes]

Hi again Yor_on,

It's all written down in my new book, which I am not allowed to advertise here.

By the way, your comment about time dilation being unmeasurable is incorrect. I agree that WITHIN your frame, your clock rate will never change whether you speed off at "c" or land on a black hole (these are the limits). BUT, relative to other frames your clock certainly DOES change its rate. This IS measureable (Hafele & Keating 1971)
This is all mainstream

[yor_on]

You didn't get what I said Ken. I said it was a 'conceptual truth'. It can be confirmed by a twin experiment but at no time will any of the 'frames of reference' find their own 'time' to start behave differently. That's what make it into a 'conceptual truth'.

You have the measurements you can do, and then you have 'frames of reference'.
Try to see what I mean.
==

Btw: You're not using this site to advertise your book, are you?
Because if you are then you're at the wrong place. TNS has a rather strict policy not allowing 'self aggrandizing'. It's mostly a place for questions and discussions

As for no 'frame of reference' being the 'exact same' it's been shown beautifully with two atomic clocks, putting one on the floor relative the other still being on a table. And in television no less So I have no arguments with that. But if we define you as having only one '¨frame of reference', then that also mean that although you will see the 'clock ticks' start to differ between the floor and the table, your own 'frame of reference' still only will have one same 'clock tick', defined by ? Pick your choice.

[Ken Hughes]

Yor_on,

Maybe your reply was a little hasty?

If you read my previous response, it is very clear that I do indeed understand what you are saying. "You'll never see any difference in your clock from WITHIN your frame of reference". This we agree on, right?

BUT........ by definition, "Time Dilation" is the RELATIVE change of time rate between frames of reference at different gravitational potentials and/or in relative motion. This is not just a conceptual thing, it is REAL and was proved in 1971 and subsequently.

[yor_on]

Let me ask you a question, if you went out tomorrow and finding all people one year older than before your coffee break, would you then assume that it was you or them changing? As you drank that coffee? Let's assume that none of those comparing ever found their own time behaving 'different' for this.

And then change view, assume that you were one of those guys being one year older, watching 'you'. Would you then assume that it had been you 'accelerating' your time, or would you assume it was the 'other guy slowing down'?

A time dilation is a effect between 'frames of reference'. It will always be a arbitrarily defined 'system' in where one part, for example making a acceleration, introduce a different 'room time' relative it's counterpart (& origin) by that acceleration. Without another 'frame of reference' to compare that 'time dilation' against there will be no measurable proof, no matter your acceleration, or mass, or energy..

And so it is 'real', but on the conceptual plane. As the guy traveling, your time do not 'change', but your 'positional system' in time and space/room will relative all other comparisons.

[Ken Hughes]

Hi Yor_on,

It doesn't matter what I might think from either frame of reference, or what others might think from theirs. The fact is that the moving frame's clock (or the one that has been in a low gravitational potential), has lost time relative to the frame it left behind.  This effect is not due to acceleration, but only to the amount of time it spent in the different frame and the difference in time rates between the frames. This is standard Special Relativity. I am not changing it or presenting it any differently than Albert Einstein.

I would be interested to know what you think about length contraction. Do you think this is the same as time dilation, or more real or less real?

[yor_on]

Yes, we agree on that the frames of reference have changed relative each other
But, where did you think the change came about?

Assume that we have three observers. One on Earth, two 'alien observers/spacecrafts' in space.
For this we will use Earth as the 'inertial frame', defining their speeds.

Then assume that both space farer's are moving uniformly. From Earths perspective we don't need to know if they ever accelerated to measure their 'speed', relative our 'inertial earth frame' that is.

Will they see a Lorentz contraction? Will both of the aliens observe the other space-crafts 'clock' to go slower than their own? Will they have a time dilation? What will define that 'time dilation'?

In a uniform motion all motion becomes unmeasurable inside a 'black box scenario'. You trying to measure the infalling light from a lightbulb situated at the front of your ships 'motion' will find it to have no blue shift as you measure it at the aft. You will also find yourself weightless, following a geodesic. This effect and that you will find all experiments, at least all I can think up, giving you the same outcomes, no matter your 'speed' as measured by earth, or for that sake anywhere else, give all uniform speeds the same equivalence to me. They are all 'at rest' relative gravity, becoming inseparable from 'standing still' inside that room.

But we both expect a time dilation, don't we
And we both expect a Lorentz contraction.

There are no 'inertial frames' that won't have a 'gravitational acceleration', as long as we're discussing something made from matter. And in that way all three can be defined as being 'inertial frames'. Each one of them can define themselves, when doing a direct measurement on any of the other frames, as either moving with the other one being still, or anything in between, all the way up to themselves being the one not moving.

So where did that time dilation get 'created', relative what?

[Ken Hughes]

Yor_on,

There is insufficient information to answer the questions so I will cover the situations I think you are getting at. (I ignore gravity and concentrate on relative motion) ;-

1. The two alien space craft are moving together, in the same direction at the same speed and therefore have no relative motion between them. In this case, the Earth observer will see both space ship's clocks slowed down by the same amount due to their equal speed relative to the Earth. Both Alien observers will see NO time dilation from the other craft, but SR predicts they will see time dilation of Earth clocks to the same degree as the Earth observer sees for their clocks.
2. The two alien craft are both moving at the same speed as before, but now in opposite directions, passing one another. Now they will observe time dilation for each other's clock but greater than previously observed by the Earth observer due to their doubled relative speed. The Earth observer will see the same time dilation as previously for both craft.

I see exactly where the time dilation comes from in each case. It is the time dilation due to relative motion and is quantified by Lorentz.

Is there anything I haven't covered?

Actually, yes there is. I have neglected the Earth's time dilation due to its gravitational field and that will have an effect on all observations of objects higher up in the field. Locations higher up in space at the alien craft positions will have a faster clock than on Earth. So, if we start with the crafts having faster clocks due to their elevation and then slow them down due to their motion, we get the resulting time dilation (or quickening) for the craft as observed from Earth.
From the craft's frames, observing the Earth, and for both options above, they will first see the gravitational redshift (that's what we're talking about), then they will see the redshift or time dilation due to the relative motion added to this.
The observations between the craft remain unaffected by the Earth's time dilation field, unless they are at different elevations.

I think that covers it

[yor_on]

It's fun laboring with it, ain't it

And yes, you have about the same conclusions as me there. The point here being that we're discussing a 'uniform motion', inseparable from being at rest in a black box scenario. Now assume the two alien ships to have a different uniform 'speed' as defined by Earth. Then look at the time dilations. They will be differently defined for each one of them, relative each one of them it will differ too. The clocks though, as measured of the others ships-clock/earth etc will still be equivalently slow, not caring of whom is really 'moving'.

So, how do the universe keep count?
And, what defines motion?



 

[yor_on]

The question can be stated as. Do the universe have a 'gold standard' of 'time'? If it has then all of those frames described can be expected to be 'time dilated' versus that standard. If it doesn't then all 'time dilations' will be arbitrarily defined. That mean that the only way you can discuss a 'time dilation' will be by a direct comparison, as in the twin experiment, or by watching those atomic clocks differ on the table relative the floor. The other point is that we actually seem to have a 'ground state' as shown in that there is no way to define any 'temporal change' in your own 'frame of reference' no matter if you're moving close to the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, ignoring really, really, hard radiation and tidal forces.

So, how do time and motion go together? The hard radiation will come through your 'relative motion' right And the different 'time dilations' you will have, simultaneously, as defined per what object you 'measure yourself' arriving to conclusions of different speeds will still be there. And lastly, that time you really have measured for living your life, by fate or (..insert word of choice doesn't really care about that motion, neither about that mass or energy. It is the same measure wherever you are.

[Ken Hughes]

It seems I am unable to post

[Ken Hughes]

At least, to post the message I wanted

[Ken Hughes]

Here goes again

[Ken Hughes]

Nope ! It's no use, it seems my message has been prevented from being posted. I don't know why.
Any suggestions?

[Ken Hughes]

I get an error message saying there were the following errors  but no list of errors