Kyle, Indeed i again wrote something that is very difficult to understand because we do not have proper words. My less than adequate English does not help either.
Anyway for recapitulation, here is the key idea of my definition for absolute frame of reference in ”breef” summary. Imagine rotating body that has certain angular momentum. Then what does it mean that this spinning object has a rotational speed? (This is very difficult question, and does require deep philosophical understanding, but also it is carefully discussed question) Is it rotating in respect of the surrounding stars or does it rotate by itself. I.e. if we remove all the stars from the universe, does it still rotate? Use this idea as an anology for the normal nonaccelerating motion and define velocity not in relative to other objects, such as classical motion is defined relatively, but think motion as a property of particle itself, such as it's spin. Can you do this? We have clear proof that there is no classical absolute frame of reference because we can observe circular motion. In circular or orbital motion relative speed is constantly changing, but what is important that in orbital motion intrinsic motion does not change. Hence no matter in what reference frame we are comparing orbital motion, satellites clock ticks in constant pace, because only thing that has an effect for it's clock ticking rate is the orbital speed of satellite and it does not depend on who is observing satellite. This was the fallacy of special relativity and Galilean classical motion, that it failed to grasp that the ticking rate of myon or satellite only depends on it's intrinsic speed. Our own speed is irrelevant how long distance myon will travel before it is decaying. Because time dilatation depends only on intrinsic velocity, we do not need to think what is the relative speed. We just need to measure our own time dilatation rate and we can measure it just assuming that there are no lenght contractions and we measure how far we can get in fixed time interval. If we get to the moon in 10 nanoseconds we have very good insight of our clock's ticking rate, because we know that the distance into moon is 300 megametres. Easy logical proof for this is that clock ticks for two satellites that are orbiting into opposite directions always at the same rate. We cannot understand this in the context of classical motion, without making theory really funny (indeed, how special relativity describes this is really really funny!). But this is very easy to understand that if we assume that time dilatation depends only satellites intrinsic velocity, hence we need to only measure it's intrinsic velocity and we get it's time dilatation rate (easy as making quantum teleports! Instead of teleport, we can also use telephone and ask travellers what is their intrinsic velocity... but i think that there is no way to calculate it exactly, because direction of speed is irrelevant. GPS is working only because we have checked math with empirical feedback, i.e. we have telephoned to the satellite and asked what is the intrinsic velocity of the satellite). Actually this kind of absolute motion is exactly like special theory of relativity, but without lenght contraction. We only need lenght contraction, because special relativity has one extra and unnecessary axiom that it assumes that speed is defined always in galilean relativistic terms. This is however false assumption and it is not supported by evidence. Neat thing about this interpretation is that it does not mind if quantum physics needs instant information transfer due to entanglement. And now this new neutrino finding confirms this theory, because it falsifies the idea of relativistic speed. What is most odd question is that why I have not seen this theory before, although this should be straight forward interpretation of the data we have and also it predicts a bunch of new ways to test this theory (and thus falsify special relativity)? And also, quantum mechanics is it's best friend, not the worst enemy. —Jouni Ps. I hope this helped. I will probably do not try to explain it again. So if you do not get it, i am sure that someone else will explain this more fluently because this is the only explanation for the neutrino data. On Sep 25, 2011 9:00 AM, "Kyle Mcallister" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --- On Sat, 9/24/11, Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jouni, > > I am not certain I follow quite what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting that, possibly, the absolute frame of reference may have differing velocities based on the velocity of the local object? I.E, some planet, Earth or Venus, whatever? > > I may be completely misreading what you're getting at. > > Makes me think of a few things, though. > > Back to the wormhole = time machine thing thrown about for years; if "space" is taken as an absolute frame of reference, what happens if you move a piece of space WRT uncurved, free space at some velocity? Is it still part of the absolute frame? > > I'm not sure how to explain what I'm thinking... assume you have a wormhole a la Morris and Thorne... one end is stationary, the other end you move around at some speed close to c, and try to make a time machine out of it. If the "space" making up the wormhole is considered to be an absolute frame, does that mean that the moved end does not experience time dilation? Meaning that there is an absolute entry and exit time for something traversing the wormhole? > > I started thinking about this some years back when reading over an old webpage called 'Falling into a Black Hole.' One of the things that struck me was the idea that the 'escape velocity' of a black hole could be considered to be the infall velocity of space into the hole. V(infall) = c at the event horizon, and exceeds c within. A natural question to ask is, then, if space defines an absolute frame of reference, is the frame of V(infall) = 0 (free, uncurved space) the same as that of some part of space close to or within the hole where V(infall) > 0? > > I wish there was some better way to explain what I am visualizing. It probably makes no sense. > > --Kyle >
