Personal Topic

[ralfcis]

I'm saying both opinions arrive at the same answers except in that clock separation example to measure the one way speed of light and I have a feeling GR would not work if there was an absolute preferred frame. I don't know GR. So it's not a venn diagram where relative motion is inside the circle of absolute motion i.e. absolute motion is superfluous. Nope, absolute motion does  not apply to the one-way speed of light example. (I added more to my last post.)

[Moronium]

I'm saying both opinions arrive at the same answers 

 

 

I disagree with this.  They give radically different answers in many circumstances.

 

I don't know GR either, but I did just quote J.S. Bell (and many others agree with him) saying that the best way to "fix" GR and make it compatible with QM would be to ditch SR and revert to a Lorentzian relativity which assumes absolute motion and absolute relativity.

 

The Bell quote was probably presented in another thread.  I don't remember now.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Actually, this problem should be analyzed mathematically. In order to minimize relativistic effects on the one-way speed of light measurement, what would be the best way to separate clocks if you used the earth as the preferred  intermediate common frame? Would you send out the first clock at .33c and wait until it reached a certain point  relative to the earth, then sent out the other clock in the opposite direction? Or would it not matter if you sent out both clocks simultaneously out at .33c or would it also not matter if only 1 clock was sent out at .6c and the other remained on earth? The one way speed of light would be measured over the distance from ship to earth when all clocks had relatively stopped and all clock comparisons would be made relative to the earth clock. The distance separation would be the same for all 3 scenarios. This is an absolute frame of reference scenario as opposed to a relative time scenario between the two stopped ships. The absolute should give the same answers as the relative (because it's still all relative to a common intermediary frame) so why have the relative at all?

Edited February 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 

I was thinking of starting a thread, "Relative motion vs absolute motion" but what's the point. 

 

 

The first post I ever made on this topic can be found here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/

 

It was basically a rational analysis of the relativity of simultaneity, which is integrally related to notions of absolute versus relative motion.

 

In essence, few even read it, or made any attempt to understand it.  Nor did they address any of the arguments made.

 

Posters did, however, come out in force to call me a "crank" and to robotically recite some of the premises of SR as though they were the gospel truth.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Blah blah blah I don't care about your quotes. Do you agree with the mathematical way I just proposed even though you can't do any of the math. Using your own ability to reason, does it seem reasonable. A parrot can quote anything but does he understand the noises he makes.

[ralfcis]

Yes there are a lot of parrots out there.

[Moronium]

This is an absolute frame of reference scenario as opposed to a relative time scenario between the two stopped ships. The absolute should give the same answers as the relative so why have the relative at all?

 

 

As I said in prior posts, I don't think it's possible to empirically prove the one way speed of light, nor do I think both types of theories give the "same answers."

 

That said, you can easily posit it, and then see if empirical observations agree with your postulations.

 

Absolute motion is presumed by, and effectively demonstrated, thousands of time every day by the GPS.

 

The GPS uses a theory of motion that presupposes absolute simultaneity, absolute motion, and an anisotropic speed of light.  

 

For example, the GPS presumes that it takes less time for light to go from NY to LA than it does to go from LA to NY.

 

Yet NY and LA NEVER move relative to each other.  The difference in time is therefore not due to their "relative" motion, but rather their absolute motion.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Oy vey I give up. You just need an echo chamber, not a forum. Can we please not talk anymore?

Edited February 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 This is an absolute frame of reference scenario as opposed to a relative time scenario between the two stopped ships. The absolute should give the same answers as the relative (because it's still all relative to a common intermediary frame) so why have the relative at all?

 

No, this is wrong.  I have made this point many times, and it has been tested by the Hafele-Keating experiment, among others.

 

Before doing their experiment, H & K assumed that two clocks travelling at identical speeds but in different directions from a fixed point on earth (the naval observatory in Maryland, in their case) would both slow down, by an equal amount, relative to the "stationary" earth clock..  But their findings contradicted this.  One travelling clock recorded less elapsed time and the other more.

 

The only way they could get their experimental results to match theoretical predictions was to posit the ECI as the preferred frame.  In that frame all 3 clocks were moving, but all at different absolute speeds.

 

Even absolute motion is relative to "something," the ECI in this case.  But time dilation is not relative to just any and every other relatively moving object, as SR holds.  All motion must be measured against (compared to) a single unique frame in order to generate accurate predictions.

 

By "unique" I mean that it can't just be any old frame of reference that one arbitrarily chooses to treat as "stationary."  There is only one frame which will be the correct "preferred frame" for the applicable purpose.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

You keep smearing terms together and changing their meanings in mid sentence. Here's what you're confusing. Let's take the earth's rotation out of the equation. Say the two planes took off from Antarctica  and did a longitudinal orbit (meaning they crossed the two poles). If the two planes flew side by side, their relative velocity would be zero and there would be no time difference between them when they landed back at Antarctica. But they would have the same time diff less than the earth clock. Now let's say they took off in opposite directions. Their relative velocity would be twice that of each plane's relative to the earth. They would each have the same time diff relative to the earth but would they have the same time diff of 0 relative to each other? Quick, go find an wiki article with the correct answer as you're not into math or reason, only the philosophy of what others tell you to believe..

Edited February 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Blah blah blah I don't care about your quotes. Do you agree with the mathematical way I just proposed...

 

You have adopted the "rationalist" attitude of a medieval scholastic philosopher, who thought they could always deduce the "correct" answer from a priori premises.

 

The "quotes" you don't like generally refer to empirically demonstrated facts, but, like them, you have no use for facts.

 

You think you can solve every problem by mathematical (or other) deduction.  When it comes to math, garbage in, garbage out.  Math proves nothing in itself.

[Moronium]

Now let's say they took off in opposite directions. Their relative velocity would be twice that of each plane's relative to the earth. They would each have the same time diff relative to the earth but would they have the same time diff of 0 relative to each other? Quick, go find an wiki article with the correct answer as you're not into math or reason, only the philosophy of what others tell you to believe..

 

Their "relative" velocity don't mean **** as far as time dilation goes, get it?  You been suckered in way too far by bogus SR assumptions, it seems

 

Two objects can be going in opposite directions at identical speeds and still have identical velocities relative to a preferred frame.  The ultimate question is simply NOT how they are moving relative to each other.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

So what's the answer then or is your crystal ball on the fritz. 

[Moronium]

So what's the answer then or is your crystal ball on the fritz. 

 

 

The answer to what?  This?

 

They would each have the same time diff relative to the earth but would they have the same time diff of 0 relative to each other?

 

 

There is no single answer to that.  It would depend on the circumstances, such circumstances as:

 

1.  At what speed are they moving relative to the preferred frame, and

 

2.  What is the appropriate preferred frame.  It wouldn't be the earth's surface in your scenario.

 

The appropriate frame would still be the ECI.  But given that you have taken rotation out of it, and have them both moving in N/S directions, the answer might be the same even if you used the earth's surface (but not necessarily for GR (gravitational dilation) purposes

 

They obviously would not have the same velocity "relative to each other" if they flew side by side versus in opposite directions, but, again, their "relative speed" is basically irrelevant.

 

As I just said:

 

Two objects can be going in opposite directions at identical speeds and still have identical velocities relative to a preferred frame.  The ultimate question is simply NOT how they are moving relative to each other.

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

They are moving at an average speed A relative to the airport in Antartica. Maybe press the ball's reset button  for 10sec to get it to connect.

[Moronium]

If you took two objects at the same elevation and raised them each by 10 feet, would they still have the same "relative" elevation?  Of course.

 

Would they still have the same absolute (above mean sea level) elevation?  Of course not.

 

Would their respective clocks still be ticking at the same relative rate?  Sure.

 

Would their respective clocks still be ticking at the same rate as they were before you raised them?  No.

 

Would it just be a matter of "perspective?"

 

No.  If you only moved one of the two clocks up 10 feet, then it would perceive it's own clock to be running faster, and the other slower.

 

Likewise, the unmoved clock would see the raised clock as running faster than it's own.

 

The gravitational  time dilation is NOT "reciprocal" or relative in GR.  It is absolute.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I am only talking about the relative velocity component. So you're saying there is no relative velocity component. This example is no different than a GPS example and you dispute the GPS example has a relative velocity component.  I don't understand why on this forum one can't post an alternate theory thread under physics but you're allowed alternate theory posts under physics. Whatever, I like the fact there are no rules on this forum.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ralfcis