MacM
06-28-05, 10:26 PM
Absolute motion has never been disproven. The assumption is made that it does not exist but that is merely an assumption. The consequence of that assumption compounded by the development of the concept of Special Relativity and Velocity Addition, to force the universe to comply with the assumption is filled with pitfalls for rational physics.
It is true that we are unable to detect, sense or measure such motion. The only motion which we can perceive is in relation to some other referance.
That is called Relative Motion and is the current foundation of our physics.
This has lead to concepts of dimensional contraction, mass change and time dilation to make it conform to two postulates regarding light. However, only time dilation (more likely clock dilation) appears to be physical in that it can be recorded permanently. Mass change and dimensional contraction are mere artifacts or perceptions of motion in that they vanish when the relative motion vanishes.
It can be shown however, that logically it is more consistant to assume absolute motion is a reality and to forget Special Relativity.
Consider the following demonstration.
You have three clocks A, B, C. C is the local rest frame control and test monitor clock.
TEST 1:
C launches A eastward through a given precalculated cycle such that after a given period from C's perspective A will have reached a relative velocity of 0.433c and entered an inertial velocity period. (Gamma = 1.109). C has calculated how long it will take a light signal to travel and reach A at that point in the cycle and sends a "Start" clock command and waits the precalculated time to start his clock.
After a precalculated time according to C, another signal is sent to catch A and "Stop" A's clock after having operated 10 hours according to C's clock at which time C will stop his clock.
Once A's clock stops, A returns home to compare clocks and:
C has accumulated 36,000 seconds.
A has only accumulated 32,462 seconds.
This supports the gamma calculation (it does not support SRT in that SRT would claim that in 32,462 seconds time according to A that C should have only accumulated 29,271 seconds but it actually accumulated 36,000 seconds).
I don't want to hear about the perception of A not seeing C stop, etc. Simultaneity will be addressed shortly.
TEST 2:
Now C decides to run another test and launches B under the same program but going westwardly.
As would be expected B returns with the same accumulated 32,462 seconds time as A had.
TEST 3:
Content thus far, C now decides to perform a third test and launces A and B on their respective tests but does so simultaneously.
Again they both return with the same 32,462 seconds accumulated time.
The fact that (excluding Velocity Addition) they now had a "Relative Velocity" 0.866c between A and B they experience absolutely no affect on their clocks due to that relative veloicty.
This caused the tester at C to wonder and he decided to run yet another test.
TEST 4:
On this occasion both clock A and B were launched simultaneously but in a common vector and hence are co-moving and therefore they have no relative velocity between them but each has a 0.433c velocity relative to C.
Once again upon return C finds that the affect on the clocks was precisely the same as in TEST 3. From these results C can conclude only one thing.
Time dilation is a function of motion and not relative motion. It appears and is only measureable during periods of relative motion but it is entirely indifferent to the relative velocity between A and B. It is all only measureable in comparison to its origins of velocity change (acceleration hence change in absolute energy universally) which is referenced to C.
Relativists will quickly claim:
"But from A's frame B will be dilated and from B's frame A is dilated (that is reciprocity).
But when it is mentioned that there is no data to support that they merely claim that is because you didn't measure from A's or B's frame, Relativity of Simultaneity resolves the issue."
So the tester on C decides to re-run TEST 3 with added equipment. He installs a B clock monitor into A's vehicle. This monitor is designed to mimic the predictions of SRT and includes the affects of Velocity Addition. He calculates that A would predict that B has an actual relative velocity of only 0.7293c, not 0.866c and concludes that A should see B's clock tick at 684 ticks/1,000 ticks of A due to a gamma of 1.4617. He also adds a monitor to A that predicts what clock C will accumulate based on the preprogramed trip schedule which is inertial velocity of 0.433c (gamma = 1.109).
These monitors are arranged to start and start simultaneous with A. This eliminates all information delay and provides A with a direct view of B's predicted clock accumulated time during the test period. He also adds a transmitter that sends out a coded signal when the test is terminated which simply states "My clock stopped at xx,xxx seconds.
He also adds these same features to B and C stations such that all three will have a precise data of predicted and actual times without any information delays.
C continues to be the controlling clock and having computed the transit time of the start signal sends a t = 0 "Start" command and then waits the correct amount of time to start his own clock. This insures that A, B and C all physically start at the same universal instant.
We do not care when they "might" see each other start and stop but when they actually start and stop. That is transmitted to them by coded message. They have a delay in receiving the information but they do not see clocks running at all.
After C has accumulated sufficient time such that due to information delay (v = c) he can send a signal to reach A and B to stop their clocks at the precise moment that C has accumulated 36,000 seconds, he sends the stop command and then when C accumulates 36,000 seconds his clock stops and transmits the message saying what time his clock stopped at.
The stop command having reached A and B at the precise universal moment that C stopped also stop their clocks and monitor clocks and transmit their recorded times.
Since A and B have a 0.433 relative velocity to C each of their clocks will have accumulated the 32,462 seconds as in previous tests. To them the test was not 36,000 seconds but it was 32,462 seconds and is the same universal time interval and test period. Their clocks merely ran slow (marked the time interval at a slower frequency).
A and B monitor clocks will have accumulated only 0.684 * 32,462 seconds = 22,204 seconds. Both A and B "C" monitors display and transmit that "C" stopped his clock at 29,271 seconds because they each only ran for a test period of 32,462 seconds by their clocks and C is dilated by a gamma of 1.109.
SUMMARY:
Because of the arrangement of the test ALL information delays have been factored out and "Perception" is eliminated. Each clock has information regarding the predicted times according to Einstien's relativity.
Lets compare actual performance with predicted performance. Each clock is "effectively" controlling the experiment from his frame even though it is C that actually throws the switches. That is because they are only measuring time predicted for other clocks during the time their clock runs. It is a comparison of tick rates and not fixed test times.
ACTUAL TIMES ACCUMULATED:
C = 36,000 seconds
A = 32,462 seconds
B = 32,462 seconds
A Predictions:
B = 22,204 seconds
C = 29,271 seconds
B Predictions:
A = 22,204 seconds
C = 29,271 seconds
C Predictions:
A = 32,462 seconds
B = 32,462 seconds
It can be clearly seen that absent information delay the only correct predictions are for C where motion was initiated and that the relative velocity predictions for time dilation between clocks are completely in error.
You can talk SRT giberish all you want. It is not valid.
You can say prove it and I say prove it. It seems patently obvious which is more proven and proveable. In absence of actual physical evidence my claims stand equal, if not superior to your claims. My claims are supported by data, yours claims are not.
It is true that we are unable to detect, sense or measure such motion. The only motion which we can perceive is in relation to some other referance.
That is called Relative Motion and is the current foundation of our physics.
This has lead to concepts of dimensional contraction, mass change and time dilation to make it conform to two postulates regarding light. However, only time dilation (more likely clock dilation) appears to be physical in that it can be recorded permanently. Mass change and dimensional contraction are mere artifacts or perceptions of motion in that they vanish when the relative motion vanishes.
It can be shown however, that logically it is more consistant to assume absolute motion is a reality and to forget Special Relativity.
Consider the following demonstration.
You have three clocks A, B, C. C is the local rest frame control and test monitor clock.
TEST 1:
C launches A eastward through a given precalculated cycle such that after a given period from C's perspective A will have reached a relative velocity of 0.433c and entered an inertial velocity period. (Gamma = 1.109). C has calculated how long it will take a light signal to travel and reach A at that point in the cycle and sends a "Start" clock command and waits the precalculated time to start his clock.
After a precalculated time according to C, another signal is sent to catch A and "Stop" A's clock after having operated 10 hours according to C's clock at which time C will stop his clock.
Once A's clock stops, A returns home to compare clocks and:
C has accumulated 36,000 seconds.
A has only accumulated 32,462 seconds.
This supports the gamma calculation (it does not support SRT in that SRT would claim that in 32,462 seconds time according to A that C should have only accumulated 29,271 seconds but it actually accumulated 36,000 seconds).
I don't want to hear about the perception of A not seeing C stop, etc. Simultaneity will be addressed shortly.
TEST 2:
Now C decides to run another test and launches B under the same program but going westwardly.
As would be expected B returns with the same accumulated 32,462 seconds time as A had.
TEST 3:
Content thus far, C now decides to perform a third test and launces A and B on their respective tests but does so simultaneously.
Again they both return with the same 32,462 seconds accumulated time.
The fact that (excluding Velocity Addition) they now had a "Relative Velocity" 0.866c between A and B they experience absolutely no affect on their clocks due to that relative veloicty.
This caused the tester at C to wonder and he decided to run yet another test.
TEST 4:
On this occasion both clock A and B were launched simultaneously but in a common vector and hence are co-moving and therefore they have no relative velocity between them but each has a 0.433c velocity relative to C.
Once again upon return C finds that the affect on the clocks was precisely the same as in TEST 3. From these results C can conclude only one thing.
Time dilation is a function of motion and not relative motion. It appears and is only measureable during periods of relative motion but it is entirely indifferent to the relative velocity between A and B. It is all only measureable in comparison to its origins of velocity change (acceleration hence change in absolute energy universally) which is referenced to C.
Relativists will quickly claim:
"But from A's frame B will be dilated and from B's frame A is dilated (that is reciprocity).
But when it is mentioned that there is no data to support that they merely claim that is because you didn't measure from A's or B's frame, Relativity of Simultaneity resolves the issue."
So the tester on C decides to re-run TEST 3 with added equipment. He installs a B clock monitor into A's vehicle. This monitor is designed to mimic the predictions of SRT and includes the affects of Velocity Addition. He calculates that A would predict that B has an actual relative velocity of only 0.7293c, not 0.866c and concludes that A should see B's clock tick at 684 ticks/1,000 ticks of A due to a gamma of 1.4617. He also adds a monitor to A that predicts what clock C will accumulate based on the preprogramed trip schedule which is inertial velocity of 0.433c (gamma = 1.109).
These monitors are arranged to start and start simultaneous with A. This eliminates all information delay and provides A with a direct view of B's predicted clock accumulated time during the test period. He also adds a transmitter that sends out a coded signal when the test is terminated which simply states "My clock stopped at xx,xxx seconds.
He also adds these same features to B and C stations such that all three will have a precise data of predicted and actual times without any information delays.
C continues to be the controlling clock and having computed the transit time of the start signal sends a t = 0 "Start" command and then waits the correct amount of time to start his own clock. This insures that A, B and C all physically start at the same universal instant.
We do not care when they "might" see each other start and stop but when they actually start and stop. That is transmitted to them by coded message. They have a delay in receiving the information but they do not see clocks running at all.
After C has accumulated sufficient time such that due to information delay (v = c) he can send a signal to reach A and B to stop their clocks at the precise moment that C has accumulated 36,000 seconds, he sends the stop command and then when C accumulates 36,000 seconds his clock stops and transmits the message saying what time his clock stopped at.
The stop command having reached A and B at the precise universal moment that C stopped also stop their clocks and monitor clocks and transmit their recorded times.
Since A and B have a 0.433 relative velocity to C each of their clocks will have accumulated the 32,462 seconds as in previous tests. To them the test was not 36,000 seconds but it was 32,462 seconds and is the same universal time interval and test period. Their clocks merely ran slow (marked the time interval at a slower frequency).
A and B monitor clocks will have accumulated only 0.684 * 32,462 seconds = 22,204 seconds. Both A and B "C" monitors display and transmit that "C" stopped his clock at 29,271 seconds because they each only ran for a test period of 32,462 seconds by their clocks and C is dilated by a gamma of 1.109.
SUMMARY:
Because of the arrangement of the test ALL information delays have been factored out and "Perception" is eliminated. Each clock has information regarding the predicted times according to Einstien's relativity.
Lets compare actual performance with predicted performance. Each clock is "effectively" controlling the experiment from his frame even though it is C that actually throws the switches. That is because they are only measuring time predicted for other clocks during the time their clock runs. It is a comparison of tick rates and not fixed test times.
ACTUAL TIMES ACCUMULATED:
C = 36,000 seconds
A = 32,462 seconds
B = 32,462 seconds
A Predictions:
B = 22,204 seconds
C = 29,271 seconds
B Predictions:
A = 22,204 seconds
C = 29,271 seconds
C Predictions:
A = 32,462 seconds
B = 32,462 seconds
It can be clearly seen that absent information delay the only correct predictions are for C where motion was initiated and that the relative velocity predictions for time dilation between clocks are completely in error.
You can talk SRT giberish all you want. It is not valid.
You can say prove it and I say prove it. It seems patently obvious which is more proven and proveable. In absence of actual physical evidence my claims stand equal, if not superior to your claims. My claims are supported by data, yours claims are not.