I had not read GR books profoundly but I understand the basic idea - relative frames of reference and constant speed of light.

Is it possible to exist absolute space, as defined below?

absolute space - this is such a space and frame of reference in which all objects moves with the maximal allowed velocity - the speed of light.

what that means - imagine two frames K1 and K2 that moves one according to other with velocity of v. If now we rotate K2 such that it axes coinside with x,y and z axes of K1 so that only vx is different then zero, and start to move K2 in a direction opposite to vx with velocity (c-vx), in K2 K1 will moves with the speed of light. Since that is the maximal speed there exist only one such system of reference according to which all frames moves with a velocity equal ezactly to c.

an another explanation - imagine a point source of light, it irradiates photons in all directions, since according to a Frenel law (i dont remember exact definition) every point from the EM wave is a source of light, we can consider the following illustration - photons move in a 2D square lattice, after time of dt four new photons are irradiated in all four directions of the x and y axes, after time of 2dt every photon produces 4 new photons and so on:

X

X X X

X


when the number of directions is extrapolated to infinity is produced an absolute space, all photons in the world share one and the same frame of reference, am I correct? Also this space is immovable to all systems of reference.

imagine two frames K1 and K2 that moves one according to other with velocity of v. If now we rotate K2 such that it axes coinside with x,y and z axes of K1 so that only vx is different then zero, and start to move K2 in a direction opposite to vx with velocity (c-vx), in K2 K1 will moves with the speed of light.

No K1 will not move with the velocity of light since in relativity you don't add just like that the velocities.

1000f,
yes you are right. But photons moves with the speed of light. So if we shoot one photon in a moment t at opposite to vx direction it will move with c in K1? So if we attach a frame of reference to this photon we will have K2.

1000f,
yes you are right. But photons moves with the speed of light. So if we shoot one photon in a moment t at opposite to vx direction it will move with c in K1? So if we attach a frame of reference to this photon we will have K2.
No since you said that K2 moves at velocity v
imagine two frames K1 and K2 that moves one according to other with velocity of v
and the photon has a velocity c in frame K1, so that the frame K2 cannot be attached to the photon.
BTW, the photon will also have velocity c in frame K2

No since you said that K2 moves at velocity v.

This was at the beggining. Then I accelerate K2 until it start to move with c.

But OK, I admit that I didn't put it well. Lets forget about K1 and K2. Lets just take one frame of reference attached to a photon and moving in all systems of reference with velocity c. I called this system of reference absolute space, the picture can be always reversed and it can be said that absolute space is immovable and everything else is moving with velocity c according to it.

Why I am discussing with you the absolute space? Well, imagine just for a second that there is absolute space. Then it is accualy possible to be invented a device that can allow us to navigate and to position ourselfs in the absolute space. This device is accualy so simple that I will explain it right now. I will call it PASD - Positioning in Absolute Space Device. It represents a source of spherical EM waves (i.e light photons emitted with equal number in all directions) put in a 4pi spherical photodetector which can very accurately measure the time interval between emition and absorbtion of the photon on the second sphere. In this way PASD can measure (since it moves with the frame of reference) not only the acceleration but and velocity and both in the absolute space.

There is only one problem - PASD produce pictures of velocity distributions in 4pi, say every moment between time interval dt which is very small. But if there is a rotation of the frame PASD should be rotated in the opposite direction in order to be taken the same points from the absolute space. In other words there is problems with rotation. But this problem can be solved.
(if it is not clear I will explain it more detaily later).

With PASD is possible for example to measure how fast is moving Earth around the Sun, how fast is moving solar system around galaxy center, how fast is moving the entire galaxy and so on. Its not needed to have anything except PASD (its not needed to see the stars for example).

What you think about that?

do you know what a lorentz transformation is?

Lets just take one frame of reference attached to a photon ...I'm pretty sure that this is at best immensely impractical. Though I hold that this is not possible in principle. Call me close-minded an you will.




With PASD is possible for example to measure how fast is moving Earth around the Sun, how fast is moving solar system around galaxy center, how fast is moving the entire galaxy and so on. Its not needed to have anything except PASD (its not needed to see the stars for example).I didn't follow your PASD description very well. Can you attach a diagram?

do you know what a lorentz transformation is?

yes, what about it? /may be you are gonna tell me that a frame can not move with speed of c, because lorentz transformations become nonsense, but it is a fact that such frames exist (since there is particles that moves with the speed of light)/

I'm pretty sure that this is at best immensely impractical. Though I hold that this is not possible in principle. Call me close-minded an you will.

Prove it.

Below I had attach a diagram which help to demonstrate the principle behind PASD. There is a source of light S which emits at one moment two photons P1 and P2 moving in opposite directions. On some distance d from S there is two photo-absorbing plates which produce electricity when a photon falls on them. The entire devise moves with velocity v. Since the second plate is moving away from S and first is approaching it, P1 will be absorbed before P2. From the time interval between the emition and the absorbtion of both photons it can be determined the velocity of the system according to the frame of reference of the absolute space.

the PASD device explained before is extention of this one-dimensional illustration for the 3D case.

Prove it.

Below I had attach a diagram which help to demonstrate the principle behind PASD. There is a source of light S which emits at one moment two photons P1 and P2 moving in opposite directions. On some distance d from S there is two photo-absorbing plates which produce electricity when a photon falls on them. The entire devise moves with velocity v. Since the second plate is moving away from S and first is approaching it, P1 will be absorbed before P2. From the time interval between the emition and the absorbtion of both photons it can be determined the velocity of the system according to the frame of reference of the absolute space.

the PASD device explained before is extention of this one-dimensional illustration for the 3D case.

But in the reference frame of your PASD, the two photons are emited at the same time, they have the same distance to pass so they will arrive at the same time.

Prove it.

Below I had attach a diagram which help to demonstrate the principle behind PASD. There is a source of light S which emits at one moment two photons P1 and P2 moving in opposite directions. On some distance d from S there is two photo-absorbing plates which produce electricity when a photon falls on them. The entire devise moves with velocity v. Since the second plate is moving away from S and first is approaching it, P1 will be absorbed before P2. From the time interval between the emition and the absorbtion of both photons it can be determined the velocity of the system according to the frame of reference of the absolute space.

the PASD device explained before is extention of this one-dimensional illustration for the 3D case.

Hi XGen,
Such an experiment could indeed demonstrate the existence of an absolute reference frame.
However, if it were found that there was no time difference, that both absorptions occurred at the same time, what would your conclusion be?
What if both absorptions occurred at the same time no matter how you changed the motion of the apparatus between experiments?

In other words, until you do the experiment, you can't know whether it determines absolute velocity or not. The weight of evidence at the present times indicates that it would not.

Prove it.As has been pointed out by 1100f and Pete, you seem to be ignoring current experimental evidence. There is no way to prove anything (in the sense that I assume you mean to draw an absolute conclusion transcendent from a set of givens; one of the givens may be flawed). But, in principle, and in light of the evidence, I don't believe it is possible to have an inertial frame moving at the speed of light with respect to any other inertial frame. Can a massive body move at the speed of light with respect to any other massive body? What does inertia mean?




With PASD is possible for example to measure how fast is moving Earth around the Sun, ...I would like to hear your comments regarding a painfully frequently cited experiment: Michelson Morley Interferometer.

But in the reference frame of your PASD, the two photons are emited at the same time, they have the same distance to pass so they will arrive at the same time.


Yes, but there is such a frame of reference that do not moves. Since photons are moving with velocity c in all systems of references we can consider their movement in the stationary frame. In another words photons do not care in what system of reference they are, they do not care that apparatus is moving, that is because they exist in an absolute system of reference and that is the only frame that concept "distance" have a sense for the photons. And in even more simple words - velocity v of the frame do not influence photons and they can not be consider as existing in that system of reference.

Thus photons will not be absorbed at the same time. If v and d are small , the resolution of the device may not be enough to measure the time-shift of both photons. But lets make some calculations. If d is 1 meter and velocity v (which is sum of all velocities according to the absolute space) is 1% from c, then the first plate will shift vdt and P1 path will be cdt, and dt = d/(c+v), or 3,302614 nanosec instead than 3,335640 nanosecs for v = 0. The second photon P2 instead will delay and will be absorbed after time dt = 1.010101........ d/c = 100/99c = 3,369333 nanosecs, the difference betwen absorbtion of both photons will be 3,369333 - 3,302614 = 0,066719 nanosecs, whic corresponds to a counter with frequency 1498823423,6 Hz , approx 1.5 GHz. I think that the real resolution should be at least 20 times more , say 30 GHz.
I hope CPUs will become fast enough soon :).

The another solution is to make the device bigger. If d is 100 meters, the counter frequency from 3 GHz will be enough (one overclocked Pentium IV may be :).

However, if it were found that there was no time difference, that both absorptions occurred at the same time, what would your conclusion be?

My conclusion will be that experimental detector is not precise enough.

In other words, until you do the experiment, you can't know whether it determines absolute velocity or not. The weight of evidence at the present times indicates that it would not.

What evidence you are talking about? All modern knoledge , including GR and QM, are in consensus that speed of light is a fundamental constant - the maximal speed in nature. Everything else is interpretation.

I would like to hear your comments regarding a painfully frequently cited experiment: Michelson Morley Interferometer.

Michelson and Morley discovered that velocity of light is equal in all directions. But I dont think that it means that absolute space do not exist, just the opposite. The ether they were searching for was wrongly imagined as some kind of gas. This is poor mechanical interpretation. The ether is the space-time continuum by itself. It do not move with Earth and there is no way to influence the speed of light. The experiment shouldn't have been directed to measuring speed of light but rather the times for absorption (which however can not happen with interferometer).

I will illustrate where is the problem in Michelson-Morley experiment. Maybe i misunderstand it but lets return to the PASD figure that i posted before. If we have not absorbing but reflecting plates and measure the time both photon reach again the middle point it is obvious that they will return at the same time. I dont know if it is the case with Michelson-Morley experiment, but since it was not directed to detecting time-shifts relative to the absolute space i can not further comment it.

Also, a frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction. It is not necessary to be bounded to a massive body. Photons are moving with a constant speed and are the best choice for inertial frame of reference (since inertial means non-accelerating I believe). Acceleration is a property of massive bodies not to photons.

Yes, but there is such a frame of reference that do not moves.
There are an infinite number of reference frame that do not move. Each reference frame is not moving with respect to itself and with respect to other reference frames thet do not move with respect to it. However for each such reference frame, there exists other moving reference frames. These reference frames are moving with respect to those moving reference frames.


Since photons are moving with velocity c in all systems of references we can consider their movement in the stationary frame. In another words photons do not care in what system of reference they are, they do not care that apparatus is moving, that is because they exist in an absolute system of reference and that is the only frame that concept "distance" have a sense for the photons. And in even more simple words - velocity v of the frame do not influence photons and they can not be consider as existing in that system of reference.

No, the concept of distance exists in all reference frame. There is no absolute reference frame. If photons exist in a reference frame, they exist in all reference frames.


Thus photons will not be absorbed at the same time.

You are right, and I see that finally you appear to agree with the theory of relativity, that in one frame two events are simultaneous and in another one they are not.



If v and d are small , the resolution of the device may not be enough to measure the time-shift of both photons. But lets make some calculations. If d is 1 meter and velocity v (which is sum of all velocities according to the absolute space) is 1% from c, then the first plate will shift vdt and P1 path will be cdt, and dt = d/(c+v), or 3,302614 nanosec instead than 3,335640 nanosecs for v = 0. The second photon P2 instead will delay and will be absorbed after time dt = 1.010101........ d/c = 100/99c = 3,369333 nanosecs, the difference betwen absorbtion of both photons will be 3,369333 - 3,302614 = 0,066719 nanosecs, whic corresponds to a counter with frequency 1498823423,6 Hz , approx 1.5 GHz. I think that the real resolution should be at least 20 times more , say 30 GHz.
I hope CPUs will become fast enough soon :).

The another solution is to make the device bigger. If d is 100 meters, the counter frequency from 3 GHz will be enough (one overclocked Pentium IV may be :).

However, if it were found that there was no time difference, that both absorptions occurred at the same time, what would your conclusion be?

My conclusion will be that experimental detector is not precise enough.


MM experiments is much more prcise than your experiments. Eve 1% of c is almost not detectable by your experiment



What evidence you are talking about? All modern knoledge , including GR and QM, are in consensus that speed of light is a fundamental constant - the maximal speed in nature. Everything else is interpretation.



Michelson and Morley discovered that velocity of light is equal in all directions. But I dont think that it means that absolute space do not exist, just the opposite. The ether they were searching for was wrongly imagined as some kind of gas. This is poor mechanical interpretation. The ether is the space-time continuum by itself. It do not move with Earth and there is no way to influence the speed of light. The experiment shouldn't have been directed to measuring speed of light but rather the times for absorption (which however can not happen with interferometer).

I will illustrate where is the problem in Michelson-Morley experiment. Maybe i misunderstand it but lets return to the PASD figure that i posted before. If we have not absorbing but reflecting plates and measure the time both photon reach again the middle point it is obvious that they will return at the same time. I dont know if it is the case with Michelson-Morley experiment, but since it was not directed to detecting time-shifts relative to the absolute space i can not further comment it.
You are exactly describing the MM experiment, which was,btw, directed to detecting time shifts relative to the absolute space.



Also, a frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction. It is not necessary to be bounded to a massive body. Photons are moving with a constant speed and are the best choice for inertial frame of reference (since inertial means non-accelerating I believe). Acceleration is a property of massive bodies not to photons.
Nobody said that a reference frame is to be bounded to massive bodies.

... photons ... do not care in what system of reference they are, ... because they exist in an absolute system of reference ...Your reason for the apathy of photons is incorrect according to the most commonly accepted theories and experimental results. Photons "don't care" because, in terms of the theory, they have a scalar speed field that is locally invariant under a Lorentz transformation. An absolute system of reference implies quite the opposite.




... that is the only frame that concept "distance" have a sense for the photons.There are two types of distance. The pre-Einsteinian refers to spatial displacement. This can be measured quite readilly for a beam of light in any local inertial frame. The other is proper distance, which came into being with Einsteinian relativity. This is <i>always</i> zero for light. Incidently, the proper distance is what would be measured in the "photon's rest frame," in a crude way of thinking. But, a photon <i>does not even have</i> a rest frame.




... velocity v of the frame do not influence photons and they can not be consider as existing in that system of reference.In <i>what</i> system of reference?




... photons will not be absorbed at the same time.In the frame that observes your P-whatever moving at a non-trivial velocity I agree. But, regardless of the velocity, if it is transformed away (that is, if observations are made while traveling with this P-whatever), then the photons will be absorbed at the same time.

BTW, by photons here, I'm referring to semiclassical "chunks" of light for which uncertainties are insignificant WRT technical limitations. I'm assuming that you intend the same basic meaning. Correct me if I'm misinterpretting you.




All modern knoledge , including GR and QM, are in consensus that speed of light is a fundamental constant - the maximal speed in nature. Everything else is interpretation.The maximal speed in nature is an interpretation. The fundamental concept in relativity behind c is the <i>invariance</i>, not the <i>maximization</i>.




Michelson and Morley discovered that velocity of light is equal in all directions. But I dont think that it means that absolute space do not exist, just the opposite. ... The ether is the space-time continuum by itself. It do not move with EarthIf it does not move with Earth, then how could the MM experiment yield a null result? How could the speed of the light beams be equal in all directions WRT Earth while the Earth moves WRT the medium? Are you referring to Lorentz' idea of contraction due to motion through the ether? I don't really want to get into that, but it presents problems.




The experiment shouldn't have been directed to measuring speed of light but rather the times for absorption (which however can not happen with interferometer).Why would the times for absorption be affected? I obviously don't understand at all your point behind this P-whatever.




... lets return to the PASD figure that i posted before. If we have not absorbing but reflecting plates and measure the time both photon reach again the middle point it is obvious that they will return at the same time.It is obvious to me that this is true in the rest frame of the PASD, but that this is false in any frame that is moving WRT the PASD in the same direction.




... a frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction. It is not necessary to be bounded to a massive body. Photons are moving with a constant speed and are the best choice for inertial frame of reference (since inertial means non-accelerating I believe). Acceleration is a property of massive bodies not to photons.A frame of reference is quite general, yes. A physically useful frame of reference should be <i>inertial</i>. One aspect of this type of frame is, as you have said, that it is not accelerating. But, you are ignoring the other aspect, which can be seen by either considering that

a) Inertial frames are those that can be considered at rest WRT a particle with proper mass and thusly, all such particles within the frame have locally timelike geodesics.

b) A photon has an infinite proper acceleration, as can be seen by extrapolating accelerated constant position hyperbolae to the origin.

It is necessary to be bounded to a massive body for the sake of any experiment that I can coneive, and certainly for the sake of the PASD, which I can only assume to be a massive body if it is to contain an over-clocked computer processor.




Nobody said that a reference frame is to be bounded to massive bodies.I'm sort of guilty of this vile infraction. I did say that <i>inertial</i> frames must contain all of the worldlines of massive bodies as locally timelike geodesics, in so many words.

In the frame that observes your P-whatever moving at a non-trivial velocity I agree. But, regardless of the velocity, if it is transformed away (that is, if observations are made while traveling with this P-whatever), then the photons will be absorbed at the same time.

No. Photons will not be absorbed at same time in ANY frame of reference, except the frame that is immovable according to the absolute space, or where the velocity in the absolute space v is 0. Accualy my definition for absolute space and reference was incorect it must be defined in that way:

absolute space and reference - it is the reference in which both photons are absorbed at the same time

You say "observations are made". It is very slicky explained you know. I will repeat what I had posted the last time. See diagram. If the device is on a inertial frame of reference moving with a velocity v according to the absolute space, they will be absorbed at different times but if they was reflected they will reach the middle point S at the same time, so if there is an observer there he will see both events as simultaneous.

MM experiments is much more prcise than your experiments. Eve 1% of c is almost not detectable by your experiment.

MM experiment had not been directed at detecting time-shifts but measurement of velocity of light. They had though that velocity in the direction of movement would be c+v and opposite to it c-v. Their interfometer is very inpractical for the measurement of the time-shifts that PASD measure, becose interference happens when two waves overlaps, or sayed in another words when are in the same place at the same time. This means that both photons should be also putted in the same place at the same time. But this make functioning of entire device senseless. I will let you figure out why.

Something more. All the calculations that should be made with PASD should be localy-distributed. What that means. Suppose that two analogus cables connect both plates with a computer that makes the calculations, and let this computer be in the center of the room. Both photons will be absorbed at different times but now signal from P1 will have to travel in the same direction as v and will delay, so the absorbtion will be reported later, and in reverse, the absorbtion time of P2 will arive sooner and the entire device will not function correctly. Thus only digital information containing localy calculated absorbtion time should be transported through the cables.

Also my experiment is not imprecise. It can be maded as precise as it is needed. There is many practical ways to be realized. Velocity can be measured with enormous precision.

If it does not move with Earth, then how could the MM experiment yield a null result? How could the speed of the light beams be equal in all directions WRT Earth while the Earth moves WRT the medium? Are you referring to Lorentz' idea of contraction due to motion through the ether? I don't really want to get into that, but it presents problems.

I just explained that.

Your reason for the apathy of photons is incorrect according to the most commonly accepted theories and experimental results. Photons "don't care" because, in terms of the theory, they have a scalar speed field that is locally invariant under a Lorentz transformation. An absolute system of reference implies quite the opposite.

OK, I admit that I didn't formulate the concept of absolute space correct. I think that "exist in a frame of reference" and "be in a frame of reference" can be sayed for all objects that are moving with this frame when it moves with constant velocity v or accelerates with a. But photons are moving in the absolute space and do not care or know about the velocity v. So you can describe then in any frame of reference if you want, but this is not practical.


A frame of reference is quite general, yes. A physically useful frame of reference should be inertial. One aspect of this type of frame is, as you have said, that it is not accelerating. But, you are ignoring the other aspect, which can be seen by either considering that

a) Inertial frames are those that can be considered at rest WRT a particle with proper mass and thusly, all such particles within the frame have locally timelike geodesics.

b) A photon has an infinite proper acceleration, as can be seen by extrapolating accelerated constant position hyperbolae to the origin.


I didn't understand that.

I see that you are perplexed how a frame of reference can move with the speed of light. Well, accualy I can prove that if space and time steps are taken small enough everything moves with the speed of light, even massive particles. Mass is a global concept, in microworld this concept has lower-limit for application (take Heizenberg inequality if you like).

Thanks for your replies.

No. Photons will not be absorbed at same time in ANY frame of reference, except the frame that is immovable according to the absolute space, or where the velocity in the absolute space v is 0. Accualy my definition for absolute space and reference was incorect it must be defined in that way:

absolute space and reference - it is the reference in which both photons are absorbed at the same time


If we take two devices like yours, and one device will move wrt the other, you can see that in the reference frame associated with the first one, you will find that the two photons will arrive at the same time, since they start in the middle of the device, they have the same distance to go and they have the same velocity.
However, if you go to the second device, in its reference frame, the two photons start in the middle, they will have the same distance to go and the same velocity. There is no absolute reference frame, or absolute frame.



MM experiment had not been directed at detecting time-shifts but measurement of velocity of light. They had though that velocity in the direction of movement would be c+v and opposite to it c-v. Their interfometer is very inpractical for the measurement of the time-shifts that PASD measure,
The time-shift is exactly what the interferometer measures.


OK, I admit that I didn't formulate the concept of absolute space correct.

Because you just showed that there is no such thing.



I think that "exist in a frame of reference" and "be in a frame of reference" can be sayed for all objects that are moving with this frame when it moves with constant velocity v or accelerates with a. But photons are moving in the absolute space and do not care or know about the velocity v. So you can describe then in any frame of reference if you want, but this is not practical.

I think you just don't understand what a reference frame is.

If we take two devices like yours, and one device will move wrt the other, you can see that in the reference frame associated with the first one, you will find that the two photons will arrive at the same time, since they start in the middle of the device, they have the same distance to go and they have the same velocity.

Plates are moving with velocity v. But photons are not affected from this movement. So they will reach both plates in different times because plates had changed theirs positions. They would return in the middle at the same time if they was reflected, but will not be absorbed at the same time in ANY frame of reference.

Please, dont make me explain it again.

Plates are moving with velocity v. But photons are not affected from this movement. So they will reach both plates in different times because plates had changed theirs positions. They would return in the middle at the same time if they was reflected, but will not be absorbed at the same time in ANY frame of reference.

Please, dont make me explain it again.
So do you say that photons do not go with velocity c in all reference frames?

... lets return to the PASD figure that i posted before. If we have not absorbing but reflecting plates and measure the time both photon reach again the middle point it is obvious that they will return at the same time.It is obvious to me that this is true in the rest frame of the PASD, but that this is false in any frame that is moving WRT the PASD in the same direction.I just wanted to say that my respons to this was stupid. It is obvious that they will return at the same time in any inertial frame. I agree with you.

I am reading through your post, Xgen, and will respond when I figure out what you are saying.




If the device is on a inertial frame of reference moving with a velocity v according to the absolute space, they will be absorbed at different times but if they was reflected they will reach the middle point S at the same time, so if there is an observer there he will see both events as simultaneous.I agree with this (now). I was being stupid earlier.




MM experiment had not been directed at detecting time-shifts but measurement of velocity of light. They had though that velocity in the direction of movement would be c+v and opposite to it c-v.Actually, the velocity of light was accepted as some round-about value, and they <i>were</i> trying to detect time-shifts (well, equivalently, they were trying to detect phase shifts indirectly by determining the shift in a fringe pattern). You are forgetting about the perpendicular leg of the apparatus.

Consider this simple algebraic example that presumes an ether:

L is the length of the leg in question
c is some value (with dimensions of speed) that is assumed >> v
v is the speed of the apparatus WRT the ether
&theta; is the angle that the leg in question makes with the direction of motion through the ether
t is the round-trip time of flight of the light in the leg

t = (2L/c)[1-(v/c)²cos²&theta;]

So, for two legs perpendicular to each other, the time of flight difference &Delta;t is:

&Delta;t = t₂ - t₁ = (2L₂/c)[1-(v/c)²cos²&theta;₂] - (2L₁/c)[1-(v/c)²cos²&theta;₁]

Assuming for the time being that L is invariant and equal for both legs and that the legs are perpendicular gives:

&Delta;t = (2L/c){[1-(v/c)²cos²&theta;] - [1-(v/c)²cos²(&theta; + &pi;/2)]} = (2L/c){[1-(v/c)²cos²&theta;] - [1-(v/c)²sin²&theta;]}

This can be pushed around to show that some sin² + cos² = 1, but, ultimately, a dependence on &theta; remains. This is precisely what Michelson and Morley used as a theoretical basis for comparison. They rotated there apparatus 360^o and performed the experiment at different times of the day and in different seasons. They recieved a null result. The experiment was performed several more times with a trend in increasing accuracy and a correlated certainty of the null result. Of course, if you know your history of late 19th century science, you know that Lorentz proposed a seemingly reasonable suggestion that would save the ether. Well, that's another story.




Their interfometer is very inpractical for the measurement of the time-shifts that PASD measure, becose interference happens when two waves overlaps, or sayed in another words when are in the same place at the same time. This means that both photons should be also putted in the same place at the same time. But this make functioning of entire device senseless.I think considering light in terms of photons makes this device impractical/senseless from the start. This device relies on the wave nature of light and disregards the particle nature. Is this a reason why you have a problem with the device?




Something more. All the calculations that should be made with PASD should be localy-distributed. What that means. ...Yes, I believe I see what you're saying, and I totally agree with you on this point. I would certainly be interested in the results of your experiment. It seems that it is a quite reasonable one to conduct at the current stage of technology, and I wonder if it has not already been done. Have you done a literature search?




I see that you are perplexed how a frame of reference can move with the speed of light.Not exactly. I just don't think that any frame of reference <i>relevant to the PASD</i> can be such a frame. I have already explained why I feel this way.




Well, accualy I can prove that if space and time steps are taken small enough everything moves with the speed of light, even massive particles. Mass is a global concept, in microworld this concept has lower-limit for application (take Heizenberg inequality if you like).You can <i>prove</i> it? I don't see how an <i>interpretation</i> of the HUP proves anything, much less that everything moves at the speed of light or any other speed for that matter. I am no expert in QM, though, so, perhaps you would be willing to help me out with this?

XGen,
Your experiment is interesting, but it is useless to claim that it will produce a certain result if you haven't actually done it. We can sit here all day and say why we think it will have a certain result... but that doesn't demonstrate anything.

Accepted theory (backed up by other experiments) suggests that the result from your experiment will be different to what you claim it will be. If you do the experiment and can show that your claimed result is the actual result, great! Until then, it's just hot air.

XGen,
Your experiment is interesting, but it is useless to claim that it will produce a certain result if you haven't actually done it. We can sit here all day and say why we think it will have a certain result... but that doesn't demonstrate anything.

Accepted theory (backed up by other experiments) suggests that the result from your experiment will be different to what you claim it will be. If you do the experiment and can show that your claimed result is the actual result, great! Until then, it's just hot air.

Before to make an experiment we should postulate limitations and goals of this experiment. Otherwise it make take us 1000 years to correct inprecisions and wrong interpretations of poorly maded experiments. Of course you are free to disagree to my opinion but you should provide logical and mathematicals proofs for it.


L is the length of the leg in question
c is some value (with dimensions of speed) that is assumed >> v
v is the speed of the apparatus WRT the ether
θ is the angle that the leg in question makes with the direction of motion through the ether
t is the round-trip time of flight of the light in the leg

t = (2L/c)[1-(v/c)2cos2θ]

So, for two legs perpendicular to each other, the time of flight difference Δt is:

Δt = t2 - t1 = (2L2/c)[1-(v/c)2cos2θ2] - (2L1/c)[1-(v/c)2cos2θ1]

Assuming for the time being that L is invariant and equal for both legs and that the legs are perpendicular gives:

Δt = (2L/c){[1-(v/c)2cos2θ] - [1-(v/c)2cos2(θ + π/2)]} = (2L/c){[1-(v/c)2cos2θ] - [1-(v/c)2sin2θ]}


Can you please put some diagrams for it. Why
t = (2L/c)[1-(v/c)2cos2θ] ?

There is something that I dont understand for MM and related experiments. The source of light S that enters the beamsplitter, is this continual source of light or it is impulse source (like laser)? Because if it is continual it is very bad. They had blurred the time-shifts. Also it is very bad if the source is isotropic (i.e irradiates light in all directions). Then different photons with have different time-shifts from both plates will reach interferometer. The source should irradiates only in one direction , to the beamsplitter and light should be collinear beam. I suupose that they had made this.

However even if this two flaws had been corrected the entire device is not good for positioning in absolute space because as I explained before light is moving in many directions and in this way averaging of the light paths and times is maded. Accualy I found an article about the Miller experiment that show that MM experiment have at least two serious flaws and results from Miller experiment are quite different, see it at

http://www.nov55.com/mrl.html

But I dont know for more recent experiment.

I think considering light in terms of photons makes this device impractical/senseless from the start. This device relies on the wave nature of light and disregards the particle nature. Is this a reason why you have a problem with the device?

This is one from the reasons. The other is that the light movement is bi-directional.

You are forgetting about the perpendicular leg of the apparatus...


OK, lets consider the diagram for the MM experiment. You see, I am not claming that there is no relativity (time-dilation and lengh-contraction). The idea for absolute space is not with contradiction to relativity. I will demonstrate you how the null-result of MM can be explained. Lets suppose that at some moment θ is 0 which means that Earth is moving exactly parallel to one of the arms of the apparatus. Lets it velocity be v. Lets consider what distances will pass light in the frame of the absolute space for both arms. For the arm uni-directional with v it is clear that:

d1 = [c/(c-v) + c/(c+v)]L = 2L/(1-v^2/c^2)

However because lenght is contracted in the direction of movement d1 becomes:

d1 = 2Lsqrt((1-v^2/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2) = 2L/sqrt((1-v^2/c^2)/

Lets now see what happens with the perpendicular arm. It can be shown that the shortest path between the starting point of the beam (source S at the moment it is emitted from the beamsplitter) and the end point (source S at the moment when the beam enters interferometer) is :

d2(min) = 2sqrt[L^2 + (d/2)^2] , where d is the distance that S had traveled, d = vdt = d2(min)v/c, from here:

d2(min) = 2[sqrt(L^2 + d2(min)^2 (v/c)^2/4)] ,

d2(min)^2 = 4L^2 + d2(min)^2*(v/c)^2

d2(min) = 2L/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

So it turns out that d1 and d2 are equal. I think that it can be proved for arbitrary angle θ.

However at the case with PASD relativity is not an obstacle because both photons are with opposite directions and relativity is same for them. I think that relativity effects are frequently perceived incorectly, and this principle for simultaneity (or whatever it is called) is not interpreted correctly. I dont know how it had been postulated at the beggining from Einstein but if it means that everything is happening simultaneously in all directions independently from the velocity v in absolute space , it is wrong. In this way the frames of reference are something like chunks of absolute spaces which are not related in any way. May be I am wrong about that, but I just can not believe that such absurd thing had been widely accepted and that it is based on so poorly realized ezperiment as MM. I think that the general conclusions in SR can be received without the principle for simultaneity.


I don't see how an interpretation of the HUP proves anything, much less that everything moves at the speed of light or any other speed for that matter.


If space and time are discretized the speed becomes quantum quantity and everything can move for one quantum of time only with velocity c or velocity 0. Axxeleration also becomes quantum quantity and for one quantum of time it can be c or 0.


So do you say that photons do not go with velocity c in all reference frames?


I say that the absorption events are not happening at the same time. Observations for them - may be.

When photons move with c in all reference frames, they moves with c and in what I had defined as absolute space. Just because they move with c events can not hapen at the same time. If for example photons moves with c-v against v and with c+v in the direction of v, it would be fullfiled what you claim - that both events are simultaneous in the moving frame of reference. How you will explain that photons are absorbed at the same times but still are moving with c.

If I had make some mistake up to now I will apologize to you all, but first you must show me where I am wrong.

Before to make an experiment we should postulate limitations and goals of this experiment.I totally agree. This was in fact done in the case of the MM experiment, among countless others.




Can you please put some diagrams for it. Why
t = (2L/c)[1-(v/c)2cos2θ] ?I would show diagrams, except that, from some of the quotes that follow, I think you have a good idea of of basic diagram for the apparatus. This is basically the generalization to an arbitrary angle from the plane of motion, as you have requested (in your previous post). There is actually a slight difference, though. In the most popular version of these formulae, the perpendicular beam is actually <i>not perpendicular</i>. My formulae assume that the beams <i>are perpendicular</i>. This makes the equations slightly different, but, I am not going to waist any more time discussing the MM experiment until we get something else straight (see some of the following responses).




There is something that I dont understand for MM and related experiments. The source of light S that enters the beamsplitter, is this continual source of light or it is impulse source (like laser)?I don't know all of the hairy detials about the MM exp. (and frankly, I don't really care all that much), but I'm almost positive that the source was continuous <i>and</i> like a laser. I don't understand why you think a laser is not continuous. What is an "impulse source?"




Because if it is continual it is very bad. They had blurred the time-shifts.Can you explain this further? If you mean what I think you mean, then you are correct to say that the time shifts were blurred in the sense that they could only resolve their measurements to some fraction of a light fringe. However, this "blur" was far less than the amount of discrepancy that they found with the prediction of the ether theory. The first time Michelson ran the experiment on his own, he concluded that his resolution was in fact "too blurry" to make any conclusion. But, when he reran the experiment with Morley, they made drastic improvements to the apparatus and to their technique, which eliminated this ambiguity. Later, up until the 1930's this was somewhat of a popular experiment to improve upon and then run, with a trend of increasing confidence in the results.




Also it is very bad if the source is isotropic (i.e irradiates light in all directions).Again, I'm not sure about this detail, but I'm pretty sure the light source was collimated and highly directive. Otherwise, it would not make any since at all. Regardless of how they have done it, when I ran the experiment, I used a HeNe source (which emits a coherent laser). In principle, I'm almost positive that the source should be this type.




... I found an article about the Miller experiment that show that MM experiment have at least two serious flaws ...I'll have to read this after I'm done posting.

<i>EDIT:
Right off the bat, I did not recognize the journal: APEIRON. Also, most of the citations were from journals that I did not recognize. Furthermore, call me a bigot if you like, but APEIRON seems to have a somewhat questionable review board, with most members being from the Balkans or Mexico. I didn't see one member from the US, Germany, England, or Japan, for instance, though I did notice one from Russia.

In light of these things, I did not read the article in detail. But it did bring to light a certain issue that I should investigate further, I suppose: I did not see reference to the small-time-scale rotation of the apparatus in the MM exp. The article seems to focus on systematic errors induced by large-time-scale averaging, which I don't think should even be an issue in the MM exp. Like I said, I'll have to look into this, perhaps, when I have spare time.</i>




The idea for absolute space is not with contradiction to relativity.Say WA--! Are you talking about Galilean relativity then? When I say relativity, I mean "Einsteinian" or "modern" relativity.




I will demonstrate you how the null-result of MM can be explained.
...
... because lenght is contracted in the direction of movement d1 becomes:
...
... it turns out that d1 and d2 are equal.This is exactly the Lorentz contraction to which I alluded. I absolutely do not wish to discuss this. It demonstrates that you should probably re-study you late 19th centuray science history and also (modern) relativity from the basics (i.e. the fundamental postulates and the motivation from the inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws).




... both photons are with opposite directions and relativity is same for them.What do you mean? Can you please try to rephrase this?




I think that relativity effects are frequently perceived incorectly, and this principle for simultaneity (or whatever it is called) is not interpreted correctly.Maybe you should consider this complaint reflexively.




... I just can not believe that such absurd thing had been widely accepted and that it is based on so poorly realized ezperiment as MM.Of what absurd thing do you speak. Keep in mind that scientists did not simply stop performing experiments over 100 years ago.




I think that the general conclusions in SR can be received without the principle for simultaneity.I think that we probably have different ideas about what is the "principle of simultaneity." Would you care to elaborate?




If space and time are discretized the speed becomes quantum quantity ...Well, OK, I can't argue with this. I don't know anything about quantizing space and time, though I am suspicious that this is not legitimate. At any rate, there seem to be other more pressing issues than this. But, if you would like to explain the mechanism for this discretization, I'm all ears.




When photons move with c in all reference frames, they moves with c and in what I had defined as absolute space. Just because they move with c events can not hapen at the same time. If for example photons moves with c-v against v and with c+v in the direction of v, it would be fullfiled what you claim - that both events are simultaneous in the moving frame of reference. How you will explain that photons are absorbed at the same times but still are moving with c.Wow, I didn't understand any of that. Please rephrase.




... you must show me where I am wrong.All right, now I'm going to have to assume that you do not mean exactly what you say with this. But, just out of curiousity, how much do you think that you are paying us? If it's more than nothing, I would sure like to know when I'm going to get my cut.

If I had make some mistake up to now I will apologize to you all, but first you must show me where I am wrong.

After the proof by induction, the proof by first principles, now: the proof by not being proven wrong. Reminds me of "the proof by general consensus" in other threads.

... now: the proof by not being proven wrong.Oh, come on. Don't you know this is the way science is done these days by the young, green wannabes, and therefore we should all learn to adapt, lest we become old, not-green, and obsolete. It's not like this is the first thread on a physics forum that has engaged this procedure.

Well, first I would like to make some remarks. It appears that modern theory for relativity deals with not what really is happening but with what is observed. And that is two quite different things.

Whatever. Can someone tells me what in modern theory for relativity rejects the existing of absolute space? Why absolute space is imposible to exist according to you.

I will try to explain why there should exist absolute space.

Lets for example have three frames - K1,K2 and K3, moving with velocities v12,v23 and v13 WRT each other. Since velocities are different (because that is the only thing that makes the frames distinguishable) it can be found such a frame in which the total velocity to all other frames is smallest , if for example v12 >v13 , and v23 >v13, then (v12+v13) < (v12+v23) and (v12+v13) < (v23 + v13) , so K1 is with the smallest total velocity. You can easy see that for all other combinations there is frame with minimal total velocity.

Lets have four frames - K1,K2,K3,K4 . We apply the following procedure. We first take 3 from them, for example K1,K2,K3 and remove the one with the biggest total velocity, for example K3. Now we remain again with 3 frames - K1,K2 and K4, and again a frame with the smallest total velocity can be found. Then finally a frame that moves with a smallest total velocity to ALL frames will be picked and this is an imediate prove that absolute space should exist.

errandir,

thank for your profound reply but I am not going to discuss trivial things with you about what is Gallilean and Einstein relativity and so on, this can be read in books. I think however that this Einstein relativity is quite old-fashioned and I dont understand why you call it "modern". I can not pretend that I had studied very well GR and that I know all the terminology in it (I found it for rather boring) but my own conception for relativity tells me that both photons can not be absorbed at the same time. I didn't found similar experiments in the net so I think that the topic is interesting. If you like to consider this device seriously then lets continue. If you think that I am, not educated enough (this is probably true) then we can finish this discussion. You had shown that you are quite reasonable and well informed person so your respectfull presence will be evaluated in the future. My discussion with you was very enlighting. Thank you. (also if you dont have spare time my least intension is to "get you cutted', so better keep working and dont lose time and money with uneducated persons like me).

Well, first I would like to make some remarks. It appears that modern theory for relativity deals with not what really is happening but with what is observed. And that is two quite different things.

Incorrect. In science, the empirical fact i.e. what you observe in experiments, is considered to be "reality". Special relativity as a theory predicts what someone would observe, i.e. how he would experience reality. It requires some bending of the mind to get this idea.

Lets have four frames - K1,K2,K3,K4 . We apply the following procedure. We first take 3 from them, for example K1,K2,K3 and remove the one with the biggest total velocity, for example K3. Now we remain again with 3 frames - K1,K2 and K4, and again a frame with the smallest total velocity can be found. Then finally a frame that moves with a smallest total velocity to ALL frames will be picked and this is an imediate prove that absolute space should exist.

Of all the "absolute space" and "aether must exist" threads on this forum -- and believe me, as the oldest posting member I have seen many ;) -- I must admit that this is the best argument I have seen so far, great work!

However, aren't you using the classical addition of velocities here, assuming that what is the slowest frame for one is also the slowest for another ? Two observers would agree on their mutually respective velocities (if I move with velocity +v with respect to you, you move with velocity -v with respect to me), but is this true when you include a third observer ? I am pretty sure it is not, because the relativistic velocity addition formula also includes the velocity of this third observer.

I have to think on it if this argument is applicable, but I think the problem lies there.

Bye!

Crisp

Lets for example have three frames - K1,K2 and K3, moving with velocities v12,v23 and v13 WRT each other.So far so good.




... it can be found such a frame in which the total velocity to all other frames is smallest ...Can you define "total velocity," please?




... if for example v12 >v13 , and v23 >v13, then (v12+v13) < (v12+v23) and (v12+v13) < (v23 + v13) ...I don't see how you got the last inequality. The third inequality follows trivially from the second, I agree. But the last inequality has no logical connection to any of the previous three that I can see.




We first take 3 from them, for example K1,K2,K3 and remove the one with the biggest total velocity, ...Again, we're going to need a definition for "total velocity" and a qualification for it to be the biggest.




... I am not going to discuss trivial things with you about what is Gallilean and Einstein relativity and so on, ...Well, they are trivial to some people. However, I sincerely (and without derision) believe that you may be confused about that distinction. Einstein's relativity (1905) strictly and explicitly forbids the existence of absolute space. If you think that these theories are trivial, then how can you have overlooked this basic premise.




I think however that this Einstein relativity is quite old-fashioned and I dont understand why you call it "modern".I call it modern because I have never heard of an experimental disproof performed between 1905 and 2004 (that I have found to be valid).




I can not pretend that I had studied very well GR ...I don't think we need to make this an issue. No problem.




I didn't found similar experiments in the net so I think that the topic is interesting. If you like to consider this device seriously then lets continue.Ultimately, this is the main point. I would sincerely like to hear about the experiment when you have run it. But, until you do, I would also like to know that you realize the firm ground on which SR stands within its admitted limitations.

I am sorry guys and maybe my pc is playing up but I have not posted to this thread prior to this, AN EARLIER post quotes me as the author and I can not make claim to that.

"Originally Posted by Quantum Quack

Michelson and Morley discovered that velocity of light is equal in all directions. But I dont think that it means that absolute space do not exist, just the opposite. The ether they were ....." etc etc

Then finally a frame that moves with a smallest total velocity to ALL frames will be picked and this is an imediate prove that absolute space should exist.

Darn, I missed an obvious one here.

The "total" velocity of yourself with respect to yourself is always zero, hence the smallest it can get. Conclusion: the absolute frame of reference you talk about is always your own. And this is true for every frame of reference.

Contradiction.

Bye!

Crisp

Can you define "total velocity," please?

total velocity of a frame = Sum(|vi|)/N , for i = 0 to N, where N is the number of the frames, |vi| - the absolute value of the magnitude of the velocity between both frames. The direction of the velocity do not matter.

The total velocity remains finite even if N is infinity because |vi| can vary from 0 to c.

I don't see how you got the last inequality. The third inequality follows trivially from the second, I agree. But the last inequality has no logical connection to any of the previous three that I can see.

Take a sheet of paper and a pencil. Draw three points - A,B and C , such that they do not lie on a line, and distances AB,BC and AC are different. Now connect them. The triangle ABC express what I explained before. AB correspond to v12, AC to v13 and BC to v23. The A, B and C corresponds to the 3 frames. The total velocity of A is (|v12| + |v13|) and corresponds to the AB+AC, of B - AB + BC, and of C - AC + BC. Now it is clear that if AB diff BC diff AC then the 3 frames can be "sorted", the absoluteness of a frame is measured with the value of the total velocity, the frame with minimal total velocity is most absolute.

If we have more then 3 frames? Now we have polyhedral and the total velocity for every point is the sum of all distances in which this point participate. Accualy not always only one point will have minimal total velocity, so if two points have equal total velocity they are equal absolute.

Accualy if new frames are added we will get closer to the absolute space. The reverse of the absolute space is the most relative space - the frame with the biggest total velocity. Photons accualy are examples for this space. They are moving WRT everything with velocity of c, so if we add one photon to our group of frames it will be the winner for the most relative frame. A black hole accualy is the body which is closest to the absolute space.

As you can see the idea is very simple.

Darn, I missed an obvious one here.

The "total" velocity of yourself with respect to yourself is always zero, hence the smallest it can get. Conclusion: the absolute frame of reference you talk about is always your own. And this is true for every frame of reference.



If you have only one frame it is the most absolute, yes. :confused:

If you have two frames they are equally absolute. You need at least three frames to determine different levels of absoluteness and relativity.

Accually if the concept of absolute space and measures of absoluteness for the frames are used, many problems in SR and GR will be solved very easy (I mean twin-paradox and etc.).

If you have two frames they are equally absolute. You need at least three frames to determine different levels of absoluteness and relativity.

Equally absolute ? I thought the whole point of absolute frames was to have one basic frame of reference, what's the point of having equally absolute frames. If you have two absolute frames, then they are relatively equal aswell, no ? :bugeye:

|vi| - the absolute value of the magnitude of the velocity between both frames.What is the "velocity between both frames?" Do you mean the velocity of one frame WRT another/the other frame? That's what it looks like you mean, so I'll continue responding under this assumption.




Take a sheet of paper and a pencil. Draw three points - A,B and C , such that they do not lie on a line, and distances AB,BC and AC are different. Now connect them. The triangle ABC express what I explained before.Done. However, one example of a drawn triangle does not prove an algebraic relationship. You need to draw all generally representative examples, of which I can think of two.




AB correspond to v12, AC to v13 and BC to v23.If this is so, then you have allowed me to draw a triangle that does not agree with your inequalities. You need to specify the triangle more strictly. Just to let you know, my triangle has AB = 5.0", AC = 3.5", and BC = 4.4". And another thing: the specification that you have given for the triangle seems to allow for infinite velocity, unless you are somehow identifying c with infinity.




total velocity of a frame = Sum(|vi|)/N , for i = 0 to N, where N is the number of the frames, ...The total velocity of A is (|v12| + |v13|) ...These seem to be contradictory. Surely you meant to divide by 2?




Accualy if new frames are added we will get closer to the absolute space."Closer?" How far away can we be?




The reverse of the absolute space is the most relative space - the frame with the biggest total velocity. Photons accualy are examples for this space. They are moving WRT everything with velocity of c, ...Do you mean this to be the complement? I don't follow what you mean by reverse.




A black hole accualy is the body which is closest to the absolute space.How close is it?




As you can see the idea is very simple.And I can't make sense of it! I must be an idiot.




If you have only one frame it is the most absolute, yes.And it exists in a trivial space that only has one point. There are approximately an infinite number of frames in any real space that comes to mind.




... many problems in SR and GR will be solved very easy (I mean twin-paradox and etc.).The twin paradox is already solved "very easy." Let's hear about the "etc.," shall we. Oh, and let's not get into GR; I don't see the need in this discussion.

What is the "velocity between both frames?" Do you mean the velocity of one frame WRT another/the other frame? That's what it looks like you mean, so I'll continue responding under this assumption.

Yes, what else it can be.

Done. However, one example of a drawn triangle does not prove an algebraic relationship. You need to draw all generally representative examples, of which I can think of two.

If this is so, then you have allowed me to draw a triangle that does not agree with your inequalities. You need to specify the triangle more strictly. Just to let you know, my triangle has AB = 5.0", AC = 3.5", and BC = 4.4". And another thing: the specification that you have given for the triangle seems to allow for infinite velocity, unless you are somehow identifying c with infinity.

Every frame correspond to a point and every velocity to a line with finite lenght (because velocity is always smaller then c) . I can not think about more simplest illustration. To every 3 frames with velocities v1,v2 and v3 I can always map a triangle. I am not interested from velocities directions only from theirs magnitude so the orientation of the triangle sides have nothing to do with velocities directions. Is there some problem with it? Why you think that velocities can be infinite? The triangle can not have infinite side.


These seem to be contradictory. Surely you meant to divide by 2?.
Yes Sorry.

"Closer?" How far away can we be?

By closer I mean "moving with smaller velocity WRT ..."


Do you mean this to be the complement? I don't follow what you mean by reverse.

I thought that it is clear. The winner for the frame with smaller total velocity is the most absolute frame. The winner for the frame with biggest total velocity is the most relative frame.


The twin paradox is already solved "very easy." Let's hear about the "etc.," shall we. Oh, and let's not get into GR; I don't see the need in this discussion.

You are more familiar with GR then me. Find out by yourself. My point here is that there are instances when more then just one or two frame of reference are needed. If we have only 2 we can not specify which is more absolute. And we can not specify which one is the rest frame. We need a third frame to do this. It is like the trains-paradox. Two trains are standing at a station. At some moment one from the trains starts to move. But an observer in the other train will not be able to say (if he do not have some additional information) if his train if moving or not ? He need to have a view to the station - the absolute frame in this case (or he needs to call with his phone to a person that is standing at the station).

To every 3 frames with velocities v1,v2 and v3 I can always map a triangle. I am not interested from velocities directions only from theirs magnitude so the orientation of the triangle sides have nothing to do with velocities directions. Is there some problem with it?I agree that they map into a triangle. But there is still a problem with the last inequality that you presented in one of your earlier posts. I would just like to hear one of two things: 1) "whoops, that last inequality was a typo/mistake/etc." or 2) "here are the other assumptions that I am making that lead to this inequality..."




Why you think that velocities can be infinite? The triangle can not have infinite side.I don't think that they can be. I was just taking your triangle specifications as stated and identifying that as an unresolved specification. So, do you simply limit the length of the sides to some value, c?




You are more familiar with GR then me.How many ways do I need to indicate that I don't care about GR in this discussion? I don't understand why you feel the need to keep mentioning it.




My point here is that there are instances when more then just one or two frame of reference are needed. If we have only 2 we can not specify which is more absolute.But this isn't an issue. There are an infinite number of distinct frames of reference. And there is always only exactly one of these that is directly accessible to a given observer. SR doesn't deny this.




... an observer in the other train will not be able to say (if he do not have some additional information) if his train if moving or not ? He need to have a view to the station - the absolute frame in this case ... .It suspiciously appears as though you have absolutely no appreciation for SR (1905). The station is NOT an absolute frame in SR. Now, what it looks like you're trying to do is to artificially complicate SR to create a need to simplify it.

I agree that they map into a triangle. But there is still a problem with the last inequality that you presented in one of your earlier posts. I would just like to hear one of two things: 1) "whoops, that last inequality was a typo/mistake/etc." or 2) "here are the other assumptions that I am making that lead to this inequality..."

If you mean that earlier I writed (v12+v13) < (v12+v23) and (v12+v13) < (v23 + v13), I did mean accualy modules of the velocities. Sorry if that is so big problem for you.

I don't think that they can be. I was just taking your triangle specifications as stated and identifying that as an unresolved specification. So, do you simply limit the length of the sides to some value, c?

Absolutely. My triangle can not have infinity side because it will no more be triangle (maybe two parallel lines). But it can accually have a side 0. It is when two frames are in rest WRT each-other.

I will demonstrate you how in the case with both trains Earth happens to be the most absolute frame. Lets have 2 trains moving with velocity 40 km/h one agains other, and since they are moving on the Earth of cource, we have three frames of reference - two for the both trains and one for the Earth. Lets find out the total velocities. The total velocity of the first train is (|40| + |80|)/2 = 60. For the second train is the same. For the Earth is (|40|+|40|)/2 = 40. So in this case the Earth is the frame with smallest velocities and should be refered as the most absolute frame. The two trains are equally relative.

Same is and with twin paradox. Lets suppose for simplicity that the second twin was not sended into space but stays on Earth but is moving around it with velocity closer to c. How to determine which twin is resting and which is moving? Since the Earth is in rest WRT first twin, we take two points from it and assign them as different frames with zero velocity. Then they two will be winners for frames with minimum total velocity and should be refered as the most absolute frames then the frame of the second twin. You will probably ask why we dont take two points from the second twin and why not assign them frames? Then just the reversed result will be obtained. However the second twin is with neglectible size compare to Earth. Also it is stated that he moves between two points on the Earth. If we continue with this logic we may come to something similar to Ahiles and turtle paradox, and to the final conclusion that space and time should be discrete. From a pure continual point of view this paradox can not be solved because we have only two frames.