SR and absolute reference

[pioneer]

Much of my early/limited training with SR stressed relative reference. But after thinking about it, SR can also be used to define absolute reference. The way to understand this is too look at relativistic mass. This is not reference dependant, but is energy dependant. Conservation of energy implies that to make mass or relativistic mass will require energy. So if we had two references and they appear relative, one only has to look at the relativistic mass, and this will determine the absolute velocity or knietic energy. That allow one to compare the two relative references on an absolute scale, that is energy and not reference dependant.

 

Let me give an analogy called the SR work-out. What we do is go to a track where there are runners. We sit in a chair and focus on the fastest runner, and using relative reference we are now moving and he is now stationary. This allows us to burn calories like a runner while sitting still. This relative reference affect can happen when we use two parameter SR, i.e., space-time. If we include the mass parameter, so we are using three parameter SR, then we need to do a mass/energy balance. This breaks the logic of the imaginary workout, since the runner is the only one that actually moving based on an energy balance.

 

Two parameter SR analysis has some important applications, but it can lead to some imaginary scenarios if we limit ourself to two parameters, Three parameter SR isn't as much fun for the imagination, since it always leads to absolute results that are based on conservation of energy.

 

Two parameter SR is one of the ways, young people can cut their teeth, so they can learn abstract thinking. It is opened ended. In that respect it is still a very important mental exercise. But it also shows what can happen to solid logic, if we leave out a parameter or two. Even math logic can add up using only two parameters but can end up far away from reality.

[swansont]

Much of my early/limited training with SR stressed relative reference. But after thinking about it, SR can also be used to define absolute reference. The way to understand this is too look at relativistic mass. This is not reference dependant, but is energy dependant.

 

Energy is frame-dependent; the rest mass is not. We had discussions about this recently.

 

edit:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27416&page=4

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27341

[Janus]

Let me give an analogy called the SR work-out. What we do is go to a track where there are runners. We sit in a chair and focus on the fastest runner, and using relative reference we are now moving and he is now stationary. This allows us to burn calories like a runner while sitting still. This relative reference affect can happen when we use two parameter SR, i.e., space-time. If we include the mass parameter, so we are using three parameter SR, then we need to do a mass/energy balance. This breaks the logic of the imaginary workout, since the runner is the only one that actually moving based on an energy balance.

 

Put both you and the runner on a giant treadmill, and add a third observer sitting in chair beside the treadmill. From his point of view the treadmill runs in the opposite direction of and at the same speed as the runner. (the runner doesn't move relative to this observer. ) Thus we have three observers: two sitting and burning no calories, and one running and burning calories. From the positon of one seated observer, neither he or the runner are moving, yet the runner is burning calories and he himself isn't. Also, the other seated observer is moving and not burning calories either.

 

The problem is that the calories the runner burns has nothing to do with his motion, it has to do the inefficiencies of muscles and the act of running itself. He burns just as many calories staying in one place against a treadmill as he does running on a track.

It also has nothing to do with his kinetic energy, which is the energy associated with motion. And it is this kinetic energy that accounts for "relativistic" mass. And kinetic energy is frame dependant, it depends on relative motion. Thus the runner, by the measure of the person seated by the tread mill, is burning calories like mad, but is motionless, and thus has zero kinetic energy and zero "relativistic mass". OTOH, the according to the other observer, the runner is in motion, has a kinetic energy and a "relativistic mass".

 

The thing is, that while energy is conserved within any single frame, it is not conserved between frames. The same object can have different amounts of energy when measured by different observers.

 

So no, there isn't any absolute way to measure motion.

[foodchain]

The thing is, that while energy is conserved within any single frame, it is not conserved between frames. The same object can have different amounts of energy when measured by different observers.

 

 

I think I have misunderstood you.

 

Firstly, animals starve to death, it happens, and of course we have to be able to eat. SO naturally is where this comes from, nature that is. Another is many forms of life have to be able to hunt, in which you find specialization for such, if for instance motion could not be tracked, then how could for instance say a bat catch an insect?

 

Echolocating Bats Use a Nearly Time-Optimal Strategy to Intercept Prey

 

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040108

[swansont]

I think I have misunderstood you.

 

Firstly, animals starve to death, it happens, and of course we have to be able to eat. SO naturally is where this comes from, nature that is. Another is many forms of life have to be able to hunt, in which you find specialization for such, if for instance motion could not be tracked, then how could for instance say a bat catch an insect?

 

Echolocating Bats Use a Nearly Time-Optimal Strategy to Intercept Prey

 

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040108

 

Umm, what does this have to do with relativity and reference frames?

[foodchain]

Umm, what does this have to do with relativity and reference frames?

 

 

That’s why I am asking him or her a question, from what I understood of her or his post, I think I confused something.

[iNow]

Please tell me you're you're not serious?!?

 

 

Janus' post was very clear, articulate, and approachable. Perhaps you could make the same attempt when framing your question in response to him?

[foodchain]

Please tell me you're you're not serious?!?

 

 

Janus' post was very clear, articulate, and approachable. Perhaps you could make the same attempt when framing your question in response to him?

 

I don’t think so. He said that the energy of something is relative to the observer, that’s great I get that much, but of course we know that if I do more work for instance, that I require more calories right? That if I don’t eat, which will lead to death, is rather absolute I would say.

 

The on to the motion bit. I can understand what he/she said to a point, save for the idea that I am capable of hitting keys on my keyboard, catching a football, and well all kinds of acts by living things require tracking of motion, hunting being a major one, so I don’t see where something can track an object in motion to capture as being what he/she said, that’s why I put I think I am confused in it all.

[Janus]

I don’t think so. He said that the energy of something is relative to the observer, that’s great I get that much, but of course we know that if I do more work for instance, that I require more calories right? That if I don’t eat, which will lead to death, is rather absolute I would say.

 

You seem to be confused over different type of energies. The energy that is relative is the kinetic energy. Forget about living organisms and the energy they get from food. Kinetic energy depends on the object's relative motion. A hunk of dead rock moving at 20 ft per sec relaitve to you has kineitc energy. A dead you moving relative to me has a kinetic energy, and has a different kinetic energy as measured by someone moving relative to me.

 

The on to the motion bit. I can understand what he/she said to a point, save for the idea that I am capable of hitting keys on my keyboard, catching a football, and well all kinds of acts by living things require tracking of motion, hunting being a major one, so I don’t see where something can track an object in motion to capture as being what he/she said, that’s why I put I think I am confused in it all.

 

All you have to know to catch a football is its relative motion with respect to you. You don't have to know that the surface of the Earth is turning at about 1670 kph at the Equator, or that the Earth is orbitng the Sun at 30 kph, or that the Solar system is moving at some 200 kph.

 

Try this experiment: Have someone drive you in a car down a straight stretch of road maintaining a constant speed. Toss a ball straight up into the air and catch it. Did you have to take the car's speed down the road into account? No.

 

When it is said that there is no absolute motion, it means that there is no special "prefered" reference that motion can be measured by. Animals that hunt track their prey's relative motion to themselves not by some universal Absolute motion.

[foodchain]

You seem to be confused over different type of energies. The energy that is relative is the kinetic energy. Forget about living organisms and the energy they get from food. Kinetic energy depends on the object's relative motion. A hunk of dead rock moving at 20 ft per sec relaitve to you has kineitc energy. A dead you moving relative to me has a kinetic energy, and has a different kinetic energy as measured by someone moving relative to me.

 

All you have to know to catch a football is its relative motion with respect to you. You don't have to know that the surface of the Earth is turning at about 1670 kph at the Equator, or that the Earth is orbitng the Sun at 30 kph, or that the Solar system is moving at some 200 kph.

 

Try this experiment: Have someone drive you in a car down a straight stretch of road maintaining a constant speed. Toss a ball straight up into the air and catch it. Did you have to take the car's speed down the road into account? No.

 

When it is said that there is no absolute motion, it means that there is no special "prefered" reference that motion can be measured by. Animals that hunt track their prey's relative motion to themselves not by some universal Absolute motion.

 

 

Right so more or less its just about the no absolute reference frame because everything is in motion right?

 

Its just that for whatever energy is going on as expressed by say an insect being prey to something such as a bat has to be able to be understood at some level as in relation to the behavior of the bat or the energy is will expend. As far as KE is that not just energy doing some work or in action vs PE? I mean that’s pretty much why during the sun going down large structures may make noise appear in the building in coordination with changing variables such as thermal energy right, pretty much akin to how a slip in some plate can lead to an earthquake at another location by allowing PE to go into KE. So if a bat could not I guess understand the motion of the prey it would never be able to capture it, and of course it does not always have success but that’s besides that point to a small degree.

 

I got caught up with the relativity was taken into account as changing literally between observers. There is a point of spent energy which will lead to death in organisms regardless of whomever is viewing that organism do whatever, but I do get the idea you are trying to put forward about relativity in observation. Such as in jobs I have had basically required me to eat about 9000 calories a day to sustain myself, vs. a slower existence for the most part like I live now where I could live easily on say 1500 if I wanted.

[iNow]

Can you conceive of any differences between energy described by ingestion of a Red Bull and energy as a property of relative motion (kinetic)? The challenge appears to be your disregard for the agreed upon definition of kinetic energy.

 

 

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=kinetic%20energy

Kinetic Energy: The mechanical energy that a body has by virtue of its motion

 

 

Despite the overlap, it really is significantly different than something like, "I feel really caffeinated today!!!"

[foodchain]

Can you conceive of any differences between energy described by ingestion of a Red Bull and energy as a property of relative motion (kinetic)? The challenge appears to be your disregard for the agreed upon definition of kinetic energy.

 

 

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=kinetic%20energy

 

 

 

Despite the overlap, it really is significantly different than something like, "I feel really caffeinated today!!!"

 

Well, if you are dead because of starvation due to action which is what? I doubt you really could display much of anything, I mean self experimentation aside I don’t think its a hard to notice point or anything.

 

Here is a link I think is nice to read really.

 

An analogy between ATP and rechargeable batteries is appropriate. The batteries are used, giving up their potential energy until it has all been converted into kinetic energy and heat/unusable energy. Recharged batteries (into which energy has been put) can be used only after the input of additional energy. Thus, ATP is the higher energy form (the recharged battery) while ADP is the lower energy form (the used battery). When the terminal (third) phosphate is cut loose, ATP becomes ADP (Adenosine diphosphate; di= two), and the stored energy is released for some biological process to utilize. The input of additional energy (plus a phosphate group) "recharges" ADP into ATP (as in my analogy the spent batteries are recharged by the input of additional energy).

 

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookATP.html

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

ATP is potential energy. It is not equivalent to kinetic energy. When you drink Red Bull, you're gaining potential energy in the form of chemical bonds.

[iNow]

To picture absolute motion in an absolute frame, read this work of mine.

 

<url removed by iNow prior to posting>

 

Warning - This post may vanish in a short time period. This is due to it directing you to interesting points of view that can not be compressed small enough in size to fit into a mere forum post.

 

Complete disappearance is not very likely. Have you checked the Speculations forum yet?

[swansont]

Complete disappearance is not very likely. Have you checked the Speculations forum yet?

 

Posts that just link back to another site, especially ones that hijack threads and admit that they are breaking the rules on this, are going to get deleted.

 

But yes, some of FastTracks stuff was moved to speculations.

[FastTrack]

Being experts is SR and absolute reference, otherwise this post would be in the speculation section, perhaps you and the boys can explain something.

 

If a body may be measured differently from different frames, then what is it that is being measured differently ?

 

There has to be a foundation somewhere that is being seen differently from different points of view !?

[swansont]

Being experts is SR and absolute reference, otherwise this post would be in the speculation section, perhaps you and the boys can explain something.

 

If a body may be measured differently from different frames, then what is it that is being measured differently ?

 

There has to be a foundation somewhere that is being seen differently from different points of view !?

 

It's a consequence of c being constant in all frames.