Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

More Relativity Questions


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 6 July 2011 - 10:00 AM

I think there is a contradiction. You say that measurement of the velocity of the traveler is valid and there is no limitation to the velocity of light. What it means is that the traveler was cruising with a speed more than that of light. In any case, in relativity what is common and same is the measurement of velocity v of the traveler. Both the observers agree that velocity ‘v’ of the traveler is same. If traveler uses his clock, then not only that he finds his velocity to be more than light but there is disagreement about the velocity v.


Well - indeed, if traveler measures and controls to be equal (it’s always possible) his proper +/- acceleration when boosting (slowing down) to Alpha C and proper time by own clock, he can return in the homebody’s reference frame practically with zero speed. If he, after stop, will measure the distance "Alpha C- Earth" (e.g., by the parallax method) and obtain his speed value, it will turn out that his speed is 1.7 c.

Besides - the "twin paradox" is considered as usual as "clock paradox", but it has also another side: if the traveler, moving in the inertial section of the travel, will measure the homebody’s energy, this energy will be rather large – when homebody didn’t spend any energy. Moreover, if both of twin will measure the mass/ energy of Matter in our Universe, they obtain different values – when Matter is unique and so has unique mass.

Thus standard SRT contains rather evident self-contradictions that follow, as it seems, from the "absolutization" of the relativity principle - Minkovsky’s "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality" - isn’t correct, space by itself, and time by itself, aren’t doomed to fade away; they are absolute. And there exists a fundamental reference frame – where Matter’s energy is minimal.

Besides – see the thread "light speed thought experiment" in this forum.

Cheers
  • 0

#2 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 09:50 AM

For instance, I was thinking yesterday, that if a photon sees zero distance, and zero time in changing its position from one place in the universe to another, it has no "speed" (and perhaps there is no "other place"). So how do we use this zero speed, as the implied constant in all our equations?

Regards, TAR2


There aren’t too problems in this case, if you understand that the space and time are absolute and Lorentz transformations aren’t applied to all spacetime, but are valid only for rigid systems’ volumes. If some particle, including a photon, moves with some speed in the space, it doesn’t "compress" whole spacetime in Universe –and so the photon doesn't "see zero distance"; it "see" whole space well.

At that the space and the time aren’t identical physical characteristics, though are rather like; in this case – the main difference is that if a particle (roughly speaking, more correct – see this forum, thread "light speed thought experiment”, arXiv link in last [SSDS’s] post) moves on a step in the space, it always moves on a step in time; those steps in time can be "real" and "virtual".

So, e.g., a photon moves "really" in the space direction only, with speed C (having zero rest mass in space) and (practically) "virtually" in time, so it doesn’t "come out" the time – anybody can see a ray of light.

If a ("massive") particle moves in time direction only - with speed C (having zero rest mass in time direction, what is possible in the primary reference frame in Universe only), it is at rest – doesn’t move- in the space.

Cheers

Edited by SSDS, 11 July 2011 - 09:54 AM.

  • 0

#3 Vilas Tamhane

Vilas Tamhane

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 62 posts
  • LocationPune, India

Posted 11 July 2011 - 04:18 PM


I am still in doubt about the velocity calculations, the traveler who goes to Alpha c at a speed of 0.866c would make. His clock, after reaching the destination reads half of the time in clock at rest. Using his clock and distance of rest frame, he will conclude that he was traveling at the speed of 1.732c. This cannot be because he has traveled less distance, which is recorded on some instrument. However this instrument cannot directly measure the distance. It will be dependent on time and velocity. Velocity cannot be directly measured. In other words, there is no instrument which can directly measure the distance traveled. In addition we know that there in so experiment that has proved length contraction. Therefore the only instrument he has is clock (and also the clock at rest) and the known distance in the rest frame.

Earlier I am told that this is frame jumping. This may be true while the frames are different. Here we are facing some real situation at hand.




  • 0

#4 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 13 July 2011 - 09:57 AM

I am still in doubt about the velocity calculations, the traveler who goes to Alpha c at a speed of 0.866c would make. His clock, after reaching the destination reads half of the time in clock at rest. Using his clock and distance of rest frame, he will conclude that he was traveling at the speed of 1.732c. This cannot be because he has traveled less distance, which is recorded on some instrument. However this instrument cannot directly measure the distance. It will be dependent on time and velocity. Velocity cannot be directly measured. In other words, there is no instrument which can directly measure the distance traveled. In addition we know that there in so experiment that has proved length contraction. Therefore the only instrument he has is clock (and also the clock at rest) and the known distance in the rest frame.

Earlier I am told that this is frame jumping. This may be true while the frames are different. Here we are facing some real situation at hand.



It seems you didn’t look through the SSDS post of 6 July 2011 - 10:00 AM (page 1, at end).

There isn’t something too strange in that an observer in [partially] non-inertially moving macroscopic object (e.g., in a spaceship), can obtain, when using only the instruments on this ship, that his speed is greater then the speed of light. Though the example you considered is rather curious.

Besides – again, it seems as very probable (how to test such a model – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , besides – the model doesn’t contain the contradictions of standard SRT) that the space and the time are absolute so aren’t transformed because of some body becomes to move.
The observed effects – length contraction (that has been measured firstly by Michelson, Morley, FitzGerald and Lorentz in 1887 -1892 ) and the time dilation are applied to the body only – not to the whole space "in the frame where the body is at rest" - after the body was impacted and got some momentum /[kinetic] energy.

Cheers
  • 0

#5 Vilas Tamhane

Vilas Tamhane

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 62 posts
  • LocationPune, India

Posted 13 July 2011 - 03:26 PM

It seems you didn't look through the SSDS post of 6 July 2011 - 10:00 AM (page 1, at end).

There isn't something too strange in that an observer in [partially] non-inertially moving macroscopic object (e.g., in a spaceship), can obtain, when using only the instruments on this ship, that his speed is greater then the speed of light. Though the example you considered is rather curious.

Besides – again, it seems as very probable (how to test such a model – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , besides – the model doesn't contain the contradictions of standard SRT) that the space and the time are absolute so aren't transformed because of some body becomes to move.
The observed effects – length contraction (that has been measured firstly by Michelson, Morley, FitzGerald and Lorentz in 1887 -1892 ) and the time dilation are applied to the body only – not to the whole space "in the frame where the body is at rest" - after the body was impacted and got some momentum /[kinetic] energy.

Cheers


I did go through your earlier post and I tend to agree. I could not access the paper you have mentioned above.

But your views are unorthodox and surprisingly I don’t see opposition to your views.

Length contraction is a contraction of spatial coordinates and so I take it that length contraction is space contraction.

Even if length contraction is assumed to take place, world of SR becomes quite weird. In fact to prove SR we should have an experiment in which MUTUAL time dilation is observed and this is impossible because in any such experiment we will have to bring moving clock at rest to compare results.

I think there is something wrong with this mutual changes taking place. In experiments not only we seek one way change but we know in which frame the real change happened. We tag the frame that is accelerated. I do not find anything wrong with this. On the contrary I suppose we always have history of acceleration in mind when we talk of motion.

Disturbing idea is that SR results are considered real. If the spaceship A moves with a velocity v1 and another spaceship B with v2, then their views about the universe are different and even if we take these as measurements, these are not of much use unless they really take place. Obviously, in reality, space cannot shrink differently when observers move with different speeds and in fact it cannot get shrunk at all, not only for it being empty space but also because a moving object cannot influence it. And if in reality space does not shrink, time cannot dilate.

In spite of the correctness of Galilean relativity and the equivalence of inertial frames and in spite of the fact about relative nature of velocity, in real world we always seek to know past acceleration. And to my mind there is deterministic value to the velocity of the object and there is a definite arrow in the direction from smaller to the bigger objects. For example we do not say that (though we see platform moving backward), the train is stationary and the earth is moving. Because smaller object cannot contain bigger object and so it is always the smaller object that is accelerated to move in the frame of bigger object.

So if the arrow starts with a spaceship, it directs to earth, then to solar system, then to Milky Way and then to universe. Possibly this points to the absolute nature of the universe which you mentioned in your post.

A miniscule spaceship will observe (assuming correctness of SR) that the whole universe is shrunk in the direction of its velocity and it contracts and expands with change in the direction of the spaceship.

This is not possible in reality and this certainly does not happen and if space does not actually shrink then time cannot flow at a different rate. So the basic assumption that moving clock runs slow could be wrong.

I believe that there must be some other reason, other than SR, that slows down decay rate of unstable particles.


  • 0

#6 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:02 AM

I did go through your earlier post and I tend to agree. I could not access the paper you have mentioned above.


Click on the link; next - click on "PDF only" in upper right corner (below "Download:")

Cheers

(Bold added by me)

You seem to think that somewhere in the universe there is an object that has zero velocity relative to the universe. As far as I know, the whole point of special relativity is that every object in the universe is moving relative to some other object.


- That isn't "the whole point ", that is a convention in the standard SRT. When in this SRT there is no of a prohibition for a reference frame that has "zero velocity relative to the universe" (when such a frame is suggested to exist in Lorentz version of the theory).

Cheers
  • 0

#7 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 09:51 AM

What I said does predict what relativity says. If am making any mistake then you should be able to correct it. There are only three arguments.

  • When the traveler reaches Alpha c, his clock shows lesser elapsed time.
  • If #1 is true then, this is possible only if the traveller travels lesser distance.
  • If #2 is true then the length contraction of the universe, predicted by SR, must be true (real) effect.


Again (SSDS post #36 13 July 2011 - 01:57 AM) - #2 by any means doesn’t follow from #1. So – the #3 is non-correct. There isn’t of any "space contraction" outside the spaceship;there is only that a clock in the "spaceship" becomes go slower (be "time dilated") because of it is/was impacted by engine force. At that the engine by any means doesn’t impact on "spacetime" and therefore with the spacetime nothing happens.
Analogously - it seems rather non- plausible to think that, e.g., every electron in an accelerator kneads the whole spacetime in Universe as Klichko Arreola.

Again – the result, that spaceship’s speed turns out to be greater then speed of light, in this case isn’t strange, simply you use "wrong clock"– which is in partially non-inertial object.

Cheers

P.S. Did you read SSDS post #44 Yesterday, 02:02 AM-?

Edited by SSDS, 15 July 2011 - 10:43 AM.

  • 0

#8 Vilas Tamhane

Vilas Tamhane

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 62 posts
  • LocationPune, India

Posted 15 July 2011 - 11:00 AM

Again (SSDS post #36 13 July 2011 - 01:57 AM) - #2 by any means doesn’t follow from #1. So – the #3 is non-correct. There isn’t of any "space contraction" outside the spaceship;there is only that a clock in the "spaceship" becomes go slower (be "time dilated") because of it is/was impacted by engine force. At that the engine by any means doesn’t impact on "spacetime" and therefore with the spacetime nothing happens.
Analogously - it seems rather non- plausible to think that, e.g., every electron in an accelerator kneads the whole spacetime in Universe as Klichko Arreola.

Again – the result, that spaceship’s speed turns out to be greater then speed of light, in this case isn’t strange, simply you use "wrong clock"– which is in partially non-inertial object.

Cheers

P.S. Did you read SSDS post #44 Yesterday, 02:02 AM-?


Exactly. If traveler’s clock shows lesser elapsed time, after reaching Alpha c, then this can be explained only if the distance, d, between earth and Alpha c contracted. This contraction has to be real because this is the distance traveler actually travelled during his journey. Now there is one important thing to be considered. Viewed from the rest frame, the distance d remained unchanged so how can it ‘really’ change for the traveler? After all this is the space that belongs to rest frame. Distance d is not merely the measurement of the traveler; it is the space of the rest frame that the traveler actually moves through.

There is a second possibility that for the traveler, the distance ‘d’ actually contracted. However it means that universe actually contracted to satisfy the measurement of the traveler. No person can agree to this view.

In short the traveler never travelled a contracted distance.

So his clock will never show lesser time duration.



P.S. I have seen the paper, but I could not follow it. It is based on QM about which I am not conversant. It appears to have been written by an expert in physics and only an expert can review it. Not me.



Vilas - you misunderstand science entirely if you think that your postulate trumps experimental evidence


I haven’t stated any postulate of mine. If you think that length contraction (and time dilation which are interrelated) is real then why is it difficult for you to deal with the question raised?

The question is ‘ will the universe be contracted in the direction of travel?’

Once we know that SR has no inconsistencies then the experiments can be taken as proof of SR.

If there are inconsistencies in SR then you should be sure that there is some other theory that is behind the experimental results.


  • 0

#9 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 19 July 2011 - 10:09 AM

P.S. I have seen the paper, but I could not follow it. It is based on QM about which I am not conversant. It appears to have been written by an expert in physics and only an expert can review it. Not me.


- Indeed, the QM and the SRT turn out to be the one theory.

Besides – as I see too much discussion about the reference frames here - again:

(1) any version of the SRT, including the standard one, cannot – and so doesn’t - prohibit the existence of some "primary" reference frame(s).

(2) the "equivalence" of [relatively moving] reference frames is simply a corollary of the time symmetry in mechanics. In reality the frames can be identified, if some other criterions are applied. For example – let be twins in some R-frame, both have space shifts. Further one twin go to travel and is returning with (constant) speed near c nearly to homebody, who didn’t fly.

If both measure the speeds of each other – they obtain identical values – as well any other mechanical interactions will be identical also. But the traveler is capable to determine what R-frame is "primary" - just when he has seen that the homebody’s ship fuel tanks are full.

(3) At that the existence of primary R-frame(s, independently on a rotation) for our Universe (more correct – for Matter of our Universe) directly follows from that there is only one("s", see above) where total energy of Matter is minimal; when in any others, moving relatively to this R-frame with different speeds the energies are different also, what is impossible since Matter is unique.

The statements like as "moving with respect to the whole universe actually has no meaning" are some declarations only, which weren’t proved till now.

(4) Further seems non- reasonable to think about the other R-frames that in these frames the whole spacetime becomes be transformed – in reality only "rigid" material systems that were impacted by some force momentum transform; including – those "rigid" systems can be formed by gravity, so, e.g., the movement of some bodies, including satellites, relative to primary R-frame cannot be detected.

However, it seems possible to detect some R-frame moving relatively Earth R-frame – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979

Cheers
  • 0

#10 toastywombel

toastywombel

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 02:56 AM

- isn’t correct, space by itself, and time by itself, aren’t doomed to fade away; they are absolute. And there exists a fundamental reference frame


Could you anyone prove this?

Edited by toastywombel, 25 July 2011 - 02:59 AM.

  • 0
Being right is overrated.

#11 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 12:29 PM

Posted Yesterday, 06:56 PM

SSDS, on 6 July 2011 - 02:00 AM, said:

- isn’t correct, space by itself, and time by itself, aren’t doomed to fade away; they are absolute. And there exists a fundamental reference frame


Could you anyone prove this?


It seems that you didn’t read other SSDS’s posts in this thread.

Again:
(1) the denial of the primary (absolute) reference frame in standard SRT (s-SRT) leads to non-avoidable contradictions in this version of the theory, first of all: (i) - the twin paradox - as the "clock paradox" and as the "energy paradox", and (ii) – in standard version it turns out be possible simultaneous existence of "many Matters" in unique Universe having different energies/ masses, what is impossible evidently.
(2) it seems evidently counterintuitive to think that, e.g., every fast particle in an accelerator "transforms the spacetime" in whole Universe; since the EM force that accelerates a particle impacts only on the particle and by no means impact on the spacetime (at least such an interaction is unknown, including – is unknown in the s-SRT).
(3) It is well known, that the non-existence of an absolute reference frame cannot be proven in the s-SRT, so, e.g., in Lorentz’s SRT version such a frame is introduced without any problems. Though the rest of contradictions in this version remain.
(4) now next version SRT (as a section of the informational model, http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 section 4.2.2) is developed, that doesn’t contain the contradictions, when Lorentz transformations (LT) remain be valid – but not for the spacetime. The time dilation , the length contraction, etc. indeed have the place to be, but that are real changings of real material "rigid" bodies – i.e. which conserve their states at the impact. If impact is too heavy, the body breaks down and every of the debris "has own LT state"; but, again, - nothing happens with the spacetime; any spacetime transformations are unnecessary.

Cheers

It's a direct consequence of the constancy of the speed of light [[in any inertial reference frame].


It isn’t correct. A photon isn’t some magical particle that in any frame moves with constant speed (and to conserve the constancy "transforms spacetime"), it is rather usual particle; one among others. And it moves with the speed "c" practically in primary absolute frame only – in other frames its speed isn’t equal to c.

E.g., - well known SRT example, where on a moving along X- axis platform there is a light source that shines in an Y direction (e.g., - on the platform’s ceiling ) and the light returns after reflection in a mirror. It is evident that the real light speed in the Y direction isn’t equal to c, it is equal to [c/(Lorentz factor)].

And only because of that the clock on the platform, which was impacted [as a part of platform’ by the force that accelerated the platform to its ("inertial") speed (as well as the light source]) runs slower in the same factor, the measured speed of light becomes be equal to c.


Cheers
  • 0

#12 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,302 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 25 July 2011 - 12:43 PM

It isn’t correct. A photon isn’t some magical particle that in any frame moves with constant speed (and to conserve the constancy "transforms spacetime"), it is rather usual particle; one among others. And it moves with the speed "c" practically in primary absolute frame only – in other frames its speed isn’t equal to c.


It is correct. The concept of the photon wasn't well-established at the time and SRT does not depend on it, so this is a non-sequitur. If you set the speed of light to be a constant, you get the Lorentz transformations. It's in Einstein's 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. What is the error in the derivation in that paper?

E.g., - well known SRT example, where on a moving along X- axis platform there is a light source that shines in an Y direction (e.g., - on the platform’s ceiling ) and the light returns after reflection in a mirror. It is evident that the real light speed in the Y direction isn’t equal to c, it is equal to [c/(Lorentz factor)].


The overall speed of light is still c. Nobody has claimed that a component of the speed is c.

And only because of that the clock on the platform, which was impacted [as a part of platform’ by the force that accelerated the platform to its ("inertial") speed (as well as the light source]) runs slower in the same factor, the measured speed of light becomes be equal to c.

"Measured speed of light" is "speed of light". You can't assume a preferred frame in order to conclude there is a preferred frame. How do you tell which frame is at rest?
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#13 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 09:57 AM

It is correct. The concept of the photon wasn't well-established at the time and SRT does not depend on it, so this is a non-sequitur. If you set the speed of light to be a constant, you get the Lorentz transformations. It's in Einstein's 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. What is the error in the derivation in that paper?



The overall speed of light is still c. Nobody has claimed that a component of the speed is c.


"Measured speed of light" is "speed of light". You can't assume a preferred frame in order to conclude there is a preferred frame. How do you tell which frame is at rest?


(1) You indeed differ "photon" and "light" and think that " If you set the speed of photon to be a constant, you get the Lorentz transformations" is rather strange, when " If you set the speed of light to be a constant, you get the Lorentz transformations" is correct? That isn’t so, both versions are strange; as well so (but not only so) the "SRT axiomatization" is non-correct.

(2) -? An observer on the platform (or "in the reference frame where the platform is at rest") measures speed of light in the example above along the light’s pass (to the mirror and back) – therefore there aren’t any "speed’s components" in this case and the observer indeed measures speed of light be equal c. When in reality this speed is indeed is a component of real "overall" (absolute) speed of light in absolute space-time and is equal to [c/ Lorentz factor].


(3) Since the Sun’s planet system, very probably, was formed "adiabatically" (and that is true for any place on Earth - it is evidently a "rigid system"), we cannot detect the motion in the Primary absolute frame by using Earth – and Earth satellites - based instruments; but – as that was SSDS posted already - it is possible to detect the motion (e.g., - of a pair of satellites) relating to the Earth frame (see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , sections 2.2. and 3).

Besides there are a lot of other methods to detect another reference frame; for example – twin-traveler can detect that really he – in contrast to the twin-homebody – moves, when see that the fuel tanks of homebody’s spaceship are full, if he obtain (by TV, e.g.) a photo of homebody and see, that homebody is older then he, someone in Earth can detect some frame relating to CMB by using a Doppler shift measuring instrument, etc


Cheers

P.S. You post relating to SSDS posts too quickly, as it seems, and I’m forced to repeat, in fact, the answers that one can find in those posts already. So it would be useful to read the posts, e.g., - using "SSDS profile posts" options; though under unknown reason this option doesn’t point out SSDS thread "inform[ational] physics" in section "Physics" in this forum, so to read posts in this thread is necessary go to Physics section specially.

Edited by SSDS, 26 July 2011 - 09:58 AM.

  • 0

#14 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,302 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 26 July 2011 - 12:20 PM

(1) You indeed differ "photon" and "light" and think that " If you set the speed of photon to be a constant, you get the Lorentz transformations" is rather strange, when " If you set the speed of light to be a constant, you get the Lorentz transformations" is correct? That isn’t so, both versions are strange; as well so (but not only so) the "SRT axiomatization" is non-correct.


If it isn't correct, where is the error in the derivation?

(2) -? An observer on the platform (or "in the reference frame where the platform is at rest") measures speed of light in the example above along the light’s pass (to the mirror and back) – therefore there aren’t any "speed’s components" in this case and the observer indeed measures speed of light be equal c. When in reality this speed is indeed is a component of real "overall" (absolute) speed of light in absolute space-time and is equal to [c/ Lorentz factor].


No, according to the postulate, c is a constant, and the implications of this have been confirmed. If you want to disprove this you must do so experimentally, not by assertion. But you don't get to change what relativity says.

(3) Since the Sun’s planet system, very probably, was formed "adiabatically" (and that is true for any place on Earth - it is evidently a "rigid system"), we cannot detect the motion in the Primary absolute frame by using Earth – and Earth satellites - based instruments; but – as that was SSDS posted already - it is possible to detect the motion (e.g., - of a pair of satellites) relating to the Earth frame (see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , sections 2.2. and 3).

Besides there are a lot of other methods to detect another reference frame; for example – twin-traveler can detect that really he – in contrast to the twin-homebody – moves, when see that the fuel tanks of homebody’s spaceship are full, if he obtain (by TV, e.g.) a photo of homebody and see, that homebody is older then he, someone in Earth can detect some frame relating to CMB by using a Doppler shift measuring instrument, etc


Cheers

P.S. You post relating to SSDS posts too quickly, as it seems, and I’m forced to repeat, in fact, the answers that one can find in those posts already. So it would be useful to read the posts, e.g., - using "SSDS profile posts" options; though under unknown reason this option doesn’t point out SSDS thread "inform[ational] physics" in section "Physics" in this forum, so to read posts in this thread is necessary go to Physics section specially.


This is one of the reasons why any individual's speculation is supposed to be contained in its own thread; we avoid this kind of confusion where ideas get mixed up or lost. But I fear it's overly optimistic of you to think that people will have read and remembered a thread that was started almost three years ago, is mainly a bunch of links and generated few comments.

BTW, I've moved Inform Physics to speculations where it belongs, and I will split this part into a new thread.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#15 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 10:47 AM

If it isn't correct, where is the error in the derivation?

No, according to the postulate, c is a constant, and the implications of this have been confirmed. If you want to disprove this you must do so experimentally, not by assertion. But you don't get to change what relativity says.

This is one of the reasons why any individual's speculation is supposed to be contained in its own thread; we avoid this kind of confusion where ideas get mixed up or lost. But I fear it's overly optimistic of you to think that people will have read and remembered a thread that was started almost three years ago, is mainly a bunch of links and generated few comments.

BTW, I've moved Inform Physics to speculations where it belongs, and I will split this part into a new thread.



I didn’t write that the derivation of s-SRT from the postulates contains errors, as well as that s-SRT is totally non-correct also – "…in all other aspects standard version of SRT is mighty and convenient mathematical tool, which allows solving seems any practical [but not all!] problems in mechanics and electrodynamics" (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , page 10). "The axiomatization" is non-correct, first of all conceptually, since it is grounded, in fact, on rather questionable suggestion that to keep be "c" the speed of rather commonplace particle, a photon, "in any inertial frame" is necessary that space must transform into time and vice versa – as that, e.g., was formulated in well known Minkovski words (SSDS post of 6 July 2011 - 10:00 AM) – when in the s-SRT there aren’t any of explanations (and so, seems, of an understanding) of "what is the time?" and "what is the space" after all; the real speed of light is equal to c practically in the absolute reference frame only, etc.

All that is in the SSDS posts above, but, since the same problems with understanding of this point again occur, seems that I should add some additional remarks.

So, it can be rigorously proven (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) that Matter in our Universe is an informational system that exists as a [dynamical] subset "Matter” in the set "Universe", which, in turn, is a subset in absolutely infinite Set "Information". The main property of the system "Matter" is that any/every informational exchanges between its elements (interactions between bodies, particles, etc.) happen as an exchange by true information exclusively. Just therefore nature sciences are capable to study Matter, including by using mathematics.

In the system "Matter" the notions "Time" and "Space", first of all, are: (i) – some specific possibilities for the Matter’s elements to exist as distinct entities, and (ii) – some specific rules/conditions that "govern" (with a number of other rules) – how the elements must evolve/ interact. As possibilities and rules both, Space and Time, are "absolute" and "exist forever", including – before the beginning of our Universe; besides – they are independent on each other and on Matter elements that are governed by these rules (including on photons).

At that Space separates fixed information, when Time separates dynamic information elements.
The rules are rather similar, but not identical (more differences see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979), first of all – logically any space step is also the step in time, but not conversely.

A rough example. In a printed text its elements (words and sentences) are divided by "space intervals", but when the text is read by somebody, the space intervals become be "time intervals". When text is reading droningly, those time and space intervals "are equivalent", but if that isn’t so, e.g. if the text is a song, the equivalence disappears.
And only because of the Matter is rather simple "monotonous" dynamical system (a computer where a simple codes run) we observe space/time equivalence – what leads, besides, to that the 2-th postulate is "correct" – if to change the "determined velocity c" on "measured velocity c" though.

It seems enough for this post – I cannot rewrite the links above totally…

Cheers

P.S. I would like to ask moderators to return the thread "inform physics" to "Physics" section in this forum. It contains a true physics, not a speculation (in contrast to, e.g., the s-SRT), and so it would be better for it to be in its 3-year-old place. And – to correct my account so that this thread appear in the "SSDS posts" option.
  • 0

#16 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,302 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 27 July 2011 - 01:36 PM

P.S. I would like to ask moderators to return the thread "inform physics" to "Physics" section in this forum. It contains a true physics, not a speculation (in contrast to, e.g., the s-SRT), and so it would be better for it to be in its 3-year-old place. And – to correct my account so that this thread appear in the "SSDS posts" option.

Since they are at odds, I will ask this:
Of the two, which has undergone more scrutiny by the physics community? Which is more widely tested and accepted?
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#17 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 10:41 AM

Since they are at odds, I will ask this:
Of the two, which has undergone more scrutiny by the physics community? Which is more widely tested and accepted?


(1) And what? "Which is more widely tested ?" - practically all tests of s-SRT are the tests of the informational model also, since those tests were made on Earth or in systems "Earth - satellites" that constitute "rigid" systems (made inside "wagons" of the model’s papers) and so the results confirm the inferences of the model also. The difference is that the model explains the negative results of attempts to observe of Earth’s motion relation to the CMB reference frame; but at that the model points out – how the experiments should be modified to detect the CMB-Earth relative motion without Doppler shift measurements and suggests (rather simple) versions of experiments when it turns out to be possible to measure the speed of a pair of clocks on an high altitude circular orbit relative to Earth, when such measurement isn't possible (gave negative result) in the s-SRT.
(2) As to "has undergone more scrutiny by the physics community" – an analysis (see, e.g., the SSDS posts in this thread) shows, that this scrutiny seems as was not sufficient till now...
(3) As to "accepted" - see point (2)

Cheers

Again I ask to return the thread "inform physics" [from 3-th page now] from this forum section to "Physics" section, where the thread existed 3 years without problems, has its readres, etc., and
to correct possible forum's code error when if one clicks on "SSDS's Profile" - "Find my content", the one get:"SSDS's Content / There have been 2 items by SSDS" ("More Relativity Questions " and "light speed thought experiment"); i.e. - the thread "inform physics" is absentee.

Edited by SSDS, 28 July 2011 - 10:44 AM.

  • 0

#18 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,302 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 28 July 2011 - 01:58 PM

(1) And what? "Which is more widely tested ?" - practically all tests of s-SRT are the tests of the informational model also, since those tests were made on Earth or in systems "Earth - satellites" that constitute "rigid" systems (made inside "wagons" of the model’s papers) and so the results confirm the inferences of the model also. The difference is that the model explains the negative results of attempts to observe of Earth’s motion relation to the CMB reference frame; but at that the model points out – how the experiments should be modified to detect the CMB-Earth relative motion without Doppler shift measurements and suggests (rather simple) versions of experiments when it turns out to be possible to measure the speed of a pair of clocks on an high altitude circular orbit relative to Earth, when such measurement isn't possible (gave negative result) in the s-SRT.
(2) As to "has undergone more scrutiny by the physics community" – an analysis (see, e.g., the SSDS posts in this thread) shows, that this scrutiny seems as was not sufficient till now...
(3) As to "accepted" - see point (2)

Cheers

Again I ask to return the thread "inform physics" [from 3-th page now] from this forum section to "Physics" section, where the thread existed 3 years without problems, has its readres, etc.,


When you can point people to peer-reviewed experiments that confirm the model, sure. Relativity is tested and accepted. That's why it goes into physics. Your contention thatthere is an absolute frame and that c is only constant in that frame runs contrary to that. Until such time that this is tested and accepted, it's speculative.

and
to correct possible forum's code error when if one clicks on "SSDS's Profile" - "Find my content", the one get:"SSDS's Content / There have been 2 items by SSDS" ("More Relativity Questions " and "light speed thought experiment"); i.e. - the thread "inform physics" is absentee.


That's an issue for support/suggestions. AFAIK there's an issue searching prior to when we moved to the current software.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#19 SSDS

SSDS

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 29 July 2011 - 09:54 AM

When you can point people to peer-reviewed experiments that confirm the model, sure. Relativity is tested and accepted. That's why it goes into physics. Your contention thatthere is an absolute frame and that c is only constant in that frame runs contrary to that. Until such time that this is tested and accepted, it's speculative.



That's an issue for support/suggestions. AFAIK there's an issue searching prior to when we moved to the current software.


The point is – what is "tested and accepted" really?

Again, any material thing – a particle (including a photon), a body, a Galaxy, etc., moves in space/ time with the speed C in absolute reference frame. The difference is only – when a Galaxy (and any others, though excluding, possibly another mediators having restmass in space be equal to zero as, e.g., gluons, but here that’s inessential) move with speed C in the time direction, photons move with C in any space direction. An impact in a space direction on any particle (for a photon – in other -relating to the initial - space direction) leads to that in initial direction the particle’s speed becomes be lesser then C. For "restmassless in space" particles that is accepted in standard SRT as "time dilation". For photons that is fully identical – see example with a platform in SSDS post of 25 July 2011 - 12:29 PM.

The picture in this case is totally symmetrical, and if you admit that "time dilation" is accepted as true fact in physics, then you should admit as true fact that photon’s speed can be "space dilated" – on another words be lesser the C in reference frames moving relative to the initial one.

And – let us to discuss here the arguments only, without references on such a things as "accepted"? – that isn’t science, that is a subjective political thing.

Cheers

Edited by SSDS, 29 July 2011 - 09:58 AM.

  • 0

#20 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,302 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 29 July 2011 - 11:55 AM

The fact that you call it "standard" relativity should answer your question. People involved in discussions in the physics section deserve to have the confidence that they can read is what is the same as what is taught in physics classes in colleges and universities. Topics that do not fall into that category go in Speculations. That's what it's for.

Nothing is preventing discussion from happening. It's a tad disingenuous to grumble about it this being a distraction; you brought it up. The discussion can return to the arguments just as soon as you stop complaining.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users