Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Stripe]

And you're still wrong in your prediction. As I have shown.

Only by assuming the truth of your ideas.

You've certainly failed to recognize it. It is a foundational assumption of Einstein's Theory. Are there privileged frames of reference? Is there a universal clock and a universal meter stick that absolutely measure everything (what Newton believed)?

We could just choose something. The Earth's passage around the Sun would be the best bet.:idunno:

What you've said is in direct opposition to just about everything in physics. You would be taking a view contrary to that of almost every educated person in Academia alive today. For that reason I'm not obliged to take your opinion seriously.

Feel free to leave. :wave2:

 

[Memento Mori]

Only by assuming the truth of your ideas.

That's why what you said made no sense. You assumed General Relativity was true and came up with a false prediction. I've showed why it's wrong. There is no privileged frame of reference.

We could just choose something. The Earth's passage around the Sun would be the best bet.:idunno:

Choose something? That would be subjective and relative to only the Earth and Sun. Just like the AU (astronomical unit) is the distance from the Sun to the Earth and we often use it to measure the distance to other planets. Or a year is only relative to the Earth. While we can measure other planets based on this measure it is not privileged. We could equally measure our length around the sun in the number of times Venus completes a revolution. This is not privileged. Is there a privileged meter stick or a privileged clock which is universal that we can measure everything against?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Feel free to leave. :wave2:

Why would I do that? I'm enjoying the show.

 

[Stripe]

That's why what you said made no sense. You assumed General Relativity was true and came up with a false prediction. I've showed why it's wrong. There is no privileged frame of reference.

:dizzy:

What?

Choose something? That would be subjective and relative to only the Earth and Sun. Just like the AU (astronomical unit) is the distance from the Sun to the Earth and we often use it to measure the distance to other planets. Or a year is only relative to the Earth. While we can measure other planets based on this measure it is not privileged. We could equally measure our length around the sun in the number of times Venus completes a revolution. This is not privileged. Is there a privileged meter stick or a privileged clock which is universal that we can measure everything against?

Of course it's privileged if we select it to be the standard. :idunno:

 

[Memento Mori]

Of course it's privileged if we select it to be the standard. :idunno:

It's not privileged if it's subjective. Hence why Newton thought there was some universal clock and some universal meter stick against which all measurement could be made.

Think of a person on a train. The train is moving. That person tosses a ball in the air. He measures it as having moved 1 meter. You standing next to the rail road measuring it as moving 2 meters (one meter in the x-axis and one meter in the y-axis). Who is correct in their measurements? If they're both correct in their assessment then neither has a privileged frame of reference. If only one is correct, then how do they attain this privileged frame?

 

[Stripe]

It's not privileged if it's subjective.

Are you sticking to some limited or specialised definition of what "privileged" means?

Hence why Newton thought there was some universal clock and some universal meter stick against which all measurement could be made.

There is. Just pick one that seems reasonable. :idunno:

Think of a person on a train. The train is moving. That person tosses a ball in the air. He measures it as having moved 1 meter. You standing next to the rail road measuring it as moving 2 meters (one meter in the x-axis and one meter in the y-axis). Who is correct in their measurements? If they're both correct in their assessment then neither has a privileged frame of reference. If only one is correct, then how do they attain this privileged frame?

They both witnessed the same event and if they were to both compare that event to the privileged reference frame of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, then a few simple calculations would give them both the exact same answer.

 

[Memento Mori]

Are you sticking to some limited or specialised definition of what "privileged" means?

Privileged in this case means an absolute reference frame from which everything can calculated. Newton thought that there was a cosmic clock that ticked at an absolute time somewhere in the universe and an absolute meter stick somewhere in the universe that everything could be compared against. I'm asking for evidence of this privileged frame of reference.

There is. Just pick one that seems reasonable. :idunno:

You can't just pick one because it's arbitrary. And I'll show why with your answer.

They both witnessed the same event and if they were to both compare that event to the privileged reference frame of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, then a few simple calculations would give them both the exact same answer.

So, they are both wrong in there measurements of 1 and 2 meters respectively? Even if you compared it to the orbit of the Earth, one of them is still on a train moving faster than the other one. So if the one on the train measured compared to the orbit of the Earth and the rotation of the Earth also has to be accounted for (~1000mph). So now one might measure the ball as having moved .27 miles. And the other might have measure it moving as .278 or (rounding) .28 miles accounting for the rotation of the Earth. Then if you account for the orbit about the Sun, the numbers get even small but they would still come up with different answers because one sees the ball moving relative to himself and the other does not. So even from the initial measurement one of them has to be right and one, wrong for there to be a privileged frame of reference. So which one did the measurements wrong?

 

[Stripe]

Privileged in this case means an absolute reference frame from which everything can calculated.

Well that would be any. :idunno:

So are you now suggesting that every frame is privileged?

Newton thought that there was a cosmic clock that ticked at an absolute time somewhere in the universe and an absolute meter stick somewhere in the universe that everything could be compared against. I'm asking for evidence of this privileged frame of reference.

Have you Newton's words on this?

And you can compare everything to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. :idunno:

You can't just pick one because it's arbitrary. And I'll show why with your answer.

Why not? You can't just say I can't. That's arbitrary also.

What answer?

So, they are both wrong in there measurements of 1 and 2 meters respectively?

No. They are both very able to compare their results to an agreed standard and able to find a common answer that is useful.

which one did the measurements wrong?

Neither.

 

[Memento Mori]

Well that would be any. :idunno:

So are you now suggesting that every frame is privileged?

You're suggesting that the Earth's orbit is privileged (i.e., the standard against which all measurements can be made). Now you're saying that no frame is better than any other not privileged. I've been saying there are no privileged frame of reference. If we measure something in different inertial frames, as long as our calculations are correct and observations are accurate, we are both accurate. There is no absolute measure against which one of us is wrong and one of us is right.

Have you Newton's words on this?

It's common knowledge. Early physicists believed that there was an absolute space and time against which all things could be measured. Such as if a body was in an inertial frame in the middle of nowhere in the universe with no frames of reference outside of itself, we could still measure it against the absoluteness of space and time.

And you can compare everything to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. :idunno:

You can. But that is not privileged. It is arbitrary. We could also measure things against the rotation of our solar system about the center of our galaxy. Or our galaxy about its movement against other galaxies. It doesn't matter what you declare the standard to be. It is not privileged, it is arbitrary. Just as if you were to declare the boy standing still to be the absolute measure, it would simply be arbitrary.

Why not? You can't just say I can't. That's arbitrary also.

Not quite. I've given you the reasons you can't. Because motion is relative and in different inertial frames, physics works. Both boys are correct in their assessment of the movement of the ball even observing the same event accurately. I could complicate your life by making it the observation of a train whistle if you like (since you can't measure a noise in space).

What answer?

You didn't give an answer? Hmm... Who'd have thought...

No. They are both very able to compare their results to an agreed standard and able to find a common answer that is useful.

No. Even measuring the ball from space still provides a different answer because one is moving within the system and one is not. Even comparing results to the movement of the Earth will provide different answers because (for arguments sake) one is moving with the Earth and thus faster than that boy which is standing still relative to the Earth. One is moving faster than the other and that boy will measure the movement of the ball differently than the boy who is not.

Neither.

So, neither boy is wrong in his assessment. So there are no privileged frames of reference. Thank you!

 

[Stripe]

You're suggesting that the Earth's orbit is privileged (i.e., the standard against which all measurements can be made).

It's not a suggestion. It's a fact! Are you of the opinion that the Earth's orbit cannot be used as a standard against which all timings are held? You are soon to freely admit that other frames of reference could be used for exactly this.

Now you're saying that no frame is better than any other not privileged.

:dizzy:

We could concievably use any number of things against which to compare all timings. The Earth's orbit just seems to me the most obvious standard.

And because we might choose it, I would say it would then be privileged. You are having a little trouble defining "privileged", however. There's no reason I can see that it must not be the result of an arbitrary decision.

I've been saying there are no privileged frame of reference. If we measure something in different inertial frames, as long as our calculations are correct and observations are accurate, we are both accurate. There is no absolute measure against which one of us is wrong and one of us is right.

Unless we agree to a universal standard and one of us fails to make the necessary conversion. It's what we will do regardless in order to make sense out what would otherwise be senseless.

It's common knowledge. Early physicists believed that there was an absolute space and time against which all things could be measured. Such as if a body was in an inertial frame in the middle of nowhere in the universe with no frames of reference outside of itself, we could still measure it against the absoluteness of space and time.

Have you Newton's words on this?

You can. But that is not privileged. It is arbitrary.

Can you show us where the term "privileged" necessarily means there was no arbitrary decision made?

If not, you're just making things up.

We could also measure things against the rotation of our solar system about the center of our galaxy.

OK. :idunno:

Seems unnecessarily complicated and difficult though.

Or our galaxy about its movement against other galaxies.

:idunno:

It doesn't matter what you declare the standard to be. It is not privileged, it is arbitrary. Just as if you were to declare the boy standing still to be the absolute measure, it would simply be arbitrary

You've a one-tracked mind, haven't you? :chuckle:

Not quite. I've given you the reasons you can't. Because motion is relative and in different inertial frames, physics works.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

Both boys are correct in their assessment of the movement of the ball even observing the same event accurately. I could complicate your life by making it the observation of a train whistle if you like (since you can't measure a noise in space).

It helps you to continue adding confusion to this discussion.

You didn't give an answer? Hmm... Who'd have thought...

I don't even know what your question was. :idunno:

No. Even measuring the ball from space still provides a different answer because one is moving within the system and one is not. Even comparing results to the movement of the Earth will provide different answers because (for arguments sake) one is moving with the Earth and thus faster than that boy which is standing still relative to the Earth. One is moving faster than the other and that boy will measure the movement of the ball differently than the boy who is not.

Adding observers doesn't do anything for you or against me. It's just you trying to avoid the obvious with confusion.

So, neither boy is wrong in his assessment. So there are no privileged frames of reference. Thank you!

Nope. I told you the process that they go through in order to correlate their observations. You chose to ignore those (even though the process is common to both our explanations) and claim victory.

You should try thinking this through instead of being so obstinate. :thumb:

 

[Memento Mori]

It's not a suggestion. It's a fact! Are you of the opinion that the Earth's orbit cannot be used as a standard against which all timings are held? You are soon to freely admit that other frames of reference could be used for exactly this.

It cannot be used as an Absolute standard. Plus, the Earth's orbit is elliptical and varies slightly. Within itself it is not consistent.

:dizzy:

We could concievably use any number of things against which to compare all timings. The Earth's orbit just seems to me the most obvious standard.

And upon further inspection it's a poor standard. Imagine trying to convert your cars speedometer to be standardized to the Earth's orbit. In this case, cars speedometers are on a good standard of miles or kilometers and hours. But it is not a privileged frame because even among different standards (miles and kilometers) we get different answers.

And because we might choose it, I would say it would then be privileged. You are having a little trouble defining "privileged", however. There's no reason I can see that it must not be the result of an arbitrary decision.

Because it's simply a choice. It is not absolute. It is not any more privileged than any other reference frame. There are no privileged frames of reference.

Unless we agree to a universal standard and one of us fails to make the necessary conversion. It's what we will do regardless in order to make sense out what would otherwise be senseless.

Even if we all agree, you still have to show it to be universal. You can't just pick one and viola it's absolute. You have to prove that this frame of reference gives an absolute idea of the universe. The Earth's orbit does not because it can give relative answers to someone viewing on the outside of the solar system and even within the system. If you are moving inertially opposite of the Earth you will get an answer twice as large as if you were moving alongside the Earth. Or if you were measuring something from the Moon, you're answer would be different. If you were moving on Jupiter, it would be different. It is not an absolute standard. It is an arbitrary standard.

Have you Newton's words on this?

Isaac Newton founded classical mechanics on the view that space is distinct from body and that time passes uniformly without regard to whether anything happens in the world. Cite

Like I said, common knowledge.

Can you show us where the term "privileged" necessarily means there was no arbitrary decision made?

In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames. - Wiki!

By this definition, there is a frame which is absolute and we can measure all phenomena against. By rejecting Galilean relativity, many believe that the aether at a stand still was the absolute frame.

If not, you're just making things up.

Yes, I'm the one making things up. Do you know what projection is?

OK. :idunno:

Seems unnecessarily complicated and difficult though.

You mean like trying to compare things to the revolution along with the rotation of the Earth?

:idunno:

I believe this to the prototype of your attitude.

You've a one-tracked mind, haven't you? :chuckle:

Only until I need to switch tracks. Thankfully, my evidence has been upheld.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

Good thing I presented evidence then!

It helps you to continue adding confusion to this discussion.

I'm simply trying to show you that there are no privileged frames of reference. This is actually a law of physics (or principle, since physicists have mostly discarded the use of "law" recently).

I don't even know what your question was. :idunno:

Remember the two boys measuring a ball in different inertial frames? Yeah, that one.

Adding observers doesn't do anything for you or against me. It's just you trying to avoid the obvious with confusion.

I'm pointing out flaws in your arbitrary decision. It does not obfuscate. It clarifies.

Nope. I told you the process that they go through in order to correlate their observations. You chose to ignore those (even though the process is common to both our explanations) and claim victory.

I pointed out the flaw with this. If the boy is moving relative to the earth versus the other boy, they will still measure the ball differently. Your other suggestion is simply removing both boys and having them measure from yet another frame of reference. The frame doesn't matter. They will always get the correct answer. You can convert it anyhow you like. All inertial frames of reference are equal.

You should try thinking this through instead of being so obstinate. :thumb:

I suggest similar studies. This is a very simple principle in physics. The more basic statement, is that all laws of physics will apply equally in all inertial frames of reference. This is why your arbitrary standard can give an equally accurate answer but it does not give a privileged frame of reference so as to disqualify the answers of the two boys already measurements. Your doing what we call conversion. But both initial answers are still accurate descriptions of the universe.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Stripe would have won this argument if only he had used more emoticons!

 

[Stripe]

It cannot be used as an Absolute standard

Why not? :idunno:

Plus, the Earth's orbit is elliptical and varies slightly. Within itself it is not consistent.

So is everything else. :idunno:

And upon further inspection it's a poor standard. Imagine trying to convert your cars speedometer to be standardized to the Earth's orbit.

Why would we want to do that? :AMR:

Because it's simply a choice. It is not absolute. It is not any more privileged than any other reference frame. There are no privileged frames of reference.

So to answer my question you're just going to repeat the assertion you made up.

Nice.

Even if we all agree, you still have to show it to be universal.

What are you talking about?

You can't just pick one and viola it's absolute.

Why are you talking about absolutes now?

You have to prove that this frame of reference gives an absolute idea of the universe.

No, I don't. I just have to show that correct answers can be derived using it.

The Earth's orbit does not because it can give relative answers to someone viewing on the outside of the solar system and even within the system.

And if we understand the situation, we can adjust for it with a little math. Exactly like what we do anyway.

If you are moving inertially opposite of the Earth you will get an answer twice as large as if you were moving alongside the Earth. Or if you were measuring something from the Moon, you're answer would be different. If you were moving on Jupiter, it would be different. It is not an absolute standard. It is an arbitrary standard.

I don't need it to be "absolute" nor does it matter that it's arbitrary. It just needs to be useful.

Isaac Newton founded classical mechanics on the view that space is distinct from body and that time passes uniformly without regard to whether anything happens in the world.CiteLike I said, common knowledge.

Do you have Newton's words on this matter?

In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames. - Wiki!By this definition, there is a frame which is absolute and we can measure all phenomena against. By rejecting Galilean relativity, many believe that the aether at a stand still was the absolute frame.

I see.

Can you show us where the term "privileged" necessarily means there was no arbitrary decision made?

I'm simply trying to show you that there are no privileged frames of reference. This is actually a law of physics (or principle, since physicists have mostly discarded the use of "law" recently).

And you're using the theory of relativity as your evidence. It's called begging the question and it's an irrational argument.

I pointed out the flaw with this. If the boy is moving relative to the earth versus the other boy, they will still measure the ball differently. Your other suggestion is simply removing both boys and having them measure from yet another frame of reference. The frame doesn't matter. They will always get the correct answer. You can convert it anyhow you like. All inertial frames of reference are equal.

My suggestion is not that the boys measure from a new frame of reference. My suggestion is that they understand why their measurements are different and agree upon a standard by which they may both make corrections to their observations and arrive at the same answer.

And if they do this, then one particular reference frame will come to be special. Not because it is somehow different from other frames, but because it is significant to us. We give it its value. It's privileged because of us.

your arbitrary standard can give an equally accurate answer

And hence, my standard is justified.

both initial answers are still accurate descriptions of the universe.

No, they are contradictory. There was only one event and there is only one correct analysis. And with some understanding of physics and math, we can arrive at a standardised and useful answer.

 

[Memento Mori]

Why not? :idunno:

Do you know the difference between absolute and arbitrary?

So is everything else. :idunno:

Then it is a poor standard because it's not constant. It would be like trying to make a meter stick out of gummi worms.

Why would we want to do that? :AMR:

Because it's what you're suggesting we make the absolute standard. Rather than metric or imperial, you're suggesting lets call it orbital standard. Thus we would have to measure everything against this standard.

So to answer my question you're just going to repeat the assertion you made up.

Nice.

Show me how it's not an arbitrary choice and remains true in all reference frames and is thus an absolute measure.

What are you talking about?Why are you talking about absolutes now?No, I don't. I just have to show that correct answers can be derived using it.And if we understand the situation, we can adjust for it with a little math. Exactly like what we do anyway.

You can't adjust things if their measurements aren't done against the standard. This would suggest that their initial measurements were accurate and thus just as good as your standard and makes your final step unnecessary. It's like saying all measurements are accurate and inaccurate at the same time. They would both have to measure against your standard and they would still come to different conclusions about the motion of the ball because they are in different inertial frames.

I don't need it to be "absolute" nor does it matter that it's arbitrary. It just needs to be useful.

It does need to be absolute in order for it to be a privileged frame of reference. You're trying to say that all frames of reference are equal but we need to equalize them. You can't simply move the frame out to encompass the event because it ignores the simple problem: the boys measured the same event and arrived at different conclusions. Moving the frame out does not solve the initial problem because they have different frames of reference and you're saying that both boys are now wrong.

Do you have Newton's words on this matter?

at the beginning of the Principia, inserted between the “Definitions” and the “Laws of Motion”, lays out Newton's views on time, space, place, and motion. He begins by saying that, since in common life these quantities are conceived of in terms of their relations to sensible bodies, it is incumbent to distinguish between, on the one hand, the relative, apparent, common conception of them, and, on the other, the absolute, true, mathematical quantities themselves.

Not a fan of reading sources, huh?

I see.

Can you show us where the term "privileged" necessarily means there was no arbitrary decision made?

Newton therefore held that physics required the conception of absolute space, a distinguished frame of reference relative to which bodies could be said to be truly moving or truly at rest. Cite

This means you cannot arbitrarily choose a frame and measure everything from it. This frame has to be true from every other frame of reference. Therefore, in your choice of Earth's Orbit, I can view it from the Moon and see that the Earth is moving in an odd way and is not truly inertial.

Also a big thanks to Stanford. They've got a lot of good stuff!

And you're using the theory of relativity as your evidence. It's called begging the question and it's an irrational argument.

No, I've provided evidence, for instance showing other viewpoints can be true in any one instance or that a conversion to a viewpoint will simply give a relative answer from another, or that Earth is not a true standard, or anything else. You may wish to gain a better understanding of evidence and the Fallacy of Begging the Question.

My suggestion is not that the boys measure from a new frame of reference. My suggestion is that they understand why their measurements are different and agree upon a standard by which they may both make corrections to their observations and arrive at the same answer.

The boys are wrong from the their frame of reference. That's what you are saying. And they should change their view point (from moving and not moving relative to one another) to a frame which provides an equal view for both of them. This simply ignores the problem and tells the boys that they need to move to a new inertial frame of reference and ignores their initial measurements which were entirely accurate relative to each of them.

And if they do this, then one particular reference frame will come to be special. Not because it is somehow different from other frames, but because it is significant to us. We give it its value. It's privileged because of us.

It's arbitrary. You could just as easily say that the boy on the train is wrong and he needs to join the boy on the ground and remeasure from this frame of reference because the train's frame is inaccurate. But that's not true. The frame of reference from the train is equally accurate.

And hence, my standard is justified.

It's not justified any more than any other standard. Your frame of reference is only accurate within that frame. If I change the frame of reference and come up with a different answer, you'll simply tell me my frame is wrong. My frame is measured accurately and all calculations done properly. The fact is the frame determines the measurements but all frames are equally valid in their assessment.

No, they are contradictory. There was only one event and there is only one correct analysis. And with some understanding of physics and math, we can arrive at a standardised and useful answer.

Guess what. Relative answer are way more useful than a standardized answer. Because the two boys measured the single event differently, we can measure the boys relative speed, distance from one another, relative angles, theoretically relative times (assuming it to be an dependent variable), momentum, etc. A standardized answer is just that. And provides no useful information. And it still doesn't solve the problem!

I have a simple question, do the laws of physics of motion apply equally to all inertial frames of reference?

 

[Stripe]

Do you know the difference between absolute and arbitrary?
Then it is a poor standard because it's not constant. It would be like trying to make a meter stick out of gummi worms.
Because it's what you're suggesting we make the absolute standard. Rather than metric or imperial, you're suggesting lets call it orbital standard. Thus we would have to measure everything against this standard.
Show me how it's not an arbitrary choice and remains true in all reference frames and is thus an absolute measure.

All your insistence at I provide a non-arbitrary and absolute frame of reference is just knee-jerk reaction to your dislike of the fact that we can choose a privileged reference frame.

Your "arbitraries" and "absolutes" are just assertions you've made up that you insist I need to adhere to. But there is no need to. For in fact I can nominate an arbitrary and changeable frame of reference, namely the Earth's orbit around the sun, make all my measurements against that standard and still arrive at the correct answers.

You can't adjust things if their measurements aren't done against the standard.

If we cannot measure against something else, then your example is useless.

It does need to be absolute in order for it to be a privileged frame of reference.

Because you say so?

You're trying to say that all frames of reference are equal but we need to equalize them.

I've not said all frames of reference are equal. :idunno:

You can't simply move the frame out to encompass the event because it ignores the simple problem: the boys measured the same event and arrived at different conclusions. Moving the frame out does not solve the initial problem because they have different frames of reference and you're saying that both boys are now wrong.

Both boys have different answers. We need to standardise those two answers (and any others you want to add for confusion's sake). We can stick with relativity and say there is no standard, or we can arbitrarily nominate a non-absolute standard. Either way, we can calculate useful and correct answers.

at the beginning of the Principia, inserted between the “Definitions” and the “Laws of Motion”, lays out Newton's views on time, space, place, and motion. He begins by saying that, since in common life these quantities are conceived of in terms of their relations to sensible bodies, it is incumbent to distinguish between, on the one hand, the relative, apparent, common conception of them, and, on the other, the absolute, true, mathematical quantities themselves.Not a fan of reading sources, huh?

Do you have Newton's words on this?

This means you cannot arbitrarily choose a frame and measure everything from it.

Sure, I can.

This frame has to be true from every other frame of reference.

No, it doesn't.

Therefore, in your choice of Earth's Orbit, I can view it from the Moon and see that the Earth is moving in an odd way and is not truly inertial.

Irrelevant.

No, I've provided evidence, for instance showing other viewpoints can be true in any one instance or that a conversion to a viewpoint will simply give a relative answer from another, or that Earth is not a true standard, or anything else. You may wish to gain a better understanding of evidence and the Fallacy of Begging the Question.

This is not evidence. It is not evidence for your position that the theory of relativity is fact or against my idea that a privileged frame of reference can be nominated.

The boys are wrong from the their frame of reference. That's what you are saying.

No, I'm not. :idunno:

The boys measure the same event and get different answers. Those different answers can be correlated. They can be correlated one against the other or both against a non-absolute, arbitrary third frame of reference.

And they should change their view point (from moving and not moving relative to one another) to a frame which provides an equal view for both of them. This simply ignores the problem and tells the boys that they need to move to a new inertial frame of reference and ignores their initial measurements which were entirely accurate relative to each of them.

What "problem"?

We can, as you admit, arrive at the correct answer using this technique.

It's arbitrary. You could just as easily say that the boy on the train is wrong and he needs to join the boy on the ground and remeasure from this frame of reference because the train's frame is inaccurate. But that's not true. The frame of reference from the train is equally accurate.

Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary. You keep saying that word like it is of some significance... :idunno:

It's not justified any more than any other standard.

Sure, it is. It's as stable a reference as you're going to find, common to all mankind, freely available and easily understood.

Your frame of reference is only accurate within that frame.

And yet, it is accurate.

If I change the frame of reference and come up with a different answer, you'll simply tell me my frame is wrong.

I'd be able to predict your answer if you were obstinate enough to refuse to adopt an international standard.

My frame is measured accurately and all calculations done properly. The fact is the frame determines the measurements but all frames are equally valid in their assessment.

Unless we arbitrarily select one of the non-absolute frames and use it as a standard. You do realise, this is a perfectly normal thing to do in science, right?

Guess what. Relative answer are way more useful than a standardized answer. Because the two boys measured the single event differently, we can measure the boys relative speed, distance from one another, relative angles, theoretically relative times (assuming it to be an dependent variable), momentum, etc. A standardized answer is just that. And provides no useful information. And it still doesn't solve the problem!

:AMR: All the same calculations will need to be done and all that data will be just as accessible. And the answer we get will be just as easily found and just as accurate. You've already conceded this, remember?

I have a simple question, do the laws of physics of motion apply equally to all inertial frames of reference?

I have a simple question. Why did you invent the limitations on the term "privileged" and do you have the words Newton spoke?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

You know your stuff Memento Mori, but he's just arguing in circles. You should determine what your main point is and stick to that, by getting him to answer some questions as well, otherwise he's just going to lead you around without taking a declarative stance on anything.

 

[Stripe]

You know your stuff Memento Mori, but he's just arguing in circles. You should determine what your main point is and stick to that, by getting him to answer some questions as well, otherwise he's just going to lead you around without taking a declarative stance on anything.

:mock: :bow:

 

[Memento Mori]

All your insistence at I provide a non-arbitrary and absolute frame of reference is just knee-jerk reaction to your dislike of the fact that we can choose a privileged reference frame.

No, it's a consequence of your insistence. This is a basic law of physics. We can choose a frame of reference. We do it any time we make a measurement. That does not make it privileged.

Your "arbitraries" and "absolutes" are just assertions you've made up that you insist I need to adhere to. But there is no need to. For in fact I can nominate an arbitrary and changeable frame of reference, namely the Earth's orbit around the sun, make all my measurements against that standard and still arrive at the correct answers.

"For in fact I can nominate an arbitrary and changeable frame of reference"

Congratulations. You just confirmed that there is no privileged frame of reference. If you can choose another frame of reference and arrive at equally valid conclusions, then you've just shown we don't have a true reference frame. The mere fact that you can choose one shows this. Seriously, are you this dense as not to see that?

If we cannot measure against something else, then your example is useless.

Precisely! All things are relative. If you have an inertial body in the middle of nowhere with no other things to compare it to, we can make zero determinations about it! Imagine floating in the middle of the ocean with no other objects around (no stars, ships, etc.) against which to measure your motion. Can you make any determinations about your movement (assuming you are not accelerating)? If there is a true measurement against which all things can be made (the aether as was proposed) we can make determinations about the motion of the ship regardless of whether there are other bodies around.

Because you say so?

Because it is a fact. Seriously, I can't imagine anyone other than you arguing Galilean Relativity. You never cease to amaze.

I've not said all frames of reference are equal. :idunno:

It's so funny because you have. It so clear to any outside observer, I can't believe you don't see it.

"My suggestion is that they understand why their measurements are different (i.e., they were in relative motion) and agree upon a standard by which they may both make corrections (i.e., both of them move to a new reference frame) to their observations and arrive at the same answer."

Notes added to make it clear to you.

It does not solve why they received different initial measurements. Merely to move to an agreed upon reference frame. This does not solve the problem nor does it produce an absolute frame of reference.

Both boys have different answers. We need to standardise those two answers (and any others you want to add for confusion's sake).

Why do they need to be standardized (with a "z" by the way, I thought you taught English?)? Were they wrong in their initial assessment?

We can stick with relativity and say there is no standard, or we can arbitrarily nominate a non-absolute standard. Either way, we can calculate useful and correct answers.

That's still relative. Even you choose one, there will always be relative motion and we will always derive a different answer when there is relative motion. Show me why this standard is privileged? Why is it better than any other frame of reference?

Do you have Newton's words on this?

Stanford not good enough for you?

"II. Absolute space, in it's own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable." Sir Isaac Newton, p. 83 (on webpage), p. 77 (in paper), Scholium, Principia, Source

Sir Newton also describe absolute time directly above.

Hence my use of "absolute."

Sure, I can. No, it doesn't. Irrelevant.

You may wish to check with Dr. Tyson's man, Sir Isaac Newton on this one.

This is not evidence. It is not evidence for your position that the theory of relativity is fact or against my idea that a privileged frame of reference can be nominated.

The principle of relativity is a fact. It is different from Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Do you have any background on this, at all? Or are you learning all this as you go and denying it out of hand?

No, I'm not. :idunno:

Yes, you are because they did not measure from your reference frame. According to your proposed frame of reference, the answer they got were wrong.

The boys measure the same event and get different answers. Those different answers can be correlated. They can be correlated one against the other or both against a non-absolute, arbitrary third frame of reference.

Non-absolute? Now you're just making stuff up in order to support your position. Also, Newton disagree with you. The boys relative descriptions are correct and they can also be measured against the absolute position.

What "problem"?

I'll call it the "Problem of Relative Frames." The problem proposes that two inertial viewers of the same event come up with different descriptions of the same event. Let's place them in space with no other relative bodies with which to compare their motion. They pass each other in an inertial state, and one throws a ball from one hand to the other. One person sees the ball move a half meter and the other measures it at a full meter.

We can, as you admit, arrive at the correct answer using this technique.

Only because ALL answers are correct. Your proposition does not arrive at a more correct answer in its frame. It only arrives at a different answer which is still correct.

Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary. You keep saying that word like it is of some significance... :idunno:

I think you just hope that you can keep reasserting your frame as privileged and I'll give up on its definition as arbitrary. That all this frame is: another arbitrary frame. Just as each of the boys had an arbitrary frame in their measurements. Your frame is not better, just different.

Sure, it is. It's as stable a reference as you're going to find, common to all mankind, freely available and easily understood.

Actually, it's a terrible frame of reference. There is different inertial frames all over the Earth. Gravity is lighter in some areas against others (mountaintops versus the see floor), speeds are different at different areas of the earth (different radial differences from the center of motion), there is an elliptical orbit which provides different distances from the sun (which will alter your calculations slightly at different times of the year), the moon provides drag on the Earth (which will also throw off calculations), the distances and speeds at your results will be incredibly small for all interactions on the Earth, any more distant observers will not be able to calculate based on the movement of the Earth, and I'm sure there's more reasons this frame is flawed. But that does not elevate it to privileged. Only different! It's no better than any other frame except that we all suffer some of it's effects. But we suffer more effects from the Milkway's movement. We also suffer even greater trouble from the movement relative to other galaxies. This is not privileged. Merely chosen.

How is the Earth's movement belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges; favored? cite

And yet, it is accurate. I'd be able to predict your answer if you were obstinate enough to refuse to adopt an international standard.

Only within that frame. If we move outside of that frame, your answer is no longer accurate. Even movement within the frame may be different. Not to mention how untenable it is. It would require every person move outside of their frame and into that frame, which measuring from that frame is nigh impossible on a fundamental level. Plus, if a person is in an inertial frame they may believe they are in the same frame that you are proposing. Thus they would measure things differently. Both boys believe they are still while the other is moving about them.

Unless we arbitrarily select one of the non-absolute frames and use it as a standard. You do realise, this is a perfectly normal thing to do in science, right?

Only because all frames are equal! If we are going to make any declarations about an incident we have to decide on a frame. That does not make it privileged, it merely makes it the subject of choice. Also, give me an example of a chosen frame.

:AMR: All the same calculations will need to be done and all that data will be just as accessible. And the answer we get will be just as easily found and just as accurate. You've already conceded this, remember?

So I have to backtrack to get the information? That's stupid. Also, it doesn't discount either measurement. They are both true, you're just converting them.

I have a simple question. Why did you invent the limitations on the term "privileged" and do you have the words Newton spoke?

Provided. Now answer my question: I have a simple question, do the laws of physics of motion apply equally to all inertial frames of reference?

 

[Stripe]

No, it's a consequence of your insistence. This is a basic law of physics. We can choose a frame of reference. We do it any time we make a measurement. That does not make it privileged.

Law?

And what we can do is perfect justification for doing it (in this case).

"For in fact I can nominate an arbitrary and changeable frame of reference"Congratulations. You just confirmed that there is no privileged frame of reference. If you can choose another frame of reference and arrive at equally valid conclusions, then you've just shown we don't have a true reference frame. The mere fact that you can choose one shows this. Seriously, are you this dense as not to see that?

We seem to be stuck with your restricted and specialised definition of "privileged". Whatever, you really need to get over declaring victory like this. You cannot claim victory on any level except that, currently, yours is the commonly accepted paradigm.

Precisely! All things are relative. If you have an inertial body in the middle of nowhere with no other things to compare it to, we can make zero determinations about it! Imagine floating in the middle of the ocean with no other objects around (no stars, ships, etc.) against which to measure your motion. Can you make any determinations about your movement (assuming you are not accelerating)? If there is a true measurement against which all things can be made (the aether as was proposed) we can make determinations about the motion of the ship regardless of whether there are other bodies around.

This has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Because it is a fact. Seriously, I can't imagine anyone other than you arguing Galilean Relativity. You never cease to amaze.

No. Relativity is just a theory.

It's so funny because you have. It so clear to any outside observer, I can't believe you don't see it.

Because I know what I've said. :up:

What you have is not so definitive. What you have is what I must mean because you cannot be shown another way.

It does not solve why they received different initial measurements. Merely to move to an agreed upon reference frame. This does not solve the problem nor does it produce an absolute frame of reference.

Absolute, absolute, absolute... You keep saying that like it means something. It doesn't. In fact, all the calculations I might make are of the exact same nature that you would to find the exact same answer. There is only one difference between us. My explanation does not require relativity.

Why do they need to be standardized (with a "z" by the way, I thought you taught English?)? Were they wrong in their initial assessment?

They don't need to be standardised. You can use relativity to find answers perfectly well. I just think standardisation reflects better upon reality than the insane contradictions wrought from relativity theory.

That's still relative. Even you choose one, there will always be relative motion and we will always derive a different answer when there is relative motion. Show me why this standard is privileged? Why is it better than any other frame of reference?

This I have already explained. It's privileged because we might say so. Because it is local to all and easily accessible. It makes perfect sense to use our path around the Sun as the standard for time-keeping.

Stanford not good enough for you?

Who? I asked for Newton.

"II. Absolute space, in it's own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable." Sir Isaac Newton, p. 83 (on webpage), p. 77 (in paper), Scholium, Principia, Source

I don't think this equates well with:

Newton thought that there was a cosmic clock that ticked at an absolute time somewhere in the universe and an absolute meter stick somewhere in the universe that everything could be compared against.

But, whatever. If Newton was here in this debate, he might have sided with me or he might have conceded to you.

The principle of relativity is a fact.

No, it's not. If relativity theory is wrong, this principle is also wrong. At least as a description of the universe.

Yes, you are because they did not measure from your reference frame. According to your proposed frame of reference, the answer they got were wrong.

There's no need to go declaring them wrong. If we have the information your example makes available, a standardised answer can be derived. No need for contradictions and paradoxes.

Newton disagree with you. The boys relative descriptions are correct and they can also be measured against the absolute position.

Your subject-verb agreement is askew.
And you have used a plural form instead of the possessive 's.

I can play English teacher if you like.

I agree with this description from you of what Newton would say. :idunno:

I'll call it the "Problem of Relative Frames." The problem proposes that two inertial viewers of the same event come up with different descriptions of the same event. Let's place them in space with no other relative bodies with which to compare their motion. They pass each other in an inertial state, and one throws a ball from one hand to the other. One person sees the ball move a half meter and the other measures it at a full meter.

Where is the problem?

We just choose one of the observers to be the standard and call all his answers correct. Privilege should go with age, so let's choose the older of the two.

Only because ALL answers are correct. Your proposition does not arrive at a more correct answer in its frame. It only arrives at a different answer which is still correct.

All answers are correct if you assume relativity. I prefer to say that all observers view the same event. There will only be one correctly standardised answer if we implement my idea.

And a single, standardised answer is so much more in line with reality than this relativity nonsense. :thumb:

I think you just hope that you can keep reasserting your frame as privileged and I'll give up on its definition as arbitrary. That all this frame is: another arbitrary frame. Just as each of the boys had an arbitrary frame in their measurements. Your frame is not better, just different.

And you think you can just keep insisting that privileged means it cannot be arbitrarily selected.

Actually, it's a terrible frame of reference. There is different inertial frames all over the Earth. Gravity is lighter in some areas against others (mountaintops versus the see floor), speeds are different at different areas of the earth (different radial differences from the center of motion), there is an elliptical orbit which provides different distances from the sun (which will alter your calculations slightly at different times of the year), the moon provides drag on the Earth (which will also throw off calculations), the distances and speeds at your results will be incredibly small for all interactions on the Earth, any more distant observers will not be able to calculate based on the movement of the Earth, and I'm sure there's more reasons this frame is flawed. But that does not elevate it to privileged. Only different! It's no better than any other frame except that we all suffer some of it's effects. But we suffer more effects from the Milkway's movement. We also suffer even greater trouble from the movement relative to other galaxies. This is not privileged. Merely chosen.

What variance is there, year-to-year, in the sidereal orbit of the Earth around the Sun?

Everything else you bring up is fluff.

 

[Memento Mori]

You didn't answer my question.

I have a simple question, do the laws of physics of motion apply equally to all inertial frames of reference?