The absolute frame is the universal average of all EMR/mass
“Light” is basically “that which does not have rest-mass.” - that which, if it were to stand still, would have no mass.
Light, existing and thus having relativistic mass, thus never stands still - it is always in motion with respect to everything. This is why it is absolute.
The formulas aren’t that perfect. Light actually does have a tiny bit of mass or inertia and momentum. But the equation implying that such mass would have to be infinite is not a perfect equation. They once thought that every subatomic particle had an infinite mass density at the exact center due to Newton’s gravitation formula. In reality the mass distribution within a particle levels off, to Einstein’s surprise. Such formulas are merely rules of thumb when it gets down to the more serious details.
I disagree… physicists just found out how to freeze light and add information to it. You can’t freeze something that’s in relative motion to everything else. C is not infinity of anything.
Don’t believe everything you hear (more often nothing that you hear). They twist wording to make things sound fascinating. There is no actual freezing of light. They can make a harmonic residence cavity where from the outside peaks and valleys stay in the same location. But that is phase control, not actually preventing the light from traveling. Light cannot NOT travel, else it would immediately become a mass particle.
Hmm… that’s not something I’m an expert on. I’ll meditate on it a bit. You already know I think the whole universe is drawn by a single particle that moves way faster than C, and i don’t even think that particle is infinite.
But no rest-mass, simply because it can not be attained. This is nice because it offers an elegant solution that’s actually logically comprehensible. We don’t have to refer to any hypotheses about non observable behavior. We can simply accept a logical limit to what is possible.
It is rather an equation that involves itself into the equation.
It is possible that outside of the physical universe there is all sorts of machinery and it is a fact that value-correspondence (reflected in spin but more generally understood as information) ‘travels’ faster than light, namely quite instantly.
What I wonder about is if one can cause light by thought.
My theory is that a particle moves so fast that when it hits it’s own tail it makes a point, and this point has mass that can be detected… I think the entire universe is being drawn every instant from this one particle.
Hmm.
I believe in the entropy of cheese, and that nations can not be governed if there are too many types of cheese.
No, I’m saying nothing can reach the speed of light (i.e. accelerate to…). But light already is travelling at c.
Maybe, but right now, we’re speaking in the context of Einsteinian relativity.
Right, which means the object would have to be falling in order to length contract, but you said we weren’t speaking of falling. A train standing still does not contract.
No, it’s equivalent to falling towards the Earth.
Sources please.
Yeay! James finally got it! 
What makes you think relativity doesn’t make sense to me. It makes perfect sense–which is what I’ve been showing you (despite your ignorance) all throughout this threat. What motive would I have to doubt it? Just because I don’t know everything about it doesn’t mean that I see contradictions and paradoxes strewn throughout. And if I do, the most logical conclusion to draw is that I simply don’t know whether the theory is true or not. Unlike you and that mirror of vanity you hold up to yourself, that I might be misunderstanding it is actually a possibility for me.
What you’re saying would introduce contradictions and paradoxes–which is why I doubt what you’re saying. Isn’t the whole point of spewing out these false claims and misinterpretations of relativity so that you can point out paradoxes? So why on Earth would you expect me to throw out my perfectly good, logically consistent, paradox free, understanding of relativity for your flawed, logically incoherent, paradox ridden rendition of it?
In the end, you’re basically saying “Relativity makes sense to you? Well, I’ve got this other version of it that’s fraught with paradoxes. See them? See the paradoxes? Now don’t you see that this is the correct one, and yours is wrong?” I mean, I understand that you think it’s the scientific community’s version that your spout on about, but if it’s fraught with paradoxes, and mine isn’t, I must be a frickin’ genius. So what rational reason would I, as an independent thinker, have for choosing yours?
Furthermore, I’m doing you a favour–I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt–you might be right that relativity says that an object suspended in a gravitational field (not falling) is still length contracted–so I’m not saying that you’re wrong–I’m saying that I’m skeptical and will need to see your source (which you still haven’t provided).
Oh, I’m not saying you realize your blunders and newbie mistakes, but assuming that the world looks like it length expands when you length contract is a newbie mistake (believe me, I made it too).
Do ya feel the anger, James, do ya?
Why do you seem to think that if one were to “really” think logically, one would always agree with you?
What you suffer from is a case of confabulated self-deception–you make up shit off the top of your head–whatever sounds best to you–and you buy your own bullshit. ← You call that logic and thinking for yourself. The reason I refuse to partake in that approach to thinking is that I know when I’m coming up with bullshit! You believe whatever you tell yourself. I don’t. I don’t lose sight of the fact that what I come up with is just what I came up with. I don’t know if it’s true or not. I haven’t conducted the experiments to verify it. You must be the last person in the world to learn the hard lessons of science–namely, that thinking alone, no matter how rational seeming, no matter how logically air-tight it appears to you, can always be catastrophically wrong–and it requires some ego to think one’s self infallible.
You have a lot of trouble with the reference frame switching thing, don’t you? It’s the stay-at-home who’s actually moving according the traveller’s reference frame. (You’d see this if you weren’t fixated on your absolute reference frame theory).
Oh right, the whole matter-is-light thing.
Nope.
Which is why it can travel at c. If E=mc^2, then for a photon 0 = 0xm^2.
No gib. You feel the effect of compression because you are either NOT falling while in a gravity field or because you are being propelled. When you are in free fall, you feel nothing and nothing gets compressed (other than the gravity field compression effects that you don’t believe in). But what does happen is that the gravity field gets stronger and stronger as you go. It is NOT uniform.
To the object, being propelled is equivalent to not falling while in a gravity field. The tape measure gets compressed either from merely being in the gravity field (falling or not) or from being propelled. When you are NOT falling, you feel a 1g force upon you. In free fall, you don’t feel any force upon you and can’t easily tell whether you are falling or merely floating unless you can see something around you. But when you are propelled, you can easily feel the compressive effects.
A train standing still very close to a very great mass IS contracted or compressed compared to that same train taken away from that mass. The effects from that is what GRT is about. You are physically smaller while standing on Earth than when you are out in space.
James didn’t “just get it”. James told you that such a scenario was irrelevant to our case back at the very beginning. Now I have explained to you why it is irrelevant. Accelerating out of a gravity field or falling into one is a very different case than propelling through space, especially with anything 20 meters long, because the force gets stronger as you get closer to the Earth.
I didn’t say that it doesn’t make sense to you.
I said that you need to practicing thinking so that you can see why it should not have made sense. Anything might make sense to an idiot. Just look throughout history.
You don’t remember the 21 meter tape measure that was due to the tape being contracted? The world got bigger only because the tape measure got smaller. Or are you going to change faith again?
No, that is the most religious conclusion to draw, “don’t consider that logic is logic, just believe that they are better than you”.
Even you should be bright enough to be able to see that both twins cannot measure the other clock running slower than their own if one of them ages more than the other. Your willingness to ignorantly accept your inability to reason in the face of authority allows you to go on and on spouting total non-sense (as you have been). You would have been one of the Flat-Earthers, Geocentrists, Young-Earthers, or one of the Newtonian anti-relativists back in their time.
And again, you are STILL preaching the false dogma that each reference frame measures the other as being slower.
A ship takes off from Earth and quickly gets up to exactly the speed of light and travels for 10 years as measured on Earth, then turns around and returns at the same speed. On Earth the clocks were spinning and spinning for 20 years. The ship’s clock only got to spin twice, once starting up and slowing down and then again returning.
Now if your clock only makes two spins during the same span that the Earth’s clocks have made billions of spins, how are you going to measure that the Earth’s clocks are slower than yours?
You are claiming that by SRT, perhaps the Earth got up to the speed of light and thus its clocks only spin twice while the ship’s spun countless times for 20 years. But that doesn’t reflect what happened. SRT states that a person cannot know which case was actual. Yet GRT explains which must be true and thus disproves SRT all by itself. Your version is the exact lie that you were taught and STILL can’t stop believing = religious.
Er… uh… you’re right. My mistake.
What I should have said was: that has nothing to do with the train passenger length contracting. The passenger in the train looks out the window and sees the world length contracting. He hardly sees himself as length contracted. So why would a man standing on the Earth length contract. He would see things falling passed him as length contracted.
Of course, from s-pov, the passenger in the train is length contracted, but in s-pov, there is no gravity. What this would imply is that for a person falling towards the Earth, a man standing on the Earth would be length contracted, but that requires falling, not just being in a gravitational field.
No, it gets compressed from moving.
Still not providing those source.
Um, I still don’t see how that proves why such a scenario is irrelevant? Why can’t an accelerating rocket be equivalent to a universal uniform gravitational field pulling everything back? Why can’t one use that model to make predictions and calculate what will happen to objects falling (from m-pov) into that gravitational field?
Well, then, we come back to what I was saying before: you’re urging me to accept a version of relativity that, by your own demonstrations, is filled with paradoxes and logical inconsistencies, knowing perfectly well that the version I have in my head doesn’t suffer these shortcomings. And you can’t use the excuse that the version I believe in should fail to make sense to me (if I were only to think more logically about it) since you yourself said I don’t understand relativity. So we have the “real” version of relativity, which you say is fraught with logical holes, and we have my version, which you say is not the “real” version but it makes sense to me, and which you still haven’t disproved. Then on top of that, you want me to think for myself. Well, let’s put this together, shall we? You want me to abandon something that makes sense to me for something fraught with paradoxes, and then after showing me the paradoxes, you want me to abandon that for something that makes sense according to my own independent thinking. Weeelllll, thinking for myself, why don’t I just go back to my original frickin’ theory!
Ah ha! So you do think that if one were to think logically, they would always agree with you. 
Do you remember how I debunked that paradox?
The gap between the trains widens because the rear train is accelerating at a lesser rate (in f-pov), not because space expanded (in fact, you agreed that the track ties would appear closer together!).
Thanks for that twisting of my words because it serves as the perfect example of your style of thinking. Saying that I don’t know whether the theory is right or not is not the same thing as saying that logic isn’t logic. ← This is what your mind does, James. It twists the words of those you are competing with. It does not think logically. There is no logical connection between not knowing whether a theory is right or wrong and logic not being logic… but your mind made that connection and you believe it.
This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. In all your years of debating relativity with others, you have not been educating yourself on what the theory really says, nor have you been building a more logical, more accurate theory of your own–what you have been doing is mentally reacting–very much in knee-jerk fashion; you have a theory you call RM:AO and you recognize it as in competition with Einsteinian relativity. You obsessively worship RM:AO–it’s your baby–and you’d do anything to defend it–anything–even con yourself into believing you’ve exposed paradoxes, logical inconsistencies, and lies in your competition. But really, what your mind has been doing, in a panic, is pouncing on the first interpretation of relativity that it thinks of that makes relativity seem full of paradoxes, logical inconsistencies, and lies. But this is all too easy. Anyone can do this by not being careful–by not paying attention to whether you’re using the logic properly or not, or whether you’ve actually understood what the theory actually purports. And as soon as you’ve found your pseudo-paradoxes, you stop thinking and start attacking (didn’t you say you ignore half the stuff I say?). Oh, you don’t realize you’re doing this–why would you?–that would work counter to what your mind is trying to do. So the bullshit your mind comes up with is also consumed by your mind, and you end up believe it yourself.
The example above, where you twisted my words, shows that you’re a rash thinker, not a logical one. And it’s not the only example you provided in this thread. Your conclusions that relativity says that there is no objective reality is another case in point. Relativity absolutely does not say that. It only says that there will be certain measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) that are relative, but that’s a far cry from saying there is no objective reality. Yet your mind saw no problem with rashly jumping to that conclusion. Why? Because it works for your purposes. The feeling you have of “that’s rational” is really the feeling of “that works for my purposes”.
You see, this is why they call it “relativity”–you talk about measurement–even though no one said anything about each twin measuring the clocks of the other twin, the concept of measurement is a perceptual one. An object can look to be 19 meters relative to one person but 20 meters relative to another. This is not the same as say the object is 19 meters and 20 meters at the same time (remember how I said such statements are not quite accurate in relativity?). The object is 19 meters in relation to something (a reference frame, an observer, someone’s perception, etc.), and that means it could be any other length relative to something else. Relativity resolves the pseudo-paradox by positing relativistic qualifiers. So yes, relative to one twin, the other will be aging faster than he, but relative to he, the first twin will be the one aging faster.
“But Gib, what is the actual fact of the matter? Who is really aging faster than the other, or are they both aging faster than the other simultaneously?” ← Well, James, this is precisely what relativity pivots on: there is no “actual fact of the matter”. There is only relativistic states of affairs. The rate at which someone ages is only X relative to something.
I feel I could explain this deeper if I could get off on a tangent about the nature of space and time themselves–how there really is a “nothingness” there–but I’ll save that one for later.
First of all, you must know that nothing can actually reach the speed of light, don’t you?
But let’s say for argument’s sake, it got close enough to the speed of light for one extra spin of the clock throughout the coasting portion of the journey–so 3 spins per leg (still works for your purposes, doesn’t it?).
To answer your question–Now if your clock only makes two spins during the same span that the Earth’s clocks have made billions of spins, how are you going to measure that the Earth’s clocks are slower than yours?–the answer is you won’t. GR gives us a definitive answer to this paradox: the stay-at-home will have aged more than the traveller.
And now you say: But Gib, didn’t you say that relative to the traveller, the stay-at-home was the one moving, and therefore relative to the traveller, aged more slowly? And I’ll say: No, James, I didn’t. What I said was that during the coasting portion of the journey (because that’s when SR applies) the stay-at-home will age faster relative to the traveller (the traveller always ages more slowly relative to the stay-at-home). But once again, you’re tendency to stay willfully ignorant of that which you disagree with blinds you to what GR adds to SR, and how that resolves the paradox.
Thinking in terms of GR, we realize that from the traveller’s pov, the Earth is getting pulled back by a UUGF (universal uniform gravitational field), and what GR tells us about UUGF (which I’ve tried numerous times to tell you) is that whether an object speeds up or slows down has to do, in addition to its speed, with whether the light coming from it must fight against gravity in order to reach you or it goes with gravity in order to reach you (this is the whole blue-shift/red-shift thing). As the traveller accelerates away from the stay-at-home, the UUGF created by this is pulling the stay-at-home away. Thus, in order for the traveller to see the stay-at-home, the light coming from the stay-at-home must fight against the gravity of the UUGF. This slows the stay-at-home down relative to the traveller.
The same, of course, is true of when the traveller is returning and decelerates as he approaches home. This deceleration counts as a similar UUGF pulling everything in the same direction (except that the stay-at-home is slowing down in the UUGF instead of speeding up–much like a balling thrown up in the air slows down before it starts falling). But the same principle applies–since the UUGF is pulling the stay-at-home away from the traveller, time again slows down for the stay-at-home relative to the traveller.
So where is time made up for the stay-at-home? His clock slows down when the traveller accelerates away, it slows down when the traveller decelerates approaching home, it slows down during the coasting period because of basic principles of SR… how can he end up aging more than the traveller?
The answer is, during the turn-around period. In order for the traveller to turn around and come back home, he needs to slam on the breaks and do a U-ball–he needs to decelerate, turn around, and start accelerating again. This time, the UUGF that’s created pulls in the opposite direction. It pulls the stay-at-home closer. So any light coming from the stay-at-home can work with gravity. Thus, time for the stay-at-home, relative to the traveller, speeds up. In fact, if you consult the formulae of relativity, you’ll find that it speeds up enough, and for enough time, that it not only makes up for all the slowing down that occurred at the beginning of the journey, the end, and the coasting periods in between, but surpasses the amount of time lost and gains a bunch more–such that the stay-at-home ends up aged much more than the traveller once they reunite.
Now, I don’t know what you mean by “SRT states that a person cannot know which case was actual.” ← This must be one of those rash conclusions you’re prone to arriving at. It probably sounded “right” to you because you felt it would be a good line to stump me with. You must mean that neither reference frame, according to SR, is in a privileged position to say “I’m the right one,” so I guess we just can’t know, huh? Wrong! We can know. We know that they are both right. This is indeed possible, James… because it’s relativity–relative to the one frame, such-and-such is the case, but relative to the other frame, something else is the case.
What it cannot be equivalent to is a rocket taking off from Earth or ANY actual gravitational field. There is no real “uniform gravitational field” And that is why the whole discussion concerning gravity is totally irrelevant to this issue and not at all a part of SRT.
You “debunked” nothing and at this rate, never will, no matter what is ever said. This is what you said in agreement;
Meaning: tape measure shrinking = length measured as lengthening.
Compared to the space between the train centers, did the tape get shorter or not? … by anyone’s pov.
Back to SRT:
Both of those are actually wrong, but GRT is close to true.
In the twins scenario, you have the Earth and the ship. Mid way through the flight, SRT says that the ship would measure that the Earth’s clock is moving slower than its own (and vsvrsa). But it would not, especially if it was traveling very nearly at the speed of light.
SRT says that a person cannot tell who is moving and who isn’t (as you stated yourself). That is how the twin’s paradox got so famous. But one can tell if the Earth is moving or the ship is moving merely by seeing who’s clock is running faster.
SRT lied. It is a false dogma.
Ten years after that lie, GRT was proposed so as to correct the flaw by stating that because the ship accelerated, rather than the Earth, the laws of physics pertaining to relative velocity are different for the two parties. The accelerated party must realize that the motion pertains to himself and not to Earth, else he will miscalculate the Earth’s clocks.
Yet SRT said that you WILL.
Specifically,
[size=150]t’ = t√(1 - β²)[/size]
That equation is FALSE for the ship traveler. Yet it is true for the Earth. Different laws depending on who accelerated more.
For example, if some strange space object passes the Earth, will its time measure slower or faster? You can’t know. You don’t know which one, the object or the Earth, accelerated more than the other. SRT would claim that the object’s time will necessarily measure slower than Earth’s. GRT says the reverse might be true.
I’m glad you finally realize it’s not a part of SR, but are you saying that because acceleration isn’t equivalent to the kind of gravitational field created by mass, then the predictions and calculations one can make for objects passing by in m-pov won’t work?
Um, is your attention span really that short? I just said:
Well, try to figure it out yourself, James. If the widening of the gap between the trains is due to the rear train accelerating at a slow rate (in f-pov), then what would happen to the distance between their centers?
Oh, you mean here?
Not during the coasting period, you can’t.
Your argument is like the follow:
We have a formula for calculating the kinetic friction of an object sliding on a surface. That formula will tell us how long it will take the object to stop sliding, given an initial force, because of the friction of the surface.
But you come along and say “Ah, but what if the surface is declined? What if it’s so declined that gravity actually pulls the object faster? In that case, the prediction made by the formula–i.e. that it will decelerate and come to a stop in t seconds–is wrong! I have disproven all of physics! I am a genius!”
It has nothing to do with who’s “really” moving and who isn’t, it has to do with the equivalence principle.
You know, I could just repeat what I’ve said about this over and over and over, but you should be able to predict my response to this by now.
Still trying to bluff your way through everything…
I think it would be pretty easy to detect a clock that is running perhaps 1000 times faster than your own.
Remember this equation?:
[b]t’ = (t – (vx/c^2)) / (1 – (v/c)^2))^1/2
Which, t or t’, is for the Earth and which for the ship?[/b]
Back to the SCP…
Your version of the m-pov is that the rear train accelerated less than the front train, right?
And due to that, the rear timer dilated less and ends up time-shifted slightly ahead of the front timer?
.
.
No.
But I know this one:
t’ = gamma x (t-vx/c^2)
James, you don’t get it. That’s totally the wrong question to ask. t could be for the ship or the Earth, as can t’. The right question to ask is: who’s reference frame are we speaking about? Who’s reference frame are we considering to be at rest? If the ship’s, then t is for the ship and t’ is for the Earth. If the Earth’s, then t is for the Earth and t’ is for the ship.
No James, it shifted slightly behind the front timer. You should have been able to figure that out. Relative to f-pov (or m-pov if there’s a middle train), the world is falling backwards. Thus, in order for light to reach the middle/front train from the rear train, it must work against gravity. That would be a red-shifting, and that would count as time slowing down.
So you didn’t believe Ed3? Or do you have a funny definition for “gamma”?
I gave you this one:
Wiki states it like this:
…with t and t’ reversed and noting that the measure is of the change in t, ∆t.
Gib, I more than “get it”. And your response is exactly what I expected except for your gamma issues.
You have again stated that the same equation is used for either frame of reference when examining the other. That is exactly what SRT taught. But if that were true, the stay at home twin’s clock is necessarily slower by the traveling twin’s pov. But we already know that it isn’t slower, rather faster. In the extreme example of very near light speed travel, the traveler’s clock only spun a couple of times and if you apply that equation the Earth’s clock wouldn’t even turn once:
∆t’ = ∆t * (1 - β²)^½
∆t’ = 2 * (1 - .999999²)^½
∆t’ = 0.002828 turns of the Earth clock during the entire journey as calculated by the traveler.
That is obviously not the truth of the case because the Earth clock turned 10 years worth, yet it is using SRT as specified.
Gib, when inventing your solutions, you only have a few options. And light “working against gravity” isn’t one of them. Any light involved is never experiencing any gravity at all. The light is immediately independent of its source whether that source is moving, stationary, or accelerating. There is no gravity involved, period. The Equivalency theories don’t have anything to do with what light experiences. And any light being used must always be measured as traveling the exact same speed toward or away from the observer of it. Light never takes longer to get to any observer unless the source was further away from that observer. Observers of light never increase the time it takes for the light to get to them by running away from it. That is a fundamental part of SRT.
Are you trying to say that because the distance between the front and rear will be measured as becoming greater while they are accelerating, the front will temporarily measure the rear as Doppler red-shifting away?
And since you are going to say “no”, explain your theory again as to why the rear clock got behind the front clock by the f-pov. Please don’t say that the light took longer to get to the front because the front was moving. The f-pov will never experience light taking longer to get to him unless the source has moved further away.
A) Is the distance between the front and rear becoming greater by the m-pov?
B) What is Your excuse for that increase?
I have already stated a billion times that the formula you are applying is only meant for the coasting period of the journey (i.e. during which SR applies).
I never said the speed of light changes.
Yes.
I explained it a thousand times in the many pages of this thread.
And I used it only for that ten year (Earth time) period. The result was that according to the traveler, the Earth clock, for ten years, almost wasn’t moving at all. It requires blind religious extremism to accept what SRT proposed.
It is a conspicuous failure of the special relativity theory.
Then stop trying to bring gravity into it.
If that is the case then the rear will also see the front as red-shifting away and by the same amount (both without rational excuse). And the centered stop-clock would see both front and read res-shifting away from that center and by the same amount. Any time variation excused by such shifting would be identical for both front and rear. If the rear is to be said to be shifted “behind” then the front must also be “behind”.
And erred with each time. I just need to narrow down which errors to focus upon so as to get it straightened out sooner (such as the one immediately above). As I explained early on, your errors are too many to go into all at once. And because you like to shift your story and dodge, we have to take it all very slowly, one imagined supposition at a time.