So as to correct for my mistake of using an inline material spin counter, I am reposting this using a transverse spinner, optical or not. The original is appended below.
It is true that all measurements are relative. This must be true simply because a measurement is a comparison, a relative measure. But if you cross-check (“transverse”) and verify your measurements then correct for consistency and cohesiveness, you discover absolute measure that is the same for all. Thus measurements are only relative when you don’t cross verify them and correct for the logical inconsistencies.
The following is an example of literally “cross” verifying so as to either correct for irrational conclusions, or be forced to accept even more irrational conclusions.
If we get on a train and time the train’s travel over 1000 meters, we can calculate the train’s velocity;
v = dx/dt
But if our watch is running slow, we will measure incorrectly and think the train was going faster than it really was.
v’ = dx/dt’
We know that when something moves very quickly, its clocks will run slower. So we know that we don’t have to have a broken watch for us to measure the wrong velocity. But the equation v’ = dx/dt’ requires that we make a choice that either our velocity measured, v’ is wrong or the length of the track has shortened, dx’, just because we were moving.
Lorentz
The Lorentz equations seem to have chosen to say that our distance has “really” shortened rather than say that we are merely experiencing the effects of a slower clock thus not measuring the “real” velocity. Why is that?
The result of this choice is that we have “relativity of simultaneity” saying that someone will think that 2 events happened at the same time while another thinks they happened at different times rather than having someone think he was going at one speed and another thinks that he was going at a different speed.
The Lorentz equations assume there is a “real” velocity thus there cannot be a “real” length.
Is there some reason for that Lorentz/Einstein choice?
Transverse Spin Counter
If we mount a transverse spin counter on the train and count the number of transverse spins during the train’s 1000 meter run, the Lorentz equations will yield the same number of spins as anyone at the station would count for that same length of time, especially if it is optic, because transverse time isn’t effected by linear motion and certainly optic time isn’t. The spin counter would correct for the time dilated slower clock and measure the correct velocity.
So can we say that if a train has a spin counter on it, its length, “dx’ “ doesn’t dilate and thus when it believes things are simultaneous they really will be?
Our other choice is to say that due to Lorentz equations we must accept “relativity of count” wherein our otherwise unaffected count of anything will have to change merely because we were moving (maybe now we know where that missing passenger went?).
Einstein defined time by saying that it couldn’t be defined as anything but “the hands on a clock turning”. That is an imprecise way to define time.
Distance is the “measure of relative position”.
Velocity/Motion is the “measure of change in relative position”.
Time is the “measure of relative velocity/motion”.
Time dilation is the “measure of change in relative velocity/motion”.
That is why you change the velocity, v’, rather than the distance, x’.
As Rational Metaphysics explains;
There are an infinite number of points between any 2 affects. And even though 2 * inf and inf are infinite, they are not equally infinite. Thus merely by moving yourself, you cannot alter the number of points between 2 other affects from inf to 2 * inf. You would have to move them relative to each other, not yourself.
Always very carefully cross-check what is in the Coolaid.
=================================Original Post==============================================
It seems as though special relativity requires that we adjust any “number of count” the faster we go.
A spin counter is exactly what the name implies, a device that merely counts the number of spins or full cycles of anything turning in a circle. As it turns out, a spin counter is useful for resolving a few issues in relativity concerning time and distance dilation. For an example of the use of a spin counter, let’s look at the classic train passing a station scenario.
A small wheel on the train and track is going to be our spinning object for us to count. And let’s say for simplicity that the train has a wheel on it with a circumference of 1meter. If the train is slowly run down a track of 1000m, obviously the wheel will turn 1000 times. But how many times will it turn if that same train were going near the speed of light? Would it change? According to current special relativity, it must.
Velocity, v = dx/dt.
The change in the distance, dx divided by the change in the time, dt, is how we define and measure velocity in all relativity fundamentals.
What this means to us is that if that train were going at 100m/sec, it would travel the distance of 1000m in exactly 10 seconds. That is 1000 spins in 10 seconds. But that is measured by the ground and an observer at the station.
As we have been taught, special relativity tells us that the time read by the train, dt’ will be shorter than what the station reads for the run.
dt > dt’
But then if v = dx/dt and dt’ is less than dt, then the distance measured by the train must also change to cause length dilation;
v = dx/dt = dx’/dt’
thus if dt > dt’, then dx > dx’ by the same ratio.
So the train will not only think that it took less time to travel down the track, but it must also believe the track to be shorter than 1000m.
But is that really true? Special relativity says it is true.
Note that we had to recalculate our distance measured by the train because to get the same velocity v, we had to change dx’. But what if the train merely accepted that it was going at a different velocity, v’ rather than a different distance? What if;
v = dt/dt <> v’ = dx’/dt’
If the train were to accept that it was going at a different velocity, then it could accept that the track is really 1000m just as the station measures. So how do we know which to accept? Do we say the train will see the track as shorter, or do we say that the train will see its velocity as more than the station measured? How do we decide?
Well, look at the spin counter. If the train views the track to be less than 1000m, the spin counter, in constant contact with the track, will not count 1000 turns before it reaches the end of the run. From the train’s perspective, the wheel diameter doesn’t change so its circumference is still 1m. If the track had a wheel marker at the end of the run and it locked its spin counter wheel at the end of the run, the spin counter could not yet be up to 1000.
But how many counts would the station count if the train were moving that fast? Special relativity requires that the train wheel would length dilate and seem more as an oval, but still the same height. Thus the circumference of the wheel would seem shorter. That means it would have to spin more times to get to 1000m.
So the station counts the number of spins as more than 1000 and the train counts the number of spins as less than 1000.
So now, do we accept that the distance of the track was not dilated from the train’s perspective, or do we accept that the number of a count is relative to speed?
If the “number of count” is relative to speed as current special relativity seems to require, and we started with 100 people on the train all lined in a row, how many would we have when the train got up to half the speed of light? How many would a station count on the train? How many at the speed of light? Where did they go? Are you sure you really want to travel the speed of light?
==============================================================
The Lorentz equations for calculating time and distance effects of motion have been around for over 100 years. They have always assumed that there is only one velocity measured by both moving and non-moving objects and declare that both time and distance must change to account for it. Time certainly does change in measurement for moving objects, but change in measured distance rather than measured velocity?
If we choose instead to assume that the velocity of the train were seen as being different as measured by the train rather than the distance, our spin counter would count the same for either and thus resolve this puzzle. But if we were to do that, think how many equations would have to change. Did anyone say, “job shortage”?