Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426277 > unrolled thread

Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-27 05:00 -0700
    Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-27 05:38 -0700
      Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-27 15:06 +0200
    Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-27 08:16 -0700
    Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:57 -0500
      Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 03:29 -0700
        Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-28 03:34 -0700
        Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-28 07:34 -0700
        Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
      Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-29 07:46 -0500
      Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-29 06:28 -0700
        Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-29 06:49 -0700
        Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-29 07:38 -0700
        Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:01 -0500
        Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-31 10:17 -0400
    Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 18:08 +0000
    Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-27 22:50 +0200
    Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-29 08:14 -0500
      Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-29 16:00 +0000
    Re: Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-29 10:47 -0700

#426277 — Apologies - there is NO absolute 'frame', there is an absolute spacetime

Tom, Jan, et al,

I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across.

I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'.

What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.

In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by particle interactions in an underlying computational space.

However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of the traveling twin.

Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat. Apologies for using an incorrect and misleading terminology. There is no absolute frame, but dimensional ST itself functions as an absolute reference background for all relativistic frames.

Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#426282

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:00:19 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Tom, Jan, et al,
> 
> I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across.
> 
> I agree there is NO absolute ‘frame'.

You are wrong.....there is an absolute frame but no observer is at rest in this unique frame. In spite of this, every SR and LET observer assumes that he is at rest in the absolute frame to derive the math. The consequence is that both SR and LET are incomplete theory of relativity.
My theory of relativity called IRT is complete.....every IRT observer does not claim that he is at rest in the absolute frame and thus he predicts that a clock moving wrt him can accumulate clock seconds at a faster or slower rate than his clock and predicts that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is shorter or longer than the light-path length of his meter stick which is assumed to be its material length. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

> 
> What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.
> 
> In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by particle interactions in an underlying computational space.
> 
> However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of the traveling twin.
> 
> Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat. Apologies for using an incorrect and misleading terminology. There is no absolute frame, but dimensional ST itself functions as an absolute reference background for all relativistic frames.
> 
> Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426287

Op 27-jul-2017 om 14:38 schreef kenseto:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:00:19 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> Tom, Jan, et al,
>>
>> I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to
>> get my idea across.
>>
>> I agree there is NO absolute ‘frame'.
>
> You are wrong.....

;-)

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426294

Edgar L. Owen Scribbled 
Tom, Jan, et al, 

I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across. 

I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'. 

What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant. 

If you have not realized yet that If you do not say exactly what & how Tom Roberts Says with the same terminology, you Will be Proclaimed "WRONG" even if you are correct 
It is a No Win situation. 

Only pressure & mass Density are needed which results in a wave speed of c

The universe fits these parameters almost exactly. They are probably correct 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426300

On 7/27/17 7:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Tom, Jan, et al,
> 
> I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across.
> 
> I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'.
> 
> What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.
> 
> In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by particle interactions in an underlying computational space.
> 
> However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of the traveling twin.
> 
> Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat. Apologies for using an incorrect and misleading terminology. There is no absolute frame, but dimensional ST itself functions as an absolute reference background for all relativistic frames.
> 
> Edgar L. Owen
> 

I think you're still off base with terminology. Some reading in physics 
would help to get used to the jargon, which has meanings that are often 
different than colloquial language.

"Invariant" is a descriptor applied to a quantity whose VALUE is 
unchanging. An example would be that the momentum in a closed system is 
invariant. Another example is that invariant mass does not change 
regardless of the reference frame it's evaluated in. Spacetime is not a 
quantity, and so it does not have the attribution "invariant" in this 
specific physical sense.

"Absolute" is a little squishier, and here is associated with a putative 
special reference frame, in which the laws of physics take a 
particularly simple form that is not exhibited in other reference 
frames. The principle of relativity asserts that there is no such 
special reference frame.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426424

Bodkin wrote:

> "Invariant" is a descriptor applied to a 
> quantity whose VALUE is unchanging. 

I think it is much better defined (especially in a relativistic context) as a quantity independent of frame.

> An example would be that the momentum in a 
> closed system is invariant. 

The 3-momentum of a particle or center of mass is not an invariant according to my definition above. In your example it is a conserved quantity, that is a quantity whose value (in a particular frame) remains constant over some time evolution of the system. 

> Another example is that invariant mass does not 
> change regardless of the reference frame it's 
> evaluated in. 

Yes, mass is invariant, while 3-momentum and energy are not.

Logically similar to (m^2 = E^2 - p^2), the covariant derivative (an invariant operator) is a combination of the ordinary derivative and the Christoffel symbol, neither of which are invariant.

While there is certainly some inconsistency in the use of the terminology, especially in popularizations and introductory material, I believe these definitions (of "invariant" and "conserved") are fairly standard.


         ---Tim Shuba---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426425

W dniu piątek, 28 lipca 2017 12:29:52 UTC+2 użytkownik shuba napisał:


> The 3-momentum of a particle or center of mass is not an invariant according to my definition above. In your example it is a conserved quantity, that is a quantity whose value (in a particular frame) remains constant over some time evolution of the system. 

It surely would have a great potential id your bunch of idiots knew how to measure it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426447

Logically similar to (m^2 = E^2 - p^2), the covariant derivative (an invariant operator) is a combination of the ordinary derivative and the Christoffel symbol, neither of which are invariant. 

m^2 = E^2 - p^2

But that is the same as the momentum of a mass orbiting the event horizon of a black hole at the speed of light 
The acceleration of gravity is c times the radial velocity 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jfOW5rGi1RrXdU1X2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426688

On 7/28/17 5:29 AM, shuba wrote:
> Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> "Invariant" is a descriptor applied to a
>> quantity whose VALUE is unchanging.
> 
> I think it is much better defined (especially in a relativistic context) as a quantity independent of frame.
> 
>> An example would be that the momentum in a
>> closed system is invariant.
> 
> The 3-momentum of a particle or center of mass is not an invariant according to my definition above. In your example it is a conserved quantity, that is a quantity whose value (in a particular frame) remains constant over some time evolution of the system.
> 
>> Another example is that invariant mass does not
>> change regardless of the reference frame it's
>> evaluated in.
> 
> Yes, mass is invariant, while 3-momentum and energy are not.
> 
> Logically similar to (m^2 = E^2 - p^2), the covariant derivative (an invariant operator) is a combination of the ordinary derivative and the Christoffel symbol, neither of which are invariant.
> 
> While there is certainly some inconsistency in the use of the terminology, especially in popularizations and introductory material, I believe these definitions (of "invariant" and "conserved") are fairly standard.
> 
> 
>           ---Tim Shuba---
> 

Alright, that's a refinement that is reasonably consistent with what 
I've seen. I've seen "invariant" with the dual meanings I suggested 
(that is, including the synonym of "conserved") and so included both.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426531

On 7/27/17 7/27/17   10:57 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> "Invariant" is a descriptor applied to a quantity whose VALUE is unchanging.

This is wrong. "Invariant" means the value is the same to all observers, 
regardless of the coordinates they use. What you described is a fixed, constant, 
or conserved quantity.

	This is physics; mathematicians are more precise (they
	say "invariant under change of coordinates").

> An 
> example would be that the momentum in a closed system is invariant.

This is also not true -- that total (3-)momentum is conserved, and thus constant 
to all inertial observers. But it is NOT invariant, as different observers using 
different inertial coordinates will measure different values for it. (Observers 
using non-inertial coordinates have special problems here, which I ignore.)

> Another 
> example is that invariant mass does not change regardless of the reference frame 
> it's evaluated in.

This is correct. The total mass of a closed system is invariant, constant, and 
conserved (in general mass is NOT conserved in SR or GR, but for this case it is).

> Spacetime is not a quantity, and so it does not have the 
> attribution "invariant" in this specific physical sense.

Yes.

> "Absolute" is a little squishier, and here is associated with a putative special 
> reference frame, in which the laws of physics take a particularly simple form 
> that is not exhibited in other reference frames. The principle of relativity 
> asserts that there is no such special reference frame.

Hmmmm. IMHO "absolute" is A LOT squishier [%] -- "absolute" has many other 
meanings, implications, and connotations. One could say that the spacetime 
manifold is absolute, in the sense that it exists independent of anything else, 
and is unchanging. But once one realizes that the spacetime manifold is a MODEL, 
one also realizes that different manifolds can represent the same physical 
situation, so the manifold [#] is not "absolute" at all -- you can CHOOSE any of 
an infinite set to be the model, and they are all equivalent [@]. These 
manifolds will of course be isometric to each other.

	[%] That's why I never use the word "absolute" -- it has too many
	different meanings to be useful, and different readers will
	interpret it differently.

	[#] This is physics, where spacetime manifolds implicitly are
	a manifold with metric, but we physicists rarely mention that.

	[@] From the standpoint of an external observer, the manifold
	occupies some region of her own space. But WHICH region
	it occupies is arbitrary, as is its size in her space
	(its intrinsic size is of course fixed, as all of these
	manifolds are isometric to each other). Think of it this way:
	on a piece of paper you can plot the X position vs time for an
	object, and that is a spacetime model of its motion along the
	X axis; you can move the paper around, and can use a copier to
	shrink or enlarge it, all without affecting the validity of the
	plot as a model. Those papers are physical embodiments of the
	corresponding (abstract) manifolds.
	Note to experts: to embed a 4-d spacetime model in the
	analyst's space, one must of course suppress at least
	one spatial dimension of the manifold.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426538

Dear Odd Bodkin,

Thanks for your polite and on the point reply to my post.

The concept I'm trying to get across is 

1. There is a single universal dimensional ST structure.
2. All individual frames are views of this structure from particular points within it so it was wrong to speak of this structure as an absolute 'frame' because frames are views of it from points within it, and it itself is the whole structure rather than any particular point within it.
3. Nevertheless this single universal ST underlies all frames and serves as a common reference for them all.
4. This ST can be confirmed, detected and measured by acceleration (linear or rotational) because acceleration IS a change of velocity with respect to it.
5. However uniform  motion with respect to it can't be directly measured unless the motion is with respect to some variations within it (gravitational curvatures) because otherwise there is no way to tell the object is moving since there is no observable change in the background.
6. However motion with respect to it can be measured by time dilation.  That's why the clock of the traveling twin slowed more because there was more actual motion with respect to this universal ST background.

So what's the proper terminology? I have read extensively in relativity, but simply ST (without an explanation of what ST actually is or how it functions) is the term usually used, but how to convey the meaning that this ST is a universal reference background to all frames and all of the above points? I'm still looking for a better terminology.

Is this universal ST background a metric? Absolute background reference? or what's the best way to convey what it is and does?

Best,
Edgar L. Owen



On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/27/17 7:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Tom, Jan, et al,
> > 
> > I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across.
> > 
> > I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'.
> > 
> > What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.
> > 
> > In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by particle interactions in an underlying computational space.
> > 
> > However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of the traveling twin.
> > 
> > Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat. Apologies for using an incorrect and misleading terminology. There is no absolute frame, but dimensional ST itself functions as an absolute reference background for all relativistic frames.
> > 
> > Edgar L. Owen
> > 
> 
> I think you're still off base with terminology. Some reading in physics 
> would help to get used to the jargon, which has meanings that are often 
> different than colloquial language.
> 
> "Invariant" is a descriptor applied to a quantity whose VALUE is 
> unchanging. An example would be that the momentum in a closed system is 
> invariant. Another example is that invariant mass does not change 
> regardless of the reference frame it's evaluated in. Spacetime is not a 
> quantity, and so it does not have the attribution "invariant" in this 
> specific physical sense.
> 
> "Absolute" is a little squishier, and here is associated with a putative 
> special reference frame, in which the laws of physics take a 
> particularly simple form that is not exhibited in other reference 
> frames. The principle of relativity asserts that there is no such 
> special reference frame.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426540

Odd Bodkin, and Tom,

OK, I'm assuming that ST manifold best captures the ideas I'm discussing.

Edgar L. Owen


On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 9:28:51 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Dear Odd Bodkin,
> 
> Thanks for your polite and on the point reply to my post.
> 
> The concept I'm trying to get across is 
> 
> 1. There is a single universal dimensional ST structure.
> 2. All individual frames are views of this structure from particular points within it so it was wrong to speak of this structure as an absolute 'frame' because frames are views of it from points within it, and it itself is the whole structure rather than any particular point within it.
> 3. Nevertheless this single universal ST underlies all frames and serves as a common reference for them all.
> 4. This ST can be confirmed, detected and measured by acceleration (linear or rotational) because acceleration IS a change of velocity with respect to it.
> 5. However uniform  motion with respect to it can't be directly measured unless the motion is with respect to some variations within it (gravitational curvatures) because otherwise there is no way to tell the object is moving since there is no observable change in the background.
> 6. However motion with respect to it can be measured by time dilation.  That's why the clock of the traveling twin slowed more because there was more actual motion with respect to this universal ST background.
> 
> So what's the proper terminology? I have read extensively in relativity, but simply ST (without an explanation of what ST actually is or how it functions) is the term usually used, but how to convey the meaning that this ST is a universal reference background to all frames and all of the above points? I'm still looking for a better terminology.
> 
> Is this universal ST background a metric? Absolute background reference? or what's the best way to convey what it is and does?
> 
> Best,
> Edgar L. Owen
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 7/27/17 7:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > > Tom, Jan, et al,
> > > 
> > > I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across.
> > > 
> > > I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'.
> > > 
> > > What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.
> > > 
> > > In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by particle interactions in an underlying computational space.
> > > 
> > > However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of the traveling twin.
> > > 
> > > Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat. Apologies for using an incorrect and misleading terminology. There is no absolute frame, but dimensional ST itself functions as an absolute reference background for all relativistic frames.
> > > 
> > > Edgar L. Owen
> > > 
> > 
> > I think you're still off base with terminology. Some reading in physics 
> > would help to get used to the jargon, which has meanings that are often 
> > different than colloquial language.
> > 
> > "Invariant" is a descriptor applied to a quantity whose VALUE is 
> > unchanging. An example would be that the momentum in a closed system is 
> > invariant. Another example is that invariant mass does not change 
> > regardless of the reference frame it's evaluated in. Spacetime is not a 
> > quantity, and so it does not have the attribution "invariant" in this 
> > specific physical sense.
> > 
> > "Absolute" is a little squishier, and here is associated with a putative 
> > special reference frame, in which the laws of physics take a 
> > particularly simple form that is not exhibited in other reference 
> > frames. The principle of relativity asserts that there is no such 
> > special reference frame.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426542

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 8:28:51 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Dear Odd Bodkin,
> 
> Thanks for your polite and on the point reply to my post.
> 
> The concept I'm trying to get across is 
> 
> 1. There is a single universal dimensional ST structure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jfOW5rGi1RrXdU1X2

https://goo.gl/photos/rAkoiNiA6osjRg8N6

 a perfect fluid Medium with a given mass density \rho  and pressure  p. The equations for negative spatial curvature were given by Friedmann in 1924

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426691

On 7/29/17 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Dear Odd Bodkin,
> 
> Thanks for your polite and on the point reply to my post.
> 
> The concept I'm trying to get across is
> 
> 1. There is a single universal dimensional ST structure.

I agree with this. However, it is not STATIC. It is dynamic.

> 2. All individual frames are views of this structure from particular points within it so it was wrong to speak of this structure as an absolute 'frame' because frames are views of it from points within it, and it itself is the whole structure rather than any particular point within it.

I think this is also misleading. A reference frame does not necessarily 
imply that it is the view of someone at the origin of that frame. In 
other words, it is fine to view a process in an inertial reference frame 
where the action is happening in some volume near, but not at, the 
origin, and the observer is at rest a couple light years along the x-axis.

> 3. Nevertheless this single universal ST underlies all frames and serves as a common reference for them all.

Here, I think there is some squishiness about what you mean by 
reference. I agree that there is a universal structure. This in no way 
implies that there is a universal coordinate system, or that any 
particular coordinate system can be singled out. Structure and 
coordinates are apples and oranges.

> 4. This ST can be confirmed, detected and measured by acceleration (linear or rotational) because acceleration IS a change of velocity with respect to it.

This is where you're going to get into trouble. In general relativity, 
the structure of spacetime is affected by bodies in it. It is 
specifically dynamic.

Remember too the equivalence principle, where acceleration is LOCALLY 
indistinguishable from gravitation. Since the structure of spacetime 
changes and is responsible for what we call gravity, there will be no 
unique reference for acceleration.

> 5. However uniform  motion with respect to it can't be directly measured unless the motion is with respect to some variations within it (gravitational curvatures) because otherwise there is no way to tell the object is moving since there is no observable change in the background.
> 6. However motion with respect to it can be measured by time dilation.  That's why the clock of the traveling twin slowed more because there was more actual motion with respect to this universal ST background.
> 
> So what's the proper terminology? I have read extensively in relativity, but simply ST (without an explanation of what ST actually is or how it functions) is the term usually used, but how to convey the meaning that this ST is a universal reference background to all frames and all of the above points? I'm still looking for a better terminology.

Well, I took a shot at it and was rightfully corrected. Best thing I can 
suggest is to read a little bit more broadly than relativity to get at 
the meaning of things like "reference frame", "invariant", "covariant", 
"conserved", "system" and so on. Most of these are terms used broadly in 
physics and not just relativity, and the student is assumed to have that 
general exposure.

> 
> Is this universal ST background a metric? Absolute background reference? or what's the best way to convey what it is and does?
> 
> Best,
> Edgar L. Owen
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/27/17 7:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>> Tom, Jan, et al,
>>>
>>> I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across.
>>>
>>> I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'.
>>>
>>> What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.
>>>
>>> In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by particle interactions in an underlying computational space.
>>>
>>> However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of the traveling twin.
>>>
>>> Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat. Apologies for using an incorrect and misleading terminology. There is no absolute frame, but dimensional ST itself functions as an absolute reference background for all relativistic frames.
>>>
>>> Edgar L. Owen
>>>
>>
>> I think you're still off base with terminology. Some reading in physics
>> would help to get used to the jargon, which has meanings that are often
>> different than colloquial language.
>>
>> "Invariant" is a descriptor applied to a quantity whose VALUE is
>> unchanging. An example would be that the momentum in a closed system is
>> invariant. Another example is that invariant mass does not change
>> regardless of the reference frame it's evaluated in. Spacetime is not a
>> quantity, and so it does not have the attribution "invariant" in this
>> specific physical sense.
>>
>> "Absolute" is a little squishier, and here is associated with a putative
>> special reference frame, in which the laws of physics take a
>> particularly simple form that is not exhibited in other reference
>> frames. The principle of relativity asserts that there is no such
>> special reference frame.
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426694

On 7/29/17 7/29/17   9:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> I'm assuming that ST manifold best captures the ideas I'm discussing.

Well you really should learn what the words you use actually mean. Then you
wouldn't need to "assume" such things.

You CLAIMED to be discussing GR, but as you clearly don't really understand what
the spacetime manifold of GR actually is, you cannot be describing GR.

> The concept I'm trying to get across is> 1. There is a single universal 
> dimensional ST structure.

When you make up your own words for things that are commonly known, all you do
is demonstrate your personal ignorance. Moreover, you confuse both yourself and
your readers. I have no idea what you mean by "dimensional" or "structure", or
why you think they apply to "ST" (which I presume means spacetime, which of
course I read with the usual meaning: a 4-d Lorentzian manifold; I doubt you
know what you mean).

In GR, for a given model, there is a single spacetime manifold. But of course GR
can model many different universes, real or imagined. So there are LOTS of
spacetime manifolds, each modeling a different universe; but in any given
discussion we normally restrict ourselves to a single one determined by the
physical situation.

	Moreover, GR as a model is really an equivalence class of manifolds,
	all related by isometry. We normally ignore this as trivial, but
	it's clear that you do not understand it.

> 2. All individual frames are views of this structure from particular points 
> within it so it was wrong to speak of this structure as an absolute 'frame' 
> because frames are views of it from points within it, and it itself is the 
> whole structure rather than any particular point within it.

Frames are NOT "views ... from particular points". They are, rather, coordinates
applied to the manifold. In particular, they cover a REGION of the manifold, not
just a "particular point".

	You MUST learn what a manifold (with metric) actually is. Until
	you do you will remain mystified (and unable to recognize how
	confused you actually are).

> 3. Nevertheless this single universal ST underlies all frames and serves as a
> common reference for them all.

No, the spacetime manifold is not a "reference" for anything. That is, you
CANNOT discuss "velocity relative to the manifold" -- that simply makes no
sense. You MUST discuss velocity relative to a specified coordinate system (frame).

	Standard nomenclature: "velocity", "speed", "acceleration" all
	refer to 3-d quantities relative to a specified locally inertial
	frame (careful authors often say "3-velocity", etc.). So they
	inherently depend on which frame one chooses -- their values
	depend on an ARBITRARY human choice, so they cannot appear in
	valid models of nature. But 4-velocity and 4-acceleration are
	independent of coordinates, and can appear in valid models.

	A frame is a specific type of coordinates [@]. In SR each frame
	covers the entire manifold; in GR that is not possible in
	general, and a given frame is only approximately valid over
	a local region, the size of which depends on the curvature in
	the region and the accuracy required.

	[@] The coordinate axes are mutually orthogonal geodesics,
	with values determined by standard clocks and rulers at rest
	in the coordinates.

> 4. This ST can be confirmed, detected and measured by acceleration (linear or
> rotational) because acceleration IS a change of velocity with respect to it.
> 
Nope. Not even close. You make two major errors here:
  * spacetime is a MODEL, and as such cannot be "confirmed, detected,
    and measured" -- you confuse model with world and obtain nonsense.
  * neither acceleration nor velocity can be referred to the spacetime
    manifold, they can only be referenced to COORDINATES (which you call
    frames).

> 5. However uniform  motion with respect to it can't be directly measured 
> unless the motion is with respect to some variations within it (gravitational
> curvatures) because otherwise there is no way to tell the object is moving
> since there is no observable change in the background.

You repeat your earlier mistakes. Measuring motion requires a reference, and the
manifold is not one; measuring velocity, speed, or acceleration requires
COORDINATES.

> 6. However motion with respect to it can be measured by time dilation.
> That's why the clock of the traveling twin slowed more because there was more
> actual motion with respect to this universal ST background.

You repeat your earlier mistakes. Measuring "time dilation" can ONLY measure
speed relative to a FRAME, for the simple reason that you must COMPARE TWO
CLOCKS. If what you claim were true, you would have some "clock" that represents
"ST", but you DON'T.

The traveling twin's clock DOES NOT "SLOW". In particular, if you measure its
tick rate, you obtain the same value as you get for measuring the home twin's
identical clock [#]. The twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation", it
demonstrates a different geometrical fact: different paths can
have different path lengths.

	[#] Of course measuring a clock's tick rate requires using an
	instrument that is co-located and co-moving with the clock.
	Measuring signals from the clock is not at all the same.

Example: let the home twin be on earth, and let the traveling twin have a
powerful rocket. The traveling twin uses her rocket to depart from earth and
remain at earth's orbital distance from the sun, but not moving relative to the
sun. After a year they reunite. The clock of the "traveling twin" will display
MORE elapsed proper time than that of the "home twin".

	(I am neglecting the gravitation of the earth in comparison to that
	 of the sun. If this bothers you, use a solar satellite in place of
	 the earth.)

> So what's the proper terminology? I have read extensively in relativity,

You have obviously not understood what your eyes have passed over (which you
incorrectly call "reading"). Or you have not found appropriate books.

	I recommend: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.
	This is not for the faint of heart (or weak of hand).

> Is this universal ST background a metric?

It is a MANIFOLD WITH METRIC.

> Absolute background reference?

No.

> what's the best way to convey what it is and does?

Use standard terminology, not words you just make up. Of course you must first
LEARN that terminology and the underlying concepts.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426328

Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all
> individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a
> single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.

Nothing. Completely nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426369

Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> […] there […] is a single universal spacetime

Yes, which means within *our* universe.  There is the potential, in some 
(actual) theories even the requirement, of more than one universe.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse>

> with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each 
> other.

Not even wrong.

> Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and
> invariant.

General relativity, and numerous observations confirming it (the most recent 
ones that gained much media attention were the observation of gravitational 
waves announced in 2016, generated by the merger of two pairs of black holes 
in 2015, respectively[0]; yet another one is expected in a few weeks[1]), 
shows: 

Spacetime is neither absolute nor invariant; it is _dynamic_.  It can be 
curved, and its curvature corresponds to the energy–momentum there; it can 
and does expand and contract.  (Actual) cosmological theories even say that 
it can begin and cease to exist, and the former might be how our universe 
came to be[2] and how it might end[3].

[0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave> pp.

[1] <https://twitter.com/PointedEars2/status/890512934534873088>
    (read “Prove Einstein Right” as “confirm Einstein et al.’s theory;
     I was automatically quoting the referred article’s title)

[2] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng6c0oLkQE>
    (Lawrence Krauss: “A Universe from Nothing”, 2017)
 
[3] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#False_vacuum> 
p.

> In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure […]

Numerous observations have falsified that view already and are going to do 
it again.
 
> However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute
> background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing
> of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other
> clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the
> apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of
> the traveling twin.

Those are one and the same.  You cannot have the twin paradox *without* the 
relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction.

The twin paradox is a *consequence* of these effects, even though you can 
also explain it with different proper times along different paths connecting 
the same two distinct time-like separated events in a 3+1-dimensional 
pseudo-Riemannian manifold that is spacetime.
 
> Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat.

It merely clarifies that indeed you have no clue what you are talking about 
because you have not in any way *studied* what you are talking about, and 
that (therefore) your idea is a far cry from being a (scientific) theory.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426535

On 7/27/17 7/27/17   7:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Tom, Jan, et al, I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to
> try to get my idea across.

Not just one, a whole slew of incorrect terminology. It's quite clear that you 
do not understand the nomenclature of GR.

> I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'.

OK. But your words show that you still do not understand how GR models the 
world; specifically the relationship between manifold and world.

> What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all
> individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a
> single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.

Hmmmm. "Absolute" is so fungible in meaning it is quite useless. Once one 
realizes that spacetime is a MANIFOLD that is a MODEL of a world (real or 
imagined), one must use a PUN on "invariant" to apply the word "invariant" to 
the manifold.

	Because when physicists use the term "invariant" we really
	mean "the value does not change under a change in coordinates";
	a manifold is completely independent of coordinates so this
	does not really apply.

> In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by
> particle interactions in an underlying computational space.

To a physicist, spacetime is a MANIFOLD that is a MODEL. You are confusing model 
with world and obtaining nonsense. And attempting to apply structure that is not 
present in GR.

As I keep saying: you are NOT describing GR, you are describing some personal 
fantasy ("theory") that you incorrectly think is GR.

> However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background
> produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the
> traveling twin's clock. 

Nope. It simply is not possible to reference "motion" to a manifold.

	Imagine an abstract Euclidean plane: how do you determine
	"where you are" on it?" or "how fast you are moving with
	respect to it?" -- YOU CANNOT (it is infinite and
	completely featureless). What you can do is designate a
	specific point, construct coordinates with that point at
	the origin, and reference positions and velocities to those
	coordinates. But this is not in any way "relative to the
	manifold" -- those words are INCOMMENSURATE.

It remains true in GR that identical clocks ALWAYS tick at identical rates, 
regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or where they 
might be located. This is also true in the world we inhabit. No "actual clock 
slowing" is involved -- that is YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY, and not any part of GR 
(of course other people share that particular fantasy; none of them understand 
GR, either).

> Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat.

As long as you call it "my theory" and don't claim to describe GR, OK. But your 
"theory" does not correspond to ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS, so it is already refuted, 
and thus useless.

	I also suspect your "theory" is self-inconsistent, as I
	do not think you can consistently construct a theory in
	which moving clocks actually run slow, and clocks lower
	in a gravitational field actually run slow.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426546

Tom Roberts wrote:

> It remains true in GR that identical clocks ALWAYS tick at identical
> rates, regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or
> where they might be located. This is also true in the world we inhabit.
> No "actual clock slowing" is involved 

This can be an artefact. As ALL clocks are DRIVEN by transfer of ENERGY. 
And attention, cells, chemical and atomic reaction are similarly DRIVEN by 
TRANSFER of ENERGY.

In fact, the GR field equation even is specifying this thing, explicitly. 
People are just not paying attention towards what's going on. They reach a 
conclusion, going in bed with a believe of understanding.

The above is fully consistent otherwise, with my Divergent Matter of the 
Moving Bodies Model. Whereas, relativity is just a subset of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426548

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:00:19 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Tom, Jan, et al,
> 
> I've realized I've been using an incorrect terminology to try to get my idea across.
> 
> I agree there is NO absolute 'frame'.
> 
> What there is is a single universal spacetime with respect to which all individual observer frames make sense to each other. Because there is a single universal spacetime it is what's absolute and invariant.
> 
> In my view this ST is not physical but a mathematical structure computed by particle interactions in an underlying computational space.
> 
> However it's still clear that motion with respect to this absolute background produces ACTUAL relativistic effects such as the actual slowing of the traveling twin's clock. While motion only with respect to other clocks produces only OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects such as the apparent slowing of the earth bound twin's clock as seen from the frame of the traveling twin.
> 
> Hopefully this clarifies my theory somewhat. Apologies for using an incorrect and misleading terminology. There is no absolute frame, but dimensional ST itself functions as an absolute reference background for all relativistic frames.
> 
> Edgar L. Owen

1, 2, 3, 5 .... that is All that is needed to extrapolate All the Planck Units

3e+8 /(3e+5/433494437 +1) = 299792528.46


https://photos.app.goo.gl/6v1cxjNJuRVkUQgf1

42 : 267914296 = 23 x 13 x 29 x 211 x 421
43 : 433494437

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibtable.html


(((6.666666666e-11 / 2) * (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.7037037037037e-28 * (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 300000000 m/s  

(((6.666666666e-11 / 2) * pascals) / (3.7037037037037e-28 * (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 300000000 m / s  

1.12500e-34 * 6 = 6.75e-34 Plancks Constant    

Planck's constant / (1.12500e-34 * 6) = 0.981640006 

((1.12500e-34 / 6.66666666666e-11) * 3e+8)^0.5 = 2.25e-8 Planck Mass

2.25e-8 kg  * 3e+8^2 = 2.025e+9 Joules  = Planck Energy

((1.12500e-34 * 6.66666666666e-11) / (3e+8^3))^0.5 = 1.6666667e-35  Planck Length

((1.12500e-34 * 6.66666666666e-11) / (3e+8^5))^0.5 = 5.5555556e-44 Planck Time

((1.12500e-34 / 3e+8) * (10^7))^0.5 = 1.9364917e-18  Planck Charge

(1.12500e-34 / 3e+8) * (10^7) = 3.75e-36 = ( Planck Charge )^2

1 / ((3e+8 * 1.25e-6) / (135 * 375)) = 135 Alpha 

von Klitzing constant = (135 * 375)/2 = 25312.5

RK = h/e2 = 25812.807557(18) Ω

8.88888888e-12 = Farads

375 = Impedance 

1.25e-6 = Henries



((1.12500e-34 * 6) / ((135 * 375) / 2))^0.5 = 1.6329932e-19 Coulombs 

((1.12500e-34 * 6) / ((135 * 375) / 2)) = 2.6666667e-38 (Coulombs)^2

(((1.12500e-34 * 6) / ((135 * 375) / 2))^0.5) / 1.6021766208e-19 = 1.01923417222

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge



temperature = (photon energy)/(Boltzmann constant)

(photon energy) =  3e+8/ 1.666666666666e-35 *6.75e-34 = 1.215e+10 Joules

Planck Temp = (2.25e-8 kg / (3e+8 m/s)^2) / Kb

Kb = Boltzmann constant = 1.38064852e-23 J/K



(0.5 * 8.88888e-12 * (0.5^0.25))^2 =  1.3967513e-23 

((0.5 * 8.88888e-12 * (0.5^0.25))^2) / Boltzmann constant = 1.01166323 

Boltzmann constant (kB or k) 

((1.21500e+10 joules) / 6) / ((0.5 * 8.888888888888e-12 * (0.5^0.25))^2) = 1.44978987e+32 Kelvin 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature 

((1.21500e+10 / 6) / ((0.5 * 8.888888888888e-12 * (0.5^0.25))^2)) / 1.416808e+32 = 1.0232789992 





(((2.25e-8 * 1.66666666666e-35) / 5.5555555555e-44) / 1.12500e-34) / 6 = 1e+34

(((Planck Mass * Planck Length) / Planck Time) / hbar) / pi = 1e+34

(2.25e-8 * 1.66666666666e-35) / (5.5555555555e-44 * 6) = 1.125

 ((Planck Mass * Planck Length) / (Planck Time * 2pi))  (Planck Momentum)^2

(2.176470e-8 * 1.616229e-35) / (5.39116e-44 * (2pi)) = 1.03846889056

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web