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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426691

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

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web