SRT and the use of relative zero?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before you close this useless thread out of frustration:

your point:

Now this is how I would refute your answer.

What does the = sign mean fully?
The = sign means that there is no difference in value between the "t" and the zero.
There must be zero difference between t and 0
thus (t=0) = (0=t)

so the net result means that unless you can show other wise
my question is still waiting for an answer and or discussion if possible.

Is t=0 a variable or not according to SRT?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

do you honestly think I should respond to this?

or this

and so on?

I have been refuting this since you posted it...

 

and no I am not going to give you any reason what so ever to close this thread... it is in pseudo science for starters and it complies with all the rules.

It appears the thread has been reduced to the following question for discussion:

Is t=0 a variable or not according to SRT?
I believe it must be... what say you?

 

As James has pointed out, the fact you ask it in the way illustrates how little you grasp, as you cannot even formulate a proper question.

And you illustrate precisely what I was referring to. Zero, the concept of zero, is not the goal but rather the numerical value associated to some other concept is desired to be zero. You're not correctly separating out concepts from one another. This isn't even a matter of mathematics now, it's a matter of basic sentence construction and simple linguistic concepts. Zero is not the goal, something having a value of zero units of worth is the goal. If you cannot tell the difference then discussion is impossible since you lack basic comprehension skills of the English language.

No, it isn't profound. I love how often I'm attacked for supposedly having an inflated view of myself yet people like you come out with "I've said something really profound!" and the like.

Actually it's very easy. I hate to break it to you but you are not the yardstick by which the difficulty or profoundness of something is measured. In relativity t, short for 'time', is treated as a variable, taking values of \(\mathbb{R}\). The particular value of zero is not variable since there is only one zero in the Reals. The uniqueness of zero destroys your question about "Is the zero you end up with the same as the zero you started with". I even once explained to you how to formally define the concept of zero in mathematics. If you had bothered to do any reading yourself, either following my explanation or of your own accord, you'd have come across the proof that there is only one zero in the Reals, as there must be in any field (that's a mathematical term, don't try to interpret it using layperson definitions). 0*k = 0 for all k in the Reals, k+0 = k for all k in the Reals. If we have two numbers in the Reals X,Y such that k+X = k+Y = k then X=Y=0, so X and Y are the same thing. The fact you're asking if the zeros are different means you don't even know what the = sign means!

Frustration are your complete unwillingness to read anything to learn something, your delusions of competency in thinking you've said something 'very profound' or even in the same solar system as correct and your complete ignorance on the subject at hand.

It is not our problem you don't understand even the most rudimentary of concepts in physics.

Trolling isn't within the rules. Making delusions of grandeur with your "I've said something profound", claiming you've refuted things you haven't and showing you not only don't read up on things before making assertions but even deliberately ignore explanations provided for you is trolling. If you cannot engage in discussion but endlessly repeat your question, ignoring all reponses, you lower yourself to the level of Chinglu. Jesus, I didn't think I'd ever say to you you could lower yourself further, not after all that zpt nonsense.

 

If t is a variable when it is zero would be more dependant on algebraic rules. A lot of them have an exception that say that "a" is not equal to zero, or "b" is not equal to zero. So then it could only be a variable if say it was not in the denominator, or not used in a way where "a" is not equal to zero in algebra. It has been an old conception that when v=c, then t is undefined, because of the equation t'=t/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). You would end up with a zero in the denominator, so then you couldn't divide by zero. Although, I do not completely agree with what this equation tells us about this situation. This equation is where the term delta comes in, it is the change of time from the light clock, the number of times a clock would be seen to tick at a frequency. For this reason the final result of the equation is found by taking the inverse of t'. So then if t' was equal to zero, it would also be undefinied. I would argue that I don't think "t" actually represents the frequency of the clock, (I started a thread called, Are Delta's Valid/Necessarry in Physics? http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114534-Are-Delta-s-Valid-Necessarry-in-Physics that no one seemed to respond to that talks about this). So, then what if we say that tau is the right equation instead of the one I just gave. t'=t sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) There is no division so then t' would equal zero when v=c. I think one equation must be right and the other must be wrong because they do not provide the exact same answers for t'. So can t=0 for an object traveling the speed of light? Depends on what equation you use, it seems like.

 

@JamesR
As you know I have done hundreds of SRT thought experiments using every possible means to explore the full extension of the transition between reference frames. Pete and you both participated in those experiments and I gratefully acknowledge your assistance. So I am not talking from the POV of total ignorance when I ask my questions.
Of course "t" is a variable and of course zero is supposed to be an absolute and non-variable.

The problem however occurs when you use t=0 in two different contexts.
The context I am refering to is the context of the HSP [ Hyper surface of the present] Where 't' in the equation t=0 is not a variable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The other context of use is when one arbitarily uses "t" in a way that is relative to the "t" of the HSP

example: t=120
which is 120>0
The t=120 can become arbitarilly set as t=0 until you require it to become the actual HSP you wish to explore.


So yes I agree with you in one context but not in the other.

@Alphanumeric

I shall respond to this shortly but let me say your Historic posting "Useful contribution rating" [UCR] has just gone up from a ratio of 1:85 to 1:45 "just kidding" The ratio is a comparison between words that are used to contribute to the topic at hand and words that are not so uhm... valuable. [eg. 1:85 = one word of value to the discussion at hand compared to 85 words of no value]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and my assessment as an accoutannt is "great work, eventually you'll make a profit!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ JamesR
you can see what I mean by two different contexts of t=0 in this rudementary diagram:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps you or other may know how to phrase my question better?

Is
\({t=0_h_s_p}\)
a variable according to SRT?

and Alphanumeric you are absolutely correct when you imply that
"it is in knowing what and how [and then when] to ask a question that is a key determiner in whether getting a solution or not."

 

yep very .... thanks

Unfortunatey it doesn't solve the problem of using absolute zero as a point of relativity for all SRT workings.

so I will go away now and spend some time in working out how to phrase the question in a way that doesn't provoke such defensive responses.
in other words I surrender for the moment, as the concern about the logical consistancy of SRT is not really a major worry to me, however it obviousy is to others.

@ Alphanumeric,
For your information ZPT actually proved logically that Absolute rest (0) is indeed impossible....

 

You just demonstrated you still haven't bothered to find out what a reference frame is, because you called 0 a reference frame. This is despite JamesR writing an explanation for you in another thread. And even allowing for that, if you think you've logically proven it impossible you're mistaken. The concept of absolute rest is logically sound. The question of whether or not it's reflected in reality is an entirely separate thing. It's trivial to generate any number of logically sound physical models, whether or not they have any basis in reality is a different matter. In fact, generating logically sound models is precisely what physicists do, the difficulty is generating the right one.

Pointing out you aren't willing to find out basic information or even learn the definitions of words and phrases you throw around might not help you understand but it is never-the-less relevant to the topic at hand. James made an entirely new thread to help you understand and you obviously haven't made use of it. If you cannot learn when people put the information right in front of you then obviously you're just wasting people's time. Of course the person whose time you're wasting the most is yours. But if you have nothing else to do with your existence then so be it. Clearly you do have too much time on your hands given what you claim you'll be doing between now and March. Are you having some existential crisis that suddenly you need to convince yourself you're uncovering secrets of the universe? Perhaps you and Farsight should get together.

 

this whole thread was to ask whether zero was being "inadvertently" used as a universal reference frame.
A hidden univesal reference frame....
note : the emphasis on the word "inadvertently"

And ZPT clearly shows that it can not and never can be a physical attribute of existence as indicated by that which drives the uncertainty principle [ZPT: Attraction paradox]

the impossiblility of absolute rest is due to the "Attraction Paradox". As movement or time is the only way the paradox can be resolved for eternity.
I actually agree with conventional belief on the topic of "absolute rest", the main difference though is that I know it as a truth where as you only know it as a model or belief.

Note: you are a moderator and if you requre questions to be answered that are off topic then I can not argue with that.

Agrees... [well aint that a surprise!] The biggest problem for Physicist is not only modeling but making sure there is a basis for it in reality. [ ie. Higgs quest CERN 8 billion Euro]

what new thread?
Has JamesR replaced his previous guide to SRT reference frames and is it any different to the old one [ which I thought was rather cool ]?

aww!! you just blew any profit you made...UCR ratio was really good until that point... I am not uncovering any secrets of the universe.. done that... I am now attempting to learn how to express them..... [ chuckle]
any way all you are demonstrating is just how little you know about me, about ZPT and the depth at which you understand your own field of expertise.
mind you..."knowing what you don't know is by far more important that knowing what you do know"... now who was famous for this quote?

If you were genuinely intersted in the veracity of SRT you would be interested in any contrary opinion regardless of whether it was worded in English, Arabic or even ancient Summerian...whether or not the correct terminology was being used is actually irrelevant... it is not what I achieve that is important but what YOU achieve... to you.

 

The answer is no because a number is not a reference frame. How many times do you need to be told that?

Not even inadvertently. It's like saying "Is this carrot being used inadvertently as a weasel", they are utterly different concepts even if you can make tenious links between them (weasels could eat carrots I suppose).

ZPT shows nothing because it's just a collection of your opinions, lacking any justification, derivation, logical coherent or evidence. It certainly cannot show something about zero and reference frames because you don't know what either of those are, not properly.

Just like religious people can know their god or gods exist, without evidence. Look at Mazula, he knows he's right because his god told him about gravitational stuff. Does his assertion carry more weight because he believes he knows his assertion is right? Not in the slightest.

I'm not a moderator in this forum, I don't expect or require special treatment here. I haven't changed my posting style in this sub-forum since I became a moderator.

And the fact you can offer neither model nor a basis in reality completely negates your claim you know. You make think you know and you know you think you know but you don't know, you think.

CERN gets funding for so much more than just the Higgs. The LHC isn't just to find the Higgs, it is to explore regimes of the Standard Model we couldn't explore properly in the past, like top quark physics or quark-gluon plasmas. Like all cutting edge science projects when it was designed several major technologies it needed didn't exist. Thus a chunk of the funding went on making major advances in superconductors, low temperature systems, superfluids, plasma physics, precision electromagnets and staggering data processing capabilities. The latter was the original motivation for the internet back in the 70s. CERN also does experiments into things like antimatter. Yesterday I attended a talk by a particle physicist who mentioned how CERN is exploring using positrons for treating tumours and are finding better results than using current treatments. So those 8 billion euros are more than just for finding the Higgs.

He linked to it. Are you even reading this thread?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

One question and one question only ok?
1] How do you know that the transitivity of an equivalence relation is valid?

note: have been trying to find a wiki article on this question but can not do so as it is assumed the reader already knows what "equal" means. But possibly it is there somewhere in 1st grade primary school mathematics that we often take for granted and simply presume....

 

I could give the flipent response and say that it's a definition of something being an equivalent relation. What you mean to ask is how do I know that the equals sign is an equivalence relation. A relation is proven to be an equivalence relation by showing it has the necessary properties. Transitivity follows from other properties.

Bear in mind that pretty much nothing is proven to you when you learn high school (and before) level mathematics. Results are stated without proof almost always. That utterly changes once you get to university, where courses like analysis are all about proving everything.

To give you an idea of how detailed and utterly thorough the mathematics can go, in the 1910s and 1920s two Cambridge professors, Russell and Whitehead, went about writing books which would start at the most fundamental axioms of logic (A is A and A is not not A etc) and deriving as much of mathematics as they could. In the first volume of this mammoth task they took 365 pages to get to proving 1+1=2. Nothing was left to assumption or arm waving, it was all worked out in excruciating detail.

Once the definition of = is established the fact there is only one zero follows by standard methods, covered in any university course or book on elementary arithmetic. The fact you're unaware of these makes your comments about you 'proving' things about zero clearly flawed in nature. You don't know about zero nor about reference frames yet you know you've used them to prove something fundamental about the universe? Hardly. Besides, mathematical deductions about physical concepts are only as valid as the link between those models and the physics. I can write down any number of mathematical constructs and prove things in them, none of which will have any relevance to the real world. Mathematics is richer than physics, as well as the real universe mathematics can describe infinitely many unreal ones. This is why it's important to establish the mathematical structures in a model have some relevance to the physical structures we see in reality. Since you have completely failed to do that even if your logic weren't flawed you wouldn't have proven anything about the real world.

Funny how it's always the hacks making statements like they know secrets of the universe, while complaining about people like myself supposedly thinking we know it all. You have no knowledge of current or past models, no access to experimental data, a flawed understanding of even basic terminology and a lack of understanding about the nature of science and how it is done yet you discover secrets of the universe and all in a humble manner? Hardly.

 

Well then it pays to get the basics correct then doesn't it?
Oh I realise that to logically prove somthing in a way that is entirely incusive of all possible factors is extremely hard to do.
I also understand that 1+1=2 may very well take 400 odd pages of concise mathematics to even get close....

however....
I was always taught in primary school, highschool, automotive engineering, and accounting and not to mention, business law, tax law and corporate management that the only way to prove a transitional eqiuivalence relation [using your lingo] as valid is to realise that the difference between the negative sum of both sides of the = sign when compared must equal zero.

2 = 2
2 - 2 = 0
validity proven

2+3+7= 12
2+3+7 - 12 = 0 [validity proven]

2+3+7 =13
2+3+7 - 13 = 1 [invalid as 1 is >0]

E=mc^2
E - mc^2 = 0
validity proven
If
E - mc^2 = > or < 0 ... it would be invalid as to be valid it must equal zero [absolutely]

So to me the use of zero difference between both sides of the equal sign is essential to maintain math stability and coherance.
And this is important to realise when someone wants to use zero's in a relative manner such as how SRT appears to do regarding the relativity of t=0.
Because it means that the zero that provides the test of validity for transitivity of equivalence is now relative and not absolute.

well I know I am right in this issue as the logic is way too compelling to ignore. [ and I don't need to be university trained in Math to know it either... I only have to look at the change in my hand after buying something at a retailer to know I am right ]
Yet when I read all the info on math use on wiki for example, I find it amazing not to find even discussion about the underpinning need for zero to remain absolute for the validity of the math to be maintained. Every teacher of math would agree with me... with out any doubt what so ever.
Possibly it is too simple for all you guys who love complexity...?
So whilst I will not counter your "hack" statement with something similar in retort, I have to suggest that possibly looking at the very fundamental nature of transitivity equivalence validity be reconsidered given it's ramification on the veracity of using it as a "universal reference frame" for all mathematics including SRT

For me it is not discovering secrets but more about see what has already been discovered and ignored or presumed or considered as inconsequential.
Most of the fundamental math logic was already in place over 2000 years ago with the ancient mathematicians, and philosophers of Greece, Egypt and so on.

 

So I will go on an make a prediction:

That this issue of relative zero is the reason why there is a need to speculate on why your math does not stack up when compared to the observed universe on a larger scale, ie. the need for dark energy and dark mater to fill a mathematical inconsitancy due to the use of relative zero.