Absolute Time and Space or Special Relativity

An objective refutation of the first postulate of relativity is offered ... e.g. the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames. Clamor from the biobots is both anticipated and welcomed. Let there be fight ... flight ... light.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Einstein
• Newton
• special
• relativity
• absolute
• space
• time
• reference
• frame
• inertial
• accelerated
• twin
• paradox
• dilation
• slow
• fast
• speed
• of
• light

[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).

[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.

[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

[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 (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

[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.

[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?