So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[JoeWade]

your reputation as a cranking troll is well deserved, Dr.Dick

how do you propose to define time without "rates" as you say. do you even have a method to do so? you propose the question "what is time?" then when people respond explaining that it exists as a function of "rates" you tell them they are wrong with no explanation. are you proposing a backwards step from the unification of space-time to space and time as separate constraints?

please enlighten us with your wisdom, or return to "whatever hole you came from" :D

 

[brodix]

All motion is relative. If you were to encompass all motion in the universe, it would be the universal reference frame, but you are not, you are measuring some specific process against the rest of the universe, which makes the entire universe relative to it. So, since you have isolated this particular motion from the universal flux, a negative remains. So the universe is effectively moving toward the specific motion, as it moves toward it. Or to put it simply, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
No mention of time or rates.

 

[Doctordick]

Dr. Dick,

What is the definition of time?

I know what I am talking about when I use the term! The question is, do you? If you do, you should make your position clear; if you cannot, then you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Think it out!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Yes, it's not stable. It is expanding.

Can you give any evidence of that fact? That is, how do you alone happen to be aware of the fact that the value is changing. Please give me your experimental reference to the fact that the value 371 km/sec is changing.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[JoeWade]

I know what I am talking about when I use the term! The question is, do you? If you do, you should make your position clear; if you cannot, then you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

are you familiar with the term "Hypocrisy" then, Dr.Dick?

 

[Doctordick]

your reputation as a cranking troll is well deserved, Dr.Dick

how do you propose to define time without "rates" as you say. do you even have a method to do so? you propose the question "what is time?" then when people respond explaining that it exists as a function of "rates" you tell them they are wrong with no explanation. are you proposing a backwards step from the unification of space-time to space and time as separate constraints?

please enlighten us with your wisdom, or return to "whatever hole you came from" :D

Ok, though I can assure you that you will not be able to comprehend it, I will nevertheless give you exactly what I mean when I use the term: time is an ordering of what I know (and what I know changes). The past is what I know and the future is what I do not know (and have hopes of predicting). Time is nothing more than a parameter which I use to refer to a state of presonal knowledge.

Now that could make sense to you if you would take the trouble to think it out.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

The problem is you misunderstand the word "universal" in this context.

I would not argue with that in any way! In fact, that is exactly the issue underlying all of physics. How do I know that I understand the specific meaning of any word you use? You need to define these things and that is a major problem not considered by most.

If you want to discuss the central problem with defininition itself, I am very open to the issue. Are you?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

are you familiar with the term "Hypocrisy" then, Dr.Dick?

I know what I mean when I use the term! Would you take the trouble to specify what you mean when you use the term?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[JoeWade]

now explain to me the difference of "what you know" versus "what you observe via tools or equipment"

your definition of time is not very useful for quantifying it, and relaying said information in a meaningful matter to another individual...

 

[Doctordick]

All motion is relative. If you were to encompass all motion in the universe, it would be the universal reference frame, but you are not, you are measuring some specific process against the rest of the universe, which makes the entire universe relative to it. So, since you have isolated this particular motion from the universal flux, a negative remains. So the universe is effectively moving toward the specific motion, as it moves toward it. Or to put it simply, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
No mention of time or rates.

And nothing defined either!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

now explain to me the difference of "what you know" versus "what you observe via tools or equipment"

your definition of time is not very useful for quantifying it, and relaying said information in a meaningful matter to another individual...

Are you sure of that? Have you examined (in detail) the consequences of that defintion? I think not!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[JoeWade]

Are you sure of that? Have you examined (in detail) the consequences of that defintion? I think not!

yes, it's not as deep and meaningful as you make it out to be. again the implications of it are that it is not a useful modus for relaying temporal quantification to another individual.

"what time is lunch?"
"when you know it is lunchtime..."
"uhh... thanks?"

 

[Chronos]

Sir Chronos,

While flattering, the title 'Sir' is unwarranted.

your responses show little if any thought.

Nor do your unfounded assertions and specious conclusions, IMHO.

We cannot have a serious discussion of anything without first defining what it is we are talking about.

Agreed.

The issue of this thread is a concise and well thought out definition of "time". One of the first issues of definition itself is that the word being defined is not to be used in the definition. A definition which includes the word "rate" requires a definition of "rate" before it is useable. Since "rate" is generally defined as the ratio between change in something and the change in time, the concept presumes time is defined and thus is not a valid concept within the definition of time.

Circular logic, at best.

It appears to me that you have a lot of confidence in what has and what has not been proven.

Agreed. Nothing has been proven. On the other hand, much has been disproven.

I think it would benefit you to take a little trouble to think about these things.

I have, and still arrive at the same conclusions. You retreat into reductionist logical abstractions and evasive semantical arguments when your assertions collapse under their own weight.

Now I would contend that is a rather extreme statement. They certainly disagree as to the proper equations to be used to transform from one coordinate system to another. You should be more careful in your pronouncements. Neither did Newtonian relativity! What is much more significant is that SR does not include a rule for transforming between accelerating coordinate systems which Newtonian relativity does.

Huh? I think you have that backwards.

It was Einstein's attempts to generalize his theory (an absolute necessity by the way) which lead to the gravitational results.

Agreed.

If you look at the fundamental deduction of general relativity, you will find discussion of direct transformations from a coordinate system attached to an accelerating elevator.

In the interest of avoiding a semantical argument later, explain which 'fundamental deduction of GR' you are talking about. Please phrase it in unambiguous terms that you think that I [and most of the rest of us] can agree upon.

Problems in measurement arose there which did not allow a simple generalization thus Einstien's result was not unique. A very interesting problem which has received little really serious attention.

Please elaborate on what you mean by the 'measurement problems'. I am not aware of any. Please also explain which 'simple generalization' you are referring to.

Now here you are fighting a losing battle as "natural unique coordinate systems" are use all the time on a day to day basis in physics. In fact, lots of different "natural unique coordinate systems" are used. For example, the rest frame of the laboratory in which an experiment is done; or a coordinate system which makes the one way speed of light the same in all directions.

Most of us call those 'inertial reference frames', not 'natural unique coordinate systems'.

The central issue of relativity is that all these coordinate systems are equally valid. In almost every case, each and every experiment suggests it's own "natural unique coordinate system".

Agreed. So what is your point?

It is the fact that the "laws of physics" must be the same in all of these coordinate systems which allows us to determine the required transformation equations between those various coordinate systems.

See prior objection to your prior assertion the the wrong transformations are being used.

And finally, to Russ, I still say you are being a bit provincial with your comments. I think it would be worth your while to step back once and look at the fundamental nature of the problems which confront us. I would expect a mentor to take a little more care with his comments. What you say cannot possibly be rationally defended as logical.

Your conclusion is not supported by facts in evidence... at least none among the unsupported arguments you made in this post. Russ's, on the other hand, appear sound.

You are saying that because "that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4Newton was proposing", it is not a universal reference frame.

And he is entirely justified in that assertion. It agrees with all known theory and observations.

You seem not to understand the principle of relativity.

Russ is not the one who appears to be confused about the principles of relativity, or logic.

The principal or relativity is that all reference frames capable of indicating the information associated with any given experiment are fully useable. If one adds to that the fact that the laws of physics are particularly simple in a specific frame (think of Newton's inertial frame), then all one needs is the specific transformation from the particular simple frame to a frame of reference of interest and one knows what happens in that frame of interest. Einstein's General Relativistic frame is just such a "simple" frame, quite analogous to Newton's inertial frame; however, the required transformations to the frames of interest

What 'frames of interest'?

...are not quite as simple as Newton's but they can nonetheless be done. That fact is used over and over again throughout physics. There are a number of unique frames used all the time.

Unique with respect to what? They all look 'relativistic' to me.

For example, the GPS system is a coordinate system tied to time as measured by a clock in Colorado and is by that fact, a very unique coordinate system.

Not unique.

Since it is always possible to set up a specific coordinate system tied to a specific clock the term "universal" could be attached to the concept.

Universal? with respect to what?

There is another rather unique coordinate system used quite often in a lot of experiments. That would be a coordinate system tied to center of mass of the universe (in this case, read "universe" to be a reference to the collection of entities which are significant to the experiment of interest and may range from no more than the components of a single nucleus to a nuclear accelerator, the solar system, the galaxy or everything including the cosmic background). Call such a coordinate system a CoM system. Certainly the CoM system is unique and it is also quite universal. One can very reasonably suggest that relativity should require the laws of physics to be the same in every CoM system conceivable.

Relativity already does that.

In fact, that is essentially exactly what the COBE scientists did when they documented the solar systems velocity through the universe at 371 km/sec.

But all this is outside the discussion on this thread which is "what is the definition of time?"

The interval I wasted posting this response.

 

[4newton]

Real Time

Here is a definition of time that does not use rate, or time and is universal.

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

 

[russ_watters]

your reputation as a...

Easy, JoeWade. No need to feed the "..."

If you want to discuss the central problem with defininition itself, I am very open to the issue. Are you?

Absolutely not. The term in question has a specific meaning in this context (as do pretty much all words scientists use) and you are using it incorrectly. There is no room for discussion. This isn't the philosphy forum. Either you discuss science on its own terms here or not at all.

It seems your only contribution here ever is arguing over definitions. I have yet to see any actual science from you. Perhaps you'd do better in our philosophy forums?

And your patronizing tone is most unwelcome here.

4Newton - sorry this thread got hijacked (then again, he did start the thread...). We seemed to be making some progress and if you want to continue, by all means do...

 

[brodix]

Dr. D,

Ok, though I can assure you that you will not be able to comprehend it, I will nevertheless give you exactly what I mean when I use the term: time is an ordering of what I know (and what I know changes). The past is what I know and the future is what I do not know (and have hopes of predicting). Time is nothing more than a parameter which I use to refer to a state of presonal knowledge.

Actually this is a generally rational statement. Not very descriptive though. I realize your mental blocks are not going to accept anything I have to say, but you might want to review Complexity Theory and transpose past with order and future with chaos. One of the basic insights of Complexity Theory is the dichotomy between top down order and bottom up growth. It corresponds with my point about time having two directions; The entity/set/top down order is going from beginning to end, while the process/bottom up growth is going toward the next generation, leaving the old...

What is first, past or future? From our perspective, past events proceed future ones, but from the perspective of the events, say your birthday, they are first in the future, then in the past...

The trick here is to take a big breath, now start thinking... no, no, not the spleen, the brain! I'm sure it used to work just fine, now climb up out of that depression and remember, nobody really cares what you think, so don't get so self conscious about it. Clear the brain, start over again.

regards,

brodix

 

[JoeWade]

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

but all "transition" is performed at a rate...

even transitions of the mind, Dr.Dick

 

[4newton]

4Newton - sorry this thread got hijacked (then again, he did start the thread...). We seemed to be making some progress and if you want to continue, by all means do...

I have created an experiment to help understand our points of view.

It would help if you gave me your view of the experiment and the expected results. This will point out where we have a disagreement, if any.

Space-time Special Relativity Experiment
This is not just a mind experiment. This low cost experiment may be done with equipment available in any science facility.

Equipment required
1.Three resettable clocks with a repetition rate in the range of 100 to 1,000,000 pulses per second.
2.Three high-speed resettable time bases.
3. Three high-speed gated counters.
4 One gated or pulsed light source.
5 two high-speed photo detectors.

. G
. |
. |
. D4
. |
. |
. E------------------------------ F
. |--------------D1--------------|
. |---------------------- F2
. |---------D2----------- | -D3- |

Three identical clocks are placed at positions E, F, and G. All clocks are repetitive and synchronized so that all clocks repeat zero at the same time. Included in each clock are synchronized high-speed time bases.

The clock at E is used to send a light pulse to F and G at time zero of the clocks.

At time zero counters at positions F and G start accumulating the output from the high-speed time base until the light pulse is received from E. This repeated accumulation might continue for any desired time period effectively adding distance on each clock cycle. The greater the number of cycles the higher the resolution of the measurement. If a high repetition rate is used an effective measurement of millions of meters may be achieved in a short time.

Dt1 = D1 * N

Where Dt1 is total distance and N = the number of cycles of the clock.

The same is true for all accumulated time measurements in this experiment.

All clocks may be synchronized and zeroed using the light pulse from E when the system is moving at a velocity V1. After synchronization with the system moving at any velocity all accumulated time will be the same on all clocks.
After synchronization any change in velocity may result in a change of accumulated time between clocks. The clocks may be stopped at any time to take a reading of accumulated time.

The diagram shows a system with the clocks at E, F, and G. The initial system has a velocity of V1 where V1 => 0. The time required for the light to go from E to F is
(D1 / c) = t1
where (c) is the speed of light.

The time required for light to go from E to G is
(D4 / c ) = t3

With each cycle of the clock time t1 and t3 are added to their respective counters.

After synchronization and zeroing of the clocks and time bases the system is then allowed to increase velocity to V2 where V2 > V1.
At velocity V2 the clock F should be at position F2 at the same time the light pulse from E arrives at that point. The resulting distance for the light to travel to the F clock from E is D2 and the time to D2 is

(D2 / c ) = t2

Accumulated time over a period at clock G should remain constant regardless of the velocity of the system as the change of path from E to G remains unchanged as the velocity of the system is changed in the EF direction.

A change of the accumulated time at counter F should be less than G because the distance from E to F, D1 changed to D2 when the system is moving at a velocity of V2

If any changes are to be seen as velocity changes from V1 to V2 this experiment should detect the changes.

If no changes are measured within this system SR then tells us nothing and has no reality within the system.

Is there a measurable change when looking from one system at V1 to another system at V2?
If there is a measurable change from one system to another is it real or just the result of distortion of observation caused by the limit of the speed of light?

 

[Chronos]

You are trying to compare local inertial reference frames to some sort of 'universal' reference frame. The results will never make sense until you apply relatavistic corrections. Until you acknowledge the fact there are no 'preferred' reference frames, none of this will ever make sense to you. I am not trying to be critical, merely pointing out the assumptions you are using are incorrect.

 

[what_are_electrons]

The Existence of Time

I've read about half of this thread. Very interesting.

WRT the concept of time, please consider three questions:
What natural occurence caused man to produce the very first unit of time?
Does time, as a unit of measure, really exist?
Do we really need this unit of measure?

...

 

[4newton]

but all "transition" is performed at a rate...

You are correct. Our discussion here is limited to the nature of time in our universe and the quantum world.

The explanation I gave for time can account for all things only in our universe.

Our transition in the time dimension is an absolute reference in our universe. It is absolute for us because we have no power or ability to change our transition outward from the Big Bang, time base, using any of the physics we know about at this time.

A rate by definition is a reference of one thing to another, miles in reference to time, three apples for every two oranges dropping to the ground… Time, the transition from the Big Bang, may be referenced to something else. That reference however has no influence on anything in our universe and we have no indication or its existence. With out some clue it is impossible if not very difficult to discover its nature. (We seem to be able to do the impossible but very difficult is much harder in my experience).

The view may be taken that the rate of time is in reference to a fifth dimension. This view could go on forever.

For us, with our limited ability, this may be the same as the question of God, what is the prime.
The unbreakable law is that we can not know anything that would remove our free will. You must always be able to deny that God exists.

We should be happy that we are even able to arrive at some understanding of the nature of time.

 

[Chronos]

I've read about half of this thread. Very interesting.

WRT the concept of time, please consider three questions:
What natural occurence caused man to produce the very first unit of time?

Observation.

Does time, as a unit of measure, really exist?

If not, then we cannot make meaningful observations.

Do we really need this unit of measure?

Not unless you wish to make meaningful observations and predictions.

Time is an unavoidable consequence of any universe that permits itself to be observed. We observe the universe, therefore, time exists. Time is an inherent and required feature of any universe that includes causality.

 

[russ_watters]

I have created an experiment to help understand our points of view...

What was wrong with your other experiment? It was a lot simpler (frankly, I can't understand what you are saying in this one), its results are easy to predict, and its implications for other experiments already performed are obvious. I always get the impression that once a thought experiment is explained unsatisfactorily (to the person who doesn't like SR) a new and more complicated one is created and the first one ignored in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Intentional or not, this will keep you from understanding the problem with what you are saying. Please just stop and think about the implications from your 1st thought experiment - and please don't hide behind the fact that its a thought experiment (it is, actually, a good thought experiment).

For example, if your experiment succeeded and found a universal reference frame, what would you predict the results of the Michelson Morely experiment to be? What about pion decay experiments? What about the behavior of GPS satellites.

This is intriguing though:

If there is a measurable change from one system to another is it real or just the result of distortion of observation caused by the limit of the speed of light?

There is a measurable change in clock rate with speed, it is real, and it is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light.

I'm also still waiting for you to say if you viewed the power point presentation I linked.

 

[russ_watters]

Time is an unavoidable consequence of any universe that permits itself to be observed. We observe the universe, therefore, time exists. Time is an inherent and required feature of any universe that includes causality.

To say otherwise (as some people do) is equivalent to saying "length" does not exist or is undefined.

 

[4newton]

What was wrong with your other experiment? It was a lot simpler (frankly, I can't understand what you are saying in this one), its results are easy to predict, and its implications for other experiments already performed are obvious.

There was nothing wrong with the other experiment except that you agreed through many of the points then changed you mind and jumped form SR to GR it did not seem that you were able to follow the line of thought presented. In other words you are just confused.

I have now given you a simple real experiment, not just a thought experiment, that you say you don’t understand but has results you can predict. You need to explain that concept to me.

If you have some questions about the experiment please feel free to ask and I will explain them to you. You need to tell me what you don’t understand about clocks, timers, distance, or the speed of light.

For example, if your experiment succeeded and found a universal reference frame, what would you predict the results of the Michelson Morley experiment to be? What about pion decay experiments? What about the behavior of GPS satellites.

The M&M experiment has nothing to do with this experiment; we are not talking about aeather drag or any concept of the aeather. I see no disagreement with any other experiment. Please be more specific about the conflicts you are thinking about.

I'm also still waiting for you to say if you viewed the power point presentation I linked.

I did look at it and I assumed it was meant to be insulting. If you were in earnest then you mistake understanding with my questions about the theory. You have never explained where my understanding is incorrect. You only restate that it violates SR. There have been very few experiments done to test SR. there have been the same experiment done many times but the questions I raise have not been tested. Some of the questions I ask you are to find out your understanding with the hope to find common ground between us and a starting point..

 

[russ_watters]

There was nothing wrong with the other experiment except that you agreed through many of the points then changed you mind and jumped form SR to GR it did not seem that you were able to follow the line of thought presented. In other words you are just confused.

C'mon now, there was no such problem. GR had nothing to do with it and I never said it did. It was a simple experiment with a simple prediction. I understand what you were going for just fine, its just that your prediction is wrong. I want to explore that to see if I can make you understand why.

I have now given you a simple real experiment, not just a thought experiment...

Any experiment that has never been performed is a thought experiment - both of your experiments are thought experiments.

You need to tell me what you don’t understand about clocks, timers, distance, or the speed of light.

Its not the laws of physics I don't understand, its your experimental setup. In any case, I don't want to get into that. Why bring up a new problem when we never resolved the old one?

The M&M experiment has nothing to do with this experiment; we are not talking about aeather drag or any concept of the aeather.

The aether, is the Universal Reference Frame. Finding the Universal Reference Frame means finding the aether and finding the aether means finding the Universal Reference Frame.

I see no disagreement with any other experiment. Please be more specific about the conflicts you are thinking about.

If you don't see any disagreement between what your experiment/hypothesis would mean for M&M or other experiments, then we're back to you not understanding what SR says.

Tell me this: when calculating the SR time dilation on a clock on a GPS satellite, what velocity should I use? As I said before, your experiment implies that since we do not know the 'real' velocity with respect to the Universal Reference Frame, we do not have a velocity to use to calculate the performance of a GPS clock. Ergo, if you are correct, the GPS system should not work.

I did look at it and I assumed it was meant to be insulting. If you were in earnest then you mistake understanding with my questions about the theory. You have never explained where my understanding is incorrect.

Insulting? What are you talking about? I'm trying to help you here and that presentation went straight to the heart of the matter. It virtually word-for-word agreed with what I was saying.

You only restate that it violates SR. There have been very few experiments done to test SR. there have been the same experiment done many times but the questions I raise have not been tested.

How can you say that? I have linked a number of experiments. Why haven't you commented on them? The pion decay experiment seems relevant: Why doesn't a pion fired east travel further than one fired west? And since your experiment involves clocks moving in space relative to an arbitrary reference point, I would think you would see the GPS system - which involves clocks moving in space relative to an arbitrary reference point - would be particularly relevant.

Maybe it was a mistake to restart this - I'm starting to wonder if you are making a sincere effort here.

 

[russ_watters]

Some quotes from the LINKED PRESENTAION I consider important:

The first directly addresses what we discussed above: the relevance of ether and the M&M experiment (particularly, the last sentence):

Newton's concept was that there was some universal reference frame against which all measurements could be referenced. It became known as the ether...

However, it proved to be wrong.

More on M&M - this is exactly what the purpose of your thought experiment is:

[M&M] proposed to determine the Earth's motion through the ether.

One part you've never mentioned is the implication in your thought experiment that the speed of light is not constant to all observers. This is what the implication of the M&M experiment is:

Either the Earth was not moving or the speed of light did not change acording to the motion of the light source.

The first could be ruled out, so the second had to be true.

But this violated the certainty of Newton's assumption of a universal reference frame.

Skippping to Einstein's SR. It has two postulates. The first is precisely contradictory to your assertion:

There is no absolute reference frame.

On testing:

His predictions have been tested experimentally and they have never failed.

As you can see, there is quite a lot in that presentation that directly and specifically contradicts what you are saying.

 

[Doctordick]

yes, it's not as deep and meaningful as you make it out to be. again the implications of it are that it is not a useful modus for relaying temporal quantification to another individual.

I am afraid you are totally wrong in that judgment. The implications are very deep and in fact, in the final analysis, yield exactly the characteristics you deem essential to your provincial issues: i.e., "what time is lunch?"

No definition more complex than the one I gave is needed. All, and I mean all, of the characteristics of "time" required to do modern physics flow inevitably from that exact definition. That is, for anyone with sufficient attention span to consider the detailed consequences.

Nor do your unfounded assertions and specious conclusions, IMHO.

I am sorry, but my assertions are based on extremely careful analysis. My only reason for posting here is an attempt to find some one with sufficient interest and attention span to consider my arguments. It would be a shame to see my discoveries die with me as appears to be the actual case.

We cannot have a serious discussion of anything without first defining what it is we are talking about.

Agreed.

It is nice to obtain some agreement! Definition is quite important as it is quite easy to misinterpret what another says if the meanings of things are not thoroughly and exactly tied down. For example, in the following exchange, either you misunderstand what I said or I misunderstand what you are saying: i.e., either you are agreeing with me or you are misunderstanding me.

The issue of this thread is a concise and well thought out definition of "time". One of the first issues of definition itself is that the word being defined is not to be used in the definition. A definition which includes the word "rate" requires a definition of "rate" before it is useable. Since "rate" is generally defined as the ratio between change in something and the change in time, the concept presumes time is defined and thus is not a valid concept within the definition of time.

Circular logic, at best.

That is, I essentially said that using "rate" to define "time" is a circular definition and your comment appears to be saying that my argument is circular reasoning.

Agreed. Nothing has been proven. On the other hand, much has been disproven.

Agreement again! I am astounded! However, I would throw in a minor cavil which, in all probability you will fail to comprehend: disproving something requires one to understand that which he is disproving. Sometimes people are disproving what they think someone has said, not what he has said! Careful thought is careful thought and one should go to great pains to make sure one does not misrepresent an issue.

I think it would benefit you to take a little trouble to think about these things.

I have, and still arrive at the same conclusions. You retreat into reductionist logical abstractions and evasive semantical arguments when your assertions collapse under their own weight.

No, I don't think you have. You contend that I retreat into "reductionist logical abstractions" when, in fact, the only reason I bring up reductionist ideas is to point out the inevitable uselessness of such an attack; however, it is nonetheless very important to remember the fact that the truth of any deductions must collapse down to the necessity of the original premises.

Secondly, I wouldn't say that I retreat into "evasive semantical arguments". What I am doing is trying to point out to you that there is significant room for alternate attacks here. I am trying to open your mind to possibilities presently beyond your comprehension.

Finally, please point to an assertion I have made which "collapses under its own weight".

Now I would contend that is a rather extreme statement. They certainly disagree as to the proper equations to be used to transform from one coordinate system to another. You should be more careful in your pronouncements. Neither did Newtonian relativity! What is much more significant is that SR does not include a rule for transforming between accelerating coordinate systems which Newtonian relativity does.

Huh? I think you have that backwards.

No, rather I suspect you did not understand what I said. SR certainly does not include a rule for transforming between acceleration coordinate systems. In order to do that, we must go to GR. Newton's relativity is entirely general as the transform equations between accelerating systems can be deduced directly from the nature of the Euclidian coordinate system: get any decent text on classical mechanics and look up centrifugal and/or coriolis forces. Both arise from the fact that the coordinate system being used is not inertial. In Einstein's system, gravity arises because the coordinate system being used is not inertial; if you don't understand that then you do not understand GR.

Thank you also for agreeing with my statement that Einstein's generalization of his theory of relativity led to gravitational results; however, most everybody agrees with that. I thank you nonetheless.

If you look at the fundamental deduction of general relativity, you will find discussion of direct transformations from a coordinate system attached to an accelerating elevator.

In the interest of avoiding a semantical argument later, explain which 'fundamental deduction of GR' you are talking about. Please phrase it in unambiguous terms that you think that I [and most of the rest of us] can agree upon.

When Einstein worked out his general theory, he was faced with the problem of defining a rigid object in an accelerated frame (he uses the analysis of an accelerated elevator as the bridge between the two frames). It is clear that in a general accelerated frame, definition of a rigid object is certainly impossible and this does yield some uncertainty in the proper form of the transformations between general frames. As such, it also yields subtle variations in the gravitational possibilities. This is exactly the reason behind that term which was, on different occasions, either inserted or omitted from his theory (check the development of general relativity and you will find the term I refer to).

In my work, I have discovered a subtle way around that problem which eliminates the need to define a rigid object and thus yields only one possibility (unless I have made a mistake of course; however, I have not found any mistake and no one else has offered to help look for one).

Most of us call those 'inertial reference frames', not 'natural unique coordinate systems'.

Oh, I understand exactly what you mean. The only reason I chose to call them "natural unique coordinate systems" was because most scientists give little attention to the fact that they assume the particular coordinate systems they like to use are "natural". If physics is to be an exact science, these issues have to be taken seriously. There is a long discussion which could be had on that subject but I don't think it would serve much purpose here and now. I would much rather get you to think about some other subtle facts and their consequences.

(to be continued!)

 

[Doctordick]

The central issue of relativity is that all these coordinate systems are equally valid. In almost every case, each and every experiment suggests its own "natural unique coordinate system".

Agreed. So what is your point?

That there are a large number of different ways a coordinate system can be set up. Careless definition of time (essentially the act of presuming you know what the term means without considering all possible consequences) is simply unscientific.

It is the fact that the "laws of physics" must be the same in all of these coordinate systems which allows us to determine the required transformation equations between those various coordinate systems.

See prior objection to your prior assertion the the wrong transformations are being used.

I have no idea what assertion you are referring to here.

And finally, to Russ, I still say you are being a bit provincial with your comments. I think it would be worth your while to step back once and look at the fundamental nature of the problems which confront us. I would expect a mentor to take a little more care with his comments. What you say cannot possibly be rationally defended as logical.

Your conclusion is not supported by facts in evidence... at least none among the unsupported arguments you made in this post. Russ's, on the other hand, appear sound.

Then you are not looking at Russ's comment carefully! Look carefully at the following where you quote me:

You are saying that because "that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4Newton was proposing", it is not a universal reference frame.

And he is entirely justified in that assertion. It agrees with all known theory and observations.

If you look at what he said, you should be able to see that the statement "it [the frame which was used to derive the 371 km/sec velocity] is not a universal reference frame" is simply not a logical consequence of "that speed is not needed to make any of the calculations 4Newton was proposing". It makes no difference whether the conclusion is true or false or is justified by any other arguments; the point I was making was that it simply is not a valid logical deduction. His use of the word "because" implied he was stating a specific logical deduction. This is a no more than a simple sign of sloppy thinking on his part.

Russ is not the one who appears to be confused about the principles of relativity, or logic.

Now that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that he is either confused or sloppy.

The principal or relativity is that all reference frames capable of indicating the information associated with any given experiment are fully useable. If one adds to that the fact that the laws of physics are particularly simple in a specific frame (think of Newton's inertial frame), then all one needs is the specific transformation from the particular simple frame to a frame of reference of interest and one knows what happens in that frame of interest. Einstein's General Relativistic frame is just such a "simple" frame, quite analogous to Newton's inertial frame; however, the required transformations to the frames of interest

What 'frames of interest'?

Whatever frame you happen to want to make your measurements in!

...are not quite as simple as Newton's but they can nonetheless be done. That fact is used over and over again throughout physics. There are a number of unique frames used all the time.

Unique with respect to what? They all look 'relativistic' to me.

Unique to the measurement equipment or analysis one is using. That comment "They all look 'relativistic' to me" is a little on the meaningless side. Unless you have more than one coordinate system of interest, there are no transformations to be performed! The adjective "relativistic" has meaning only with regard to transformation relations and is in no way applicable to a specific coordinate system standing alone! If you cannot understand that, then you simply do not understand the nature of coordinate geometry.

For example, the GPS system is a coordinate system tied to time as measured by a clock in Colorado and is by that fact, a very unique coordinate system.

Not unique.

It isn't? How many coordinate systems are there where t is exactly what is given by that atomic clock in Colorado, barring trivial rotations and translations?

Since it is always possible to set up a specific coordinate system tied to a specific clock the term "universal" could be attached to the concept.

Universal? with respect to what?

Why with respect to the possibility of applying the concept to another circumstance! Doesn't "universal" mean that the system applicable to all cases?

There is another rather unique coordinate system used quite often in a lot of experiments. That would be a coordinate system tied to center of mass of the universe (in this case, read "universe" to be a reference to the collection of entities which are significant to the experiment of interest and may range from no more than the components of a single nucleus to a nuclear accelerator, the solar system, the galaxy or everything including the cosmic background). Call such a coordinate system a CoM system. Certainly the CoM system is unique and it is also quite universal. One can very reasonably suggest that relativity should require the laws of physics to be the same in every CoM system conceivable.

Relativity already does that.

Tell me please, where did I say it didn't?

In fact, that is essentially exactly what the COBE scientists did when they documented the solar systems velocity through the universe at 371 km/sec.

But all this is outside the discussion on this thread which is "what is the definition of time?"

The interval I wasted posting this response.

Well, now you need to define "interval".

The central issue of this thread is the fact that time (as used by the scientific community) is not a well defined concept. This is only the tip of the iceberg of sloppy thinking. The issue of definition is one of the most important issues of any scientific investigation. The presumption that you understand exactly what is being said is one of the most dangerous presumptions of science which can be made. The possibility of misunderstanding is always present and the consequences of that possibility should be reckoned with fully.

Suppose there exists an entity we can communicate with which has the correct explanation of everything. If that is the case then our problem is to eliminate misunderstanding. That entity exists! It is called reality and it stands talking to us on a daily basis. Our only problem is to carefully analyze what it is saying to us without making assumptions about what the "words" (our experiences) mean.

The central problem is definition itself. –Now that is an assertion!- I will defend it in detail to anyone who cares to discuss it. Mr. Watters has already specifically rejected it as a subject worthy of discussion:

Absolutely not. $\dots$ There is no room for discussion. This isn't the philosphy forum. Either you discuss science on its own terms here or not at all.

He isn't the first to suggest my work is philosophy; most all physicists make that assertion. The Philosophers tell me it's mathematics and the mathematicians tell me it's physics. So round and round I go and where I stop no one knows!

I think the sciences are a magnet to idiot savants! If they learn the rules it isn't necessary to understand anything to be at the top of the field. Thought is just not a necessary ingredient to their success.

And your patronizing tone is most unwelcome here.

Oh, then you would rather I showed respect for what I personally find to be seriously sloppy thinking? So it's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" organization is it? Well, you can count me out of that solipsistic exchange. I find myself very happy to have reached an acceptable state of retirement without ever having had to subvert my behavior to the opinions of others. I don't think many have managed to do such a thing and count it as a major accomplishment.

Oh yes! Thank you for admitting that you hijacked my thread and not the converse. Why not move your self serving pontifications somewhere else; you have a lot more influence with authority on this forum than I do.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[brodix]

4 Newton,

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

This was one of Stephen Hawking's definitions of time. Einstein's reference was gravity and the prediction that the universe would collapse to a point. One arrow of time is expanding energy, the other is collapsing mass.

The basis of your assumption that there is a universal clock seems to be the timeframe of the Big Bang. While it is useless to argue against the Big Bang Theory, rgy, even reputable scientists are starting to consider what might have come before. If the singularity was proceeded by a big crunch, or some other form of cycling process, then our universe constitutes a unit of time, one defined by the material consequences of gravity,radiation and whatever other forces which might be proposed. These are relativistic processes.

When the energy which constitutes this particular unit of time, called the universe, is finished this cycle, it goes on to others. So, the unit of time goes start to finish, while the process goes on to the next generation...

 

[brodix]

4 Newton,

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is in what we recognize as the time dimension. The transition is at a speed equal to the speed of light.
This transition is the stabilizing mechanism of the universe. All spatial dimensions are referenced to this transition and it gives us the definition of velocity. All motion in any spatial direction is shown as perpendicular to this transition.

The irony of this assumption is that it is only valid if all energy considered constitutes a closed set, yet the Big Bang has reached the point of having to say that ninety six percent of all matter and energy cannot be accounted for. If even one electron were to seep in from a previously unaccounted dimension, it would cause cascading chaos to the presumed order of this system.

 

[4newton]

Hi Russ;

4Newton:
You read the post on the GPS system. I think you agree it works. Do you also agree, disregarding gravity, that if you take a clock, as they did in the GPS system, from Earth surface to the orbital distance of the GPS that your clock will slow down? Like wise if you take a clock from the GPS orbit to the Earth surface it will speed up? GPS satellites have their clock rates calibrated prior to launch using Einstein's prediction so that once in orbit they stay in sync with ground-based clocks.

Russ:
Absolutely. The question is how much.

4Newton:
I think we have a starting point.
The main point is that we now agree that the rate of clocks is bi-directional. If a clock ( L ) that has been moving with a velocity in a spatial dimension and has a spatial velocity that is less than clock ( M ) and clock ( H ) and clock ( M ) has been moving at a velocity that is less than clock ( H ) then, clock ( H ) will run the slowest and clock ( L ) will run the fastest and by agreement, clock ( M ) is in the exact middle and has a rate to that effect.
If we bring all three clocks together, after a set time period, without changing the conditions of clock ( M ) then, clock ( L ) will have accumulated the most time and clock ( H ) will have accumulated the least time.

Do we still agree?

Russ:
Yep. Still there.

4Newton;
It has been agreed that:
If a clock moves from reference frame ( H ) to reference frame ( M ) the clock will have an increase in rate, the clock will tick faster. Like wise a clock that moves from ( M ) to ( L ) will again increase in rate.
Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase without limit. You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits.
This of course also applies to meter rods. Your meter rod would increase to infinity.

Do we still agree?

Russ:
You said nothing in your last post about a clock moving into a different reference frame. All you had were 3 clocks in 3 frames moving at 3 speeds. But if you accelerate H's clock to M's speed, its tick rate will slow down relative to a stationary observer.

Clock H is moving faster and is decelerated to the speed of M the clock rate must increase. Each time the clock moves to a slower frame the clock rate must increase.

4Newton:
Therefore if the rate of a clock is relative only from frame to frame then the process may continue without limit and the clock rate will increase without limit.

Russ:
Except for the caveat that no clock can stop due to time dilation because no clock can go the speed of light, there is no limit to how different the readings of two identical clocks can be.

4Newton:
You have but two choices. A point where velocity may be absolute zero or time rate without limits.

Russ:
Since nowhere in any of this has the word "absoute" appeared, it doesn't belong there either. In fact, it directly contradicts everything we were just agreeing on: if everything is relative (except C), then how can anything be absolute?

Maybe I should have forced you to specify after you first brought up the speeds of M, L, and H: speed relative to what? A stationary observer is, of course, the answer, but that's still not good enough: is that an absolutely or relatively stationary observer? If you say absolutely, then you are assuming that speed is absolute, not demonstrating it.

You only need speed relative to each other but it would make no difference. the whole object is to indicate the change of clock rate with change of velocity is bi-directional
This is why I have gone to a real experiment. You asked for a demonstration that speed is absolute.

 

[4newton]

Hi Russ

Any experiment that has never been performed is a thought experiment - both of your experiments are thought experiments.

My view is that a thought experiment was created when it was not possible to run a real experiment. This is not the case with my experiment.

Its not the laws of physics I don't understand, its your experimental setup. In any case, I don't want to get into that. Why bring up a new problem when we never resolved the old one?

This is a better experiment then any observations to date. All the clocks moving in the same frame cancel the effect of velocity on clock time. There are no observational distortions from frame to frame. It measures the speed of light relative to the direction of travel verses perpendicular to the direction of travel. It measures the speed of light with a one way path. The resolution of the measurement is without limit. Calibration is automatic and independent of outside reference. It is also easy and cheep to setup.

All I would like you to tell me if you will see a difference between the accumulated time on the clock that is measuring the direction of travel verses the perpendicular clock. If not why not?

The aether, is the Universal Reference Frame. Finding the Universal Reference Frame means finding the aether and finding the aether means finding the Universal Reference Frame.

I don’t see that it is important with this question at this time. As you said, “Why bring up a new problem”

Tell me this: when calculating the SR time dilation on a clock on a GPS satellite, what velocity should I use? I said before, your experiment implies that since we do not know the 'real' velocity with respect to the Universal Reference Frame, we do not have a velocity to use to calculate the performance of a GPS clock. Ergo, if you are correct, the GPS system should not work.

The GPS system is using a number of about 2.4 ns per meter/sec from zero velocity. They seem to think there is a zero velocity. They used the number of 2160 ns from the surface of the Earth to 9360 ns to the satellite or a difference of 7200 ns. They may have taken two or three measurement of change of rate at different velocities and projected back on the curve to zero.

 

[4newton]

This was one of Stephen Hawking's definitions of time.

When and where did Hawking describe this explanation of time?

It is always interesting to speculate on what was before the Big Bang but the evidence is very slim to work with. In fact religion seem to have more fact than physics in that area.

One question that we can ask and maybe some day find out is if the Big Bang was a single event or was it one of many cycles. Are we just the plus or one half of a full cycle just like any wave. Also are there other universes just behind us, maybe just micro seconds away? Is our positive universe balanced by the negative part of the cycle with antimatter in the other half?

These are just some thought without any evidence but I find them fun.

 

[4newton]

Hi Brodix;

The irony of this assumption is that it is only valid if all energy considered constitutes a closed set, yet the Big Bang has reached the point of having to say that ninety six percent of all matter and energy cannot be accounted for. If even one electron were to seep in from a previously unaccounted dimension, it would cause cascading chaos to the presumed order of this system.

This theory is not dependent on a closed universe, in fact it supports the open universe. All the energy of the universe will just continue outward at the speed of light until the energy differential is less than Planck level and all action will cease. (There is no dark matter)