Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyGene
What is truth? I doubt that such a thing exists. But there are ways to explain things. Many popular science books I have read use the expression "It can be explained as". This does not mean that the explanation is the only explanation, but it does claim to be consistent with all known facts.
If all motion is relative, there cannot be a preferred frame of reference. But the Twin Paradox of Relativity comes about because all motion is not relative. Indeed, if all motion were relative the twins would age at the same rate and there would be no paradox.
The Twin Paradox clearly sets the stay-at-home twin as the preferred frame of reference. This is usually the case with any problem, especially those involving time, space, velocity, etc. To set such a place or time as a preferred frame of reference probably should be called a local preferred frame of reference since it applies only to the problem at hand.
It seems to me that there is another preferred frame of reference, and that is gravitational fields. Consider that the rate of clocks and the length of rulers depend on gravitational fields. Indeed, the Twin Paradox can be explained using gravitational fields as a preferred frame of reference.
As the traveling twin, Betty, accelerates, length contraction would cause the distance between objects in her immediate surroundings to shrink. The
force of gravity depends in part on the distance between two objects, thus if the distance shrinks then the force of gravity would increase, and if clocks slow down in a gravitational field, then Betty would age less.
This still doesn't establish an absolute frame of reference, but it does expand the notion of a local frame of reference beyond that usually discussed in science books.
Is there an absolute frame of reference? I don't know, but I suspect there is. Consider the question "what is beyond space and time?" Suppose there is an "underlying something" which time and space are imprinted upon. If so, this would seem to be an absolute preferred frame of reference. Do I have any evidence that such a thing exists? No, but it seems to provide an answer to many questions that fascinate many of us.
|
Evidently, there is.
That would be lights own 'Preferred' reference frame, where light is simultaneous at all points along its path to infinty, or from source to sink, and where photons experience NO Time as they travel in this 'preferred' frame.
And, I am saying that Einsteins defining of light as simultaneous at all points along its path to infinity, and photons experiencing NO TIME in its own frame, and THEN determining that light in its own frame is NOT a valid inertial frame, is the mathematical culprit of all of this...
If we look at this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia...e_of_reference
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Einstein's theory of special relativity likewise assumes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames, but makes a different additional assumption, namely, that the speed of light is the same when measured in all inertial reference frames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
And then...Hence, with respect to an inertial frame, an object or body accelerates only when a physical force is applied, and (following Newton's first law of motion), in the absence of a net force, a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will continue to move uniformly—i.e. in a straight line and at constant speed.
|
Then, quite simply, light considered as the 'particle' and not the 'wave', meets the definition of being 'inertial' even in its own frame.
AND, that makes Time and Space...*Dimesionless*
We know that light, in Vacua, travels at 186,000 miles for each second that passes. Why would it be defined any other way? Answer...to make the Lorentz contractions and Time dilation TE's work mathematically
