A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

Thanks. I'll note here that indeed UniKEF holds that contraction of mass is real. Contraction of space however is not in accordance with that of mass.

That is spatial contraction is far far less and is based on the proportionality between space and the compaction ratio of space in mass.

My posts were more aimed at trying to assess the true meaning of current evidence or claims. I have attempted to keep UniKEF out of my presentation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought that was true.

I suspect, as you seem to, that space itself is not what is contracted; what is contracted is the vibration patterns (orbits ?) of the constituents of mass. I'm trying to understand if this would apply globally. It seems to me that it would apply in any unified field theory that asserts that mass is made up of constituents that move at the invarient speed of light.

Bottom line; the concept of classic space-time is necessary to understand relativity phenomena in such theories. That's why Einsetin couldn't complete his UFT. He was stuck with relative space-time, and the problem is not solvable within that concept

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An interesting POV Vern....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suspect you are right on all accounts.

 

ooops -- meant non-spherical
geistkiesel

 

MacM, QQ, Vern, Data, Yuriy et al:

A purely hypothetical question If, for instance, it were shown that the absolute velocity wrt two inertial frames moving relative to each other was not only possible, but a relaively trivial accomplishement, what effect would this have on SRT and your straements above?

Do not answer with "it cannot be done", please.

Actually, the question is a yes or no question, and a hypothetical, which needs no attached "explanation" for your answer.

If you aren't aware of Ethan Skyler's "no later motion imposed on emitted photon" plrase review and see if this makes any difference in your replies.

Thanks,
Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel

 

ARF(Absolute Rest Frame)

I don't think the existance of an ARF would make any differrence in my replies. I've always assumed that there was an ARF, and suspect that the CBR occupies that frame.

To accomidate an ARF, we would apply Einstein's GR from the referance points of A and B, to predict how A and B would perceive things in the CBR. Knowing the solutions to both of those applications we could calculate how A would perceive things in B's frame. Just a little extra math. The outcome would be the same

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ARF(Absolute Rest Frame) ?
isn't it better to be called AFR /Absolute Frame of Reference/

As much as of the question:

A purely hypothetical question If, for instance, it were shown that the absolute velocity wrt two inertial frames moving relative to each other was not only possible, but a relaively trivial accomplishement, what effect would this have on SRT and your straements above?

i didnt' understand. Geistkiesel, can you be more presize? Does that means that there is a frame wrt which all other frames had a absolute velocity? But what is absolute velocity? - maximal velocity? Does that means that wrt that frame velocity is always the velocity of the speed of light in vacuum? i had something very interesting in mind about how AFR mathematically can be determined from SRT.

 

I advocated the CBR as an AFR here once and got hammered by the SRT'ist because it is not at rest. That fact is infact part of my views in my own theory. That is that the reference is universally dynamic. See the RMC theory. I believe it is something simular.

But I think the issue is really one of symantics and can be better expressed dynamically as an AEFR (Absolute Energy Frame of Reference), or something simular.

The answer to the current question in this view I believe is "Yes" it is very significant to SRT and not trivial.

Skyler's claims are a good fit with my own views and I would like to embrace it but I am currently finding some difficulties in reconciling all this with ranging information between the earth and moon but I have not reached any final conclusion on that issue.

 

I would like to see that !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

AFR: Agreed. I like that better.

MacM: I didn't know about moving eddies in the CBR. My take on the the CBR is that it is the temperature predicted by Author Eddington and crew when they calculated it based upon the output of all observables in the universe. I think they predicted 2.5 k. Back then the temperature of the universe resulting from BB cooling was predicted in the range of 20 k. Funny thing: when the CBR was finally measured all the faithful jumped on the BBBW = Big Bang Band Wagon

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The scans I've seen of the CBR showed a fairly constant shift showing Sol and company moving toward the constellation Leo at several hundred miles per second.

 

I think we are in agreement. The term temperature equals a dynamic base and not a rest frame.


Dan

 

Only in such a parade of stupidity that we have in this thread somebody can see any sense in the following statement:

This Club of Crank-Museum members, that we have in this thread, indeed is funny!

 

Assume two inertial frames, A and B moving relative to each other and a method for measuring he absolute velocity of B wrt A is determined and from he expression Va + Vb = Vab, or Va = Vab - Vb. Vab the rekllative velocity is measured ansd so is the Vb measured, wrt teh Va. Therfore al values are known.
Question whar affect on SRT would this have if the velocities were measured as I indicated? Look at it like this: Asssume A and B frames were measured wrt earth, A measured 600 units and B measured 400 units. The observwers on the frames know nothing these measurements, only you and I know. The Vb is measured at 400 units wrt Va (collision course), and of course, using Vab, the measured relative velocity.
Geistkiesel

 

For those unaware of Yuriy's poor effort to lable anyone that disagrees with him as a Crank and comments about "Parades of Stupidity", is hopefully learning where the stupidity in this forum actually resides.

Should there remain any question on this issue you are directed to the following commments by Billy T, a Phd Physicist trying to have an intelligent conversation with Yuriy but with little or no luck.

[post=766797]Post[/post], [post=767185]Post[/post], [post=768064]Post[/post] and [post=768976]Post[/post]

 

The term "temperature" means the reciprocal of the rate of change of entropy with respect to internal energy, not any sort of "dynamic base," or "rest frame."

 

Even here you can not avoid a lie: not me is the one who called you "crankier". This name you and your "theory" UniKEF got at admission as a members of crank.dot.net.
So, blame them, not me: I an only a messenger...

 

I'm using temperature in the sense of the word meaning velocity or kenetic energy. Molecules at high velocity also have high temperature.

 

That is exactly an example of why you are a crank: even such a basic notion as "temperature" you are using (and understand!) absolutely wrong!

 

Those interested in something beside hype go [thread=44892]Here[/thread]

 

So basically whenever you say temperature you mean "kinetic energy?" I don't see why you don't just call it kinetic energy then, since temperature has its own meaning. Besides which, that still doesn't give me any clue what you mean by the statement that "[kinetic energy] equals a dynamic base and not a rest frame."

Here's an example of why using terms with precise definitions incorrectly causes problems: under the standard definition for temperature, the statement "some molecules have high temperature" is nonsense. Molecules don't have temperatures.