Time is not an absolute?

[mistermack]

I see self justification and self righteousness. Science? Not so much. Wrong forum, again.

I see I was right first time.

[GreyICE]

I see self justification and self righteousness. Science? Not so much. Wrong forum, again.

I see I was right first time.

Missing a "for the"

[hackenslash]

Hackenslash wrote:
No. Relativity and time dilation are a result of the fact that there is an invariant quantity in play, namely s, which is the momentum four-vector.

I believe you are confusing some terminology here. Almost without exception, invariants in relativity are scalars, like for instance the scalar c. You are correct that there is an invariant quantity s (or s2) defined as s2=-(ct)2+x2+y2+z2, which forms the basis for the transformation rules of special relativity. The quantity is a measure of the distance between two events in four-dimensional space-time. It is, however not a tensor or vector. It is a scalar.

Thank you for playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

In special relativity, four-momentum is the generalization of the classical three-dimensional momentum to four-dimensional spacetime. Momentum is a vector in three dimensions; similarly four-momentum is a four-vector in spacetime.

[hackenslash]

You've missed the point then. It's a very simple point, but you managed to miss it.

Actually, no I didn't. The principle of equivalence comes into play here. There is no experiment that could determine the difference between the scenaria described above, which means that they are completely equivalent, and that therefore nothing would have happened. It has no implications.

Hackenslash, you seem to think that what we experience is all there is.
It's pointless just repeating the textbooks. You seem to question nothing, and don't seem mentally prepared to question anything.
What you claim is an invariant, is an invariant to us. You seem to think that's the end of the story. I'm questioning that. Questions are allowed in my world.
What's invariant to us may not be invariant in fact.
That's been proved before. We would never have worked out SR, if everyone had your attitude.

This sounds like creationist claptrap. If our experiments cannot determine a distinction, there is no good reason to accept that there is a distinction. It's really that simple. Einstein worked out SR not because he challenged assumptions about the world, but because he ran with a hard empirical result and took it to its logical conclusion. Since Michelson-Morley demonstrated that the speed of light is the same in any inertial frame, Einstein ran with that conclusion to see where it took him and SR was the result.

Now, would you like to try to present something that demonstrates that you have the first clue of what you're talking about, especially since you berated somebody else for allegedly presenting something that they didn't understand? Glass fucking houses, and all that.

[mistermack]

Actually, no I didn't. The principle of equivalence comes into play here. There is no experiment that could determine the difference between the scenaria described above, which means that they are completely equivalent, and that therefore nothing would have happened. It has no implications.

Actually you did miss the point, and you're still missing it now.
I did point out that we would be unable to detect any absolute frame, so it's bleedin obvious that no experiment could determine the difference. That IS the point. Why tell me something I've already pointed out? If you got the point?

This sounds like creationist claptrap. If our experiments cannot determine a distinction, there is no good reason to accept that there is a distinction. It's really that simple.

It would be that simple, if that was what I said. But you're arguing against something I didn't even say. Nobody asked anybody to accept anything. I simply made the point that if our experiments cannot determine a distinction, that's not reason to assume that there IS no distinction. Do you get the distinction?
I'm making no assumption, you ARE making an assumption. Not on evidence, your evidence is just a LACK of evidence to the contrary.

Even when proposing and developing SR, Einstein never pronounced on there being no absolute frame. He eventually made the point that as SR worked, we may as well act as if that is all there is.
You may know more. I'm happy enough with Einstein for now.

And the tone of my comments to Greyice was a response to similar stuff aimed at me on a previous thread. I just matched my tone to what I received earlier.

[GreyICE]

What is ironic to note is that you ran away crying "not enough information" from that thread and have determined to snipe at me in other threads.

It's like three threads down on this page, feel free to go back there and discuss science whenever the fuck you want.

Other than that, stop this 'poor ol' me' nonsense, it's fucking stupid and irritating. You posted bullshit and got called on it, cry me a fucking river.

[Ulven]

I did point out that we would be unable to detect any absolute frame, so it's bleedin obvious that no experiment could determine the difference. That IS the point. Why tell me something I've already pointed out? If you got the point?

I simply made the point that if our experiments cannot determine a distinction, that's not reason to assume that there IS no distinction.

Einstein certainly stated often enough that absolutely all reference frames have to be equivalent. If you believe that there may exist a reference frame that has some yet unidentified property that distinguishes it from all others then, obviously, your definition of a reference frame needs to be modified. This is pretty much what Einstein did when he removed the difference between inertial frames and non-inertial frames in general relativity.

As soon as you can come up with some precisely defined distinction between your "absolute" frame and all the other frames, then it should be possible to remove the distinction by redefining the properties of our frames. You could become our next Einstein, but as long as you continue to argue that there is a special frame of reference that is totally indistinguishable from the rest, you will continue to sound like a fool.

[mistermack]

I did point out that we would be unable to detect any absolute frame, so it's bleedin obvious that no experiment could determine the difference. That IS the point. Why tell me something I've already pointed out? If you got the point?

I simply made the point that if our experiments cannot determine a distinction, that's not reason to assume that there IS no distinction.

Einstein certainly stated often enough that absolutely all reference frames have to be equivalent. If you believe that there may exist a reference frame that has some yet unidentified property that distinguishes it from all others then, obviously, your definition of a reference frame needs to be modified. This is pretty much what Einstein did when he removed the difference between inertial frames and non-inertial frames in general relativity.

As soon as you can come up with some precisely defined distinction between your "absolute" frame and all the other frames, then it should be possible to remove the distinction by redefining the properties of our frames. You could become our next Einstein, but as long as you continue to argue that there is a special frame of reference that is totally indistinguishable from the rest, you will continue to sound like a fool.

It would hardly upset me, if people who can't even read what I write call me a fool.
Where did I argue that there IS a special frame of reference? I argue that threre COULD BE. How hard is it to understand what's written down?

And why partially quote Einstein? Why not quote fully what he often said about a "favoured reference frame", that SR does not exclude that possibility.
We are constantly told that there is no absolute frame of reference, when the truth is there could be, we would have no way of knowing either way.
Why should we worry? We shouldn't. That doesn't mean you should banish the thought.
Let me put this question :
The speed of light, c, is at the heart of SR.
What would be the effect if a ''new'' light was discovered, which as far as we could measure, travelled at infinite speed. Someone makes a camera that can detect it, and the universe is literally bathed in the stuff.
Where would SR stand? It would still work perfectly for all matter and electromagnetic energy, but could you still say it gave the true picture of reality?

[GreyICE]

And there could be an Invisible Pink Unicorn in the room watching you. Prove there isn't. Prove it!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

And why partially quote Einstein? Why not quote fully what he often said about a "favoured reference frame", that SR does not exclude that possibility.

Excuse me. How can you claim in one breath that someone is "partially quoting" Einstein and then go on, in the very next breath, to paraphrase something that you claim that Einstein "often said" - not even a partial quote in this case - simply badly reported hearsay!

Forgive me for using the smiley in this instance.

[GreyICE]

And why partially quote Einstein? Why not quote fully what he often said about a "favoured reference frame", that SR does not exclude that possibility.

Excuse me. How can you claim in one breath that someone is "partially quoting" Einstein and then go on, in the very next breath, to paraphrase something that you claim that Einstein "often said" - not even a partial quote in this case - simply badly reported hearsay!

Forgive me for using the smiley in this instance.

I'll forgive you, but only because we don't have a :fuckingbullshit: smiley.

[Ulven]

And why partially quote Einstein? Why not quote fully what he often said about a "favoured reference frame", that SR does not exclude that possibility.

I didn't exactly quote Einstein. I simply argued that he considered all reference frames equivalent in the sense that the laws of physics could not depend on the frame chosen. The quotes you reference in your response are unknown to me. I do find it strange, however, that Einstein would have found it necessary to state that SR does not exclude the possibility of an absolute reference frame, considering that SR is applicable only to a special subset of reference frames. What SR showed was that all inertial frames were equivalent. Obviously the theory could not show that non-inertial frames were equivalent, because SR does not apply to these frames.

This deficiency in SR does not, however, change the fact that all frames of reference must be equivalent. Should we discover some phenomenon that appears to obey different physical laws in two different reference frames, then the laws must be wrong or the properties of our reference frames are wrong, and they will need to be corrected. You can't have a situation where a physical event will occur in some frames but not in others. This should be obvious to anybody.