Absolute Time and Space or Special Relativity

[269Cristo]

there's more wrong with special relativity. see my videos at 269cristo I show motion cannot exist without an independent trajectory. einstein's train on simultaneity leads to an impossibility.a faster and slower time can only be determined in the SAME DURATION , which negates the different rates.each observer's time must extend to the entire universe or have more than 1 rate, the rate of the mover and the non-mover.but then the universe is aging at different rates for different observers

[israelsocratus]

In the beginning was the Word And Word was written by formula: T = 0K T = 0K is an Absolute Reference frame Can the T=0K take the functions of God? Can T = 0K be an Absolute God? To answer to this question we need to ask: Which kind of particles can exist in the Absolute Reference frame: T=0K? And then: God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light It means: The secret of God and Existence is hidden in the Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta

[qmview]

I think you will find the recent YouTube video, Introduction to the Quantum Medium View, explains the Twins Paradox in a way you and others who view your video can agree with.

[freetoskateboard]

The "bone of contention" from 5:50 and on is actually a mistake. [T' = A' = B' = C'] and [T = A = B= C] is the correct way if you want to be consistent with your own argument. If you don't fix this error, then your video ends up being an inductive proof from Special Relativity, which I don't believe is your intention. You may be on to a subtle detail, but you error in how you point it out. Nice video and presentation.

[Bantokfomoki]

@freetoskateboard t' ... was ... in the (') reference to start with. When t' accelerated from C' to go to A' ... he assumed the reference frame of ABC ... so .. his beard growth rate is equal to ABC ... and vice versa for t with respect to A'B'C'.

Thus ... after ... the accelerations of t and t' ... t'ABC ... should NOT EQUAL ...  tA'B'C'

BUT ... special relativity requires that they both SEE the SAME "QUANTITATIVE" (i.e. measurable) THING ... which is logically impossible (Aristotle).

[johannesvalks]

Another thing...

What you claim is that T[A] > T[B] and for the other T[B] > T[A] - this is however not correct. We compare a moving clock with a stationary clock.

Given two observers each having a clock - we have 4 possible observations given by T[A,B], T[B,A], T[A,A] and T[B,B] - where T[A,B] is clock B observed by A. I can observe my clock and your clock - so can you! What relativity claims is that T[A,B]>T[A,A] and T[B,A]>T[B,B] - there is no inconsistancy as you claim...

[Bantokfomoki]

You didn't get it at all. If three observers A,B,C are lined up in the same inertial reference frame and somebody leaves A to go to B ... then ... when he passes B he will be aging at a lower rate than B ... or ... he will be aging at a faster rate. As I showed, both possibilities are valid but only one will occur and that is dependent on the accelerative history of everything involved. Hence, there are two solutions to the beard problem and special relativity only allows for only one.

[johannesvalks]

@Bantokfomoki

Hello,

Bantokfomoki: You didn't get it at all. If three observers A,B,C are lined up in the same inertial reference frame

johannes: please define inertial reference frame... Then you will get the clue about what you do wrong!

[Bantokfomoki]

Oops, I said B when I meant C in the last response.

A, B, and C are "at rest" relative to one another (same inertial reference frame) ... B is a rocket ship midway between A and C ... somebody leaves A to go to C in a rocket just like B's ... The two rockets pass at the midway point. Both passengers in each rocket have had their memories wiped and know nothing of A or C. They're just two ships passing in the night. They "see" each other. Which one sees the other aging faster or slower?

[johannesvalks]

@Bantokfomoki

Say B and B' walk through the desert toward each other - when each appears at the horizon both see the other as a dot - when they come closer - both see the other a smaller compared to themself. In my opinion you argue that here is a contradiction - but there is none.

The same is for time. Both see the other aging slower. And there is no contradiction.

You find a contradiction because you ignore WHO does the statement compared to what.

[johannesvalks]

@Bantokfomoki (continue those 500 chars :)

You come to the contradiction as you ignore WHO makes the claim compared to what... There is no [beard-size-of-B] and [beard-size-of B'] there is [beard-size-of-B-observed-by-B­] - [beard-size-of-B'-observed-by-­B] and [beard-size-of-B-observed-by-B­'] - [beard-size-of-B'-observed-by-­B']

Similar to the B and B' in the desert...

Regards - Johannes

[Bantokfomoki]

I've been in these discussions before and they always go nowhere so this is my last word in the matter.

TRACK THE LIGHT EMITTED BY EACH OBSERVER THROUGHOUT THE TRIP

Regardless of anything you say, the light emitted by B will be in the shape of a beard as the traveler approaches B while the light emitted by the traveler will show no growth at all to B as he observes the traveler. There is no way around this. The case is closed in favor of Aristotle and Newton.

[johannesvalks]

@Bantokfomoki

Well as you wrote the last word in the matter. Sofar for this issue. No problem.

You might want to read "The Science of Mechanics" - besides what is correct and not - it is just interesting to read that work - perhaps not all pages - but there is a great analysis on the concept absolute space and time.

Regards - Johannes

[johannesvalks]

Interesting video - however the postulates of relativity are defined within inertial systems - and inertial systems are defined as system without gravity nor acceleration, so the moment you accelerate (at 5:30 in your video) - you cannot use relativity anymore...

[Sewblon]

I don't understand everything you said. But in terms of logical rigor and defense of an original hypothesis, I give this video and A+

[Bantokfomoki]

Thank You. I used to think Herbert Dingle was a "nutcase" (maybe because of his name) ... but his arguments, I believe, were in line with mine. Albert Einstein attempted to elevate Gallilean relativity to absolute status over Newton's geometrical-logical 'anchor' (a ploy which I most emphatically disagree with). Without an anchor (logical standard) we have nothing from which to reason.

[umbalaba]

As I understand what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong), then you think Einstein's theory lacks the absolute frame of reference, which Newtons theory had via the introduction of absolute space, right? If that is the case, then I think I see what you are getting at. Yet, what did Einstein then mean when he said: "The four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute as Newton's space"? (Ideas & Opinions, page 282)

[avempace000]

"Space is an affection of a being just as a being. No being exists or can exist which is not related to space in some way. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere, and body is in the space that it occupies; and whatever is neither everywhere nor anywhere does not exist. And hence it follows that space is an emanative effect of the first existing being, for if any being whatsoever is posited, space is posited."

"Space is the Sensorium of God."

-Sir Isaac Newton

[avempace000]

Newton was right on Space -- check out my video "Intelligence is Rationally Conceivable" where I highlight this common sense idea of space and time.

[doctorw2]

absolute time has no relation to space or matter it is continous and infinitely divisible.

[Bantokfomoki]

@mixtape24 ... Yeah ... go ahead. My stuff is fair game for anyone ;o)