SRT and the use of relative zero?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, Aug 18, 2012.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    My main concern, at the moment with understanding SRT is:

    When working with Lorentz transforms or any mathematical work for that matter, what zero [if zero is relative] are you using to provide the transform or your math work stability?
    You will find, that even "zero" can not be used as a universal reference frame according to SRT. [as proved by the use of the relativity of simultaneity]
    It appears that the end result of relative time defeats itself due to the fact that if true, the "zero" that is used to logically prove relative time is uhmmm.. well relative..

    When performing any mathematics absolute zero is implied. With out the constancy of zero the math looses stability and utility.
    SRT indicates that t=0 or even t/d=0 is relative so it begs the question:

    What zero are you using when calculating the transforms, the one you started with or the one you finished with or the one somewhere in between?
    If zero is assumed to be absolutely constant yet derives a relative zero as a result does this not strike you as being a possibe issue?
    Zero can not be a universal reference frame....if SRT is accepted to be logically consistant [which is a pardoxical statement because it takes the constancy of zero to make any mathematical logic consistant]

    As I can't discuss this issue in the language required [ unqualified layperson ] it will be very interesting to read how others discuss it.

    care to discuss?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    I have read before from professors that they don't beleive that Einsteins relativity is the final theory. That in a way Einsteins relativity could be as far from the truth as Newtons theories of gravity are from Einsteins. Then it raises the question if someone will ever advance Einsteins theories in the same way he did to Newtons? I think a lot of this comes from relativity being unable to explain dark matter, dark energy and black holes. And, that a more accurate theory would then be able to describe these dark things.

    So then where does this zero come from? It comes from an object traveling the speed of light. So then it raises the question, does an object traveling the speed of light actually observe zero? Is it possible that the speed that a photon travels is different than the value that spacetime contracts as an object approuches the speed of light? The speed of light could remain constant if there was in a sense two c's. Photons would only have to travel slightley less than the spacetime contraction of c in order to avoid zero. All it would mean is that a photon doesn't actually travel at the most extreme upper value of velocity. But, then I think there is a way that everything or a photon can travel at this upper value, and that is when you assume that it is traveling in the direction of these higher curled up dimensions in string theory. These dimensions are so small that they are practically contracted to zero in dimensions, and could explain why we can't observe them, we are just traveling too fast in that direction. Then it would mean that we observe the four dimensions of spacetime because we are not traveling the speed of light in those directions. But even so, these curled up dimensions are not equal to zero, they could act more like a unit circle that allows for quantization or responsible for the wavelike structure of particles.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    'Zero' is not a reference frame, so you are showing you don't know what a reference frame is. Furthermore zero is zero is zero. I've previously told you the definition of zero, obviously you didn't understand and you've taken no time to find out. There isn't some fundamental problem with relativity or zero here, the problem is you don't understand and you aren't willing to find out.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    how so?
    Certainly you would have to agree that zero is a point of reference for all mathematics... so why would it not qualify as a frame of reference?

    eg. for object X to equal object Y the diference between the two objects MUST be zero. So zero is always being used as an essential point of reference for any equation or formula with an = sign in it.
    For example: An observer moving with his platform is an inertial frame. When the relative velocity between observer and platform is zero.

    If so then zero is indeed the reference frame.... for the inertial frame of reference. Unless of course as you have stated I am missing something....

    My contention then could be summed up as:
    Zero is not only the reference frame but THE universal reference frame [You know.. the one we never usually need to talk about]
    any way, hopefully I have clarified my concerns... and repeat what I posted in the OP:
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Quantum Quack:

    You have been told that zero is a number, not a reference frame.

    When you clearly do not understand the concept of a reference frame, you could ask questions to learn about what such a thing is. Instead, you insist that you are correct and that zero really is a reference frame.

    This seems to me to be the approach of a crank.
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    James, the questions raised in this thread are intended to extend the notion of universal frame of refererence.

    Zero is much more that a mere number. It has the value of being a non-variable, non-value. Show me an inertial frame that can exist with out it either in use or implied. In fact show me any math that can funtion with out it's non-value implied or utilised.

    In the past absolute space according to Newton I think, was effectively t=0 , or absolute time. This is replaced with relative time so space is no longer absolute and the zero in the notation t=0 is now relative.

    If this is the case then on what basis do you maintain integrity of any equation as zero is now always relative and thus a variable?

    The only way this can be solved to satisfy SRT is to apply absolute zero prior to doing the transitions to derive the relative zero required.

    But as SRT requires there is no absolute zero to begin with... and that is the inconstancy I feel that may exist.

    Now I may be misguided and terriby incorrect but I do not accept the mark of a crank.

    It is often stated that SRT can not utilise a universal frame of reference, and unfortunately the use of zero is used universally as an anchor point or a pivotal point or a grounding point for all equations.

    If one wishes to extend the notion of a reference frame does zero not qualify?
    Is zero a variable or a fixed value?
    And why do you consider the raising a legitimate question the mark of a crank?

    Of course standard thought on the subject is as you say, however I wish to extend beyond the standard and question that standard as to it's integrity and value.

    Is this the mark of a crank?

    Zero is not just a number in the physical world. It is the qualifier of equality or not between "things" and if it is treated as a variable then what does that say for those equalities derived?
    For zero to be true it must equal zero, 0=0, no matter where it is used.
    That qualifier is used universally as an absolute point of reference except in SRT. Which requires that the zero that is derived between two relative frames after the transitonal, be a relative variable.
    and this is what I woud like to if possible see some discussion about by those who may have a vested interest in SRT maintaining consistancy.
    sheesh! even the invariance of the speed of light is reliant on an absolute zero tell me where does it end...?

    I do not believe for a minute that this topic will in any way compromise SRTs practical utility.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Quantum Quack:

    Then don't you think it might be a good idea for you to start by finding out what a frame of reference is?

    Apparently not. Let me be clear, though, and say that everything after this first sentence of yours is rubbish precisely because you didn't bother finding out what you are talking about before you started talking about it.

    Not really. It's just a number.

    17 is a non-variable. All numbers are non-variables. And zero has a value, so it is not a non-value.

    A reference frame has nothing to do with numbers.



    [Are you wondering what a reference frame is yet?]

    Zero is not relative, any more than 17 or \(\pi\) is relative.

    There's no problem with relativity here, and "absolute zero" is not something that is ever "applied" to relativity or required by it.

    "Absolute zero" is not part of the theory of relativity. It has no requirements regarding "absolute zero", whatever that is.

    What makes you a crank in this instance is that you haven't bothered to find out what you're talking about before trying to innovate.

    Where is this stated often? Please link me to one place where this is stated (other than by you).

    Zero is a number. A reference frame is not a number.

    If one wishes to extend the notion of a duck, do the Spice Girls not qualify?

    Fixed - at zero!

    I don't.

    No. The mark of a crank, in this instance, is expounding on something when you don't understand it. You obviously don't understand zero and you don't understand reference frames, so what on Earth makes you think you're going to make any kind of useful contribution on either subject?

    Yes it is.

    I have no idea what you mean by this. I repeat: zero is not a variable. It cannot be treated as such, any more than 17 can be treated as a variable.

    Yes, and 17 must equal 17, and a duck must be a duck. Deep, man!
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Now that's a can of worms that is. the value of 'c' is absolutely dependant on zero being absolute. Invariance would be impossible if zero where not absolute...
    The relativity of simultaneity requires that for observer "A" t=0 CAN NOT equal the t=0 for relative v observer "B" [ thus called relative time ]
    am I correct?

    Absolute rest:
    and zero in physics is a symbol or value that corresponds with "nothing""nil"
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    That's your only response? Or did you post when I was posting?
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    posted while you were posting and yes it is my response at the moment..
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No. "c", the speed of light, can have any value you like. It just depends on your choice of units. For example, c has a different numerical value when expressed in miles per hour compared to its value in metres per second or light years per year.

    Invariance of what?

    No. That is 100% wrong.

    Well, the symbol "0" can have different meanings according to context. But, a lot of the time, we just use it to mean the number zero.
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    No I beg to differ.
    the value of c whether it be in different choice of units is always supposed to be equal.
    whether miles per hour or kilometers per sec. etc ... hey you know this so why?
    the other more important point that you may be overlooking is that the value of any number > 0 relates to zero as being greater than zero.
    the speed of light is approximately 299 792 458 ms [faster than zero ms]
    with out the zero implied, the number 299 792 458 means nothing and is meaningless.
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    You have no idea what mathematicians do or don't do. You obviously don't know what a reference frame is, so you don't know what people doing relativity say or think or do. You don't know what zero is, so you don't not elementary mathematics. Asking "Is the zero you end with the same as you started with" shows similarly remedial level mathematics is beyond you. These are things you could correct simply by looking up definitions, which illustrates how little effort you put into expanding your horizons.

    Saying "An accountant knows zero is much more than a number" shows how completely nonsensical your thoughts are. Zero is a concept, a mathematically formalised one. Attaching that concept to other concepts like debt, ie an accountant might talk about 'zero debt' doesn't mean the concept of zero is so much more but rather you can combine it with other concepts. Seeing as you are unable to grasp the concept of zero or equals or reference frame you're hardly in a position to be telling those of us who do grasp such concepts their nature.

    Maybe one day you'll realise that just because you don't grasp something that doesn't mean there's a problem anywhere other than between your ears.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    One of the problems with this thread is that you're confusing the numerical values of things with the physical things they refer to.

    The numerical value of c depends on your choice of units, as I said. That doesn't mean that the speed of light isn't constant in all inertial reference frames, though. To summarise: the value of c (numerical value) varies. The speed of light in inertial reference frames does not vary.

    I think we can agree that we need a system for counting before we can use numbers in a meaningful way. But I thought you were trying to say something more profound in this thread than that.

    Do you have no response to my lengthy reply to you, above? Only one-liners?

    I have deleted nothing, so I don't know what you're talking about.
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    actualy I was refering to what I learned in an advanced diploma of accounting course years ago... to the trial balance, where zero was the ambition.. or goal...
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    oh..but it is profound if the relativity of zero is in question... very profound...
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    @ Alphanumeric,
    Is t=0 a variable or not according to SRT?
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    It's not in question. I pointed that out clearly in post #7, which you still haven't replied to.
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    ..uhm... just matching the one liners you gave...

    seriously... most of it told me I had failed to express my concerns in a way that you could comprehend.
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    and I have refuted it... so?
    @jamesR &
    @ Alphanumeric,

    Is t=0 a variable or not according to SRT?
    seriously... this is not an easy question....

Share This Page