# Thread: ABSOLUTE MOTION VS RELATIVE MOTION

1. OK, first a serious question. Does this much horseshit normally spew from your mouth?

Originally Posted by MacM
Your little scenario is off the mark and doesn't show anything about the absolute relative velocity situation I have posted.
Off the mark? Just because you can't come up with a solution based on your silly "common rest frame"?

Originally Posted by MacM
As you make clear below you don't seem to understand I am not talking about some absolute veloicty universally but only locally relative to the origin of the veloicty.
No one has any idea what you mean by "locally relative". Is there a "globally relative"?

Originally Posted by MacM
The local rest frame.
As apposed to what other non-local rest frame?

Originally Posted by MacM
So the only think you have shown as nonsense is your understanding of the problem.

Please, outline the difference - I see none.
I stand by my statement - what is the difference?

Originally Posted by MacM
That is what I mean. You comment how you have shown something as being nonsense but then admit you don't understand it.
Well you apparently understand it clear as day - so explain for the enlightment of us all.

Originally Posted by MacM
Afraid not. Try computing travel times of moving clocks but retain the calculated tick rate factor in your calculations.
By doing what is highlighted - you are rejecting the postulates of special relatiivty whether you think so or not.

Originally Posted by MacM
You only create the illusion of spatial contraction when you set the clock rate to 1.0 as the local proper time.
Then you believe special relativity is an illusion - why not just state as such?

Originally Posted by MacM
But we already know the clock is ticking slow.

Originally Posted by MacM
If you retain that fact in your calculations, there is no room for contraction. That is all.
Then that is not special relativity - That is all.

2. Originally Posted by Aer
OK, first a serious question. Does this much horseshit normally spew from your mouth?
If this is your best effort you should give up gracefully, not as some spoiled nanny.

Off the mark? Just because you can't come up with a solution based on your silly "common rest frame"?
I challenge you to predict anything useful or valid from your scenario.

No one has any idea what you mean by "locally relative".
If you don't understand that then I suggest it is impossible for you to understand relativity.

Is there a "globally relative"?
In all likelyhood but it has been impossible to detect and is not necessary to use the local rest data.

As apposed to what other non-local rest frame?
I guess you don't understand that SRT claims any clock in inertial motion is at rest and it is that screw up that leads to reciprocity.

Please, outline the difference - I see none.
I have shown that where two clocks may have a total relative velocity it may be comprised of both clocks having motion. SRT says both can be assumed at rest. That is false and leads to reciprocity.

The only thing that can be declared as at rest is the common origin (inertial frame) from which each accelerated.

I stand by my statement - what is the difference?
Then you stand in defiance of the latest technology (GPS) which show your view and SRT is false. There is no reciprocity of time dilation due to relative velocity.

Well you apparently understand it clear as day - so explain for the enlightment of us all.
For those willing to listen and not adhere to rhetoric without thinking of the consequences, I have.

By doing what is highlighted - you are rejecting the postulates of special relatiivty whether you think so or not.
By not retaining the known and calculated dilated tick rate when computing diatance by result of accumulated time of the moving clock, you (and SRT) are violating basic physics, like it or not. To do so is to talk nonsense.

Lets try one more time to get through some think craniums. Two identical cars run side by side at 3,200 Rpm; which due to gearing and tire size etc, can be calculated to be equal to 60 Mph. Their speedometers both agree.

Car A has had his clock checked and it meets NBS certification.

Car B didn't and unknowingly his clock is missing a beat and only ticks once for every 2 ticks of A's clock.

At the end of the trip they compare clocks to try and figure how far they have gone (distance).

A claims they went 30 miles because d = v * t and we were going 60 Mph for 30 minutes.

B (you and SRT say) BS we only went 15 miles because d = v * t and I was going 60 Mph but for only 15 minutes.

Now with a straight face tell me that you really believe car B only went 15 miles because his clock ran slow.

Then you believe special relativity is an illusion - why not just state as such?
Because that is not the case. Relativity exists. It just isn't Einstien's relativity. Enstein's relativity is part illusion and part bastardization of physics, such as ignoring a clocks tick rate when computing distance by d = v * t.

Now you want to ignore relativity and its predictions and emperically demonstrated facts and make claim that the moving observer who's clock is running slow is unaware and therefore we should ignore the known physics. SEE ABOVE.

Then that is not special relativity - That is all.
Perhaps. But then it is valid physics and not gobbilty gook of SRT.

3. Originally Posted by MacM
Originally Posted by Aer
OK, first a serious question. Does this much horseshit normally spew from your mouth?
If this is your best effort you should give up gracefully, not as some spoiled nanny.
A simple, "Yes" would have sufficed.

Originally Posted by MacM
I challenge you to predict anything useful or valid from your scenario.
Ah ha! You put in the "useful" qualifier so that you can say "special relativity" is not useful! Special Relativity gives you a very simple answer to the question I asked you.

Originally Posted by MacM
No one has any idea what you mean by "locally relative".
If you don't understand that then I suggest it is impossible for you to understand relativity.
Why not just say rest frame? I understand what a rest frame is. You seem to be putting some other meaning to a "locally relative rest frame".

Originally Posted by MacM
Is there a "globally relative"?
In all likelyhood but it has been impossible to detect and is not necessary to use the local rest data.
Ah ha! So you do think there is an absolute rest frame - good, this is a start.

Originally Posted by MacM
As apposed to what other non-local rest frame?
I guess you don't understand that SRT claims any clock in inertial motion is at rest and it is that screw up that leads to reciprocity.
Why not just say rest frame? I understand what a rest frame is. You seem to be putting some other meaning to a "locally relative rest frame".

Originally Posted by MacM
Please, outline the difference - I see none.
I have shown that where two clocks may have a total relative velocity it may be comprised of both clocks having motion. SRT says both can be assumed at rest. That is false and leads to reciprocity.
Wow, good job. You've only shown that you do not believe in relative simultaneity and length contraction - not that SRT is rubbish.

Originally Posted by MacM
The only thing that can be declared as at rest is the common origin (inertial frame) from which each accelerated.
And you can't give results to very simple problems that SRT can. Seems your theory is much more flawed than SRT.

Originally Posted by MacM
I stand by my statement - what is the difference?
Then you stand in defiance of the latest technology (GPS) which show your view and SRT is false. There is no reciprocity of time dilation due to relative velocity.
I was not refering to GPS ever. Neither were you, you just brought this up out of no where. Anyway, while GPS may be able to help prove SRT wrong - it would also prove your little "common rest frame" absurd as well. GPS evidence seems to provide evidence for local ethers, not whatever horseshit you have come up with.

Originally Posted by MacM
Well you apparently understand it clear as day - so explain for the enlightment of us all.
For those willing to listen and not adhere to rhetoric without thinking of the consequences, I have.
Try a little harder for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by MacM
By doing what is highlighted - you are rejecting the postulates of special relatiivty whether you think so or not.
By not retaining the known and calculated dilated tick rate when computing diatance by result of accumulated time of the moving clock, you (and SRT) are violating basic physics, like it or not. To do so is to talk nonsense.
Then we agree, your theory is not "special relativity" and requires new postulates. So tell me, what are your postulates?

Originally Posted by MacM
Lets try one more time to get through some think craniums. Two identical cars run side by side at 3,200 Rpm; which due to gearing and tire size etc, can be calculated to be equal to 60 Mph. Their speedometers both agree.

Car A has had his clock checked and it meets NBS certification.

Car B didn't and unknowingly his clock is missing a beat and only ticks once for every 2 ticks of A's clock.

At the end of the trip they compare clocks to try and figure how far they have gone (distance).

A claims they went 30 miles because d = v * t and we were going 60 Mph for 30 minutes.

B (you and SRT say) BS we only went 15 miles because d = v * t and I was going 60 Mph but for only 15 minutes.

Now with a straight face tell me that you really believe car B only went 15 miles because his clock ran slow.
I didn't read past " Two identical cars run side by side at 3,200 Rpm" - as this example has nothing to do with relativity. Try again.

Originally Posted by MacM
Then you believe special relativity is an illusion - why not just state as such?
Because that is not the case. Relativity exists. It just isn't Einstien's relativity. Enstein's relativity is part illusion and part bastardization of physics, such as ignoring a clocks tick rate when computing distance by d = v * t.
"Relativity exist - just isn't Einstein's relativity" - FINE, refer to it as "MacM Relativity" so that we all know you are referring to something other than "Special Relativty".

Originally Posted by MacM
Now you want to ignore relativity and its predictions and emperically demonstrated facts and make claim that the moving observer who's clock is running slow is unaware and therefore we should ignore the known physics. SEE ABOVE.
You are claiming Special Relativity is wrong without provide direct evidence that it has ever predicted anything inaccurately. I would certainly say only you have this advanced knowledge that Special Relativity is wrong and MacM Relativity is right.

Originally Posted by MacM
Then that is not special relativity - That is all.
Perhaps. But then it is valid physics and not gobbilty gook of SRT.
valid physics - then you should be able to prove it. Not just claim it is valid physics - please, provide experimental evidence so that we can now worship our new relativity overlord.

4. Originally Posted by MacM

Lets try one more time to get through some think craniums. Two identical cars run side by side at 3,200 Rpm; which due to gearing and tire size etc, can be calculated to be equal to 60 Mph. Their speedometers both agree.

Car A has had his clock checked and it meets NBS certification.

Car B didn't and unknowingly his clock is missing a beat and only ticks once for every 2 ticks of A's clock.

At the end of the trip they compare clocks to try and figure how far they have gone (distance).

A claims they went 30 miles because d = v * t and we were going 60 Mph for 30 minutes.

B (you and SRT say) BS we only went 15 miles because d = v * t and I was going 60 Mph but for only 15 minutes.

Now with a straight face tell me that you really believe car B only went 15 miles because his clock ran slow.
Originally Posted by Aer
I didn't read past " Two identical cars run side by side at 3,200 Rpm" - as this example has nothing to do with relativity. Try again.
Until you respond to this simplified (just for you) illustration of what you advocate and why it is assinine, I have nothing further to discuss with you.

You will not be allowed to brush embarrasing or difficult questions aside and march on as tough you have not been asked a question.

5. Originally Posted by MacM
You will not be allowed to brush embarrasing or difficult questions aside and march on as tough you have not been asked a question.
MacM, you forget that I do not neccessarily accept length contraction and relative simultaneity as Special Relativity advocates. However, I see your theory just as flawed.

6. Originally Posted by Aer
Originally Posted by MacM
You will not be allowed to brush embarrasing or difficult questions aside and march on as tough you have not been asked a question.
MacM, you forget that I do not neccessarily accept length contraction and relative simultaneity as Special Relativity advocates. However, I see your theory just as flawed.
Fair enough. That is certainly your perogative. However, I think it would be appropriate, at least it would open the door to an interesting discussion, if you were more specific.

7. Mac,

We have established a shared definition of "rest frame".

The point (which has dragged out from the second page of this thread) is whether an object exists in frames other than its rest frame.

Do you agree that it is meaningful to consider frames in which an object's spatial coordinates do change with time?

Do you agree that events associated with the object can be identified in a coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates change with time?

8. Originally Posted by Pete
Mac,

We have established a shared definition of "rest frame".

The point (which has dragged out from the second page of this thread) is whether an object exists in frames other than its rest frame.

Do you agree that it is meaningful to consider frames in which an object's spatial coordinates do change with time?

Do you agree that events associated with the object can be identified in a coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates change with time?
Before continuing this discussion let me suggest that you read the following two papers:

************************************************** *
J.H.Field (A highly qualified physicist at CERN)

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/...sics%2F9902048

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/...sics%2F0403094
************************************************** ***

9. Thank you for the suggestion. I'll read those paper,s and we can discuss them in another thread if you like.

Right now, we're nailing down a common concept of a reference frame, so...

Do you agree that it is meaningful to consider frames in which an object's spatial coordinates do change with time?

Do you agree that events associated with the object can be identified in a coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates change with time?

10. Originally Posted by Pete
Thank you for the suggestion. I'll read those paper,s and we can discuss them in another thread if you like.

Right now, we're nailing down a common concept of a reference frame, so...

Do you agree that it is meaningful to consider frames in which an object's spatial coordinates do change with time?

Do you agree that events associated with the object can be identified in a coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates change with time?
What I am attempting to do here is to limit wasted effort. If you read the papers I suggested then you will see that you are attempting to discuss perceptions not physical realities.

In fact a literal translation of Einstein's paper it turns out means (paraphrased) "An object in motion "appears" to observers in other frames as shorter in the direction of motion".

Einstein did not even state that contraction was a real physical event.

11. Mac, if you want to discuss those papers, make a new thread.
In this thread, our discussion is about what exactly we mean by "reference frame".

Do you agree that it is meaningful to consider frames in which an object's spatial coordinates do change with time?

Do you agree that events associated with the object can be identified in a coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates change with time?

12. Originally Posted by Pete
Mac, if you want to discuss those papers, make a new thread.
In this thread, our discussion is about what exactly we mean by "reference frame".

Do you agree that it is meaningful to consider frames in which an object's spatial coordinates do change with time?
Certainly.

Do you agree that events associated with the object can be identified in a coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates change with time?
Cedrtainly.

Now before you go running off making assumptions as to what that means, let me re-emphasize that what you seem to want to discuss is perception not physics. That is the illusion of simultaneity of a moving or distant observer to the events.

The observers view of such events in no manner alter or change the simultaneity or sequence of such events. Those events transpire and the physics of such events occur in their rest frames.

When two clocks are in relative inertial motion they each are at rest according to themselves. Each may tick simultaneously but the fact they do not observe that simultaneity does not make it not happen.

13. Believe me, I am absolutely adamant that in this thread, we won't be making assumptions - especially about what each other thinks.

In this thread, I am not a relativist (don't stereotype me! :wink: ).

Now... let me track back to where we were...

14. I think we need to test our shared understanding with an example.
For the purpose of testing our understanding, I'm going to assume that time is absolute in this example.
I'm pretty sure we agree on this stuff, but I'd like to be sure we're talking the same language. Let me know if you disagree.

If there's something you disagree with early in this long post, just cut off the rest. We'll deal with one disagreement at a time.

Let's consider some events... say two ticks of an ordinary, accurate clock. Let's call these events TickOne and TickTwo.

Let's choose a coordinate system with units of metres and seconds.
If we choose this system so that it is a rest frame of the clock, and place it so that TickOne is at the origin, then:

TickOne happens at x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0
and TickTwo happens at x=0, y=0, z=0, t=1

I want to write this as:
TickOne = (0,0,0,0)
TickTwo = (0,0,0,1)

Ie TickOne and TickTwo both happen at the spatial origin of this system, time is zeroed at the first tick, and the second tick happens one second later.

Is that OK?

Now let's consider a different coordinate system - one that is moving with respect to the first system.
I'd like to call the first coordinate system A and the new system B.

Let's choose B such that it is moving with velocity 1m/s with respect to A along the x-axis, and so that the origin of B coincides with the origin of A.

In other words, B's spatial origin is at the same place as A's spatial origin when t = 0. One second later, B's spatial origin is at the same place as x=1 in A, and so on.

We can match up events in A with events in B like so:

A(0,0,0,0) = B(0,0,0,0)
A(1,0,0,1) = B(0,0,0,1)
A(2,0,0,2) = B(0,0,0,2)
A(3,0,0,3) = B(0,0,0,3)

...and so on.
With a bit of thought, we can write a general equation that lets us transform any event from its coordinates in A to its coordinates in B:

A(x, y, z, t) = B(x-t, y, z, t)

We can also go backwards, from B coordinates back to A coordinates:
B(x, y, z, t) = A(x+t, y, z, t)

Now we can locate TickOne and TickTwo in B:

TickOne = A(0,0,0,0) = B(0,0,0,1)
TickTwo = A(0,0,0,1) = B(-1,0,0,1)

How are we going?

15. Originally Posted by Pete
I think we need to test our shared understanding with an example.
For the purpose of testing our understanding, I'm going to assume that time is absolute in this example.
I'm pretty sure we agree on this stuff, but I'd like to be sure we're talking the same language. Let me know if you disagree.

If there's something you disagree with early in this long post, just cut off the rest. We'll deal with one disagreement at a time.

Let's consider some events... say two ticks of an ordinary, accurate clock. Let's call these events TickOne and TickTwo.

Let's choose a coordinate system with units of metres and seconds.
If we choose this system so that it is a rest frame of the clock, and place it so that TickOne is at the origin, then:

TickOne happens at x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0
and TickTwo happens at x=0, y=0, z=0, t=1

I want to write this as:
TickOne = (0,0,0,0)
TickTwo = (0,0,0,1)

Ie TickOne and TickTwo both happen at the spatial origin of this system, time is zeroed at the first tick, and the second tick happens one second later.

Is that OK?
No disagreement.

Now let's consider a different coordinate system - one that is moving with respect to the first system.
I'd like to call the first coordinate system A and the new system B.

Let's choose B such that it is moving with velocity 1m/s with respect to A along the x-axis, and so that the origin of B coincides with the origin of A.

In other words, B's spatial origin is at the same place as A's spatial origin when t = 0. One second later, B's spatial origin is at the same place as x=1 in A, and so on.

We can match up events in A with events in B like so:

A(0,0,0,0) = B(0,0,0,0)
A(1,0,0,1) = B(0,0,0,1)
A(2,0,0,2) = B(0,0,0,2)
A(3,0,0,3) = B(0,0,0,3)

...and so on.
With a bit of thought, we can write a general equation that lets us transform any event from its coordinates in A to its coordinates in B:

A(x, y, z, t) = B(x-t, y, z, t)

We can also go backwards, from B coordinates back to A coordinates:
B(x, y, z, t) = A(x+t, y, z, t)

Now we can locate TickOne and TickTwo in B:

TickOne = A(0,0,0,0) = B(0,0,0,1)
TickTwo = A(0,0,0,1) = B(-1,0,0,1)

How are we going?
No problem yet.

16. OK, good.

Here's one that might be controversial...

Do you think it would be meaningful to say that:

In coordinate system A, the clock is at rest. TickOne and TickTwo happen in the same place.
In coordinate system B, the clock has velocity -1m/s along the x-axis. TickOne and TickTwo happen in different places.

Take your time - there is a fair bit of meaning in those two lines. You might agree with some, but not all statements.

If you disagree, that's fine - I just want to establish some shared meaning so we can talk in the same language.

In particular, I want to pin down some shared understanding of the words "rest", "place", and "velocity".

Pete

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement