# Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
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?

This is exactly the same discussion. You're just looking to further complicate it so the very subtle distinction between our ideas is lost.

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
This is exactly the same discussion. You're just looking to further complicate it so the very subtle distinction between our ideas is lost.

Perhaps, you're not quite as skilled to see the subtle difference.

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames?

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
Provide something of substance that shows my ideas as inferior or incomplete.

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
Provide something of substance that shows my ideas as inferior or incomplete.

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames?

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame

No, you haven't.

And you're desperate to talk about as many side issues as possible to divert attention away from the simple point that my way works.

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
No, you haven't.

And you're desperate to talk about as many side issues as possible to divert attention away from the simple point that my way works.

This actual precedes relative motion measurement. And yes I have.

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames?

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
Nope.

Deal with what's in front of you. :thumb:

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
Nope.

Deal with what's in front of you. :thumb:

Deal with what's in front of you. :thumb:

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames?

#### Memento Mori

##### New member

Yes, it is the law of relativity (Galilean, not Einsteinian)

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

And it's still not privileged. It is simply one available. We could get equally accurate measurements from any other frame.

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.

1. belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges; favored: the privileged few.

Privileged means better. Your proposed frame is not better, just different.

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

It perfectly outlines why all motion is relative and why you can't have a privileged frame. If you have nothing against which to measure, then you can't determine motion.

No. Relativity is just a theory.

No, you're conflating Einstein's Relativity and Galilean Relativity. They are very different. Galileo's relativity is a fundamental principle in physics.

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

You don't understand the implication of what you've said. You've declared all other frames of reference wrong and this one single frame correct. Yet, you've not shown how it is any better other than that it in your opinion eliminates the problem (which it doesn't) and doesn't account for other relative motion outside of the frame where no comparison can be made.

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

What I have is facts and science. Thankfully those work far better than your obfuscation and confusion.

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.

Yes it does because you're moving the boys to a new relative frame. Again, Newton very clearly laid out that a privileged reference frame is one which is absolute. A measure against which everything can be made.

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.

The principle of relativity has no contradictions. We have very good reasons why the two boys came up with different answers and it's because they were in relative motion. That's not an insane contradiction, that's a fact. Relative motion produces relative results. If all you want to do is move both measurements out into a different frame, it just standardizes the answers but does not solve their initial relative differences. You're telling the boys to move into the same relative frame of reference, so that they can get the same relative answer. They do not get a privileged answer but a different equally valid answer to their initial measurements.

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.

For time keeping, it makes sense but it is in no way privileged beyond time keeping according to Venus. And it doesn't account for distances. If one person moves across the surface of the Earth and is always at midday, how much ground have they covered in a single 24 hour period? Either they've gone the distance around the Earth once or they've covered the space the Earth has moved in that single time. To the sun it would appear as if that person wasn't moving at all but that the Earth was moving from under them. So, your frame would give you an answer of the latter but from the reference frame of the Earth it appears as if they circumnavigated. The true answer is they've done both and both measurements are equally valid.

Stanford is an Ivy League College in the US.

Absolute space, in it's own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable

I don't think this equates well with:

absolute meter stick somewhere in the universe that everything could be compared against.

Sorry. Newton say's there's an absolute space with an absolute measure. So, now you're arguing with current mechanics and Newton.

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

Newton disagrees with both of us. He believe there was an absolute measure of space and time against which all things can be weighed. However, he also accepted relative motion (it's in the link I provided) because it worked.

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

I've already told you that a theory can be wrong in three parts: it can make false assumptions (false premises), it can have poor math or logic (internally invalid), or it can come to a false conclusion (externally invalid). These are independent and while one may be false the others can be true (a false assumption can give rise to good math but poor external validity or any other combination). Again, this is Galilean (you know that guy, Galileo) relativity, not Einstein Relativity. This is a law of physics were discussing. Einstein produces a theory from his proof.

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.

So, they're not wrong and they're not right? Boy, I bet this can't go absolutely horribly.

And you have used a plural form instead of the possessive 's.

I can play English teacher if you like.

I have a spell check on my browser. "Standardise" get's a red underline which throws off my reading. "Standardize" does not. But please, if all you teach is English, stick to that.

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

See, here's the problem, Newton thought like you thought that we can measure everything universally against a standard but he thought that this standard had to be a universal absolute. For reasons I've pointed out, you can't choose one because we can always find a frame that doesn't jive with your standard.

Where is the problem?

Supra

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.

They're twins (previously conjoined).

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.

But only against your standard. We can easily choose any other answer and accurately describe the event relative to that frame. It doesn't mean it's wrong, only that it describes the even from that frame.

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

Clearly, it is not. Just go outside and look around you. If you see a car moving down the road and you cross the road and review that car, it will be moving in the opposite direction. This is the principle of relativity. All motion is relative and we can accurately describe events from any inertial frame of reference. Seriously, you said you coach rugby. Break down the players motion into x and y from your perspective and then try to do it from another persons perspective. It's only once you move above the field that you can standardize this picture. But you could also move underground and (assuming you can see through the ground) view it as inverted now. These frames and measurements will all accurately describe what is going on on the field, it's just that it's relative to where you make your measurements. You're not going to get a player flying through the air because of relativity. You're just going to describe their motion relative to you.

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

Perhaps, because that's the definition of privileged. In this case, the privilege has to be inherent to the frame. We cannot name one frame any more privileged than any other frame.

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

Cite

http://www.1stardrive.com/solar/phys01.gif

Since the orbit is elliptical, the radius changes, which changes the amount of gravity on the Earth which would affect any number of things. Not to mention other bodies interacting. This is a simple example but you would need to know a lot more physics to understand the dynamic.

Everything else you bring up is fluff.

Fluff... I suppose if you think that thing which is the primary evidence against your notion of privileged frames is fluff, then yes, it's the inside of a giant teddy bear.

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames?

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
And it's still not privileged. It is simply one available. We could get equally accurate measurements from any other frame.
1. belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges; favored: the privileged few.
Privileged means better. Your proposed frame is not better, just different.
I notice you've dropped your insistence that privileged means it cannot be arbitrary...

You don't understand the implication of what you've said. You've declared all other frames of reference wrong and this one single frame correct. Yet, you've not shown how it is any better other than that it in your opinion eliminates the problem (which it doesn't) and doesn't account for other relative motion outside of the frame where no comparison can be made.
Quit making this about right and wrong and just accept the facts.

The principle of relativity has no contradictions.

If all you want to do is move both measurements out into a different frame, it just standardizes the answers but does not solve their initial relative differences. You're telling the boys to move into the same relative frame of reference, so that they can get the same relative answer. They do not get a privileged answer but a different equally valid answer to their initial measurements.
You're describing everything that would happen and conceding that it all works perfectly well, but are simply insisting that it must not be done this way. You're a little short on reasons why it must not be done this way.

Stanford is an Ivy League College in the US.
That's nice. Aaron Cruden is playing first five in place of the injured Dan Carter this weekend.

I have a spell check on my browser. "Standardise" get's a red underline which throws off my reading. "Standardize" does not. But please, if all you teach is English, stick to that.
:mock: Momo's spell checker.

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

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
I notice you've dropped your insistence that privileged means it cannot be arbitrary...

No, I haven't. Quite trying to ignore the facts. When it comes to space-time, you can't make one up. No one in the past ~500 years of physics has proposed we can make up an absolute standard. Mostly because it is on it's face, wrong.

Quit making this about right and wrong and just accept the facts.

What do you think I've been doing? You're hypothesis that we can make up an absolute standard is flat out wrong and it contradicts even the most basic thought experiment, as I've shown. It does not overcome the Problem of Relativity.

How thick are you? We're discussing Galilean relativity. There is no twin paradox in Galilean relativity. Can you comprehend the difference? The Law of Relativity says that all inertial frames of reference are equal. The one you are proposing is not any better than any other frame in validity.

You're describing everything that would happen and conceding that it all works perfectly well, but are simply insisting that it must not be done this way. You're a little short on reasons why it must not be done this way.

It must not be done that way because it does not resolve any of the initial problem. It simply moves the problem back one step and produces an infinite regress. It's as if you proposed that rather than viewing from their own accurate frames, they take your also accurate frame. That does not resolve the initial difference, it only tells them to move. But the initial problem still lies that the boys are moving relative to each other. If I had said they were both on a train and neither could tell which one is moving, they cannot determine the exterior frame of reference because they are unsure of their inertial frame. Since you can't seem to understand this, I've tried to make the problem more ambiguous by not giving them any frame of reference but you just keep insisting your frame is the best. It is not.

That's nice. Aaron Cruden is playing first five in place of the injured Dan Carter this weekend.

Great, but Stanford has reliable information on history. Also, good job ignoring the majority of my post. Classic Stripe. :thumb:

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

I've already told you. You just keep making up question as asides so that you can ignore the main point. Quit dodging.

Also, what difference is there in the tropical year? (Hint: the two agreed at one time)

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames? (Hint: this is central to why we do not distinguish measurement of different inertial frames)

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
No, I haven't. Quite trying to ignore the facts. When it comes to space-time, you can't make one up. No one in the past ~500 years of physics has proposed we can make up an absolute standard. Mostly because it is on it's face, wrong.
Standards are made all the time. For length most obviously. And great efforts were made to keep the standards absolute. That they could not make them absolute was not used as reason to abandon them.

Even today's most precise definition of the meter is not absolute.

It is perfectly normal and reasonable to arbitrarily define a non-absolute standard in the interests of advancing scientific investigation.

What do you think I've been doing? You're hypothesis that we can make up an absolute standard is flat out wrong and it contradicts even the most basic thought experiment, as I've shown. It does not overcome the Problem of Relativity.
Flat out right. And there is no problem if one does not assume relativity.

How thick are you? We're discussing Galilean relativity. There is no twin paradox in Galilean relativity. Can you comprehend the difference? The Law of Relativity says that all inertial frames of reference are equal. The one you are proposing is not any better than any other frame in validity.
You're defending Einstein's relativity which brings the twins paradox. That problem is non-existent with my explanation.

It must not be done that way because it does not resolve any of the initial problem.
There is no initial problem. We have two boys with all the information to come to agreement over what they observe. You're twisting the example to maintain your argument.

It simply moves the problem back one step and produces an infinite regress. It's as if you proposed that rather than viewing from their own accurate frames, they take your also accurate frame. That does not resolve the initial difference, it only tells them to move. But the initial problem still lies that the boys are moving relative to each other. If I had said they were both on a train and neither could tell which one is moving, they cannot determine the exterior frame of reference because they are unsure of their inertial frame. Since you can't seem to understand this, I've tried to make the problem more ambiguous by not giving them any frame of reference but you just keep insisting your frame is the best. It is not.
It does not need to be best. It just needs to be agreed upon. Then we can get all the same answers.

Also, what difference is there in the tropical year? (Hint: the two agreed at one time)
What variance is there, year-to-year, in the sidereal orbit of the Earth around the Sun?

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
Standards are made all the time. For length most obviously. And great efforts were made to keep the standards absolute. That they could not make them absolute was not used as reason to abandon them.

But the meter is not any better than the foot (although it is when it comes to jumping between larger and smaller units) but it is not any better at measuring something than a foot is at measuring something. They can both be 100% accurate to the nearest width of a hair. Show me one standard that is absolute.

Is light in a vacuum the same in all inertial frames? If not then their definition of meter is wrong. Since they're measuring light in a vacuum while hurling through space.

It is perfectly normal and reasonable to arbitrarily define a non-absolute standard in the interests of advancing scientific investigation.

And that still doesn't make it privileged.

Flat out right. And there is no problem if one does not assume relativity.

Do you know how much trouble your hypothesis would cause. The entire foundation of modern science from Newton to Krauss has been based on the Galilean principle of relativity. It would destroy the entirety of modern science and plunge us into stagnation. Every speedometer, accelerometer, wind gauge, anything that deals with relative motion would not work properly. Everything would need to be measured against the Earth's movement around the Sun. That's what you get when you try to create a new standard. Like when they made the metric clock. Had it attempted to be the standard nearly every home would have gone bankrupt and our basic understand of time would have been lost (although, it would have been way easier to go from seconds to minutes to hours, is a better system but not feasible).

You're defending Einstein's relativity which brings the twins paradox. That problem is non-existent with my explanation.

I'm talking about Galileo. And the Galilean Principle of Relativity. For the 50th time, we're talking about Galileo's Relativity. Einstein has nothing to do with this principle of relativity aside from applying it.

There is no initial problem. We have two boys with all the information to come to agreement over what they observe. You're twisting the example to maintain your argument.

Then how do you reconcile it in a more ambiguous setting? If they were in space with no frame of reference other than themselves, how can they come to an agreement?

It does not need to be best. It just needs to be agreed upon. Then we can get all the same answers.

Well, no one will agree with you. Because it doesn't do anything. It just moves the frame out one degree. It is no better than the two initial frames and is indeed worse for obtaining knowledge about the relative positions of the two boys and their relative motion to one another.

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

Cite About a couple picometers, it seems. But that question does not refute my initial points.

Quit dancing.

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames?

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
But the meter is not any better than the foot (although it is when it comes to jumping between larger and smaller units) but it is not any better at measuring something than a foot is at measuring something. They can both be 100% accurate to the nearest width of a hair. Show me one standard that is absolute.Is light in a vacuum the same in all inertial frames? If not then their definition of meter is wrong. Since they're measuring light in a vacuum while hurling through space.
I take it that your decision to change the subject completely is an admission that indeed people do make arbitrary standards out of non-absolutes in science.

Do you know how much trouble your hypothesis would cause. The entire foundation of modern science from Newton to Krauss has been based on the Galilean principle of relativity. It would destroy the entirety of modern science and plunge us into stagnation. Every speedometer, accelerometer, wind gauge, anything that deals with relative motion would not work properly.
Arguments from consequence are logical fallacies too. But it usually pays to bring up a consequence that would actually happen. :chuckle:

Everything would need to be measured against the Earth's movement around the Sun.
Only when very precise measurements are required. And the process of standardisation would be exactly as tricky as it is today using relativity theory.

That's what you get when you try to create a new standard. Like when they made the metric clock. Had it attempted to be the standard nearly every home would have gone bankrupt and our basic understand of time would have been lost (although, it would have been way easier to go from seconds to minutes to hours, is a better system but not feasible).
:baby:

Then how do you reconcile it in a more ambiguous setting? If they were in space with no frame of reference other than themselves, how can they come to an agreement?
By agreeing to a standard. :idunno:

Well, no one will agree with you. Because it doesn't do anything. It just moves the frame out one degree. It is no better than the two initial frames and is indeed worse for obtaining knowledge about the relative positions of the two boys and their relative motion to one another.

That's lame, Momo.

Cite About a couple picometers, it seems. But that question does not refute my initial points.
Great!

Looks like a pretty stable system then.

Do the laws of physics work in all inertial frames?
Yes.

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
I take it that your decision to change the subject completely is an admission that indeed people do make arbitrary standards out of non-absolutes in science.

You've yet to show me a privileged frame that has sprung from the status quo.

I was also pointing out that you're also appealing to relativity.

Arguments from consequence are logical fallacies too. But it usually pays to bring up a consequence that would actually happen. :chuckle:

In this case, the consequences are what happens when you accept a standard. As I showed, miles and meters are the standards of measure. Even Newton did not go as far as you're going.

Only when very precise measurements are required. And the process of standardisation would be exactly as tricky as it is today using relativity theory.

Woah, you're telling me, that your hypothesis is no better at deciding the movement of objects than relativity?

Perhaps rather than casting it out of hand, you should learn something. Did you know that a metric clock was made?

By agreeing to a standard. :idunno:

What standard? See, Newton would say their motion can still be measure absolutely against the universal standard. Remember that universal meter stick you said didn't compare to what Newton said. Yeah, that would be the absolute standard, for Newton. This is why I brought up Newton (although, you're ripping him a new space hole on this level). Every other modern scientist would say their motion is entirely relative and that in fact all motion is relative. I was trying to give you Newton because he's about the only scientist we currently speak of that held similar (although now I see I was very wrong) views to what you said.

Read the second part of that statement. I provided why no one will adopt it.

That's lame, Momo.

You can't walk!

Great!

Looks like a pretty stable system then.

Only in so long as you're within the frame and as I said there are a number of other features that go into it. See the three body problem

Ok. So if physics works in all inertial frames of reference, do measurements of physics work in all inertial frames? Because, here's the thing, if physics is universal in all frames are equal when it comes to balls being tossed in the air and falling (etc.), then how can we come to declare a single frame of measurement for all different frames of physics. It's similar to suggesting that all measuring cups are equal at measuring water but we should only use a special bowl because we can fit all the water in it.

Also, remember this is Galilean Relativity. Not Einstein.

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
Woah, you're telling me, that your hypothesis is no better at deciding the movement of objects than relativity?

You should learn what it is you are arguing against before arguing against it. :thumb:

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
You should learn what it is you are arguing against before arguing against it. :thumb:

You realize you make this impossible right?

You do not explicitly lay out your position nor do you cite your source nor challenge your own arguments nor research nor clarify nor do anything to work toward a common goal.

You throw stuff out as though it were absolute and when some challenges you, you continue to convolute the argument until the opposition can't figure out what they're arguing against. You're the prototypical obfuscation.

This argument began with me attempting to explain Galilean Relativity and has ended as far as I can tell, unsuccessfully. Thankfully, there are people smarter than I that can properly understand and apply the principle.

Never before had I ever thought I would have to attempt to show someone the simple fact of Galilean Relativity. Yet, I never cease to be amazed especially by you Stripe.

#### Stripe

Hall of Fame
You realize you make this impossible right?

You do not explicitly lay out your position nor do you cite your source nor challenge your own arguments nor research nor clarify nor do anything to work toward a common goal.

You throw stuff out as though it were absolute and when some challenges you, you continue to convolute the argument until the opposition can't figure out what they're arguing against. You're the prototypical obfuscation.

This argument began with me attempting to explain Galilean Relativity and has ended as far as I can tell, unsuccessfully. Thankfully, there are people smarter than I that can properly understand and apply the principle.

Never before had I ever thought I would have to attempt to show someone the simple fact of Galilean Relativity. Yet, I never cease to be amazed especially by you Stripe.
:allsmile:

It's called a discussion. If you don't understand something, ask. :up:

#### Memento Mori

##### New member
:allsmile:

It's called a discussion. If you don't understand something, ask. :up:

Do you accept Galilean Relativity?