What is a reference frame?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by James R, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    That is the very issue. You advocate a theory that causes clock A to tick slower than clock B which is already ticking slower than clock A. The claim that it is in different frames does not detatch that fact from the reality of ticks accumulating time differently, nor the fact that both these views are concurrent in the same test time interval.

    You are advocating an impossiblity of having the same physical clock tick at two different rates in the same test. You cannot seperate the two views and calculate only one view. Both views exist simultaneously.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    We agree.

    Not necessiarily so. Accumulated time displayed get muddled up when you start claiming different start/stop and run times due to Reltivity of Simultaneity. That is why we must analyze the tick rate itself. Tick rates are not subject to simultaneity concerns but ultimely affect the accumulated times.

    My question deals with the word in "red" 'under'. It was not a coherent english statement. Your clarification would seem to be correct but again we are not concerned yet with accumulated times of clocks but only their respective tick rates from different views during a common relative velocity test period which involves the same time interval - i.e. the tick rate of clock B being the common factor.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    MacM,

    1. First of all, forget everything connected with world “under” in one of my post. Answer on the question: What is “accumulated time”?

    2. Now, I offer the following solution of problem: How one can monitor readings of clocks in other moving RF (inertial reference frame)?

    For this we should agree that:

    All clocks are build and calibrated in the same factory at the same conditions in the same reference frame and are absolutely identical devices;
     Each clock has a special regulator, which can be set for any value. This value shows how slower or faster in comparison with the calibration standard this clock will run. If regulator is set up on value 2, clock will run twice faster then standard clock does, if regulator is set up on value 1/2, clock will run twice slower then standard clock does;
     According to mentioned conditions, each clock at regulator’s value equal 1 on it, being placed in any inertial reference frame (moving with any speed) together with standard clock, will show the same time forever if this both clock were started simultaneously; (This states that any physical effects of time dilation act on all clocks the same);
     Each observer can have as many clocks as he wants;
    Each clock with regulator’s value 1 is measuring the proper time of the inertial reference frame where it belongs;
     Any physical effects of time dilation act on all clocks the same no matter what value their regulator shows; (This condition guarantees that physical effects of time dilation do not depend upon set up of regulator: for instance, if time dilation is ½ and regulator is set up on 1/3 then clock will show time in 6 times slower than the standard clock, which is not effected with time dilation effect at all; if time dilation is again ½ and regulator is set up on 2 then clock will show the same time as the standard clock, which is not effected with time dilation effect at all )

    Using this type clocks you can monitor any time of other RF. Do you agree to use this type of clocks in whole our further research and forget even mention the term “tick rate”? (I am absolutely against this term only due to one reason: there can be proposed a lot other types of clocks that are not based upon any periodical process at all: for instance, time can be measured by …. Length of the uniformly puled thread from some box with a long-long thread inside: what, we will be obligated start our research again, because there we would not have any “tick rate” at all??)

    And I still do not see your promise to be scientific in your posts too
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    OK upto here.

    In the current question we are not precalibrating clocks to run any different. All clocks are as described above as running at a standard tick rate = 1. Any change is due to dilation by relative velocity and gamma.

    Please clarify. You seemed to have just said time dilation will not show between A and B with relative velocity. Are you saying the clocks remain synchronized even with relative velocity. That seems to violate actual observations where the clock with a higher relative velocity to a common reference point shows dilation.

    This would appear correct (if you have selected your rest clock as the one having a slower velocity to a common reference. I know this is not part of Relativity but it is a fact regarding current evidence. They is no case or data showing the opposite affect.

    Also there is no basis for introducing "regulators" (i.e. - offset calibaration) to any clocks in the current question.

    I believe I mentioned first that some clocks do not tick but that the pulse generator and counter formed a clock that ticks so that the link to tick rate has a physical base. For an analog clock you would need to talk about rate of operation or advancement.

    But again. There are no regulated clocks or clocks with anything other than a standard rest = 1 tick per second calibration in this test.

    The use of a precalibrated monitor clock in the B moving inertial frame from A's rest perspective, is to provide B with a read out of A in direct comparison to B's tick rate from B's perspective of being at rest.

    In that case the monitor is precalibrated to run at 0.5 tps compared to B. Which with B deing dilated relative to A causes the monitor to run at only 0.25 tps relative to A's standard rest tick rate.

    Such that A when viewed from the entire circumstance of relative motion between A and B; according to Relativity is running at 1 tps and 0.25 tps at the same time.

    That is the issue.

    You keep repeating this but have given no example of not being scientific.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2004
  8. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    OK, here is a problem. We have two observers, A and B, and four clocks.
    Each observer has two clocks, all clocks are calibrated before launch of
    observer B to a relative velocity of .866c. Observer A has one clock calibrated
    to run at the same tick rate and time as UTC, desiginated as clock AU. Observer B has one clock calibrated to run at the same tick rate and time as
    UTC BEFORE LAUNCH, desiginated as clock BU. Observer A also has a clock
    calibrated to run at 1/2 the UTC tick rate and time, designed to mimic the
    BU clock of observer B, AFTER observer B has attained a relative velocity of
    .866c wrt A, desiginated as clock AM. Observer B's other clock is calibrated
    to run at twice the tick rate and time as the UTC clocks, designed to mimic
    the AU clock of A, AFTER observer B has attained a relative velocity of .866c
    wrt to A, desiginated as clock BM. Observer B's mission is to travel to a spacestation and back to Earth. Each observer, A and B, will record times elapsed on THEIR OWN TWO
    CLOCKS during the inertial phase of the trip at a relative velocity of .866c.

    Observer A's frame of reference:
    clock AU: two light years recorded
    clock AM: one light year recorded

    Observer B's frame of reference:
    clock BU: one light year recorded
    clock BM: two light years recorded

    When the clocks are compared after observer B's return to Earth, both observers, A and B, agree that the inertial phase of the trip took one year
    of observer B's time and two years of observer A's (Earth) time. Observer B
    was able to complete the inertial phase of the trip in one year of his time
    BECAUSE HIS CLOCKS WERE TICKING AT HALF THE RATE OF EARTH CLOCKS.
    Observer B's meter wasn't contracted, the distance between two points in
    space was less than the calculated distance in Earth's frame of reference
    because B's calculations were based on his own clock tick rates.
    Now, James R, you say a signal can be sent from the moving clock and the
    travel time can be subtracted to give the relativistic effects. Of course,
    when the signal is sent from THE MOVING CLOCK. Explain how a signal can
    be sent representing the VIEW (what the moving observer 'sees' on the stationary clock) of the clock at rest to the observer at rest. What does this
    'view' have to do with physics anyway? If moving clocks run slower, it is because they are MOVING through the vacuum, the gravitational field that
    interconnects ever object with mass in the universe. JMHO.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    2Inquisitive,

    Not saying your example is right or wrong but you complicate matters and allow them to interject simultaneity between clocks when you use accumulated time. Tick rates are concurrent and hence simultaneous.

    My effort is to show multiple tick rates, which are impossible.

    The problem is that in accordance with Relativity either clock can rightfully claim to be at rest, because they do not sense their own motion.

    When viewed macroscopically that causes B to run at 0.5 tps (tick per second) while A is runnning 1 tps from A's view.

    While B claims to be running at 1 tps, according to Relativity he is going to only accumulate half the time of A during the test. That is his tps is dilated from A's view.

    If you stop the test at a prearranged point where both clocks actually stop simultaneously, that is when a precalculated time is reached for each clock, i.e. - 3,600 ticks for A and 1,800 ticks for B from A's view then the readings seem to agree with Relativity. No problem yet.

    But when you consider that these tick rates are simultaneous and are running concurrent, since the clocks were also started simultaneously by using a fly by at 0.866c. Then they must also have stopped simultaneously.

    During that same test time interval, it is also true according to relativity, that B sees (measures) A's tick rate to be only 0.5 times his local rate which has already been made only 0.5 *A's local rate.

    The end result is in the same test, in the same time interval ,A must therefore run at 1.0 and 0.25 tps at the same time for both views to be valid.

    This whole issue goes away if you simply take the logical view of relative velocity to any common reference point.

    i.e. - two space shops with a relative velocity of A = 0 and B = 0.866c to Alpha Centuri, for example. B will sow time dilation according to A's view but B can no longer claim to be at rest and will always be the dilated clock.

    We don't need to find an absolute rest reference only a common reference.

    This can be tested quite easily by having two clocks with different velocities move toward the earth clock, considered the common frame, and see if the clocks dilate according to earth or show any sign of relative velocity between themselves which includes the infamous Velocity Addition adjustment.

    The clocks will show that the faster clock has less time accumulated than the slower clock. Both clocks will be slower than a clock at the common referance.

    The answer is actually obvious and it boggles the mind how they can continue to argue otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2004
  10. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    by MacM:

    2Inquisitive,

    Not saying your example is right or wrong but you complicate matters and allow them to interject simultaneity between clocks when you use accumulated time. Tick rates are concurrent and hence simultaneous.
    ==============================================================

    What are you talking about, Mac? Simultaniety is not a factor in my example. Each
    observer is ONLY recording clock readings in HIS OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE on his
    OWN CLOCKS. There are no 'views' of the other frame of reference to consider. That
    is where simultaniety is a factor.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I should have been more clear. I didn't follow through your example. But using accumulated times opens the door to the simultaneity issue, which is why I have gone to tick rates.

    I'll go back and read more carefully and see what you did.
     
  12. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Not that your example tells anything, but from B's FRAME OF REFERENCE,
    his clock WILL be ticking at the same rate as A's clock. In B's 'view' of clock A, SR states it will be ticking at 1/2 the rate of his own (B's) clock. Remember
    that this clock was adjusted to run at TWICE the rate of A's clock, so the
    'view' of clock A will state that A is ticking at 1/2 the tick rate of B, not 1/4.
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    2Inquisitive,

    I have made some format changes and altered those parts in "red" to give my understanding of what you were saying and to ease readabilty. Hopefully I haven't changed your any of your meanings.

    ************************************************
    *************************************************

    In general I agree with your results but I think they are going to question how the clocks are synchronized to just the inertial phases of the trip.

    Simultanenity of the starting and stopping of the clocks will be a major point of debate, as well as acceleration affects if the clocks are not somehow started and stopped to only run during the inertial phases.

    You seem to be using the alternate arguement that dimension didn't change because tick rate did. I agree with that approach.

    I have been argueing against the idea that tick rate changed because they claimed dimensional contraction and t = d/v shows a common tick rate.

    But I also have said that spatial dimension does not contract. So your is more direct since tick rate is measured to change.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  14. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    MacM,
    Can you discuss something other than your basic problem in any logical development of our research?
    In my post I wanted to discuss with you some type of clocks that will allow us in future our research of your basic problem to avoid using the “tick rates” and will give observers a possibility to monitor readings of each other clocks. How this clock will do that – it is another question, but right now we should agree on the construction of clocks I am talking about. That is it, nothing more….

    1. I wrote:
    "Each clock has a special regulator, which can be set for any value. This value shows how slower or faster in comparison with the calibration standard this clock will run. If regulator is set up on value 2, clock will run twice faster then standard clock does, if regulator is set up on value 1/2, clock will run twice slower then standard clock does
    You responded:
    In the current question we are not precalibrating clocks to run any different. All clocks are as described above as running at a standard tick rate = 1. Any change is due to dilation by relative velocity and gamma.”

    What your response has to do with my description how we do manufacture our clocks? Why we should care about where and why you or me will apply these clocks? All what we should discuss is: Are you agree or disagree with my opinion that these clocks will work well as the measurers of the physical time in any inertial reference frame?
    Why you are worry about regulator? If our clocks’ generator is usual electronic one it is very easy to change his frequency of pulses, Why we can not use such regulator in further problems? We can. Are you agree or not with that?

    2. I wrote:
    According to mentioned conditions, each clock at regulator’s value equal 1 on it, being placed in any inertial reference frame (moving with any speed) together with standard clock, will show the same time forever if this both clock were started simultaneously. (This states that any physical effects of time dilation act on all clocks the same)”

    You responded:
    Please clarify. You seemed to have just said time dilation will not show between A and B with relative velocity. Are you saying the clocks remain synchronized even with relative velocity. That seems to violate actual observations where the clock with a higher relative velocity to a common reference point shows dilation”.

    Again, where from you got A and B here? All what I said was: If we will place any of clocks together with standard clock in any inertial reference frame, those two clocks will show the same time (if these clocks started simultaneously, were turn on simultaneously) no matter what is the velocity of this reference frame. If you agree with that it means that you agree that any possible physical effects of dilation of time due to motion of reference frame will act on any of our clocks (if they will be placed in that RF) the same. In other words you never will be allowed to say: “Yuriy, you have registered some wrong time dilation because you took wrong clock among all manufactured”. It will be out-of-logic argument. Are you agree or not with that?

    3. I wrote:

    Any physical effects of time dilation act on all clocks the same no matter what value their regulator shows; (This condition guarantees that physical effects of time dilation do not depend upon set up of regulator: for instance, if time dilation is ½ and regulator is set up on 1/3 then clock will show time in 6 times slower than the standard clock, which is not effected with time dilation effect at all; if time dilation is again ½ and regulator is set up on 2 then clock will show the same time as the standard clock, which is not effected with time dilation effect at all )”

    You responded:
    This would appear correct (if you have selected your rest clock as the one having a slower velocity to a common reference. I know this is not part of Relativity but it is a fact regarding current evidence. They is no case or data showing the opposite affect.”

    Again, you are trying to prevent something I do not touch yet. Here I do a simple thing: I am trying to establish our mutual agreement that the physical influence of the speed of the reference frame on the physical time, if it really happened, influence on any clock in the same way, no matter what value of regulator we will chouse. Like if you have two clocks in our room, one normal and second one broken - running twice faster than normal. So, if we will turn them on simultaneously and then turn them off also simultaneously, the readings of broken clock will be twice bigger than normal one. I insist now, that if we will place them in RF moving with such speed that physical time becomes twice slower, then both clock will read twice slower that they did in our room. But reading of the broken clock still will be twice bigger then normal one. This is all what I am saying here. Are you agree with me or not?

    4. Then you said:

    Also there is no basis for introducing "regulators" (i.e. - offset calibaration) to any clocks in the current question.”
    But again. There are no regulated clocks or clocks with anything other than a standard rest = 1 tick per second calibration in this test.”
    The use of a precalibrated monitor clock in the B moving inertial frame from A's rest perspective, is to provide B with a read out of A in direct comparison to B's tick rate from B's perspective of being at rest.”
    In that case the monitor is precalibrated to run at 0.5 tps compared to B. Which with B deing dilated relative to A causes the monitor to run at only 0.25 tps relative to A's standard rest tick rate.”
    Such that A when viewed from the entire circumstance of relative motion between A and B; according to Relativity is running at 1 tps and 0.25 tps at the same time. That is the issue.”

    Why you brought all this stuff now? I do not discuss your problem yet, I discuss clocks I will use for solution of your problem. How I will do it – you will see, but do not try to prevent any use of any device I will chouse, if this device was discussed with you and you approved it. Just as I am doing with these clocks.

    And I still do not see your promise to be scientific in your posts too…

    Instead to answer straight, you wrote:
    You keep repeating this but have given no example of not being scientific.”
    Why I should give you any examples? You are not sure that you will be scientific in your posts? If not, say so, if you are sure you will be – answer
    Of course!” and that will be it…

    And last ask to you: as you see our posts become long, requiring a lot of time to be prepared. I guess, it would be better if we will read posts of each other more carefully and will not argue about insignificant issues….
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  15. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Mac, the clocks are NOT synchronized BETWEEN frames of reference. The clocks are
    running the entire trip, so they do not have to be 'started and stopped' simultanously.
    Observer A RECORDS the times of the inertial phases of B from the readings on his own
    clocks, not from B's clocks. Observer B RECORDS his time of the inertial phases from
    the readings of his own clocks, not from A's clocks. The TOTAL times registered on
    any clocks including acceleration (non-inertial) phases are not considered. We are only
    RECORDING the times during the inertial phases of the trip. The inertial phase begins
    and ends BETWEEN the non-inertial (acceleration) phases for both frames of reference,
    the inertial phases are NOT simultanous in both frames of reference nor do they need to be.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I may interject here and quote some famous wisdoms that are relevant to this discussion:

    "To acheive understanding is the first of all tasks, if agreement follows this is good but understanding does not equate to agreement but only to understanding. Seek to understand each other first and realise agreement is unecessary."
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Yuriy,

    No. I do not care at this point to entertain yet another scenario. I prefer that you address the tick rate issue.

    1 - Two clocks with relative velocity of 0.886 c. Gamma = 2.

    2 - The clocks start simultaneously by a fly by where they are locally for an instant together and the clocks start then.

    3 - During this test according to A which is assumed at rest, A claims B only ticks at a rate of 0.5 tps.

    4 - B also considers himself at rest and views A as being in motion and consequently claims A ticks at 0.5 tps relative to his clock.

    Summary A at rest tick rate is 1 tps. B = 0.5A and A' (B's view of A) = 0.5B.

    A' = .5 * .5 = 0.25A

    5 - Since A and A' are the same physical clock you now have tick rate(s) of

    1.0 and 0.25 for the same physical clock running during the same test time interval.

    6 - Since both clocks started simultaneously when A accumulates 36,000 ticks, B will have accumulated only 18,000 ticks.

    By preagreement A stops his clock when it accumulates 36,000 ticks and B stops his clock when it accumulates 18,000 seconds.

    Since that moment is simultaneous by Relativity's time dilation formula both clocks stop simultaneously.

    7 - When times are compared B notices that A displays 36,000 seconds when he predicted it would only display 9,000 seconds.

    8 - Before there is anything to discuss further you need to resolve this physical impossibility.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    That was my question. How are you getting the clocks to only know when they are recording inertial readings. You say they run continuously. GR is going to affect an accelerating clock. You must know and synchrozine the clocks notation of when it is and is not inertial.? and record those time seperately.

    I guess I just see problems technically not that I disagree with your results.
     
  19. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    MacM,

    1. You are absolutely right about readings of clocks happened in reality: When both clocks, A and B, will be stopped they indeed will have the following readings

    Clock A will show 36000 sec and clock B will show 18000 sec.
    It fully corresponds with facts that will see observer A and observer B: both will see that clock A shows 36000 sec and clock B shows 18000 sec. And any other inertial observer in Universe will see the same - clock A shows 36000 sec and clock B shows 18000 sec!

    2. Where you see any problem?
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Great. We are half way there.

    You do realize that Relativity states these observers cannot measure their absolute motion and hence consider themselves at rest and the other observer (clock) in motion.?

    Therefore during the 18,000 seconds that clock B runs, relativity requires that he measure, observe (or at least have) his tick rate be 2 times that of A. Because he percieves A as in motion and himself at rest. A must tick only at 0.5 B.

    Therefore Relativity also requires (to satisfy B's view) that A only accumulate 9,000 seconds during that same period that B accumulated 18,000 seconds.

    But A actually accumulates 36,000 seconds. This shows that the affect on clocks cannot be recipocally related. One clock must be faster than the other clock from both views.

    That can only be achieved by selecting a common reference point for all views.

    i.e. two space ships with different velocites relative to Alpha Centuri. In this case one will always be faster and the math cannot be applied in reverse. You can call the slower one at rest but you cannot declare the faster on at rest.

    All problems vanish.
     
  21. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Very simply Mac, an inertial frame is when you are not plastered against your
    seat in the moving frame. In the rest frame, I suppose the observer at rest can take velocity readings of the moving observer as is necessary in ANY
    scenario where relative velocity is taken into account, right? You say "GR
    is going to affect an accelerating clock." Did you READ my scenario? If you
    did, you are certainly having trouble understanding it. What does 'You must know and synchronize
    the clocks notation of when it is and is not inertial' mean? You are speaking
    in techno-babble known only to yourself, if you truley do have an idea of what it is you wish to convey. Uh, the clocks are only ticking, the OBSERVERS
    are recording the elapse times off their respective clocks.
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    There is still a problem with the rest clock knowing when the clock in motion is accelerating or inertial. You can sind signals, etc but then you run into the timing delays, etc as to when to start/stop recording inertial times.

    Verbally we are in agreement. It is only that I have been through this here and they would not let me simply make a statement about timing only the inertial periods. They want to introduce simultaneity to record such periods, etc.

    The pilot of the craft in motion could tell when he was accelerating but he must let the rest clock know that. The rest clock would be recording the total time of the trip. Any effort to deduct the periods of acceleration get into signaling and simultaneity with the rest clock.
     
  23. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    by MacM:
    "There is still a problem with the rest clock knowing when the clock in motion is accelerating or inertial. You can sind signals, etc but then you run into the timing delays, etc as to when to start/stop recording inertial times."
    ==============================================================

    Damn, Mac, how many times do I have to tell you that the CLOCKS ARE ONLY TICKING.
    The observers, the OBSERVERS, are recording the inertial phase using their own clocks.
    Say I am sitting on the bank of a lake watching a fishing tournament. A guy in his Bass
    Boat has been fishing one spot for awhile. He decides to try someplace else and cranks
    his outboard motor. I can watch him get on plane, look at my watch and record that time. I can watch until he slows down and gets off plane later, look at my watch and
    record that time. I can determine how long he was on plane, not how long he was fishing total. The guy in the boat can look at his watch when he gets on plane and record that time. He can then record when he slows and drops off plane at the end of his trip. It does not matter if my watch is 5 minutes ahead of his watch or not, only
    if both our watches are running at the same rate for both of us to calculate the time
    his boat was on plane. Time delay of signal has NO effect. I think you have a fasination
    with 'clocks'. Why would you think that an observer at rest cannot tell if a craft is
    accelerating or not? Do you think the moving observer has to let the observer at rest
    know his velocity by sending it to him?
     

Share This Page