• leo
    810
    So the way to an absolute inertial frame is through ether theory.Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes, and first of all we need to get rid of the widespread idea that relativity is necessary to explain observations and experimental results. Then realize that what we call a vacuum isn't empty, isn't nothing, it is full of stuff, the stuff that we call light and electromagnetic radiation and the stuff that is responsible for gravitation, any volume of space has plenty of these things passing through, interacting with one another and with whatever matter is present, it cannot be ignored. We have to explain how the interaction between these things and matter can slow down the internal processes of that matter, which are electromagnetic in nature. In that way we can hope to explain why an atomic clock can run slower or faster depending on its state of motion relative to these things. An atomic clock in Earth orbit isn't moving through empty space, it is moving relative to all the stuff emitted by the Sun and the Earth, so it isn't inconceivable that the atomic clock would behave differently depending on how fast it is moving through this stuff.

    That's where we have to look, instead of looking at relativity multiverses and extra dimensions and whatnot, the physicists have been at it for a century and they're stuck. Desperately stuck. Students are taught these theories, in order to become physicists they have to spend a lot of time working with these theories and applying them, these theories are so against common sense that the students are told to "shut up and calculate", and by the time they become physicists that's what they do, shut up and calculate, unable to think outside the box anymore, unable to question the assumptions at the root of relativity and quantum mechanics. Modern physics is stuck in a box. We can get out of it. I'm showing you the way.
  • noAxioms
    781
    I said I'm not going to be available for a while, I shouldn't be here now, but I guess the urge to respond is too strong, so I'll be quickleo
    If this is a quick note I'd hate to see one of your long ones.

    There really is a medium permeating all space that is detectable
    The evidence for stuff in supposed vacuum is not evidence that said stuff acts as a medium. You may posit the medium, but all efforts to detect one have so far failed.

    Now consider an atomic clock at rest in that medium (isotropic radiation coming from all around) and an atomic clock in motion (anisotropic radiation). An atomic clock is based on the behavior of atoms (and electrons), that behavior depends on their environment, why should we expect that the two atomic clocks behave the same when one receives isotropic electromagnetic radiation and the other one anisotropic electromagnetic radiation?
    We can subject said clock to radiation of our choice, and none of it being the medium you speak of, none of it has any effect. I say this because what you suggest is easily tested, and would completely violate both theories if said anisotropic radiation had any effect.

    The question ... talks about being in a dense hollow shell, a region of a flat gravitational field (no acceleration, but still in a well).
    — noAxioms

    I don't know, the ether flow model works well in many cases but it seems to be problematic in the kind of situation you mention.
    Maybe the reason the mainstream view is taught in schools is because GR has a clear answer for this situation. If LET was fully generalized, why are you guessing instead of looking it up? If not, is has no business being taught. If the moving ether model can't account for observations in the case I mention, then the moving ether model is incomplete or wrong.

    Meta (in the post following the one to which I'm replying) calls it 'activity' instead of motion, but activity doesn't explain two clocks in the same place running at different speeds. The flowing ether model does, but it seems to come up short in some cases.

    I suppose Lorentz's theory has been generalized then? I wonder how black holes are handled since they don't seem to exist under LET.
    — noAxioms

    I gave a link to an example of such a generalization, but it could be generalized in other ways.
    Oh, so if that 2-page paper is the general theory, you should be able to answer the questions based on that particular work. It seems to mostly just refer to gravitational field theory (Einstein) for all the mathematics. I don't even think it makes a suggestion for the choice of frame.

    As I said I don't consider that time 'flows',
    You said 'runs' I think. Same thing. Anything that isn't a 4D spacetime view is a preferred moment, and if change doesn't progress, well, that's kind of like a Boltzmann brain situation, and very few people argue for that view.

    but in order to compute absolute time dilation one would have to have detected the absolute frame in the first place
    Let's assume the comoving one like everybody else does. We're only moving at around 350 km/sec in that frame. Hardly any dilation due to motion. It's the gravity part they always shy away from. Problem is, the equation doesn't converge.

    Yes strictly speaking they don't 'see', I explained that in another post, what they see is mostly Doppler not the real rate of the other clock. But when each of them assumes that light travels at c in all directions in their frame, each of them infers (computes) that in their frame the other clock is ticking more slowly.
    No paradox there.

    One can do it the complicated way (the non-inertial frame in which the traveler is stationary the whole way), but then the twin back home ages mostly during the time taken to turn around.
    — noAxioms
    And that's exactly the kind of stuff that confuses people.
    Rightly so. Besides the needless complication, a person's point of view is not the cause of events, remote or not. Mike Fontenot doesn't seem to realize this, wording his assertions as if a PoV is such a cause.

    The idea of an instant "remote age change". If there is no acceleration, there is no "during the acceleration".
    No, there's just 'at' the acceleration. Mathematically, an extended object (anything not a point mass) cannot instantly accelerate without distortion, so instant acceleration isn't possible even if infinite power was theoretically possible.

    Consider that we don't even need to talk about twins, we can simply talk about the clock readings.
    I've said the same, but everybody seems incapable of visualizing things unless they're 'identical' human observers of some kind. For one, pregnant women make far better biological clocks.

    In that way there is no need to jump to another ship and accelerate, whatever reading the clock of the first spaceship indicates can be transmitted to the other spaceship going the other way when they pass by one another, and the clock of the second spaceship can be synchronized to it. In that way it is as if the clock had been transferred to the second ship without any acceleration at any point. Sure there is a change of inertial frame.
    Yes, this tag-team method illustrates the point without worry about acceleration at all. There isn't even a change of frame since each ship just keeps right on going.

    But still, at any moment, it is as if from the point of view of the moving clock, the staying clock is always ticking more slowly.
    I don't get what you mean by that. From the PoV of any thing, the thing is not moving.

    We may be in a privileged location (how would we know we aren't), but let's assume we aren't anyway, and that the Hubble law applies from the point of view of other galaxies, that redshift of distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. Even if that redshift/distance law applies to arbitrarily large distances, the velocity/distance law doesn't, or at the very least there is no reason it should apply.
    Redshift is a function of the increase in separation over time of the observed object and the observation. No increase in that rate means no increase of redshift.
    LET supports this, using the same coordinate system as does GR. Notice I don't say 'velocity' because that rate is only velocity under a relational definition of the word.

    If we assume no superluminal velocity, then arbitrarily large redshift doesn't translate to arbitrarily large velocity, as the redshift increases the velocity approaches the speed of light, just like in a given inertial frame if you have a projectile with a very high redshift its velocity is close to the speed of light not above.
    ...
    The absolute frame can be inertial. See the problem with the mainstream narrative? Pushing beliefs as if they were truths.
    Dark matter and energy aren't incompatible with an absolute inertial frame.leo
    You obviously haven't thought that through. Nobody seems to support the inertial model/mapping of the universe. I've never seen a picture of it, but you claim to have drawn one. I drew one myself because I could not find one published anywhere. It didn't support dark energy. It can have no event horizon, and that makes it a contradiction with reality.
    Ignoring the problems with dark energy, absolute interpretations really fall apart under the inertial frame model since it can be demonstrated that the universe is probably older than any arbitrary finite age you can choose.

    The problem is that it takes infinite energy to accelerate the last bit, so it cannot be sustained. What can be done is indefinite proper acceleration of 1G like that, in which case light speed is never reached.
    — noAxioms
    I know that isn't true, yet that's exactly what they do when they say that the recession velocities of galaxies are proportional to their distance no matter how distant they are.
    They don't take into account how velocity approaches the speed of light as redshift increases.
    Now you're talking nonsense. Redshift is about observation, so irrelevant. I'm saying continuous acceleration (defined as a constant change in velocity in a given frame) would take you over light speed and is impossible only because infinite energy would be required for the last bit. Continuous proper acceleration on the other hand (defined as a constant value on the onboard accelerometer) is quite possible, and occurs in reality, and indeed, light speed is never reached in any inertial frame because of the way relativistic velocities add up.
    Know the difference between acceleration and proper acceleration before you make such statements.

    I actually tried to draw a picture of the whole universe using an inertial frame, including these 'superluminal' objects.
    — noAxioms

    I did that too,
    Got a link to it somewhere?

    That sounds stupid only because you assume special relativity is true
    It sound stupid because if any of it actually worked that way, the mainstream view would be easily empirically falsifiable.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.5k
    Meta (in the post following the one to which I'm replying) calls it 'activity' instead of motion, but activity doesn't explain two clocks in the same place running at different speeds. The flowing ether model does, but it seems to come up short in some cases.noAxioms

    I really don't know what you would mean by "two clocks in the same place". Are the clocks composed of different materials such that one exists within the other? If so, that would explain why they run at different speeds. If they are similar materials and side by side, the fact that they are side by side, in an active medium would explain the difference. I don't think you have a valid argument here. You need to better explain your proposed situation of 'two clocks in the same place running at different speeds".
  • noAxioms
    781

    I mean one clock stationary and another right next to it (momentarily at least), but moving at high velocity. The 'activity' at that location is the same, and yet one clock is dilated (runs slow and is length contracted) and the other not, so thus it isn't the local 'activity' that causes it.
    That's why 'speed relative to the ether' works better because the two clocks are in the same ether but have different velocities to it. But if speed through ether is the explanation, then ether must be moving through me if I'm in a gravity well, but there are cases where it clearly shouldn't be. So the 'dilation by motion relative to the ether' also seems to fall apart.

    It seems the theory proper doesn't have an answer to this (why ether is necessary at all) and other issues, because if it had answers, you absolutists would tell me how they've been resolved. If the issues haven't been resolved, it would explain why mainstream relativity is taught in schools and not the absolute interpretation.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.5k
    I mean one clock stationary and another right next to it (momentarily at least), but moving at high velocity. The 'activity' at that location is the same, and yet one clock is dilated (runs slow and is length contracted) and the other not, so thus it isn't the local 'activity' that causes it.noAxioms

    Don't you see that as a nonsense (impossible) situation? One clock is moving at a high velocity relative to the other. It is next to the other "momentarily". Therefore there is no such thing as the same "activity" of the two distinct clocks at the "same" location. Each clock has its own particular activity relative to its location as it approaches, and recedes from the location of the other clock. If one clock is assumed at rest, its activity will occur in one very small, particular locality, while the supposed "same" activity of the other clock (moving at a high velocity relative to the other), will occur over a large, extended area. There is no duration of time in which the clocks are at the same location, and therefore no activity when the clocks are at the same location. In reality, the clocks are never at the same location, they only pass near to each other, and the respective "activity" of each clock cannot be compared as you propose.

    That's why 'speed relative to the ether' works better because the two clocks are in the same ether but have different velocities to it.noAxioms

    This scenario ought to be impossible according to Michelson-Morley experiments. That's what was disproven, the idea that a physical object moves relative to the ether. This would necessarily create a disturbance in the ether, and none can be detected. That's why I proposed that we conceive of physical objects as property of the ether. This is consistent with particle theory which conceives of particles as property of fields.

    But if speed through ether is the explanation, then ether must be moving through me if I'm in a gravity well, but there are cases where it clearly shouldn't be. So the 'dilation by motion relative to the ether' also seems to fall apart.noAxioms

    It's not that the ether is moving "through" you, but that you, as a physical object, are a property of the ether. That's why I said it's better to conceive of the ether as changing rather than flowing. The ether is continuously changing as time passes, but so are you, so there is no inconsistency. Think of the motion of objects as changes within the ether in which energy is transmitted, just like waves, except we really don't know all the ways in which the ether is capable of changing. We barely touch the tip of the iceberg with electro-magnetics, because electrons hardly account for any mass.

    t seems the theory proper doesn't have an answer to this (why ether is necessary at all) and other issues, because if it had answers, you absolutists would tell me how they've been resolved. If the issues haven't been resolved, it would explain why mainstream relativity is taught in schools and not the absolute interpretation.noAxioms

    Ether is necessary to account for the reality of waves. A wave is in a substance. We can deny the reality of these waves, but then fields and wavefunctions don't represent anything real. Observation attests to the reality of these waves. If the waves are real, then so is the medium in which they exist.
  • noAxioms
    781
    One clock is moving at a high velocity relative to the other. It is next to the other "momentarily". Therefore there is no such thing as the same "activity" of the two distinct clocks at the "same" location.Metaphysician Undercover
    The term 'activity' comes from you, and you did not seem to be referring to the activity of each clock, but rather to the ether or something else in the environment:
    The "absolute inertial frame" cannot be produced without a proper representation of the ether flow, which may not be a flow at all, but some other unknown type of activity.Metaphysician Undercover
    So I am reacting to that usage of the word 'activity'.

    That's why 'speed relative to the ether' works better because the two clocks are in the same ether but have different velocities to it.
    — noAxioms
    This scenario ought to be impossible according to Michelson-Morley experiments. That's what was disproven, the idea that a physical object moves relative to the ether.
    If the ether is undetectable, then the M-M experiment proved nothing about it.

    It's not that the ether is moving "through" you, but that you, as a physical object, are a property of the ether. That's why I said it's better to conceive of the ether as changing rather than flowing.
    The ether is changing (instead of 'activity'). There are the same two objects in proximity, one heavily length contracted. The cause seems to be the object's speed and not a difference in how the ether is changing. Same argument. The object's speed causes the contraction, not the ether causing it.

    Ether is necessary to account for the reality of waves.
    That the state of a system can be represented by something called a wavefunction does not mean that the system is necessarily a wave, or that a medium is required for it. The Schrodinger equation does just fine with the future evolution of a wave function without requirement for an ether.

    A wave is in a substance. We can deny the reality of these waves, but then fields and wavefunctions don't represent anything real.
    Fallacious reasoning. They might represent something real that simply isn't actually a wave.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6.5k
    The term 'activity' comes from you, and you did not seem to be referring to the activity of each clock, but rather to the ether or something else in the environment:noAxioms

    Yes, I was talking about the activity of the ether. You introduced to that discussion, "clocks". Now a clock is itself a form of activity, and you asked how it is possible that two clocks (two specified activities) at the same place, at the same time, with one of them moving at a high velocity in relation to the other, could be "the same". I just pointed out to you how this notion, this scenario you created, is in fact contradictory. If one is moving at a high velocity relative to the other, then clearly the two clocks are not each the same "activity".

    So the "activity" of each clock cannot be said to be the same activity, they are distinct as one is at a high velocity relative to the other, and your objection is unfounded.

    If the ether is undetectable, then the M-M experiment proved nothing about it.noAxioms

    Why do you conclude that the ether is undetectable? What the M-M experiment demonstrated is that the ether is not detectable through the means employed. The means employed assumed as a premise, that the ether would be a substance separate from the substance of physical objects like the earth. So the experiments demonstrated that the ether is not such a separate substance, and cannot be detected in a way which assumed this premise. The experiments do not demonstrate that the ether cannot be detected in any absolute sense. And, as I explained, quantum physics demonstrates that the ether does not exist as a separate substance from the objects, the particles are attributes of the ether.

    The ether is changing (instead of 'activity'). There are the same two objects in proximity, one heavily length contracted. The cause seems to be the object's speed and not a difference in how the ether is changing. Same argument. The object's speed causes the contraction, not the ether causing it.noAxioms

    The "object" is a feature of the ether, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics, and understood through the precepts of particle physics. Therefore any change in location of the object is better described, and understood as a change in the ether. What you call "the object's speed" is simply how changes in the ether appear to us, as observers. The appearance of "an object" is simply a feature of the ether. Therefore the object's apparent form (length contracted) is also a feature of the ether. The "object's speed" is a fundamentally arbitrary judgement which you and other human beings make based on some assumptions of an inertial frame or whatever, and therefore cannot be the cause of anything real concerning the object. That's why it's wrong to say that the object's speed causes the contraction. The true inertial frame can only be understood from a description of the ether and its activities (changes). The contraction is an appearance only.

    They might represent something real that simply isn't actually a wave.noAxioms

    Sure, and a rainbow doesn't involve the refraction of waves either. What is the point in referring to science, if you are simply going to deny the obvious conclusions drawn from simple observations, saying things "might " be otherwise, just for the sake of supporting the possibility of some obviously faulty metaphysics? Instead, try changing your metaphysics to be consistent with empirical observations and real science.
123456Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.