photo_guy
I'm certainly not a physicist, but I believe I have some understanding of the universe. For instance, that gravity, inertia, and centrifugal force are all the same thing. That mass inherently brings on it's own gravity which attracts other mass. That physical bodies operate/age/grow/etc. more slowly when affected by gravity, in any of it's forms. The more gravity applied the slower that particular body does its thing.

Motion opposes gravity so in effect it adds to the overall effect. Physical objects in motion have their physical properties and operations slowed relative to objects that are at rest. Driving to the store and back causes you to be physically younger than if you had sent someone else for the groceries. But time as such isn't involved in any of it.

IMHO, time has nothing to do with anything in the cosmos. It is the strength of gravity that causes everything to happen at various 'physical' speeds throughout the universe. Starting with the basics and using velocity to amplify earth's gravity we can see these basics. As least how I see them... Such as electrons that are pulled into 'longer distance' elliptical orbits around the nuclei of their atoms. Causing each revolution to take longer, and so those atoms 'run' at a slower rate. Likewise these atoms pass their slowness to the actions of the molecules they're a part of, and so on up to perhaps a space ship with passengers. That basic slowness of everything causes their clock to take longer to get to the next second mark, the ship to rust, and the passengers to age. That's all of it, is it not..? So why is a concept of time brought into the calculations? I see time as unneeded and only a confusion factor. I know that idea goes against the grain big time, but isn't the first rule to simplify..?

That's my quandary... Can someone please explain why time is considered a force in and of itself. A necessary part of the cosmos.? The so called space/time continuum? To be included in calculations and equations made on the cosmos. Leading to ideas that it can be manipulated. That it can be stopped or traveled in, either forward or back. Not to mention space folded onto itself.

To me, c should NOT be seen as 300 million meters a second, but simply 'the speed of the galaxy'. The fastest speed possible, therefore the ultimate standard. 100% Velocity. Everything else being .999999999 c or slower.

I see time in any sense as immutable. Simply a means we humans have devised with our imaginations to keep ourselves in sync with each other. So we might get to work when everyone else shows up, or sit down to eat when the food it ready, or to estimate the number of full moons we might expect to see before we die. That's all well and good for us here on earth but not for the cosmos. The cosmos does its own thing. It doesn't need a clock.

Technically time doesn't exist as a force at all. You can't see it, use it, manipulate it, or measure it. Not counting the 'time keeping' devices humans have created to run at a certain speed. Time is an illusion. Everything just 'happens'.

And..., the math does break down in some areas. No one can explain why.., so might it be worth trying to simplify..?

Parsecs and other distance units *could* replace years and other time measurements.

I've tried to present a hopefully reasonable understanding of the universe to support how I've come to the conclusions I have. I welcome anyone who can explain where it comes up short. I'd love to know why.

Many thanks..
AlexG
QUOTE
IMHO, time has nothing to do with anything in the cosmos. It is the strength of gravity that causes everything to happen at various 'physical' speeds throughout the universe. Starting with the basics and using velocity to amplify earth's gravity we can see these basics. As least how I see them... Such as electrons that are pulled into 'longer distance' elliptical orbits around the nuclei of their atoms. Causing each revolution to take longer, and so those atoms 'run' at a slower rate. Likewise these atoms pass their slowness to the actions of the molecules they're a part of, and so on up to perhaps a space ship with passengers. That basic slowness of everything causes their clock to take longer to get to the next second mark, the ship to rust, and the passengers to age. That's all of it, is it not..? So why is a concept of time brought into the calculations? I see time as unneeded and only a confusion factor. I know that idea goes against the grain big time, but isn't the first rule to simplify..?

Electrons do not have eliptical orbits, their speed is not effected by gravity. So the orbits don't take any longer. 'Slowness' is not passed along. Your understanding of time dilation is incorrect. Given that your basic premise is incorrect, everything which follows from is is also wrong.
photo_guy
I agree electron 'speed' is not affected by gravity... They can't go faster than they're already going. But that's 'why' it takes them longer to go around a nuclei when their orbits are distended and longer, by any amount, rather than perfectly circular.

As far as electrons go, I believe they are affected by gravity. You can just about make them jump through hoops using inertia (gravity) as in motors and generators, or by applying emf to a wire that causes them to leave their current nucleus altogether, to hop from atom to atom down the wire. Then or course there is what keeps them circling their nuclei in the first place.

The word elliptical orbit was to be taken as 'moving' elliptical orbits. When an object is circling a center point that moves from point A to point B, there is additional distance for the orbiting object to travel 'too', which is added to each revolution it travels around the center point. The faster the center point moves the more distance is added.

In any case, the additional time it takes electrons to complete their rotations is the same as the photon bouncing between two mirrors that are moving as a set, with each bounce 'diagonal' distance being longer than if the mirrors were stationary. That's a classic example of time dilation...

Since gravity, velocity/inertia, and centrifugal force are all the same force.., it stands to reason that all electron orbits will be slightly elliptical, even for instance when their atoms are not moving laterally as opposed to stationary on the earth's surface. The ellipse would be aligned with the earth's center.

In any case, my question was to do with time. It seems reasonable that we consider the speed of light as simply c. The ultimate speed. 100% velocity. Why does its speed have to be related to time..? Simplify... Use parsecs and other 'distance' measurements, instead of time.., to compare lesser velocities to c. Compare what it takes for an object to cover a measured physical distance to the distance light would travel in that same period. Could this not be done in calculations of the cosmos..?

The classic spaceship returning to find everyone dead has nothing to do with time. Time continued on as usual while the usual operatons and functions of the spaceship and everyone in it, including their brains and body, were 'physically' slowed down... Similar to the clocks in the GPS satellites.., or to the extreme if they were frozen solid here on earth and brought back to life 100 years later, pretty much as they were before freezing. That's not time travel.

So, since the speed of light, c, is already a standard in and of itself, an object's v can be expressed as d/c... With c being 100% v... An objects speed can then be expressed as something less than 100% velocity.

Like zero on a thermometer... Things are either warmer or colder.
Time is not needed there either.

Btw.., I like your sig lines... I agree with all of them.

But the question on Velocity is moot, is it not?
Or maybe I'm missing some humor.

So again, can anyone explain in more detail where what I've said is incorrect?

And why..?

Many thanks...
synthsin75
QUOTE (photo_guy+Jan 3 2012, 12:39 PM)
I'm certainly not a physicist, but I believe ...

Says it all, really.
Quantum_Conundrum
time is a necessity, and is a basic property of the cosmos.

Without time it would be impossible to observe change, since even non-specific terms like "before" and "after" have relative temporal reference. One cannot define the order of events without time, and so even if you disregard time, you could measure "change" without reference to time, but you would not know the order in which events happened, and you would not know the "rate" at which events happened.

However, in the real world through casual observation, we know events happen in a certain order, without regard to formal argumentation, theory, or equations, and I might add, at a more fundamental level of reality than those arguments, theory, or equations.

Theory is not reality, though it is contained by reality.

Theory is an attempt to explain and understand reality in a self-consistent manner.

The problem here is, Hawking claims on Page 44 of "Black Holes and Baby Universes" that we cannot understand reality outside the context of a theory.

Which is true from a certain point of view. The laws of the universe are what they are whether we understand them or not, but our understanding of theses laws is highly limited to the axioms we choose as the basis of logic. If our axioms are somehow proven false, which is very hard to do, then you must discard or at least heavily modify all theory based on those axioms to be consistent with the new discovery of old truths*.

A place I disagreed with Hawking is in QM where he seems to be saying that objects or systems under certain circumstances have "all possible histories". If this is the case, then the basis for criminal law is a joke, since "all possible murderers of the victim" would in fact be guilty, if the victim's body has all possible histories.

How could an entangled photon have "all possible histories" simultaneously?

And how could you prove that a "hypothetical history" is indeed a "possibility"?

And how could you prove that a possible history is indeed a reality equally valid to our own perception of what we consider the "actual" history?

My position is that there is only one possible history, and all other "hypothetical" histories are in fact not possibilities at all, but a matter of error in human knowledge or perception.

===

Oh yeah, here is a gem from Hawking, unrelated, but on the idea of "Isms" which I found amusing regarding labelling others, because I had just been thinking about this problem as it regards in-fighting within the Christian community.

He says: (speaking of himself, but I found it applied perfectly to denominationalism and sectarianism in religion.)

"The technique seems to be refutation by denigration. If you can attach a label to my approach, you don't have to say what is wrong with it. Surely everyone knows the fatal error of all those isms." - Hawking.

Every "good" Christian should read this book at least once. Wow.

Quantum_Conundrum
suppose you developed a system of axioms and theories which claimed to disregard time, or else explain the universe without reference to time.

you will immediately have a problem under the standard definition of scientific method, because the scientific method requires prediction and verification.

The very word "predict" is a temporal reference, and thus any theory or hypothesis without reference to time fails the model of the scientific method.

Theory:
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

How do you test a "theory" without reference to time?

Time as a "force" would require circular definitions, since "force" references time already.
sonoran sundown
Time is a property of discrete matter and it passes at rates inversely proportional to an object's speed. As such, time ages all objects, or all objects are subject to the passage of time; thus, it seems valid to say it is a force onto itself. It accrues to discrete matter as a function of motion, but not as a "fabric of space" having a single rate over all matter.
allen.92101
Hi.Why does time slow down near high gravitational power?
if this is so, will i be correct to say that the basic (inertial)(static) frame of reference for a galaxy is the one inside the black hole at the center of that galaxy?because time stops inside it,and if we imagine it to be not a solid ball, but a hollow ball, a working clock inside it , at the exact center , would give the perfect relative time for every work in that galaxy?
allen.92101
also please reply to my post, i posted a new theory and i am eager to know if anything in it is correct.
AlexG
QUOTE (Mr Real+Jun 17 2012, 01:25 PM)
Your clock wouldn't work because there's no time in a blackhole and you couldnt observe the clock anyway because your brain would stop working also.
So gravity does affect atoms at the atomic level after all!
Right (ALEX)!!

Gravity effects everything in the physical universe. But the gravitation field of a single atom is so weak that it effects nothing.

As gravitational objects go, the earth is not particularly stong, but it is estimated to contain 36 X 10^50 atoms. So if we set the earths gravitaional field as 1, an individual atom exerts 2.7 x 10^-51 earth gravities. Or 3.6 x 10^-52 meters/sec^2. As a comparison, the diameter of a proton is about 2 × 10^-14 meters. That's 47 orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of a proton.

As for there being no time in a black hole, Kip Thorne and others seem to think that inside the event horizon, space and time reverse roles.

I must admit that I still am not sure what that implies.
allen.92101
QUOTE (Mr Real+Jun 17 2012, 11:55 PM)
Your clock wouldn't work because there's no time in a blackhole and you couldnt observe the clock anyway because your brain would stop working also.
So gravity does affect atoms at the atomic level after all!
Right (ALEX)!!

that is what i said.if the clock isnt working,and the time in that frame is 'zero", can it be called the absolute frame of reference for that galaxy?!
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 17 2012, 10:12 AM)
Hi.Why does time slow down near high gravitational power?
if this is so, will i be correct to say that the basic (inertial)(static) frame of reference for a galaxy is the one inside the black hole at the center of that galaxy?because time stops inside it,and if we imagine it to be not a solid ball, but a hollow ball, a working clock inside it , at the exact center , would give the perfect relative time for every work in that galaxy?

Time cannot slow down within strong gravitation because time is a property of matter and not susceptible to gravity, while matter has gravity and is influenced by it. Thus, it is matter that can slow its speed within gravity fields, which would increase the rate of the passage of time, or vice-versa, but only for that particular discrete object.
AlexG
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 18 2012, 12:37 AM)
Time cannot slow down within strong gravitation because time is a property of matter and not susceptible to gravity, while matter has gravity and is influenced by it. Thus, it is matter that can slow its speed within gravity fields, which would increase the rate of the passage of time, or vice-versa, but only for that particular discrete object.

Totally incorrect. There's ample empirical proof of gravitational time dilation.
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 18 2012, 07:14 AM)
Totally incorrect. There's ample empirical proof of gravitational time dilation.

I will be pleased to review at least one empirical proof of gravitational time dilation confirmed without at least one discrete object being intimately involved in the experiment or which can be tied to the time "dilation."

For example, the Twins Paradox has 2 discrete objects (1 twin and his spaceship) undergoing time rate changes, and 2 more discrete objects used to compare the time rate changes.
synthsin75
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jun 18 2012, 02:46 AM)
I will be pleased to review at least one empirical proof of gravitational time dilation confirmed without at least one discrete object being intimately involved in the experiment or which can be tied to the time "dilation."

Without any discrete objects, you do not have an experiment nor are you doing science.
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jun 18 2012, 11:53 AM)
Without any discrete objects, you do not have an experiment nor are you doing science.

My point exactly.

Any and all "proofs" of time dilation can only be confirmed as a difference in the passage of time between 2 or more objects moving at different speeds with respect to each other.

Objects in a gravitational field moving at constant velocity with respect to each other will have the same time rate until gravity causes one to change its speed.

If the speed of one is increased, its time rate slows with respect to the other object(s), and vice-versa.
allen.92101
QUOTE (Mr Real+Jun 17 2012, 11:55 PM)
Your clock wouldn't work because there's no time in a blackhole and you couldnt observe the clock anyway because your brain would stop working also.
So gravity does affect atoms at the atomic level after all!
Right (ALEX)!!

and you cant really prove it.
what if a blackhole is hollow? anything can be there at the exact center of it .net force acting on the clock inside a hollow blackhole is zero.so this further proves that TIME DILATION DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. + A HOLLOW BLACKHOLE can also act as a TIME MACHINE!!!
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 18 2012, 11:30 AM)
what if a blackhole is hollow? anything can be there at the exact center of it .net force acting on the clock inside a hollow blackhole is zero.so this further proves that TIME DILATION DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. + A HOLLOW BLACKHOLE can also act as a TIME MACHINE!!!

You just said "what if" followed by "this proves that."
I don't think you understand how logic works.
allen.92101
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 18 2012, 09:43 PM)
You just said "what if" followed by "this proves that."
I don't think you understand how logic works.

lol.
it doesnt matter wheather a blackhole is hollow or solid.
you should be sure that there is NO gravitational force at the exact center of the blackhole.NO FORCE! even if it is hollow(which is just a concept to understand things better), the force at the center is zero. even then the time doesnt move there.THIS PROVES THAT time has nothing to do with gravity,as such, time also has nothing to do with mass>!!!~
soo, i suggested that if we draw CO-ORDINATE AXES STARTING FROM THE EXACT CENTER OF THE BLACKHOLE, AND PLACE A CLOCK AT THE EXACT CENTER OF THAT B-HOLE OR ZERO OF THE AXES,WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF REFERENCE FRAME, it gives the relative time=absolute (exact ) time in that galaxy.

and LOL please, forgive me great logician flyingbuttressman, isnt logic anything that can be proved?.
i do have language problems bcuz of which i fail to say what i mean,sorry but i'll rather sleep than improve it.
allen.92101
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 18 2012, 12:44 PM)
Totally incorrect. There's ample empirical proof of gravitational time dilation.

no.time doesnt have anything to do with gravity.if it diid, time would flow at the greatest speed at the centre of the black hole or even anny planet.so it would even mean that earth's center is older than its surface.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 19 2012, 05:19 AM)
you should be sure that there is NO gravitational force at the exact center of the blackhole.NO FORCE! even if it is hollow(which is just a concept to understand things better), the force at the center is zero. even then the time doesnt move there.THIS PROVES THAT time has nothing to do with gravity,as such, time also has nothing to do with mass>!!!~

Incorrect again. All you've done is state a basic principle of gravitation. You have no idea how time moves at the center of a black hole.

Also, the time-gravity link is bound to regions of gravitational potential, not how much "tug" you feel in any given direction. You might not feel a net pull in the center of a black hole, but that's only because the forces in all directions balance out. You're still at the bottom of a very large gravity well. In fact, since the tidal forces surrounding a black hole are already so extreme, I don't think that the hollow body principle is going to work as well in a black hole. You're likely to get spaghettified.
allen.92101
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 19 2012, 05:27 PM)
Incorrect again. All you've done is state a basic principle of gravitation. You have no idea how time moves at the center of a black hole.

Also, the time-gravity link is bound to regions of gravitational potential, not how much "tug" you feel in any given direction. You might not feel a net pull in the center of a black hole, but that's only because the forces in all directions balance out. You're still at the bottom of a very large gravity well. In fact, since the tidal forces surrounding a black hole are already so extreme, I don't think that the hollow body principle is going to work as well in a black hole. You're likely to get spaghettified.

oh. sorry
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 19 2012, 02:03 PM)
oh. sorry

No problem, just keep in mind that most situations that you or I can think of have probably already been imagined and quantified by physicists. It's unlikely that any non-physicist will overturn 100+ years of science with a thought experiment.
allen.92101
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jun 19 2012, 11:54 PM)
No problem, just keep in mind that most situations that you or I can think of have probably already been imagined and quantified by physicists. It's unlikely that any non-physicist will overturn 100+ years of science with a thought experiment.

lol yes right,sorry
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (allen.92101+Jun 18 2012, 03:30 PM)
and you cant really prove it.
what if a blackhole is hollow? anything can be there at the exact center of it .net force acting on the clock inside a hollow blackhole is zero.so this further proves that TIME DILATION DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. + A HOLLOW BLACKHOLE can also act as a TIME MACHINE!!!

Time As A Force

It is my opinion that gravitation has a lot to do with time, albeit indirectly. It changes the speeds of objects moving within its fields as they approach to, and recede from, massive objects. If time rates are set by the speed of objects, as I claim, g-forces alter their speeds, and it is the speed changes that in turn affects their time rates.

The question of this topic is whether or not time is a force,and it is of no small importance to learn if it is or not. It time is a force, it must have or must be energy. If it is a force, would it not then be a fifth fundamental force that influences the aging of objects? If yes, then it is also the force driving the entropy process toward ultimate equilibrium.

At this point of our way toward a Theory Of Everything (TOE), we have so far linked motion and speed to time, and time to massive objects and as the force of entropy.
In doing so, however, we have had to separate time and space from each other as Siamese twins, resolved a contradiction allegedly offered regarding the importance between relative motion and single-object motion relative to the universe. We have a ways to go yet, but at least we're moving on it.

Mekigal
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jul 14 2012, 11:40 PM)
Time As A Force

It is my opinion that gravitation has a lot to do with time, albeit indirectly. It changes the speeds of objects moving within its fields as they approach to, and recede from, massive objects. If time rates are set by the speed of objects, as I claim, g-forces alter their speeds, and it is the speed changes that in turn affects their time rates.

The question of this topic is whether or not time is a force,and it is of no small importance to learn if it is or not. It time is a force, it must have or must be energy. If it is a force, would it not then be a fifth fundamental force that influences the aging of objects? If yes, then it is also the force driving the entropy process toward ultimate equilibrium.

At this point of our way toward a Theory Of Everything (TOE), we have so far linked motion and speed to time, and time to massive objects and as the force of entropy.
In doing so, however, we have had to separate time and space from each other as Siamese twins, resolved a contradiction allegedly offered regarding the importance between relative motion and single-object motion relative to the universe. We have a ways to go yet, but at least we're moving on it.

Is that the same Thomas as the Professor at Miami University ? The Music Professor ?
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jul 14 2012, 11:57 PM)
Is that the same Thomas as the Professor at Miami University ? The Music Professor ?

Would that I were, thanks. I love music, almost all types, but I seem to be, unfortunately, tone deaf.
AlexG
QUOTE
importance between relative motion and single-object motion relative to the universe

There is no absolute frame of reference. There is no motion relative to 'the universe'. "The Universe" is not a frame of reference.
Mekigal
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 15 2012, 04:38 AM)

There is no absolute frame of reference.  There is no motion relative to 'the universe'.  "The Universe" is not a frame of reference.

How about if there was multiverses ?
AlexG
Doesn't matter if there is one universe, or an infinite number. Any other universe is totally disconnected from ours.
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 15 2012, 04:38 AM)

There is no absolute frame of reference. There is no motion relative to 'the universe'. "The Universe" is not a frame of reference.

In this age of a dying democracy filled with naked emperors, you should learn to think for yourself instead of parroting what your mind is full of.

In fact, everything in the universe is moving within it, thus it is correct to say objects move relative to the universe. There is no absolute ref. frame, of course, but if you had slowed down in your reading, you may have noticed I said, essentially, that motion is RELATIVE to the universe.

Whether the universe is moving as a whole or is stationary, objects in it are all moving relatively to the whole of the universe. One does not need a reference point to accept that as fact.
AlexG
crank nonsense.
QESdunn
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 15 2012, 04:38 AM)

There is no absolute frame of reference. There is no motion relative to 'the universe'. "The Universe" is not a frame of reference.

@AlexG

I spent a bit of time trying to relate causality between extremes and came upon a system of relationships that can be potentially applied to particle physics based upon relativity in quantum entangled systems.

Your position of no absolute frame of reference is exactly where I came to be.

sonoran sundown
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 15 2012, 05:09 PM)
crank nonsense.

There, you see? When you have no decent rebuttal, no rational retort, you resort to hiding your embarassment behind unsubstantiated immature personal attacks.

Almost everyone can see your behavior as childish attempts to redirect focus on anything other than the fact you have nothing substantial to offer to the discussion.
AlexG
QUOTE
When you have no decent rebuttal, no rational retort, you resort to hiding your embarassment behind unsubstantiated immature personal attacks.

When you post crank nonsense, which is most of what you post, I call it that. I see no reason to try to rebut bullshit.
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (QESdunn+Jul 15 2012, 05:09 PM)
@AlexG

I spent a bit of time trying to relate causality between extremes and came upon a system of relationships that can be potentially applied to particle physics based upon relativity in quantum entangled systems.

Your position of no absolute frame of reference is exactly where I came to be.

Okay, fine, please cite your system or source or explain what brought you to your conclusion and how it relates to or otherwise overcomes my claim that it is proper to use a frame of reference for anything that is in it so long as the use does not constitute a comparison between an alleged "speed of the reference frame" and that of objects within it.

We cannot say, e.g., "The speed of the earth is higher (or lower) than the speed of the universe," or that, "Earth is located at this specific location with respect to the universe." Yet we can agree that the speed of an object can only be measured by comparing it to that of other objects within the universe.

We can also say that all discrete objects are in motion and susceptible to external forces which can affect their velocities. And we can accept the fact of motion itself, which is, in physics, "the act of moving." And we accepted that as a fact when we first agreed to Newton's 1st Law of Motion.

The statement that objects move within the universe does not translate into an act of using the universe as a frame of reference because it does not require such a frame for the statement to be a fact in and of itself.
Guest
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jul 15 2012, 10:10 PM)
Okay, fine, please cite your system or source or explain what brought you to your conclusion and how it relates to or otherwise overcomes my claim that it is proper to use a frame of reference for anything that is in it so long as the use does not constitute a comparison between an alleged "speed of the reference frame" and that of objects within it.

See qesdunn.pbworks.com as it is a live document that continues to evolve as articles and insights provide new relationships to consider.

An absolute position assumes a non-moving position with which to make reference.

Everything has some form of causal relationship and we refer to that set of causality as physics. Therefore the fundemental nature of the universe is in some way based upon "structured" causality.

If any one object in the universe is based in Relativity, then causally all of the Universe is causally related by Relativity.

Because Relativity precludes any absolute reference, absolute references in the Universe do not exist.

QESdunn
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jul 15 2012, 10:10 PM)
Okay, fine, please cite your system or source or explain what brought you to your conclusion and how it relates to or otherwise overcomes my claim that it is proper to use a frame of reference for anything that is in it so long as the use does not constitute a comparison between an alleged "speed of the reference frame" and that of objects within it.

Now the non-Relativistic perspective.

Again, see qesdunn.pbworks.com for reference to the following.

There are three types of causality: simple conditional, recursive, and evolutionary. Static relationships can be applied to simple conditional and recursive. Magnitude can be applied to evolutionary causality as the intensity of evolution takes place.

All causality is a foundation within the structure of physics; it is what makes physics predictable.

All causality is related by quantum step-events (versus analog). Therefore, an absolute interactive connection might be located, but it will not have a static importance relative to observable physics; observable physics floats (so to speak) upon these evolving systems and that is where relativity exists. The magnitude of evolutionary causality creates a system of superposition upon an underlying set of causalities.

What is being referenced as an absolute position changes as systems of causality supporting the entire universe evolve. Therefore, the Universe has no reference to an absolute position. Position has no absolute existence.

Relativity, string theory, gravity, MOG, CTMU... are all subsets of QESdunn, simply different observer constraints; i.e. perspectives.

QESdunn is predicated upon the existence of a fundemental causal event; an event that can be propagated. There is no significance as to how that event is created because as relativistic beings floating on a superposition of these events, we as yet have no way of detecting it. Differentiation and deduction of systems may yield insights, but as yet people are unwilling to consider physics to be Extreme Relativity.

I have intentionally left out critical relationships in QESdunn to prevent anyone from controlling time and space. Someone will discover them again someday, perhaps humans will better be ready to understand their responsibilities and related consequences in time for them to avert the next global extinction event. But the universe is a better place without humans who would abuse these tools. My interest is developing tools without the capability; for now.
sonoran sundown
QUOTE (QESdunn+Jul 18 2012, 09:58 PM)

What is being referenced as an absolute position changes as systems of causality supporting the entire universe evolve. Therefore, the Universe has no reference to an absolute position. Position has no absolute existence.

All well and good, I'm sure. But that has no relation to my statement of fact, which was:

"The statement that objects move within the universe does not translate into an act of using the universe as a frame of reference because it does not require such a frame for the statement to be a fact in and of itself."

The claim that I referred to "an absolute position" is patently false simply because "absolute position" by definition excludes objects in motion.
Anyone who relates the fact that objects move in the universe to mean that is using the universe as a reference frame obviously does not fully understand the concept of "frames of reference." Either that or s/he is not a good reader of English.

The fact that fish move in water does not necessarily make water the frame of reference. Instead, the frame is that of the fish moving in water, with no reference whatsoever to an absolute position. The fact that objects move within the universe does not suggest nor describes an absolute point of reference to the universe.
LaurieAG
A couple of years ago on another forum we worked out that it was not beyond the bounds of modern technology to place an observation point on a trajectory within the solar system that remained stationary relative to the rotation of our sun around the milky ways galactic center.

It probably wouldn't be that difficult to superglue a space telescope onto a space rock with an overlapping trajectory (with the Hubble flow) to find out eitherway. If there was any other movement in any observations made (after the earths rotation, earths solar orbit and the suns orbit around the milky ways galactic center were taken out) they would be relatively easy to identify and measure. You could probably nail it on your second test rock.

This frame is stationary with regards to the highest level flow of all the objects within our observable universe within the limits of our current equipment.

It's about as close as you can get to an absolute frame of reference that can be experimentally verified.
MDT
The one tangible variable of science, which comes closest to the philosophical concept of time, is entropy. Time only moves forward, while the entropy of the universe moves forward and needs to increase.

Since entropy is a form of free energy, for entropy to increase it needs to absorb energy. Once energy is absorbed into entropy, the energy is no longer available for work. When time has lapsed energy is gone. Once all the energy of the universe is absorbed into entropy, there will be no energy left for work or further changes of state, therefore time will stop.

Relative to special relativity as time slows due to velocity near the speed of light, the rate of entropy increase will slow. This can be proven by starting with two identical machines with an inefficiency Y. This inefficiency Y which tells us how fast the machines will increase entropy. If we place these machines in two different references (fast and slow references) since time is slower in the faster reference, the rate of machine entropy output will slow relative to the slower reference; viewed side by side.

As the universe expands and th euniversal space-time reference expands the rate of entropy increase, will accelerate, and time will speed up. The available energy of the universe is used up quicker.

Say we had a piece of fresh fish. It will not take long to spoil and decompose at room temperature. If we freeze a similar piece of fresh fish, we can increase its time or self duration before it rots. The lower temperature reduces the heat/energy that is available for entropy, thereby slowing entropy and increasing its freshness in time. Entropy can explain time preservation of life systems and is not restricted to inanimate physical systems like rocks.

Speaking of rocks, rocks and crystals like diamonds last so long (diamonds are forever) because the crystal structure is not conducive to entropy. The entropy is very slow and life expectancy of the diamond is very long.
QESdunn
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jul 27 2012, 04:50 PM)
The claim that I referred to "an absolute position" is patently false simply because "absolute position" by definition excludes objects in motion.

The reference frame itself subtends itself as an absolute position. Absolute position in any form does not exist in a universe based in relativity.

The frame itself is part of an evolving continuum that is dependent upon all observable (and many non-visible) relationships. The point in space itself is evolving in many dimensional spaces.

The space/time and Higgs Field/Higgs Boson continuum are evolving unrelated to time, and therefore by chosing any frame of reference regarding space, whether moving or not, the related observable physics are never static. And we have yet to develop any capacity to provide absolute repeatability.

All of observable physics related to measurability is an approximation within constraints.

No observable set of constraints is ever static relative to itself or any other observable constraint; this includes position, velocity, acceleration, gravity, entropy, flux... Systems of relationships in any frame of reference only appear to be static on a macro scale.

Look at any HE particle physics experiment; the particle trails always have great variability, even though great care is provided to eliminate variability.
QESdunn
QUOTE (sonoran sundown+Jul 27 2012, 04:50 PM)
All well and good, I'm sure.  But that has no relation to my statement of fact, which was:

"The statement that objects move within the universe does not translate into an act of using the universe as a frame of reference because it does not require such a frame for the statement to be a fact in and of itself."

The claim that I referred to "an absolute position" is patently false simply because "absolute position" by definition excludes objects in motion.
Anyone who relates the fact that objects move in the universe to mean that is using the universe as a reference frame obviously does not fully understand the concept of "frames of reference."  Either that or s/he is not a good reader of English.

The fact that fish move in water does not necessarily make water the frame of reference.  Instead, the frame is that of the fish moving in water, with no reference whatsoever to an absolute position.  The fact that objects move within the universe does not suggest nor describes an absolute point of reference to the universe.

I was originally responding to the comment of @AlexG regarding Absolute Position.

[QUOTE (AlexG @ Jul 15 2012, 04:38 AM): "There is no absolute frame of reference. There is no motion relative to 'the universe'. "The Universe" is not a frame of reference."]

But in regard to your assertions, motion can not exist without a reference to something that has a causal connectedness. Nothingness does not exist in our observable universe. So to imply motion necessitates a reference. Even if that reference is relative to itself.

To travel instantaneously only means to travel "without reference to".

Velocity = meters/sec = k * vector space / time

So to travel instantaneously only means that a velocity occurs without reference to space, or without reference to time, or without reference to both space and time.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.