The Absolute Zero Velocity Frame of Reference

The literature tells us that the hunt for an absolute reference frame has been active for centuries. Search no more as the elusive universal frame of reference has been discovered.

Two photons emitted simultaneously moving oppositely each other maintain a running verification of the emission point P, the midpoint of the moving photons -each photon moves the same distance in the same amount of time. By defintion of the motion of the photons P is invariant, meaning P does not move from its initial location. The trajectory of the photons is a straight-line which is also invariant, until acted on by an external force. If one of the photons is reflected 180 degress after traveling a distance ct, this photon will return to point P, providing further verification of the invariant nature of point P. All references to P are verifiable as described in teh figure below.

Within the small confines of the system described below, external forces can be considered non-existent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How did you first determine the position of 'P?' How does 'P' remain invariant in an expanding universe?

Search no more as the elusive universal frame of reference has been discovered.

The search continues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

P is first determined when emitted by whatever source. The drawing in the opening post shows the emission point at the midpoint of the L and R clocks moving to the right.

Within the local environment the speed of light is invariant as is the trajectory of light a straight line. If the universe is expanding then you may be suggesting that one leg of the emitted light is expanding with the expanding photon? Is this why the lights always arrive simultaneously when the frame is stationary wrt the embankment, or at absolute rest? Or why the lights always arrive simultaneoulsy at the moved midpoint iof the physical frame exactly t' seconds longer than the time it takes for the round trip when the frame is at rest wrt v = 0?

The reason there is a postulate of light O, that says the speed of light is constant is becuase there has never been a measured delta in the speed of light, at least when measured locally.

What about the expanding universe? Well you brought it up. Can you find a defect in the invariant position of the emission point, emphasize the word point, in the description of the moving frame and the dynamics of light travel?

If you offered the words you did as supporting SRT they are empty regarding SRT theory. Period. The words are empty from the lack of physical evidence of expansion and even if there were such evidence there is no reference that such expanison would have a measurable effect on the motion of light such that the conclusions in the opening post of this thread are perturbed.

What you argue for so naively is the destruction of the two basic postulates of light motion that are fundamentally crucial to SRT. Are yiou an SRT dissident?

The hunt for an absolute frame of reference is over. So why hide one's head in the sand to avoid the issue? Unscientific 'one liners' such as offerred by Q here provides nothing constructive to the discussion.
Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

P is first determined when emitted by whatever source.

You didn't answer the question. If you wish to explain the so-called 'invariant emission point,' you first have to describe where exactly is that point.

If you leave it up to the peep to decide, then the only way your statement makes any sense is if that point encapsulates the entire universe.

Can you find a defect in the invariant position of the emission point, emphasize the word point, in the description of the moving frame and the dynamics of light travel?

IF you were actually able to get past defining that point, which you haven't, and in that regard will make any further comment mere speculation, then we might be able to discuss what happens to that point in an expanding universe.

But if a peep WERE to speculate, then that point would be every point in the universe for your question to make even the slightest bit of sense.

If you offered the words you did as supporting SRT they are empty regarding SRT theory.

Not only are you jumping way too far ahead, you're also making assumptions on what I might respond. I'm simply trying to understand your example, which at this point is appearing rather meaningless as it remains undefined.

The hunt for an absolute frame of reference is over.

Hardly. Without definition, your post is meaningless.

Unscientific 'one liners' such as offerred by Q here provides nothing constructive to the discussion.

What discussion?

 

Geist,

I'm a bit lost. Could you please give me my absolute coordinates in spacetime referenced to the absolute reference frame?

 

The point of emission of the oppositely moving photons are in terms of (x,t) exactly (0,0).

You see the photons defining the v = 0 point do you not? The invariant point of emission of the photons from a point on the physical frame, is clear is it not?

 

No. How is that an absolute reference point for the whole universe?

 

The point is exactly the emission point of two photons where ever located.

Points do not encapsulate universes. Points are dimensionless points.

The point is the center of the two clocks located on the moving frame initially, at emission. There after the photon moves independently from the moving frame. Q, look at it as physical motion of isotropic moving photons define thje invariant emission point, period.
Here is what is occuring step-by-step

Peeps do not speculate, they are inanimate objects slaved to the laws of physics.

What remains undefined? The center of the two clocks on themoving frame? Do you want the address of the lab the tests are conducted in?

 

Because the point isn't moving, measurably. Of course there are an infinite number of such invarinat points, defined not by theory, but by the physics of light motion, EM radiation, if you will.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like the pretty picture demonstrates, if two expanding spheres exist, not necessarily emitted as EM radiation simultaneously, they will expamd at the same rate, c, the speed of light. The midpoint between spheres is invariant. Let us aasume that some huge electromagnetic disturbance occurs that perturb the center point of each sphere. The midpoint of their mutual exapansion has shifted, but the original point is still there, as a point, I mean. Once there is an instant of at least two EM radiating and expanding spheres, there is an invariant midpoint defined by the constant speed and and isotropic motion of the nearest neighbor points on the spheres. The rest of the universe can go on moving hither and yon, but this in no way disturbs the invariant points in the universe. I suppose we have an absolute space after all. Two photons emitted simultaneously from a point on a moving frame where the photons are not emitted oppositely of each other, nevertheless define the midpoint of their respective trajectories, which are straight-lines expanding at the velocity c wrt the emission point of the photons. Where the photon's trajectories meet or cross is where the invariant point is located. And this is as basic as it gets, need there be more?

Finallly, SL, the utility of the velocity = zero device or concept, is not a lantern glowing on the universal horizon as a beacon to the lonely traveler, it is simply velocity = 0 really, it isn't moving!! with respect to 0 velocity. The demands of any system natural or man made that uses the concept do so as they please. Navigation devices can simply produce pusles of invriant points at any required frequency to maintain a working velocity = 0 reference frame. Just think, all motion can be measured and cataloged, better than Handsel and Gretel's crumbs they left on the forest trail to lead them back home; not hungry crows nor anybody eats invariant points. Perhaps the navigators let the ship's computer, or even St. Peter, sort out all location histories in space. Maybe there is a holographic heads up display showing past, present and predicted future spatial motion of the particular ship under scrutiny. Let the imagination soar . . . . .so much faster than the SOL.
G

 

geistkiesel,

You're basically saying that there is a frame in which light speed is constant and in which propagation is isotropic. However, you're ignoring that this seems to be true of all frames. It also seems to be true of the rod frame, which is why the clocks record identical impact times, even though it appeared from the frame you considered that they did not strike at the same time.

I have to ask: Do you honestly think that no-one has considered this before? The ideas on the composition of space go at least back to Newton. Your experiment is no more clever (in fact, less so) than that of Michelson or any of the myriad others, all of whom getting null results. Why can't you put this aside and come to terms with the fact that nature doesn't behave the way you want it to?

 

No I am not ignoring what is true. I am using what is true very specifuically, I am using the postuilates fo light to define a real and useful avbsolute zero velocity reference frame which is orders of magnitude more inside the limitis of reality than the observer who so blithely assumes his frame of reference is at rest wrt an inertial frame he in is relative motion with.

What do you mean "it seems to be true of the rod frame". Is it teu or isn't it? If you are asserting a truth then prove it, don't just try to demean my efforts with a condescending attitude. Some of he readers may be impressed by your style, but I assure you, all are not impressed.

Give me a reference, abnd then describe the relevence of the statement. I could care less i, and or who, consdered the same scenario as my opening post.
I notice Funkstar. you have not specifically shown how the light arrives simultanioeusly at he LC an RC when the distances the photons have to travel are very different. Does time expand and frames grow for the lefty photon and does time dilate and frames cobntract for the R photons? This is the only way the result you so fervently wish for could occur.

There is another slight problem. When SRT says that if an event is simuttaneous in the stationary frame it isn't simultaneous in the moving frame. So I suppse you are borrowing fronm this relativitry of simultaneity statement.

The photons arrive simultaneously at the moved physical midpoint of the LC and RC in the stationary frame tests. The photons also arrive simultaneously at the physical midpont a distance from the emission point P simltaneously in the moving frame as observed from the embankment. Every discussion I have seen ov similar gedanken all have the photons arriving asimultaneously at the physicakl midpointn. IIf simultaenous in the moving frame then nonsimultaneous in the stationary frame and vice versa ciorrect? You must think I am stupid or something, certainkly you give me no status equal to yourself correct".

If the relativity of simulataneity is as described by SRT then how can the photons be measured arriving simultaneously at the physical midpoint of th4e frame especuially when they supposedly arrived simultaneously at the LC and RC?

As you have led yourself to the point of a major contradiction in theory, I would consider a re-evaluation of your thinking processes are in order that you are then more able to see the world as it is, as opposed to how you were trained to belove it is.

Does the moving frame instrumentation measure the simultanoeus arrival of photons at the LC and Rc as well as at the arrival at the moved physiocal midpoint iof the frame?

I see your problem. You do not know what you are talking about that is why it is coming out as gibberish. MM and Dayton Miller both measured a residual absolute motion of 8km/sec, which is not null, did you know the MM result was not null? The 8 km/sec was just 1/4 of what was expected knowing the orbital motion of the earth wrt the sun. Have you ever considered teh possibilty that the combined genius of the planet just doesn't know the laws of physics sufficiently to resolve the issues of SRT and motion?

More recently, there have been studies that show from GPS data that the orbital motion of the earth is not detected using a very accurate Sagnac effect measuring scheme such as what I have adopted.

Further, MM adn Miller both had an intrinsic sytenmatic error in the physical setup and ubnderstanding of the motion of light. The transvers ereflected leg of light is invariably shown as moving in a saw toothed trajectory as if "carried along" by the earth motion (the interferomter). If this were the case there would be a momentum impulse in the direction of the earth motion adding to the speed of light pushing the speed greater than c. Have you comment here?

[quote-Funkstar] Why can't you put this aside and come to terms with the fact that nature doesn't behave the way you want it to?[/QUOTE]
I could care less what nature is doing . I just want to know the truth and SRT has not provided that truth in any manner. It seems to be that SRT supporters are the one's you are decribing as desirous of verifying all the irrational and counteri-intuitive notions that you willingly accepted blindly, without the foggiest notion of what you were getting yourself into as taught in the universities around the world.

Some simple questuins. If the speed of light is isotropic and constant then time dilation and frame contraction would necessarily have to occur to the motion of light if the dilated clocks and contracted frame are to give the correct measurment of the speed of light and the same measuremnt as made by one on the embankment.

If you in the moving frame have your instruments peturbed by dilated time and contracted distances (and necessarily expanded and time and lengthening frame distances), you necessarily have to accept the dilated time and contracted distances of light motion in order that your perturbed instruments give the proper result. This is no different than if someone calibrating your instruments slowed the clock rate and effectively contracted the measuring tools from which you measure distances.

Do you see now why I an so set on maintaining my course? Prove me wrong, which you cannot do. You just try to make me less than humble by untruthfully asserting straw man non-sequitors in your dissertations that it is a personal desire that I and others of a like mind want the universe to operate as we demand. That is your function is it not? At least you recognize the technique of arguing as you do. What a joke.
.
But then I am not the first SRT dissident that you have conversed with on this matter over the years am I?
Geistkiesel.​

 

More recently, there have been studies that show from GPS data...

So, you wish to provide evidence from a source dependent on relativity in order to refute relativity.

I see your problem. You do not know what you are talking about that is why it is coming out as gibberish.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

I also considered this to be a flaw in relativity theory at first. The way I overcame it was to slow everything back down to Gallilean/Newtonian speeds, and consider a pendulum on a moving bus, swinging parallel to the bus' uniform motion. A coordinate system attached to the bus would measure the pendulum moving the same distance forward as it does backward. However, a coordinate system attached to the street would measure the pendulum as moving much a greater distance in the forward direction, and lesser distance in the backward direction. From this coordinate system, the pendulum moves faster in one direction and slower in the other direction, but there is no reason to conclude that time is advancing at alternating rates (fast, slow, fast, slow). Time obviously advances at a smooth rate regardless of the position of the pendulum.

It is not an exact anology, and it requires some creative thinking to take this concept from a pendulum to a ray of light, and from a bus to a near-light-speed spacecraft. However, I still found it to be a helpful thought experiment. Perhaps you will find it useful as well, though it may seem quite simple if it is not extrapolated out to relativistic circumstances.

 

On the issue of absolute zero velocity:
If you were to not move at all, in reference to every other object in the universe, what kind of time dilation would you get?

 

If the world used an absolute velocity = 0 reference frame, there wouldn't be a SRT, no time dilation, no frame contraction, simultaneity is restored as is absolte time and space., and velocity. The silliness that the relative motion of Frame and photon is always c (i.e. negating velocity of the inertial frame) will take on the realistic and intuitive absolute values of V - c and V + c, which are expression of relative velocity and are not expressions lowering or elevating the speed of light. I(n this context for a reference frme v = 0, the relative velocoty of frame and photon is really measured as c, not just a mathematical thjeoretical construct.

But your question was in the context of SRT was it not?. t' = gamma t correct? What is gamma but the expression,1/(1- v^2/c^2)^1/2. If v = 0, t' = t and Humpty Dumpty is alive and well and ready for someone's breakfast.

So, Roman, are youa be4liever? HAve yo given in to the persuasive arguments that the intuitive, the observed are illusory> Did you, or are, rearranging your thinking tio avoid that old fashioned "classical" view of reality? are youa practiced tghionker inured to the concept that the counter intuitive is the "truth"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When you studied SRT, did you ahve a clue whjat uit was all about before you really plunged in? This would mean, you realize, that you have accepted SRT on faith, that which the SRTists are the first to condemn for the 'unscientific belief system'. Are you so deep into the theory that it is just too embarrassing reverse thinking modes when realizing that you have been effectrively screwed by the public relations network, possibly including your graduate advisor, proselytizing beauty of counterintuitve think modes seen in SRT?

Where do you place the value of mathematics contrasted to intuition? Which is the most valuable? the most useful? the one most likely to introduce truth into your general understanding of nature, math or intuition?

Why did Mother nature include time in her creation? Answer: So everything didn't happen all at once.
geistkiesel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Roman, You realize I trust that the velocity = 0 frame is a point, a physical nothing, an abstraction, a point in space?
And to be blunt about it whio gives a fuck if every object in the universe were moviong wrt just one scrawny invariant reference Point P, with absolute velocity v = 0? Do you concern yourself with this?

geistkiesel.

 

Here you are saying that c would only measure c in an absolute state of rest. All other states of motion would yeild different values for c. Instead of citing experimental data to the contrary, I would like to propose a logical construct. In the empty void of space, a lamp and a measuring device are approaching each other at velocity v. The measuring device is tracking the speed of the light from the lamp. If the measured speed is indeed c+v, then would you conclude that it is the lamp that is moving or is it the measuring device that is moving? I assume you are aware that the motion of a lamp toward you does not add to the speed of light, so you would probably conclude that it must be that the measuring device that is moving. Perhaps you will see now that there is a flaw in your theory. The device measures the light as moving at c regardless of the motion of either itself or the source.

You certainly do have a way with words, no one can deny that!

My intuition tells me that a moving lamp does not add to the speed of light. That one is easy because sound waves behave the same way. It is much less intuitive to understand that moving toward a lamp does not add to the speed of light either. Sound does not behave that way because it requires air to propagate. My intuition tells me that light does not require a medium. Logic tells me, therefore, that moving toward a lamp does not add to the speed of light either.

A way with words, I say, definately a way with words.

 

My knowledge of physics beyond simple Newtonian mechanics is severely limited. I know some particle theories, some equations, enough to fake it. Smarter than your average bear you know, but not much.

But I was wondering, if, as you approach the speed of light, time for you slows down, in that if you travel at near light speeds for a long time, when you get out of your space shuttle, everyone's 80 years old, then if you slow waaaaay down, does time pass really fast for you?

If the red shift really implies that the universe is expanding, who knows how fast relative to an absolute refernce frame we're really going. We could be at 0.5c and never know it. That is, until somebody stopped moving altogether and turned a million years old in a fraction of a second.

I was just wondering, cause that would be damned cool.

 

by Neddie Bate:

"Here you are saying that c would only measure c in an absolute state of rest. All other states of motion would yeild different values for c. Instead of citing experimental data to the contrary, I would like to propose a logical construct. In the empty void of space, a lamp and a measuring device are approaching each other at velocity v. The measuring device is tracking the speed of the light from the lamp."
===========================================================

I see gedankins similar to this all the time, almost as often as I see the claim that an
astronaut's watch loses time while he is in orbit. This is an honest question. What
measuring device do you use to measure the speed of light from a relatively moving
source, one with no history, no other object in the empty void of space to use as a reference? How can an observer measure any light other than light he emitts from his
own reference frame and records the two-way average as the light is reflected off
another object and back to his emitter? Yes, I agree the reflected average speed will measure to be 'c', but it is a bit of a stretch for me to expolate that measurement to include
the light projected forward and reflected back will have identical speed in both legs,
(remember relativity of simultaneity) and light arriving from a relatively moving source
will also measure to be identical. How is it even possible to arrive at an exact distance to the lamp without assuming 'c' is 299,792,458 m/s and then somehow record a travel
time between the measuring device and an egnigmatic source emitting oodles of photons, at different times?

 

Q,
I am bothered by your posts. I have been unable to deciopher your question, to your satisfaction, of how I first determined the position of P. Let me try again.

First P is colocated withe the midpoint of the LC and RD clocks and is defined the instant the photons are demitted. The continuous location of P is maintained by the motion of the photons thereafter. I thoughtr for a spell there that you were referring to some univesal location, but that didn't amke sense.
Geistkiesel ​