No one is looking for it. We had talked about before for at least tre different ways to detect absolute space, there are evidences from several not-related sources that there is absolute space. I presume that in next 10 years those evidences will become enough to overthrow the current theory. It is a pity that you had lose so much time to defend a theory which has so much built-in defficencies, you are a clever person and you can do a lot more. Just try to accept the idea about the absolute frame. It will give you a lot more powerfull view about relativity effects, space-time distortion and else.
Are you kidding? Some of the most famous experiments in the history of physics were in search of absolute space (in guise of the ether). When the null results kept on coming, and theories without absolute space kept on predicting experiments better, people lost interest. I'd like some references. In any case, are you certain that you are right about this, and not just interpreting something wrong? I actually find relativity theory to be much more powerful than theories in which an absolute space is important. Why? Because it has much simpler applications - you never need to know your movement relative to the absolute space. More symmetry. The absolute version is highly inelegant, if you ask me.
Your right you have not justified your view. You have the shoe on the wrong foot but I will respond anyhow. If you can't realize that when a clock becomes dilated while in motion and demonstrates that physical fact when returned to a common frame for comparison by having accumulated less time, that it must therefore have been ticking more slowly during its motion, what can I say. What can anybody say. You simply choose to turn a blind eye, a deaf ear to reality.
absolutely here are some references about threads about absolute space started from me but remained unfinished http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46839 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44670 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45377 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33599 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45201 in addition I had developed a project for a device detecting the absolute space called PACD, there is effects like CBR blue-shift (search in google) which aslso implies that there is a absolute apace. If you mean MM experiments, Dayton Miller had maded much more precise experiments and their results are different, they implies that exist a cosmological frame of reference, also MM had many poorly maded approximizations and can not be relied on at all. If you see the end of the thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44670 you will see why. SRT experiments had been faked - MM, H&K, muon scatering ....., they are not precise enough to detect the absolute space and they had been poorly realized and interpretated. People see what they like to see.
No, I meant actual physics. You know, papers from reputable journals. Well, you can always postulate some effects below their margin of error... Do you have an explanation for why the absolute frame has not been detected?
In General Relativity, dilation occurs when the frame moves to a location with greater gravitational potential. Clocks moving through a gravitational field dilate due to velocity through the field. Physics may be the same in all inertial frames, but the values of those physics change due to motion. Particles gain energy and their clocks slow due to motion through a field.'Rest frame' should mean just that, NO relative motion wrt any observer in the same frame of reference. What is this frame of reference, is it an 'absolute' frame? No, it is logical for an observer to assume if he experiences a CHANGE in acceleration, he is no longer in the original 'rest frame'. The observer is in motion, not the rest of the universe, HIS clock beats slower due to relative velocity, HIS total energy increases relative to the rest of the universe, HIS clock can move to spacetime areas with greater or lesser gravitational potential, HE will recieve the speeding ticket from the cop with the radar gun on the side of the road.
Now that is an interesting legal concept. Take the purported absolutely valid concept of relativity to court and argue that you were at rest and it was the cop that was speeding. Bet it don't fly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then you will have to wait for awhile. Physics is not priority to me so when I had I little free time I am going to publish my relativity and gravity theoretrical works and experiments in the reputable journals. But I can't say when. And basicly they will contain the same ideas. Well, first of all SRT is not so old theory, there had not been enough time to develop and realize a really sophisticated experiments. Also the real relativity theory, based on absolute space, requires enormous computational resources, and only recently the computers had been developed enough for this simulations. And finaly and more imoprtant, todays physics is in a big trouble. There is many fundamental things that are misunderstood. QM, Standard Model and so on can't be applied to a really elementary level, where space and time are discreet. Thus, space and time are not examine well enough, not to talk about gravity.
Better hurry up. MacM has similar plans. BTW what do you think of uniKEF gravity? If your view is same, why not co author your Paper(s)?
I am doing what I can. I apology to MacM that I do not have much time to read and reply all of his posts.
Can you explain why? I see no sophisticated ideas in your relativity postings to justify this. Both Quantum Loop Gravity and M-Theory are trying to remedy this.
funkstar, If Einstein was correct when he stated that large masses drag spacetime around (frame-dragging), it's no wonder that those famous experiments had null, or close to null, results.
We are getting away from the topic but it is not possible to undertstand how gravity is related to relativity (I believe that this is the purpose of GRT) without to know what are gravitons. And I had developed a complex theory about all particles called 'Snake Model', yes it is a M-Theory because it unifies gravity with other interactions, but I will never, really never pre-interpretate it in Standard Model and QM framework. It is totally abudant. These both can not be applied in the discreet space-time reality. But anyway, gravity-relativity relation is something as simple as SRT. But it is even not so important. What is important is that we need the absolute space for both SRT and GRT. Ok. I can, but you should have a lot of time and be a good listener. Anyway, in a few words, if a PASD /Positioning in Absolute Space Device/ is developed, it will detect where we are in the absolute space. But we will need a lot of computers to do that. There are needed many calculations and data processing. The mathematics behind it is also very, very hard. There is no easy way to position in AS. It is much mure complicated then to position on Earth surface by taking the attitude and longitude. That is why computers are needed. (except that, if it is developed quantum relativity, then relative time - Rt, and relative coordinates - Rx,Ry,Rz can be expressed as functions of maximal or absolute time and coordinates - At,Ax,Ay,Az: Rt = f1(Ax,Ay,Az,At) Rx = f2(Ax,Ay,Az,At) Ry = f3(Ax,Ay,Az,At) Rz = f4(Ax,Ay,Az,At) this 4 equations give what is the averaged relative time and space metrics in every point from the absolute space, so it is posible to know relativity distribution. And so on, and so on......, it is needed computers to calculate what theory says and what should be the local space-time, and the reverse if the local space-time is measured what are some other physical quantities - gravitry for example.
