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.

How does it do that?

Grant Hutchison

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

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

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

You prefer to age faster?

Seriously, that is not true. That's a misuse of the terminology--there is no preferred frame of reference, and the twin paradox is not really a paradox. The twin paradox was treated, and explained, in the very first paper on special relativity. It's completely consistent with special relativity's no preferred (inertial) frame.

I'd say that the preferred frame of reference is whichever one makes the math the easiest. It will change from situation to situation.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

And, of course, that too is not what is meant by "preferred reference frame", in the context of special relativity.

Me, I prefer the reference frame I'm in

If Johnny is going down the road at 50 MPH, it is generally understood that he is moving relative to the Earth. Does this not establish the Earth as the preferred frame of reference? Since the preferred frame of reference is established ONLY for this particular discussion, it would seem to be a LOCAL Frame of Reference.

Semantics aside, I think we establish local frames of reference in many discussions. Does not the Earth go around the Sun? Does this not make the Sun the LOCAL preferred Frame of Reference?

No, just the "local frame being used". "Preferred" has a different meaning, in this context, than "the one we want to use".

In a preferred reference frame, the physics works and there are other reference frames where the physics does not work. It might be better to say, there is no non-preferred reference frame (that is, the physics works in all reference frames) but the context makes clear what is meant. Usually.

I don't see where I misused the terminology. As I recall, I said the Twin Paradox set the Earth as the preferred frame of reference, and to distinguish this from the SR frame of reference, I said setting such a reference point should probably be called a LOCAL Preferred Frame of Reference.

As to the Twin Paradox not being a Paradox, I am aware that it can be explained. The point I was trying to make is that if all motion is relative, then viewing the stay-at-home twin as the twin who is in motion is equally valid as saying the traveling twin is in motion. If this is true, and if the traveling twin comes back younger than the stay-at-home twin, then were would indeed be a paradox.

Actually, I was trying to use Preferred Frames of Reference as a lead in to the idea that gravitational fields can be viewed as Preferred Frames of Reference. I also relied on my opening statement about "IT CAN BE EXPLAINED AS ....." as a way of pointing out that there are many ways of explainig many things. It seems to me that viewing gravitational fields as preferred frames of reference CAN explain the Twin Paradox, I didn't say that it DID explain anything.

If I sound argumentive, I don't mean to be. It's difficult to discuss something in a few paragraphs that could easily take many months to clearly explain.

Oh, aye. I prefer the frame in which someone else does all the math.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

You can't put semantics aside. The idea of a prefered frame of reference, as used in relativity, means a frame where the laws of physics are demonstratably different from other frames. So, there are no preferred frames in relativity, as the idea of physics being the same in every frame is a postulate of Relativity.

Now, there is nothing wrong with choosing a frame where the calculations are easier. A heliocentric frame, such as the one used in your example above, makes the calculations easier, within the solar system, relative to the Sun. But, if you are going to consider the Earth-Moon system, it would make more sense to consider the view from the Earth's frame of reference, rather than a helicentric frame. Just because the choice of a frame is made to make the calculations easier does not mean, within Relativity, it's a prefered frame.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

I think I uderstand everything you wrote and then I think I don't understand anything you wrote. The idea that light is everywhere everywhen is one of the reasons why I suspect there is something underlaying the whole mess.

Regarding your statement about making things work mathematically. I have read the same thing about warped space time. If the path of light is curved by gravitational fields, then you can say that light DOES NOT travel in a straight line, but follows gravitational fields, or you can say that light DOES travel in straight lines but space and time are warped, and we choose the later because it makes the math easier.

BobbyGene - This is called "baiting" or "trojan-horsing". DO NOT do this again.

Lay out your intended argument concisely, undeceptively, and honestly. This is my second dealing with you in 24 hrs. concerning your behavior and ethics on this forum. You may consider this an Official Warning. A further infraction of forum rules will result in suspension of posting priviledges to be determined by the severity of the infraction.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Then don't put semantics aside, and this...

is pure 'proof' that lights own frame needs to be the same in its own frame as it is in all the other frames, where light travels at 186,000mps in vacua!

And you just said so yourself!

Light getting here 'instantaneously', in its own frame, whether it is coming from a Quasar 13 Billion Ly's away or Alpha Centauri......IS Impossible!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

sorry having problems getting fixed font to work.

Velocity is relative, but acceleration and rotation are not. The acceleration is different in the twins paradox and that is important.

As for the preferred frame of reference, the CMBR frame is a preferred frame. Even before the CMBR frame was measured Silvertooth had measured the earth's motion by use of standing waves and established that same frame as important.

This is a summary of a paper "MOTION THROUGH THE ETHER" by
E W Silvertooth and published in Electronics & Wireless May 1989.
He claims to get a consistent measurement of around 380 km/s
which is of course of the order of our motion through the CMBR.

/________Laser
/!
! BS2
Beam \!____________________\______\M2
Splitter BS1!\ !\ !\Mirror
! ! !
PS [_] Photocathode ! !
! V_____ ! !
[_]_______!/______[.....]______!/ !
PZM1 /M1 [_____]D1 /M3 !
Piezo-electric [ ] !BS3 _
actuator [ ]|______________!/___[ ] Detector
[_]|M4 /! [_] D2
<------> !
delta [_]
PZM2

The diagram shows the laser beam being split and the two beams
coming together from opposite directions. This will of course
produce a standing wave. If there was no ether, of if relativity
was correct, then the wave would not move. If however there is
an ether, and the apparatus is moving to the left or right with
respect to the ether, then the wavelengths of the laser beam
would be affected by the v+c and v-c velocities in the two
directions and the standing waves would have phase reversals
at intervals within the detector D1.

Using this setup, Sivertooth detected a 380 km/s motion relative
to the ether, with a zero result 6 hours before and after (when
the earth's rotation would make the apparatus across the motion).
The results are reported to be always consistent to within 5%
for a variety of configurations with three apparatus over a number
of years. Note that the author accepts the null M-M result.
Note also that this measures something quite different.


As well as the above mentioned paper, Silvertooth has an article
in Nature v322 p590 1986 (I haven't yet seen it), and the reasons
for the results are discussed by B A Manning in Physics Essays
v1 no4 1988 (also not seen yet).

Put your fixed-font stuff inside {CODE} {/CODE} tags (replacing the { and } with [ and ]), otherwise the spaces will be collapsed.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

It's no such thing as a proof. It's simply your misconception about relativity. Let''s look at the equations:

g = 1/sqrt(1- v^2/c^2), where g is the gamma factor, v is the velocity in question and c is, of course the speed of light. If you put the speed a photon is moving into v you end up in the denominator, under the square root with this: 1-c^2/C^2, which reduces to 1-1. This leaves you with a zero in the denominator and division by zero is undefined. Which does not mean light travels instaneously or takes no time. It means the equations are undefined.


Well since the equations at c are undefined, there's no way to define it as a frame of reference. You really need to quit taking simplified explanations as the actual theory. Simplified explanations, of a theory, is not the actual theory.

No one ever claimed it was, in a rigorous manner. Now, it has been suggested that in a simpler explanation that this is what happens as a way of explaining it to someone who doesnt' understand the math. Simply because the closer an object's speed gets to c, the slower the object's time moves, to an outside observer. But, again, the equations are undefined when anything moves at c. So, we can't really say what happens there.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.