# A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Jan 29, 2005.

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Because I was correlating the statement in the referenced post that mentioned the temperature of the CBR. Having temperature infers motion or kenetic energy.

Unless you are really interested I'll not expound on that here. It is a subject in-of-itself but it corresponds with what is called the RCM Theory.

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/german1/german1.doc

Antimated illustrations of functions of Relativity and RCM along with test proposals.

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/

The motions of molecules may (and are ) frequently linked to temperature. I think the problem is one of being far to idealistic when trying to have a casual discussion that is to include lay persons. But that is a personal choice of style.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### XgenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
315
MacM, I dont understand a dawn bit of CBR but maybe I am understanding what you means. Please consider and answer the following question, it is very, very important.
This question is and for all others interested from introducing AFR in SRT. Please make constructive critics, not just - I am smart you are stupid. Or - you are crank I am expert....

Suppose that we had a bunch of frames of reference - A,B,C ..., each moving with velocity - Vab, Vac, Vba, Vbc .... each wrt each. Now consider that we choose one frame, which I will denote with X-frame, from the frames for rest and consider all others moving wrt it with velocitiest Vax, Vbx, Vcx ....

Then we callculate te total kinetic energy associated with frames in the following way:
T = Sum(m*Vxj^2/2) where j = 0 to N - the number of frames.

We will suppose that the mass is equal for all frames and do not matter, kin. energy then depends only from v^2.

Now do you accually mean : The most absolute frame of reference will be this wrt which the total kinetic energy has a minimum?

In this way the AFR is determined from energy-minimization condition. Tk has a minimum at the most absolute frame of reference.

???

to hide all adverts.
5. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104

Not sure I follow your summation of ke's but simply put we have no way of determining which if any observer would be at rest universally; however when there is relative velocity one observer will have the least ke universally, another more, etc.

Determining which one requires use of a common reference frame such as is done in GPS where the orbiting clocks and earth surface clocks all reference the earth pole as a locally preferred rest frame.

From that perspective the orbiting clocks always have the higher velocity and are therefore the ones that will reflect the phenomena called time dilation (my opinion it should just be called clock dilation and has nothing to do with time perse).

to hide all adverts.
7. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
MacM, Vern, Xgen,
This is s what I mean about measuring the absolute velocity of an inertial frame B moving relative to inertial frame A. Some physical models state the impossibility of measuring other than the relative motion of the inertial system is equivalent to the invariance of the SOL posulate of SRT.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Inertial frames A and B (I will use A and B) are moving uniformally in parallel, in the same direction, but with different “absolute velocity” Va and Vb which are unknown to observers on A and B. The uniform relative velocity is expressed in shorthand as Va – Vb = Vab. B is the slower of the two frames, hence the order of subtraction as noted. B begins to accelerate and the measured relative velocity of the A/B system now decreases until |Va - Vb| = 0. This point is the velocity transition point, vtp.

Further, increases in Vb are measured as increases in relative velocity wrt the vtp, the Va = Vb point.

Knowing the relative velocity at t = 0, when acceleration began, the vtp is found when further Vb increases are measured from Va = Vb, as furthter increases from the vtp at |Va - Vb|. When This condition, Vb > Va, reaches a point where the absolute velocty is measured equal to the original Vab confirmation of the measured Vb absolute velocity is complete.

The velocity subtracted during accelration from Vab = Max at t= 0 to Vab = 0 is a measure of the absolute velocity of B wrt A.

Further, when B accelerates the relative A/B velocty will increase and when the measured relative velocity reaches the original relative velocity at t = 0, confirmation of the measured relative velocity is complete, again.

Knowing the relative velocity V1ab before the deceleration of the B frame and measuring the relative velocity of the A/B frame system at the vtp, V2ab, we express the differences of the two relative velocities as V1ab – V2ab = V3ab. At the vtp the B frame has effectively subtracted all of its contribution to the original relative velocity of the A/B system assuming Va = 0 i.e. A is assumed at rest wrt B. Therefore, we may write the V1ab = V1(a=0,b), V2ab = V2(a=0,b) and V3ab = V3(a= 0,b) and the total expression can be rewritten as V1b – V2b = V3b, or unambiguously, V1 – V2 = V3 Now in general V3 translates as the measurement of the differences in relative velocity of any two points on the V’ab curve. At the vtp Vb = 0 with respect to Va or,

d(V) = V3 = 0 a point of velocity resonance of the A/B inertial system.

The SRT postulate prohibiting such a measurement of absolute motion and detection needs revision.

Starting from the original expression, Va + Vb = Vab take the differential V’a + V’b = V’ab = 0. Therefore, V’a = - V’b. Maintaining the measured relative velocity at each point along the differential curve will preserve the rerlative velocty of the original system. We see that the differential expression states the law of conservation of relative motion in terms of the measured relative velocity of any two points on the measured differential curve: this is a measure of absolute motion of the system. This goes much further than the preceding paragraph. Here, as long as the relative velocity Vab remains constant along all measured points, or for all t during decelerations/accelerations the differential expression is properly maintained.

The differential expression preserves the original expression of relative velocity regardless of any wild accelerations of A and B as long as V’ab = 0 for all t.

Geistkiesel.

8. ### VernRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
695
Well; I read the whole post twice; I don't think I quite understand what you're getting at. Here's a thought experiment that might help me understand:

Let's say a group with the means to do so want to test the GR concept of time variance. From their FR they send a clock-carrying ship at constant acceleration of 1 G to match speeds with the CBR's FR, then return it. They then inspect the clock. What do they find ?

I think what we know about relativity phenomena says the clock aboard ship shows that less time passed than the local clock. My understanding of SR and GR theory is that their application would show the same thing.

Are you suggesting by your example that this simple experiment would be otherwise than we would now predict using the tools that we tested for a bunch of years ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

9. ### VernRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
695
Going over it again, maybe you're trying to show an AFR detecting test ?

10. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Vern, Thank you for your patience and attention to this matter. No I am no quite saying what you suggested, but it is close. I am saying that the postulate that states, "It is impossible to detect and to measure motion of uniformlly moving objects in free space." has been demonstrated at unambiguously false.

In the simplest form I define 'absolute velocity" here, as the contributing velocity of RFs to the measured RV velocity of the inertial system. After all the prohibitions of SRT from making such measurements does not claim the velocities do no exist, only that they cannot be measured, or detected. Well whoever came up with that postulate prematurely terminated his analysis of the physics of motion of inertial bodies.

I had intended to make the question slam-dunk easy to both write and read. When I first stumbled upon this process it seemed trivially simple. The more I try to describe the measurements in the forum the more complex it becomes to me when I get insights into the full range of implications. At this point the SRT implications while real, have taken a back seat to what the measurement of absolute velocity of frames of reference (FR) means.

The easiest approach is to focus on the system under construction because to 'wander about' will increase chances to miss the crucial attributes of the measurement process. I say this restraining myself from sounding deferential, but the apparent difficulty in understanding, unassisted by my poor writing pskills perhaps, suggests the need for the motivating hint.
******************************************
We have three FRs A, B and C. A and B move relative to each other at 10,000 velocity units; A and B move in opposite directions to each other.

C is destined to accelerate in the direction of the B direction. All possible FR directions are not considered but generality is not lost.

The only function of the C FR is to measure the relative velocity (RV) of,
1. Vc with respect to Vb, and
2. , Vc with respect to Va.
In 2) Va is initially assumed at rest with respect to C at all times. Where Vc = Va initially, only. In 1) the velocity of C is adjusted such that C must accelerate in order to measure the RV, Vc – Vb = 0. This is the measurement that determines the absolute velocity of B with respect to A. Why? The answer will appear.

The measurement with respect to B begins with a known RV for Vc + Vb = Va + Vb = 10,000 units.

Consider this set up as two completely independent measurements, which is certainly is. C is making two independent measurements using independent sets of measuring instrumentation.

Here are the starting conditions and schematic of the process.

I am asking only for the implications directly affecting SRT of these measurements. Why? From SRT postulates justifying statements such as “The observer on the train assumes he is at rest with respect to the train station which is assumed to move at the rate of the measured relative velocity.” This assumption is no longer necessary. and has never been necessary.
This simple attachment shows the schematic of the measurement set up.

Before any acceleration of C in the direction of the B velocity there are RV conditions that need noting.

The measurements here are designed around the bedrock postulate of SRT:
” It is impossible to detect or measure motion of an object moving uniformly in free space."

There are three assumptions intrinsic in the measurement process unaffected by the postulate
1. Absolute velocities of FR moving relative to each other are preserved.
2. Absolute velocities of FRs are limited in velocity range to: 0 <= V <= Vab.
3. Absolute velocity of accelerated FRs are preserved under conditions of constant uniform motion.

The C and A FR are moving with identical motion. The measured RV of A and B FR is the same as the initial RV of C and B FR. At this point the C and A FRs are indistinguishable.

So Vac = 0 and Vab = Vcb before any measurements are taken. After C begins to move and the RV of C and A, Vac > 0 and the RV pf C and B , Vcb is variable measured by the instantaneous RV Vcb = Vc - Vb. Vab or the initial value for Vcb can be used interchangeable, recognizing that Vab is a an invariant constant. As C increases in velocity its goal in life is to reach a velocity identical to the B velocity, while maintaining a continuous monitoring of the RV of C and A and the RV of C and B.

Why do this? Because at the instant that Vc – Vb = 0 the RV Vac provides the value for the absolute velocity of B with respect to A. How can Vac possibly provide an absolute value of motion from a measured RV only? Remember, A is assumed at rest for all relative C and A motion as only C accelerated, so the assumption of A at rest has a physical justification. This means that the RV Vac = Vc: After all A is at rest wrt B. .
Can we assign the RV of Vac to Vc alone? Does somebody have an unambiguous reason why this cannot be accomplished?

The job is over because when Vc = Vb the expression for relative velocity has been demonstrated. Vab can take on an appearance of having been drastically reformed. Not so, as the Va measurement is direct and unambiguous in the results of the measurement. The C motion accelerating to natch the B veocity is no different than accelrating your cafr to catch gthe one moving faster than your own.

So readers what say you? Here Absolute motion has bee detected and measured.

From Va + Vb = Vab we take the differential d(Va) + d(Vb) = d(Vab) = 0. or V’a = - V’b, which is an expression of conservation of uniform motion The change of velocity relative to FR under the condition the RV remains constant or at least during measurements. The C FR can be used in two modes, continuous acceleration where the measured RV values are instantaneous values or to use a: accelerate, coast, measure RV and accelerate . . . continue the cyclic process
***************************************************
[Dream influences in this and other threads have accelrated recently]
I had a dream last night. During an SRT Fair (the last such Faiar it turned out) myself and others from this forum had been demonstrating a wide spectrum of loose, unstable and completely destroyed bed-rock SRT postulates and assumptions intrinsic in SRT. I had been conducting a “how to” perform absolute velocity measurements seminar for wide eyed and interested erstwhile SRTists. Some late arriving SRTists wanted to set up shop next to our stands. After some hurried but intense discussion between some enlightened SRTists and those wanting to post the latest SRT formulae on the wall. Apparently all was explained to the late arrivals. Shortly after one could hear the ever increasing volume and intensity of high-pitched moans echoing form the lips of some seriously disappointed and panicked SRTists. Their song cascaded through the fair was most beautifully magnificent in expressing the highest standards in spontaneous choral beauty. This, even though the song was one of instinctive reaction, sung without rehearsal and performed a capella, and they didn’t even have the benefit of accompanying music!. I nearly wept.

Geistkiesel

Last edited: Feb 20, 2005
11. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Xgen, For an approximation you post makes sense. This is especially true the larger the assembly of masses. Of course the measuring difficulties also increases dastically in proportion to the number of RFs.

I just posted a reply to Vern regarding my model for determining the absolute velocity of inertial frames from a defined technique using measurments of the relative velocity (RV) of the RFs in a selective way.
So my basic response is if you are unable for some technical reaon from measuring the exact absolute velocity of all constiuent members of an inertial system, your staistical model would appear to work fine.
Geistkiesel

12. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Vern,
That would be the matter as I see it.
Geistkiesel

13. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
MacM,
You must take a close look at my posts defining a system dofor measuring the absolute velocity of reference frames (RF) The GPS reference frame used is commn, fr sure,and whats more it is the best available for doing the jpb.

Just a little slice. B is moving relative to A at some relative velocity (RV) Vab. A third RF C moves wrt A and B making RV measuremens of both, oe. Vca and Vcb assuming C at rest wrt Vac measurements. As Bab is measured and known he Vcb starst from the emasured RV and by C moving in the B direction ans varying his velocity to ultimately match that of B we have a detrmination of he absolute velocity of B wrt C. For as when Vc = Vb, Vc = Vac the mesured RV of the C/A system, by A sassumed at rest., hence he use of Va = VB.

Geistkiesel

'The times they are a changin', B. Dylan

14. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
For what it is worth, the Big Bang Theory starts from the onset of expasnion with the assumption that the force of gravity effectivley pushes for many for doubling ot the universe size many orders of magnitude in a time span on the order of 10^-34 seconds. The model was explained by ALan Guth, one of the stars iof the 'Inflationary model of the universe". Consider yourself at the location similar to a host atom in a perfect crystal of cubic array. Six nearest neighbors begin to accelerate away from you equally. All observers at similar centers see idential expansions, but none feel acceleration . It is the space that is expanding not the particles of mass contituting the identifialbe part of the universe. This is also the obsvious answer to BB antis using an assumes "explosion" model for expasion.

This doesn't answer the question of space contraction rather the opposite but the differences seem to be one of form only. I tout not BBT but there is that form of protest regarding the current tide of SRT thought as expressed on this forum.

Geistkiesel
Geistkiesel

15. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
I agree with your post mostly. Let's assume that the absolute velocity of RF in a two frame system is measured with the absolute velocity of the A abnd B RF measured wrt to each pother, not a distance preferred frame, just for instance.

Two RFs approach each other and each make a relative velocity measurement consistent with the the other RF. Regarding the SRT postulate that purports to deny the possibility of measuring absolute velocity let us look at some physical realities.

The RF motions measured in a two body RF system only as relative motion is near sightedness to extremes. It is ludicrous to assume that the individual RF did not have a defined absolute velocity measured wrt to the other RF. The RFs aren't wispy obejcts generated by voodoo or interference amplitude. Absolute velocity is a guaranteed reality for the RFs, it is only the measurement of the velocity that poses a problem for some who denmy that possibility. But absolute velocity is a reality proved from inspection.

Even for the most recalcitrant obsession to maintain hold on a theory proved grossly incomplete. Simply stated, instead of assuming that one or the other of an RF was at rest, or moving wouldn't some generated average of the RV motion be better than assuming the physically impossible?

Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel

16. ### VernRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
695
Ok; I think maybe it's soaking in. Let me see if I can translate your post into stuff simple enough for me to understand

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

_________
Why not just average all the RF motions we can observe and assign the property of "At Rest" to that average ?
_________

If that's what you mean, I'll repeat my previous point. What you suggest would work; it would not change the outcome of SRT calculations; it would simply add the extra step of calculating the speeds relative to the AFR, then comparing them to the two objects in question.

Last edited: Feb 20, 2005
17. ### XgenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
315
geistkiesel, Vern, MacM and others,

I had tried to understand your posts but I still am not sure that get it all, anyway here is what I think about the AFR.

Determining AFR can be divided in two problems:
1) Determining the absolute velocity Vabs of a frame WRT the absolute space
2) Determining not Vabs as a absolute value but the rotation of its X,Y and Z axis WRT arbitrary frame

The first problem is easy to be solved and there is no need to invent AFR detectors, there is already tousends of them! If you just need to detect Vabs of a inertial system it is easy like a piece of cake! I dont want to call SRT founders with offending names but the existence of the Absolute Space follows directly from SRT. It was a total mistake and bullshit that Einstein had proclaimed that there is no special FR, that there is no Absolute FR. Here I will tell you how it can be detect. It is very, very simple. I even fell a little shame that I had to post such a simple thing, and that this is not stated as a basic relativity law...

Determination of AFR velocity WRT us: Nothing more simple! Everything we needs is SRT and for example:

m = m0 / sqrt (1- v^2/c^2)

you see, accually if we are movinfg WRT AFR then V in this expression is the velocity WRT the absolute space! If we know very, very precisely the mass of the electron then the electron will be a little heavier here on Earth then in the outer space. If we can calculate how much we will find exactly the velocity WRT the Absolute space!

Existence of Absolute Space follows from SRT because m0 has a minimum when we are not moving at all. Everything we need to know is m0. It is a finit value, there is then no doubt that there is absolute space! It is so simple and clear!

Everything we need is to know the mass of the electron in AFR, i.e. the minimal mass that electron can have. Then we calculate how much is bigger the mass of the electron here on earth and from difference we find Vabs!

18. ### DataRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
81
The rest mass is the mass observed in the rest frame of the object. Sorry

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

19. ### XgenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
315
How can you so blinded? There would be another frame in which this mass will be smaller. We can send a shuttle in the outer space and we can found the EXACT mass of the electron. Then the difference in the mass measured here on Earth will give the absolute velocity. There is nothing more simple then that!

20. ### VernRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
695
The problem is not quite so simple

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We cannot calculate the rest mass of an electron in the AFR until we first know our velocity relative to the AFR. Then we can use that information to calculate two values; one the mass of the AFR electron as seen in the AFR; the other the mass of the AFR electron as seen from our own FR.

All our measuring tools are distorted by movement so as to make the measurements the same in any FR.

All the observations I know about show this to be the case.

21. ### XgenRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
315
I am not sure that you are right!

We know the exact value of c in vacuum without making any measurements. Why not found the mass of electron from EM theory. It is calculated in H-atom specter for example. If we know h,e,c and Rydbrerg constant very, very precisely we can calculate and electron mass very, very precisely.

22. ### DataRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
81
Whatever you want to think. That's not what SRT predicts, though.

23. ### VernRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
695
Yes; we can find the mass of the electron exactly. Then when we go to another FR we can find it exactly, also. We find that the mass is exactly the same in that FR as it was in the FR we just left.

Remember; the observation of the problem of relativity phenomena came before SRT. SRT was simply an attempt to explain the observations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And a very good attempt; it works.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an SRTist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think the idea of curved space-time is fundamentally wrong and unnecessary. Relativity phenomena is explained much better by assuming classic space-time and mass composed only of stuff that moves at the invarient speed of light.

I worked on that a little bit here

Last edited: Feb 20, 2005