Thread: ABSOLUTE MOTION VS RELATIVE MOTION

I am really glad this site exists. I have unfinished business with one James R. On SciForums the thread ended with
James R's following post.

Originally Posted by James R

I have no intention of explaining yet again issues to do with the relativity of simultaneity, and how
starting and stopping clocks simultaneously in one frame necessarily means that they are not started and stopped
simultaneously in any relatively-moving frame.

This is just the same argument as usual. MacM repeats it at regular intervals in a new thread, to clean the slate and
pretend that previous explanations were never given. He never learns anything from discussions, and I have no
intention of attempting to teach him yet again.

And this in another thread.

Originally Posted by James R

You can't show that such a frame exists. You admit you can't name it in any given situation. It's just a
dream.

Now lets set the record straight.

1 - We all know the issue of simultaneity. It is simple and easily understood. It is not the magical holy grail that
James R seems to believe it is.

2 - James R is enept in that he cannot seem to understand.

a - The case presented does not require the observers to "See" the events as simultaneous. All that is required is
that the events are simultaneous at their origin frame.

b - He fails to understand the simple and well known principle that "Absence of Evidence does not equate to
Evidence of Absence". This is in regard to the conclusion that gamma is a function of "Absolute Motion", not
"Relative Motion".

3 - James R has shown he is incapable of teaching anyone anything in that he refuses to talk physics and relies upon
rhetoric, dogma, innuendo, distortions, fabrications, lies, appeal to authority, fiat, etc and not physics or common
sense.

4 - In my presentation clocks "A" and "B" are the equivelent of two lightening strikes occuring simultaneously along
a railroad embankment. Clock "C" in my presentation is the equivelent of an observer standing midway between these
two simultaneous lightening strikes.

Hence as Einstein said the start and stopping of the clocks is physically simultaneous and what a remote observer
"Sees" in no manner alters the physical reality. The only thing that matters in my presentation is the physical
simultaneous starting and stopping of the clocks and observers views have no bearing what-so-ever on the test
nor conclusions.

For those here not familiar with my presentation it follows:

************************************************** **************************************************

ABSOLUTE MOTION:

Relativity of Simultaneity is the most abused concept in relativity. It is a strawman's arguement.

The fact is that simultaneity is quite simple and easy to understand but more importantly it is not some magical holy
graile that precludes simultaneity.

First Einstien in his gendankin to demonstrate non-simultaneity starts by declaring simultaneity of two lightening strikes
on an embankment with an observer midway between the strikes.

As defined these two events are defacto simultaneous in a universal physical sense. It is only the perception of
a remote observer not located at the center of the simultaneous events or an observer in motion where time dilation
has been introduced that do not see the events as being simultaneous.

None of these perceptions alter the physical reality of the simultaneousnous of the events themselves.

For example if you properly compute the time delay affects of seperation and time dilation affects of motion you can
send a signal between clocks and start and stop those clocks simultaneously, even though the observers
would claim the events were not simultaneous.

Consider the following example:

************************************************** ***********************************************
In this scenario the primary observer and controller of the tests is located in a space station in deep space such that GR
doesn't apply; except for periods of acceleration (non-inertial periods).

He decides to run a series of tests of Einstein's relativity using his clock 'C' as the standard and two other
traveling clocks, A & B.

TEST 1:

He launches 'A' eastward with a preplanned schedule of acceleration to reach an inertial velocity of 0.433c. Having
precalculated the amount of time per 'C' for 'A' to become inertial he transmits a signal to arrive at 'A' once 'A' is
inertial relative to him.

Having waited the appropriate amount of time according to his controlling clock he then starts his test clock at t = 0.
This insures that both clocks start simultaneously.

Now before you object claiming 'A' doesn't see it as being simultaneous and that Relativity of Simultaneity prohibits
universal simultaneous events, lets review the issue.

Simultaneity is not some magical holy grail that prohibits simultaneous events. Indeed in the procedure to
demonstrate the lack of simultaneity Einstein declares two simultaneous events (two lighting strikes simultaneous
along the embankment of a train rail to an observer located midway between the events). So physical simultaneity
of two events is already an accepted conclusion as it should be.

The fact that he goes on to show that observers located at positions other than midway between or that time dilation
due to relative motion precludes those observers from perceiving such simultaneous events as being simultaneous
does not alter the physics of those events. They are indeed specified as and are simultaneous in a physical sense.

In this case both clocks 'A' and 'C' do start simultaneous physically even though each observer would not percieve
them as being simultaneous. That has no bearing on the test in that it involves accumulated time during a fixed
concurrent, hence simultaneous test period. 'C' having precalculated the time required for a signal to reach 'A'
transmits a stop clock signal such that the arrival of that control is concurrent (simultaneous with his clock
'C' having reached the test period of 10 hours (36,000 seconds).

Hence both clocks start and stop physically at the same instant even though the perception is that they have not.
After 10 hours 'C' time 'A' transmits a message which states "My clock has accumulated ................seconds".

According to SRT at 0.433c 'A' will only have accumulated 32,447 seconds per 'C' having accumulated 36,000 seconds.
SRT also claims that due to the relative velocity between such clocks that 'A' has the expectation that 'C' will have
only accumulated 29,244 seconds. But that view is not supported by any data.

'C' now decides to run another test.

TEST 2:

In this test he launches clock 'B' using the same plan as for 'A' but sends it westward. The results are that 'B' only
accumulates 32,447 seconds and 'C' accumulates 36,000 seconds.

So far SRT appears to predict a one way view correctly but not both views as advocated by Special Relativity which
involves reciprocity of views. So he decides on further testing.

TEST 3:

In this test 'C' launches both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously, one eastward and one westward using the same pre-programed
flight schedule. In this case the view between 'A' and 'B' is that they achieve a 0.7293c relative velocity due to the
relavistic Velocity Addition Formula (not the Newtonian 0.866c that would be logical). At that relative velocity both 'A'
and 'B' predict that the other clock will only tick at 684 ticks/1,000 ticks of their clock due to a gamma of 1.4619.
However, at the end of the test the transmitted data shows that 'A' and 'B' each accumulated 32,447 seconds
while 'C' accumulated 36,000 seconds.

That is even though 'A' and 'B' had relative velocity it had no impact what-so-ever upon the accumulated time by the
clocks. Reciprocity predicted by SRT is not supported. Now 'C' becomes concerned something is wrong with Einstein's
view of reality, so he decides to run yet another test.

TEST 4:

In this test 'C" launches both 'A' and 'B" in a common vector such that each achieves a 0.433c relative velocity to
'C' but are co-moving to each other and hence they have no relative velocity.

At the end of the test 'C' finds that both 'A' and 'B' have still accumulated the same 32,462 seconds in the same
concurrent test period that 'C" accumulated 36,000 seconds.

He is left with no option but to conclude that time dilation is a function of absolute motion and not relative motion.

To be sure of this fact he schedules yet a final test. In this test he equips all three clocks with precalibrated monitors
of the other clocks. He knows that Einstein claimed that with relative velocity of 0.433c the other clock will be
dilated by a gamma of 1.1094 and at 0.7293c the dilation will be due to a gamma of 1.4619.

So 'A" has a 'B' monitor aboard his craft which will only tick 684 ticks/1,000 ticks of 'A' and a 'C" monitor
which will only tick 902 ticks/1,000 ticks of his (A) on board clock. He arranges simular monitors for 'B' and 'C'.
These monitors are arranged to start and stop concurrent with each local clock and by such technique eliminates the
delayed perception of what the other clocks read.

He now launches 'A' and 'B" under TEST 3 the schedule.

Upon completion of the test the transmitted data follows:

ACTUAL TIMES
ACCUMULATED
------------------------
A = 32,447 seconds
B = 32,447 seconds
C = 36,000 seconds

A =32,447 seconds
PREDICTION
----------------------
B = 22,194 seconds due to gamma = 1.4617
C = 29,244 seconds due to gamma = 1.1094

B = 32,447 seconds
PREDICTION
-----------------------
A = 22,194 seconds due to gamma = 1.4617
C = 29,244 seconds due to a gamma = 1.1094

C = 36,000 seconds
PREDICTION
-------------------------
A = 32,447 seconds due to gamma = 1.1094
B = 32,447 seconds due to gamma = 1.1094

It can be seen from the above that only 'C" has the correct view. All views of reciprocity and other gammas
are false.

'C' now decides to return to earth and look for supporting data for his discovery. He looks at GPS and calculates
the relative velocity between a clock located at the equator (A) and one in orbit (B) and determines that the gamma
and time dilation predicted for the relative velocity affect does not match emperical findings. SRT predicts only
-5.8us/day time loss and the actual velocity induced loss is -7.2us/day.

He then tries to apply what he has learned and assumes a local common preferred rest frame of referance and lables
the center of the earth as frame 'C'. He now recomputes time dilation gammas for each component relative to
'C" and then writes Gamma Effective = Gamma B / Gamma A and finds that the result is not only -7.2us/day but
that this view prohibits claiming the surface clock has all motion and the orbiting clock is at rest.

This view is totally consistant with all data, whereas Einstein's view fails except in very limited cases.

It is shown then that time dilation is based on absolute motion, even though we have no method of detecting such
motion except where there exists a relative velocity.

The conclusion then becomes that the error in Einstien's thoughts stems from the arbitrary and false assumption that
there exists only two frames of refereance from which to judge motion. That indeed all motion has an origin and that
computing gammas in absence of knowledge of the component velocities that make up the total relative velocity is
meaningless and does not produce any meaningful results mathematically.

In such cases emperical data about particles in particle accelerators and cosmic muons compute correctly using only
two of the three frames because for example in the (M)uon, (S)urface and (E)arth center or (P)article, (L)ab, and
(E)arth center frames, 'E' is at rest with the 'L' and 'S' frames such that the relative velocity is contained by only
one frame (P) or (M). But even in these cases the reciprocity advocated by SRT is prohibited.

Reciprocity has not once been observed nor recorded in 100 years of Special Relativity. That is because it
requires two physical clocks to accumulate multiple times to satisfy multiple vews of numerous observers all
moving at different velocities relative to the clock, even with simultaneity considered.

Clocks only tick in their own proper time locally and are totally unaffected by a remote observers view or motion.
These facts dictate a universe that is based on absolute motion and not relative motion.

Relative motion is only an indicator that there is absolute motion but you can only determine component
velocities using three frames of referance.

Only when you know the origin of component velocities can you compute time dilation. Total relative velocity
does not allow that, except where ONE clock is indeed at relative rest.

A more correct view would seem to be that what you refer to as time dilation is nothing more than clock dilation.

That is no clock actually measures something called time. Clocks merely mark the universal time interval at
different frequencies.

Another thing to consider about relativity is this. Given two clocks, one atomic and one grandfather pendulum
clock, calibrated and synchronized at sea level in California. Now move those clocks to Denver, Colorado. What
happens?

The atomic clock speeds up, the grandfather clock slows down. Which clock if either represent any real
change in time?

Is not this nothing more than thinking if my Timex battery gets low that I will live longer?

You can only rightfully disagree if you can show a flaw in the mathematics James R. Otherwise you must refute Einstien and argue that his lightening strikes were not simultaneous. Which is it?
_________________

I didn't read all the post, it was too long. I skimmed a bit though.

There are simultaneous events, but they are simultaneous only according to some particular observer, different observers have different ideas of what is simultaneous.

This is problematic though, mainly because of the way it clashes with Quantum Mechanics and in particular EPR type events. How can a spin measurement here instantly dictate the spin of a particle halfway across the galaxy if there is no such thing as an observer independent "simultaneous". Maybe the spin of the distant particle set the the outcome of our experiement. To a third observer it could be either, depending on their own relative frame.

This is not a problem (I don't think) in a Many Worlds or Transactional (waves backward in time) interpretation. Whether it is really, technically, a problem is probably questionable, but it certainly seems odd that a distant undisturbed particle could suddenly decide to spin up, thereby determining the measurment of an entangled particle a galaxy away, yet some observers could see just that.

Originally Posted by Destruct

I didn't read all the post, it was too long. I skimmed a bit though.

There are simultaneous events, but they are simultaneous only according to some particular observer, different observers have different ideas of what is simultaneous.

This is problematic though, mainly because of the way it clashes with Quantum Mechanics and in particular EPR type events. How can a spin measurement here instantly dictate the spin of a particle halfway across the galaxy if there is no such thing as an observer independent "simultaneous". Maybe the spin of the distant particle set the the outcome of our experiement. To a third observer it could be either, depending on their own relative frame.

This is not a problem (I don't think) in a Many Worlds or Transactional (waves backward in time) interpretation. Whether it is really, technically, a problem is probably questionable, but it certainly seems odd that a distant undisturbed particle could suddenly decide to spin up, thereby determining the measurment of an entangled particle a galaxy away, yet some observers could see just that.

Thanks for your reply. We are in agreement with tesprect to your post. Our differance may be the interpretation as to what signifigance the various observations have on the reality.

My arguement is that clocks "A" and "B" are defacto started and stopped simultaneously just as Einstein's lightening strikes are simultaneous and hence the accumulated times on the clocks are in disagreement with the purported views of Special Relativity.

That fact is quite logical and should be expected but it is in consistant with relativity predictions.

The only physically real time dilation is that displayed by accumulated times on clocks and not some perception of a remote observer.

Not that I'm an expert on SR, but if you just say that the lightning strikes simultaneously, isn't that cheating? Afterall, the whole point is that SR says that simultaneous is in the eye of the beholder. If you assume an absolute simultaneous moment then you've by default rejected SR, rather than demonstrated that SR is fundamentally inconsistent.

Hi Mac,

The refugees are dragging themselves in and collapsing on the beach after weeks at sea...

Originally Posted by Destruct

Not that I'm an expert on SR, but if you just say that the lightning strikes simultaneously, isn't that cheating? Afterall, the whole point is that SR says that simultaneous is in the eye of the beholder. If you assume an absolute simultaneous moment then you've by default rejected SR, rather than demonstrated that SR is fundamentally inconsistent.

Not at all. Einstein actually used the declaration of two simultaneous events in his gendankin. Those events were in a common rest frame to the observer midway between the two strikes. In that case everyone agrees they are simultaneous in all respects.

What is not simultaneous is the views of remote observers that are not located at the center of the events or that have motion such that they are undergoing time dilation.

What Einstein (and James R, plus others) fail to realize is that Relativity of Simultaneity actually dictates that the gamma function is the consequence of absolute motion and not relative motion.

This absolute motion is not relative to some universal rest frame as they would like to claim but is the motion to a locally common preferred rest frame. I call it Absolute Relative Motion (ARM).

The differance in ARM and mere relative motion is that the clocks in question actually have component velocities which make up the total relative velocity. In this view it is prohibited to declare reciprocity as advocated by Special Relativity.

That is in complete agreement with Relativity of Simultaneity and historical data. Special Relativity is not. Special Relativity argues that there is no such thing as absolute motion and all motion is relative. That view is only partially correct.

We cannot sense or measure absolute motion, we can only measure motion relative to something else. But our inability to measure it does not make it not there.

Relativity of Simultaneity prohibits claiming the recipocal view "A" is at rest and "B" runs slower but since "B" can claim to be at rest "A" runs slower than "B". Simultaneity does not allow that to be a true statement. It is false physics and is not reality.

The reality is that if "A" clock is given motion relative to "B" clock then "A" clock will run slower but you cannot then claim the "A" clock that accelerated to some inertial velocity is now at rest and "B" clock is slower. Simultaneity will not permit that but it is routinely claimed by James R and relativists as being a physical reality and it just isn't so.

The fact is that given a case where "A" is accelerated from earth to an inertial velocity and then timed, "A" will run slower than an earth clock but the view of "A" that is earth that has motion will not be supported by the data. That is what they miss. They mix frames and claim them equal simultaneously and declare reciprocity of views. Simultaneity prohibits that and proves that only one view can be physical reality.

So given a relative velocity between clocks is useless information without knowledge of how that motion was generated. That is "A" might well have all motion, which would be CASE 1, or "B" might have all motion that would be Case 2. But the fact is neither may be at rest, Case 3,4,5,6,7,9,....n, and one will have more velocity than the other and only it will appear slightly slower than the other.

Or they may (as I give in my presentation) have an equal velocity relative to the origin of their acceleration in which case NO amount of relative velocity produces any time dilation between them.

Hello MacM,

Originally Posted by MacM

I am really glad this site exists. I have unfinished business with one James R.

I am unsure you'll have any luck finding James R here.

Originally Posted by MacM

2 - James R is enept in that he cannot seem to understand.

3 - James R has shown he is incapable of teaching anyone anything in that he refuses to talk physics and relies upon
rhetoric, dogma, innuendo, distortions, fabrications, lies, appeal to authority, fiat, etc and not physics or common
sense.

Well, on second thought, this might bring him about to defend his good name.

Originally Posted by MacM

4 - In my presentation clocks "A" and "B" are the equivelent of two lightening strikes occuring simultaneously along
a railroad embankment. Clock "C" in my presentation is the equivelent of an observer standing midway between these
two simultaneous lightening strikes.

The problem special relativity theorists will always point out is the issue of simultaneity. What is percieved as the clock of A stopping in one frame will not happen at the same time as the clock of B stopping in the said frame. Therefore they will in fact read the same time as you simply stated they will, but it all boils down to a matter of if it is agreed or not that the events are simultaneous. Special Relativity theorists will immediately point out that there is only one frame that they stop simultaneously and only this frame will predict they have the same time, notably this is your frame C.

Now I am not claiming to agree with this assessment, but in simple terms it is the assessment that special relativity predicts.

I've brought up the point on physicsforums.com that the entire notion of percieving events as being simultaneous in one frame and not in another is fundamentally flawed. I believe the scenario is rather easy to follow and have yet to have any special relativity theorists prove that the scenario is in any way flawed. The scenario is as follows:



Let's define S1 and S2 as mother ships that exist at the position x1=x2=0 at the time t1=t2=0 in the frame S. S1' and S2' are scout ships for S1 and S2 respectively that exist at the position x1'=x2'=0 at the time t1'=t2'=0 in the frame S'. The frame S' is defined as a frame moving with velocity v=.9c relativity to the frame of S. For the time being, the mother ships exist at x=0 for all t>0 in the S frame (They both can be at x=0 by having separate offsets in the y dimension).

The clocks of S1 and S2 are ticking in sync with each other as they share a common rest frame S. When the clocks of S1 and S2 read 100 as defined by the frame S, the S1 ship instanaeously accelerates to the frame of ships S1' and S2', specificly the frame S'. Now we know that any acceleration is not instanaeous in the literal sense. There is a finite interval over which it occurs and for our purposes here, we'll say that this finite interval is .5 unit of time as measured in the S frame by the S2 mother ship. As soon as S1 reaches the frame of S', it, along with S1' and S2' decelerate to the frame of S. This deceleration also takes an interval of .5 unit of time as measured in the S frame by the S2 mother ship. Therefore it should be clear that the clock of S2 reads 101 when all ships are back in the frame of S. My question to you is, what does the clock of S1 and S1' say right after S1 enters the S' frame and right before S1 starts its deceleration back to the frame S. And what is the time on the S2 and S2' clock right after the S2' ship is decelerated back to the S frame.

If you accept the calculations done by the special relativity theorists themselves, then S1' will read ~230 right before it decelerates and S2' will read ~44 right after it decelerates. Note that all motion in S1' was followed by the motion of S2' so their clocks should have been in sync for the entire trip.

Originally Posted by Aer

Hello MacM,

Well, on second thought, this might bring him about to defend his good name.

I've brought up the point on physicsforums.com that the entire notion of percieving events as being simultaneous in one frame and not in another is fundamentally flawed. I believe the scenario is rather easy to follow and have yet to have any special relativity theorists prove that the scenario is in any way flawed. The scenario is as follows:

I think we are in agreement on this issue.

Taking the proof one step further and simplifying the case. Have "A" and "B" start at
opposite sides of the test space station such that subsequent to completing their
acceleration and becoming inertial they are each passing through a light beam at "C"
such that all t = 0's are substantially at the same location and acceleration need not be
computed nor require a delayed signal be sent.

Now considering "A" and "B" allow "A" to send a signal to "B" to stop his clock
simultaneous with himself. According to Special Relativity "B" should read 32,447/1.4617
= 22,198 seconds.

Now add a simular control to "B" to stop "A" simultaneous with "B" such that "B" sends
a signal ahead to arrive at "A" stopping the clock when "B" reads 22,198 seconds.

In that case Special Relativity claims that "A" will have accumulated only 15,187 seconds.

You now have "A" being required to read both 32,447 seconds AND 15,187 seconds
when "B" reads 22,198 seconds.

"B" can't stop "A" at 15,187 seconds because it has already accumulated 32,447 seconds when
"B" reaches the 22,198 second value.

When asked about relativity Einstein said: when the
station comes to the train.

But only the train is moving through space. Only the train
accelerates. The station does not move through space to
get closer to the train.

So I say moving through space is an absolute. And that
the motion of the station to the train is only a relative one.

Relatives only exist in potential to absolutes.

Originally Posted by Aer

If you accept the calculations done by the special relativity theorists themselves, then S1' will read ~230 right before it decelerates and S2' will read ~44 right after it decelerates. Note that all motion in S1' was followed by the motion of S2' so their clocks should have been in sync for the entire trip.

This analysis is ambiguous. You haven't stated in which frame the clock readings are made.
The relativity of simultaneity is a nasty trap for word problems, because we are so used to assuming simultaneity in natural conversation. Whenever we use the word "when", we're assuming simultaneity. If you use the word "when" in a scenario, without carefully specifying in which frame you mean "when", you're setting yourself up for trouble.

• S1' and S2' both read 229.4 simultaneously-in-frame-S' with S1 commencing acceleration.
• S1' and S2' both read 230 simultaneously-in-frame-S' with S1 reversing its acceleration.
• S1' and S2' both read 230.8 simultaneously-in-frame-S' with S1 returning to rest in frame S.

• S1' and S2' both read 43.6 simultaneously-in-frame-S with S1 commencing acceleration.
• S1' and S2' both read 43.8 simultaneously-in-frame-S with S1 reversing its acceleration.
• S1' and S2' both read 44.0 simultaneously-in-frame-S with S1 returning to rest in frame S.

Derivation:

These numbers are derived from transforming between frames:

S1 begins accelerating at x=0, t=100, which transforms to x'=-206.5, t'=229.4
S1 reverses its acceleration (ie is at rest in frame S') at x=0.225, t=100.5, which transforms to x'=-207, t'=230
S1 stops accelerating (ie is again at rest in frame S) at x=0.45, t=101, which transforms to x'=-207.5, t'=230.8

When S1 begins accelerating, S1' and S2' are simultaneously-in-frame-S at x=90, t=100, which transforms to x'=-0, t'=43.6
When S1 reverses its acceleration (ie is at rest in frame S'), S1' and S2' are simultaneously-in-frame-S at x=90.45, t=100.5, which transforms to x'=0, t'=43.8
When S1 stops accelerating (ie is again at rest in frame S), S1' and S2' are simultaneously-in-frame-S at x=90.9, t=101, which transforms to x'=0, t'=44.0

Originally Posted by Nick

When asked about relativity Einstein said: when the
station comes to the train.

But only the train is moving through space. Only the train
accelerates. The station does not move through space to
get closer to the train.

So I say moving through space is an absolute. And that
the motion of the station to the train is only a relative one.

Relatives only exist in potential to absolutes.

You call it "Potential" and I call it "Perception" but we are in agreement.

Originally Posted by MacM

Not at all. Einstein actually used the declaration of two simultaneous events in his gendankin.

Simultaneous in one specified frame. Not all frames.

Those events were in a common rest frame to the observer midway between the two strikes. In that case everyone agrees they are simultaneous in all respects.

No - that's the whole point. If the speed of light is constant in all frames, then it is necessary that not everyone agrees that they are simultaneous.

No matter how many gendanken you twist through, this is the simple point you're stuck on. Every time, you include the declaration of two events as simultaneous in all frames as a premise.

Do you understand that others do not accept that premise?

Do you understand that others consider that premise to be inconsistent with the postulate that the laws of electromagnetics, like the laws of mechanics, are the same in all reference frames?

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by Aer

If you accept the calculations done by the special relativity theorists themselves, then S1' will read ~230 right before it decelerates and S2' will read ~44 right after it decelerates. Note that all motion in S1' was followed by the motion of S2' so their clocks should have been in sync for the entire trip.

This analysis is ambiguous. You haven't stated in which frame the clock readings are made.
The relativity of simultaneity is a nasty trap for word problems, because we are so used to assuming simultaneity in natural conversation. Whenever we use the word "when", we're assuming simultaneity. If you use the word "when" in a scenario, without carefully specifying in which frame you mean "when", you're setting yourself up for trouble.

I can agree with your post with one exception. I stated the simultaneous start/stop was in the "C" frame in that the acceleration initiated from that frame. The fact that other views exist is not of arguement. The arguement is that those of "Perceptions" and have no impact on the clock tick rate.

Simultaneity merely has one "Seeing" time on the clock at different times and has nothing to do with a physical change in time or tick rates.

Originally Posted by Pete

Simultaneous in one specified frame. Not all frames.

Of course. I have not said they are.
But the failure of simultaneity in these other frames is a matter of perception and has no affect on the clock tick rate.

Simultaneity merely has one "See" the time on the clock at a different time. It has nothing to do with time dilation perse.

Further more we are intersted in the accumulated times in the simultaneous frame. Clocks only tick in their local proper time frame and an observers motion does not alter that tick rate. It alters the observers perception of the clock, not the clock itself.

No - that's the whole point. If the speed of light is constant in all frames, then it is necessary that not everyone agrees that they are simultaneous.

You mis-read my meaning. I did not mean everyone agrees it is simultaneous to all observers. I meant everyone agrees that in the "C" frame the start/stop IS simultaneous. Other frames do not "See" it as simultaneous but it is in fact physically simultaneous.

No matter how many gendanken you twist through, this is the simple point you're stuck on.

I amnot stuck on anything. I understand simultaneity but the lack of simultaneity by a remote and/or moving observer has no inpact on the physics of the clock, it is only a perception of the clock that changes.

Every time, you include the declaration of two events as simultaneous in all frames as a premise.

I have not done that.

Do you understand that others do not accept that premise?

I understand that most SRTist's cannot understand the differance between "Perception" of a remote observer and the physical realilty of the clock in it's frame.

Do you understand that others consider that premise to be inconsistent with the postulate that the laws of electromagnetics, like the laws of mechanics, are the same in all reference frames?

What is inconsistant in pointing out that for "A" to claim "B" runs slower and simultaneously (in the same concurrent test period regardless of clock accumulated time) that "B" claims "A" runs slower, is nothing more than a perception and not a physical reality of the clocks.

You are seeing the other clock in a "Time Shifted" way which has nothing to do with changing the tick rate of the clock by your (and millions of others) observation.

Originally Posted by Pete

Simultaneous in one specified frame. Not all frames.

Of course. I have not said they are. But the failure of simultaneity
in these other frames is a matter of perception and has
no affect on the clock tick rate.

Simultaneity merely has one "See" the time on the clock at a
different time. It has nothing to do with time dilation
perse.

Further more we are interested in the accumulated times in
the simultaneous frame. Clocks only tick in their
local proper time frame and an observers motion does not alter
that tick rate. It alters the observers perception of the
clock, not the clock itself.

No - that's the whole point. If the speed of light is constant
in all frames, then it is necessary that not everyone
agrees that they are simultaneous.

You mis-read my meaning. I did not mean everyone agrees
it is simultaneous to all observers. I meant everyone
agrees that in the "C" frame the start/stop IS simultaneous.
Other frames do not "See" it as simultaneous but it is in fact
physically simultaneous.

No matter how many gendanken you twist through,
this is the simple point you're stuck on.

I am not stuck on anything. I understand simultaneity but the
lack of simultaneity by a remote and/or moving
observer has no inpact on the physics of the clock, it is only
a perception of the clock that changes.

Every time, you include the declaration of two events
as simultaneous in all frames as a premise.

I have not done that.

Do you understand that others do not accept that premise?

I understand that most SRTist's cannot understand the
differance between "Perception" of a remote observer
and the physical realilty of the clock in it's frame.

Do you understand that others consider that premise
to be inconsistent with the postulate that the laws of
electromagnetics, like the laws of mechanics, are the same
in all reference frames?

What is inconsistant in pointing out that for "A" to claim "B"
runs slower and simultaneously (in the same
concurrent test period regardless of clock accumulated time)
that "B" claims "A" runs slower, is nothing more than a
perception and not a physical reality of the clocks.

You are seeing the other clock in a "Time Shifted" way which
has nothing to do with changing the tick rate of the
clock by your (and millions of others) observation.

To actually be "Simultaneous" it must necessarily "Not
Appear" simultaneous to such remote or moving
observer. You and others want to make the perception
simultaneous and that is the incorrect procedure.

Originally Posted by MacM

You mis-read my meaning. I did not mean everyone agrees it is simultaneous to all observers. I meant everyone agrees
that in the "C" frame the start/stop IS simultaneous. Other frames do not "See" it as simultaneous but it is in fact physically
simultaneous.

Forget observers, let's talk frames.

Everyone agrees that the lightning flashes are simultaneous in Frame C.

Everyone does not agree that the flashes are simultaneous in all frames.

Everyone does not agree that frame C is special, and that physical simultaneity is defined by frame C. Frame C has no more claim to physical simultaneity than any other frame.

Originally Posted by Pete

Forget observers, let's talk frames.

Symantics. Moving Observers or Remotely located Observers are frames.

Everyone agrees that the lightning flashes are simultaneous in Frame C.

Everyone does not agree that the flashes are simultaneous in all frames.

We have no disagreement here.

Everyone does not agree that frame C is special, and that physical simultaneity is defined by frame C. Frame C has no more claim to physical simultaneity than any other frame.

This is where you and others lose touch with reality and start to substitute Perception as reality.

If I advance a signal to "Physically" stop "B" at the same instant universally that I stop my clock "A", I do not see it stop.

I see a time that is less than what it actually stopped at and I see it continue to tick until my perception catches up with reality of the stopped clock reading.

This issue is no different than the fact that we "See" the sun where it was 8.5 minutes ago, not where it actually is. Your treatment of clocks is the same as claiming "No we see the sun there so there is where it is".

To actually be physically simultaneous "A" would need to send an advance signal which arrives at "B" the same instant that the signal from "C" arrives. The result would then be the same as I have depicted.

Originally Posted by MacM

Originally Posted by Nick

When asked about relativity Einstein said: when the
station comes to the train.

But only the train is moving through space. Only the train
accelerates. The station does not move through space to
get closer to the train.

So I say moving through space is an absolute. And that
the motion of the station to the train is only a relative one.

Relatives only exist in potential to absolutes.

You call it "Potential" and I call it "Perception" but we are in agreement.

I say physics is not about appearance.
There is no so called reciprocal appearence of relativity.
Only the rain sees the station's clocks blueshifted.
In other words only the accelerated clocks slowdown.

Get rid of appearances concerning the laws of physics.
They don't apply!

Originally Posted by Nick

Get rid of appearances concerning the laws of physics.
They don't apply!

We agree. When the train accelerates away from the station, the station "Appears" to accelerate from the train. However, the passengers standing along the rail head feel no force of acceleration. If they do not physically accelerate it is nonsense to claim they subsequently have velocity relative to the train which did accelerate.

Originally Posted by MacM

Moving Observers or Remotely located Observers are frames.

Not in my dictionary. Confusing the two means confusing perception and reality. When I say "frame" I do not mean "observer".

Originally Posted by MacM

Everyone agrees that the lightning flashes are simultaneous in Frame C.

Everyone does not agree that the flashes are simultaneous in all frames.

We have no disagreement here.

Good - that's a cornerstone we can keep.

Originally Posted by MacM

Everyone does not agree that frame C is special, and that physical simultaneity is defined by frame C. Frame C has no more claim to physical simultaneity than any other frame.

This is where you and others lose touch with reality and start to substitute Perception as reality.

Perception be damned - I'm talking what really happens, not what any observer sees.

Do you think that frame C is special, and that simultaneity in other frames has no physical meaning?

Or are you claiming that the flashes are really simultaneous in all other frames as well?

Originally Posted by MacM

We agree. When the train accelerates away from the station, the station "Appears" to accelerate from the train. However, the passengers standing along the rail head feel no force of acceleration. If they do not physically accelerate it is nonsense to claim they subsequently have velocity relative to the train which did accelerate.

How do you know the station and the train weren't initially moving at some speed, and the train has now decelerated to a standstill?
Would all people involved feel things any differently?

Are you claiming that the train station is absolutely at rest?

Originally Posted by Pete

Not in my dictionary. Confusing the two means confusing perception and reality. When I say "frame" I do not mean "observer".

Fine just how does your frames interprete anything? That requires an observer.

Good - that's a cornerstone we can keep.

Certainly.

Perception be damned - I'm talking what really happens, not what any observer sees.

Just what do you claim really happens that observers do not see?

Do you think that frame C is special, and that simultaneity in other frames has no physical meaning?

Correct.

Or are you claiming that the flashes are really simultaneous in all other frames as well?

The flashes are not simultaneous in other frames. But that is Perception, not physical reality.

If we are twins and I run the 100 yard dash in the olympics and set a world record and you are an astronaut traveling at relavistic velocity of 0.866c watching me with your highly sophisticated telescope, you would think something was amiss since I (according to your clock) took just under twice the previous world record to complete the 100 yard dash.

Your view of my performance had no bearing what-so-ever on the physics of the local events. You have a distorted view of the physics that were involved.

In fact you would notice that the clocks in the stadium disagreed with your clocks and that according to my clocks I did indeed break the record.

Originally Posted by MacM

...how does your frames interprete anything? That requires an observer.

Right... so a frame is not an observer. Like I said.

Like you, I'm not interested in what an observer sees, I'm interested in what actually happens. If an observer sees something that happened some time ago, I don't care - I care that it happened, not that someone saw it.

So, forget observers. Let's talk about what actually happens.

Originally Posted by MacM

Do you think that frame C is special, and that simultaneity in other frames has no physical meaning?

Correct.

Right - this is where we part.
As soon as you choose a frame and say "This is the one true frame", you're assuming a premise that I reject, and that is rejected by the postulates of Special Relativity.
That's fine, and I wish you luck with it.

Originally Posted by MacM

The flashes are not simultaneous in other frames. But that is Perception, not physical reality.

Perception be damned. I'm talking reality.
Are the flashes really simultaneous in all other frames or not?

Originally Posted by Nick

In other words only the accelerated clocks slowdown.

Hi Nick,
The Earth is rotating once per day, so the train station is moving at a thousand miles an hour or so from West to East, right?

So when a train accelerates out of the station to the West, is it really accelerating? Or is it decelerating? Will the clocks on the train run slower than those in the station, or the other way around?

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by Nick

In other words only the accelerated clocks slowdown.

Hi Nick,
The Earth is rotating once per day, so the train station is moving at a thousand miles an hour or so from West to East, right?

So when a train accelerates out of the station to the West, is it really accelerating? Or is it decelerating? Will the clocks on the train run slower than those in the station, or the other way around?

It doesn't matter the station accelerated or decelerated. If it was at rest with the train before then it is still the only viable rest frame. With no change universally in the station it is insane to then later claim the station has velocity and the train is at rest.

BTW physically there is no differance to the station if the train accelerated or decelerated. That is all a "Perspective" of yet another observer, which you don't want to discuss.

Originally Posted by Pete

Right... so a frame is not an observer. Like I said.

Well frames without an observer are meaningless. You have no way of knowing anything without an observer. Instruments can record but without the observer that data has no utility.

Like you, I'm not interested in what an observer sees, I'm interested in what actually happens.

Right but whatever happens requires an observer to give the information any unility.

If an observer sees something that happened some time ago, I don't care

So then you have no interest in simultaneity or relativity?

- I care that it happened, not that someone saw it.

Your view is totally illogical. If something happens and nobody sees it or sees the data showing it then it is unknown that anything happened. I think you need to give this position some thought.

So, forget observers. Let's talk about what actually happens.

Please explain how you propose to say something happened if it was never seen by an observer?

Right - this is where we part.

As soon as you choose a frame and say "This is the one true frame", you're assuming a premise that I reject, and that is rejected by the postulates of Special Relativity.

That's fine, and I wish you luck with it.

That is fine because clocks only tick in their local frame. That is indeed a special frame and the fact that Special Relativity rejects preferred frames is a major flaw against it since GPS uses preferred frames and that is the only way it can function. Special Relativity cannot be used to make GPS work. So now what?

Perception be damned. I'm talking reality.
Are the flashes really simultaneous in all other frames or not?

You cannot seem to understand the differance between a physical event and some distorted or delayed viewing of that event. You have my sympathy.

If I run a red light because I was wearing sun glasses which made red look green, would the court conclude I ran a red light or not.? Stop defending SR and think.

Originally Posted by MacM

Your view is totally illogical. If something happens and nobody sees it or sees the data showing it then it is unknown that anything happened. I think you need to give this position some thought.
...
Please explain how you propose to say something happened if it was never seen by an observer?

Do you think that if nobody sees it, then it didn't happen?
I'm a realist. I consider observers to be irrelevant to reality.

That is fine because clocks only tick in their local frame.

Rubbish. Two ticks that happen in different places still happen.

Originally Posted by MacM

Perception be damned. I'm talking reality.
Are the flashes really simultaneous in all other frames or not?

You cannot seem to understand the differance between a physical event and some distorted or delayed viewing of that event. You have my sympathy.

Mac, you're not hearing me:
I don't care what anyone sees, views, or perceives of some event - I'm interested in the actual physical occurence of the event.

Why do you insist that I care about the viewing of the event when I've repeatedly said I don't?

Perception be damned, I say!

Now, here is a very simple question that has nothing to do with perception:
Are the flashes *really* simultaneous in all other frames or not?

I strongly suggest that you read and respond to what I actually say - not what you think that an SRT evangelist would say.

You've misinterpreted me more than once because you're stereotyping me as a relativist.

Gents:

Here is a program I've slapped together. Try it and see if you understand what's going on here. It's a work-in-progress. I'd like to add features so that it reflects SRT outcomes as accurately as possible. Ignore rounding errors for now.

What do you think?

http://www.laserwireless.net/Diagrams/relvelocity.exe

Note: It's safe to run.

Originally Posted by Pete

Do you think that if nobody sees it, then it didn't happen?
I'm a realist. I consider observers to be irrelevant to reality.

Of course not but do you think if it happens and nobody see it you could be argueing an analysis of it? It MUST be seen or measured to have any meaning what-so-ever. Once it is OBSERVED, analyzed and understood then an only then can you rely on gendankins and mathematics in absence of observation.

Rubbish. Two ticks that happen in different places still happen.

Rubbish is right. You are argueing that when I see a carpenter swing the hammer but hear it strike seconds later as the hammer is raised up again, that the sound of the hammer hitting the nail REALLY does occur well after the PHYSICAL strike. NONSENSE.

The noise is physical and is generated at the time of impact, your PERCEPTION as a remote observer did not alter the physics of the event. Failure of simultaneity is a distorted view of reality and that is all. You can call it your reality but that is meaningless, analysis of the event physics disagrees with your perception..

Perception be damned. I'm talking reality. Are the flashes really simultaneous in all other frames or not?

I have already stated they are NOT PERCEIVED as simultaneous but that does not alter the fact that they WERE SIMULTANEOUS events.

Mac, you're not hearing me: I don't care what anyone sees, views, or perceives of some event - I'm interested in the actual physical occurence of the event.

The actual physical occurance of the start/stop event in my presentation IS simultaneous.

Why do you insist that I care about the viewing of the event when I've repeatedly said I don't?

And why do you avoid questions like "Did I run a red light or not"?

Perception be damned, I say!

I too say to hell with perception. I am arguing physical reality of the events and not some remote observers distorted view of such events.

Now, here is a very simple question that has nothing to do with perception: Are the flashes *really* simultaneous in all other frames or not?

For who knows how many times "The events are simultaneous. Other frames MUST be perceptions of such events since those events did not occur in those frames." Without perception you would have no events to consider.

Originally Posted by Pete

I strongly suggest that you read and respond to what I actually say - not what you think that an SRT evangelist would say.

You've misinterpreted me more than once because you're stereotyping me as a relativist.

If you are not a relativists your view is akin to being a relavists, so how are you proclaiming to be any different?

And I strongly suggest you give some thought to the fact that without observation there are no events to consider.

Originally Posted by superluminal

Gents:

Here is a program I've slapped together. Try it and see if you understand what's going on here. It's a work-in-progress. I'd like to add features so that it reflects SRT outcomes as accurately as possible. Ignore rounding errors for now.

What do you think?

http://www.laserwireless.net/Diagrams/relvelocity.exe

Note: It's safe to run.

Sorry, I could not run your program. It says I am missing a DLL file VCL50.BPL. I may see if I can run it at the office.

Yea, I realized I didn't package it. Working on it...

Originally Posted by MacM

It MUST be seen or measured to have any meaning what-so-ever.

Do gendakens have meaning?

You are argueing that when I see a carpenter swing the hammer but hear it strike seconds later as the hammer is raised up again, that the sound of the hammer hitting the nail REALLY does occur well after the PHYSICAL strike. NONSENSE.

I'm arguing no such thing.
I'm saying that I don't care what you saw or heard, I only care about when the hammer struck the nail.
If you say "I heard the bang at 10:29:34am" then I'll say "So what? I want to know when the hammer struck the nail, not when you heard it."

Why do you avoid questions like "Did I run a red light or not"?

Because they're irrelevant, based on the mistaken impression that I care about perceptions and not reality.
Of course you ran the red light - your perception is irrelevant.

I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding my point of view on this matter, when it is exactly the same as your own. I adopt your words as my own:
I too say to hell with perception. I am arguing physical reality of the events and not some remote observers distorted view of such events.
Can we now accept our shared love of reality, and stop worrying about perception?

I have already stated they are NOT PERCEIVED as simultaneous but that does not alter the fact that they WERE SIMULTANEOUS events.

Thank you. The second clause is what I was seeking (I don't care about the perception, remember?)
Now:
I do not accept your blunt assertion that this is (really, physically) true in all frames.
Do you understand that I think that your assertion that simultaneity is an unshakeable physical absolute is an assumption that needs to be proved before I accept it?

Do you understand that I do not reject the possibility that two events which are physically simultaneous in one frame might not be physically simultaneous in another frame?

Other frames MUST be perceptions of such events since those events did not occur in those frames.

Perhaps you and I mean different things when we say the word "frame", because this sentence makes as much sense to me as suggesting that a hammer doesn't really strike a nail unless someone hears it.

Originally Posted by MacM

If you are not a relativists your view is akin to being a relavists, so how are you proclaiming to be any different?

I claim that my views do not match the views that you clearly attribute to me. I suggest that your perception of my views is distorted by your stereotyped image of a relativist.

I'll thank you not to stereotype me so.

And I strongly suggest you give some thought to the fact that without observation there are no events to consider.

Not in the gendanken world.
I can consider the event of a hammer striking a nail, regardless of whether you, I , or anyone saw or heard it.

I did so in my last post.

Do I need to consider the observer when considering the event? Does the presence or absence of an observer change the effect of a hammer on a nail?

Originally Posted by MacM

It doesn't matter the station accelerated or decelerated. If it was at rest with the train before then it is still the only viable rest frame.

How can the train decelerate if it was at rest?

I'm wondering how you reconcile your suggestion that a clock only ticks in its rest frame with your apparent agreement that two ticks the same clock can happen in different places.

If a clock is moving and ticking, then it is ticking in a different frame to its rest frame.

Hello all,

If you don't know me, I am the James R referred to in an unkind and disparaging way by MacM in his first post to this thread. Unlike him, I will not stoop to bringing baggage from another forum into a new place. Nor will I start insulting somebody when they are not present to defend themselves.

In response to MacM's opening post...

2 - James R is enept in that he cannot seem to understand.

I ask readers to judge that for themselves. Keep an open mind.

a - The case presented does not require the observers to "See" the events as simultaneous. All that is required is that the events are simultaneous at their origin frame.

MacM probably can't define the term "simultaneous" in any rigorous manner.

3 - James R has shown he is incapable of teaching anyone anything in that he refuses to talk physics and relies upon rhetoric, dogma, innuendo, distortions, fabrications, lies, appeal to authority, fiat, etc and not physics or common sense.

This is a simple attempt at character assassination, which doesn't really warrant a response. Again, I urge readers to make up their own minds, based on things I actually post here, and not on MacM's biased and unfair comments.

First Einstien in his gendankin to demonstrate non-simultaneity starts by declaring simultaneity of two lightening strikes on an embankment with an observer midway between the strikes.

I don't even know if this was Einstein's example, or somebody elses. Nevertheless, the statement which is usually made is that it is given that the strikes are simultaneous in one particular reference frame (which may be the embankment frame). The question which then needs to be answered, and which is the real subject of discussion, is: Are events which are definitely simultaneous in one frame (such as the embankment) also simultaneous in another frame (such as the frame of a moving train)?

The answer given by relativity is: no. That answer is derived from the postulates of special relativity, and is a rigorous, mathematical derivation. MacM's answer is: yes. His answer is based on wishful thinking, and has no derivation.

It is only the perception ofa remote observer not located at the center of the simultaneous events or an observer in motion where time dilation has been introduced that do not see the events as being simultaneous.

MacM's mistake here is that he assumes that signal travel times are ignored in relativity in defining "simultaneous". In fact, they are not.

For example if you properly compute the time delay affects of seperation and time dilation affects of motion you can send a signal between clocks and start and stop those clocks simultaneously, even though the observers would claim the events were not simultaneous.

See what I mean? The problem is, MacM doesn't know what "simultaneous" means. He thinks it is somehow tied to when signals are sent or received. In fact, two events are simultaneous if they share the same time coordinate in a particular reference frame. No information needs to be transmitted from one place to another to establish simultaneity.

There is little point in me addressing MacM's claims here, since I have done so in detail elsewhere. MacM never learns, so I would be wasting my time engaging with him again. However, I will be happy to answer questions from anybody on The Science Forum who is not familiar with the previous discussions I have had with MacM.

MacM's claims in the opening post of this thread are, almost without exception, wrong, misguided and not backed up by any mathematical analysis. They are vague ideas springing from MacM himself, which he wishes were true. Unfortunately, he cannot support any of them.

You can only rightfully disagree if you can show a flaw in the mathematics James R. Otherwise you must refute Einstien and argue that his lightening strikes were not simultaneous. Which is it?

If MacM could show me the "mathematics" he is referring to here, then we might have a discussion. However, he doesn't actually have a mathematical argument. His last statement is a feeble attempt to set up a false dichotomy, which stems from his inability to understand the actual argument (whether or not it was made by Einstein).

Reading back, I'm sounding a bit harsh. MacM is mainly misguided, though I am annoyed by his vindictiveness. Anyway, judge for yourselves, and please: ask questions if you want to know what I think, and I'll tell you. Don't listen to MacM's twisted versions of things I've said. He usually gets them wrong.

Originally Posted by Pete

Do gendakens have meaning?

Only if they strictly adhere to physical reality. Claiming each clock runs slower than the other is not physical reality. It is based on the "Perception" of the clocks and not actual clock performance or any emperical data.

I'm arguing no such thing.
I'm saying that I don't care what you saw or heard, I only care about when the hammer struck the nail.
If you say "I heard the bang at 10:29:34am" then I'll say "So what? I want to know when the hammer struck the nail, not when you heard it."

Good, then we can agree. The interjection of simultaneity (the distorted observation of an event) is not physics.

Because they're irrelevant, based on the mistaken impression that I care about perceptions and not reality.
Of course you ran the red light - your perception is irrelevant.

Why are we debating if we agree? SRT is based on simultaneity shift which is not a real physical affect. Only the recorded time dilation according to accumulated time on the clock in its frame is physical reality. All else IS only perception. I reject such perceptions.

I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding my point of view on this matter, when it is exactly the same as your own. I adopt your words as my own:
I too say to hell with perception. I am arguing physical reality of the events and not some remote observers distorted view of such events.
Can we now accept our shared love of reality, and stop worrying about perception?

HeHe. Just when an where did you convert? You want to claim you reject perception but you want to adhere to SRT. You can't have it both ways.

Thank you. The second clause is what I was seeking (I don't care about the perception, remember?)
Now:
I do not accept your blunt assertion that this is (really, physically) true in all frames.
Do you understand that I think that your assertion that simultaneity is an unshakeable physical absolute is an assumption that needs to be proved before I accept it?

I would rather think that one is more obligated to show proof that clocks with relative motion EACH run slower than the other. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is NO evidence that SRT claim occurs.

Do you understand that I do not reject the possibility that two events which are physically simultaneous in one frame might not be physically simultaneous in another frame?

You would be obligated to show that any frame other than the one in which the events took place has any affect on physical reality.

Perhaps you and I mean different things when we say the word "frame", because this sentence makes as much sense to me as suggesting that a hammer doesn't really strike a nail unless someone hears it.

A frame is a coordinate system extending from any observer to infinity and any other observer's coordinate system that is at rest to that system is in the same frame. This definition however does not encompass the fact that there is a simultaneity shift due to physical seperation.

Wow. You guys are really getting lost in semantics. Pete (et al) says simultanaeity is defined as "thus and such" while MacM says "yes, but..." and goes on about simultanaeity as if Pete (et al) were talking ancient sumerian.

If you guys don't sync up your data rates and encoding, you'll be here forever. One of you needs to flip your ASCII/Binary switch...

Originally Posted by MacM

Originally Posted by Pete

Do gendankens have meaning?

Only if they strictly adhere to physical reality.

So a gendanken can have meaning, even though its about things that were not actually observed?

Just when an where did you convert? You want to claim you reject perception but you want to adhere to SRT. You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps what I adhere to isn't what you think it is.
Please don't stereotype me.

I would rather think that one is more obligated to show proof that clocks with relative motion EACH run slower than the other. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're slipping away from the point of our discussion of simultaneity, and again making assumptions of what I think. Please don't stereotype me.

You would be obligated to show that any frame other than the one in which the events took place has any affect on physical reality.

We're definitely at odds in what we mean by "frame". According to my concept of a frame, every event takes place in every frame.

A frame is a coordinate system extending from any observer to infinity and any other observer's coordinate system that is at rest to that system is in the same frame.

Firstly, I consider the existence or otherwise of an observer to be irrelevant.
Secondly, according to my conception of the word things (including observers) don't have to be at rest in a frame to exist in that frame.

Here is my conception of a frame:
A frame is a coordinate system stretching to infinity.
A frame may be in motion, but it may not change its motion.
The rest frame of an object is the frame in which the spatial coordinates of the object do not change.

Originally Posted by Pete

Do I need to consider the observer when considering the event? Does the presence or absence of an observer change the effect of a hammer on a nail?

Of course not and that has been my arguement. The SRT claim that a moving observers sees a different time tick rate does not alter the physical tick rate of the clock in question.

You can't claim to hold the opinion you do and still claim validity for SRT.

Do you reject SRT now? If not justify your support of a theory based on shear observation and not physical accumulated times on clocks.

Justify SRT's claim that two clocks in relative motion physically run slower than each other.

STOP STEREOTYPING ME!!!

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by MacM

It doesn't matter the station accelerated or decelerated. If it was at rest with the train before then it is still the only viable rest frame.

How can the train decelerate if it was at rest?

Don't get lost here. If the train is at the equator of earth and starts moving east is is accelerating. It it starts moving west it is decelerating.

You see there is defacto absolute motion.

MacM:

Justify SRT's claim that two clocks in relative motion physically run slower than each other.

That's impossible and SRT dosen't say that.

All it says is that from my frame your clock appears to run slow, and vice versa. Why do you insist on adding words and conditions that don't exist?

Originally Posted by Pete

I'm wondering how you reconcile your suggestion that a clock only ticks in its rest frame with your apparent agreement that two ticks the same clock can happen in different places.

If a clock is moving and ticking, then it is ticking in a different frame to its rest frame.

If a clock is inertial it is always at rest regardless of relative velocity to any nmber of other objects.

Originally Posted by MacM

If the train is at the equator of earth and starts moving east is is accelerating. It it starts moving west it is decelerating.

So the train station is not at rest?

Originally Posted by MacM

If a clock is inertial it is always at rest regardless of relative velocity to any nmber of other objects.

So all non-accelerating clocks are at rest? This is getting ridiculous.

Originally Posted by James R

Hello all,

If you don't know me, I am the James R referred to in an unkind and disparaging way by MacM in his first post to this thread.

Welcome James R. I saw another say you were around but not participating and thought this thread might bring you out of the woods.


Unfortunately, my statements are a fair presentation of your prior performance. Here I will be just as polite as you are.

Unlike him, I will not stoop to bringing baggage from another forum into a new place.

At least you are acknowledging there is baggage.

Nor will I start insulting somebody when they are not present to defend themselves.

Oh, but you were present but just being silent. Further more this statement properly deciphered means you do and will insult people in your responses. Which has been your history.

In response to MacM's opening post...

"MacM":2 - James R is enept in that he cannot seem to understand

I ask readers to judge that for themselves. Keep an open mind.

Originally Posted by Mac

a - The case presented does not require the observers to "See" the events as simultaneous. All that is required is that the events are simultaneous at their origin frame.

Originally Posted by James R

MacM probably can't define the term "simultaneous" in any rigorous manner.

See you can't help yourself but to cast innuendo.

Originally Posted by MacM

3 - James R has shown he is incapable of teaching anyone anything in that he refuses to talk physics and relies upon rhetoric, dogma, innuendo, distortions, fabrications, lies, appeal to authority, fiat, etc and not physics or common sense.

Originally Posted by James R

This is a simple attempt at character assassination, which doesn't really warrant a response. Again, I urge readers to make up their own minds, based on things I actually post here, and not on MacM's biased and unfair comments.

My statement was based on your history. If you turn over a new leaf here it would be a most welcome change.

Originally Posted by MacM

First Einstien in his gendankin to demonstrate non-simultaneity starts by declaring simultaneity of two lightening strikes on an embankment with an observer midway between the strikes.

Originally Posted by James R

I don't even know if this was Einstein's example, or somebody elses.

I find this extrodinarily difficult to believe. Particularily since I have seen you refer to "Einstien's" gendankin numerous times.

Originally Posted by James R

Nevertheless, the statement which is usually made is that it is given that the strikes are simultaneous in one particular reference frame (which may be the embankment frame). The question which then needs to be answered, and which is the real subject of discussion, is: Are events which are definitely simultaneous in one frame (such as the embankment) also simultaneous in another frame (such as the frame of a moving train)?

That may be a question in your mind but not mine.

Originally Posted by James R

The answer given by relativity is: no. That answer is derived from the postulates of special relativity, and is a rigorous, mathematical derivation.

And that is one reason SRT should be rejected by any thinking person. The (mis)-treatment of physical reality by SRT assumptions results in the creation of reciprocity, which has NOT ONCE been demonstrated, observed or shown in emperical data and to any rational person is a physical impossibility. Any theory that leads to physical impossibilities shuld be cast aside without hesitation.

MacM's answer is: yes. His answer is based on wishful thinking, and has no derivation.

You have just mis-represented my position. (Which is normal for you). I do not claim such events are simultaneous in all frames. I claim the only frame where simultaneity has any physical merit is in the frame where the events occured. The failure of simultaneity in other frames in no manner alters the events themselves and is only a distorted perception.

Big differance. Try to get it straight next time.

Originally Posted by MacM

It is only the perception of a remote observer not located at the center of the simultaneous events or an observer in motion where time dilation has been introduced that do not see the events as being simultaneous.

Originally Posted by James R

MacM's mistake here is that he assumes that signal travel times are ignored in relativity in defining "simultaneous". In fact, they are not.

It is only by your fiat that MacM is mistaken. There are only two facts regarding simultaneity:

1 - Static: Caused by information delay due to physical seperation. It is a shift in absolute times but tick rate is equal.

2 - Dynamic: Caused by time dilation due to motion and causes a continuing shift in the simultaneity due to altering tick rate of a clock.

Please do not think you can continue to misquote me or my views.

Originally Posted by MacM

For example if you properly compute the time delay affects of seperation and time dilation affects of motion you can send a signal between clocks and start and stop those clocks simultaneously, even though the observers would claim the events were not simultaneous.

Originally Posted by James R

See what I mean? The problem is, MacM doesn't know what "simultaneous" means. He thinks it is somehow tied to when signals are sent or received. In fact, two events are simultaneous if they share the same time coordinate in a particular reference frame. No information needs to be transmitted from one place to another to establish simultaneity.

And see what I mean. James R rather interject fiat and quote a theory as proof of the theory than to discuss physics. Nothing he has just said has any bearing on my claim that simultaneity can be calculated and compensated for when sending a control signal to a remote clock such that the clock can be caused to start or stop simulteneous with the control clock. It most certainly can.

Originally Posted by James R

There is little point in me addressing MacM's claims here, since I have done so in detail elsewhere. MacM never learns, so I would be wasting my time engaging with him again. However, I will be happy to answer questions from anybody on The Science Forum who is not familiar with the previous discussions I have had with MacM.

Trying to ignore me will not make me go away James R. Now address the issues I raised. If you choose to not address me you can be sure I will follow your every post with a correction and not allow you to try and pull your typical snow job on others.

Originally Posted by James R

MacM's claims in the opening post of this thread are, almost without exception, wrong, misguided and not backed up by any mathematical analysis. They are vague ideas springing from MacM himself, which he wishes were true. Unfortunately, he cannot support any of them.

And this is the typical response one gets from James R when the questions become to difficult or embarassing for his stated view.

Innuendo, fiat, etc.

Originally Posted by MacM

You can only rightfully disagree if you can show a flaw in the mathematics James R. Otherwise you must refute Einstien and argue that his lightening strikes were not simultaneous. Which is it?

Originally Posted by James R

If MacM could show me the "mathematics" he is referring to here, then we might have a discussion. However, he doesn't actually have a mathematical argument. His last statement is a feeble attempt to set up a false dichotomy, which stems from his inability to understand the actual argument (whether or not it was made by Einstein).

Of course we all notice that this statement ignores all the relavistic calculations presented. But then again I only jposted the results. Perhaps James R needs to see the formulas.

Originally Posted by James R

Reading back, I'm sounding a bit harsh. MacM is mainly misguided, though I am annoyed by his vindictiveness. Anyway, judge for yourselves, and please: ask questions if you want to know what I think, and I'll tell you. Don't listen to MacM's twisted versions of things I've said. He usually gets them wrong.

HeHe. Nice try James R.

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by MacM

Originally Posted by Pete

Do gendankens have meaning?

Only if they strictly adhere to physical reality.

So a gendanken can have meaning, even though its about things that were not actually observed?

As I stated if it adheres to physical realities. It is based on prior observations. A gendankin in absence of the above is not physics but simple made up stories which could have any number of erroneous conclusions. Something like SRT and the conclusions of reciprocity.

Just when an where did you convert? You want to claim you reject perception but you want to adhere to SRT. You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps what I adhere to isn't what you think it is.
Please don't stereotype me.

I do not believe it is stereotyping a person to respond to their assertions regarding physical events. Your responses have been consistant with a relativists. What else should be assume?

I would rather think that one is more obligated to show proof that clocks with relative motion EACH run slower than the other. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're slipping away from the point of our discussion of simultaneity, and again making assumptions of what I think. Please don't stereotype me.

the reciprocity issue is very much a simultaneity issue. This is not stereotyping.

You would be obligated to show that any frame other than the one in which the events took place has any affect on physical reality.

We're definitely at odds in what we mean by "frame". According to my concept of a frame, every event takes place in every frame.

I would think it obvious that is your failing then. It only occurs in its frame. It is observed from other frames.

A frame is a coordinate system extending from any observer to infinity and any other observer's coordinate system that is at rest to that system is in the same frame.

Firstly, I consider the existence or otherwise of an observer to be irrelevant.

Secondly, according to my conception of the word things (including observers) don't have to be at rest in a frame to exist in that frame.

Certainly they exist but but the issue of simultaneity of an event only exists in the events frame.

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by MacM

Originally Posted by Pete

Do gendankens have meaning?

Only if they strictly adhere to physical reality.

So a gendanken can have meaning, even though its about things that were not actually observed?

Just when an where did you convert? You want to claim you reject perception but you want to adhere to SRT. You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps what I adhere to isn't what you think it is.
Please don't stereotype me.

I would rather think that one is more obligated to show proof that clocks with relative motion EACH run slower than the other. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're slipping away from the point of our discussion of simultaneity, and again making assumptions of what I think. Please don't stereotype me.

You would be obligated to show that any frame other than the one in which the events took place has any affect on physical reality.

We're definitely at odds in what we mean by "frame". According to my concept of a frame, every event takes place in every frame.

A frame is a coordinate system extending from any observer to infinity and any other observer's coordinate system that is at rest to that system is in the same frame.

Firstly, I consider the existence or otherwise of an observer to be irrelevant.
Secondly, according to my conception of the word things (including observers) don't have to be at rest in a frame to exist in that frame.

Here is my conception of a frame:
A frame is a coordinate system stretching to infinity.
A frame may be in motion, but it may not change its motion.
The rest frame of an object is the frame in which the spatial coordinates of the object do not change.

I generally agree with you, Pete, but I think you need to be a little more specific. You are speaking of INERTIAL frames, of course. No, an observer
is not necessary in an inertial frame, but a specific point, from which your
coordinates are attached, IS necessary. A frame may be in motion, and a
non-inertial frame CAN change its motion, but an inertial REST frame is, by
definition, a frame of absolute rest. Everything else in motion is relative
to this absolute rest frame of unchanging coordinates. That is the way an
inertial frame has to be considered in Special Relativity. I think the whole
idea of an 'inertial frame' is ludicrous except perhaps in interstellar space
with minimal gravity. They don't exist on or near Earth. An 'embankment'
that doesn't move, its coordinates extending to infinity with the Sun and the whole universe circling around this point? A Flat-Earther idea. Global and non-inertial frames of reference are the only true frames.

Mac,
How can you say that "You can't claim to hold the opinion you do and still claim validity for SRT" and also say "Your responses have been consistant with a relativists."??


So I ask you plainly:
Please do not stereotype me based on what you think a relativist thinks.
Please take my statements at face value.
Please do not second guess what you think my agenda might be.

Are you wiling to do these things?
If your answer is not an unqualified yes, then I won't post to this thread again.


OK?

Now, if you took my statements at face value, you might have picked up that I'm not attempting to discuss SR with you - My discussion in this thread is completely restricted to the existence and validity of any assumptions of absolute simultaneity and absolute rest frames.

Specifically, in your opening post I think you made an assumption of absolute simultaneity, which I suspect is not justified. I have been trying to discuss this point with you, but you keep trying to draw me into irrelevant debate because you are pigeonholing me into your stereotype of a relativist. I won't be drawn. I want to settle this question of your assumptions.

At this point in our discussion, we're stuck on what a "frame" is, and we can't proceed until that question is resolved.


So, let's carry on from there, shall we?

Your point that a reference frame might in fact accelerate is well made, thank you. I concede that it is meaningful to consider coordinate systems whose motion is not constant.

I dispute your suggestion that an observer (and other objects) only exist in a single frame.
If a reference frame is just a set of coordinates stretching to infinity, then don't all things exist in all frames?
If all frames are infinite, how could anything exist outside one?
If some object's coordinates in a frame are changing, it is still existing in the frame, is it not?

If an event happens, you can pinpoint that event in any infinite coordinate system, can you not?
You can't make an event not happen by using a different set of coordinates.

By the way, do you still think that clocks are always at rest?
Or do you allow that a clock can tick in a moving frame?

Originally Posted by Pete

By the way, do you still think that clocks are always at rest?
Or do you allow that a clock can tick in a moving frame?

As to your above post I agree not to assume you are a relativist, even though I find your position to be comperable.

As to clocks in inertial motion being at rest. I believe that is a natural duality, just as a photon has a duality of particle and wave existance, I believe anything in inertial motion is at rest in its frame.

This is infact the basis for the absolute motion concept. This assumed rest is in fact a condition of energy level universally. Assume two clocks, side by side at relative rest, they clearly can be in motion in a co-moving configuration.

They will experience no systemic differance in their physics although universally their tick rates will have varied. And from other frames their differance to that frame become apparent.

I think you and I can have a very effective discussion and I invite James R to participate with the following ground rules:

1 - No innuendo's, fiat, rhetoric, dogma, etc.

2 - Falsification of my absolute concepts cannot be deemed valid unless they violate some known emperically supported physical principles which exclude the absolute view as an alternative view. That is assumptions of SRT, GR, etc., cannot be held as superior to assumptions of an absolute system.

In this manner the consequences of absolutes can be compared with the assumptions of relativity. If the absolute assumptions cannot be falsified on that basis then they are equally valid to any other assumptions of any other theory. This basis for falsification also will apply vice-versa. That is I cannot claim falsification of SRT, GR, etc unless I can show those assumptions violate emperical data.

3 - We will score points and at the end of this thread lets see which view has a higher score.

I suggest 1 point for reasonable doubt. 10 points for proof of falsification of an assumption.

Are you game and feel free to suggest any modifications you think would be necessary to make this discussion productive.

Points should be allocated based on a majority concensus. We should all be honest in such evaluation and not attempt to gang bang preconcieved ideas into a superior position.

Originally Posted by MacM

I believe anything in inertial motion is at rest in its frame.

To me, that's simply the definition of "rest frame":
The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.
I agree that it seems meaningful to state that the object is at rest in that frame.
(and as you pointed out before, this applies to non-inertial motion as well, but I you agree, I'm happy to only consider non-accelerating frames in this discussion).

The point (which has dragged out from the second page of this thread) is whether an objects 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?

Does a clock only tick in one frame?

I think you and I can have a very effective discussion and I invite James R to participate with the following ground rules:

I don't think that's a good idea.
We can't extend the discussion until we've completely ironed out the basic concepts under discussion in this thread, specifically:
1) Does your initial gedanken assume absolute physical simultaneity?
2) Is that assumption necessary? Would it be meaningful to proceed without that assumption?
3) What is a frame, anyway, and how are they used?

Originally Posted by Pete

The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.

I agree that it seems meaningful to state that the object is at rest in that frame.

I think I have to disagree with your definition. Any object with inertial motion must have spatial changing coordinates, otherwise it would not be in motion.

A spatial coordinate system would be based on a grid across the universe in which any motion would mean changing coordinates.

Non-moving coordinates would necessarily have to be a uniformily co-moving coordinate system; which is the condition we assume is the local proper rest frame.

Such a system would necessarily have changing coordinates relative to a spatial grid or coordinate system.

(and as you pointed out before, this applies to non-inertial motion as well, but I you agree, I'm happy to only consider non-accelerating frames in this discussion).

We agree.

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

I think this gets a bit into symantics as to what is existance. If it didn't exist in other frames then you could not have any relative physics. However, it's existance must necessarily be different in another frame than in its own rest frame where its physics transpire.

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

Yes but that would be a coordinate frame that is spatially at rest. The Absolute Rest Frame which is unknowable.

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?

Not the event but the observation (like it or not) perception of the event. The event can only transpire in the local proper rest frame. Otherwise physics would not be the same in all frames.

Does a clock only tick in one frame?

Yes. Other frames only observe those ticks via the relavistic considerations between frames.

I don't think that's a good idea.

So are you suggesting we ignore any posts by him? I would prefer his participation, assuming he can actually stick to the issue and not rely on rhetoric, dogma, innuendo, etc.

We can't extend the discussion until we've completely ironed out the basic concepts under discussion in this thread, specifically:
1) Does your initial gendanken assume absolute physical simultaneity?

No it doesn't. It describes how to achieve simultaneity by considering the simultaneity shift.

2) Is that assumption necessary? Would it be meaningful to proceed without that assumption?

I believe this thread should be to analyze the concept of Absolute Motion based on it's own ability to predict proper physical relationships as supported by emperical data and not thrust up against another theory such as SRT's unsupported assumptions or purely mathematically derived predictions.

3) What is a frame, anyway, and how are they used?

We should develope a mutually agreeable set of definitions. In that respect let me suggest this for defining a rest frame.

INERTIAL REST FRAME (IRF): An object in a set of coordinates are co-moving uniformly through space (i.e. - inertial velocity) such that there is no relative motion to the coordinate system but that coordinate system may encompasse changing coordinates in a spatial coordinate system.

ABSOLUTE REST FRAME (ARF): Is an unknown and perhaps unknowable set of spatial cordinates which encompasses the entire universe and is absent any motion relative to the metacenter of all universal physical motion.

I suggest such a point (frame) would infact be a dynamic one since any acceleration by any object would shift the location of such a coordinate system. It is recognized however that statistically such a coordinate system would possess a highly stable orientation due to the emmensity of the number of moving objects with varying degrees of motion and vector.

MacM:

We should develope a mutually agreeable set of definitions. In that respect let me suggest this for defining a rest frame.

INERTIAL REST FRAME (IRF): An object in a set of coordinates are co-moving uniformly through space (i.e. - inertial velocity) such that there is no relative motion to the coordinate system but that coordinate system may encompasse changing coordinates in a spatial coordinate system.

What a mess! This is really confusing.

Is a rest frame the same as an object, according to you?
Is it the coordinates moving or the object?
And what on earth do you mean by "there is no relative motion to the coordinate system but that coordinate system may encompasse changing coordinates in a spatial coordinate system"?

It's just gibberish.

Let me quickly set out for you a few definitions as used by actual physicists.

REFERENCE FRAME:

A reference frame is a set of coordinates which covers the whole of space and time. It has 3 space coordinates and one time coordinate: (x,y,z,t). The ORIGIN of a reference frame is the point with coordinates (0,0,0,0). Often, it is convenient to specify the location of a particular object or observer at a particular time as being at the origin of a reference frame.

EVENT:

An event occurs at one point in a reference frame, and so is characterised by 4 coordinates (x,y,z,t). The same event may have different coordinates in different reference frames.

OBSERVER:

An observer is a person or object which can collate data about the coordinates of events occurring in a particular reference frame.

REST FRAME:

A rest frame of an object or person is a refernence frame in which the given object or person never changes his or her spatial coordinates (though the time coordinate can change).

INERTIAL FRAME:

An inertial frame is one in which an object will travel in a straight line at constant speed unless acted on by a force.

PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME:

A preferred frame is one which is considered "special" for the reason that it is "more fundamental" than any other frame. (Relativists do not believe in preferred frames.)

ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME:

An absolute reference frame is a reference frame which can be established to be absolutely at rest with respect to some universal standard of motion. (Relativists do not believe in absolute reference frames.)

---

Can you agree with these definitions, used by all real physicists around the world, MacM? Or do you prefer to obscure the discussion by using your own confusing and meaningless definitions?

If you think any of my definitions require modification, please explain why and how and we can discuss it.

It is about time we started talking the same language, don't you think?

---

Here is an example of the above definitions in use:

I stand still on the ground in my back yard and throw a tennis ball over the fence. As it goes over, the ball just touches the top of the fence.

Me throwing the ball is an EVENT.
The ball touching the top of the fence is an EVENT.
I am an observer.

Reference frame number 1 is defined to be one which in which the ground is stationary. I am stationary in that frame. Frame number 1 is the REST FRAME of the ground, and of me, and of the fence. The coordinates are defined so that I am located at (0,0,0,0) when I throw the ball. When the ball clips the fence, I am located at (0,0,0,1 second), and the ball is located at (3,0,0,1).

Reference frame number 2 is defined to be one in which the fence is stationary. I am also stationary in that frame. Frame number 2 is the REST FRAME of the fence, and of me, and of the fence. The coordinates are defined so that I am located at (-3,0,0,0) when I throw the ball. When the ball clips the fence, I am located at (-3,0,0,1), and the ball is located at (0,0,0,1). The fence is located at (0,0,0,1) when the ball clips it.

Reference frame number 3 is defined to be one in which the BALL is stationary. I am not stationary in that frame while the ball is in flight. Frame number 3 is the REST FRAME of the ball, but not me or the fence. The coordinates are defined so that the ball is ALWAYS located at (0,0,0,t). When I throw the ball, I am at (0,0,0,0), and so is the ball. The fence is at (3,0,0,0). When the ball clips the fence, I am at (-3,0,0,1), and the fence is at (0,0,0,1), and the ball is at (0,0,0,1).

Reference frames 1 and 2 are INERTIAL frames.
Reference frame 3 is NOT an INERTIAL frame. (Can you see why?)

In frames 1 and 2, the ball moves. In frame 2 it does not, because its spatial coordinates are always (0,0,0).

Frame 3 moves with respect to frame 1.
Frame 3 moves with respect to frame 2.
Frame 1 never moves with respect to frame 2, but it is still a DIFFERENT frame, because the spatial coordinates of objects in frame 2 are always different from the coordinates in frame 1.

To translate between the coordinates of frame 1 and frame 2, we use the following transformations:

Frame 1: Event E is at (x,y,z,t).
Frame 2: Event E is at (x',y',z',t')

Transformations:

x' = x - 3
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t

To translate between frames 1 and 3, say, is more difficult, but can be done.
----


I ask you, MacM, to work through the example above, carefully. Tell me if there are any statements you disagree with, there.

Note: this is all Galilean relativity so far. We'll get to special relativity when we have agreed on terminology and meanings. Ok?

Originally Posted by James R

MacM:


What a mess! This is really confusing.

Is a rest frame the same as an object, according to you?
Is it the coordinates moving or the object?
And what on earth do you mean by "there is no relative motion to the coordinate system but that coordinate system may encompasse changing coordinates in a spatial coordinate system"?

Frankly your attitude make it unlikely I will even spend the time to read your diatribe.

My point is simple. If you refer to a "Spatial Coordinate System" then that implies a grid overlayed and at rest to space, in which objects exist.

In which case it is impossible to have an object having motion without changing spatial coordinates. Which is what was said above.

The other issue I pointed out was that if you craft a coordinate system around the object, that object is always at rest in that frame and that frame moving with the object through space moves through any spatial coordinate system.

If you are confused it is only because you refuse to think and want to recite from books. Remember we are discussing the merits of what is in the books. It is fool hearty therefore to attempt to enforce definitons given by such books in question.

Of course that is something you have never understood and continue to repeat or recite theory as proof of the theory.

Note: this is all Galilean relativity so far. We'll get to special relativity when we have agreed on terminology and meanings. Ok?

You can take off your teachers cap. I'll do the teaching here.

Now for those that might actually like to learn or to discuss these issues and not be hung up on defending SRT:

Here is a simplified presentation of the issues.

************************************************** ***
1:
.................................................. ..A
.................................C
.............B

At rest equal distance from C, then:

************************************************** *
2:

...........................................<------A
.................................C
............B------->

Simultaneous acceleration starts based on a light signal from C.

************************************************** *******
3:

.....................<-------A
................................C
................................B-------->

Goes inertial at simultaneous t = 0

************************************************** ******
4:

..........<------A
................................C
...............................................B-------->

Inertial at 0.0433c relative to C (gamma = 1.1094) for 10 hours (36,000 seconds) per C clock (Velocity Addition Formula ignored for this test) yields 0.866c relative velocity(gamma = 2.000) between A and B.
************************************************** ***

Based on a light signal sent from C to A and B to reach them at the instant C clock accumulates 36,000 seconds ALL clocks stop.
A reads 32,450 seconds
B reads 32,450 seconds
C reads 36,000 seconds

The SRT prediction is that B = 32,450/2 = 16,225 seconds per 32,450 seconds accumulated by A and that A accumulates 16,225 seconds per 32,450 seconds by B.

I hope you agree that ignoring Velocity Addition does not alter the conclusion but merely simplifies the presentation. If not I will re-do it including the VAF.

Now certainly since all start/stop and test durations are from C's frame they are defacto "physically" simultaneous at least in C.

Note that the prediction that A and B run slower than each other is not upheld. They merely mutually dilate relative to the gamma of their common rest frame.

Now there are those that think "Perception" is physical reality and want to claim that the clocks must be simultaneously started and stopped in the A and B frame to prove reciprocity advocated by Special Relativity.

Starting them simultaneously is not a problem since they all three share the same common t = 0.

But lets start by sending a pre-timed signal from A so as to stop B at 16,225 seconds when A accumulates 32,450 seconds and B will simultaneously be viewed by A as stopping when it stops.

This gets complicated since A must send the signal so as to reach and stop B at 16,225 seconds while A is still running and the return signal to A is increasing the return path distance such that the returned stop signal from B reaches A just at the moment of A accumulating 32,450 seconds. Of course you should note that doing so B is actually stopped before A.

Note this also creates assymmetrical stopping in terms of distance from "C" since B will be stopped much sooner than A.

I may work up a program that computes the actual numbers here but for now some hypothetical numbers will do fine.

Assume that B does read 16,225 seconds when A's signal reaches it (it won't but I'll prove that later). In such a case you can now claim another aspect of Special Relativity has been proven.

But wait; for Special Relativity to be true we should also have B send a pre-timed signal to A such that it will stop A at 16,225/2 = 8,112.5 seconds at the same time the return signal showing A stopping returns to B when it has accumulated the 16,225 seconds and stopped.

Otherwise the prediction that A only ran one half as fast as B is not upheld.

I hope you can see that such signaling arrangement produces physically impossible consequences. A could never reach 32,450 seconds for B to reach 16,225 seconds because B shuts down A at 8,112.5 seconds.

But B can't do that until A has reached 32,450 seconds so that B can reach 16,255 seconds.

You have created a circle jerk which is a physical impossibility. The predictions and principles of SRT cannot be physically applied in reality and it is a bogus concept.

The only thing that counts is the physical simultaneous stopping of all three clocks which can only happen in the frame where the common rest and initial acceleration occured.

The only clock data ever recorded has been this type of data. It is data based on a preferred rest frame or three points (frames) of referance.

Data regarding particles in accelerators and cosmic muons are defacto based on a common preferred third frame. It is only because that frame is at actual rest to one of the frames that the two frame calculation and prediction of gamma is valid.

For the purpose of this presentation the (E)arth's center is assumed to be the common rest frame but it is what it is in reality in the real world for whatever the situation is being analyzed.

You may not know the common frame and cannot calculate the dilation but having recorded the dilation you can determine the "Effective" relative velocity and based on known relative velocity and vectors would be able to determine such a common rest frame.

That is compute the respective "Absolute Component Velocities" making up the total relative velocity.

That is in a {(M)uon, (S)urface clock and (E)arth Center} or {(P)article, (A)ccelerator, and (E)arth center frame; frame E is at rest with the S and A frames such that relative velocity between M and S or P and A is the same as viewed from E. That is M and P do in fact have the total relative velocity in those three frames.

The differance in this view vs Special Relativity is that you cannot falsely ignore the declaration of, or the motion of, M or P and delcare them at rest and claim the S or A clock will have the motion and be dilated.

That is reciprocity is prohibited and that is what we physically observe and record in our data. Reciprocity has not once been demonstrated in 100 years of relativity.

Which shouldn't be a surprise since it is a physical impossibility. As I have shown you cannot physically cause both A and B frames to physically see its own clock and the other clock stop simultaneous in the same concurrent (simultaneous) test period.

If simultaneity cannot be applied in the physical universe , then it cannot be claimed to be the solution to the reciprocity issue. It proves instead the failure of SRT to be a physically real concept.

What I am trying to tell you is that gamma is not a function of "Relative Velocity" at all but is a function of universal energy level or an "Absolute Velocity Relationship" between two clocks and a common preferred rest frame to their component velocity, even though we cannot sense or measure it directly.

We can determine it via the actual analysis of various clock dilations where the origin of the clocks motion are not known and see the actual dilation between the clocks do not correlate to a gamma based on their relative velocity.

That is the actual physical dilation and accumulated time differance between clocks is based on the ratio of the respective gamma changes universally.

This can be seen in the case of GPS. Given a surface referance point at the equator of the earth and a surface clock and a clock to be sent in GPS orbit.

If the clocks are synchronized at the surface, they BOTH will be running 0.1us/day slower than a clock located at the center of the earth because of their perepheral velocity of rotation (all General Relativity affects ignored here).

If the orbit clock were to be launched without prelaunch calibration it would lose 7.2us/day in comparison to the surface clock due to its perepheral velocity of orbit.

The fact is GPS does not compute relative velocity between the surface and orbit in a direct manner. They compute the orbit velocity affect relative to the third common preferred rest frame ECI (Earth Centered Inertial).

They also compute longitudal (perpheral velocity changes relative to the location of the surface clock and geodetic affects (earth geometry since it is not a perfect sphere) in what is called the ECEF (Earth Centered Earth Fixed) preferred referance frame where a group of stars are assumed to be at rest and the earth rotates in that frame.

Lastly they compute other affects in what is called the ICRF (which is a frame selected to represent the barycenter of the solar system, another rest frame).

GPS works. GPS does not employ Special Relativity. It only employs gamma calculations based on absolute motions to preferred rest frames and not relative motions between two clocks.

GPS demonstrates that surface clocks and orbiting clocks can and are synchronized by prelaunch calibration of the orbit clock to run faster to offset losses due to velocity by 7.2us/day.

GPS demonstrates that reciprocity does not occur. That is these clocks are synchronized and the surface clock does not run slower than the orbiting clock as predicted by Special Relativity where both clocks can declare to be at rest and it is the other that has all motion.

If relative to some common rest origin of two clocks - called "C", "A" were to have a -0.1c velocity and B were to have a +0.766c velocity, the relative velocity between A and B would be 0.804c due to the Velocity Additon Formula (not 0.866c you would expect, however, I suspect that is also invalid but that is another issue).

Special Relativity would claim that A and B would BOTH run slower than the other due to a gamma = 1.682 or only 594 ticks/1,000 ticks.

I have shown that is impossible and what will be actually recorded would be:

A Gamma = 1.005
B Gamma = 1.556

Gamma Effective = 1.556/1.005 = 1.5479 or 646 ticks of B per 1,000 ticks of A. There will be no recipocal view or reciprocity where A runs slower than B.

Understand now?

by MacM:

"If the orbit clock were to be launched without prelaunch calibration it would lose 7.2us/day in comparison to the surface clock due to its perepheral velocity of orbit.

The fact is GPS does not compute relative velocity between the surface and orbit in a direct manner. They compute the orbit velocity affect relative to the third common preferred rest frame ECI (Earth Centered Inertial). "
===============================================

Actually Mac, ENGINEERS designed the GPS system. Physicists, such as Dr. Ashby, try to explain it in a way that does not violate relativity theory.
The physicists have failed. GPS does not violate General Relativity per sey, but it IS incompatible with Special Relativity. The GPS satellite clocks
are synchronized with EARTH SURFACE clocks, not a clock located at the center of the Earth. All atomic clocks, on every satellite and at every location on the surface of the Earth are in agreement, none loses or gains time on any other. The 'clock at the center of the earth' is just a diversionary tactic used to try to cover up the failure of relativity of simultaneity in GPS. There is also a failure of 'time dilation due to RELATIVE VELOCITY ALONE' in GPS. All clocks in the satellite constellation
beat at the same rate, regardless it they are on intersecting orbital planes
meeting at different angles and relative velocities, approachin each other or receeding from each other. They do all travel at the same relative velocity wrt the International Celestial Reference Frame, however. This
reference frame is a GLOBAL inertial frame, not the same as SRT's inertial
frame. I can explain the difference to James R if he does not know it already. All clocks on the surface of the Earth beat at the same rate, regardless if the clock is located at the equator, where its velocity relative to the satellites or the ICRF is about 1000 miles per hour greater than a clock located on a pole of the Earth. All satellite clocks and all Earth clocks beat at the same rate AFTER the satellite clocks are turned on and synchronized TWICE after being placed into orbit. The first synchronization
done in orbit is called a cold injection synchronization, and another synchronization is done one to six months later after the cesium or rubidium clocks have stabilized. Oh, and Mac, it is a little confusing to state that the
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) 'represents' the barycenter
of the solar system. It is a global reference frame that represents the entire universe, with the coordinate points origin located at the barycenter of the solar system.

Originally Posted by 2inquisitive

Mac, it is a little confusing to state that the
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) 'represents' the barycenter
of the solar system. It is a global reference frame that represents the entire universe, with the coordinate points origin located at the barycenter of the solar system.

I have no disagreements with your post. I'll take your word for the distinction regarding the barycenter issue.

MacM:

Frankly your attitude make it unlikely I will even spend the time to read your diatribe.

Ok. I'm done with you. Goodbye.

So are you suggesting we ignore any posts by him? I would prefer his participation...

There is obviously way too much animosity between you two to conduct a civil conversation. You've made it quite clear that you would not prefer his participation.

But anyway...
You seem to have taken the term "spatial" to mean "absolutely at rest". Why?

When I said "the spatial coordinates of an object" I meant "all coordinates except the time coordinate", with no implication of whether the coordinate system was moving or at rest. I.e. x, y, z are spatial coordinates, t is a temporal coordinate. x,y,z way well be in relation to some moving origin.
Does that make sense?

So... let's try again.

Originally Posted by Pete

The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.

I agree that it seems meaningful to state that the object is at rest in that frame.

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

OK, we're fine up to here. We're all agreed that a frame is simply a coordinate system with arbitrary motion. We're agreed that for convenience in this thread, we're only considering non-accelerating coordinate systems.

Here's the point of contention:

Originally Posted by Pete

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?

Originally Posted by MacM

Not the event but the observation (like it or not) perception of the event. The event can only transpire in the local proper rest frame. Otherwise physics would not be the same in all frames.

Events happen, do they not? Does choosing a coordinate system make an event not occur?

Try this:
Let's say some event happens.
Let's say that the events coordinates in some arbitrary coordinate system are (x,y,z,t) = (1,2,3,4)


Now consider another coordinate system with the same units, orientation, and motion as the first, but with a displaced origin.

If the origin of the second system coincides with (1,2,3,4) in the first system, then what are the event's coordinates in the second system?

I know this is basic stuff (right?) but I want to make sure we have a common foundation.

Originally Posted by Pete

You seem to have taken the term "spatial" to mean "absolutely at rest". Why?

Spatial: "Of or pertaining to space"

Are you copntending that space is in motion? A spatial coordinate system is a grid fixed in space encompassing the entire universe.

When I said "the spatial coordinates of an object" I meant "all coordinates except the time coordinate", with no implication of whether the coordinate system was moving or at rest. I.e. x, y, z are spatial coordinates, t is a temporal coordinate. x,y,z way well be in relation to some moving origin.
Does that make sense?

Not really. Not and being called the spatial coordinate system. Anything in motion would have changing spatial coordinates.

Originally Posted by Pete

The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.

I would agree with that. The spatial coordinate system would be at rest.
It would be the ARF, which mean the object would be at absolute rest.

Now we have not determined the ARF to establish a spatial coordinate system.

What is your referance for such a system?

Events happen, do they not? Does choosing a coordinate system make an event not occur?

Of course not, no more that your perception of the event in a moving coordinate system alters the event.

Originally Posted by Pete

There is obviously way too much animosity between you two to conduct a civil conversation. You've made it quite clear that you would not prefer his participation.

That isn't actually true. I do regret that James R can't seem to have a discussion. He wants to dictate, recite rhetoric and in general each post contains some condensending innuendo.

MacM:

Are you copntending that space is in motion? A spatial coordinate system is a grid fixed in space encompassing the entire universe.

Hi Mac.

A spatial coordinate system is an arbitrary convienience used to analyze things. It shares the attributes of the frame under consideration. The way you describe it , it sounds like the aether - "fixed in space encompassing the entire universe"

MacM:

He wants to dictate, recite rhetoric and in general each post contains some condensending innuendo.

How would you know? You don't even bother reading my posts. I wrote you a detailed response, which you chose not even to read. How rude!

Well, I've had enough. Talking to you is obviously a complete waste of my time. I have better things to do.

Originally Posted by MacM

Not really. Not and being called the spatial coordinate system. Anything in motion would have changing spatial coordinates.

I've never used the phrase "Spatial coordinate system".
When I say, "spatial coordinates", I mean those coordinates (x,y,z) which are not temporal coordinates, in a system which may or may not be moving.

That's standard usage for "spatial coordinates".
Does it make sense to you?

In that light, does the following make sense for a moving object:

The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.

Originally Posted by MacM

He wants to dictate, recite rhetoric and in general each post contains some condensending innuendo.

Unfortunately exactly the same can be said of your posts to James. I think its best that you ignore each other.

Originally Posted by Pete

Let's say some event happens.
Let's say that the events coordinates in some arbitrary coordinate system are (x,y,z,t) = (1,2,3,4)


Now consider another coordinate system with the same units, orientation, and motion as the first, but with a displaced origin.

If the origin of the second system coincides with (1,2,3,4) in the first system, then what are the event's coordinates in the second system?

To me, it is clear that the event's coordinates in the second system are (0,0,0,0).
Do you agree?

Originally Posted by James R

MacM:

He wants to dictate, recite rhetoric and in general each post contains some condensending innuendo.

How would you know? You don't even bother reading my posts. I wrote you a detailed response, which you chose not even to read. How rude!

Well, I've had enough. Talking to you is obviously a complete waste of my time. I have better things to do.

Sorry James R but there was only one topic being discussed and you saw fit to throw out a long laundry list. Plus you continue to make snide and unfounded insults.

Originally Posted by superluminal

MacM:

Are you copntending that space is in motion? A spatial coordinate system is a grid fixed in space encompassing the entire universe.

Hi Mac.

A spatial coordinate system is an arbitrary convienience used to analyze things. It shares the attributes of the frame under consideration. The way you describe it , it sounds like the aether - "fixed in space encompassing the entire universe"

Arbitrary or not you must have some basis for selecting the coordinate system. According to your statement it could be at relative rest or at v = c. That makes no sense.

Sorry James R but there was only one topic being discussed and you saw fit to throw out a long laundry list.

The topic being discussed was definitions of terms such as "inertial reference frame". I guess you forgot.

Originally Posted by James R

Sorry James R but there was only one topic being discussed and you saw fit to throw out a long laundry list.

The topic being discussed was definitions of terms such as "inertial reference frame". I guess you forgot.

You forgot to stop with the frame or issue being discussed.

FYI: I have read your post. It is not as bad as normal but it is still overboard and laden with "Let me teach you" tone. I prefer with stick with the issue. Address the point being made.

Before you try to cloud the issue claiming I don't know what a frame is let me tell you that it is a physical impossibility for both A and B to arrange to see simultaneous stopping of the clocks.

That should tell you something but it doesn't seem to. If both cannot stop clocks simultaneous in their frame it should tell you that only one can be physical reality.

You seem to choose to take it to mean some form of isolation, like a "Many Worlds " view and claim both are still physical reality.

Sorry I do not accept "Many Worlds". If it doesnt work in our world then it doesn't work and it is bogus.

Whatever, MacM. Come back when you have something to discuss.

Originally Posted by James R

Whatever, MacM. Come back when you have something to discuss.

I always have something to discuss. You don't always want them discussed.

FYI: I leave in 5 hours for a weeks vacation. So don't expect any posts for a while.

Welcome back, Mac.
It's your turn...

Originally Posted by Pete

Welcome back, Mac.
It's your turn...

Thanks.

So, are you gonig to take up our conversation from where it was interrupted, or are you going to leave those interesting questions unanswered?

Originally Posted by Pete

So, are you gonig to take up our conversation from where it was interrupted, or are you going to leave those interesting questions unanswered?

Be so kind as to repeat the question. I am 64 you know.

What, you can't read the thread?

Originally Posted by MacM

Not really. Not and being called the spatial coordinate system. Anything in motion would have changing spatial coordinates.

I've never used the phrase "Spatial coordinate system".
When I say, "spatial coordinates", I mean those coordinates (x,y,z) which are not temporal coordinates, in a system which may or may not be moving.

That's standard usage for "spatial coordinates".
Does it make sense to you?

In that light, does the following make sense for a moving object:

The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.

Originally Posted by Pete

Let's say some event happens.
Let's say that the events coordinates in some arbitrary coordinate system are (x,y,z,t) = (1,2,3,4)

Now consider another coordinate system with the same units, orientation, and motion as the first, but with a displaced origin.

If the origin of the second system coincides with (1,2,3,4) in the first system, then what are the event's coordinates in the second system?

To me, it is clear that the event's coordinates in the second system are (0,0,0,0).
Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Pete

What, you can't read the thread?

Originally Posted by MacM

Not really. Not and being called the spatial coordinate system. Anything in motion would have changing spatial coordinates.

I've never used the phrase "Spatial coordinate system".
When I say, "spatial coordinates", I mean those coordinates (x,y,z) which are not temporal coordinates, in a system which may or may not be moving.

That's standard usage for "spatial coordinates".
Does it make sense to you?

In that light, does the following make sense for a moving object:

The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.

If I understand your definition it is the same as I said which was a coordinate system attached to an inertial observer. In such a coordinate he would be at rest but the coordinates (and he) could/would have motion relative to sparial coordinates of other such inertial systems.

So I don't see your point.

Good. 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?

Originally Posted by Pete

What, you can't read the thread?

Originally Posted by MacM

Not really. Not and being called the spatial coordinate system. Anything in motion would have changing spatial coordinates.

I've never used the phrase "Spatial coordinate system".
When I say, "spatial coordinates", I mean those coordinates (x,y,z) which are not temporal coordinates, in a system which may or may not be moving.

That's standard usage for "spatial coordinates".
Does it make sense to you?

In that light, does the following make sense for a moving object:

The rest frame of an object is the coordinate system in which the object's spatial coordinates do not change with time.

Great Pete! Now define an absolute frame of rest, please.

Great Pete! Now define an absolute frame of rest, please.

Is that relevant? I'm not a performing monkey.

Originally Posted by Pete

Great Pete! Now define an absolute frame of rest, please.

Is that relevant? I'm not a performing monkey.

It's confusing.

An absolute frame of rest is a coordinate system in which the origin of the spatial coordinates do not change with time. What's wrong with this?

Originally Posted by 2inquisitive

An absolute frame of rest is a coordinate system in which the origin of the spatial coordinates do not change with time. What's wrong with this?

In any coordinate system, the origin of the spatial coordinates is always (0,0,0).
That's what "origin" means, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by 2inquisitive

An absolute frame of rest is a coordinate system in which the origin of the spatial coordinates do not change with time. What's wrong with this?

In any coordinate system, the origin of the spatial coordinates is always (0,0,0).
That's what "origin" means, isn't it?

Of course. Only when the origin does not change with time is it an absolute frame of reference.

Originally Posted by 2inquisitive

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by 2inquisitive

An absolute frame of rest is a coordinate system in which the origin of the spatial coordinates do not change with time. What's wrong with this?

In any coordinate system, the origin of the spatial coordinates is always (0,0,0).
That's what "origin" means, isn't it?

Of course. Only when the origin does not change with time is it an absolute frame of reference.

I can't make sense of what you're saying.

The spatial origin of any coordinate system (inertial, non-inertial, rotating, absolutely at rest, whatever) doesn't change with time by definition - it's always (0,0,0).

Can you give me an example of a coordinate system in which the spatial origin changes with time?

In relativity? It is always the 'other' frame that is in motion, not the absolute rest frame of the observer doing the calculations.

Originally Posted by 2inquisitive

In relativity? It is always the 'other' frame that is in motion, not the absolute rest frame of the observer doing the calculations.

There are no absolute rest frames in relativity.
All frames can be considered to be at rest or in motion.

An observer can consider themself to be at rest or in motion arbitrarily.

The rest frame of an object (or observer) is a frame in which the object's coordinates do not change with time. It's irrelevent whether the object (observer) is at rest or not... if it's moving, then its rest frame is moving with it.

That's what "rest frame" means, and that's what I'm desperately trying to clarify.

Oh! I think I see what you're getting at.

Yes, the spatial coordinates in one frame of the events at the origin of some other frame will change with time.

If you define some frame or object as being absolutely at rest, or if "absolute rest" can be determined independently, then that gives you a reference for defining other absolute rest frames:

A frame is an absolute rest frame if the spatial coordinates of an object which is absolutely at rest do not change with time in that frame.

-or-

A frame is an absolute rest frame if the spatial coordinates of its origin does not change with time in a known absolute rest frame.

Does that help?

Mac, you're falling behind again...
Here's my last post:

Good. 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?

Originally Posted by Pete

Mac, you're falling behind again...

Pete, while MacM's interpretation is different from special relativity, it has never been disproven by experiment. It is just a different theory from special relativity, but MacM lacks any thorough discussion of how it could apply to our real universe. It does not involve an absolute rest frame that either you or MacM may think that it does. Also, I realize that MacM labeled the thread "Absolute motion vs. Relative motion" but that just goes back to the first point I mentioned - MacM lacks any fundamental understanding of what he is saying implies - that is he can't provide a thorough discussion.

Edit: Note that if it did involve an absolute rest frame, I would be arguing with MacM

I encourage you to keep trying to make head-way, but I predict neither of you will agree on anything as you aren't even accepting the same postulates to begin with. That is I assume you are accepting the postulates of special relativity and MacM doesn't really even know what his postulates are other than they can't be those of special relativity...

Originally Posted by Aer

Originally Posted by Pete

Mac, you're falling behind again...

Pete, while MacM's interpretation is different from special relativity, it has never been disproven by experiment. It is just a different theory from special relativity, but MacM lacks any thorough discussion of how it could apply to our real universe. It does not involve an absolute rest frame that either you or MacM may think that it does. Also, I realize that MacM labeled the thread "Absolute motion vs. Relative motion" but that just goes back to the first point I mentioned - MacM lacks any fundamental understanding of what he is saying implies - that is he can't provide a thorough discussion.

Edit: Note that if it did involve an absolute rest frame, I would be arguing with MacM

I encourage you to keep trying to make head-way, but I predict neither of you will agree on anything as you aren't even accepting the same postulates to begin with. That is I assume you are accepting the postulates of special relativity and MacM doesn't really even know what his postulates are other than they can't be those of special relativity...

In un-MacM fashion, I am going to restrain my comments regarding this post and simply stick to the facts.

1 - You don't know what you are talking about, particlularily when you refer to my knowledge or understandings. Please do not assume to know what I know. If I have posted something which you can show false then do so otherwise I woud appreciate you not making statements you can't back up.

2 - I have never claimed an absolute frame. The title of the thread is absolute motion but I have always stated absolute relative motion. It is as different from absolute motion as absolute relative motion is from simple relative motion.

3 - I know very well the postulates and what they are interpreted to mean but I also know those interpretations can be shown false by the resulting consequences. Those consequences mandate that the observation is being mis-interpreted. That is all.