Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time”

[modest]

that is what i am saying. relativity is incomplete. based on your explanation, what it accomplished is to make this motion kinda counterintuitive and mysterious.

 

and this is the problem of relativity, it does not have a explanatory power to resolve the mystery of motion. imho

 

How did you :) Huh?

 

I claim

You cannot have velocity relative to nothing

Relativity claims:

You cannot have velocity relative to nothing

 

I'm not exactly seeing that as a problem for relativity or my worldview. It looks an awful lot like you want something to have "a velocity" or "a duration" without respect to what that velocity or that duration exists. When you do that it leads to inconsistencies like "how can something be speeding up and slowing down at the same time". The solution to that inconsistency is simple: admit that something can only speed up and slow down relative to something specific and not in general as a material property. This would solve your stated paradox and be completely compatible with relativity.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

that is what i am saying. relativity is incomplete. based on your explanation, what it accomplished is to make this motion kinda counterintuitive and mysterious.

 

and this is the problem of relativity, it does not have a explanatory power to resolve the mystery of motion. imho

 

Are you kidding?

 

As I mentioned earlier, the experimentally confirmed "paradoxes" are only paradoxes if we do not take relativity to be true.

 

The Twin Paradox is not really a paradox at all. It's the way things are, considering the situations.

 

We can discuss the philosophical implications of this all day, but to do so, we must agree that relativity accurately explains separated events.

[watcher]

Are you kidding?

 

As I mentioned earlier, the experimentally confirmed "paradoxes" are only paradoxes if we do not take relativity to be true.

 

The Twin Paradox is not really a paradox at all. It's the way things are, considering the situations.

 

We can discuss the philosophical implications of this all day, but to do so, we must agree that relativity accurately explains separated events.

 

so is it a factual truth that earth have two different motion when perceived at two different locations? what if observed from multiple frame of reference, does earth motions has multiple speeds ?

 

if this is true i will accept it. but this is absurd because how can earth COHERENTLY relate to its surrounding when it doesn't even have its own true speed?

 

so if you can see that even relativity implies that earth is begging for its TRUE motion to exist in an orderly fashion in its place in the universe.

 

so does earth has true speed or none? does relativity has an answer or none?

 

You cannot have velocity relative to nothing

yes under relativity perhaps. the problem is that under the principle of relative motion an object like earth appears to have many velocities.

The solution to that inconsistency is simple: admit that something can only speed up and slow down relative to something specific and not in general as a material property. This would solve your stated paradox and be completely compatible with relativity.

modest, all i can say that its not wise to argue against the postulates or proposition of its own axioms. better change the axioms altogether. meaning seeing the same thing differently. e.g. relativity assumes "c" as velocity. but that is not the only way to see it,

 

and yes im interested in that "general material property." why would we given up on that and stop at relativity?LOL

[watcher]

You must be at rest relative to something or in motion relative to something.

 

so do I have a true motion or my motion "depends" on a mathematical trick of subtraction and adding relative motions? don't you think a "calculated" motion is not actual but superficial?

[modest]

Watcher, until you can explain how something has velocity relative to nothing or even explain how "velocity" is a meaningful concept when less than 2 things are being compared, I see no reason to use such a claim as a means of disagreeing with relativity. Saying that something "has speed" just isn't meaningful. You have to specify to what it has speed.

 

If you define speed, it is change in distance per unit time. If you then define distance you should see that you need at least 2 things. If you look, for example, at the first postulate of Euclidean geometry you will see that a line needs at least 2 points. As distance is the length of a line, yes, to define distance and thus velocity one needs at least 2 points. Would you suppose we invalidate Euclidean geometry for its postulates as well? Should we overthrow geometry and the whole basis of physics so that you can redefine velocity into something which, as far as I can tell, has no real understandable meaning?

 

Yes, earth can have more than one velocity. Of course.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

so do I have a true motion or my motion "depends" on a mathematical trick of subtraction and adding relative motions? don't you think a "calculated" motion is not actual but superficial?

You do not have a "true motion". You only have motion in relation to something else. It is natural enough to think of it in the way you and Michael Mooney do, to think that there might be a "universal" standard against which motion can be judged, because you have grown up on a planet that has a surface which stays static (as far as you're concerned). So, every motion you get to judge against the surface of the Earth. But think of the planet Mars. Think how fast Mars is moving, relative to the Earth. Now think of a Martian. As far as he's concerned, the Earth is moving in relation to him, because he is, was, and always have been on the surface of Mars, which is "standing still". Why would your opinion of what it standing still and what is moving be any more or less valid than the Martian's?

 

You are currently flying at almost the speed of light, and there is a blue radiance of light around you as your thermal emissions are shifted towards the blue. You look chromatically all screwed up as you travel, your entire body currently exist in a state where time pass very, very slowly (being at almost the speed of light), and this state is utterly and completely foreign and strange to your daily experience of how the world looks and works. But this is true only from the perspective of cosmic rays. But this isn't "true" in any whimsical sense, from the perspective of those cosmic rays, there is no experiment that can be performed by a cosmic ray that is probing you as you fly past them (their perspective) that will testify otherwise. There is also no possible experiment that can be performed by those very same cosmic rays that can tell them that they are moving, or standing still. Regardless of the cosmic ray's velocity in relation to you, as far as they're concerned, they're standing perfectly still, and you're streaming past them in a mass of blueshifted radiance. This is true in the truest sense of the word. So true, in fact, that it deserves a capital T.

 

Imagine you're driving down the road at 100km/h. Let's say the entire universe, save you and your car, were to disappear. Are you still travelling at 100km/h? No. And you weren't even travelling at 100km/h to begin with. You were travelling at 100km/h in relation to the surface of the Earth. But apart from that, you were orbiting the sun, and the sun was orbiting the galactic centre, and together with the local group of galaxies, you were travelling towards another distant part of the galaxy. It's safe to say that the component of your velocity that your car added, was probably not even 0.1% of your resultant velocity... but in relation to what? The Cosmic Background Radiation? Take that away, and you're travelling at a certain speed around the galactic centre. Ignore that, and you're just orbiting the sun at a set speed. Ignore the sun, and you're just travelling at 100km/h down the road in relation to the surface of the Earth. Take that particular reference away, and you're sitting stock still in your car. It all depends on your frame of reference. And if everything was to disappear, then you would have nothing to measure your speed to or against, and you can't even say that you are moving or not, because there is nothing to define your velocity against.

[watcher]

You do not have a "true motion". You only have motion in relation to something else. It is natural enough to think of it in the way you and Michael Mooney do, to think that there might be a "universal" standard against which motion can be judged, because you have grown up on a planet that has a surface which stays static (as far as you're concerned). So, every motion you get to judge against the surface of the Earth. But think of the planet Mars. Think how fast Mars is moving, relative to the Earth. Now think of a Martian. As far as he's concerned, the Earth is moving in relation to him, because he is, was, and always have been on the surface of Mars, which is "standing still". Why would your opinion of what it standing still and what is moving be any more or less valid than the Martian's?

 

do you know its implication?

motion is an illusion. if you'll agree, i'll say we're in progress. LOL

 

You are currently flying at almost the speed of light,

 

can we skip everything and agree that this is true to all particles in the universe? can we use this a the true motion? anyway even as you read, your electrons spins at that rate regardless of any frame ref, is it not?

 

Imagine you're driving down the road at 100km/h. Let's say the entire universe, save you and your car, were to disappear. Are you still travelling at 100km/h? No. And you weren't even travelling at 100km/h to begin with. You were travelling at 100km/h in relation to the surface of the Earth. But apart from that, you were orbiting the sun, and the sun was orbiting the galactic centre, and together with the local group of galaxies, you were travelling towards another distant part of the galaxy. It's safe to say that the component of your velocity that your car added, was probably not even 0.1% of your resultant velocity... but in relation to what? The Cosmic Background Radiation? Take that away, and you're travelling at a certain speed around the galactic centre. Ignore that, and you're just orbiting the sun at a set speed. Ignore the sun, and you're just travelling at 100km/h down the road in relation to the surface of the Earth. Take that particular reference away, and you're sitting stock still in your car. It all depends on your frame of reference. And if everything was to disappear, then you would have nothing to measure your speed to or against, and you can't even say that you are moving or not, because there is nothing to define your velocity against.

 

okay you made your point, to compute the "resultant velocity" (in relation to everything , sounds like mach's principle) is an enormous mathematical task since you need all the other velocities of all the objects in the universe.

 

it is for expediency and convenience to use relativity. pick a particular frame of reference and calculate. that's all.

[Boerseun]

do you know its implication?

motion is an illusion. if you'll agree, i'll say we're in progress. LOL

Au contraire. Motion is not an illusion, and I will agree to no such thing. "Motion" is the changing spatial relationship between two specified points. Whatever points are selected, pertains to the application at hand, and what the figure is to be used for. If you want to know if you're within the speed limit on the highway, then your speed around the sun won't matter, and you won't pick the sun as one of your two points. You will select A) your car, and B) the highway.

can we skip everything and agree that this is true to all particles in the universe? can we use this a the true motion? anyway even as you read, your electrons spins at that rate regardless of any frame rate, is it not?

No - my electrons don't spin at a set rate. My electrons spin at the same rate in my frame of reference. If I were to approach relativistic speeds, time for me slows down (although I will not be aware of this). This means that everything, everything in my frame of reference experience the same slow-down. This slowdown is in no way noticeable, testable, provable or in any way experienced by me or any experiment I'd care to perform in my frame of reference - but is perfectly provable when I go back to Earth and see how much time have passed there in my absence. Hence, my electrons have "spun" slower, because of the velocity of the frame of reference. But then, you say, the same must be true for the Earth, because from my point of view, I was standing still and the Earth travelled away from me, and should thus have been slowing down instead of me? No. Because I experienced accelleration, and not the Earth. Acceleration is the magic bean you're looking for, here. But that's besides the point. The fact is, my electrons don't "spin" the same, regardless of frame.

okay you made your point, to compute the "resultant velocity" (in relation to everything , sounds like mach's principle) is an enormous mathematical task since you need all the other velocities of all the objects in the universe.

...and even that won't help. Because if we can calculate each and every atomic particle in the universe, it won't help us at all, seeing as that will merely give you the universe's average velocity in relation to... in relation to... the universe! It's like sitting in a car barreling down the highway at 200km/h and concluding that you're standing still because all your limbs are at perfect rest in relation to each other.

it is for expediency and convenience to use relativity. pick a particular frame of reference and calculate. that's all.

Nope - it's not for expediency and convenience. We use relativity, because spatial contraction and time dilation and all other effects predicted by relativity happen. It's not because we're looking for an "easy way out" in calculating - quite the opposite. I would, however, recommend you go to your library and go look for some introductory material into relativity. It's imperative to understand something if you want to debunk it.

[modest]

sounds like mach's principle

 

Exactly! You should, I humbly suggest, read Mach's principle again.

 

it is for expediency and convenience to use relativity. pick a particular frame of reference and calculate. that's all.

 

The second sentence is spot on, the first is in complete error. General relativity gives you the freedom to choose any coordinate system exactly because they are all valid and equal as far as admissibility. Since we are saying that they should all be equally valid in admissibility then it only makes sense that the theory complies with such a thing.

 

I guess we should split this thread up again as we've drifted way off topic?...

 

~modest

[watcher]

I would, however, recommend you go to your library and go look for some introductory material into relativity. It's imperative to understand something if you want to debunk it.

 

Oh looked what i found ....

 

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. - Einstein 1954 , letter to Michael Besso

[watcher]

I guess we should split this thread up again as we've drifted way off topic?...

 

~modest

 

no need, i never intended to debunk relativity, i guess what i am saying is that relativity does not have a monopoly of an answer to the question what is time.

[Michael Mooney]

Section heading: Philosophy of Science... Thread: What is time.

I have stated many times in many ways that my philosophy of science is (most recently stated):

"...that the cosmos and all its parts have an existence and a dynamic including rates of rotation/orbit, trajectories and (velocities of .. edit out if it introduces conflict of terminology)...movement independent of homosapien science and its measurements."

 

Now we have been debating whether or not Earth's periods of rotation and orbit actual vary (speed up and slow down) when clocks in different circumstances do change rates of "time keeping."

In accord with the above philosophy, the answer is clearly, "no."

 

Now to some specifics of the debate.

Modest:

In fact, the earth does physically speed up and slow down with respect to an observer changing altitude.

 

With respect to the above philosophy, when one throws out the "with respect to an observer changing altitude"... we are left with the absurd statement that " earth does physically speed up and slow down" as observers' clocks record different "elapsed times."

The clocks, of course vary in rates of ticking while earth's periods remain steady through it all.

 

Modest:

Now, if Michael wants to say that earth never changes its speed then he will always have to consider Earth's speed relative to some fixed reference frame which never changes.

 

Only if you insist that "all is relative" and reject as proven wrong my philosophy of science restated above.

 

Modest:

It's, again, not that the clock speeds up and slows down *or* the earth speeds up and slows down. It is both depending on perspective. To argue it one way or the other is to argue the importance in admissibility of one valid perspective over another.

 

"...depending on perspective"... "all is relative" ... no alternative philosophy, as mine above is admissible or possible.

This is dogma at its blatant worst.

 

I know you will shake your finger at me for quoting myself, but you seem to ignore all my statement that disagree with you, like the following:

Please understand that when I say that earth's periods of rotation and orbit do not change with different points of observation, I am saying that those periods stay the same regardless of different clock read-outs, and that "staying the same" is independent of measurement, i.e., beyond "frame of reference"... not claiming a "preferred frame of reference."

...

The reason for this exercise is that, clearly, regardless of the variability of clocks' time-keeping ability under different circumstances, Earth must and does spin and orbit at a rate independent of our measures of its periods (clocking them with variable time-keepers,) as above.

 

This is clearly a form of subjective idealism, that reality is created by the observation, rather than being independent of same.

 

Now, to again address the *movement* (not to say "velocity") of Haley's comet in the context of *my philosophy:*

My thought experiment was offered to illustrate that it has a movement of its own regardless of how and from what reference point it is measured (as per above philosophy.) So, I took away all reference points for the comets velocity relative to... whatever.

It moves all by itself. Of course it would no longer have an orbit if all sources of gravity disappeared, but we can assume that it would not just "freeze", i.e., that it would continue to move in a line (without designated "ends") tangent to its orbit after sun's (and other sources) gravity ceases.

No, I am not reifying space. The comet just keeps going in the tangential direction at the same "speed" as before but with no "velocity relative to..." being now applicable.

 

As to your:

After all the things you've said about the reification of space... wow!

...

It remains simple emptiness... way more empty now that everything has disappeared but the one lonely comet still traveling as before but without an orbit... relative to nothing.

Seems you are incapable of such a thought experiment because it leaves your dogmatic adherence to the dictum "all is relative" behind.

"Wow" indeed.... only one little comet and *no observer!*

 

But once we magically restore the cosmos as we know it, the question remains, does its existence depend on human scientific observation and measurement? Of course not! And our dear Earth will not be speeding up and slowing down (in either revolution or orbit) as our clocks fluctuate in rate of time keeping.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

freeztar:

...gravity causing time to move at different rates for different observers at different z (altitude) positions relative to the center of the Earth).

Me:

Is "time itself" considered to be "moving faster or slower" or is it rather than just physical processes... (ed: clocks "ticking) doing so? (Rhetorical.)

Clearly it is the latter...

 

So, Freeztar,

 

Is time here, as you use it, an entity or just clocks "ticking" at different rates, which we all agree that they do.

 

Michael

[freeztar]

It remains simple emptiness... way more empty now that everything has disappeared but the one lonely comet still traveling as before but without an orbit... relative to nothing.

 

For all practical purposes, the comet would not be moving at all. The only way to prove/disprove this is by introducing an observer, hence adding a "in relation to".

 

Seriously, if you can imagine a traveling comet in unbounded black space, surely you must see it as still. If you can't, then you are introducing some other reference point (edge of space, star, observer, etc.).

 

Again, if every source of light disappeared from the night sky, how would you tell that the Earth is still rotating?

 

So, Freeztar,

 

Is time here, as you use it, an entity or just clocks "ticking" at different rates, which we all agree that they do.

I don't believe time is an "entity". I believe time is a natural result of our universe, just like spatial dimensions.

 

Clocks tick at different rates. We know factors that cause this to happen: gravity, velocity, and acceleration. We don't know "why" these affect time, but they do, measurably. But, it's not "just" clocks ticking. It is movements of particles, ageing, and other realities of change.

 

Philosophically speaking, I find the concepts, of absolute here and now, boring compared to the realities of the universe, with everything being relative. I'm quite glad the universe works as it does, regardless of why it does.

[watcher]

Philosophically speaking, I find the concepts, of absolute here and now, boring compared to the realities of the universe, with everything being relative. I'm quite glad the universe works as it does, regardless of why it does.

 

all is relative is hardly "the realities of the universe"... it is a world view, perhaps ,,, the logical positivist one., maybe

 

consider Einstein on e Mach ...

As Ernst Mach insistently pointed out, the Newtonian theory is unsatisfactory in the following respect: if one considers motion from the purely descriptive, not from the causal, point of view, it only exists as relative motion of things with respect to one another. Einstein 1954

 

one another here meaning matter, thus we observed that motion is relative to all other matter and wella we have relativity.

why? because einstein, chose matter with field force that connects to other matter as a central concept of relativity. thus relativity is a pure conceptual construct without underlying causal universal principle on it,

 

And so instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs; but in Philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. (Newton, 1687)

 

thus your admittance of ignorance as to the underlying reason as to why relativity works. it works because the whole thing is a math construct empirically derived. although it was obvious that relativity deals with space densities at different points in space, which was obviously derived from the idea of the ether, einstein never bothered to assert the existence of ether as an absolute frame of ref since it was unpopular after the michaelson-morley null result. , so why? because the math works regardless you hypothesized it or not. but newton's advice was never to stop there but looked for the underlying causes, in this particular case,(the underlying cause of motion). that is of course philosophically speaking.

[Buffy]

all is relative is hardly "the realities of the universe"... it is a world view, perhaps ,,, the logical positivist one., maybe

 

Why not? The quotes you post actually argue the opposite of your position:

consider Einstein on e Mach ...

As Ernst Mach insistently pointed out, the Newtonian theory is unsatisfactory in the following respect: if one considers motion from the purely descriptive, not from the causal, point of view, it only exists as relative motion of things with respect to one another. Einstein 1954

Which correctly states the weakness of Newton: that the Newtonian view simply does not work in non-local frames of reference. This isn't a "mathematical construct" it's matching the math with observations that cause Newton to break.

one another here meaning matter, thus we observed that motion is relative to all other matter and wella we have relativity.

why? because einstein, chose matter with field force that connects to other matter as a central concept of relativity. thus relativity is a pure conceptual construct without underlying causal universal principle on it,

Since I have to grant your self-described knowledge of Relativity, we're left with the conclusion that you are purposely fudging together Special and General Relativity. The specific topic at hand--frames of reference--is covered completely by Special Relativity with no reference needed whatsoever to General Relativity ("field force that connects to other matter").

 

And of course Special Relativity came first, so there's no causal relationship with where this aspect of Relativity "came from."

 

Thus no, you have not shown that it's purely a mathematical construct. The question becomes why you have misrepresented the facts so transparently.

 

And so instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs; but in Philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. (Newton, 1687)

Newton here is simply working within the framework of Naturalism as was the convention of his day, and indeed it is the break away from this limitation of needing to see things from an abstract--that is purely mathematical--viewpoint that was the true revolution behind Relativity.

 

But by providing this quote, we begin to see the source of your argument:

...but newton's advice was never to stop there but looked for the underlying causes, in this particular case,(the underlying cause of motion).

The Newton quote above does not support this, but in fact the most critical point to understand about what Newton contributed is that he avoided finding the underlying cause of gravity: his tremendous intellectual contribution was that one could develop laws that were useful that yet provided no explanation whatsoever for *why* it worked.

 

The history of science is a fascinating subject, and much can be learned from it, but not of

course if it's turned inside out and backwards.

 

But the question I mentioned before which I haven't heard an answer to yet--just dismissive avoidance--is this: Why are you obsessed with this "absolute", "universal" viewpoint? What purpose will it serve? As shown by Einstein, its one key weakness of the Newtonian theory, and required us to change our viewpoint to bring it's--yes purely mathematical--view with observed reality.

 

The point I made earlier about a viewpoint "external to the Universe"--which is essentially equivalent to the notion of "seeing all frames of reference simultaneously"--could provide something interesting--and I'll be the last to tell you that you "should not" pursue it--but if you're going to do it, it makes no sense to trash Relativity, because within our Universe it's completely consistent with reality.

 

Saying it's "purely mathematical" is irrelevant, and trying to prove this by comparing it to Newton--who is even more "purely mathematical"--is pointless.

 

Your other argument of trying to say that what is seen from two different viewpoints is equivalent to saying "the objects have two different speeds simultaneously proves Relativity is absurd" can only be a supportable argument if you misrepresent what Relativity is saying: different frames of reference perceive events differently, but they are all self-consistent. It is not saying that a physical object *is* moving different speeds simultaneously, it is saying that its motion "will be perceived as different speeds from different reference frames."

 

The only thing that makes this absurd is if you are going to insist upon being able to perceive both speeds from the *same* reference frame, which Relativity says you can't do.

 

This fundamental misrepresentation either indicates an intent to deceive or a misunderstanding of the concept.

 

You're dealing with people who do understand here, and if you continue to insist you fully understand Relativity, it leaves us with only one conclusion on that point.

 

The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing, :)

Buffy

[Doctordick]

Again, if every source of light disappeared from the night sky, how would you tell that the Earth is still rotating?

Sorry freeztar but here it becomes obvious that your knowledge of physics is severely limited. If you accept [imath]\vec{F}=m\vec{a}[/imath] (which is, after all, the actual definition of force, [imath]”vec{F}”[/imath]) and the fact that forces require a means of being introduced (some attachment which provides that force), then Foucault certainly demonstrated that the earth rotated without using any reference to any “source of light” from the night sky.

 

It is not that I really disagree with your position but rather that things are a bit more subtle then you perceive them.

I don't believe time is an "entity". I believe time is a natural result of our universe, just like spatial dimensions.

I am afraid both time and spatial dimensions are pure figments of your imagination, conceived of for the sole purpose of giving logical reason to the events you perceive (a deep and subtle issue which it seems only Anssi and I manage to comprehend).

Philosophically speaking, I find the concepts, of absolute here and now, boring compared to the realities of the universe, with everything being relative. I'm quite glad the universe works as it does, regardless of why it does.

I am afraid that comment strike me in exactly the same way the old adage “ignorance is bliss” strikes me. To ignore such things is to prefer ignorance. You made some comments the other day about my position on “time” and missed the boat by quite a wide margin; allow me to try to correct your impressions.

First, I'm not sure you really understand what DD is trying to demonstrate with his equations. From what I can gather, he is trying to do away with implicit assumptions in physics using a modified version of Schroedinger equation.

No! What I do is deduce the absolute truth of a specific equation capable of yielding an estimate of our expectations based on the information available to us and nothing else. You are actually commenting about the essence of that very problem when you bring up your thought experiment for moody:

Here's a good way to think about it. Imagine that it is night time and you are standing on the Earth. Every star, galaxy, the sun, the moon, and all extraterrestrial forms of light suddenly disappear, the sky is pitch black. How would you determine that the Earth was still rotating?

You cannot talk about anything without some information to go on and the definitions of that information (the things you are talking about) are part and parcel of your explanation and likewise part and parcel of the problem which confronts you. All I do is suggest we use numerical labels for the information available to us (as arbitrary reference labels only with utterly no numerical meaning) and then, purely from the symmetries in that problem, deduce the “fact” that a certain specific equation (which, as you say, bears a striking resemblance to Schrödinger's equation) must be valid. To date Anssi is the only person in the world who has taken the trouble to follow that proof. Everyone else simply assumes I can not possibly be correct in spite of the fact that most all the common relationships found in modern physics are easily shown to be, in fact, approximations to that equation (another issue only Anssi has taken the trouble to look at).

 

I have exactly the same problem with the scientific community that you are having with Mr. Moody regarding relativity; however, my difficulty with the physics community is slightly more subtle than the problem of relativity. It is my opinion that their major problem is with their inadequate definition of time (that is the major reason I bother to read this thread). That inadequacy seems to be as difficult for them to see as it is for Moody to comprehend the inadequacy of his concept of motion.

 

I will try once again to point out the error everyone seems absolutely incapable of seeing (except for Anssi of course).

 

The idea of time existed long before we had modern physics or even dreamed of relativity. The central issue of the concept of time was that two entities existing at the same time in the same place could interact with one another. Being in the same place at different times was seen as having utterly no physical consequences. When Newton came up with his analytical methods of analyzing the mechanical interactions of material objects he made the mistake of presuming that clocks at different places could be set to agree with one another (a problem which is actually very similar to your problem above, “how would you determine that the earth was still rotating?”)

 

Nonetheless, Newton's paradigm was so successful at explaining such a wide arena of behavior that it brought in the idea that, if you knew the position and velocity of every entity in the universe, the future would be exactly known: i.e., the difference between the past and the future, the point between the two areas, (what we call the present) was not an important concept from a physical perspective. His equations carried right past that point without any changes whatsoever. The present was a mere issue of simultaneity which (in his mind) was a well defined thing easily established by “ideal clocks”. It was because of this view that the modern idea, “time is what clocks measure” arose in the minds of men.

 

But there is a problem there: the idea that “time is what clocks measure” is just not consistent with the idea that “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact”. The scientific community simply refuses to see these as two very different definitions of time. Just as Mr. Moody refuses to see Duration of the earth's orbit (getting back to where it started) and time to complete the orbit (as measured on a clock) as different things. The Duration of the earths orbit has to do with the “being at the same place at the same time” definition of time and the “time to complete the orbit” has to do with the “time is what is measured on a clock” definition of time. These are totally different definitions and treating them as equivalent yields nothing but confusion!

 

When Einstein proposed his solution to the simultaneity problem pointed out by Maxwell's equations, he was so enamored of the “time is what clocks measure” definition of time (and the idea that the future could be exactly known if the past were exactly known: i.e., the boundary between the two was of insignificant interest) that he used that definition in his work. Quantum mechanics, which explicitly recognizes the significance of that boundary essentially uses the “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact” definition. That is exactly the reason for the underlying incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

I use the “two entities existing at the same time in the same place can interact” definition making my work totally consistent with quantum mechanics. It becomes perfectly consistent with Maxwell's equations by never introducing mass as a fundamental concept: i.e., it is a many body representation of massless entities moving at a fixed velocity (in the rest frame of the universe: a definable frame of reference) and thus is totally equivalent to Maxwell's equations. The existence of mass (which is, in my paradigm, merely quantized momentum in the tau direction) yields two very important consequences: first, “time” is not a measurable variable (it is utterly impossible to fashion any mechanical device which can be used to determine that two entities which exist in the same place will or will not interact) and has no meaning except with regard to interactions themselves (which must occur at the same time by definition) and second, in order to have macroscopic structures the elements making up those macroscopic structures must be momentum quantized in the same direction: i.e., they must be built of massive elements (entities momentum quantized in the tau direction) and likewise, because of the uncertainty principal, the tau position becomes totally unobservable.

 

The paradigm yields no conflict whatsoever between relativity and quantum mechanics and is totally consistent with all established known physics relationships. Nevertheless, I have been well assured by many very qualified people that my paradigm could not possibly be a valid way of looking at the universe. My point being that trying to convince Moody of his error is a worthless effort.

 

Have fun -- Dick