What is a reference frame?

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

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Well, I'm not going to argue with you since I told you we are in agreement on result verbally. I also know if I were to say what you are saying I would be told "How does he see the rocket x% lightyears away and how can he tell exactly when and for how long and how hard he accelerated. Those will affect the moving clock."

    The affects of acceleration are not linear just as the affects of velocity are not linear. I am only saying you need to be prepared to supply some method of actually recording the magnitude and duration of such accleration and you must be able to deduct the affect from the rest clock time which continues to run at a constant rate.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    by MacM:

    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."
    ===============================================================

    I don't understand sentence '2' Mac. What does 'locally for an instant together' mean
    while the two clocks have a relative velocity of .886c? And did you mean .866c?
    Do you believe events can happen 'simultaneously' in two relativistically moving frames
    if they are 'close together' thereby eliminating the time delay of information? Does this
    'synchronize' their clocks so that both clocks 'start' at the same time?
    ============================================================

    by MacM:

    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."
    ================================================================

    I believe James R has already explained to you that 3600 seconds and 1800 seconds
    are only 'simultanous' in A's frame of reference. In B's frame of reference, his own clock
    stops at 1800 seconds, but A's clock is still running in his 'view' of that clock. A's clock
    is NOT running simultaneously with his (B's) according to Special Relativity in B's frame
    of reference. B 'sees' clock A continue to tick, not stop at 9000 seconds. 9000 seconds was what B 'saw' displayed on A's clock when his own clock stopped, not when A stopped. You keep forgetting that fact according to SR. That was why I eliminated 'views' in my scenario, understand? My exercise was based on physics, not
    on Special Relativity and impossible 'views' of relativistically moving clocks which cannot be falsified with REAL physics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R can say a lot of things. But as you said we are talking physics with reality not just quoting SRT. I have pointed out before that the correct answer is not the one James R tryies to advocate.

    According to relativity B sees A run but only upto and when it would stop at 9,000 seconds. This would be due to time delay. And this would preserve the claim of time dilation according to Relativity.

    If you follow James R's reply to it's logical conclusion and agree that A continues to run until B sees it reach 36,000 then you are saying Relativity is wrong and the accumulated times were not in fact dilated in a recipocal manner (i.e. either observer can be considered at rest and the other moving where the moving clock runs slower than the rest clock.

    The results as stated by having A run until it reached 36,000 would infact be LR not SR. That is B and only B runs slow from both views.

    That would be false as claimed by Relativity. I told you, you have to watch these diversions used to confuse people.

    What B sees when he stops is also a function of how far away he is from A.

    That is independant of any time dilation due to motion. James R's slight of hand is incorrect on this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    MacM,
    Do you indeed learn anything in your life, at all?
    Do you remember your thread “Mathematical Challenge to the Consistancy Claim of SR ” and your attack of SRT with straight and reverse scenarios, trying represent absolutely different events as the same ones? Do you remember this picture?
    But before that picture you also screamed there “SRT is wrong. All problems vanish. You lose, I won”. Why you forget it so soon? Why you even not mention it anymore? Why you started the same attack in form of this thread, only slightly transforming argumentation? You want another one box on the ear? Just a moment – you will have it…

    1. As you know, “By preagreement A stops his clock when it accumulates 36,000 ticks and B stops his clock when it accumulates 18,000 seconds”. Therefore, no matter what any theory including SRT and your posts in this thread or our current discussion say, A stops his clock when it accumulates 36,000 ticks and B stops his clock when it accumulates 18,000 seconds.
    And most important, no matter what Mother Nature does with anyone clocks, observer A will sit, look on his clock and will stop them when this clock ‘s reading appears to be equal 36000 sec. The same will do the observer B: will sit, look on his clock and will stop them when this clock ‘s reading appears to be equal 18000 sec … no matter what observer A does!
    So, you do not have any doubt what will read each clock finally, do you?

    2. And now you again appeal to the reverse scenario :

    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”.

    So, you again are appealing to the reverse scenario – how the same event - “The stopping of both clocks due to made preagreement” - observer B sees”

    3. And right there comes your “killer” logic:

    But A actually accumulates 36,000 seconds. This shows that the affect on clocks cannot be recipocally related”.

    Yoops! Boom-boom-boom, and SRT is death forever, SRT lose, MacM won!…
    Tragedy of SRT come to end!

    4. No, MacM. It just the Comedy “MacM-scientist” has finished its ordinary scene…

    All what you said and I reproduced here is the absolute true, all … except one, the last, conclusion:

    But A actually accumulates 36,000 seconds. This shows that the affect on clocks cannot be recipocally related”.

    No, all what you did rightly was that you have shown only the one fact: when observer B stops his clocks, that have accumulated 18000 sec, the clocks of observer A, according to B’s view of World around him, are showing 9000 sec. It means only this fact and nothing else.

    But you, using this fact with help of some anonymous “the affect on clocks” are trying to bring SRT in conflict with Principle of Relativity.

    You started your “killer” strike on SRT with statement: “But A actually accumulates 36,000 seconds”.
    No, you are wrong. Observer A actually accumulates 36,000 seconds when B accumulates 18000 sec only according to observer A’s view of World, not according to observer B’s view of the same World!
    When observer B accumulates 18000 sec the observer A accumulates 9000 sec only according to observer B's view of World, not according to observer A's view of the same World! (BTW, you alredy here should catch an idea that inertial observers are dealing with the different images of the World - the issue that I want to discuss a lot in the thread "How Vacuum does change for a moving observer?" )
    Principle of Relativity never required that two events, that are simultaneous in one inertial reference frame, have to be simultaneous in another one. Only you think that when observer B will stop his clock because they accumulated 18000 sec, the observer A should stop his clock no matter what they are showing and in direct violation of made pre-agreement. And that makes whole and huge difference.

    Do you know why? Because two events “Reading of 18000 sec on clock of B” and “Reading of 36000 sec on clock of A” are simultaneous only in reference frame of the observer A: only for observer A both clocks will be stopped simultaneously if they are treated according to made pre-agreement.

    For observer B these two events are not simultaneous! When B stops his clock – because they accumulated 18000 sec – this observer knows and sees that clock of observer A are showing 9000 sec and continue to run until they will accumulate 36000 sec and will be stopped by observer A in exact accordance with made pre-agreement. And there is not any discrepancy either with SRT, or with Principle of Relativity, or with Mother Nature. There is only the one discrepancy – between your personal ability to think and your education, on one side, and your ambition to create a new physics on another side…

    Many people told you that in our Forum, but you did not listen them…

    So, ones again you reveal
    a. total misunderstanding of SRT
    b. absence of ability to build self-consistent logical analysis even of a simple kinematical situation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ditto.

    Certainly. But do you remember that A's view of B's distance and B's view of A's distance in no manner can affect A or B's physics. This is not physics of a reality, it is physics of fantasy land.

    Because your mathematical slight of hand involves nothing more than making up crap using numbers which are not realted to the physics of each clock and even those numbers fail to equal time dilation since all time is accounted for by distance traveled. t = d/v actually dictates that clock tick rates have not changed.

    It is an illusion and not even a very good one at that. I said "I win - You lose" because that is exactly what happens when you stop burying you head in the sand and look at real physics and stop the shell game.

    Of course not. Makes perfect sense doesn't it.

    That is indeed what Relativity claims and it is blatantly false.

    I don't see any viable counter arguement here. Hmmmmm.

    You do have a way of twisting facts. The fact that B's view is 9,000 seconds not 36,000 seconds is indeed the problem as I have already pointed out. Don't pretend to be teaching me what Relativity claims. It is those claims that I have clearly detailed that are in conflict with reality.

    So tell us something we don't know. A and B have different views. That makes it clear that those different views of the same events involving physical clocks cannot support both views simultaneously and the events are simultaneous in that they are based on relative velocity between the two observers, hence are concurrent. The physical clock can and will only tick at one rate and accumulate only one display of time. Hence your two view world of Relativity is doomed.

    It cannot and does not exist in reality.

    The differance is I hold physics to a level of physical reality and don't ignore the obvious. AThe 18,000 seconds of B is the same 18,000 seconds in both views. It occurs in the same test over the same time interval. The two views ar hence simultaneous, even if you are force to try and deny that fact.

    You are wrong, Relativity is wrong and people should actually open their eyes and begin to see that Relativity can olnly be applied in an LR view by selecting a common reference point for both observers.

    In which case one clearly becomes the faster (moving) clcok and the other a slower (rest) clock and the time dilation is the same except the views cannot be reverse. The faster clcok is always the dilated clock from both views.

    Please explain what problem you find by showing A and B motion in relation to i.e. Alpha Centuri. In which case it becomes absolutely clear that one has a greater motion than the other and should not therefore be able to claim the rest position in the relationship?

    We agree one this point but that doesn't alter the conclusion.

    Bullshit. You have just tried to pull lthe same switch that James R has.

    Relativity claims that from B's point jof view he is at rest. A is in motion. When B stops at 18000, seconds, A stops at 18,000 seconds. If A continues to run until 36,000 seconds then B's view of time dilation does not occur.

    Now B is at rest and A is in motion at 0.866c B accumulates 18,000 seconds on his clock. Test over. How many seconds did A accumulate? 9,000 seconds. That is your claimed time dilation.

    If A continues to run until it reaches 18,000 seconds before it stops then no time dilation occurred, only time delayed information occured. Make up you mind do you want to argue the reality of time dilation or not. Or do you want to just talk about information delay which has nothing to do with time and aging.

    Oh I listened. Just as I have listened to you now. But unfortunately what you just said is bullshit. Clear and simple.

    Bullshit.

    you:

    a - Change functions when applied to the reverse situation. You try to claim only time information delay and not time dilation.

    b - You think an observers perception somehow changes event reality.

    WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE. You call yourself a physicist.? You are a robot following along a well traveled rut and are afraid to pull yourself up and out of the quagmire.

    SUMMARY:

    When A is at rest you agree that A and B according to the test start and stop simultaneously. We agree that A accumulates 36,000 seconds and B only accumulates 18,000 seconds. These are actual end of test numbers.

    However, when we take the view of B being at rest and accumulating 18,000 seconds and A accumulates only 9,000 seconds you want to mix fantasy and reality. You want to retain the A view of being at rest and only talk about B seeing A at 9,000 seconds when it stops but that A continues to run to the stopped value of 36,000 seconds.

    You have tried to pull a bait and switch. That end conclusion is not B at rest it is A at rest.

    Now I said with B at rest and A in motion at 0.866 c with a preagreement to stop both clocks when the accumulated times according to relativity are reached, that is when B accumulates 18,000 seconds and stops. What is A's stopped accumulated time.?
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  9. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    So, MacM,
    Now nobody will think that you are acting as you do in this Forum because somebody ignores your arguments and you simply do not get explanation of your mistakes. All what we gave you here is absolutely enough for any normal brain to make right conclusions and correct his imagination of SRT and its kinematics in cases like your problem.
    Your responses, reaction and position after all that, together with your demonstration of mathematical capability in UniKEF thread without any doubt shows who we are deal with...
    On this note, MacM, all what you can get from me for future, is: Goodbye forever...
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  10. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Your argument always boils down to your concept that there is such a thing as a single physical reality. Your claim that Relativity is wrong is based on your totally subjective "common sense" perceptions. On the contrary it is Einstein's insight that common sense is simply not the best or remotely qualified judge which is why he's called a genius today. Relativity tells us that two objects moving relative to each other will experience different time rates. The fact that these are not measurable over normal human experience does not take away the fact that the different time rate experienced is quite real - without compensating for which the GPS system (to pluck the most obvious example) simply would not work.
     
  11. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    by Silas:

    "The fact that these are not measurable over normal human experience does not take away the fact that the different time rate experienced is quite real - without compensating for which the GPS system (to pluck the most obvious example) simply would not work."
    ===============================================================

    Damn, it is statements like this that piss me off. Some ignorant bastard writes
    something in a textbook that has NO truth in fact, and all of a sudden, every
    student is quoting it. Silas, what do you know of the GPS system? Did you not know
    there is NO precalibrated 'offset' for relative velocity in the system? The only precalibrated offset is for General Relativity effects and we ain't discussing General
    relativity here.
    Edit: removed unnecessary words
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2004
  12. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Are you saying that somebody, somewhere has a numerical solution to the field equations, so they can build in a precalibrated offset? If so, do please share.

    And who exactly is the "ignorant b.", who decides what is "truth in fact" (is there an untruth in fact?). And what has GPS got to do with it? Surely GPS wouldn't work unless the satellites were geostationary, hence no relative motion (or doesn't GPS work like that?)
     
  13. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    QuarkHead, I was referring to the fact that most Universities now teach that an offset
    is precalibrated into the satellite clocks to account for the 7.2 microseconds per day
    that is due to relative velocity effects (Special Relativity) and the 44.7 microseconds
    due to General Relativity effects (clocks run faster in the lower gravitational field of
    the satellites orbit). The universities teach that the 7.2 ms due to 'slow running' clocks
    of SRT is deducted from the 44.7 ms due to 'fast running' clocks of GR, and the clocks
    are precalibrated for a 38 microsecond offset, accounting for both SR & GR. That is false. Dr. Neil Ashby is one of the principal designers of the GPS system and still works
    closely with the US Naval Observatory that runs the GPS system (NAVSTAR). A cut and paste from a previous post of mine:
    I had learned enough to know that time dilation due to relativistic velocity could NOT be preset into
    the SATELLITE clocks and keep all the frames in synch. It is not. Dr. Ashby's papers
    describe exactly what is happening (he does leave out the modelling of gravity effects
    though). The preset on the satellite clocks before launch is 44.647 microseconds,
    to run slow by that amount to keep in synch with GPS system clocks. There is NO
    7.2 microseconds deducted from that preset before launch. The clocks are not preset
    to run 38 microseconds slow, but 44.647 microseconds. Dr. Ashby states the time
    dilation due to relative velocity is 'supposedly' handled by the GPS recievers during
    their time synch with the satellite clocks. That is in question, however, due to data
    from the new TOPEX satellite where SR theory and actual results are not matching
    too well. This is from just a quick reading, I will have to go over the papers a little
    closer. A link to one of the pages where the preset is discussed:
    http://relativity.livingreviews.org...03-1/node5.html
    No, the GPS system does not use geostationary satellites. It uses a system of 24
    satellites in 6 orbital planes, one orbital plane around the Earth's equator and then at
    55 degree intervals all around the Earth. The satellites orbit the Earth in a little less
    than 12 hours and the orbits are fairly high above the Earth, about 26,600 kilometers
    from the Earth's center.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I really didn't think you could answer the issue. Now we know you can't and have joined the ranks of others that cut and run casting innuendos over their shoulders to CYA.

    The issue still stands unresolved.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    The following graph clearly demonstrates the problem and why no Relativist has yet to have provided a correct solution.

    1 - The test time interval is the same.

    2 - The two views are simultaneous.

    3 - Both clocks are required to operate at two different tick rates at the same time for both views to be displayed.

    The arguement made by James R and Yuriy that B sees A as 9,000 when it stops at 18,000 but sees A continue to run until it is stopped at the 36,000 reading, is based on A's view and not B's view as being at rest.

    From B's perspective he is at rest and will accumulate 36,000 seconds. B will claim A only accumulated 18,000 seconds. But A also sees himself at rest and accumulates 36,000 seconds and claims B only accumulated 18,000 seconds.

    If either or both clocks were to then see the other clock to continue to run until 36,000 seconds were accumulated then you are only talking about information delay and not time dilation for time would be matched and no dilation would be present.

    According to Relativity both are at rest and it is the other clock that is in motion.

    It can be seen that when B reaches 18,000, A is only at 9,000 and the test is over and A does not and cannot continue to run. Vice versa for A's view.

    But from the most basic level each is deemed at rest and each actually accumulates 36,000 seconds and each sees the other as accumulating only 18,000 seconds.

    Since muon decay, particle accelerators and some clock tests actually show time dilation affects, such testing actually disproves SRT, not proves it. For SRT as written requires that both clocks slow down equally; hence there should never be any systemic measureable differential clock readings.

    The problem is not time dilation but the manner in which SRT claims it occurs. That is why SRT has some useful applications and sucessfully makes some predictions. That is time dilation does occur but not in the manner and cause as stipulated by SRT.

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3626&stc=1

    The solution actually preceeded Relativity but was abandoned because it was based on an ether view which was not detected. It was called Lorentz Relativity. However, one need not re-invent an ether to make use of the concept.

    The following graph shows how it works.

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3628&stc=1

    By each clock selecting some common reference point, one clock is shown to be moving faster than the other. The two views cannot be reversed. B is always the fastest moving clock in both views. "A" can be declared at rest and B have a relative velocity of 0.205c to A. In which case its tick rate would be 0.978A.

    The 0.5 and 0.75 tick rates are reference to the higher relative velocity between each clock and the common rest reference. This shows both are running signifigantly slower than a rest tick rate.

    It also shows an on going problem, yet to be resolved, since the tick rate differential is larger than it is between the clocks themselves.

    So LR is superior but still not totally valid. It is superior since it at least always has B running slower than A in all views. SR actually has both running equally slow and is inconsistant with observation of actual time differentials being recorded.

    However, this view properly requires one to give up the velocity addition view advocated by Relativity, since it too creates multiple tick rates for different views.

    That means FTL is not prohibited and that means clock ticks are not an actual measure of time but only frequency markers along a time interval. Such that there are no temporal conflicts with FTL.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2004
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    MacM:

    Your inability to appreciate the relativity of simultaneity makes further discussion with you pointless. Therefore, I am withdrawing from this thread.
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Make a dust cloud, make some noise and then cut and run. That seems to be the response one gets when the issue comes down to "explain this."

    Relativity of Simultaneity is a front for not confronting the reality of the situation. Both clocks are running concurrently over the same test time interval. Their tick rates are therefore in a SIMULTANEOUS time frame. This is further mandated by the mere fact you are dealing with "Relative Motion". To be relative these views MUST be concurrent, hence simultaneous.

    Since each sees themselves at rest each has a tick rate = 1.0 and accumulates 36,000 seconds and each sees the other in motion and having a tick rate of 0.5 and claims they only accumulate 18,000 seconds.

    One view of Relativity at least is in error. It is really simple as that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2004
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    Please re-read the thread. I've already explained your errors to you.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Unfortunately what you call errors is nothing more than rejection of fiat without any basis physically. You have not addressed the simultaneous time interval and tick rate issue. Both views must co-exists simultaneously to be in relative motion.
     
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Progress = zero
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Care to actually address the simultaneous time interval issue in relative velocity?
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    Further discussion on this issue is unlikely to be of value.
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Unless somebody were to actually address the fact that both views exist concurrently during the same test time interval, I would agree. A and B have tick rates associated with their accumulation of time during such test period.

    Clearly as A is accumulating 36,000 seconds, B is simultaneously accumulating 18,000 seconds from A's view and B views A as accumulating only 9,000 seconds.

    Your interjection of the claim of Relativity of Simultaneity doesn't address this fact. You simply state the views are not simultaneous and that appears blatantly false.

    Also B actually accumulates 36,000 seconds in the same test time according to his view, not merely 18,000 seconds claimed by A's view, While A would be accumulating only 18,000 seconds and claim that B had only accumulated 9,000 seconds.

    ALL in the same 36,000 second test time period.

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3626&stc=1

    Claiming these are not simultaneous is one thing. Showing how that is possibly true is entirely another matter.

    You must show how within the same test period clocks can have different tick rates and display different accumulated times.

    Draw some graphics and show us where in this test time these different events are not simultaneous.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2004

Share This Page