An unambiguous absolute zero velocity reference system.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by geistkiesel, Aug 21, 2009.

  1. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Absolute Rest Reference System
    Relativity theory denies the possibility of determining a state of absolute rest. However, SRT also invokes the postulate that light motion is independent of the motion of the source of the light. Keep this in mind during your reading of the following.
    There are two parallel planes separated by a distance h = 300m, containing absorber-light-emitters (ales) numbered 1 to 300,000 starting at the right hand side. The upper plane ales are designated ale-u1 ale-u2 etc and similarly for the lower plane ale_d1, ale-d2etc.

    |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|------ |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| ale-u#

    h = 30m
    |
    |ale #300,000 --------------------------------------------- ⃖ ⃗-------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 4 3 2 1 ale-d#
    |
    |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|------ |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|

    |_| <- dx = 1 micron. x-axis
    |___________________________________________ L = 300m___________________________________________|


    A pulse of light emitted from ale-u1 will normally be absorbed by ale-d1 after traveling for a time t = h/c. The ales in the two planes are connected to a computer processor that records the time and location a pulse is emitted and the time and location a pulse is absorbed. The ales emit an answering photon immediately after being absorbed.

    When the planes are moving to the right along the x-axis and a pulse is emitted from ale-u1 the pulse will not arrive at ale-d1 because of the motion of the planes[remember the postulate of the independence of the motion of light]. Say the 1st downward pulse is absorbed at ale-d10 which is ten ales from ale-d1. The pulse travels the distance h in h/c seconds and knowing each dx ~ micron, the speed of the ale-planes is calculated by the computer as (10)(dx)/t. For constant speed the ale-d10 emits a pulse and arrives at ale-u20 after traveling the distance h.

    The light pulse will always emit pulses at the same location wrt the platform containing the ale-planes; however, it appears as if the light pulses are being emitted to an ever increasing distance left. Just as the last pulse, either in the upper or lower plane reaches the extreme left of the planes, the computer software restarts the next set of pulses back at ale-u1 and the process starts over. For L = 300m the number of ales on one plane is 300m/10^-6m = 300*10^6 = 300,000 ales along both upper and lower ale planes.

    With three orthogonal axes of ale planes all (x,y,z,t) of the ale-plane platform may be calculated. The original point where motion began may always be determined and a return route may be calculated in the absence of any markers locating the original point. The important thing here is that the trajectory line is always at absolute rest wrt to the ale from which it was emitted as verified by the independence of light motion postulate.

    An example of a calculation follows. For h = 30m and dx = 1 micron (10^-6m), then during a measured t = 30m/3*10^8m/sec = 10^-7 sec, the platform moves a distance of 100 consecutive ale-d locations, or 100*10^-6m/10^-7 sec, for a measured speed of 1000m/sec, or 1 km/sec.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    This is the same old strawman you keep posting: STR doesn't say that the motion of light is invariant. You'd have to be completely nuts to advocate such a theory because of the obvious inconsistencies it leads to, and unsurprisingly no-one does. STR only maintains that the speed (as in the norm of the velocity vector) of light is invariant. While it's easy to abuse vague English language descriptions of relativity, you won't be able to just wish away the mathematics of it. STR specifically predicts that the relation between the longitudinal and transverse velocity components in different frames is given by relations like (the exact signs depend on conventions):
    \( \begin{align} u^{\prime}_{z} \,&=\, \frac{u_{z} \,+\, v}{1 \,+\, \frac{u_{z} v}{c^{2}}} \\ \\ \\ \\ u^{\prime}_{\text{t}} \,&=\, \frac{\gamma(u_{z})}{\gamma(u^{\prime}_{z})}\, u_{\text{t}} \end{align} \)​
    The first of these is the usual Lorentz velocity addition formula, while the second is just time dilation slowing the transverse velocity component. If the light was moving vertically from "ale-u1" to "ale-d1" in the "rest" frame then \(u_{z} \,=\, 0\) and clearly \(u^{\prime}_{z} \,=\, v\). The light always has the same longitudinal velocity as the planes of "ales" in all frames, and the light emitted from each "up" "ale" will always arrive at the corresponding "down" "ale".

    Clearly, relativity cannot claim that the motion of light is invariant and its own velocity addition formula explicitly predicts otherwise. The second postulate only requires that if \(u_{z}^{\text{ }2} \,+\, u_{\text{t}}^{\text{ }2} \,=\, c^{2}\) then \(u^{\prime}_{z}^{2} \,+\, u^{\prime}_{\text{t}}^{2} \,=\, c^{2}\).

    I'm pretty sure you've already had this explained to you several times now by various posters on this forum.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Does this mean that the mathematically inept cannot contribute to physics?



    I see what you are getting at geistkiesel. The problem with such a reference frame is that it does not necessarily describe the entire universe. The universe expanded faster than the speed of light and is expanding faster and faster still. This means that there are some exceptions to all of these rules [something moving faster than light], if you only put them in the proper framework.

    If you ask me, the speed of light is a proper absolute reference frame if it is really the same across the entire universe (??). However, once you accept the universe to be expanding faster than the speed of light, the idea that light travels at the same velocity in every reference frame becomes absurd. :shrug:




    Seriously, how does this even work out? The universe expanding faster than light? Its something about space-time stretching out, which contributes to the red-shift of cosmic background radiation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Faraday is the one and only exception I can think of, and he compensated for his mathematical ineptitude with mastery in the fields of chemistry and experimental science. Had Faraday been an expert mathematician as well, many people think he could have deduced Maxwell's equations many years before Maxwell did it, as he did have a suspicion about light and electromagnetism, and he did find some experimental connections. That was in the early days of the industrial revolution when most of the big inventions and discoveries were still to come.

    Nowadays if you want to contribute to modern theoretical physics without learning the math, you gotta build a high energy accelerator in your garage somehow and discover something no one else has ever found. Math has been shown to accurately describe what the universe does, and the predictions which follow from the equations have led to uncountably many discoveries in the real world. It's not just some convenient tool to speed the process up or bamboozle outsiders.

    There already exists a very good framework which is capable of handling the universe's expansion at faster than light speeds. It's called General Relativity. Nothing in GR says the speed of light is constant as seen from a distance. If you shine a flashlight at a black hole, and had set up some means of tracking the beam, from the outside perspective you'd see that the beam asymptotically slows down to a halt as it approaches the event horizon, where time comes to a complete halt. Yet GR also says that if you were flying into the black hole alongside that beam, in your local reference frame it still travels at the good old 186000 miles/second. Relativity only says that the speed of light in vacuum will be locally (i.e. up close) measured at the constant speed we refer to as \(c\). Space itself is allowed to stretch at "faster than light" speeds as long as light travelling through that space is locally measured to be travelling at \(c\). In the case of a flat space, light in vacuum will be seen to be travelling at the same speed regardless of who measures it where and when. But of course a flat space in GR is basically what Special Relativity is- that's why the "Special" is in the title, it's a special case of a more general theory.

    I think this statement, in light of what I wrote above, proves the importance of learning the theory, including the math, before jumping to conclusions about what does and doesn't work within said theory.

    General Relativity allows for all kinds of cosmological scenarios. It's not the be all and end all of physics and wasn't intended to be. General Relativity is a mathematical framework, kind of like a Windows operating system. Then you take various physical laws like Maxwell's electromagnetic laws, plug them into the theory like software, and General Relativity tells you how these laws look and act in a curved spacetime. GR doesn't forbid the presence of a substance like "dark energy" causing the universal expansion to accelerate, it's what Einstein had in mind when he originally proposed his cosmological constant (though he might have just pencilled it in as a mathematical fudge rather than a "negative mass"). Quantum gravity, as I understand it, in fact predicts such an effect should be happening in our universe, and that the effect will grow stronger as the vacuum becomes more dominant until it rips everything apart atom by atom. The problem cosmologists have at the moment is that the predicted quantum effect is WAY, WAY too high.
     
  8. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    I greatly admire Faraday

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So you are saying that the world lost out because Faraday didn't know math. Why then does it not make sense to make physics more accessible to the mathematically inept? This way Faraday along with countless other gifted individuals would have a greater impact on the world.

    The math is always based on experiments and observations; which are based on hypotheses. You do not need math to make hypotheses.

    GR says nothing about dark energy. I have a very solid theory on a particular force that would affect cosmological expansion.

    I think I might try to publish my theory in multiple pieces. The first is going to seem insignificant, maybe in some peripheral journal. Each addition to the theory will expand on the original concept and get stronger and stronger and will of course reference the previous article. Perhaps this way no one will be able to take credit for what was my idea.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    DE is some force that accounts for accelerating expansion. Isn't it something like anti-gravity; meaning that it repels rather than pulls matter?

    You can model this as a free floating charge against a stationary charge of the same sign. The free floating charge will have limited potential energy but will accelerate endlessly away from the stationary charge since they are of opposite signs.

    Without cosmic friction this would mean that the universe should keep expanding forever, until all of the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. However, a field never reaches zero so the acceleration will eventually slow down until it is negligible. The universe will keep expanding however because there is no force opposing velocity. I bet at this point there will be very little concentrated heat anywhere.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2009
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    My PhD thesis says otherwise.

    Actually when you construct the Einstein Field Equations in a completely general way you find that you're able to add to G, the Einstein tensor, a constant of integration \(\Lambda g_{ab}\), since if G satisfies \(G_{ab;b}=0\) then so does \(G_{ab}+\Lambda g_{ab}\) due to the covariant constant nature of the metric. The \(\Lambda\) is the cosmological constant, the dark energy, and Einstein predicted its existence when he first formulated GR but astronomers told him the universe was static and flat so that he should use \(\Lambda = 0\). Now we know it isn't.

    So you're incorrect in claiming GR says nothing about dark energy, GR actually says that the existence of a cosmological constant is highly probably, since \(\Lambda=0\) is quite a specific thing.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    It is really unnecessary to brag all the time. Obnoxious arrogance.
    So you made one good point, that doesn't mean that your continual arrogance should be tolerated and go unmentioned.
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I've made other 'good points', it's just they were in telling you or your chum CSS that you're incorrect about something, but I guess you don't count those. And my point was that there's plenty of people who do physics without doing experiments and a lot of theoretical physics is theoretical.

    Now please take that chip on your shoulder elsewhere. And take your hypocrisy (for whining about how I crash threads with nothing valid to say) with you.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    This is dishonest and exactly what I was taking about here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2349737&postcount=25
     
  13. kurros Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    Nobody can make physics more accessible to the mathematically inept. Physics describes nature, and since nature seems to work mathematically, that means you have to learn some math if you want to understand it. If you have a problem with that you'll have to take it up with God.
     
  14. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello geistkiesel, et al.

    Don't forget the "headlight effect" for a moving light source in your thought experiments. The speed of light is independent for a source but not the direction of emission.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Right; however, popular science books are making science more accessible to people without scientific background. Perhaps if some effort was made the more complex aspects of physics could be all explained logically. This would make physics accessible to good thinkers, who could lend the hardcore physicists ideas and inspiration.

    I'm saying we have to develop a system in which cooperation between scientists and laymen is reinforced and formalized.
     
  16. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828

    Yes.
     
  17. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    no way!
     

Share This Page