Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version

bz wrote:

Phil <toob-headman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:d%fTi.47497$RX.28791@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Absolute laws include:

(1) Light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to space.


Light travels at the velocity 'c', as measured by any observer in an
inertial frame of reference.

The statement that inertial observer A MEASURES a velocity of c for light in his own inertial reference frame does NOT, as you seem to imply, CONTRADICT the statement that light travels at a velocity of c relative to the medium of space. After all, if c is relative to space, an absolute law basically equivalent to the old ether theory, but an object's time-rate and length are functions of the object's absolute velocity, then those three ABSOLUTE laws could easily combine in such a way as to cause every inertial observer to MEASURE a velocity of c for light in his own inertial reference frame. Indeed, if we ASSUME that c is NOT relative to the source of light, which basically forces it to be an absolute law (unless we believe in "prescient photons," which adjust their velocity depending on who will eventually see them), and we also ASSUME that the results of all experiments are independent of their initial absolute velocity (i.e., are the same in all IRF's), then time-rate and length MUST be absolute laws. Conversely, if we ASSUME that the speed of light is relative (to the source), but continue to ASSUME that experimental results are the same in all IRF's, then time-rate and length must now be RELATIVE laws.

In general, you should not assume that simply repeating the current (great) beliefs is the same thing as an intellectual analysis. I am aware of the current beliefs, but the point of the paragraph (mostly cut by you) was that neither you nor anyone else can DESIGN an experiment that isolates just one absolute law for examination. I listed the absolute laws (although I should mention that this technically only applies to absolute VELOCITY laws) for your convenience, but if you are bothered by the term "absolute," you are welcome to replace them with the equivalent laws given relative to any inertial observer; the fact remains that there are no events in this universe that use just ONE of these absolute/IRF laws. All events have either TWO OR MORE absolute /IRF laws, or no such laws at all (again, with the exception of the "around the universe" experiments). If you know of an exception (a room-sized exception), you can replace relativity and get your Nobel prize at the same time.


(2) An object's time-rate is a function of absolute velocity.


There is no absolute velocity. Velocity is change in position with respect
to time. Absolute velocity requires absolute positions. An objects
relative time rate is a function of its relative velocity.

More irrelevant talk; I might as well say that since you've never seen a dinosaur, they must have never existed. Scientifically acceptable concepts must be EITHER perceivable, or logically deduced FROM perceivables using valid laws of logic. Absolute velocity is a valid concept if and only if there is SOMETHING that varies as a FUNCTION of absolute velocity.

To give an easier to understand example, an object's position is meaningful iff there is SOMETHING that varies as a function of the object's position. If we measure the number of miles a car can travel on a tank of gas, we find that changing the car's POSITION from the mountains to a valley CHANGES the results of the experiment (since mountain roads demand more from a car's engine). Similarly, if CHANGING an object's position and nothing else causes some change in an experiment's results (while the experiment is stopped), then some characteristic that VARIES as a function of position MUST EXIST. Well, what happens when we change an object's absolute velocity, which we can do, assuming such a thing exists, by changing its velocity relative to the stars? We find that our clocks are no longer synchronized. Therefore, a characteristic MUST EXIST that VARIES as a function of absolute velocity (in this case, the velocity of light relative to the clocks as seen by an absolute observer). Note that we cannot claim that it was the velocity relative to distant objects, unless we abandon locality, i.e., a SCIENTIFIC explanation requires that local effects have local causes, meaning that it is the change in the experiment's velocity relative to the local medium of space that MUST be responsible for the loss of synchronization. In contrast, if no absolute laws exist, then changing an experiment's absolute velocity and nothing else while the experiment is stopped CANNOT POSSIBLY change the results. The fact that things do change when absolute velocity changes PROVES that some of the laws of the universe are indeed absolute, i.e., are indeed functions of absolute velocity.



(3) An object's mass is a function of absolute velocity.


An objects effective mass is a function of its relative velocity.

Which does not contradict the previous statement, and again ignores my challenge of designing an experiment that ISOLATES the law of mass in an experiment, allowing an inertial observer to measure his velocity by observing changes in mass.

(4) An object's length is a function of absolute velocity.


An objects relative length is a function of its relative velocity.

Ditto.

(5) Acceleration, as measured by force, is relative to space.


Acceleration is the rate of change in the relative velocity with respect
to the relative time.

Oh please, are you going to claim that non-inertial observer A is EVER going to see some object with no forces acting on it as being motionless relative to A??? One of Newton's greatest insights was that ALL accelerating objects, including those that can only be seen by telescopes, when measured by an observer who takes into account any forces acting on himself (including gravitational), are being acted upon by a force, i.e., are INTERACTING with another object. In other words, force measured acceleration is relative to a UNIVERSAL set of reference frames, a set which is INDEPENDENT of any known non-universal object (although it could, as you say, be relative to UNIVERSAL mass). For example, when the force in a rifle is applied to the bullet, the resulting acceleration is not relative to the Earth, the sun, or any other non-universal object, but is instead relative to the ABSOLUTE set of reference frames. For extremely long range rifles, it is literally necessary to take the Earth's rotation into account in order to know where the bullet will land, because the bullet's motion is relative to SPACE, not the Earth.

ANGULAR velocity IS absolute.(though it may be relative to the mass of the
universe) ANGULAR acceleration IS absolute.(though it may be relative to
the mass of the universe)

Yes, no one has been able to dispute this, although as you say, the ABSOLUTE set of reference frames could be relative to the medium of space, or the combined mass of the universe, or to some extent both, we really don't know the answer at this time.

No one is able to test for angular velocity in the absence of other
masses.

Actually, I think that Mach's point was that centrifugal force MIGHT not exist in the absence of other objects; as long as it is changes in an object's velocity relative to SPACE that requires a force, rather than relative to the combined mass of the universe, we would indeed be able to measure angular velocity by measuring the centrifugal/centripetal force.

Phil







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Natural Philosophy - Its challenge to SR
    ... ABSOLUTE, or UNIVERSAL, reference. ... If there are some laws of nature that are functions of absolute velocity, then we probably can measure our velocity by again measuring the laws of nature, and since we could obtain this velocity without having to use local, non-universal objects, it would again be an ABSOLUTE velocity. ... Again, Newton knew of no such laws, and although he created the idea of an absolute reference frame, Newtonian mechanics technically does NOT need a single, privileged reference frame with an undefined origin. ... It is built on top of the principle of Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
    ... information about our "absolute velocity" which we could simply deduce ... change of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C, ... then A's AVERAGE absolute velocity is also at least ... Remember, relativity does not disprove ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?
    ... | Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... that the velocity of light in our theory plays the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to the source?
    ... The observerspace principle says that the laws of physics shouldn't ... associated with relative velocity generate observer-effects that are ... points of special relativity is that we "know" that the speed of light ... gravitation, and when we go down to the molecular level, and shine ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Revised Hypothesis
    ... > General Relativity as to how we relate it to a larger scale. ... understand) distant processes with such an absolute scale - without ... > introduce a momentum and a relative velocity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)