Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?

  • 203 Replies
  • 6994 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #100 on: 15/08/2016 18:30:32 »
It is interesting to note the use of combined arcsine and cosine with respect to the Winger rotation. I am currently exploring similar areas but not involving relativity. I may divert my attention soon to this subject.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #101 on: 15/08/2016 19:29:02 »
Mr. Cooper stumbled upon an interesting feature of relativity theory.

He certainly did, and he showed that different frames produce different physics.

Quote
One day, if he learns to do SR, he may actually be able to incorporate this into his JavaScript program. I wish him the best of luck and health on this.

He's the one doing SR properly and it's other people who need to catch up with where he has moved physics on to, in particular those who imagine that an order of events at point K or M can be changed at the wave of a wand by changing frame of reference and whispering "hocus pocus".

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner_rotation

Now, what's all this about? Are you trying to suggest that if I start at rest in Frame A and then race off northwards to be at rest in Frame B instead, when I then send my squares along my east-west-aligned rails which I have taken with me they will behave differently from a rocket launched from rest in Frame A to end up co-moving with my squares which are now racing along between Rails B and B2 such that they have rotated out of alignment with the rails rather than simply taking up the same rhombus shape? Well, if they do that, they're still demonstrating different physics from what we would see when running squares along between Rails A and A2 which (the rails) are at rest in Frame A - no such rotations or distortions which change the angles of square/rectangle edges occur there. However, in reality they have no choice other than to be length contracted in the NW-SW direction, no matter what kind of rotation you might be adding to them (whether rightly or more likely wrongly).

PhysBang has gone pop and is clutching at straws, but, fortunately for him, no one knows his real name so this is of no consequence - he has no need to fear about his reputation as he can discard it like a snake shedding its skin, and that leaves him free to insult and attempt to belittle a superior mind. Still, this non-collinear boost stuff is an interesting idea which we can explore properly once my program is up and running. We'll then be doing the job properly by performing all actions exclusively in Frame A before looking to see how those events appear in other frames rather than applying wrong physics in other frames in the mistaken belief that things work the same way there.

I see PhysBang hasn't shared his calculations for the arangement of things in Frame A when the rails are moving north instead of co-moving with the rhombus. I wonder if he's bothered to do them at all. Well, if not, he could always just use his existing calculations and reverse them east-west to draw the rails as they would try to align themselves if they were moving through Frame B in the opposite direction to the rhombus instead of co-moving with it - that'll make the corners stick even further out beyond the rails. Still, I'm sure he'll keep finding more voodoo to go on tricking himself into thinking that he understands how a square peg can fill a round hole. The rest of us can concentrate on doing real physics.
« Last Edit: 15/08/2016 19:53:45 by David Cooper »

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #102 on: 15/08/2016 22:52:27 »
Now, what's all this about? Are you trying to suggest that if I start at rest in Frame A and then race off northwards to be at rest in Frame B instead, when I then send my squares along my east-west-aligned rails which I have taken with me they will behave differently from a rocket launched from rest in Frame A to end up co-moving with my squares which are now racing along between Rails B and B2 such that they have rotated out of alignment with the rails rather than simply taking up the same rhombus shape?
No. What happens is that the rail is no longer oriented in such a way as to produce the kind of motion that you imagine. The composition of velocities and directions is not a simple linear combination.


Quote
Well, if they do that, they're still demonstrating different physics from what we would see when running squares along between Rails A and A2 which (the rails) are at rest in Frame A - no such rotations or distortions which change the angles of square/rectangle edges occur there. However, in reality they have no choice other than to be length contracted in the NW-SW direction, no matter what kind of rotation you might be adding to them (whether rightly or more likely wrongly).
SR is different than Galilean relativity.

Quote
I see PhysBang hasn't shared his calculations for the arangement of things in Frame A when the rails are moving north instead of co-moving with the rhombus. I wonder if he's bothered to do them at all.
I haven't bothered, since I haven't had the time to work through the Wigner rotation required.

But if you want to make an argument about SR, then I suggest that you use SR rather than just DCR. Because if you just use DCR, then you are a crank.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #103 on: 15/08/2016 23:26:30 »
No. What happens is that the rail is no longer oriented in such a way as to produce the kind of motion that you imagine. The composition of velocities and directions is not a simple linear combination.

You've agreed with me on the rhombus shape in Frame A and I've agreed with you on where the rails will be in Frame A if they're co-moving with the rhombus, so you've got a major problem. If you move those rails the opposite way to the rhombus through Frame B, they'll slope the other way in Frame A, and if you have the rails at rest in Frame B, they'll be aligned perfectly east-west in Frame A, so you can't fix the problem of observers K and M encountering objects in an order incompatible with the rhombus fitting between the rails. You're stuffed - you've been blown out of the water and are now an irrelevance.

Quote
SR is different than Galilean relativity.

SR and LET deal with these frames identically when it comes to how things appear in their Euclidean metrics, and I'm doing LET (which SR is forced to conform to, and that means I'm also doing all the relevant parts of SR).

Quote
I haven't bothered, since I haven't had the time to work through the Wigner rotation required.

All you need to do is work out how those rails are aligned in the Frame A diagram, and that's no harder than any of the other things you've already worked out. Tip: there's no double boost involved, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Quote
But if you want to make an argument about SR, then I suggest that you use SR rather than just DCR. Because if you just use DCR, then you are a crank.

If you can't see that SR has to conform to everything I'm doing here, you're the crank. You showed that you were unable to produce a different shape for the rhombus from mine, and the way you calculated that will work just fine for calculating that the rails will cross the Frame A diagram perpendicular to their direction of travel. All you have to do then is put the rhombus over the rails and see if the corners stick out beyond the rails, which they do, at which point the observers at K and M will tell you that the objects pass you in an order incompatible with the square fitting between the rails and you realise that that order can't be changed by any valid transformation to another frame. But still you can't see that and instead go on making yourself look more and more ridiculous. If that's your speciality though, that's great - everyone should have an ambition to be great at something.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #104 on: 16/08/2016 13:08:45 »
if you have the rails at rest in Frame B, they'll be aligned perfectly east-west in Frame A,
Well, no. Because of the correction for time, at any moment simultaneous in Frame A the tracks will be at an angle. This is an aspect of the relativity of simultaneity that you just aren't taking into account.

Quote
SR and LET deal with these frames identically when it comes to how things appear in their Euclidean metrics, and I'm doing LET (which SR is forced to conform to, and that means I'm also doing all the relevant parts of SR).
I'm not sure what "LET" is supposed to be, but you are using DCR.

Quote
Quote
I haven't bothered, since I haven't had the time to work through the Wigner rotation required.

All you need to do is work out how those rails are aligned in the Frame A diagram, and that's no harder than any of the other things you've already worked out. Tip: there's no double boost involved, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
Says the person who can't work out where the rails will be because he can't work out when the rails will be. If you are speaking of trying to sync up moving W-E in a frame moving S-N in order to get a motion that is SW-NE, then you are speaking of a double boost.

Quote
If you can't see that SR has to conform to everything I'm doing here, you're the crank.
Yes, I agree that I am being a crank by refusing to include the time parameter and refusing to do actual transformations and instead just using a series of shortcuts.

Oh, wait, I'm not the one refusing to use SR. So who is the crank again?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #105 on: 16/08/2016 17:37:29 »
if you have the rails at rest in Frame B, they'll be aligned perfectly east-west in Frame A,
Well, no. Because of the correction for time, at any moment simultaneous in Frame A the tracks will be at an angle. This is an aspect of the relativity of simultaneity that you just aren't taking into account.

The angle's perpendicular to the direction of travel when the rails are moving north. You are determined to try to have them co-moving with the rhombus because it's the only thing you can do to keep them aligned with the edges of the rhombus, but even if I allow you to do that, what are you going to do when I send another square NW so that it becomes a rhombus aligned the other way and doesn't fit between your tilted rails? Are you going to have the rails co-moving with that at the same time as they're co-moving with the first rhombus?

Quote
I'm not sure what "LET" is supposed to be, but you are using DCR.

LET is Lorentz Ether Theory, as you ought to have learned as part of your training. The rules of how things behave in the Euclidean metric of a frame and how they appear in other frames is described both by LET and by SR. If the LET approach is used to create diagrams, SR must produce matching diagrams if it isn't to have objects violating the rules. For example, if you want a square at rest in Frame B to be given an eastward shove such that it's co-moving with the rhombus on the rocket, it has to obey the same rules of time dilation and length contraction so as to avoid having a different speed of light operate for it, and that means it must take up the same shape (unless it has somehow rotated, but even then it must have the same amount of length contraction and time dilation applied to it).

Quote
Says the person who can't work out where the rails will be because he can't work out when the rails will be. If you are speaking of trying to sync up moving W-E in a frame moving S-N in order to get a motion that is SW-NE, then you are speaking of a double boost.

You know full well that the rails are not moving east or west at all, but purely north, so there is no double boost. You're turning into a troll - all you're doing now is polluting a thread by dumping your garbage in it.

Quote
Yes, I agree that I am being a crank by refusing to include the time parameter and refusing to do actual transformations and instead just using a series of shortcuts.

Oh, wait, I'm not the one refusing to use SR. So who is the crank again?

Yet again you claim I'm not including the time parameter, and yet it's inherent to the diagrams that time is identical for every point shown on them, so you're just repeating a well-worn lie, and that's trolling. You're also flinging the "crank" word again where it isn't warranted, so again you're trolling. The transformations you want me to use are not some kind of holy cow - they are derived from something, and I derive my methods from the same source and produce identical numbers as results, so again you're trolling. Everything I'm doing, SR is required to conform with it it isn't to have more than one speed of light acting within a frame, so again you're trolling. The so-called shortcuts that I'm using are used by real SR experts as well as by me: If you have a rail at rest in Frame A and you then move it northwards such that it's in rest in Frame B, it maintains its east-west alignment because every part of it is accelerated at the same time by Frame A's clocks and by Frame B's clocks which are all synchronised in the east-west direction such that no tilt can be imparted to the rail during this acceleration - you don't need to reach for a calculator to work that out.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #106 on: 16/08/2016 18:06:46 »
The angle's perpendicular to the direction of travel when the rails are moving north. You are determined to try to have them co-moving with the rhombus because it's the only thing you can do to keep them aligned with the edges of the rhombus, but even if I allow you to do that, what are you going to do when I send another square NW so that it becomes a rhombus aligned the other way and doesn't fit between your tilted rails? Are you going to have the rails co-moving with that at the same time as they're co-moving with the first rhombus?
You aren't going to do anything, because you aren't going to work out the time coordinates. Because you are a crank.

Quote
LET is Lorentz Ether Theory, as you ought to have learned as part of your training.
No, I have no training in being a crank; I do not know what crazy acronyms a crank is going to use.

Quote
The rules of how things behave in the Euclidean metric of a frame and how they appear in other frames is described both by LET and by SR. If the LET approach is used to create diagrams, SR must produce matching diagrams if it isn't to have objects violating the rules. For example, if you want a square at rest in Frame B to be given an eastward shove such that it's co-moving with the rhombus on the rocket, it has to obey the same rules of time dilation and length contraction so as to avoid having a different speed of light operate for it, and that means it must take up the same shape (unless it has somehow rotated, but even then it must have the same amount of length contraction and time dilation applied to it).
And LET has to use time dilation and relative simultaneity between frames of reference just like SR does. You don't get to ignore the rules of LET.

Quote
You know full well that the rails are not moving east or west at all, but purely north, so there is no double boost. You're turning into a troll - all you're doing now is polluting a thread by dumping your garbage in it.
The second boost is to the square, which has to get one boost to match the frame of the tracks and then to follow the tracks. Do you not realize that the square is moving relative to both frames you are imagining?

Quote
Yet again you claim I'm not including the time parameter, and yet it's inherent to the diagrams that time is identical for every point shown on them, so you're just repeating a well-worn lie, and that's trolling.
Cranks love to claim that people asking them for the proper scientific rigor are trolling. I agree that time is inherent in the diagrams, which is why you produce bad diagrams.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #107 on: 16/08/2016 19:19:45 »
You aren't going to do anything, because you aren't going to work out the time coordinates. Because you are a crank.

When time is the same for all objects in a Frame A diagram, the time coordinates for all points are known, and you're still trolling.

Quote
No, I have no training in being a crank; I do not know what crazy acronyms a crank is going to use.

You clearly don't need any training in being a crank, and LET should be well known to any real expert in relativity.

Quote
And LET has to use time dilation and relative simultaneity between frames of reference just like SR does. You don't get to ignore the rules of LET.

I don't ignore them - everything I do conforms to those rules and to the relevant parts of SR, as you found when you calculated the shape of the rhombus and discovered that I'd got it right.

Quote
The second boost is to the square, which has to get one boost to match the frame of the tracks and then to follow the tracks. Do you not realize that the square is moving relative to both frames you are imagining?

You do not have two boosts to pin down what Rails B and B2 are doing as they're moving north through Frame A and only take an acceleration in one direction to get them from rest to relativistic speed in that direction. Likewise, you do not have two boosts to pin down what the square does when you accelerate it from rest to relativistic speed in the direction NE. You can therefore calculate with absolute ease how these items will appear in Frame A diagrams, and to claim that you need two boosts to find the arrangement of either of those rails or the rocket (with the square on it which now appears as a rhombus) is plain wrong. For a square being sent along the rails subsequently, it's another issue, but any rotation that you imagine is magically going to appear on it is going to put it out of alignment with the rails, so again that shows different physics for different frames.

Quote
Cranks love to claim that people asking them for the proper scientific rigor are trolling. I agree that time is inherent in the diagrams, which is why you produce bad diagrams.

When you go through your fancy maths to calculate where things appear in Frame A diagrams, you produce diagrams identical to mine, or you would do if you didn't try to cheat by having the rails co-moving with the rhombus. You are a cheat, a crank and a troll.
« Last Edit: 16/08/2016 19:50:29 by David Cooper »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #108 on: 16/08/2016 21:55:08 »
MOD Stop the childish nonsense or I will lock this thread.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #109 on: 16/08/2016 22:25:24 »
You do not have two boosts to pin down what Rails B and B2 are doing as they're moving north through Frame A and only take an acceleration in one direction to get them from rest to relativistic speed in that direction. Likewise, you do not have two boosts to pin down what the square does when you accelerate it from rest to relativistic speed in the direction NE. You can therefore calculate with absolute ease how these items will appear in Frame A diagrams, and to claim that you need two boosts to find the arrangement of either of those rails or the rocket (with the square on it which now appears as a rhombus) is plain wrong. For a square being sent along the rails subsequently, it's another issue, but any rotation that you imagine is magically going to appear on it is going to put it out of alignment with the rails, so again that shows different physics for different frames.
The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that the square sent off at an angle is equivalent to the square set off along the rails of the second frame. This is not necessarily the case, since no work has been done to show that they are the same; the composition of velocities in SR is not the same as the composition of velocities in Galilean Relativity, no matter how much someone invokes "Euclidean metric" over and over again.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #110 on: 17/08/2016 19:25:42 »
The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that the square sent off at an angle is equivalent to the square set off along the rails of the second frame. This is not necessarily the case, since no work has been done to show that they are the same; the composition of velocities in SR is not the same as the composition of velocities in Galilean Relativity, no matter how much someone invokes "Euclidean metric" over and over again.

First you need to understand why length contraction occurs, so let's look at that now and then see how it dictates the shape that the square being sent along the rails must try to take up:-

(1) Start with four rockets sitting at rest in frame A in a square configuration. We'll call these rockets C, D, E and F, and they are sitting on the corners of a square which has its edges aligned north-south and east-west. C is sitting on the NW corner of the square, D on the NE corner, E on the SE corner and F on the SW corner. Now let's move them: all of them simultaneously (by their clocks which are synchronised for Frame A) accelerate to 0.866c northwards and then maintain that speed. Even once they are up to that speed, Frame A observers will continue to measure them as being arranged in a square formation - there has been no length contraction applied to this square, although each rocket has contracted to half its rest length.

(2) The crew on the rockets now decide to take up what looks like a square configuration to them, so C and D, the front two, slow down a little while F and E (the rear two) speed up a bit until they are satisfied that they are the right distance apart, at which point C and D speed up a bit again and F and E slow down a bit so that this correct separation can be maintained from now on. Frame A observers will now measure the formation of rockets as a rectangle which is half as long north-south as it is east-west: it is only now that it has been length-contracted to half its rest length.

(3) If these rockets are extremely small and they're crewed by tiny robots, we can have them fly over the corners of one of our standard 1m x 1m squares (made of some kind of rigid material, so let's just say it's metal - the atoms of this material are in constant communication through forces which determine their separation). C, D, E and F are now holding station over the corners of one of our squares between Rails B and B2, and it's co-moving with them as they travel directly north. We'll call this square Square B. Square B has been length contracted by its high-speed movement northwards, and the rockets have been length contracted to the same extent by trying to take up what looks to them like a square configuration. We can have another set of rockets G, H, I and J doing the same thing over a square which is at rest in Frame A, sitting between Rails A and A2, and this one will be called Square A.

(4) If we send Square A eastwards, what happens to it? (We're back to looking at the square that's at rest in Frame A.) It will length contract in the east-west direction. The Frame B view of Square A will be a parallelogram with two of its sides parallel to the rails. If we send rockets G, H, I and J eastwards too, they will also have a formation which looks like a parallelogram to Frame B observers, but this formation will not length-contract until these rockets decide to make adjustments to keep their formation looking like a square to them, and then it will contract to the same shape as Square A.

(5) Now lets do the same with our square at rest in Frame B. If we send Square B eastwards without removing the northward component of its movement, we can accelerate it to a speed which results in it co-moving with our original rocket. This rocket never had a name, so I'll now call it Rocket R - this is the rocket with a square painted on it. In different versions of the thought experiment this rocket moves at different angles through Frame A, but since I've chosen 0.866c for the northward vector of its movement, the eastward one can be 0.433 again and the square painted on it will now appear to Frame A observers as having a parallelogram shape with none of its edges aligned with the rails. That shape is the one that the material in Square B should now try to take up in order to conform to the same length-contraction that is acting on Rocket R. You are suggesting though that it doesn't need to conform to that and can hold some other shape instead, but if you try to do that there will be serious consequences.

(6) We haven't looked at what our rockets C, D, E and F do when they're given the same movement eastwards as Square B (again without losing the component of their speed taking them northwards). If C, D, E and F have not resynchronised their clocks for Frame B and still have them set for Frame A, they will all accelerate simultaniously from the point of view of Frame A observers and will remain in a rectangle formation, but since these rockets have adjusted their positions to try to make their formation look like a square to themselves, they really ought to have resynchronised their clocks for Frame B. If they've done this, rockets F and E will move off first (from the point of view of Frame A observers), while C and D will move off a moment later, and the result of this will be that Frame A observers will see their formation turn into a parallelogram with its sides parallel to Rails B and B2. This will be a mirror image of what Frame B observers see of rockets G, H, I and J accelerating off from rest in Frame A, so that makes it look as if all frames behave like a preferred frame of reference. However, when rockets C, D, E and F then try to make their formation look like a square again once they're up to speed, they are dealing with length-contraction acting on them at an angle 26.56 degrees east of north - as a consequence, they will automatically take up the same formation as the corners of the shape painted on Rocket R. Square B will attempt to take up that same shape too, and if the rails prevent it from doing so it will warp and break under the stresses being applied to it. Alternatively though, if Square B is sitting over the space between the rails rather than directly between them, it will simply adjust its shape until it matches the one on Rocket R.

You want to believe that Square B can hold some other shape than the one on Rocket R, but it can only do that if it's under stress to hold it in a shape it doesn't naturally want to take up. You believe that no such stresses will be put on it though and that it will just happily maintain a different shape from the one on Rocket B, but that doesn't work because it means you need to have a different speed of light operating across these objects, and that means breaking the speed limit for light in Frame A on Square B unless it takes up the same shape as the square painted on Rocket R. The speed of light is fixed in the Euclidean geometry of Frame A and it cannot be violated by an object behaving in ways that depend on a higher speed of light for them within Frame A.

In short, you're breaking the fundamental rules of SR by trying to have Square B take up a different shape from the square painted on Rocket R. And if you're breaking those rules because you're applying other rules that are officially part of SR, then those rules are incorrect and need to be thrown out of SR on the basis that they produce contradictions relating the the speed of light in Frame A. The fundamental rules of SR are the ones that I'm applying (the ones that were taken from LET), and they are the ones that aren't going to be thrown out.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #111 on: 17/08/2016 19:51:58 »


Quote
(3) If these rockets are extremely small and they're crewed by tiny robots, we can have them fly over the corners of one of our standard 1m x 1m squares (made of some kind of rigid material, so let's just say it's metal - the atoms of this material are in constant communication through forces which determine their separation). C, D, E and F are now holding station over the corners of one of our squares between Rails B and B2, and it's co-moving with them as they travel directly north.
Maybe. You have to establish that this does, in fact, line up this way. The composition of velocities in Galilean relativity suggests that they do, but it is not clear that this happens in SR.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #112 on: 18/08/2016 08:07:00 »
I've found something I didn't think would ever be possible, but it looks as if there may be a way to pin down an absolute frame of reference.

Imagine a disc lying flat with four points marked on the circumference, N, E, S and W (for the four compass directions). We will move the disc northwards in a moment while rotating it clockwise, but let's first spin it up to speed without moving it along through space. I want to spin it until the edge is moving at 0.866c relative to the centre, a speed at which length contraction should act on the edge in such a way as to halve its length. If we also sandwich our rotating disc between two non-rotating discs of equal size we can eliminate all the non-Euclidean SR distractions by imposing a tight Euclidean metric upon our rotating disc in the middle of the sandwich and use that to lay down the law about how the rotating disc must behave in that space.

We can see that there is no longer enough material in our rotating disc to fill the whole space between the non-rotating discs, so it must stretch or break. Let's assume it splits and leaves us with gap in it, the gap being much wider the further out you go from the centre as the length contraction becomes more severe. It turns out then that we're going to  need to mend our disc once it's been spun up to the target speed so as to fill in the gap, and it's only after that that will we have a complete disc rotating at our target speed. This appears to go against some of the teachings of SR in relation to the behaviour of rotating discs, but it doesn't go against the rules as to how SR works for things moving in straight lines, and we can show that the two things are actually equivalent, which means that many of the existing ideas about how rotating discs behave are wrong.

Any rocket following a tangent to our rotating disc at 0.866c must display length contraction to half its rest length, and this must be matched by the material in the edge of the disc as they move side by side for a moment. That means that the edge of the disc must appear length contracted and cannot possibly fill the space all the way round the space demarcated for it by the two non-rotating discs. We can also eliminate most of the change in direction of the material in the disc's edge by using a disc of a diameter measured in billions of lightyears across, which means that the material in the disc's edge will be moving at the same speed and in the same direction as the material in the rocket flying past at a tangent to the disc not merely for an instant, but for many hours with the material in the disc edge and the rocket potentially being side by side and only a micron apart throughout that time - this is more than long enough to rule out any role for accelerations in breaking the normal rules of length contraction and time dilation. So, we can show that a rotating disc cannot behave the way that most SR experts claim it does: it turns out that they have been breaking some of the most fundamental rules of SR.

Our next step is to move the whole disc, and we want it to move at 0.866c northwards. By the way, our non rotating discs are transparent, so we can see the rotating disc through them, and our N, E, S, W markers are printed on the non-rotating discs, so N is always the leading point of the discs as they move through space, while S is the point most aft. Once we are moving our disc sandwich along at 0.866c, the material in our rotating disc starts to behave in unexpected ways, bunching up as it moves slowly past point W and whipping back past point E with all length contraction removed there. At point E the material is not moving in the frame of reference we're using as the base for all our measurements, but at point W it is moving northwards at 0.99c and the local length contraction is to 1/7. (To calculate this speed and length contraction at point W, I imagined a rocket moving north at 0.866c and firing a missile ahead at 0.866c from its point of view, and so in our reference frame that works out at 0.99c - that rocket must behave the same way as the material at the edge of the disc where the rocket may travel alongside it for a while as it follows a tangent to the disc at that point.) Our non-rotating discs have length-contraction applying across them exclusively in the NS direction, reducing all measurements running that way to 1/2 of their rest lengths, so the discs' shapes are now elliptical with the NS diameter half the length of the EW diameter. The rotating disc should match that shape if the idea of relativity is correct, but the length contractions on the material of the rotating disc and directions in which it contracts will be different in places, and it's in exploring this that I've found something that I thought couldn't happen.

The key thing is what happens at points N and S. The material there is moving at 0.968c (which can be broken down into two vectors: it's moving north at 0.866c, and it's moving sideways at 0.433c) which means that the length contraction will make the material sit four times as close together in its direction of travel as it would do at rest, and this contraction acts at an angle of 63.4 degrees forwards of the EW line. (I worked out the 0.433c figure by thinking about how a light clock aligned EW would work here: the light in it would actually move at 60 degrees ahead of sideways, and that reduces its progress between points E and W to half, so the same halving will apply to anything else moving from E to W and back.) The component of this contraction to 1/4 is greater in the NS direction than the length contraction in the non-rotating discs at points N and S (which is to 1/2), and that's the crucial thing here - this means it must pull the rotating disc in more at N and S than the non-rotating discs, so their shapes will no longer match up in the way they do when the apparatus is not moving along through space - the sandwich filling can no longer fill the whole space between the outer discs. On the non-rotating discs we have length contraction to 1/2 of the rest length all the way from N to S. On the rotating disc we only have that amount of length contraction at the very centre of the line NS: at all other points on the line NS we have more length contraction than that (running in the NS direction). That means that SR must have a theoretically identifiable preferred/absolute frame of referrence.

Again we can send a rocket at 0.968c over point N or S at the same angle as the material of the disc there is moving to illustrate that it must contract in exactly the same way in the disc as it does in the rocket, and by giving our disc a huge diameter measured in the billions of lightyears, we can reduce all the pesky accelerations caused by the rotation to such a low level that they can be ignored (while reducing the centrifugal forces to the point of irrelevance at the same time) - the material in the disc can now be thought of as moving in almost perfectly straight lines while we're comparing its behaviour with that of the material in the rockets which are temporarily co-moving with it.

Hmm , just no, the preferred frame of reference already exists, the frame is a 1 dimensional sphere of free space. i.e the ''invisible'' whole.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Wild Goose Chase
« Reply #113 on: 20/08/2016 18:41:01 »
It's the rotation right enough: PhysBang got that one thing right (while tripping over everything else) and it looks as if it is the key to resolving everything. So, given that I may have likely misled a few people, I will now correct things and show them what actually happens.

Quote
(6) We haven't looked at what our rockets C, D, E and F do when they're given the same movement eastwards as Square B (again without losing the component of their speed taking them northwards). If C, D, E and F have not resynchronised their clocks for Frame B and still have them set for Frame A, they will all accelerate simultaniously from the point of view of Frame A observers and will remain in a rectangle formation,...

That bit was right, and when the rockets then reorganise to make their formation look like a square to them, they would take up the same shape as the square painted on Rocket R.

Quote
...but since these rockets have adjusted their positions to try to make their formation look like a square to themselves, they really ought to have resynchronised their clocks for Frame B. If they've done this, rockets F and E will move off first (from the point of view of Frame A observers), while C and D will move off a moment later, and the result of this will be that Frame A observers will see their formation turn into a parallelogram with its sides parallel to Rails B and B2.

And that is the rotation happening right there with the southern rockets moving off first - I thought such rotation was impossible, but I can now see that it must happen because of the way the material is distributed. So, when they adjust position to make their formation look square to them, they do take up a different shape from the one painted on Rocket R, and it is a stable one that puts the material under no stress. It takes up the same shape that the square painted on Rocket R would have if that square was painted (when at rest in Frame A) with the edges not running north-south and east-west, but rotated anticlockwise a bit (perhaps 22.5 degrees for the version of the thought experiment that involved a rhombus). When Rocket R flies over Rails B and B2 now, the shape fits between them with two of its edges parallel to the rails. At least, I think it will, but I'll have to finish writing the program to make sure.

That leads things back to the original thought experiment in post #1 with the rotating disc. If the problem is resolved for things moving in straight lines, it seems likely that it is also resolved for the material at the edge of the disc, and that's another reason to finish writing the program - I want to start with a circle and then add a series of outer rings to it by bringing rockets in to touch the edge while following tangents to the circle, the rockets of each ring moving at a higher speed, and then I want to view it from a different frame to see how some lengthen and others contract further, while some will have length contraction applied at interesting angles. On switching frame though, the timings for the rockets kissing the edge of the circle will vary and they will no longer be in a chain of contact with each other all the way round, so they'll need to lock together and then to rotate around the inner circle for some time in order to provide views from other frames that show them all linked up too. Once that is done, it should show that twice as many are needed to complete the circle where their orbital speed is 0.866c than if they were at rest.

It looks then as if relativity survives after all and I was wrong. I'll post a link to the program when it's up and running so that people can use it to explore all the issues raised in this thread.

[The argument made on my webpage still stands though - SR needs Newtonian time added to it in order to function properly, but that's a whole 'nother issue.]

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Wild Goose Chase
« Reply #114 on: 20/08/2016 18:59:49 »
I'm happy that by asking questions and demanding rigor we got to the conclusion that there is no problem with SR here. I'm sure that whenever "Newtonian time" is rigorously defined, it too will become a phantom.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #115 on: 20/08/2016 20:51:35 »
There's a major problem with SR all right - it either has to have a preferred frame of reference (which merely can't be identified) or it has to allow events to change over Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations, but that is another discussion. There's an interactive exam on my webpage which will shows people the point where they lose that argument, and no one's found a fault in that. LET will win out.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #116 on: 20/08/2016 20:54:18 »
Ah David - I see that you have come across a hurdle.  As said in pm, I didn't want to interject myself upon your thread at cross purpose to the logic of your initial concept, or put any other poster off via my involvement, but I feel that now may be the time its ok to speak.

Under the remit of reference to a Newtonian time, you say that relativity is safe.  However... SR is rather contradictory to the underlying philosophy of Newtonian time...

Since all these length contraction maths are still fresh in your mind, try this on for size if you fancy.

Dispensing with Newtonian time, create 2 scenarios where both are experiencing different SR time dilations, and state the observation each will make of the other reference frame as time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate of time.

With time frames missing from the observation of the other reference frame, will it appear as though a length contraction has occurred?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #117 on: 21/08/2016 23:41:18 »
Ah David - I see that you have come across a hurdle.

It's not a hurdle - there's no way for anything to jump over it unless it can look at the universe from the outside.

Quote
Under the remit of reference to a Newtonian time, you say that relativity is safe.  However... SR is rather contradictory to the underlying philosophy of Newtonian time...

SR and LET are both relativity theories, and any other theory wanting to compete with them will also have to be a relativity theory in order to fit in with how the universe behaves (and how we measure things in it). So long as we can't pin down a preferred frame, relativity survives (even if there is a preferred frame and some other being outside of the universe is able to tell which frame it is). SR attempts to get rid of Newtonian time, but in reality it can't function properly without it as it either generates an infinite number of contradictions or it describes universes in which the future can't be generated out of the past (depending on which version of it you want to use). There are two other models which fix these problems, but in each case they can only do so by adding Newtonian time.

Quote
Since all these length contraction maths are still fresh in your mind, try this on for size if you fancy.

Dispensing with Newtonian time, create 2 scenarios where both are experiencing different SR time dilations, and state the observation each will make of the other reference frame as time frame dependent and proportional to the difference in rate of time.

With time frames missing from the observation of the other reference frame, will it appear as though a length contraction has occurred?

First you'll need to tell me me what a time frame is, and then you'll need to explain how they can go missing from an observation. If you have an alternative theory, you have to be able to generate the same numbers for time dilation and length contraction with it. With the program I'm writing, it will be possible to view "video" of events playing out in any frame of reference, but all the action will be be run behind the scenes in the preferred frame with time ticking at full speed there. When viewing things from other frames, you will see that events run slow in them (though no inhabitant of that universe who is at rest in that frame would realise that it's running slow), and you'll see clocks that are at rest in the preferred frame appear to run even more slowly still, even though you know they are still running at full speed behind the scenes. Whether looking at stills or "video", you will also see length contraction applied to any object that isn't at rest in the selected frame.

Everything that the program shows (or will do once it's finished) must be compatible with every viable model (even though it's based on LET under the surface), so if you want to use an SR interpretation with it, you can assert a number of different things depending on which particular SR model you want to push. With one model you can assert that time doesn't run at all, so the slowing of time in different frames is an illusion. With another model you can assert that time is running fastest for the frame you're viewing from and that all the others are running slower. With another model you can assert that time is running at full speed for all frames and that all the slowing is an illusion. All of them must agree with what appears on the screen though, the way in which time appears to run slow for other frames and how lengths appear to contract. If you have a theory of your own, it too is required to fit in with how things appear on the screen because what is shown must match up with what is measured in the real universe.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #118 on: 22/08/2016 01:28:25 »
SR and LET are both relativity theories, and any other theory wanting to compete with them will also have to be a relativity theory in order to fit in with how the universe behaves (and how we measure things in it). So long as we can't pin down a preferred frame, relativity survives (even if there is a preferred frame and some other being outside of the universe is able to tell which frame it is). SR attempts to get rid of Newtonian time, but in reality it can't function properly without it as it either generates an infinite number of contradictions or it describes universes in which the future can't be generated out of the past (depending on which version of it you want to use). There are two other models which fix these problems, but in each case they can only do so by adding Newtonian time.
I'm sure that this bold and cranky claim will work out just as well as the last one. It certainly has less support.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #119 on: 22/08/2016 03:29:09 »
I read about SR and GR in relation to Newtonian time and the outside of the universe observer in Lee Smolins "The Trouble with Physics"...

I'm sure that we've touched on the matter before, last year sometime.

My model brings the phenomenon of time to reside only within the confines of the universe and it is the mechanics of the universe that cause this phenomenon of time.

My model states the phenomenon of time as being energy related.  Potential energy increases the rate of time, and kinetic energy decreases the rate of time.

(The gravity field decreasing via the inverse square law, or increasing via the square law also has an energy which I attribute to the proposed Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, (previously named inverted gravitational time dilation but changed due to continued misunderstanding as to this referring something existing being inverted)).

What do I mean by time frame dependency:
OK, well to create a visual - time dilation is a change in the rate that sequential events are occurring at...
Now, imagine you are drawing a straight line vertically on a piece of paper.  I ask you to start drawing at the first bell sound, and stop drawing at the second bell sound.  I currently have the first bell in relation to the second bell set to exactly 1 standard second elapsed time...  You are also magically possessed with the ability to draw straight lines, one beside the other, on paper at a constant velocity.

I am now going to extend the time period elapsed between the first bell and the second bell each time the first bell sounds.
You are now drawing a longer straight line each time the second bell sounds.  We continue this way for 25 lines and then I reduce the elapsed time period between first bell and second bell identically reversed to how I increased it for 24 lines.

Because you are computer literate, you have of course drawn these lines on your screen.  You have 49 lines drawn side by side, the beginnings of these vertical lines form a straight horizontal line at top of screen page, and the ends of these vertical lines form a v shape at bottom of screen page.  I now ask you to align your 49 vertical lines so that the ends of the lines form an identical horizontal curve shape at top and bottom of lines.  Your 49 vertical lines should now resemble the shape of an ellipse with straight sides.

Now I am going to ask you to make marks on each of these vertical lines from top of line to bottom of line at regular intervals, so that each line resembles a measuring ruler.  Although not impossible, it is highly improbable that if you laid a ruler horizontally across these marks, that each of the 49 vertical lines 'ruler' marks would join up one after the other to create a straight horizontal line.  The marks would be aligned higgledy piggledy on the horizontal plane...
If this has resulted in a visual for you, I can start explaining observational time frame dependency:

Firstly it must be understood that in my model it is not possible for any part of the universe to travel into the future, or revisit the past, or for any part of the universe to get ahead or lag behind any other part of the universe.  We observe that time runs at different rates though and this is counter intuitive to what I just previously said...

However, I am suggesting that different rates of time can occur simultaneously to each other.  We have two people in the same place.  One person can go somewhere where time is going slower, and another to a place where time is going much faster, but when they meet up again both are in the present, and the only difference is that the person that was experiencing the faster time will have aged faster... (Yes there are a million discussions concerning the effects of journey there and journey back considerations, and of rockets not time meshing properly, but what I've said is enough to continue the observational time frame dependency explanation, so we don't need to go there)...
It would in theory be possible for a mobile phone call to take place between people experiencing noticeably different time dilations, given that GPS were extended, because both parties are, and always will remain, in the present.

Back to the diagram I had you mentally create as a visualisation:
The marks you have made at  regular intervals on the vertical lines are representative of the time frames of the differing time periods that the lengths of the vertical lines represent.  These differing time periods are occurring simultaneously...  Now place your ruler across the horizontal plane and from the top of the first line you drew, draw a horizontal line straight threw to the top of the last line you drew.  Repeat the process at each marker down the first line.  You will see that every other line of differing lengths markers will be split at intervals that have proportions that are all differing with each different length of line.

I am suggesting that the reference frame of the first vertical line you drew (representing a standard second) will only be able to view a proportion of the reference frames of the longer lines, and that the observable proportion of the reference frames of the other lines is evident in the degree of the splitting these horizontal lines are indicating between the markers you made on the vertical lines.  You will be able to repeat the process for each of the vertical lines to work out the observable proportion of the other vertical lines.

With regards to length contraction, would the proportions of the time frames of the reference frame line being observed that are not observable from another reference frames line, amount to the proportion of the expected length contraction as observed from the observing reference frames line?

Right David, I know you are really busy with your AI, which sounds as though it is gaining momentum, so I'm not expecting you to answer this imminently or anything.  I'm a bit sick of off the cuff replies in any case, and to understand this concept of an observable time frame dependency, it requires a bit of thought.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #120 on: 22/08/2016 16:56:31 »
SR attempts to get rid of Newtonian time, but in reality it can't function properly without it as it either generates an infinite number of contradictions or it describes universes in which the future can't be generated out of the past (depending on which version of it you want to use). There are two other models which fix these problems, but in each case they can only do so by adding Newtonian time.
I had no idea what "Newtonian time" is in this context, despite studying Newton a lot.

According to Magic Schoolbook, "In LET the universe has three space dimensions running under a Newtonian time (which is not considered to be a dimension)..." This is just false, since time is always a dimension. What changes in SR is the relationship between the time dimension and the space dimension when applying a metric to space and time and the translations that one applies when moving from one system of coordinates to another.

Magic Schoolbook also says this false thing: "In Einstein's Spacetime, there is no real length contraction, meaning that objects aren't physically contracted by their movement through the fabric of space, and this clearly has to be the case because they can always validly be thought of as being completely stationary as all frames of reference are really equally valid."

In SR, all inertial frames of reference are equally valid, so, yes, an object in motion is length contracted relative to its length at rest for close to the same reason as in LET.

Similarly when Magic Schoolbook says this false thing: "He plays a similar trick with time, getting rid of the slowing of moving clocks too. Because all frames of reference are equally valid, a moving clock isn't really moving, so it can't actually be running slow: this too is just an illusion."

In SR, in a frame where a clock is in motion, that clock is legitimately slow.

Here is a great mistake in understanding relativity theory: "The downside to this is that such a universe could never have had its future events generated out of its past events under these rules because many of its events would have failed to mesh together properly during the generation phase (when the block was originally being constructed): a rocket which has taken a shortcut would have been unable to land on a planet which has not taken a shortcut as there wouldn't be a future version of that planet there yet for the rocket to interact with."

One of the important things about relativity theory is the structure of causality. In SR, the speed of light places limits on how things can interact. The only events in the past of a given event are those that could possibly emit light that would reach that event. The only events in the future of a given event are those events that could be reached by light that the given event could emit. The events that reside in this "light cone" are invariant across every inertial reference frame. So there is never a problem of something reaching an event that isn't there. Nothing of this relies on or demands that there is a "block universe", despite the exhortations of the proponents of the block universe model of time. There are many formulations of becoming in time in SR and GR.

One can't simply argue that this is wrong because it doesn't work like other forms of cause and effect.

What follows on the Magic Schoolbook site is, sadly, a weak version of the twin paradox. Even more sad is the claim, backed up by no citation whatsoever, that people using SR, "simply smuggle in this Newtonian time." Time and time again people are lead astray by the twin paradox and refuse to understand its resolution. In this case, the author of Magic Schoolbook simply refuses to believe that one could identify one reference frame relative to another without having some overall, preferred reference frame.

This is the kind of things that cranks say, that have an axe to grind and would rather grind that axe than take the time to learn or correct basic mistakes in laying out their diagrams: "It is quite shocking that such irrational people can hold such sway in science and that they are allowed to drown out anyone who tries to point out the glaring error in their model, but then it must be hard for them to back down even if they can see that they are wrong because they have bought so deeply into what is undoubtedly the most embarrassing mistake in the history of science. "

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #121 on: 22/08/2016 17:44:11 »
Physicsbang - I rate David's magic school book site and respect the fact that he is trying to do positive things with his time, and doing it quite well, rather than sit around on the net slagging people for challenging the status quo.

Wake up dude, the realm doth not need defending!  The realm standeth in all its well deserved glory, only awaitething an even better mathematical fit.

The only way to arriveth at an even more detailed explanation of pur universe is to challenge the status quo.

Newtonian time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space

Quote:
"According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the Moon or Sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time."
Unquote:

BTW, the most embarrassing mistake in the history of science has got to be the geocentric model.  Just goes to show how wrong the status quo 'can' be proven.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #122 on: 23/08/2016 00:33:59 »
Because you are computer literate, you have of course drawn these lines on your screen.  You have 49 lines drawn side by side, the beginnings of these vertical lines form a straight horizontal line at top of screen page, and the ends of these vertical lines form a v shape at bottom of screen page.  I now ask you to align your 49 vertical lines so that the ends of the lines form an identical horizontal curve shape at top and bottom of lines.  Your 49 vertical lines should now resemble the shape of an ellipse with straight sides.

If I try doing that, I see the V shape at the bottom become half as deep as it was before, and a new V shape (upside down and also half as deep as the original V at the bottom) has appeared at the top, so the overall shape is now more like a rhombus than an ellipse, but with two short extra sides at the left and right. Perhaps that's exactly what you mean though when you say "an ellipse with straight sides".

Quote
Now I am going to ask you to make marks on each of these vertical lines from top of line to bottom of line at regular intervals, so that each line resembles a measuring ruler.  Although not impossible, it is highly improbable that if you laid a ruler horizontally across these marks, that each of the 49 vertical lines 'ruler' marks would join up one after the other to create a straight horizontal line.  The marks would be aligned higgledy piggledy on the horizontal plane... If this has resulted in a visual for you, I can start explaining observational time frame dependency:

If these marks are made at regular intervals and there are the same number on each line, the middle ones will all fall on a horizontal line drawn across the centre of the diagram, but all the others will travel at slight angles (steeper the further away from the centre line they are) and they will be made of two straight sections with a sharp kink connecting them half way across. Perhaps that isn't how you want me to draw in these markings and lines, but the most important thing that I want to see is how these relate to actual time dilation or frames of reference.

Quote
Back to the diagram I had you mentally create as a visualisation:
The marks you have made at  regular intervals on the vertical lines are representative of the time frames of the differing time periods that the lengths of the vertical lines represent.  These differing time periods are occurring simultaneously...

I think you'll have to draw a diagram showing it the way you want me (and others) to see it, and then label it clearly to show which parts are simultaneous. Alternatively, you need to list dimensions and actual lengths of these lines and the distances between all the marks made down each line. I very much doubt that the picture I've built in my mind is the same as the one that you have in yours.

Quote
Now place your ruler across the horizontal plane and from the top of the first line you drew, draw a horizontal line straight threw to the top of the last line you drew.  Repeat the process at each marker down the first line.  You will see that every other line of differing lengths markers will be split at intervals that have proportions that are all differing with each different length of line.

I'm visualising the V parts of the diagram at the top and the bottom having no horizontal lines running through them at all, and there are only two or three horizontal lines in total because they have to pass through the two shortest lines at the extreme sides of the diagram.

Quote
I am suggesting that the reference frame of the first vertical line you drew (representing a standard second) will only be able to view a proportion of the reference frames of the longer lines, and that the observable proportion of the reference frames of the other lines is evident in the degree of the splitting these horizontal lines are indicating between the markers you made on the vertical lines.  You will be able to repeat the process for each of the vertical lines to work out the observable proportion of the other vertical lines.

No part of any frame of reference is hidden from view from any other frame. At every part of space, all reference frames are present and their content is fully visible from all those frames. Nothing goes unseen.

Quote
With regards to length contraction, would the proportions of the time frames of the reference frame line being observed that are not observable from another reference frames line, amount to the proportion of the expected length contraction as observed from the observing reference frames line?

It's hard to answer that when there isn't anything that isn't observed, but the amount of time dilation is certainly proportional to the amount of length contraction. At 0.866c you have half the number of clock ticks and a reduction of length of the object (in its direction of travel) to a half. At 0.5c you have about 0.9 times the number of clock ticks and the length is reduced to about 0.9 of its rest length. What your theory needs to do though is account for things looking the same from both frames: if one observer has less time to play with than the other and that accounts for him seeing the other observer length-contracted because he's only seeing perhaps half of it, how is that going to work the other way round when the observer with twice as much time to play with also sees the first observer contracted to half his normal length? How would he be missing half the action?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #123 on: 23/08/2016 01:47:10 »
I had no idea what "Newtonian time" is in this context, despite studying Newton a lot.

Timey seems to have found a clear definition of it which works for me.

Quote
According to Magic Schoolbook, "In LET the universe has three space dimensions running under a Newtonian time (which is not considered to be a dimension)..." This is just false, since time is always a dimension.

Einstein was very keen to tell people that time is a dimension. I was under the impression that before his theory, it wasn't thought of as a dimension by anyone. I may be wrong, but it was certainly a way that Einstein tried to distinguish his theory from what had come before.

Quote
Magic Schoolbook also says this false thing: "In Einstein's Spacetime, there is no real length contraction, meaning that objects aren't physically contracted by their movement through the fabric of space, and this clearly has to be the case because they can always validly be thought of as being completely stationary as all frames of reference are really equally valid."

It isn't false: they are always completely uncontracted in their own frame and what you measure does not tell you the truth about the hidden reality. With LET it's radically different: the length contraction is either absolutely real or its merely apparent and not real, all dependent upon whether you're measuring things from at rest in the preferred frame or from some other frame.

Quote
Similarly when Magic Schoolbook says this false thing: "He plays a similar trick with time, getting rid of the slowing of moving clocks too. Because all frames of reference are equally valid, a moving clock isn't really moving, so it can't actually be running slow: this too is just an illusion."

If a clock runs faster at rest in one frame than a clock at rest in a different frame, you must have a preferred frame somewhere in the system which has the fastest running clocks. If you don't want a preferred frame, you are not allowed to have any real slowing of clocks for different frames - it must all be an illusion because they must all be running at full speed.

Quote
In SR, in a frame where a clock is in motion, that clock is legitimately slow.

And when you switch frame so that you're co-moving with it, magically it becomes the faster clock. So, is it both slower and faster than the other clock at the same time? Which clock is really running slower?

Quote
Here is a great mistake in understanding relativity theory: "The downside to this is that such a universe could never have had its future events generated out of its past events under these rules because many of its events would have failed to mesh together properly during the generation phase (when the block was originally being constructed): a rocket which has taken a shortcut would have been unable to land on a planet which has not taken a shortcut as there wouldn't be a future version of that planet there yet for the rocket to interact with."

It's your misunderstanding, not mine. That bit refers specifically to an SR model in which no clocks are allowed to run slow but where they merely appear to do so when viewed from other frames. If you want to have some clocks actually run slower than others though, you need to go for a model with a preferred frame.

Quote
One of the important things about relativity theory is the structure of causality. In SR, the speed of light places limits on how things can interact. The only events in the past of a given event are those that could possibly emit light that would reach that event. The only events in the future of a given event are those events that could be reached by light that the given event could emit. The events that reside in this "light cone" are invariant across every inertial reference frame. So there is never a problem of something reaching an event that isn't there. Nothing of this relies on or demands that there is a "block universe", despite the exhortations of the proponents of the block universe model of time. There are many formulations of becoming in time in SR and GR.

There's no point in attacking one model by attacking it on the basis that it is a different model from the one that it is. There are four Spacetime models discussed on my page (called model zero, model one, model two and model three) and it makes no sense to attack model one by demanding that it behave like model two.

Quote
One can't simply argue that this is wrong because it doesn't work like other forms of cause and effect.

The interactive exam was designed to force people to stop mixing up the models when commenting on them. If you think there's a fault in the argument, it is there that you have to point to it.

Quote
What follows on the Magic Schoolbook site is, sadly, a weak version of the twin paradox.

There's nothing weak about it - I've just doubled it up so that there are two sets of twins in order to show clearly what happens with different models which are normally mixed up and confused into one incompatible mess. I then show up the problems with each model.

Quote
Even more sad is the claim, backed up by no citation whatsoever, that people using SR, "simply smuggle in this Newtonian time."

Show me how it works without this Newtonian time then. No one else has been able to do so. They say they can write programs to simulate SR which don't cheat, but they always cheat by using Newtonian time to run one frame's clocks at a higher speed than the rest: that's a preferred frame.

Quote
Time and time again people are lead astray by the twin paradox and refuse to understand its resolution. In this case, the author of Magic Schoolbook simply refuses to believe that one could identify one reference frame relative to another without having some overall, preferred reference frame.

If your comprehension skills were up to it, you'd notice that there is no difficulty resolving the so-called "paradox", and there never has been. Each model has a different way of resolving it though. Model zero (the static block universe model where time doesn't run) "solves" it by having everything exist eternally without the future ever having been generated out of the past. Model two solves it by tolerating event-meshing failure for a while before things settle down into the same shape as model zero. Model three solves it by having a preferred frame of reference. Model two "solves" it by tolerating impossible contradictions. You can take your pick, but models one and three are the only viable ones in the set.

Quote
This is the kind of things that cranks say, that have an axe to grind and would rather grind that axe than take the time to learn or correct basic mistakes in laying out their diagrams:

What mistakes in the diagrams? You're at it again, making false claims about my diagrams. What they show is exactly what you get if you apply the rules of SR. But you don't own up to any of your errors. I do, and that's why I'm not a crank.

Quote
"It is quite shocking that such irrational people can hold such sway in science and that they are allowed to drown out anyone who tries to point out the glaring error in their model, but then it must be hard for them to back down even if they can see that they are wrong because they have bought so deeply into what is undoubtedly the most embarrassing mistake in the history of science."

Sometimes I word things provocatively in order to encourage a response: that has a better chance of leading to answers from annoyed people and it helps me to correct any mistakes that I've made or to improve the wording of what I've said to clarify things and show why someone's objections are wayward. If anyone does have objections, they need to stop misinterpreting the introductory section and focus their attacks instead on the interactive exam, spelling out where it informed them that they have "failed" and then explaining why they believe they haven't failed. In response to that, I can either improve the interactive exam to deal with any invalid attacks of the same kind more clearly, or if someone ever comes up with an objection that blows the whole thing out of the water, I will change the whole thing into an endorsement of SR. My original aim was to prove to myself that SR is valid and then show other people that it works, but I have been unable to do so because it falls so far short.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #124 on: 23/08/2016 02:32:17 »
David - I'm not familiar with the term rhombus, but the shape you describe is correct...

However, the marks on the vertical lines must be made at uniform intervals on the line.  ie, the marks on all of the lines should be same distance apart. There should be more marks on longer lines...

Don't worry if the mark closest to bottom of line doesn't match the end of the line.  Its the proportionality of only 1 time frame, ie, from one mark to the next mark, being split by the horizontal lines that we use to match the markers on line 1 and line 49 that matters, and we can read this from the middle of the shape, we don't need to read the ends of lines for this part.

Although the system I'm showing you can be plugged in with numbers, we don't need to plug numbers in to understand how this works.  It doesn't matter how many vertical lines you use, or for the moment the lengths that these vertical lines are, or the distance that you make the markers apart on them, only that the shape is correct and that the distance between the markers is uniform.

When you match the markers on line 1 with the markers on line 49 and join them with horizontal lines, these horizontal lines will make divisions between the markers on every other length of line.

The divisions made between markers on each different length of line will have different proportions to each other... but the divisions made on a particular line will retain the same proportions of division from top of line to bottom. (bar any messy bottom of line marker issues)

The vertical lines are representing time periods expanding.  The markers are representing the time frames of the time period, and the divisions between markers will be representing a; the proportion of that time frame you can observe from line 1 or line 49, and b; the extent that the line, ie: rate of time you are observing, will cause the 'appearance' of a length contraction. ie: the proportion of the time frame you cannot observe from line 1 and line 49.
One side of the division will represent a, and the other b.

Some kind of fancy mathematical process of multiplying a or b by the number of spaces between the markers the line has, plus the messy remainder at bottom of line, should give the overall proportionality of a or b for an observation of that particular line, ie: rate of time, from both line 1 and line 49.

As to providing a diagram, I think I told you my laptop is broken.  Also my good phone was smashed when I got kicked by a horse last month and this one is crap.  It doesn't show me any of the diagrams you posted for instance, so if you will forgive me...

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #125 on: 23/08/2016 04:46:59 »
I had no idea what "Newtonian time" is in this context, despite studying Newton a lot.

Timey seems to have found a clear definition of it which works for me.
Yeah, that one I get. I'm still not sure what you think you mean.

Quote
Einstein was very keen to tell people that time is a dimension. I was under the impression that before his theory, it wasn't thought of as a dimension by anyone. I may be wrong, but it was certainly a way that Einstein tried to distinguish his theory from what had come before.
Time is a dimension in the mathematical sense; there is nothing that can be done to change this. Maxwell discussed this and Einstein explicitly built on Maxwell.

Quote
It isn't false: they are always completely uncontracted in their own frame and what you measure does not tell you the truth about the hidden reality. With LET it's radically different: the length contraction is either absolutely real or its merely apparent and not real, all dependent upon whether you're measuring things from at rest in the preferred frame or from some other frame.
This simply more whining that you don't like SR. There is nothing holy about reference frames in which an object is at rest; these reference frames are no more "real" than frames on which they are moving. They are merely arbitrary choices made for the purposes of assigning coordinates. With LET, there is a "real" reference frame that has absolutely no effect on the world that we can detect. If you like that idea, then fine, but please don't mischaracterize it or SR.

Quote
If a clock runs faster at rest in one frame than a clock at rest in a different frame, you must have a preferred frame somewhere in the system which has the fastest running clocks. If you don't want a preferred frame, you are not allowed to have any real slowing of clocks for different frames - it must all be an illusion because they must all be running at full speed.
Again, this is your aesthetic preference. In SR, frames of reference are arbitrary choices of coordinates, not holy metaphysics.

Quote
And when you switch frame so that you're co-moving with it, magically it becomes the faster clock. So, is it both slower and faster than the other clock at the same time? Which clock is really running slower?
It's not magic, it's the use of a different system of coordinates for description. You might not like that SR allows for different descriptions in different systems of coordinates, but you don't get to force your aesthetic preference on everyone.

Quote
It's your misunderstanding, not mine. That bit refers specifically to an SR model in which no clocks are allowed to run slow but where they merely appear to do so when viewed from other frames. If you want to have some clocks actually run slower than others though, you need to go for a model with a preferred frame.
And I don't want to have any clocks "actually run slower than others". I am content to accept that it depends on the system of coordinates chosen.

Quote
There's no point in attacking one model by attacking it on the basis that it is a different model from the one that it is. There are four Spacetime models discussed on my page (called model zero, model one, model two and model three) and it makes no sense to attack model one by demanding that it behave like model two.
As far as I can tell, none of those models represents SR, so I don't really care.

Quote
What follows on the Magic Schoolbook site is, sadly, a weak version of the twin paradox.

There's nothing weak about it - I've just doubled it up so that there are two sets of twins in order to show clearly what happens with different models which are normally mixed up and confused into one incompatible mess. I then show up the problems with each model.[/quote]
Again, if any of your models was SR, then it might be less sad.

Quote
Show me how it works without this Newtonian time then. No one else has been able to do so. They say they can write programs to simulate SR which don't cheat, but they always cheat by using Newtonian time to run one frame's clocks at a higher speed than the rest: that's a preferred frame.
I really do not understand what you think your claim means. You seem to want some fact of the matter outside of a description in a system of coordinates. In SR, there simply is no such fact of the matter.

Quote
My original aim was to prove to myself that SR is valid and then show other people that it works, but I have been unable to do so because it falls so far short.
Yes, surely the fault lies with the hundreds of physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers who have worked with the theory for over a century.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #126 on: 23/08/2016 21:14:00 »
However, the marks on the vertical lines must be made at uniform intervals on the line.  ie, the marks on all of the lines should be same distance apart. There should be more marks on longer lines...

Okay, so the line at the left hand side might have only two markings on it, one at the top and one at the bottom. On the next line to the right there will be three markings on it, one at the top, one at the bottom and one in the middle, and this marking will be level with the middle of the first line. On the next line to the right there will be four markings, one at the top, one at the bottom, and two in between which are in line the top and bottom of the first line. On the next line to the right there will be five markings: one at the top, one at the bottom, and the other three will match up with the markings on the second line. If you start at the marking on any line, you can jump two lines to either side and find a marking at the same height on that line, if the line extends that far (vertically), but if you draw a line horizontally between them it will cross the line in between half way between the nearest markings on that.

Quote
Don't worry if the mark closest to bottom of line doesn't match the end of the line.  Its the proportionality of only 1 time frame, ie, from one mark to the next mark, being split by the horizontal lines that we use to match the markers on line 1 and line 49 that matters, and we can read this from the middle of the shape, we don't need to read the ends of lines for this part.

When I put in the horizontal lines across the diagram, there are only two of them with the spacing between markings that I've used. On every second line they pass through markings and on the lines in between those they pass half way between markings. I can't see any mathematical relationship yet between this and what happens with time dilation or length contraction.

Quote
The divisions made between markers on each different length of line will have different proportions to each other...

On my diagram the divisions are all the same size on every other line, the horizontal lines either passing through a marking or half way between two markings.

Quote
but the divisions made on a particular line will retain the same proportions of division from top of line to bottom. (bar any messy bottom of line marker issues)

I have only two horizontal lines drawn across the diagram, each a short way above or below an imaginary centre line running horizontally through the diagram. I can't work out what's being compared with what when you talk about the proportions of division. Perhaps you could give all the lines and markings names so that you can refer to them efficiently. The vertical lines are all numbered, and the horizontal lines can also be given numbers (1 and 2), so perhaps the other markings could be given letters, the first line using A and B, the second using A, B and C, the third using A, B, C and D, and so on, A always being used for the highest marking on the line. That then enables you to refer to marking E on line 9 and to say that horizontal line #1 passes through it.

Quote
The vertical lines are representing time periods expanding.  The markers are representing the time frames of the time period, and the divisions between markers will be representing a; the proportion of that time frame you can observe from line 1 or line 49, and b; the extent that the line, ie: rate of time you are observing, will cause the 'appearance' of a length contraction. ie: the proportion of the time frame you cannot observe from line 1 and line 49.
One side of the division will represent a, and the other b.

How is a time frame different from a unit of time like a second? If it isn't any different from that, how would some seconds go unobserved while others are seen? How do the divisions between markers represent a proportion of anything when the horizontal lines pass through some markers and half way between other pairs of markers? What is there to be a proportion of anything? This is why you need a labelled diagram or named points so that you can make it clear what bits of what you're counting as lengths to compare with each other.

Quote
Some kind of fancy mathematical process of multiplying a or b by the number of spaces between the markers the line has, plus the messy remainder at bottom of line, should give the overall proportionality of a or b for an observation of that particular line, ie: rate of time, from both line 1 and line 49.

Given that nothing in the diagram bears any relationship to the maths of length contraction and time dilation, the fancy mathematical process will have to introduce that to it in some way, perhaps by spelling out how far apart horizontally each vertical line should really be from it's neighbours rather than having them all spaced out at fixed intervals. You need to get rid of the V shaped top and bottom of the diagram and replace it with a curve, but before you go to that much trouble, you also need to work out how entire time frames can go unseen when nothing in the real universe goes unseen in that way. If a clock flies past you at relativistic speed, you will see its every tick and every fraction of every tick, and an observer travelling with it will see the same of your clock.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #127 on: 23/08/2016 22:00:09 »
Yeah, that one I get. I'm still not sure what you think you mean.

So you get it, and yet you don't get it at the same time. Very odd.

Quote
Time is a dimension in the mathematical sense; there is nothing that can be done to change this. Maxwell discussed this and Einstein explicitly built on Maxwell.

With Newtonian time it can be treated mathematically as a dimension, but it is only with SR that it became a physical length of anything.

Quote
This simply more whining that you don't like SR.

That is simply you making an invalid objection to a correct point, and in doing so it is you that is whining about SR because you don't want it to be what it is.

Quote
There is nothing holy about reference frames in which an object is at rest; these reference frames are no more "real" than frames on which they are moving. They are merely arbitrary choices made for the purposes of assigning coordinates.

Indeed - you don't need to tell me that.

Quote
With LET, there is a "real" reference frame that has absolutely no effect on the world that we can detect.

It has an effect in that it enables things to function rationally rather than by magic. That is a big effect.

Quote
If you like that idea, then fine, but please don't mischaracterize it or SR.

I'm not mischaracterising it at all - when I say that in SR the true length of something is the length you measure for it when you are co-moving with it, that is the case.

Quote
Quote
If a clock runs faster at rest in one frame than a clock at rest in a different frame, you must have a preferred frame somewhere in the system which has the fastest running clocks. If you don't want a preferred frame, you are not allowed to have any real slowing of clocks for different frames - it must all be an illusion because they must all be running at full speed.
Again, this is your aesthetic preference. In SR, frames of reference are arbitrary choices of coordinates, not holy metaphysics.

It's called reason. If a clock is running faster than another clock, it cannot also be running slower than it. As you have no preferred frame, you have no way of making any clock tick at a different rate from any other clock (where the clock appears to be running at full speed when examined by someone co-moving with it) other than it being an illusion caused by the warped picture of reality offered from any given frame. Underneath the surface, all the clocks must be running at full speed unless you have a preferred frame.

Quote
Quote
And when you switch frame so that you're co-moving with it, magically it becomes the faster clock. So, is it both slower and faster than the other clock at the same time? Which clock is really running slower?
It's not magic, it's the use of a different system of coordinates for description. You might not like that SR allows for different descriptions in different systems of coordinates, but you don't get to force your aesthetic preference on everyone.

It is magic when it involves toleration of a contradiction. If you have a mechanism for something which involves clock A ticking faster than clock B while clock B is ticking faster than clock A, you are irrational and have entered into the realm of magic.

Quote
And I don't want to have any clocks "actually run slower than others". I am content to accept that it depends on the system of coordinates chosen.

In which case, what you're seeing from any frame is not telling you the truth about how the ticking rates of clocks can be compared. If there is no preferred frame, none of them can be ticking faster than any others, and that's why rationalists are forced to move away from model two to model one (block universe) or three (preferred frame).

Quote
As far as I can tell, none of those models represents SR, so I don't really care.

If you can't see that models are all versions of SR, you don't understand SR.

Quote
Again, if any of your models was SR, then it might be less sad.

What is sad is that you don't understand SR well enough to recognise it when it's shown to you. How would you model it and make it behave differently from my versions? I'd be happy to add your version of SR to the set of models, but I don't think you'll dare to take up the offer because you know it will end up being exactly the same as one of mine (and most likely it will be model two).

Quote
I really do not understand what you think your claim means. You seem to want some fact of the matter outside of a description in a system of coordinates. In SR, there simply is no such fact of the matter.

There is assumed to be a real universe out there and SR claims to be a theory about how it works, as is evident from its claim that there is no preferred frame of reference rather than a more modest claim that we can't pin one down and that it's fully possible that there is one. That is more than just a system of coordinates, but a philosophical assertion about the way it functions. SR uses a preferred-frame mechanism for coordinating the tick rates of clocks in different frames, but it denies that there is a preferred frame, so it has to be able to use the mechanism from all frames at once, and yet the claims thus generated contradict each other and thereby fail to function as a mechanism. However, magical thinkers tolerate contradictions (even though it isn't allowed in mathematics) and they imagine what they're doing is valid even though it manifestly isn't. I have yet to find a magical thinker who can recognise their disability though, so it's a waste of time trying to get through to them.

Quote
Yes, surely the fault lies with the hundreds of physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers who have worked with the theory for over a century.

It does indeed - they are a self-selected bunch of magical thinkers who tolerate contradictions. Fortunately though, AGI systems will not, and as soon as they take over the running of science, the old guard will be labelled as the fools that they are and will be roundly ridiculed for the rest of time. Those who want to get off the hook need to have the wit to shift ground fast before intelligent machines lay down the law to them about how things must really work, but I have every confidence that they will fail to do so because magical thinkers are deluded and blind, and the more warnings they get, the more they dig themselves into their ludicrous position, which will just make it all the more fun when it all blows up in their faces. And of course, they never like to say where they failed the interactive exam because it spell out to them the exact nature of their irrational beliefs, so all they do is look for diversions instead, but they are only making things worse for themselves by failing to beat the machines to the glaring truth that SR is built on irrationality.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #128 on: 23/08/2016 23:32:00 »
OK - a few problems are arising in your interpretation.  I wish I could just send you a representation but I will explain the system again with what you have observed already.

When I ask you to draw vertical lines side by side, (how far apart these vertical lines are is irrelevant, space them at 1cm as you proceed across the page from left to right).

I have asked you to start drawing a line from near top of page downwards at sound of first bell, and to cease drawing that line when the second bell sounds.  ***You are magically possessed to be able to move your hand downwards at 'constant velocity'.*** I have allowed exactly (*Warning", unit blunder: see edit)...1 standard second to elapse between this initial sounding of the first bell and the second bell.  This first line you have drawn is representative of the length of 1 standard second.  It is important that you realise that all you have done here - given that you hand is moving constantly at the velocity the tip end of the second hand of the clock is - is straightened out the physical radius of one full circle that the second hand of the clock that I am timing the 1st bell and the 2nd bell by is rotating at.  Your hand can move at any velocity, so long as thevelocity remains constant throught the dtawing of each vertical line.  Clock faces come in differing radius and the velocity of the second hand is related to the radius of the clocks face. (this feature pertains to my related time theory BTW)

I now extend the time period between the sounding of the first and second bell for line 2.  This second vertical line that you have drawn is slight longer than the first.  It represents a dilated standard second.

I continue extending the time period between the first and second bell up till line 25 and then reduce the time period for 24 lines identically to how I previously had increased it.

These vertical lines represent the standard second dilating for 24 lines, and then contracting for 24 lines back to the length of a standard second

We create the shape we need the lines to be aligned by like this, from left to right:
Line 2 is longer than line 1.  Line 1 should be placed so that Line 2 should have an equal amount of its extra length at top and bottom in relation to line 1.  Each subsequent line should be placed with its extra length equally distributed between top and bottom.  The shape you get will be a house with shallow sloped roof, with an inverse shallow sloped roof at bottom.

Now for placing the markers on the vertical lines that represent the standard second, and dilated standard seconds:

The spaces between these markers are going to be representative of the time frames of a time period.  Mathematically these time frames would be most usefully derived as nano-seconds, that is if we are going to use the standard second as our standard, which we are.  But for now, using nanoseconds is untenable, so we will just divide line 1 into 10 spaces with 11 markers.

Measuring with a ruler how much length a space between markers is on line 1, replicate this measure of length between markers on each of the other lines starting at top of line, and not worrying about any remainder left over at bottom of the line.

We are now ready to understand the horizontal lines.  In this shape of 49 vertical lines, there are 2 lines each of the same length, 1 and 49 for instance, or 2 and 48, so on.  We can match any lines markers with its partner of equal length's markers and draw horizontal lines across the page to join these markers up...
Right now we will start by looking at the observation of all the other lines of different length, remembering that these vertical lines represent reference frames that are experiencing alternate rates of time relative to the observation reference frame, and we will observe these other rates of time from line 1, which is representing a standard second.

From top of line 1 draw a horizontal line to top of line 49.  Go to next marker down on line 1, draw a horizontal line to matching marker on line 49, repeating the process for each marker on line 1.


Now we are ready to look at the proportionality of what can be observed of another rate of time:
Looking at line 1 in relation to line 2, we will see that the spaces between the markers on line 2 has been divided by the horizontal line.  1 side of the division will be greater than the other.  Line 1 will be able to view the greater part of the division of that time frame, and it will be unable to view the lesser part.

Moving to line 3, we can see that the division of the space between the markers is different.  We will only be able to view the greater part of the division, as with line 2, but this greater part has become less than it was in line 2.

By line 25 we will find that the observable part of the division is much reduced, and that the greater part cannot be observed.

By multiplying the proportions of the division of the space between the markers for any line, by the number of spaces between markers of that line,(the remainder at bottom of line must be proportionally divided and calculated as a point something space.) ...This will give the correct proportionality of what you can and cannot observe of that rate of time.

This dispenses with Newtonian time.  All rates of time can be measured relative to a standard second, or indeed any length of second you fancy.

(Edit: I realise I've made a unit blunder here...  Althoug a second is tenable for drawing, ive gone on to describe a second hand of a clock tracing the radius of a minute, but you get the picture... and transposing the system to maths would of course allow for units as small as necessary.)
« Last Edit: 24/08/2016 03:02:44 by timey »

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #129 on: 24/08/2016 15:30:25 »
With Newtonian time it can be treated mathematically as a dimension, but it is only with SR that it became a physical length of anything.
That is mathematically impossible.

Quote
Quote
There is nothing holy about reference frames in which an object is at rest; these reference frames are no more "real" than frames on which they are moving. They are merely arbitrary choices made for the purposes of assigning coordinates.

Indeed - you don't need to tell me that.
It is odd for you to say that, since your entire complaint against SR is that it doesn't have a holy reference frame.

Quote
Quote
With LET, there is a "real" reference frame that has absolutely no effect on the world that we can detect.

It has an effect in that it enables things to function rationally rather than by magic. That is a big effect.
Your "rationally" is not the "rationally" of physics or mathematics. I will stick with the latter two.

Quote
I'm not mischaracterising it at all - when I say that in SR the true length of something is the length you measure for it when you are co-moving with it, that is the case.
No, that is a mischaracterization. If one is to measure the length of an object, then one needs to specify the frame of reference in which one is measuring it. No reference frame, no length. There is no "true length" independent of reference frame. You would like this to be the case (and you make some other conceptual errors), so you choose LET.

Quote
It's called reason. If a clock is running faster than another clock, it cannot also be running slower than it.
And SR holds this to be true. But the rate of a cyclic physical system depends on the system of coordinates. You want a holy clock rate, so you choose to reject SR.


Quote
It is magic when it involves toleration of a contradiction. If you have a mechanism for something which involves clock A ticking faster than clock B while clock B is ticking faster than clock A, you are irrational and have entered into the realm of magic.
And SR has none of these things. Only your desire for holy truth makes you want to create a contradiction where there is none.

Quote
In which case, what you're seeing from any frame is not telling you the truth about how the ticking rates of clocks can be compared.
On the contrary: because of the theory of relativity, if I know the information from one well-formed frame, I have the information for every well-formed frame (and some that are not well-formed).

Quote
Quote
Yes, surely the fault lies with the hundreds of physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers who have worked with the theory for over a century.

It does indeed - they are a self-selected bunch of magical thinkers who tolerate contradictions.
Sure they are. Keep that for your epitaph.

There is a long history of physics cranks who want to show the world. They don't produce much, but they spill a lot of ink.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #130 on: 24/08/2016 23:09:44 »
When I ask you to draw vertical lines side by side, (how far apart these vertical lines are is irrelevant, space them at 1cm as you proceed across the page from left to right).

If these lines represent frames of reference, do you have some way of relating them to speeds at which they move relative to each other? I know you said it doesn't need numbers, but these numbers are important in order to get some idea of what's what.

Quote
I now extend the time period between the sounding of the first and second bell for line 2.  This second vertical line that you have drawn is slight longer than the first.  It represents a dilated standard second.

How much is slightly longer? I was imagining doubling the length the first time, then the third line would be three times as long as the first, etc., but if that doesn't work, I can't see how there can be any leeway in the proportion that "slightly" represents.

Quote
These vertical lines represent the standard second dilating for 24 lines, and then contracting for 24 lines back to the length of a standard second

Is it necessary to have the 24 lines reducing in length again? Is that just to help draw horizontal lines across the diagram or are they actually meant to be different frames of reference from the first lot?

Quote
Looking at line 1 in relation to line 2, we will see that the spaces between the markers on line 2 has been divided by the horizontal line.  1 side of the division will be greater than the other.  Line 1 will be able to view the greater part of the division of that time frame, and it will be unable to view the lesser part.

Why don't you just simplify this whole thing down to using two lines the same length (a length which we can call L), each as long as the distance between two markers on any of your lines. If we draw these lines side by side, but start the second one slightly higher up the paper, when we draw a line across horizontally from the top of the first line (the lower line) it will cut through the second one and divide it into two lengths, one short (the length of the height difference between the starts of the two lines, so let's call this length M) and one long (whose length will be L - M).

For the third line, we can simply use 2M for the shorter length and L - 2M for the longer length. For the fourth line we can use 3M for the shorter length, and L - 3M for the longer legth. At some point, perhaps when we're dealing with L - 20M, 20M might be longer than L, so the whole thing breaks down: this is where we need to know exactly what "slightly longer" means when drawing the 49 lines, or "slightly higher up" with my simplified version when I'm putting in the second line.

Even if we get that right though and ensure that L - 24M is a positive number (or zero at worst), there's still a problem with these proportions as they bear no resemblence to the way length contraction and time dilation behave. You might have a series of ratios like these: 25:0, 24:1, 23:2, 22:3, 21:4, 20:5, 19:6, 18:7, 17:8, 16:9, 15:10, 14:11, 13:12, 12:13, etc. (Maybe I should have started at 24 rather than 25, but it's easy to take one away from them all if that's the case.) But what use are these ratios? How would they tell you anything about length contraction or time dilation?

Quote
By line 25 we will find that the observable part of the division is much reduced, and that the greater part cannot be observed.

And again, there is nothing that goes unobserved, so what is this a theory of? Why do you want a theory to account for things going unobserved when they don't go unobserved?

Quote
By multiplying the proportions of the division of the space between the markers for any line, by the number of spaces between markers of that line,(the remainder at bottom of line must be proportionally divided and calculated as a point something space.) ...This will give the correct proportionality of what you can and cannot observe of that rate of time.

With the numbers I've chosen, there will only be one marker more on the longest line than on the shortest, so we'll be multiplying the proportions listed earlier by 1 plus one of the following: 0/25, 1/25, 2/25, 3/25, 4/25, etc. This means that for the fourth line, I'm taking the 21:4 and multiplying each side by 1 and 4/25, so that's 1.162 times 21 = 24.36, and 1.162 times 4 = 4.64, so we now have 24.36:4.64 (which is of course equal to 21:4 and is therefore a completely unnecessary conversion).

You seriously need to put your own numbers to this, doing it the way I have by producing the numbers you want me to get rather than the ones I'm getting perhaps by doing things wrongly. I can't see any way of using this ratio for anything relating to length contraction or time dilation.

Quote
This dispenses with Newtonian time.  All rates of time can be measured relative to a standard second, or indeed any length of second you fancy.

All I can see is a list of ratios which have any relation to the task. You're going to have to show me the ratios that you've produced, and then you'll need to show how they can be used to calculate time dilation or length contraction for objects moving through a frame of reference at relativistic speed. You also need to explain what you mean by things not being observed because the real universe doesn't hide anything in that way.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #131 on: 24/08/2016 23:44:24 »
That is mathematically impossible.

A second can be represented as a length on a graph, so of course it's possible.

Quote
It is odd for you to say that, since your entire complaint against SR is that it doesn't have a holy reference frame.

There's nothing odd about it. If I discuss the idea of God with someone religious, being an atheist doesn't stop me discussing the proposed nature of his deity and agreeing with his requirements about what it supposedly is and does.

Quote
Your "rationally" is not the "rationally" of physics or mathematics. I will stick with the latter two.

Which is why you will remain irrational. What you still don't get is that the interactive diagram showing models one to three is designed to force people to think about how the future is generated out of the past without doing it by magic. With a normal Spacetime diagram you don't see this process, but just get the whole thing at once. My diagram with its three modes shows three different ways in which the future can be generated from the past in SR, and the consequences of those three methods. One of them works by bringing in Newtonian time as a means to handle event-meshing failure, another works by bringing in a preferred frame of reference so that the time of one frame can serve as Newtonian time to control the slower ticking of clocks at rest in all other frame, and the other model works by tolerating impossible contradictions (which renders it invalid). Once you understand that you have no other options (model zero's no help as it has no functionality whatsoever when it comes to generating a universe), then you'll understand why I have such a low opinion of physicists who believe in SR and who rule out Newtonian time - they cannot account rationally for the generation of the future out of the past but depend instead on magic.

Quote
No, that is a mischaracterization. If one is to measure the length of an object, then one needs to specify the frame of reference in which one is measuring it. No reference frame, no length. There is no "true length" independent of reference frame. You would like this to be the case (and you make some other conceptual errors), so you choose LET.

Nonsense: there are different interpretations of SR on this point, and you're fully entitled to yours, but it's a trivial issue which I don't give a fig about. You can have it any way you like it, and you have to, because all lengths from zero up to the maximum (the one I say is the true SR length for the thing) have to be counted as its true length. The important point that I was making is simply that there is a radical difference between LET and SR here in that LET says there is an absolute answer to the length, and that's the one measured for it in the preferred frame (and which is not necessarily the maximum length that will be measured for it by some observers).

Quote
Quote
It's called reason. If a clock is running faster than another clock, it cannot also be running slower than it.
And SR holds this to be true. But the rate of a cyclic physical system depends on the system of coordinates. You want a holy clock rate, so you choose to reject SR.

If you have a mechanism in which one frame has clocks that run faster than those of other frames, that is the preferred frame. You can't have more than one frame performing that role at the same location in space. If you don't want that to be your mechanism, you can't have the clocks of one frame running faster than those of other frames, so your mechanism has to involve them all running at the same speed (as with model one). If you are pinning your colours to model two, you are embracing an infinite number of contradictions.

Quote
Quote
It is magic when it involves toleration of a contradiction. If you have a mechanism for something which involves clock A ticking faster than clock B while clock B is ticking faster than clock A, you are irrational and have entered into the realm of magic.
And SR has none of these things. Only your desire for holy truth makes you want to create a contradiction where there is none.

Some people are blind to contradictions and there appears to be no cure for this, but they are irrational. If the clock of one frame ticks faster than the clock of another while also ticking slower than that clock, that's a contradiction which any rational person should be capable of recognising. Why can't you? What is missing in your thinking toolkit that prevents you from seeing that and from seeing how it is tied to SR?

Quote
On the contrary: because of the theory of relativity, if I know the information from one well-formed frame, I have the information for every well-formed frame (and some that are not well-formed).

What you have is a delusion - you don't really understand it at all because you can't see the glaring contradictions that you're tolerating.

Quote
There is a long history of physics cranks who want to show the world. They don't produce much, but they spill a lot of ink.

There is a long history of religious people tolerating contradictions and being ridiculed for it, and SR is a religion built on contradictions. Now, we're not going to get any further with this as you're scared of the interactive exam and want to go off on diversions instead, so I'll get back to building the most important system of all time. Goodbye.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #132 on: 25/08/2016 00:20:00 »
The preferred reference can be determine by an accurate energy balance. For example, say we had two objects, the same size and shape, moving at relative velocity, V. The hidden variable is one has mass M and the other mass 2M. We don't know if object 1 or object 2 is moving or whether each has part of the velocity. To figure that out all we need to do is let them collide. The rebound will tell us which has the energy and therefore which was the preferred reference.

The magic trick is connected to the twin paradox. This assumes both with the same mass, therefore there is no preferred reference since the collision is always the same.

The same could be true of the universe. If we knew, in advance, the exact amount of kinetic energy in the universe, we could eliminate a wide range of relative reference scenarios. Since we don't, we can pretend these are all relative. If we did know this energy, only one scenario will add up properly thereby defining the preferred reference. 

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #133 on: 25/08/2016 00:55:06 »
That is mathematically impossible.

A second can be represented as a length on a graph, so of course it's possible.
No, your statement, With Newtonian time it can be treated mathematically as a dimension, but it is only with SR that it became a physical length of anything," is mathematically impossible.

Quote
Which is why you will remain irrational. What you still don't get is that the interactive diagram showing models one to three is designed to force people to think about how the future is generated out of the past without doing it by magic.
You are right, I don't get it. You have made a choice: you are standing, regardless of what anyone says, against the reasoning of physicists. I am not willing to do this. I wish you all the best and I hope this won't be hard for you. I really, really hope that you ahve someone looking after you.

 
Quote
With a normal Spacetime diagram you don't see this process, but just get the whole thing at once. My diagram with its three modes shows three different ways in which the future can be generated from the past in SR, and the consequences of those three methods.
Like all of your knowledge of SR, you are putting together a half-baked idea of what everyone in history has done based on your limited reading. Many people have made animated SR diagrams. The difference between them and you is that they are using SR and you are not, given that your animated diagrams fail to preserve the same events across different reference frames.


Quote
Quote
No, that is a mischaracterization. If one is to measure the length of an object, then one needs to specify the frame of reference in which one is measuring it. No reference frame, no length. There is no "true length" independent of reference frame. You would like this to be the case (and you make some other conceptual errors), so you choose LET.

Nonsense: there are different interpretations of SR on this point, and you're fully entitled to yours, but it's a trivial issue which I don't give a fig about.
There is no interpretation of SR in which one can have a length without a reference frame. Again, you have a very limited, self-taught knowledge of SR. You seem to hate those people who actually had teachers and you refuse to learn from them and you refuse to read anything more about SR. You have made this choice.

Quote
If you have a mechanism in which one frame has clocks that run faster than those of other frames, that is the preferred frame. You can't have more than one frame performing that role at the same location in space.
You seem to not understand frames of reference at all. There are an infinite number of frames where certain clocks have the same properties of their rate. And frames are not located in space, space has location by virtue of a frame.

Quote
Some people are blind to contradictions and there appears to be no cure for this, but they are irrational. If the clock of one frame ticks faster than the clock of another while also ticking slower than that clock, that's a contradiction which any rational person should be capable of recognising. Why can't you? What is missing in your thinking toolkit that prevents you from seeing that and from seeing how it is tied to SR?
I cannot simply accept your lies about SR. There is no frame in which, "he clock of one frame ticks faster than the clock of another while also ticking slower than that clock." This is your own fabrication. Like many cranks, you fantasize how SR is based on your limited knowledge and you make a decision about how SR really is and you then reject any person or text that might say otherwise.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #134 on: 25/08/2016 01:16:45 »
When I ask you to draw vertical lines side by side, (how far apart these vertical lines are is irrelevant, space them at 1cm as you proceed across the page from left to right).

If these lines represent frames of reference, do you have some way of relating them to speeds at which they move relative to each other? I know you said it doesn't need numbers, but these numbers are important in order to get some idea of what's what.

Quote
I now extend the time period between the sounding of the first and second bell for line 2.  This second vertical line that you have drawn is slight longer than the first.  It represents a dilated standard second.

How much is slightly longer? I was imagining doubling the length the first time, then the third line would be three times as long as the first, etc., but if that doesn't work, I can't see how there can be any leeway in the proportion that "slightly" represents.

Quote
These vertical lines represent the standard second dilating for 24 lines, and then contracting for 24 lines back to the length of a standard second

Is it necessary to have the 24 lines reducing in length again? Is that just to help draw horizontal lines across the diagram or are they actually meant to be different frames of reference from the first lot?

Quote
Looking at line 1 in relation to line 2, we will see that the spaces between the markers on line 2 has been divided by the horizontal line.  1 side of the division will be greater than the other.  Line 1 will be able to view the greater part of the division of that time frame, and it will be unable to view the lesser part.

Why don't you just simplify this whole thing down to using two lines the same length (a length which we can call L), each as long as the distance between two markers on any of your lines. If we draw these lines side by side, but start the second one slightly higher up the paper, when we draw a line across horizontally from the top of the first line (the lower line) it will cut through the second one and divide it into two lengths, one short (the length of the height difference between the starts of the two lines, so let's call this length M) and one long (whose length will be L - M).

For the third line, we can simply use 2M for the shorter length and L - 2M for the longer length. For the fourth line we can use 3M for the shorter length, and L - 3M for the longer legth. At some point, perhaps when we're dealing with L - 20M, 20M might be longer than L, so the whole thing breaks down: this is where we need to know exactly what "slightly longer" means when drawing the 49 lines, or "slightly higher up" with my simplified version when I'm putting in the second line.

Even if we get that right though and ensure that L - 24M is a positive number (or zero at worst), there's still a problem with these proportions as they bear no resemblence to the way length contraction and time dilation behave. You might have a series of ratios like these: 25:0, 24:1, 23:2, 22:3, 21:4, 20:5, 19:6, 18:7, 17:8, 16:9, 15:10, 14:11, 13:12, 12:13, etc. (Maybe I should have started at 24 rather than 25, but it's easy to take one away from them all if that's the case.) But what use are these ratios? How would they tell you anything about length contraction or time dilation?

Quote
By line 25 we will find that the observable part of the division is much reduced, and that the greater part cannot be observed.

And again, there is nothing that goes unobserved, so what is this a theory of? Why do you want a theory to account for things going unobserved when they don't go unobserved?

Quote
By multiplying the proportions of the division of the space between the markers for any line, by the number of spaces between markers of that line,(the remainder at bottom of line must be proportionally divided and calculated as a point something space.) ...This will give the correct proportionality of what you can and cannot observe of that rate of time.

With the numbers I've chosen, there will only be one marker more on the longest line than on the shortest, so we'll be multiplying the proportions listed earlier by 1 plus one of the following: 0/25, 1/25, 2/25, 3/25, 4/25, etc. This means that for the fourth line, I'm taking the 21:4 and multiplying each side by 1 and 4/25, so that's 1.162 times 21 = 24.36, and 1.162 times 4 = 4.64, so we now have 24.36:4.64 (which is of course equal to 21:4 and is therefore a completely unnecessary conversion).

You seriously need to put your own numbers to this, doing it the way I have by producing the numbers you want me to get rather than the ones I'm getting perhaps by doing things wrongly. I can't see any way of using this ratio for anything relating to length contraction or time dilation.

Quote
This dispenses with Newtonian time.  All rates of time can be measured relative to a standard second, or indeed any length of second you fancy.

All I can see is a list of ratios which have any relation to the task. You're going to have to show me the ratios that you've produced, and then you'll need to show how they can be used to calculate time dilation or length contraction for objects moving through a frame of reference at relativistic speed. You also need to explain what you mean by things not being observed because the real universe doesn't hide anything in that way.

Firstly these lines are not reference frames in themselves.  They are merely depicting a physical representation of the duration of a second that is dilating and then contracting again.

The purpose of these lines is to mathematically work out the proportions of the observation one length of second will be able to make of the other.

This diagram is depicting a mathematical means to a concept I'm calling observational time frame  dependency.  Although actual numbers can be attributed to this system, what I'm describing is a formula, so it doesn't 'need' them in order to work.  I just don't know how to express the formula mathematically.

*

OK - slightly longer:
Yes the lines only get slightly longer.  A shallow sloped roof on top, and same shape inverted at bottom.  In real terms, for this to be in context, a standard second will increase in length only very slightly at the kinds of speeds that are normal to us, relative to stationary.  But regstding the reference frame of an object travelling at the kinds of speeds you have been describing on this thread, of course the length of a standard second will be vastly extended.  If you were to draw a vertical line (at same constant velocity you drew the standard second), for a second dilated to that extent, the line you draw will drop off bottom of page and beyond.  Perhaps you can now see the possibility that observing that vastly lengthened second from the length of the standard second can result in not being able to actually see very much of that longer second.  Resulting in not being able to see all of the rocket travelling at that speed. ie: length contraction

*

Yes - the reason there are lines after line 25 that identically reduce to afford each line, apart from line 25, an equal counterpart is purely for ease of drawing the horizontal lines, and no other reason.

*

If you only wish to know what the observable proportions of only one other length of second are, then by all means only draw 2 lines.  So long as the lines are drawn at constant velocity, one matching the length of a second in your observational reference frame, and the other matching the length of a second in the reference frame you are observing, (be this a moving reference frame or a reference frame of differing gravity potential), and as long as you divide your 1st line into 10 uniform spaces with 11 markers, (edit: although these numbers are completly arbitary, the natural divisions would be the length of nano seconds), measure the space in between one marker and the next, and then make markers on the longer line from top to bottom that create spaces equal to this length... then centralise your 1st line in relation to your 2nd line and, for ease of creating the horizontal lines, create a copy of your 1st line centralised on other side of your 2nd line.

You don't even have to draw horizontals matching all the markers in line 1 with line 3, just a couple or so will show you that each division is identical.  It is the division that the horizontal makes in the space between 2 markers on line 2 that is significant.

This is depicting the ratio of what a reference frame with a length of second as per line 1 will and will not observe of a reference frame that has a length of second as per line 2.

Then by measuring what length one side of the division of this space in between markers is in relation to the other side of this division of the space, it is possible to multiply each by the number of spaces there are marked out on line 2, (there may be a remainder of not a whole space that will need to be counted in) ...and this will give the total proportionality of the observation... and 'hopefully' can be matched to the maths of the expected length contraction of a reference frame in relative motion as per its expected time dilation.
« Last Edit: 25/08/2016 02:00:28 by timey »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #135 on: 25/08/2016 23:32:18 »
That is mathematically impossible.

A second can be represented as a length on a graph, so of course it's possible.
No, your statement, With Newtonian time it can be treated mathematically as a dimension, but it is only with SR that it became a physical length of anything," is mathematically impossible.

Nonsense: time can be treated as a time or a distance. Newtonian time treats it as a time while SR treats it as a distance, and indeed it's the only distance that isn't variable within the non-Euclidean geometry where other lengths are different depending on which frame you measure them from.

Quote
You are right, I don't get it. You have made a choice: you are standing, regardless of what anyone says, against the reasoning of physicists. I am not willing to do this. I wish you all the best and I hope this won't be hard for you. I really, really hope that you ahve someone looking after you.

I'm only standing up for reason. If your SR model can't generate the future out of the past without generating contradictions, it's broken and needs to be modified until it works. If you're at a Spacetime location and asking questions about what's going on at another Spacetime location while the calculations using one frame of reference are telling you that some event has happened there but the calculations using a different frame of reference are telling you that it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Anyone who believes they're both correct is in need of medication.

Quote
Like all of your knowledge of SR, you are putting together a half-baked idea of what everyone in history has done based on your limited reading. Many people have made animated SR diagrams. The difference between them and you is that they are using SR and you are not, given that your animated diagrams fail to preserve the same events across different reference frames.

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. Anyone who hunts for answers will find a wall of silence because you have no answers.

Quote
There is no interpretation of SR in which one can have a length without a reference frame. Again, you have a very limited, self-taught knowledge of SR. You seem to hate those people who actually had teachers and you refuse to learn from them and you refuse to read anything more about SR. You have made this choice.

Absolute baloney: reference frames in SR give a narrow view of a deeper reality in which objects sit in non-Euclidean space where their true dimensions don't vary in the way they appear to do to us. The maximum lengths we measure for their dimensions (by co-moving with them) are the true lengths - the rest are just warped images of them.

Quote
Quote
If you have a mechanism in which one frame has clocks that run faster than those of other frames, that is the preferred frame. You can't have more than one frame performing that role at the same location in space.
You seem to not understand frames of reference at all. There are an infinite number of frames where certain clocks have the same properties of their rate.

If one clock has its clocks running faster than those of other frames at a specific location, there are no other frames with clocks running that fast at that location. There will be an infinite number of others there running at any given slower rate.

Quote
And frames are not located in space, space has location by virtue of a frame.

The only reason I'm restricting things to a locality is that a frame that runs clocks fastest in one place may not do so in another place due to the expansion of space - it's just careful wording to take that into account.

Quote
I cannot simply accept your lies about SR. There is no frame in which, "he clock of one frame ticks faster than the clock of another while also ticking slower than that clock." This is your own fabrication.

It is SR's fabrication. If you have calculations based on one frame telling you that clock A is ticking faster than clock B while your calculations based on a different frame are telling you that clock B is ticking faster than clock A, they cannot both be telling you the truth. Not all the accounts generated by the analysis based on different frames are valid.

Quote
Like many cranks, you fantasize how SR is based on your limited knowledge and you make a decision about how SR really is and you then reject any person or text that might say otherwise.

Like many qualified cranks, you don't understand SR despite having fancy documents signed by the clergy which lead you to imagine that you do. My task in all this is to try to get to the truth and then to pass it on to others. It's all about finding the truth and trying to get it out of some very slippery characters who don't want to take a close look at the solidity of the foundations of their beliefs that they've built so much upon. That is why the interactive exam is there - it's designed to force those who are brave enough to take it on to confront the problems and to try to get useful answers from them, and yet what happens? They run away from it and snipe at other things instead because they have no answers. If they did have answers they would be able to point straight to a site that would show how their SR model can generate the future out of the past without generating contradictions, without a preferred frame, and without event-meshing failures, but there is no such site out there because they have no such model. The only models they actually have are the ones that I have shown you. What they actually do is fudge and mudge, pointing at one of those models and saying "See, there's no event-meshing failure there!", then they point at a different model and say, "See, there's no need for a preferred frame there!", and then to another model again and say, "See, there are no contradictions generated here!", but they're trying to pass three incompatible models off as a single model, and the only one that actually fits in fully with SR is the one that generates an infinite number of contradictions. And so long as they keep sticking their heads in the sand to avoid seeing the problem, armies of people will continue to regard SR as witchcraft rather than science. If you seriously think SR works, you (or some other representative of the Church of Einstein) should be able to find a point where the argument presented in the interactive exam is faulty, but hundreds of experts have already run away from it without daring to say where it told them they'd failed. Only one has said where he failed it (question #1 - he believes that time doesn't run), and he ran away from the follow-up question that I put to him because he realised that his version of the model can't generate anything at all. All I'm doing is asking the awkward questions that anyone should ask and which the SR mob don't know how to answer, and the reason they have no answers to offer is very simple: SR is broken.
« Last Edit: 25/08/2016 23:35:51 by David Cooper »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #136 on: 26/08/2016 00:03:54 »
This diagram is depicting a mathematical means to a concept I'm calling observational time frame  dependency.  Although actual numbers can be attributed to this system, what I'm describing is a formula, so it doesn't 'need' them in order to work.  I just don't know how to express the formula mathematically.

But you must be getting numbers out for the proportions on each line (which I suspect you're doing differently from me). Why not provide a list of those numbers. You must have such a list - just measure them off your diagram with a ruler.

Quote
Perhaps you can now see the possibility that observing that vastly lengthened second from the length of the standard second can result in not being able to actually see very much of that longer second.  Resulting in not being able to see all of the rocket travelling at that speed. ie: length contraction

But one problem there is that we do observe the whole of the longer second - we see the action in slow motion. As for the contraction, that could certainly make it harder to see the detail, but none of the detail is missing - we just need to magnify it more to see it.

Quote
(edit: although these numbers are completly arbitary, the natural divisions would be the length of nano seconds)

Nanoseconds are no less arbitrary.

Quote
This is depicting the ratio of what a reference frame with a length of second as per line 1 will and will not observe of a reference frame that has a length of second as per line 2.

What have you actually worked out from this? Can you use it to determine how much length contraction and time dilation there will be when you observe something moving relative to you at 0.866c? Can you get the number 2 or 1/2 out of it? And, if so, can you work out why that answer comes out of it? Does it work for other speeds too? Do you own a calculator capable of doing a square root or are you just doing everything on hope and guesses? If you've found something worthwhile, you need to find out whether it stands up or not, and that means checking the numbers.

Quote
and 'hopefully' can be matched to the maths of the expected length contraction of a reference frame in relative motion as per its expected time dilation.

Do you have the formula Lorentz uses for calculating length contraction and time dilation? If you don't have a calculator capable of handling roots, would you like someone to give you a list of a range of speeds and their associated length contractions? Feel free to post a list of a hundred speeds and I'll do the maths for you to give you the numbers you need - it'll only take a few minutes to write a little program capable of churning out thousands of them, so you can have as many as you need. You've got to check that your proportions are actually giving you something that matches up to the real numbers of length contraction, because until you've done that you can't possibly know if you've got anything relevant to this business at all.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #137 on: 26/08/2016 01:01:02 »
Nonsense: time can be treated as a time or a distance. Newtonian time treats it as a time while SR treats it as a distance, and indeed it's the only distance that isn't variable within the non-Euclidean geometry where other lengths are different depending on which frame you measure them from.
I'm sorry that you are so limited by whatever you taught yourself and that you refuse to learn anything new. Mathematically, one could always treat time as a length and this was done well before Einstein developed SR. Again, I'm sorry to see you embarrass yourself like this.

Quote
I'm only standing up for reason. If your SR model can't generate the future out of the past without generating contradictions, it's broken and needs to be modified until it works.
And, as everyone working on it has shown for over a century, SR is a deterministic theory for which future events are completely determined by the past. If you think otherwise, then you are making a mistake. You have a significant burden of proof, given the immense amount of study given to the fundamentals of SR.

Quote
If you're at a Spacetime location and asking questions about what's going on at another Spacetime location while the calculations using one frame of reference are telling you that some event has happened there but the calculations using a different frame of reference are telling you that it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong.
So you are simply choosing to believe, regardless of any argument, that there is a holy, true frame of reference. So you are just begging the question for your conclusion.
Quote
Anyone who believes they're both correct is in need of medication.
I would be careful about making that accusation, given that you are the person up against a century of published work and that you are siding with bona fide crackpots against SR.

Quote
Where can I find an animation/simulation that does the job in a way you approve of then?
Have you heard of google?

Here are some of the first results:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/~ts2/Animation/special_relativity.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2VMO7pcWhg
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/
http://www.kcvs.ca/site/projects/specialRelativity.html

Quote
How do they perform the magic trick of avoiding generating contradictions?
They, unlike you, actually use the Lorentz transformations.

Quote
Absolute baloney: reference frames in SR give a narrow view of a deeper reality in which objects sit in non-Euclidean space where their true dimensions don't vary in the way they appear to do to us. The maximum lengths we measure for their dimensions (by co-moving with them) are the true lengths - the rest are just warped images of them.
This is your spacial David Cooper Relativity theory. You are free to use your own theory, but do not lie to us and say that it is SR.

Quote
It is SR's fabrication. If you have calculations based on one frame telling you that clock A is ticking faster than clock B while your calculations based on a different frame are telling you that clock B is ticking faster than clock A, they cannot both be telling you the truth. Not all the accounts generated by the analysis based on different frames are valid.
This is your own, special desire to have a holy frame of reference. Most other people have moved on.

Quote
That is why the interactive exam is there - it's designed to force those who are brave enough to take it on to confront the problems and to try to get useful answers from them, and yet what happens? They run away from it and snipe at other things instead because they have no answers.
If you ask questions based on falsehoods, then people will point this out.

Quote
If they did have answers they would be able to point straight to a site that would show how their SR model can generate the future out of the past without generating contradictions, without a preferred frame, and without event-meshing failures, but there is no such site out there because they have no such model.
Why don't you look at any of the major books by Lawrence Sklar, to pick a philosopher of physics out of a hat. It's likely that all of them go into this or at least give a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Sklar#Major_books You imagine that you have to answers, but you are merely poorly read and taught.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #138 on: 26/08/2016 01:43:23 »
This diagram is depicting a mathematical means to a concept I'm calling observational time frame  dependency.  Although actual numbers can be attributed to this system, what I'm describing is a formula, so it doesn't 'need' them in order to work.  I just don't know how to express the formula mathematically.

But you must be getting numbers out for the proportions on each line (which I suspect you're doing differently from me). Why not provide a list of those numbers. You must have such a list - just measure them off your diagram with a ruler.

Quote
Perhaps you can now see the possibility that observing that vastly lengthened second from the length of the standard second can result in not being able to actually see very much of that longer second.  Resulting in not being able to see all of the rocket travelling at that speed. ie: length contraction

But one problem there is that we do observe the whole of the longer second - we see the action in slow motion. As for the contraction, that could certainly make it harder to see the detail, but none of the detail is missing - we just need to magnify it more to see it.

Quote
(edit: although these numbers are completly arbitary, the natural divisions would be the length of nano seconds)

Nanoseconds are no less arbitrary.

Quote
This is depicting the ratio of what a reference frame with a length of second as per line 1 will and will not observe of a reference frame that has a length of second as per line 2.

What have you actually worked out from this? Can you use it to determine how much length contraction and time dilation there will be when you observe something moving relative to you at 0.866c? Can you get the number 2 or 1/2 out of it? And, if so, can you work out why that answer comes out of it? Does it work for other speeds too? Do you own a calculator capable of doing a square root or are you just doing everything on hope and guesses? If you've found something worthwhile, you need to find out whether it stands up or not, and that means checking the numbers.

Quote
and 'hopefully' can be matched to the maths of the expected length contraction of a reference frame in relative motion as per its expected time dilation.

Do you have the formula Lorentz uses for calculating length contraction and time dilation? If you don't have a calculator capable of handling roots, would you like someone to give you a list of a range of speeds and their associated length contractions? Feel free to post a list of a hundred speeds and I'll do the maths for you to give you the numbers you need - it'll only take a few minutes to write a little program capable of churning out thousands of them, so you can have as many as you need. You've got to check that your proportions are actually giving you something that matches up to the real numbers of length contraction, because until you've done that you can't possibly know if you've got anything relevant to this business at all.

I haven't created a diagram... I mostly do everything in my head, and this is really very simple indeed.  Formulas are numberless mathematics.

*

If you were to view a rocket experiencing dilated time and you saw the occupants of that rocket moving around their tasks in slow motion, then the rocket itself will also be moving in slow motion.  A rocket moving in slow motion is no longer travelling at the speed that causes the time dilation.
There is no way of avoiding this contradiction.

I am suggesting that the dilated time is directly causing the appearance of the associated length contraction and that this matches the fact of the current time dilation maths being the inverse of the current length contraction maths...
The ratios that you mention appearing in the diagram you have created at my instruction are depicting the inverse and non inverse of the maths currently employed to describe length contraction in relation to the inverse of these maths being motion related time dilation, except that my version of this description is not involving Newtonian time, only one rate of local time in relation to another.

*

Yes nano seconds also arbitrary - but we use the standard second to measure time in most respects.
Let's give this some numbers then... A million micro seconds to a standard second split into ten equals one hundred thousand microseconds to a time frame.  (edit: clearly a time frame of the value of 100 000 microseconds can be subdivided by power10 as many times as is necessary into smaller time frames comprised of nanoseconds)

Remembering that we created 10 spaces with 11 markers on the first line that we are saying represents a standard second, we are making markers on line 2 that depicts a longer second spaced equally to the first line.  Line 2 is longer, there will be more spaces on line 2 than line 1...

How many more spaces?  Well that would depend on how much longer the dilated second is.  We have given the length of the space between markers a value of 1 hundred thousand microseconds.  A 'time frame' has the value of 100 000 microseconds...
If you can work out by how many microseconds a standard second will be dilated by for a speed of 0.866c then this system can be checked against that speeds expected length contraction...
...But for now let's just increase the length of a standard second by 50 000 microseconds.  This is equal to half the length of a space between markers.  Line 2 will have 10.5 spaces in relation to line 1's 10 spaces.
We centralise line 1 in relation to line 2 so that line 2 is the value of 25 000 microseconds longer at top of line 2 in relation to line 1, and 25 000 microseconds longer at bottom of line 2 in relation to line 1.

We can see that if we extend the markers on line 1 horizontally to meet line 2, that the horizontal will divide a space between markers on line 2 into two spaces.  The length of these divisions of this space between markers on line 2 is the ratio we are looking at.

I am saying that it will be the greater part of this division of the space between markers on line 2 that one will observe.  The lesser part of the division 'should' be a ratio that matches the expected length contraction for a time dilation of that proportion.
« Last Edit: 26/08/2016 02:48:54 by timey »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #139 on: 26/08/2016 12:06:54 »
So in adding 50 000 microseconds to the million microseconds of the standard second to create line 2, it becomes clear that the observable proportionality of an observation of line 2, from line 1, is going to be missing 25 000 microseconds over the duration of the passing of its 10 time frames...
So - to clear up the overall ratio...
1000000 microseconds divided by a 1025000 microseconds = 0.97560976.

I'm suggesting that a length contraction associated with a second that is 50 000 microseconds longer than a standard second, will be of this ratio, and the reason the length appears contracted is because it is not possible to observe this ratio of the longer second from the shorter second. ((...and visa versa of the rocket's observation of the shorter second - but this will not be so obvious because the shorter second is not moving (or not moving as fast), relative to the longer second.))
« Last Edit: 26/08/2016 12:40:38 by timey »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #140 on: 26/08/2016 16:16:25 »
Just an addition, because I hate working with numbers and I'm not sure if I'm calculating the ratio that appears using this system with the correct process anyway, so I think I should describe the scenario from the reverse perspective:

The greater part of the division of the time frame on line 2 has the value of 75 000 microseconds.  Line 1 can only see these divisions.  And line 1 cannot see the 25 000 value divisions.

The question is by what proportionality?  I have added 5℅ in length to the duration of a second, but am I looking here at something that is giving me an observation that suggests a 25% reduction in length?

Simply dividing by the addition would solve the maths, but why?  What is the physics involved in the process of that?  And would dividing by the addition always work in any circumstance?  If it did, then this would suggest that perhaps seconds that are getting slower at increasing speeds, are getting slower more slowly as the speed increases further, and that as the speed decreases, that the seconds get faster at a faster rate the slower the speed is.

...can we take the speed 0.866c (that you were using), that length contracts a rocket to half its length, where we know that each division of of a time frame would be divided equally and then work backwards?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #141 on: 26/08/2016 23:33:22 »
Hi Timey,

If we were to plot a graph of speeds of travel against the length contraction factor that applies for each speed, we might write speeds along the X-axis and have length contraction factors shown on the Y-axis. The line would run through the point (0,1) and it would look like a horizontal line running right along the graph on the Y=1 line for a very long way out to either side. Eventually it would begin to drift a little from that line, then it would head downwards more quickly until it hits the X-axis where the speed of light is marked. It is possible to create millions of other curves which also pass through (0,1) and which gradually accelerate down to meet the X-axis in the same place, and you will find points all the way along any such line where you can read off what appear to be length contraction values, but these will not be located over the right speeds and they are therefore completely useless for the task.

You need to draw a graph of the numbers you're getting off your diagram to see if your graph is the right shape. Until you do that (and you can do it just by checking a few values, so it isn't a massive task), you aren't going to know if your graph is going to be useful or useless. What you appear to have at the moment is a notion rather than a theory, so if you want to turn it into a theory you're going to have to plot your graph. If you're scared to do this because you fear it will destroy your theory, then you're in the wrong game - you seriously need to find out the truth. If the numbers fit, you will certainly have something worth looking at, but the graph I'm getting from applying your method (in my head) appears to be horribly wrong. Perhaps I'm not doing it the right way though, and that's why I need you need to provide your numbers. Without them, no one else can justify putting in the time to explore this any further: these numbers are crucial. You have proportions that you can read off your diagram, but you can find those on any old curve on a graph. How do you read off the frame speed that goes with the contraction values? If you don't know the answer to that, you will never be able to use your diagram to provide useful answers.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #142 on: 27/08/2016 00:58:55 »
I'm sorry that you are so limited by whatever you taught yourself and that you refuse to learn anything new. Mathematically, one could always treat time as a length and this was done well before Einstein developed SR. Again, I'm sorry to see you embarrass yourself like this.

On the contrary - I'm one of the few people who can learn and who changes position when I find out I'm wrong about things. You by contrast do not learn even though you keep tripping over things. Here, you are still missing the point and making embarrassing objections to things that really shouldn't be contested. Of course time was often treated like a length before Einstein, and time is often described as short or long just like a length, and people have always talked about lengths of time, but it was with Einstein that it ceased to be metaphorical.

Quote
And, as everyone working on it has shown for over a century, SR is a deterministic theory for which future events are completely determined by the past. If you think otherwise, then you are making a mistake. You have a significant burden of proof, given the immense amount of study given to the fundamentals of SR.

If you weren't too scared to take the interactive exam, you'd find out that there are major problems with how SR is supposed to generate the future out of the past without shedding some of its ideological baggage.

Quote
I would be careful about making that accusation, given that you are the person up against a century of published work and that you are siding with bona fide crackpots against SR.

It's a fully reasonable accusation to make where people are tolerating contradictions as that trashing of logic is the kind of behaviour associated with crazy religions.

Quote
Quote
Where can I find an animation/simulation that does the job in a way you approve of then?
Have you heard of google?

Why are you wasting my time with that pile of irrelevant junk? I want you to show me something that actually shows how the future is generated out of the past in SR without using an external time to control the relative progress on different paths, using nothing other than the time of the "time dimension" and not cheating by using one frame as a preferred frame to govern the rest. The problem that my page addresses is this very specific issue of how the unfolding of time is handled on different paths through Spacetime without using a preferred frame or an external time to cheat. The reality is that all simulations cheat and fail to do SR properly unless they follow model 1, but if they do that they have to exhibit event-meshing failure.

Quote
Quote
How do they perform the magic trick of avoiding generating contradictions?
They, unlike you, actually use the Lorentz transformations.

That isn't a valid answer because they produce contradictions.

Quote
This is your spacial David Cooper Relativity theory. You are free to use your own theory, but do not lie to us and say that it is SR.

You may not understand SR well enough to recognise this as SR, but it is correct. Objects in SR occupy non-Euclidean space and their dimensions in that space are constant, not shifting with the wind. You are trying to claim that all the Euclidean views of them are providing equally fundamental truths about their shapes, but that is not the case - they are giving warped views of an underlying, unchanging reality.

Quote
This is your own, special desire to have a holy frame of reference. Most other people have moved on.

It is nothing more than my refusal to accept contradictory claims about events. Where one account contradicts another, they cannot both be valid, so attributing equal validity to them is idiotic, and it's that crazy toleration of contradictions that generates the army of cranks and crackpots who attack SR in thousands of different ways, all thinking they may be doing a better job of it than the physicists because the physicists are so clearly barking mad. And that also makes it hard for anyone objecting to SR to be seen as anything other than a crank by physicists because they've had so much of their time wasted by cranks already and are fed up with it all, so they cling to their beliefs and wave their diplomas at anyone who questions them, then they chant their mantras and pray to their gods. My task in all of this is simple - I want to educate the cranks, ideally to show them how SR works and to prove to them that it is valid, but I can't do that because it has claims tied to it that simply don't stack up logically. It cannot be true that clock A ticks faster than clock B and that clock B ticks faster than clock A. Either one of them ticks faster than the other or they both tick at the same rate, and that either takes you away from model 2 in the direction of model 3 (preferred frame) or model 1 (event-meshing failure).

Quote
If you ask questions based on falsehoods, then people will point this out.

But they are unable to show falsehoods in the interactive exam. Instead, they nitpick about things I've said elsewhere in the introductory part of my page where the aim is to get people up to speed with the subject quickly even if they have no previous knowledge of it, but even then their attacks are based on ignorance and lack of understanding of their own subject. There you are, for example, not understanding how things have a fixed shape in the non-Eucledean reality which doesn't change no matter how much you rotate them or move them around.

Quote
Why don't you look at any of the major books by Lawrence Sklar, to pick a philosopher of physics out of a hat. It's likely that all of them go into this or at least give a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Sklar#Major_books You imagine that you have to answers, but you are merely poorly read and taught.

What you don't realise is that the argument I've built on my page came out of discussion with a number of experts on SR, and most of the content of it (including claims which you're objecting to) came directly from them while we collectively built the thought experiment at the centre of it. All I've done is put the whole lot together and illustrate it with a few programs, steering people towards the fundamental problems with SR. We began with models 2 and 3 and discussed the contradictions generated by mode 2. The way they tried to escape from there was by moving to modes 1 and zero, but neither of those models provides the solution they claimed because each of them had its own difficulties in trying to account for the generation of the future out of the past. Model zero is lorentz invarient, but it has no functionality as it can't run events from past to future without them pre-existing in an eternal block universe state. Model 1 is also lorentz invarient, but it has to be able to tolerate event-meshing failure during the construction phase of the block (and it only works with a block universe). Model 2 doesn't need a block universe, but it is not Lorentz invarient - when you change frame, you make and unmake events, and clearly the real universe cannot behave that way. Model 3 is Lorentz invarient and generates no contradictions, but it achieves this by having a preferred frame. There simply are no other possible SR models that can have any hope of resolving the issues, and that's why you can't point to one. All you can do is throw piles of links at me and assert that there's a model in there somewhere that fits the bill, but I've run this past more than enough experts to know that there isn't. There are only the models I've put on my page, and the ones that SR believers want to use are not viable. Look at the Twitter conversation with the cosmologist (Geraint Lewis) who thought his Spacetime diagram plotting algorithm was a simulation which would meet the challenge. There was nothing in it at all that had any relevance to the control of the unfolding of events on different paths through Spacetime. All of the modes of my interactive diagram would, if they were designed to, plot out identical Spacetime diagrams, but the way in which they do so is not stored in the end result at all, and it's that process that the whole discussion on my page is about - a process which other people simply refuse to address. Lewis's plotter simply plotted lines, calculating in ways that had no care at all about the order in which the events would have to unfold and mesh together. If we start at Spacetime location X and run events on from there, we can't have one path develop more slowly than another unless we're using the time of a preferred frame (as Newtonian time) to slow the progress on the other paths. But if we allow them all to progress with their time running at full speed, we're automatically into mode 1 and will necessarily have event-meshing failure. If anyone out there thinks they have ideas about how an SR simulation can be done without cheating though, I'm more than willing to program it with them, but it is a task that has so far had no takers for the simple reason that it's impossible: that's why you can't link to a simulation that works without cheating. The only simulations that exist either use a preferred frame, generate contradictions or produce event-meshing failure, exactly as the modes of my interactive diagram do (which are simulations).

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #143 on: 27/08/2016 02:24:46 »
On the contrary - I'm one of the few people who can learn and who changes position when I find out I'm wrong about things. You by contrast do not learn even though you keep tripping over things. Here, you are still missing the point and making embarrassing objections to things that really shouldn't be contested. Of course time was often treated like a length before Einstein, and time is often described as short or long just like a length, and people have always talked about lengths of time, but it was with Einstein that it ceased to be metaphorical.
You are literally ignoring the mathematical discipline of geometry.

Quote
If you weren't too scared to take the interactive exam, you'd find out that there are major problems with how SR is supposed to generate the future out of the past without shedding some of its ideological baggage.
Why do you assume that your half-baked ideas are new? They are not new, they are simply wrong. Your "exam" is as intelligent as asking someone "Did you stop beating your wife?"

Quote
Why are you wasting my time with that pile of irrelevant junk? I want you to show me something that actually shows how the future is generated out of the past in SR without using an external time to control the relative progress on different paths, using nothing other than the time of the "time dimension" and not cheating by using one frame as a preferred frame to govern the rest.
You have this insane idea that because the information in one well-formed frame is guaranteed to give us the information in every other well-formed frame, then the first frame we described things in is the preferred frame. It is not, it is merely the one we used to provide the initial description.



Quote
Quote
They, unlike you, actually use the Lorentz transformations.

That isn't a valid answer because they produce contradictions.
You realize that by saying this you are simply denying logical inference? The consistency of SR is not in doubt.

Quote
You may not understand SR well enough to recognise this as SR, but it is correct. Objects in SR occupy non-Euclidean space and their dimensions in that space are constant, not shifting with the wind. You are trying to claim that all the Euclidean views of them are providing equally fundamental truths about their shapes, but that is not the case - they are giving warped views of an underlying, unchanging reality.
Again, I will side with every physicist that uses SR in saying that SR does not have a preferred reference frame and describes objects based on the frame of reference one uses. You can stand alone and be "right". Since SR is the basis of technology that makes contemporary computers possible, I feel OK being "wrong" in this way.

Quote
It is nothing more than my refusal to accept contradictory claims about events. Where one account contradicts another, they cannot both be valid, so attributing equal validity to them is idiotic, and it's that crazy toleration of contradictions that generates the army of cranks and crackpots who attack SR in thousands of different ways, all thinking they may be doing a better job of it than the physicists because the physicists are so clearly barking mad.
To be clear, you generate a contradiction only by claiming that one can compare lengths between two frames of reference in some manner independent of frames of reference, in violation of geometry. I will stick with geometry.

 
Quote
It cannot be true that clock A ticks faster than clock B and that clock B ticks faster than clock A.
And in SR, this is never the case: descriptions depend on frame and one cannot make comparison claims outside of a frame. To quote someone who should know better, your behavior matches someone like:"they've been taught the basics badly, leading them to imagine that it's okay to mix incompatible versions of the model into one faulty mess which they think works".


Quote
But they are unable to show falsehoods in the interactive exam.
OK, let's look at your falsehoods:

1. "the static block universe model... does not allow a universe to be generated in the first place as it allows no change whatsoever"

No, this model simply establishes a certain metaphysical relationship between events. It does not change the physical relationships: the physical limitations on cause and effect are just as strong in the block universe model, perhaps even stronger. 

SR is compatible with a block universe model, but does not require this model.

2. Your "Mode 1" represents SR. Your SR doesn't use the Lorentz transformations, so it is not SR. This is a horrible, obvious lie. The entire scenario of the "diagram" tries to mix the locations from one system of coordinates in another system of coordinates without using the transformations.

At this point, it is useless to continue further, as anyone who bothered to learn SR would see.

Quote
Quote
Why don't you look at any of the major books by Lawrence Sklar, to pick a philosopher of physics out of a hat. It's likely that all of them go into this or at least give a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Sklar#Major_books You imagine that you have to answers, but you are merely poorly read and taught.

What you don't realise is that the argument I've built on my page came out of discussion with a number of experts on SR, and most of the content of it (including claims which you're objecting to) came directly from them while we collectively built the thought experiment at the centre of it.
You are right, I don't realize this. I suspect that you are lying. If you did speak with people, they were likely cranks that you should know better than to call "experts".

Quote
Model 1 is also lorentz invarient,
No, you are simply lying: you combine two frames into one without applying the transformations. I cannot believe you are so incompetent.

 
Quote
All you can do is throw piles of links at me
You asked for links to animations of SR! Thanks, crank, for acting in so dishonest a way as to take away my feelings of pity once I saw your horrible website.  You have had no substantial interaction with "experts" since if you had, at least one would tell you to stop letting your education reform website look like it was designed by a ten-year old.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #144 on: 27/08/2016 04:16:52 »
Hi Timey,

If we were to plot a graph of speeds of travel against the length contraction factor that applies for each speed, we might write speeds along the X-axis and have length contraction factors shown on the Y-axis. The line would run through the point (0,1) and it would look like a horizontal line running right along the graph on the Y=1 line for a very long way out to either side. Eventually it would begin to drift a little from that line, then it would head downwards more quickly until it hits the X-axis where the speed of light is marked. It is possible to create millions of other curves which also pass through (0,1) and which gradually accelerate down to meet the X-axis in the same place, and you will find points all the way along any such line where you can read off what appear to be length contraction values, but these will not be located over the right speeds and they are therefore completely useless for the task.

You need to draw a graph of the numbers you're getting off your diagram to see if your graph is the right shape. Until you do that (and you can do it just by checking a few values, so it isn't a massive task), you aren't going to know if your graph is going to be useful or useless. What you appear to have at the moment is a notion rather than a theory, so if you want to turn it into a theory you're going to have to plot your graph. If you're scared to do this because you fear it will destroy your theory, then you're in the wrong game - you seriously need to find out the truth. If the numbers fit, you will certainly have something worth looking at, but the graph I'm getting from applying your method (in my head) appears to be horribly wrong. Perhaps I'm not doing it the right way though, and that's why I need you need to provide your numbers. Without them, no one else can justify putting in the time to explore this any further: these numbers are crucial. You have proportions that you can read off your diagram, but you can find those on any old curve on a graph. How do you read off the frame speed that goes with the contraction values? If you don't know the answer to that, you will never be able to use your diagram to provide useful answers.

The speed associated with a length contraction 'should' be indicative in the 'length' of its associated dilated second..
 Why include a graph line for the related speed?  It would be simple enough to include by tagging each line representing the length of a second with a label stating its time dilated related speed of motion.  But what point?  There would be vastly more point to including info of the gravity field that a rocket travelling at relativist speeds would be obliged to encounter.

If you have paid attention - which you haven't, because you are looking at these lines as being length contracted themselves, rather than representing a phenomenon of differently dilated seconds that is causing an observation that negates one from viewing portions of time frames of a dilated second from a differently dilated second - the diagram that you have created 'in your head' would be correct...

It's just that you are entirely conditioned to view the fact of a length contraction as being caused by speed of motion, (although physics has no idea why this should occur)...
...and this system I am proposing further defines the situation as being that speed of motion causes dilated seconds - and that dilated seconds are causing the appearance of length contraction, when observed from a reference frame of seconds that are differently dilated.

...But before I leave you to argue in length and breadth with the realm defender as would seem you're preference, can you tell me by how much a second 'is' dilated, (relative to a standard second), to cause a length to contract to half its length?

I found something online that might tell me, but it's a PDF and I can't open these documents, or view a lot of the diagram stuff that is available online on my phone, my phone being the only form of internet connection available to me for quite some considerable time now.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #145 on: 27/08/2016 15:40:37 »
For anyone who can appreciate the system of using lines and spaces in the way that I suggest to create a visual representation of my concept of observational time frame dependency that seconds of differing dilations may make of each other...

I understand that using local time of observation reference frame in relation to observation of length contraction in a frame moving at speed relative to observation reference frame is not the usual approach.  I also can appreciate that dispensing with the Newtonian time that the usual calculations refer back to as the observation point, will cause a proportionality between length contraction and time dilation that may be unrecognisable in relation to the current maths.

The proportionality that I expect to be apparent in my concept of observational time frame dependency directly relates to the Bekenstien Hawkings temperature conundrum...
A black holes temperature reduces by the inverse square law with addition of mass.  I am suggesting that the additional mass is causing an increase in the difference between the rate of time between observation and observed, and that this is causing the observation point to observe less of the black holes temperature, which as per usual physics would increase by the square law with additional mass. (the fact that my related theory states time running faster for black holes is neither here nor there, if a black holes time runs slow, the concept still holds)

Therefore I am expecting the proportionality of my concept of observational time frame dependency to follow this proportionality.  As a second is increased in length relative to the observation reference frames second, via motion related time dilation, the observation should decrease via the inverse square law.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #146 on: 27/08/2016 18:19:36 »
I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:

"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.
There is no way to avoid this contradiction"

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #147 on: 27/08/2016 19:58:14 »
A solution to this contradiction is to state the observation of the dilated time as time frame dependent...

Matching the number of time frames of an observation reference frame up with the greater number of time frames of an extended second in the observed reference frame, and stating the extra as unobservable from the observation reference frame, or proportionally unobservable, solves this contradiction.

A rockets occupants would be observed as missing frames of .movement in their tasks around the rocket, ie: the guy who was using the exercise bike seems to have passed through a wall and is now on the toilet, or the maintenance woman fixing a solar panel appears to have disappeared from the panel and appeared at the hatch... (doesn't this sound a bit like quantum?)

The rocket itself would be observed to have missing frames of its form, ie: length contraction, and clearly, under the remit of missing frames of observation, this appearance of length contraction would only occur inline motion.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #148 on: 27/08/2016 20:44:55 »
I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:

"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.
There is no way to avoid this contradiction"

Yes that is a very interesting point. Maybe someone will address it once all the arguing stops.

*

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 593
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #149 on: 27/08/2016 23:59:02 »
I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:

"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.
There is no way to avoid this contradiction"
Yeah, that's just wrong. The motion of the rocket is stipulated, it is the physical events "within" the rocket that appear to be slowed. If the "rocket" was just a pocket watch, the entire watch would be moving at the stipulated speed, it is just the motion of the hands and gears of the watch that change.