0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Colin,Please, fix the subject of the thread.Fair enough, here is a description.The left origin of the blue arrows is an event A where x=x'=0 and t=t'=0.2s in platform frame are required for the red arrow up 90 degree.... but 1s for the blue arrow to go up 90 degree.This is the relativity, right?Jano
I invented an exercise regimen called the Special Relativity Work Out; SRWO, about 10 years ago. ......
Quote from: David Cooper on 05/08/2020 04:43:13Einstein's insistence that the speed of light is always c relative to any observer is nothing more than a contrived mathematical abstractionIf that was true, then why have attempts to measure light's speed in a vacuum always resulted in c regardless of the technique we use?
Einstein's insistence that the speed of light is always c relative to any observer is nothing more than a contrived mathematical abstraction
Hi all,here is a question for everybody.A train observer on a train car with L'0=3.4641cs' sends a light beam towards the front of the train car.Is the light beam going to cross 3.4641cs' in 3s' of the train reference frame?Jano
My argument has nothing to do with the ability to detect the correct frame. I'm saying there are no viable candidates from which to choose, so not knowing the correct answer on a multiple choice question becomes impossible if there are no available choices.If you disagree, then give me a choice that works. You can't, for the reasons I explained above.
Tear the argument to shreds then, using whatever argument you found on quora. I've not seen any counter to it. If my argument has been presented (and disassembled) elsewhere, I'd be very interested in seeing it discussed, since so far I've seen nothing from anybody who knows their physics.
Quote from: David Cooper on 05/08/2020 04:11:13The whole point of this example is that the circular motion is eliminated by the other clocks forming a relay race round the same circuit with them all moving along straight paths and confirming that the acceleration is irrelevant: it shows the case with acceleration to map with high precision to the case without acceleration, and if you want higher precision, you just add more clocks to the relay to have the polygon tend to the circle.Oh dear.
The whole point of this example is that the circular motion is eliminated by the other clocks forming a relay race round the same circuit with them all moving along straight paths and confirming that the acceleration is irrelevant: it shows the case with acceleration to map with high precision to the case without acceleration, and if you want higher precision, you just add more clocks to the relay to have the polygon tend to the circle.
The way it works is my company has a professional runner on staff, who runs around a track. The paying clients recline in chairs, at various points along the track. I then hypnotize them and have them all pretend that the pro runner is stationary, and we are all moving, I have them more their arms. Since reference is relative to the observer, and there is no preferred reference, all the clients are now in relative motion without having to actually move. They burn calories. The runner by being stationary, burns much fewer calories, base on the consensus of the majority reference. This allows him to run for hours without getting tired. I feed him one grape per hour.
Exactly. Glad you've seen your error at last.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 05/08/2020 20:38:06Colin,Please, fix the subject of the thread.Fair enough, here is a description.The left origin of the blue arrows is an event A where x=x'=0 and t=t'=0.2s in platform frame are required for the red arrow up 90 degree.... but 1s for the blue arrow to go up 90 degree.This is the relativity, right?JanoSorry, forgot David is not OP, although he does appear to want to put this into LET vs SR territory.The diagram is not self explanatory and certainly doesn’t define reciprocal. I suspect by reciprocal you mean the type of symmetry described in your previous post which is closer to a definition:Two inertial observers see each other clocks going slower.Two inertial observers see each other Lorentz Contracted.Whatever the first inertial observer can say about the second one then the second observer can say the same things about the first one.This reciprocity/symmetry is not a problem in relativity despite your objections....
Quote from: Kryptid on 02/08/2020 04:51:17//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iJZ_QGMLD0Kryptid,Question, how is it possible that when the travelling twin is in 'the same reference' frame, has almost 0 relative speed there are the biggest proper time deltas between the reference frames?Please, see the blue lines.Do you agree that this does not make sense?Jano
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iJZ_QGMLD0
(1) In an expanding universe with three space dimensions existing within the surface layer of an expanding or contracting 4D bubble, the absolute frame can't coincide with a frame within the 3D universe. What you would have instead is a pseudo-absolute 3D frame at any given point in the 3D universe which has the speed of light travel at c relative to it in every direction, while every other frame at that location has light travel faster through it in one direction than the opposite way. In such a situation, every point in that 3D universe could have a different pseudo-absolute frame.
(2) In an expanding universe with three space dimensions expanding within a 3D superspace external to the universe, there will be an absolute frame in the universe which is the same frame as the absolute frame in the superspace which the universe expands in, but clearly for the expansion of the universe to happen, the superspace must allow parts of the universe to move faster than c through the superspace so it isn't the same kind of frame.
These are complications, but for normal purposes we can ignore them and just talk about an absolute frame within a region of space in which the speed of light relative to that frame is c in every direction.
You claim there are no viable choices. I say there are an infinite number of viable choices. Disproof 1 and disproof 2 (which I posted here last night) confirm that there must be such an absolute frame.
I didn't find it on Quora. I put it there.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 05/08/2020 17:24:43Hi all,here is a question for everybody.A train observer on a train car with L'0=3.4641cs' sends a light beam towards the front of the train car.Is the light beam going to cross 3.4641cs' in 3s' of the train reference frame?JanoIf it is not a problem then how do we explain this?Jano
Quote from: David Cooper on 05/08/2020 22:49:46Exactly. Glad you've seen your error at last.No. I've seen yours.If two bodies are travelling at the same speed along two different tangents to a circle, they are not travelling at the same velocity. Velocity is a vector, and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.
The triplet paradox and the twin paradox explanation, those I'd like to discuss,Jano
But the coordinate system fails for the black hole case. It does not foliate spacetime within the event horizon, and thus cannot be used to answer my example pair of event in the earlier post.
Thus the system is not a valid candidate for the absolute frame. A person inside the event horizon, who presumes that system to be the absolute frame, cannot answer the question ‘what actual time is it now?’, and that question should always be answerable if an actual absolute event ordering exists. If there are multiple viable candidate coordinate systems, then sure, one cannot know which is the correct one, but if there are no viable candidates, then there can be no absolute foliation, and any theory like LET that posits such an ordering is necessarily false.
You’re one of the few from whom I was hoping for an intelligent response. I have no idea if my argument is flawed. I want it taken apart since I’ve started threads defending the absolutist view against relativity. But that’s before I thought of this argument. All attempts to disprove absolutism seem flawed. Surely I’ve not discovered a valid one.
Um, this sounds like a theory of the universe expanding from one location into pre-existing empty space.
QuoteYou claim there are no viable choices. I say there are an infinite number of viable choices. Disproof 1 and disproof 2 (which I posted here last night) confirm that there must be such an absolute frame.Those? I wasn’t going to bother commenting on them. You either don’t know relativity theory or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it. You’ve proven nothing with this tired strawman argument. We’ve been over this. If you don’t know your relativity, then you probably cannot defend absolutism from my argument. I need somebody who knows their physics, not somebody who mangles it for personal purposes.
The failure in the black hole case is caused by the theory your using to define the geometry of your black hole.
In LET, there is Euclidean geometry and absolute time, so the problems caused by the contrived Spacetime mathematical abstraction don't occur.
In LET, you can't cross the event horizon and there is no singularity: a black hole is a ball of dense stuff: you slow to a halt at the outer edge and the event horizon can then migrate out past you as you push the local energy density up.
Disproof 3There were experiments which disproved Einstein's STR a century ago. The Michelson-Gale-Pearson is one of those, though it wasn't recognised as such at the time. It is only today with greater minds than Einstein looking at the evidence that we can see what this experiment actually revealed. Two lots of light were sent round a rotating ring, and one lot of light returned to the emitter before the other, just as it does in the Sagnac experiment. The light that travelled in a clockwise direction passed all the material of the ring at a higher speed on average relative to that material while local to it than the light travelling the opposite way. This is observed to be the case by observers in all reference frames so it is beyond dispute.
From the accelerated reference frame of an observer accelerating at a continuous 10g
Quote from: David Cooper on 07/08/2020 00:21:44The failure in the black hole case is caused by the theory your using to define the geometry of your black hole.My point exactly. I’m using something like LET and other preferred foliation theories. The failure of the black hole case is indeed caused by the failing of that theory.
QuoteIn LET, you can't cross the event horizon and there is no singularity: a black hole is a ball of dense stuff: you slow to a halt at the outer edge and the event horizon can then migrate out past you as you push the local energy density up.If there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it? Events beyond it don’t exist in your Euclidean geometry.
This is exactly my point. Choose a geometry where the mathematical singularity vanishes (such as the local frame of somebody falling in) and there is no singularity at all. One passes in without a hitch, but cannot answer the question what time it is far away. He can see his old home, so it’s not like he’s exited the universe or anything, but he can’t get back to that home any more than you can get back to any event you see.
An example of an abstract mathematical event horizon is the Rindler horizon. From the accelerated reference frame of an observer accelerating at a continuous 10g, the event horizon exists about 920 billion km behind him. That means that if he drops his passenger (with a clock) out of his window, that passenger will fall to that event horizon and freeze in time shy of its surface, and even evaporate away with a version of Hawking radiation. From the point of view of the passenger in free-fall, he takes no notice when this horizon passes him by. I know, because I've done it multiple times, compliments of expansion of space. The only thing that changes upon crossing said horizon is that any signal he sends back to the accelerating guy will never reach him. That’s the exact kind of thing that happens with black holes. No high-density collection of stuff at the surface. It’s life as normal from this alternate point of view. Mathematical singularities are not physical singularities.
QuoteDisproof 3There were experiments which disproved Einstein's STR a century ago. The Michelson-Gale-Pearson is one of those, though it wasn't recognised as such at the time. It is only today with greater minds than Einstein looking at the evidence that we can see what this experiment actually revealed. Two lots of light were sent round a rotating ring, and one lot of light returned to the emitter before the other, just as it does in the Sagnac experiment. The light that travelled in a clockwise direction passed all the material of the ring at a higher speed on average relative to that material while local to it than the light travelling the opposite way. This is observed to be the case by observers in all reference frames so it is beyond dispute.SR predicts this, or at least the Sagnac effect. How is this MGP experiment distinct from that?You need to get your physics from legit science sites and not from quack denial sites. Citation needed.