Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Any paradox is resolved by understanding that there exists a universal reference frame against which everything in the universe is compared. The clock in the traveling ship is the one running slow, not compared to the stationary clock, but to the fabric of the universe itself.

Actually relativity states that such a universal frame of reference does not exist.

[Ampersand]

What I was suggesting towards is Spacetime.

[Neruz]

You've lost me.

[Ampersand]

Space and time are not separate entities. You must think of spacetime as a four dimensional coordinate system. What I ways saying is that objects in motion must be compared to this coordinate system. An object is at rest if it is only moving along the time axis. An object is moving if it is moving on the time axis and any other axis.

This is further complicated if you understand that spacetime itself can warp and flex.

[Neruz]

I'm failing to see how four dimensional physics has anything to do with a universal frame of reference.

You also appear to have casually redefined what 'moving' means.

[Ampersand]

Coordinate systems ARE frames of reference.

Spacetime, that thing in which the whole universe exists, can be defined as a Coordinate system.

What relativity says is not that there isn't a universal frame of reference, but that there is is not a universal -time- reference. Time flows differently in different gravitational fields and different velocities. This can be described as coordinate transformation in a four dimensional coordinate system.

[Neruz]

Uh, coordinate systems are mathematical constructs and are not neccessarily connected to motion of any kind. When using the term 'frame of reference' in this context, we refer to Observational Frames of Reference, a coordinate system is of little use when determining frames of reference in relation to relativistic speeds.
You also appear to have not been told that there are most probably far more than 4 dimensions, or have a very strange definition of 'universe'.

None of which escapes the point that in order to have a universal frame of reference you have to break one of the fundamental foundations of Special relativity.

[Ampersand]

I'm trying to make this as simple as possible for the lay person.

If you really, really want me to start describing Calabi–Yau manifolds just to demonstrate that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, I will.

[Neruz]

Well considering you appear to be trying to blatantly violate one of the foundations of Special relativity, yes, i would like some proof that you actually know what you're talking about.

[Il Palazzo]

You got it wrong, Ampersand. Number of dimensions is but one property of any chosen coordinate system, which in turn is what you use to define distance in any given frame of reference. Ergo, Spacetime is not a frame of reference, nor is it a coordinate system, just like three or two-dimensional space isn't.

[Ampersand]

You're talking about observational frames of reference, and I am not. I'm talking about how to describe these kinds of behaviors, specifically time dilation, by translating the effect via a coordinate system. I don't know why you brought in higher dimensions into this, as they are utterly inconsequential to anything related to special relativity.

When I'm talking about these four key dimensions, I'm talking about Time, at dimension 0, as it has only one direction, and three dimensions of space that describe locations throughout the universe. What special relativity does is explain why and how this coordinate system is wrapped and bent. When I say universal frame of reference, I mean spacetime, I mean this coordinate system.

What I am not saying is that these objects can determine anything outside of their frames of reference. What I am saying is that is is possible in an abstract way to explain these phenomea in relation to spacetime as a four dimensional coordinate system.

[Neruz]

Hm, does that make any sense to you Palazzo?

[DreamThorn]

@Ampersand

What "there is no universal frame of reference" means, is that there is no such thing as standing still, i.e. there is no such as thing as "moving only in time".

What is time in one frame of reference would be a combination of space and time in another frame of reference, unless the two frames of reference are stationary relative to each other.

Maybe you should read up on Lorentz transformations for more clarity on what I am saying above.

There is no one special space-time.

[Neruz]

Oh, now i see what Ampersand was trying to say. Thanks DreamThorn, i've been all confused for the last ten minutes XD

[Sean Mirrsen]

I'm of the opinion that it is possible to be standing still. What is nigh impossible, however, it detecting it.

I don't know what SR says of the origin of the universe, but let's take that big blast thing that's so popular. Everything and anything in the universe is moving relative to the center of mass of whatever was the "thing" that created the blast. But that could itself be moving. Since even ambient energy would be moving relative to that, as space has no friction, it wouldn't be possible to check if you were moving in space or not. So, for all practical purposes regarding absolute calculations, there is no absolute frame of reference. However, for all calculations pertaining to matter and the universe, the center of the universe can be used as an ultimate frame of reference.

Of course, finding the center will be difficult if the universe wasn't created with a big blast. If the universe continues the spherical/spiral design tendency visible from atoms to galaxies though, it might be even easier.