Absolute Velocity of Inertial Frames Using Time Signatures in Message Exchanges

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by geistkiesel, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Absolute Velocity of Inertial Frames Using Time Signatures

    ArrangementA and B moving toward each other with a relative velocity V(a) – V(b)= Vab. The clocks on A and B were synchronized wrt, C the common point of origin of A and B which were launched in opposite directions from the earth surface with known equal absolute velocities wrt C. The programmed trajectories were originally equal circles and where now A and B are headed toward each other in the configuration indicated below.

    The Experiment

    A emits signal at T0 = 10 with included time signature, “emitted at T0 = 10”.
    A |-->----------------------------------------------------| B.
    d1
    A |-------------------------------------------->| B Rec’d A message at T1 = 11 B replies at T1 = 11 with included message: “B reply at 11;d1 = c(T1 - T0) = c(11-10)”

    d2
    |<---------------------------------------| A Rec’d the B reply at T2 = 11.5 and calculates, d2 = c(T2 – T1) = c(11.5 – 11) = .5c.

    | VT |<-- A has moved a distance VT since first emitting the time/signed signal at T0 = 10.

    Now, d1 – d2 = .5c = VT where T = the time of travel for A from the original emission time from A at T0 = 10 to current time T2 = 11.5. Hence, V(T2 – T0) = V(1.5) = .5(c) and ergo,

    V = .5c/1.5 = 1/3c,
    the absolute velocity of A wrt zero. QED.

    This is the absolute velocity of the A inertial frame measured from an actual initial velocity equal to zero.

    Explanation (if needed)
    When B receives the A signal that included the message, “sent at 10”, B knows the distance between B’s postion at T1 wrt the A location when the A message was sent at T0; B thinks, “The light left A at 10 and received by me at 11, hence the time of flight for the pulse is T1 – T0 = 1 and the distance the light traveled was c(T1 – T0)”.

    A does the same calculation when receiving the B reply. A could have calculated d1 from the information in the reply from A knowing what time his original message was emitted and the time the message was received by B.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I'm adding red notes to indicate where clarifications need to be made.
    It seems to me that you are assuming what you set out to prove.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Let us assume the A and B frames were launched at the same time after having been synchronized. Each frame velocity |Va| = |Vb| throuout the periment. Therefore the clocks in A and B frames are synchronized. Time '10' on B is the same as time '10' on A.

    I let slip the claim of time dilation and assumed originally that the clocks would remain in synch. However, let us confine the focus here to speeds << c. Therefore, we may concentrate on whether absolute motion may be determined from two frames moving inertially wrt each other. Is this fair? If not why not, please. And finally, we may restrict the experiment to frames with equal absolutre velocities, ergo no dilation dffrerences, yet this experiment isn't as general as it should be.

    If when beginning their travels and each framev was moving at a different velocity wrt C on earth and presumably Ve = 0, then C could send corrections to each frame clock in order to maintain a standard click time for all frames regardless of local dilations; once the standard was incorprated neither A nor B changed speeds. This must satisfy time dilation differences, OK? Maybe not so neat, but it makes the point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    In the rest frame of the launch point. Not in the inertial rest frames of A or B as they exchange signals.
    Again, in the rest frame of the launch point. Not in the inertial rest frames of A or B as they exchange signals.
    And the same again.

    It assumes that the launch point is at absolute rest. If you do this experiment when the launch point has some initial motion, A and B will measure their speed relative to the launch point, not their absolute speed.
     
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Are you saying the clic rate of the clocks on A and B frames are ticking at different rates even though their absolute velocity |Va| and |Vb| wrt C. Under what concept would the tick rates of A and B clocks actuall be different assuming both were launched with identical velocities wrt C. Certainly if lauinched in the same direction at the same time with the same speeds their clocks would react identically wret each other. If the only difference in tghe A and B motion is that btheir initial directions were opposite to each other. When A first sends a signal both A and B have been in motion the same amunt of time with the same absolute velocity wrt C.

    Are the clocks on A and B tickng at tghe same rate?

    Or, may C determine cloick rate differences of A and B wrt C and message correction rates so that A and B are in fact actually ticking at the same rate wrt C, which would mean the clocks are ticking at the same rate wrt each other.
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Yes. The tick rate is frame dependent. This is very basic special relativity.
    Yes and no. It depends on the how you consider it.
    wrt C, the tick rates of clocks on A and B are both slow.
    wrt A, A's tick rate is normal and B's rate is slow.
    wrt B, B's tick rate is normal and A's rate is slow.
     
  10. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    OK, but this doesn't mean that the absolute velocities of A and B are different.
    The frame observers are not measuring speeds.

    They are measuring the time of flight of the messages. Remember, A sends the message "emitted at T = 10" while moving. B answers with his time signature attached to his reply, and also while moving.

    The only parameter subject to question is whether or not the clocks are ticking at the same rate. If so, and this must be the case; methinks you may have missed a point that is central to the thread. Each observer is calculating their speed with respect to the dimensionless points in space from which the various messages are sent.

    The first A message was sent with A in motion, which is the same as the B reply. These points of message emission are fixed points in space from which both A and B observers take note.

    The time used in determining the absolute velocities wrt absolute-at-rest-static-points is determined from time-of-flight of the light signals which determine the two distances d1 and d2 and from which A calculates his absolute speed - the speeds of A and B are not measured- the speed of light is the measuring rod here and of course as a reminder, the postulate of 'the independence of light motion from the motion of the light source' - see De Sitter et al, mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 7 of AE's "Relativity".

    Even in the case where |Va| is not equal to |Vb|, as long as the clocks are
    in synch the method works. The C observer is able to measure the tick rate broadcast by each frame and she may then relay correction factors to both frames to bring both clocks to the same tick rate -- the system is infallible, unless, of course, the system is expressed to an SRT theorist.

    Pete,
    I appreciate your professional responses, a matter I am focused on which to me is getting easier to accomplish when I recognized the fact that differences of strongly held opinions do not gain strength from the use of 'elevated volumes of rhetoric' - such strengths are dissipated and are certainly not convincing to an opponent one is attempt to 'educate' nor to those with interest who are viewing the discussion from the sidelines.
     
  11. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Amen, I am not arguing SRT theory; I am simply arguing [and the argument is simple] the detection of absolute speed of inertial frames moving relative to each other.

    So C can broadcast correction factors to A and B.

    This is classic SRT and I wont object to dogma, but here neither
    A or B compare tick rates. After C broadcasts correction factors (to correct C's observed tick rate 'errors' of the A and B clocks) the experimental results are as claimed.
     
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    OK.
    The experimental results calculated by A and B from the measured time of flight of the messages will be their speed relative to the launch point C.

    Consider how this experiment will pan out if the launch point has some unknown velocity.
     
  13. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Pete, It cannot be as you say. Asent her message at some arbitrary instant and was received by B a tick later. Then B replied immediately. Neither A or B have any real useful knoiwledge of launch point velocity or whatever. The instant the messages were emitted the both observers can presume that emitting frame was at a dead stop, at least at the moment of emission. The two distances, d1 and d2 were calculated wrt the two emission points and each emission point may be considered a point of absolute velocity zero for the reason that the light motion is independent of the motion of the sources, here the frames.

    The only significant function C plays is maintaining synch of the frame clocks.

    Frame C can be relocated for experimental convenience here by placing it in outer space where a least velocity --> 0, wrt to say 100 distant and effectively zero velocity stars, so any drift motion would introduce an experimental error, but at fairly high speeds of A and B this error is minimizeable.
     
  14. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
     
  15. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    What is your point here re significance? I am ceding for this discussion some time dilation process for the moving A and B frames, though wrt C both frame clocks tick identically. As long as the clocks are synched talhe times of emission/arrival will be consistent with the results. The distances the pulses travel determines the time A was in motion wrt the experimental parameters, where the experiment begins with A emitting the first message. A and B need only some automatically operated device that records incoming messages and reads the time signatures and emission times. Humans aren't necessary, here.

    I retract the statement. C must locate itself as near zero v as possible in order to best keep the A and B clocks in best synch possible - here I concede the mathematical algorithms used in calculating SRT time dilations are mathematically correct.

    Does it do injury to the post to extend the emission/rec-d times used thus slowing the speeds of A and B? and removing the calculations from measurabe SRT biases?

    WRT to measuring a zero velocity reference frame ala GSP. Get the farthest observable stars where motion is measured as zero, within experimental error.
     
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    So, you are assuming that C has a particular absolute velocity in order to prove that A and B can calculate their absolute velocity?

    Perhaps. You'll need to specify the details. But, I can tell you that whatever the experimental setup is, both Newton and Einstein tell us that the best that A and B can do is to determine their speed relative to each other or to some other reference (such as C, or some distant stars). If A, B, and C are inside a giant container that is coasting when the experiment starts, then the result of the experiment will not depend on what accelerations the container has undergone prior to the start of the experiment. You could repeat the experiment several times, accelerating arbitrarily between each repetition, and get the same results every time.

    You mean GPS? The WGS-84 reference frame in which the Earth's surface has zero velocity?
    Well, the distant stars are not stationary in that frame (they circle the Earth every 23 hours 56 minutes). But if A and B carry GPS receivers, they can use them as clocks synchronized in the WGS-84, and they can calculate their speed in that reference frame by exchanging signals.
    But where will you find an absolute reference frame? You're not asserting that the Earth is absolutely at rest, are you?
    Motion relative to what? You seem to be assuming that the distant stars have some specific absolute velocity?
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Geist, during your little holiday from the forums did you bother to read any special relativity literature to see if your grasp of it is correct (even if you disagree with it) because it would seem doing such a thing would answer most of your issues. Yes, there's bound to be little gaps which would need to be filled in, which the forums would be useful for but it would seem that time and again you have to have the founding concepts of relativity explained to you, which could be done much faster and more completely by simply reading a book. It takes more of your time to come here, whine about relativity, get suspended, wait, come back and repeat than you'd spend just reading and thinking a little. Is that really the most constructive way of doing relativity you can come up with?
     
  18. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Not at all. Both frames can calculate their speeds from frame acceleration data and thereforte are able to calculate SRT dilation rates of their own frzames and are thus capable of synchronizing their clocks to some 'earth based standard".
    Interesting reply. AE and IN are certainly quotable sources, but this is not a scientific response. Gallileo was the first near modern as far as I can tell that described the "impossibility" oof detecting motion in a closed room - I think he was referring to a room on board a naval vessel. The arrangement which I described would be difficult enough w/o the added complexities of your closed container.

    No, the stars are measurably moving with zero velocity. Any frame motion measurable wrt GPS methods can be adjusted to cancel inertial motions but GPS is not so adapted and my interest in such a system is vanishingly small here, My design was to construct a system whereby two inertial frames may determine their intrinsic absolute velocity. Because the light motion is not subject to perturbations by frame motion, points in space and time the messages were emitted and rec'd may determine their intrinsic absolute velociy wrt those points.
    GPS is not adapted to space motion described here. You are avoiding the issue by bringing in the peripheral and irrelevant objections.
    Please see above.

    The thread is designed to demonstrate that inertial frames moving wrt each other may determine their absolute speeds wrt a zero moving point and that GPS could provide similar information,iant to the thread. This means that indeed two frames are able to construct a systematic methodology to determine their intrinsic absolute speeds.
    Pete, The points in space and time the signals were emitted and rec-d are points of zero velocity. The information restricted to these times are all that is need to make the simple calculations demonstrated in a previous post. I did not claim that Earth was a reference frame at absolute rest - such a claim is distracting to the thread anhd proves nothing about the legitimacy of calculating speeda as described.
    No the stars were brought into the discussion in order to minimkize earth velocity, where only sybchronized clocks are the only critical parameter needed to demonstrate the claim iof the thread. As stated above A and B observers are technologically capable of determining their speeds from carefully timed and measured acceleration data, from which time dilations can be computed which can then be adjusted to some agreed frame rate, such as measured at sea level on Terra Firma. I am obtusely suggesting that observers on inertial frames may indeed consider themselves as stationary and the landscape in motion. Such observers can also consider the landscape as stationary and that the frame is the unit "moving". Is not this a choice provided to all inertiallly moving observers?
     
  19. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Notice of probable misconduct by forum monitor!

    Fill in a gap por two AN, I am an adult and I can take it.

    I have two worn copies of AE's "relativity". I have been engrossed in studying Millers Michelson-Morley experiments all some 300,000 times that he and others repeated mkicheklson's German experiments.

    By the way, are you aware that MM experiment did not have a nulll result?

    Michelson's paper is described by Miller (The Ether-Drift Experiment and the determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth Review of Modern Physics Volume 5 july 1933 pp 203 -242.)saying that the velocity was less than expected [referring to Earth's orbital speed of 30km/sec] but did not exceed 1/4 of that expected speed. Well Michelson found a residual [absolute] speed of some 8.4 km/sec which is slightly greater than the numbers quoted. Maybe you can tell us all why so many persons claiming scieintific membership refer to the MM experimental results as "null"?

    Is the immediate above representative of "whining"?

    There is much more but your ignorance of my activity does not seem to deter you from manufacturing your own corrupt view of physical reality . I haven't been whining here, I have described the a system for inertial frames to determine their intrinsic absolute motions.

    I want a direct answer from you - from what source did you determine that I was suspended and for what was I suspended for? , proof., do you read?

    AN I have never, I mean never seen anything you ahve produced that is capable of analysis from a rtational perspective. Is your observed methodology that which we all see? I mean of course, your condescending manner issued through an insulting ego that seems large from your perspective, but I, and others in the forums, am able to discern your persona as being constituted only by undisguised and sheer unambiguouis scientific incompetence -- and this is your strong point.

    Reads some of pete's posts here you may learn something about professional mannerisms.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I would disagree with this as your threads tend to walk over already well trodden ground, particularly the areas of "Newton's Shell Theorem is wrong!" and "Let's yak about absolute frames".

    If you could take it you're grasp the proof to the Shell Theorem.

    I have not read said book but either it is not very mathematical in its discussions or it is and you have gained little from it. I say this because if you have trouble grasping the calculus required to understand the Shell Theorem then its impossible for you to know enough multivariable calculus to grasp the details of relativity.

    There's only so far you can go into physics if you don't know any maths and this is particularly true in the realm of theoretical physics. General relativity is predominantly researched in mathematics departments in universities, which illustrates that you'll need to know some maths to get the details.

    Firstly, giving an example of a single paper from so long ago could easily be cherry picking people who say something you want to hear and ignoring many other people who say something you don't. Can you provide a few more papers to the effect?

    Secondly, without knowing the details of the experiment and the raw data (ie seeing some of the published work for myself) its impossible to say "This justifies an absolute rest frame" because you have no idea what the experimental bounds are and what the statistical significance is. If the p value is only 0.7 and the experimental errors are \(\pm\)5km/s then the result you mention is worthless and could be noise. Without seeing the data I wouldn't put too much faith in it.

    Thirdly, you quote results from the 1930s. Given the enormous advances made in precision measurements, data handling, space based detectors and theoretical models the fact you're quoting the 1930s might be seen as evidence you can't find anything more modern because modern experiments have excluded and falsified the claimed results. Can you provide more recent publications which give detailed discussions of experimental and systematic errors and the raw data obtained?

    If you haven't asked yourself the questions I just put to you or considered the issues I just raised then yes, I'd say you jumped in head first because you found something someone said which backed up your preconceived notions and didn't bother to check just how valid or relevant they might be. I'm sure if I made such a claim, like "In 1993 Prof [someone] did the experiment and got a null result" you'd ask me to back that p, would you not?

    You were suspended for a short period of time for repeatedly posting your threads about Newton's Shell Theorem, that then expired and you appear to have not come back to the forum immediately. The Ban List had your name on it for a time in the fairly recent past. Am I wrong in this?

    I make no attempt to post original work I might have done on these forums. I ask people for help with a little problem or two I might come up again, such as finding experimental data for something or proving a particular algebraic identity but forums are not the place I would publish original work. Both because that isn't the standard method for publishing work you want to get published in journals and because there'd be little point.

    I do not need to post original work of my own on these forums to comment on other peoples, do I? I do not need to have come up with my own quantum gravity theory to comment on algebraic or logical mistakes you might make in your attempts to disprove the Shell Theorem.

    It's funny. People such as yourself, MacM and QQ have made claims which boil down to "The entirety of mainstream physics has been wrong for decades or centuries and I, someone who has never done any maths or physics beyond high school, have read found the glaring mistake with little or no effort!". When you are then corrected by such people as myself, Prometheus or BenTheMan you call us egotistical. Prom, myself and Ben all have published work, in reputable journals, but none of us think we've 'solved physics'. We just chip away at the little corner we're working in, happy to get a few citations here and there. Yet you, who claims to have bested all of physics, do not see how egotistical your claims are.

    I don't deny I can be condescending and egotistical, but let's get this straight. I am condescending and egotistical to people on these (and some other) forums who clearly know nothing of physics yet claim the grand things you, QQ and MacM (to name a few) do. I don't think I'm the best, very very far from it, I just think I know more about this than you and that would still be the case even if I didn't explicitly state it.

    Can you please link to a post of mine where I have postulated a new theory or claimed a new result, in the same way you've attempted to do here. If I possess "undisguised and sheer unambiguouis [sic] scientific incompetence" then you must have an example of it, where I try to put forth and develop an idea on these forums (such as how QWC tries to sell his 'quantum wave cosmology') and which has been completely invalidated by someone. You cannot because I have never tried to put forth any of my original research on these forums.

    How about we turn this around. You give me an example of a successful concept, idea, result, whatever, you've managed to put forth into the scientific community. You, QQ, MacM, CSS, QWC, all of you have failed to do anything other than whine on forums and yet you claim I'm full of 'undisguised and sheer unambiguouis [sic] scientific incompetence'? I suspect that particular chip is firmly on your shoulder.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Where did I say I was trying to be professional? And I think that's a little silly coming from someone who just said I've got 'undisguised and sheer unambiguouis [sic] scientific incompetence'. Really taking the high road with that one, aren't you?
     
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    But you're still assuming that their starting point, the point at which they begin recording acceleration data, is at absolute rest.
    As I said in the very first reply, your argument (that absolute velocity can be calculated) relies on the existence of a known absolute velocity standard.

    Speed with respect to some reference is not "absolute speed" unless that reference is at absolute rest.


    You have successfully argued that it is possible to determine velocity relative to:
    • A particular clock
    • The GPS reference frame
    • The distant stars
    • Any other given reference frame

    But you haven't even tried to argue that any of these references are at absolute rest. So your whole argument is not about absolute velocity at all - it's about velocity with respect to (ie relative to) certain references.

    Yes, that is correct. How is this compatible with your assertion that it is possible to calculate absolute velocity?
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Just to repeat Pete's point for emphasis:

    You mean zero absolute velocity here, don't you? But that's an assumption you're making, without any evidence.

    In fact, the most you can say is that the average velocity of some chosen set of stars is zero with respect to some reference frame you also need to specify. And that, of course, tells you nothing about the "absolute" average speed of the group of stars, and hence nothing about the absolute speed of your moving observers.
     
  23. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    I have had some time to think this thread through a little more completely. The parameters needing careful consideration are the clocks on A and B and their synchronized time and clock rate. The absolute velocity standard is shining into your eyes and the brilliance of the light has created a sense of pychological disequilibrium in the sense that De Sitter has stripped you of at least an intuitive understanding that A-ales and A frames are intimately tied to the light motion or have any affect on the emitted light motion. Assume, 1/2 of the pulse is directed along the x-axis shared with the oncoming B frame, and 1/2 the pulse is defelected parallel to the z-axis perpendicular to the x-y-plane of motion.

    In the figure below the vertical line numbered "1" is the z-axis pulse from which the A frame is continually moving away from and here sidelobe light activity in the x-y-plane has no bearing on the matter.

    If a space traveler navigator decides to make a permanent record of the emission point ikn space she need merely to not the time of emission. Her subsequent spatial coordinates are determined from triangulation wrt a set of stars whose physical motion through space cannot be detected or measured -the farthest stars if you please.

    The fact that virtually all stars are in motion is insignificant when the star motion cannot be measured and therefore those stars may be considered at absolute rest, recognizing the function of these stars is not a resolution of scientifically held differences regarding relativity theory. These distant stars function as navigational aids as we go snooping through the vast distances of space.

    Pete, the preceeding paragraphs have a potential effect of obscuring the postulated thread here. Your statement is inaccurate as you framed the statement ". . .to determine velociy relative to:". I have argued, successfully, risking here only an appearance of modesty, that the (x,t) coordinates of any emitted light pulse sufficiently satisfies corrections to the claims of the first three items in your list. For whatever pur;plose I may have included these items in the discussion it was not for the purpose of determining an inertial frame's relative motion to these items.

    The fourth item, , with the exception of the last item in that list. "Any other given reference frame." is accurate when recognizing that the emitted light pulse is 'any other given reference frame.'

    Pete,
    I totally agree with the first sentence here and in fact i am reminded to emphasize those facts you listed.
    Please indulge yourself briefly. This thread is based on the postulate of relativity theory that light motion is independent of the motion of the source of the light - don't argue with me argue with DeSitter or AE in chapter 7 in his book, "Relativity".

    In the figure below the vertical lines represent arbitrary points on the A and B frames that locate the respective clock-light-emitter-absorbers on the respective A and B frames. A pulse emitted transverse to the motion of the frame moving relative to the light axis of motion, the absolute zero velocity of the light axis, AKA, litaxis. The frame moves away from the beam emitted perpendicular t

    When A emitted the first timed signal the A absorber-light-emitter (A-ale) was located at 1 on the A frame, which also located the emission point in space, without reference to any part of the A frame's very existence. In other words and similar to a light emitter on the embankment emitting a light into the frame, the location of the resulting light pulse is not functionally, or even theoretically determined by any physical structure, or motion, of the A frame.

    An observer on the moving frame wrt the embankment can observe herself moving away from the the light pulse emission point(or alternatively, she sees the emission point moving away from her location on the frame. Consider a modified A-ale that emits 1/2 thhe x-y-plane.e pulse in the direction of B and deflects the remaining 1/2 pulse along the z-axis perpendicular to the frame's inert motion in the x-y-plane. As the observer relative to the embankment sees a constant increase in the distance between the original emission point
    and a mirror image point on the A frame. The A frame observer knows that the emitted pulse is not affected by the physical structure of the frame or of the frame's motion. The vertically emitted pulse draws an absolutely zero velocity [rest] line wrt the x-y-plane.

    Yes, that is correct. How is this compatible with your assertion that it is possible to calculate absolute velocity?[/QUOTE]
     

Share This Page