Time Explained

[swansont]

I know it isn't how it is defined by science, I was just saying that you could define it that way. If all three parts are constant for the situation you could use any two to define the third.

 

My point was that seconds and metres can be defined by alternate methods where the value of the speed of light is reliant on the value previously defined for the other two.

 

Yes, you can define any two and derive the third. (It used to be that the meter and the second were defined, and c was measured) But that's not a circular definition for the third.

 

The change was made because realizing the meter based on the defined c and second could be done more precisely than the method of defining it with the platinum-iridium bar.

[Farsight]

But, Farsight, that is not the actual definition of time. So way on earth are you calling it a definition of time. It is not a definition of time.

 

You define time, Ed.

 

Again, you have failed to explain what your proposal about time means it is not like space.

 

Groan. Motion is through space. That's what it is. Time is a measure of that motion compared to other motion. You have freedom of movement through space. You don't have freedom of movement through time because time is a measure of motion through space. That's why time isn't like space.

 

Yes, but what if the clocks were to pass through that same location in space, but at 13:49pm local time...

 

Local time. At the same location. From their frame of reference. Ed, this sums up everything that's wrong with your wrong concept of time. And you just won't look at it. How can one actual objective definitive collision location in "spacetime" possibly have two different times? Now you think carefully about this and your time-travelling clocks.

[Edtharan]

You define time, Ed.

Although whether or not I define time makes no difference to this discussion.

 

What is important is that if you are going to argue against a definition of time, you should argue against a definition of time.

 

Groan. Motion is through space. That's what it is. Time is a measure of that motion compared to other motion. You have freedom of movement through space. You don't have freedom of movement through time because time is a measure of motion through space. That's why time isn't like space.

Look, all this is is just restating you initial proposal, it is not explaining what it is that makes you proposal true.

 

Why does motion through space necessitate time not being a dimension? Why can't you have motion through space and yet still have time as a dimension? Why does lack of freedom of movement through time mean it can't be a dimension (and yes I do know that you state that it isn't because of motion through space - but you never explain your reasoning behind that claim)?

 

You make these statement, but you never explore the negative, you never disprove the opposite of your claims and never provide a reason why your claim must be true and other claims can not. Just stating and restating your initial claims does not make them any more true or provide any explanation pr show your reasoning.

 

This is the last time I am going to ask for these answers. If you can not provide these then the only conclusions I can make about your reasoning is that you came up with this by guessing or picking something that sounded good without any thought what so ever. If you did arrive at your conclusions through rational though, then please provide how you did this.

 

Local time. At the same location. From their frame of reference. Ed, this sums up everything that's wrong with your wrong concept of time. And you just won't look at it. How can one actual objective definitive collision location in "spacetime" possibly have two different times? Now you think carefully about this and your time-travelling clocks.

I don't understand this paragraph.

 

First you have previously stated that the local times on the clocks can be different, but then you say that they can't be different. Am I missing something here?

 

The only way I can seem to make sense of what you are saying is that if a 3rd observer is present that give the two clocks a fixed reference point in which to compare their relative space-time positions with.

 

What if there is no 3rd observer? What then dictates the "Now" that is absolute? What if you also have a 4th observer but is in a different frame of reference than the 3rd? What if the 3rd observe4r changes their frame of reference by accelerating? What then can be used as the reference to an absolute Now?

 

'm not saying that, see above. The two clocks have experienced different amounts of time. But neither travelled through time. They set off, they travelled through space, they came back, and they collided. All the clock faces ever did was count the number of times the light bounced back and forth. You'll find the same sort of thing in the wikipedia article on time dilation.

Relativity states that in all frames of reference Light will be measured to have the same velocity.

 

Therefore an observer travelling with the light+mirror arrangement will see light travelling at C. An observer that this clock moves past will also observe the light bouncing between the mirrors at the velocity of C.

 

Yet, the observer travelling with the clock will see the light take a longer route. This means that that moving observer will count less bounces than the stationary observer.

 

But these are the same object. Not a different one. How can two observers observing the same object and see it behave in two contradictory ways at the same time?

 

Using what is presented in your essay could you explain this.

[Farsight]

Although whether or not I define time makes no difference to this discussion. What is important is that if you are going to argue against a definition of time, you should argue against a definition of time.

 

It makes every difference. You're arguing to defend something you can't define. Yet rejecting my explanation.

 

Why does motion through space necessitate time not being a dimension? Why can't you have motion through space and yet still have time as a dimension? Why does lack of freedom of movement through time mean it can't be a dimension?

 

Time is a dimension in that it is a measure, of events and motion using other events and motion. You confuse this type of dimension with the type of dimension that offers freedom of movement. The two are not the same. You can measure anything. That doesn't make it the sort of dimension you insist that time is.

 

You make these statement, but you never explore the negative, you never disprove the opposite of your claims and never provide a reason why your claim must be true and other claims can not. Just stating and restating your initial claims does not make them any more true or provide any explanation or show your reasoning.

 

I've explained myelf umpteen times and have demonstrated great patience. To say I never do this or that and don't show my reasoning, is dishonest.

 

This is the last time I am going to ask for these answers. If you can not provide these then the only conclusions I can make about your reasoning is that you came up with this by guessing or picking something that sounded good without any thought what so ever. If you did arrive at your conclusions through rational though, then please provide how you did this.

 

What questions?

 

Local time. At the same location. From their frame of reference. Ed, this sums up everything that's wrong with your wrong concept of time. And you just won't look at it. How can one actual objective definitive collision location in "spacetime" possibly have two different times? Now you think carefully about this and your time-travelling clocks.

 

I don't understand this paragraph. First you have previously stated that the local times on the clocks can be different, but then you say that they can't be different. Am I missing something here?

 

You bet you are. What does local mean? It means local to a place. There can only be one local time in a place, not two. That's why the colliding clocks is so important.

 

The only way I can seem to make sense of what you are saying is that if a 3rd observer is present that give the two clocks a fixed reference point in which to compare their relative space-time positions with.

 

No. They collide. At the same place. At the same time, regardless of whatever their faces say.

 

What if there is no 3rd observer? What then dictates the "Now" that is absolute? What if you also have a 4th observer but is in a different frame of reference than the 3rd? What if the 3rd observer changes their frame of reference by accelerating? What then can be used as the reference to an absolute Now?

 

The light path length.

 

Relativity states that in all frames of reference Light will be measured to have the same velocity. Therefore an observer travelling with the light+mirror arrangement will see light travelling at C. An observer that this clock moves past will also observe the light bouncing between the mirrors at the velocity of C. Yet, the observer travelling with the clock will see the light take a longer route. This means that that moving observer will count less bounces than the stationary observer. But these are the same object. Not a different one. How can two observers observing the same object and see it behave in two contradictory ways at the same time? Using what is presented in your essay could you explain this.

 

At the same time is your problem. The observers experience time differently. The observer with the light+mirror sees the light like this |. Remember you don't know if it's him moving. Let's say there are six beats here, which I can spread out to show them like this |||||. The other guy sees the light like this /\/\/. He sees only five beats because his time experience is dilated, but the path length is the same as far as he's concerned. Look up the twins paradox on wikipedia.

[jck]

Farsight,

 

Only just arrived so hello to everyone.

 

My solution to the theory of everything is logic based with certainty by default. At no point did time become a consideration, movement certainly but without human intervention time did not enter into the reality of the universe or anything else.

 

Time is known to be a concept yet for most it represents conceptual physics which somehow brings the concept to life.

 

I have found no value for anyone taking opposing views on this matter and arguing which is correct.

 

john

jck

[Edtharan]

It makes every difference. You're arguing to defend something you can't define. Yet rejecting my explanation.

No. If something is wrong, you don't need an alternate explanation to show it is wrong.

 

You have presented your ideas and you have to demonstrate them. You have the burden of proof.

 

Time is a dimension in that it is a measure, of events and motion using other events and motion. You confuse this type of dimension with the type of dimension that offers freedom of movement. The two are not the same.

This still doesn't answer the question. It does not explain how your position leads to you conclusions. It just restates that this is what you say happens. There is no explanation here.

 

Why is time: "a dimension in that it is a measure, of events and motion using other events and motion."

 

Why are is a dimension that we have no freedom of movement in "not the same"

 

You can measure anything. That doesn't make it the sort of dimension you insist that time is.

This I agree with, but you end your "explanation" there. You don't go on to explain why this makes time not a dimension like space. As you have not adequately explained, how does the lack of freedom of movement result in time not being a dimension like space.

 

Time, unlike all the other "measurement only" dimensions has reall physical effects in the environment, and the environment has real physical effects on time. It is by these alone that separate Time as being different from just a measured dimension. This means that if (according to you) time is not a physical dimension and it is not a measurement only dimension, what is it?

 

This would make Time a unique dimension that does not belong to any other dimension classification. It make it a special case. It needs its own laws and rules to govern it.

 

But, Farsight, if Time is a physical dimension all these problems are solved. You have never explained why Time should be a non-physical dimension. You have stated that you think it is and that it should be, but never supplied the reasons. You have never given an explanation that addresses this problem of it also being different from all other non-physical dimensions.

 

Interestingly enough, Space has the same differences as Time does to the non-physical dimensions (such as temperature, etc - that is it is effected by and can effect the environment).

 

I've explained myelf umpteen times and have demonstrated great patience. To say I never do this or that and don't show my reasoning, is dishonest.

Repeating you initial claims are not explanations, sorry. To call them such is dishonest.

 

If I keep saying that "The sky is blue" as an explanation as to why the sky is blue, this is not an explanation. You have to do better than that.

 

What questions?

Here is a big hint: Look for the question marks.

 

Sometimes a phrase the question as a though experiment to test your assumptions.

 

And sometimes I present them as a specific situation so as you can explain how your concepts can explain the out comes of that situation.

 

They are all quite obvious.

 

Local time. At the same location. From their frame of reference. Ed, this sums up everything that's wrong with your wrong concept of time. And you just won't look at it. How can one actual objective definitive collision location in "spacetime" possibly have two different times? Now you think carefully about this and your time-travelling clocks.

I do look at it, but I can't see anything.

 

Local time, at the same Location, from their frame of reference. Well from the clocks frame of reference their nows are always different as they have different "slopes". At the point of impact (same location same reference frame) then, relative to each other, the clocks occupy the same space-time coordinates (a collision). What is the problem?

 

This does not highlight a problem with current thinking of time, Why are you using it to state that there is? I just don't "get" why you think it is a problem.

 

You bet you are. What does local mean? It means local to a place. There can only be one local time in a place, not two. That's why the colliding clocks is so important.

no, for time to be local to a place, there has to be an absolute reference to measure the "place" from. So, Time can not be Local to a Place. It can, however, be Local to an Object.

 

This is what "Local Time" means. All Local Times are relative to each other. All Locations are relative to each other. This is relativity.

 

Each clock has it's own Time. The point of collision does not have it's own "Time" unless there is an observer there to provide something to measure against. This is why your example needs that 3rd observer as you are measuring a time relative to it.

 

You use that observer to mark your absolute "now", but if that observer changes their frame of reference, you reference point for your absolute "Now" also changes, changing what "now" is, it no longer is absolute.

 

No. They collide. At the same place. At the same time, regardless of whatever their faces say.

Yes they occupy the same space-time coordinates. I am not denying the fact that they can collide, just your insistence that this disproves the current thinking about time.

 

For the clocks to collide at the same time regardless of what their own experience of time, requires an absolute time. Otherwise "at the same time" makes no sense.

 

Relativity states they collide, but not at the same time (relative to each other). But if you add in a 3rd observer, then they collide "at the same time" relative to this 3rd observer. This 3rd observer, according to relativity, is the only way you can have "at the same time".

 

You add in this 3rd observer, but then don't mention it (is this dishonesty, or just ignorance). You also don't take into account the frame of reference of this necessary 3rd observer and use it as an absolute.

 

This 3rd observer must be an object, and according to relativity is subject to all the conditions of it. It must determine its time and position relative to other objects. So this 3rd observer can not be used as an absolute reference as it is itself relative to others.

 

The light path length.

How?

 

Yet another example of a statement without an explanation.

 

At the same time is your problem.

As you stated above, this is a result of your reasoning, not mine. So it is not my problem, it is in fact yours.

 

I state that they collide "at different times" relative to each other. It is only by adding in a 3rd observer that "at the same time" makes any sense.

 

Without an absolute frame of reference (that is: absolute time -which you have previously stated does not exist), how do you reconcile "at the same time" with out a 3rd observer (frame of reference)?

 

The observer with the light+mirror sees the light like this |. Remember you don't know if it's him moving. Let's say there are six beats here, which I can spread out to show them like this |||||. The other guy sees the light like this /\/\/. He sees only five beats because his time experience is dilated, but the path length is the same as far as he's concerned.

Ok, what if this was a time bomb. After 6 beats the bomb will explode, but with 5 beats it wont. So one observer sees the bomb explode and the other doen't. We one have an observer who according to the one is dead, but to the other he is alive. WTF?

 

This makes absolutely no sense. What are you talking about?

 

Look up the twins paradox on wikipedia.

Now I see, you haven't actually looked at why the Twins paradox actually occurs have you. The twins paradox only occurs if one of the observers accelerates. In the above example there was no acceleration so it wouldn't unfold like your say. This was exactly the same error that you included in your Nail/Cylinder though experiment in your original essay.

 

You were wrong then and you are wrong now. This is because you are using the wrong frame of reference to resolve the situation.

 

The observer under acceleration has a fundamentally different and detectable experience than the observer who remains at rest. It is a similar situation as what occurs under gravity.

 

An observer in a gravitational field is different to one not in a gravitational field (or at least a negligible one).

 

This difference caused by acceleration is what causes the twin paradox. If the same situation is carried out and acceleration is ignored, then, as the twins move apart each sees the other twins time slowed down. As the move together again they see the other twins time sped up. The speed up and speed down will match.

 

Under acceleration the twin that accelerates will experience further slowing down of his time that is not matched by the other twin. This is what causes the differences in their times.

 

If we did this experiment again, but eliminate motion, then we can just use a gravitational field instead. This gravitational filed slows down the time of the twin within it and causes a difference in their times.

 

Now that I know this is your big mistake, I can now see why you have reached the conclusions of an absolute Now. You didn't see why, if you just moves someone away form you and then back that you would have different times as they would both experience a time dilation and contraction that would cancel each other out.

 

In this you are right. Just moving them away and back does not cause different times it is the acceleration that causes it. In none of your examples you presented where you though this was a problem did you take into account that one of the observers undergoes acceleration. It is this acceleration that causes the different experiences of the observers and is the source of there being different frames of reference.

 

You have been working under the assumption of only two possible frames of reference: Stationary and moving. But there is a third: Accelerating.

[jck]

Anything that exists is energy based and anything that is not energy is a concept. Time is a concept which gives conceptual views of what does exist so it is very simple to confuse the logic.

 

Duration of movement is either the same or different, if different then it is the duration that is different. While the concept of time can appear different during the same duration the duration cannot be different as the duration is absolute.

 

A bomb cannot explode like an action replay, it is absolute in the duration it explodes. Once a bomb explodes once there is no bomb for it to explode a second time.

 

As far as the twins paradox is concerned the only way the twin in space would be younger is if the cells in the body aged more slowly and all the evidence points to space travel having an adverse affect on human cells.

 

Therefore the atomic clocks showing one billionth of a second difference has timed the duration differently but as with the bomb scenario the duration is absolute.

 

It is funny that people are more than happy to accept the views of multi observers when it agrees with what they think but are not happy at all to accept the views of anyone who does not agree with what they think.

 

Even when everyone agrees it is hardly cause for celebration given the record for complete agreement over the decades is it?

 

 

john

jck

[Farsight]

Edtharan:

 

Why is a dimension that we have no freedom of movement in "not the same"

 

It's not the same because it's different. It's different because you can move in one and not the other. Because one is a measure of the movement you can do in the other. You say you can't see what's wrong with:

 

Local time. At the same location.

 

Look at the words. You're got local and location. You're talking about two different local times at the same local place. Your blindness to this is a reflection of the doggedness of your "time is a length" axiom.

 

The point of collision does not have it's own "Time" unless there is an observer there

 

This is saying time is subjective, which is agreeing with me. But still you insist that time is some physical dimension.

 

This makes absolutely no sense. What are you talking about?

 

It makes perfect sense if you try to understand it. But you don't. And instead you dismiss it as nonsense. Not good.

 

Now I see, you haven't actually looked at why the Twins paradox actually occurs have you. The twins paradox only occurs if one of the observers accelerates...

 

LOL. The twins paradox is not caused by acceleration. Go and look it up properly. Einstein used this in a GR explanation in 1918, and he got it wrong too, as demonstrated by passing clocks. When you've looked it up you can apologise, and take back all your "you never explain" and other accusations.

 

No, in fact don't bother Edtharan. You're like some junior religious acolyte clinging to a flat earth faith. You don't understand, you don't try to understand, and instead you pretend that I don't explain. You throw in straw man arguments, you say I said things I didn't, you say you've proved something you haven't or I've ignored something I didn't, and you trumpet imagined victories. My patience is at an end. I'm not wasting any more time on you. Remember this for when you're older and wiser.

[swansont]

As far as the twins paradox is concerned the only way the twin in space would be younger is if the cells in the body aged more slowly and all the evidence points to space travel having an adverse affect on human cells.

 

You are mixing multiple causes with multiple effects here. Many things related to space travel can have an adverse effect on cells, and do not have to be related to relativity.

 

It is funny that people are more than happy to accept the views of multi observers when it agrees with what they think but are not happy at all to accept the views of anyone who does not agree with what they think.

 

Happy doesn't really enter into it, and neither does opinion, i.e. viewpoint. It's about whether you can support your model with data, and have it predict things.

[Farsight]

Duration of movement is either the same or different, if different then it is the duration that is different. While the concept of time can appear different during the same duration the duration cannot be different as the duration is absolute.

There's something in that jck.

 

As far as the twins paradox is concerned the only way the twin in space would be younger is if the cells in the body aged more slowly and all the evidence points to space travel having an adverse affect on human cells.

 

No kidding, if you did move fast you really would experience less time. See time dilation on wikipedia.

 

It is funny that people are more than happy to accept the views of multi observers when it agrees with what they think but are not happy at all to accept the views of anyone who does not agree with what they think. Even when everyone agrees it is hardly cause for celebration given the record for complete agreement over the decades is it?

Noted. People can be extremely illogical at times. They can't see the difference between axiom and proof, and they kid themselves they're being rational when they're not. That's how brainwashing and religion works... and I hope you weren't talking about me!

[jck]

Swansont,

 

If you choose to have a viewpoint from more than one observed position then you create a seperate opinion from a single observed position.

 

As the multi observed theory uses only the multi observed findings to support itself then not suprisingly when those findings are compared to the single observed source they show the single observation out of context.

 

It is no concern of mine whether a person chooses to look into multi observed states and comes to the conclusion that is the state that exists using the findings from the multi states theory.

 

In fact everything relative to the observer actually is, should you accept that it is in the first place.

 

While most people are struggling to work out everything from one observed state it is nice that some have advanced to the multi state position and I wish them good luck.

 

john

jck

[jck]

Farsight,

 

I hardly talk about anyone in particular, my views were a generalisation and I leave it to the individual to decide if it applies to them.

 

Being new here there is no intention on my part to directly insist my views are any better than anyone elses. After spending time on the BBC science forums this place is a pleasant change.

 

I am impressed not only by the replies but the nature of the replies.

 

john

jck

[Edtharan]

It's not the same because it's different.

Again, an explanation that is not an explanation.

 

It's different because you can move in one and not the other.

Well I have never actually denied that you don't have freedom of movement in time. I have just said that there are other situation that you don't have freedom of movement in space. So yes they are different, but just being different does not equate with you being right.

 

You insistence on this conclusion (ie Time is different, therefore it is not a physical dimension) is not explained at all. Give us the reasoning that you followed to reach this conclusion. The fact that you keep skirting around it indicates that you haven't followed any reasoning here. If you have let us know so we can evaluate it.

 

Look at the words. You're got local and location. You're talking about two different local times at the same local place. Your blindness to this is a reflection of the doggedness of your "time is a length" axiom.

So I can't have 5:00pm Canberra and 5:30pm Canberra because they are 2 different times at the same location?

 

Or, I can't have a clock that, due to acceleration shows a different time to one that is only moving slowly so that the clock that is moving slowly passes through Canberra when it shows 5:00pm and then the other one passes through Canberra when it shows 5:00pm and not have them collide?

 

Is this what you are saying?

 

his is saying time is subjective, which is agreeing with me. But still you insist that time is some physical dimension.

How can time be subjective if you have an absolute frame of reference? This is what you are saying. Your absolute Now is an absolute frame of reference.

 

I have never claimed that I agree with time not being subjective.

 

Time is subjective. This is what I accept.

 

Space is subjective. It can be distorted (gravity). But yet you accept it as being a physical dimension. Space can be distorted in the same way (in fact the same formulas used to predict the distortion of space are used to predict the distortion of time) as Time can be distorted. Space is just as subjective as Time and you accept Space as being subjective at the same time being a physical dimension, so why can't time?

 

It makes perfect sense if you try to understand it. But you don't. And instead you dismiss it as nonsense. Not good.

When you say two contradictory things, I can't make any sense of what you mean.

 

First you say that one observer only sees 5 beats. But the other observer sees 6. This is a different number of beats. If it was a bomb one observer would see it go off and the other would never see it go off. These are 2 mutually contradictory results. You can not have this as it would be a true paradox.

 

They have performed experiments that resemble this and do not get mutually contradictory results, so your explanation must be wrong. If you conclusions do not match observation of reality, go back to the drawing board. That is the whole reason for performing experiments.

 

You don't seem to be taking into account all the effects of relativistic travel. Not only does the Time shrink, but so does distance. The two observers will actually see the light bounce the same number of times as one observer will see the distance between the mirrors as less than the other and so, even though they see less time, the distance travelled will be less and so the experiences match up.

 

If you dismiss time as a dimension, then you end up with paradoxes like this. If you only consider time and not space, then you also end up with these paradoxes. Only be treating time as a physical dimension do you eliminate the paradox. Time is needed as a physical dimension to avoid the paradoxes.

 

The twins paradox is not caused by acceleration. Go and look it up properly. Einstein used this in a GR explanation in 1918, and he got it wrong too, as demonstrated by passing clocks. When you've looked it up you can apologise, and take back all your "you never explain" and other accusations.

GR has 3 frames of reference. Stationary, Moving at a constant velocity and Accelerating.

 

Your example used acceleration, but only considered the moving at constant velocity and stationary frames of reference. You made a mistake, you left something out.

 

I have looked it up and I do apologise, I gave you too much credit. You don't seem to understand the difference between an accelerating frame of reference and a constant velocity.

 

So Einstein is just human. But the corrected calculations do show that accelerating is necessary to induce the twins paradox.

 

As you move away from light source, the wavelength of light is lowered. This is because relative to the light source you see it as having a slower time.

 

As you move towards a light source you will see a higher frequency of light, this is because relative to it you see it's time accelerated.

 

Because Light is a constant velocity regardless of your own frame of reference, this is what occurs.

 

So outgoing you see time slowed down and going back you see time sped up. The outgoing and incoming time dilations will be the same if you use the same speed (if you are at a different speed the dilations will be different, but you take more or less time to get there and this ends up balancing the equations).

 

So, with constant velocity, you experience no net time dilation compared to a stationary observer.

 

If you only consider the stationary and moving frames of reference you can not get the twins paradox. So why on Earth is there such talk about a twins paradox, there is no paradox to speak of. It would be the same if there was an absolute time or not.

 

But only by including acceleration can we get what is called the Twins Paradox (and it is not really a paradox, it just sounds like one).

 

Under acceleration you experience further time and space dilation. However when you slow down, this is also an acceleration so you experience even more time dilation. There is no cancel to this dilation as is with the constant velocity.

 

It is this "uncancelled" time dilation that causes the twins to have different times.

 

Acceleration is necessary or there would be no differences in their times (perceived or otherwise).

 

No, in fact don't bother Edtharan. You're like some junior religious acolyte clinging to a flat earth faith.

That is how you seem to me. I have presented scenarios where you assumptions do not produce results that match observed reality. But you still say that your assumptions lead to a more accurate description of reality.

 

When, in the face of the real world being different from what you think, who is the one clinging to an illusion?

 

You don't understand, you don't try to understand, and instead you pretend that I don't explain.

I have tried to understand, believe me I have tried. Between posts that directly contradict each other, insulting me and your self aggrandising, I have tried to understand.

 

You throw in straw man arguments

You have failed to actually show a straw man argument that I have posted. The only times you have stated I used straw man arguments they were references to something you said in one of your posts.

 

you say I said things I didn't

Yes, there was a lot of things I said that you didn't, and all of then were question about your essay or situations that I was trying to understand what the conclusions where that could be drawn from your essay.

 

I never put words in your mouth. When I said that something was required by your essay, this was backed up with reasoning and examples.

 

you say you've proved something you haven't or I've ignored something I didn't, and you trumpet imagined victories.

Please post them and I will reply. The ones that you posted about earlier I did re-explain the reasoning and you never disputed them then.

 

The imagined victories were not imagined, but due to the fact that observed reality is different from what you claimed. By that alone I stand. Show, if you can, that the observations are wrong.

 

My patience is at an end. I'm not wasting any more time on you. Remember this for when you're older and wiser.

Yet again you insult me. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

 

You have no idea of how old I am. For all you know I could be 70 years old. You try to use what you think is my age to bolster you arguments. How old are you?

 

I could be a professor of physics, a descendant of Einstein. You don't know (I an neither of these, but I could have been for all you knew)....

 

Remember this when you are older and wiser: It is not a good idea to make assumptions about people and then use them as insults. It does nothing for your credibility.

 

here is something you can do: Put all you claims into point form and we will discuss each of those points in turn. Between all the contradictions you have posted, I have lost track of what you actually believe you essay says about the universe.

[Farsight]

The twins paradox isn't as you describe Edtharan. You should remove the doppler effect, and then on both legs of the trip each twin considers the other twin's time to be running slower. It's | and /\/\/\ from both viewpoints.

 

Here's an excerpt from a later version of TIME EXPLAINED.

 

Special Relativity tells us that your relative velocity alters your measurement of space and time compared to everybody else. You increase your velocity and the space contracts and the time dilates by a factor of √(1-v2/c2). If you travel at .99c, space contracts to one seventh of its former size. So your trip to a star seven light years away only takes you a year. But physics is about the universe, and in that universe it took you seven years. The space in the universe didn’t contract forever because you travelled through it. But your time did.

 

I'm sorry I was rude. But I really think we should agree to differ on this.

[Edtharan]

Here's an excerpt from a later version of TIME EXPLAINED.

 

Special Relativity tells us that your relative velocity alters your measurement of space and time compared to everybody else. You increase your velocity and the space contracts and the time dilates by a factor of √(1-v2/c2). If you travel at .99c, space contracts to one seventh of its former size. So your trip to a star seven light years away only takes you a year. But physics is about the universe, and in that universe it took you seven years. The space in the universe didn’t contract forever because you travelled through it. But your time did.

Yes but this is only in one direction. The twins paradox requires travel in both directions.

 

Do the calculations for both directions and you will see that they cancel out if all you use is constant motion.

 

Since both observers can only measure their velocity relative to the other, under constant motion (no acceleration) both see the other with their time slowed down. No net dilation in time then.

 

So if there is no net dilation of time, why then would the round trip only take 2 years instead of 14?

 

Unless, space was contracted for the observers. Space is relative too. Just like time.

 

Take an observer flying past you while holding a 1 metre ruler. To the observer travelling past, he will see the ruler as the same length as when he was stationary.

 

To the observer that he whizzes past, that observer will see the ruler as shorter than a metre. Space has contracted. Space is relative too. Just like time.

 

Space doesn't need to contract forever, it is not a solid "thing" it is the relative distance between you and an observer. 3 different observers do not have to agree over the length of a specific distance and neither do they have to agree over the period of time. But they will agree over the period of time and length when you apply the formulas of relativity. It is only by considering time and space together, on equal footing, does any of the situations make sense (is match the observed reality and avoid mutually exclusive results).

 

The twins paradox isn't as you describe Edtharan. You should remove the doppler effect, and then on both legs of the trip each twin considers the other twin's time to be running slower. It's | and /\/\/\ from both viewpoints.

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with red shift. It is just a similar effect but it has a completely different cause.

 

Besides, if you ignore physical observations that occur as the result of an experiment, that you will come to incorrect conclusions.

 

The red shift is predicted by relativity, so why should we ignore it?

 

Light is caused by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. If the source of this oscillation is slower, then the light will be towards the red end of the spectrum.

 

An observer that is stationary to the light source will see one frequency, and an observer that is in motion relative to it will see a different frequency. Now barring a magical effect where the light is changed just to suit the moving observer, what explanation can explain why the two different observers see different frequencies of light?

 

Well, if one observer was travelling faster through time, they would see the light emitted by the source as being slower. The slower emission means a lower frequency of light.

 

Now if we ignore the red shift then regardless of your velocity, you should see the light as the same frequency. But, this is not the case in reality.

 

The Huygens probe sent to Titan had a sight problem. The frequency that the transmitter was not set to the same frequency as the receiver on the the Cassini probe. this meant that no data could be sent from the probe to the orbiter. What a waste of several million dollars.

 

But, as the effects of relativity state, if the observers (the probe and the orbiter) are travelling at different speeds, then there will be a red shift (or blue shift depending on whether they are moving towards or away from each other). If the relative speeds were fast enough, then the frequencies could be made to match.

 

Guess what. This worked. Only through different "speeds" through time can this be explained.

 

If the ships were moving apart the time dilation would give a lower frequency of light, if the ships are moving together they will detect a higher frequency of light. This is the way it is. Ignoring it will not make it different.

 

So, if we don't use acceleration in the twins paradox, we first have a slowdown of time, and then a speed up of time.

 

Constant velocity can not be used to create the twins paradox.

 

If 0 movement can not create the twins paradox, and constant velocity on a round trip can not make the twins paradox, what then can?

 

The only thing left is acceleration.

 

Your disproof all leave out the effects of acceleration in a situation where acceleration occurs. You can not just leave it out because it produces results that are different from what you want. If the observer accelerates, you have to factor that in. You can't just leave it out.

 

Going back to your essay. The nail and the cylinder example. The nail accelerates. This is different from constant velocity. You only factor in constant velocity. It is an incorrect example. It does not prove your claims at all.

[jck]

Edtharan,

For me personally I would like to know in clear simple terms exactly what everyone is saying so that some logic that everyone else can understand can be applied to consider the issue. Without doubting anything that has been said I am getting the feeling the issue is speed.

 

Now when the video tape recorder was in developement they could not get the tape to run fast enough till someone had the bright idea of spinning the drum at the same time as passing the tape through at a speed it did not break.

 

The point here is if you alter speeds then you alter results without changing time or space. A human brain is slightly limited in the visual cortex/decoding complexity department, yet this is ignored as if it was foolproof?

 

These are my initial thoughts.

 

john

jck

[Edtharan]

Now when the video tape recorder was in developement they could not get the tape to run fast enough till someone had the bright idea of spinning the drum at the same time as passing the tape through at a speed it did not break.

As off topic I will only make this one post about it:

 

It wasn't the speed of the tape that was the problem it was the fact that they could not fit all that data onto a tape in a straight line. Think about it. If the drum rotates around 20 times for each cm of tape that passes through the heads (I am not actually sure what the exact rate is, but this will severe as an example), then to put all that into a straight line, the tape must be 20 time longer, and so take up 20 time the space. Think of a VCR tape 20 time it's size . Not what would be convenient to take back from a video store...

 

The angled heads and the wide tape allow the data to be physically compressed into a smaller space. They had computer data tapes at the time that was able to spin faster than the vcr tape, so they did have the technology to read tapes at high speeds.

 

The point here is if you alter speeds then you alter results without changing time or space. A human brain is slightly limited in the visual cortex/decoding complexity department, yet this is ignored as if it was foolproof?

Although you need an observer, that observer does not have to be human. It just has to be something that interacts with the object being observed. A photon can be an observer, an electron can be an observer. Neither of these are human, so human senses, or lack there of, do not come into play.

 

For me personally I would like to know in clear simple terms exactly what everyone is saying so that some logic that everyone else can understand can be applied to consider the issue. Without doubting anything that has been said I am getting the feeling the issue is speed.

I have essentially 3 issues with the essay.

 

1) The measurement is not the thing being measured. Counting events that are known to have equal spaces in time (eg: the emissions from the caesium atom in an atomic clock, or the ticking of the second hand in a stopwatch), then al you are doing is counting the events. You are not directly measureing Time. The same is true for space. The ruler (the equivalent of the clock) is the device for measuring, when you count off centimetres, you are not counting off actual space, but counting off marks known to have regularity in space.

 

A clock is just a ruler for time. Measuring the "Ticks" of a clock is not Time. Just a count of the periods/distance between the regularly spaced points.

 

2) Many of the disproof about Time and relativity uses incorrect frames of reference. More specifically, it ignores the difference in the frames of reference between a Constant Velocity Observer and that of an Accelerating Observer.

 

Relativity shows that there is a difference that exists between these observer types. Ignoring these differences when the situation contains them will give you wrong results and conclusions.

 

In the essay, there is an example of a Nail being fired from a nail gun, to do so requires the nail to accelerate. It goes from stationary to moving. It accelerates. However, in the example, the nail is only assumed to have a constant velocity. Acceleration of the Nail gets rid of the paradox that is presented with this example. No paradox, then any argument that uses the paradox as disproof is a false argument (and if the arguer is aware of this then it is a strawman).

 

3) The claim that lack of freedom of movement in a dimension means that a dimension has no physical reality.

 

This is used again and again, but no reasoning as to why this must be so. I have presented counter argument with reasoning and they have been called lies (I was called dishonest for using them). Here, again, are my arguments and reasoning on this:

 

If two dimensions are show to have the same properties, then they should be as equally real as each other. So if space can be shown to be like time, then time must be as equal as space.

 

Here is a simple analogy:

I am in a space ship and my rear and forwards thrusters are out. In fact I only have 4 thrusters available: Up, Down, Left and Right. I can't even turn.

 

Now in this example I have no "freedom" of movement in the forwards directions. No matter how much I thrust perpendicular to the direction of travel, I can not change my forward motion.

 

Notice the word perpendicular.

 

Now, for a slightly different example:

 

Say I am falling into a black hole and have passed the event horizon. I can not ever escape. I will always fall into the singularity at the centre. This provides a frame of reference for me. As such, the direction to the centre of the black hole is called the Z dimension.

 

Now I have no freedom of movement, I can only thrust perpendicular to the Z direction. It might take a little longer to reach it as the distance I travelled will be longer, but I will still hit the singularity. I have no real freedom of movement in the Z dimension. I can not travel back to a point nearer the event horizon. I must always move forwards.

 

So Space can act like time. You can have no freedom of movement in a space dimension. Just like time. We don't have freedom of movement in time, because we can not "thrust" along that dimension. We can only thrust perpendicular to it as we are only thrusting in space.

 

Time acts identical to space. If we can't thrust along a particular dimension of space, we have no freedom of movement in it. The same as time. Thrusting in 3 dimensions will not allow us to change our velocity or motion in the 4th dimension.

 

As I have shown that lack of freedom of movement is not equal to a dimension not being physical, this argument can not be used as it is. If it can be shown by other methods, that time is not the same as space, then that can be used, but such arguments have not been presented so far.

[jck]

Edtharan,

I do not have a problem with theory or the terms associated with theory. There is a problem, when debating in general, should everyone insist on using different interpretations for the same terms.

 

The question is does everyone want to discuss the issue generally or does everyone want to discuss it from their own personal viewpoint?

 

If the idea is to debate time at a fundamental level then introducing geometric constraints restricts the arguement to those constraints meaning there is no actual open minded discussion apart from personal choice.

 

If the definitions were clear and simple then everyone would be clear about the definitions but that is not the case so mostly we get different views of the same terminology.

 

john

jck

[Farsight]

Edtharan:

 

You're wrong about the Twins Paradox. Really. Einstein tried to explain it using acceleration in 1918 and was "erroneous". But don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself. Look up "passing clocks". That's where clock A is moving with respect to clock B. Clock C is also moving with respect to clocks A and B, but in the opposite direction at twice the velocity. The situation looks like this:

 

C---->A<--B

 

What I'm saying is time is derived from your measure of your motion in comparison to other motion. So it's subjective to you. If time is subjective that means spacetime is not "spacetime", it's space. When you move through this space the distances in the direction of motion appear reduced. But the space is not actually contracted. When two relativistic objects pass you by, you see them flattened, but not the gap between them. You don't flatten the spherical rotating sun down to a dinner plate when you head towards it. What's subjective is that contraction of space that goes hand in hand with your time dilation. Space is objective. It's there. Like Einstein said in 1920, it's the aether.

 

Read this paper offering an alternative interpretation of Special Relativity. Note the "sonar time".

 

http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html

[Edtharan]

You're wrong about the Twins Paradox.

No I am not. Look it up.

 

Under constant velocity, in the direction of travel, the time at the destination appears to be sped up and the time at the origin (behind) appears to be slowed down.

 

Now as the twins paradox requires the twins to return, then in one direction the origin's time is slowed and then it is sped up.

 

The twin that stayed at the origin would see the moving twin's time first slowed down and then sped up.

 

How then would this lead to a disparity in the ages? Both twins see the other slowed down and then sped up. How, please explain, under constant motion does this lead to a paradox?

 

You just can't get the paradox under constant velocity with a return trip. It is not predicted by relativity and it is not observed in reality. Therefore it does not happen.

 

Under experiments, it is only through acceleration that any paradox occurs. I don't have a link to the experiment its self, but it is a fairly well know experiment, where they flew a jet around the world with an atomic clock on-board and compared it to an atomic clock synchronised and left at the origin. Because the plane had accelerated (circling the globe requires constant changes to the vector so this is acceleration) the predictions for the time discrepancy matched what was recorded on the atomic clocks.

 

GPS satellites need to take into account the fact that their orbit is an acceleration (and not a constant motion) and make adjustments to their signal timings or they give incorrect locations. The adjustments for constant velocity do not give the correct adjustments.

 

Acceleration is what makes the Twins paradox.

 

Yes, you get time dilation from a one way trip under constant motion (that is what the passing clocks thing is all about, the twins paradox is about return trips). But, under constant velocity the time dilation experienced as you travel away form the origin is cancelled out by the reversed time dilation on the return trip (there was recently an animated image posted on this site somewhere that demonstrated this, if I can locate it again I will link to it).

 

What I'm saying is time is derived from your measure of your motion in comparison to other motion. So it's subjective to you. If time is subjective that means spacetime is not "spacetime", it's space.

But Time and Space are subjective to your motion, you have even said so, so you have even agreed that time is effected exactly the same as space under motion, but you disagree that space is dependant on motion. Youa re, again, contradicting your self.

 

But the space is not actually contracted. When two relativistic objects pass you by, you see them flattened, but not the gap between them.

Yes it does. The distance between you, and each relativistic object will appear to be less. the distance between the two object won't be reduced though, you will however see them both running at a higher "clock" speed as they approach you (and a slower clock speed and longer distance as they recede).

 

From the point of view (frame of reference) of the the relativistic objects, you would also appear flattened, not only that, but the distance between you and the object would appear to be shorter and you would appear to be running at a higher clock speed.

 

When you take into account the distortion of distance and the distortion of time and then work out the speed of light as seen by each observer, you will all agree as to that speed. You will disagree over the frequency, but not it's speed. You will also disagree over the times each experiences as compared to their own as well as the distances travelled.

 

Space is distorted, just as much as time and it is relative to the observer.

 

You don't flatten the spherical rotating sun down to a dinner plate when you head towards it.

If you were travelling towards it at a high velocity, then from your frame of reference it would. However, as your frame of reference only applies to you, a stationary observer would not see it flattened.

 

The whole point about Relativity is that it is relative...

 

What's subjective is that contraction of space that goes hand in hand with your time dilation. Space is objective. It's there. Like Einstein said in 1920, it's the aether.

Umm, no. The whole point of Einstein's relativity was that space and time are relative, not absolutes.

 

Einstein also said that "God does not play dice", does this mean that he wasn't an atheist and that he believed in a God?

 

Infact one of his papers (the one he won the noble prize for) was proving that light was a particle (the photo electric effect) and if light is a particle then it couldn't be a wave in the Aether now could it.

 

This comment seems to be at odds with everything else Einstein believed. So why would he say that there was an Aether? Well one reason could be that the comment is taken out of context and he was actually making another point entirely. If you can provide a link to the paper, or whatever, where Einstein said this so that we can see it in it's proper context would be good and resolve this issue.

 

You have used, several time now, the claim that Einstein said something or other, without providing context or links to the quote. Einstein said a lot of things in his life, I am sure, so he might have said these things, but without context, or as a direct quote, we can not even be sure that your interpretation of it is correct, let alone if he actually said it.

 

If the idea is to debate time at a fundamental level then introducing geometric constraints restricts the arguement to those constraints meaning there is no actual open minded discussion apart from personal choice.

Well, the current definition of time is geometric, so by arguing against the current definition you must take into account that the accepted definition is geometric.

 

Space is geometric and the current definition of time is that it is another dimension, just like space. So Time is also geometric. Thus any arguments against our current definition have to address this. My arguments are also that time is a dimension and I am providing the background explanations as to why this is so and ad it relies of geometric reasons, I need to use geometry.

 

Asking me not to do so would be like asking Farsight not to explain his essay without reference to motion. It is a fundamental part of the explanation. Also, motion is also subject to geometry, so geometry is important.

[jck]

Edtharan,

 

Exactly, you debate from a certain position that you agree with entirely and expect others to accept that position when in fact they do not. I totally respect those views are mainstream and accepted as such. Now when it comes to you accepting others position you are not willing to do so that is why there is conflict.

 

I do not have to accept that looking at the same thing from two different points of view is correct as it will give all sorts of different answers to the single observed view. This is relativity, confusing the issue by introducing all these different viewpoints.

 

From a single viewpoint there is one universal time and no matter what anyone says using different viewpoints to make a case the single universal view absolutely has time as constant in the universe and anything else uses two different times for a single event.

 

As far as space being geometry that again is someone deciding to attribute this geometry to the space and no one has to accept that geometry is more than a figment of the imagination as without imagination humans would not know anything about such geometry and would not have simply attributed this geometry to space.

 

At no point did Einstein or anyone else show that space in isolation is curved or can do anything at all, it is derived from the path of light. The path of light does not in any way shape or form show the actual space as curved.

 

Now if someone can show me some empty space actually curving then I would be more than happy to accept it can but excuse me if it is theoretical only as far as I am concerned so you cannot expect me to simply accept these things cart blanche.

 

regards,

john

jck

[Edtharan]

Exactly, you debate from a certain position that you agree with entirely and expect others to accept that position when in fact they do not.

The alternative is to argue a position that I do not agree with. Play the Devil Advocate in other words (and how do you know that I am not doing that ).

 

We are in a discussion in which one of us is wrong. So, which one?

 

We can only do so by arguing our position and listening to the other persons point of view. Just because we don't immediately jump up and agree with them, doesn't mean that we are not taking the arguments on board. Just because someone defends their position, doesn't mean that they don't see the merrits of the other point of view. It also doesn't mean that they even have to disagree with the other point of view.

 

This is a debate forum. So one would expect some debate and for people to "stake out" a point of view and attempt to debate it.

 

For all you know, I might actually completly agree with Farsight. I don't, but that is beside the point. I might have.

 

Even though I disagree with Farsight, it does not mean I don't respect him/her (internet anominity), all it means is that I disagree.

 

I do not expect people to agree with me (if I did, I wouldn't be on this debate forum). I enjoy debate and enjoy discussions with people that disagree with me. I enjoy them because I am willing to accept that I might be wrong and if I am, then I have learnt somthing. And if I am right, itI have learnt something about other people, either way I win .

 

This is relativity, confusing the issue by introducing all these different viewpoints.

The only time that relativity gives these kinds of different results is when one leaves out vital aspects of the theory to simplify the calculations. If you assume 3 dimension, then it give incorrect results, if you assume an absolute space/time/motion then it will give incorrect (and contradictory) results.

 

Put simly, the universe have many different observers (and a sinlge particle is considdered an observer in this case - it doesn't have to be a human). This is a fact. So ignoring all these observers to simplfy it would give results that are inconsistant with the real world.

 

There are multiple observers (as there is more than just 1 particle in the universe) so we must take into account the fact that a particle interacting with another will have, at some time, different points of view (frames of reference).

 

As there is more than 1 particle (observer and therefore point of view), this kind of approach will not be useful.

 

From a single viewpoint there is one universal time and no matter what anyone says using different viewpoints to make a case the single universal view absolutely has time as constant in the universe and anything else uses two different times for a single event.

This is my point. Why can't there be two different times according to two different observers?

 

We know, form experiemnt, that at the top of a tower "Time" runs faster than at the bottom. Light sent from the bottom at a specific frequency towards the top will be slowed (not the velocity of light but the frequency). If we know that the source of light at the bottom is emmitting the light at a specific rate, what then has cause the light to change frequency?

 

If the top of the tower is moving faster through time than the bottom, then this would account for the frequency shift.

 

At no point did Einstein or anyone else show that space in isolation is curved or can do anything at all' date=' it is derived from the path of light. The path of light does not in any way shape or form show the actual space as curved.

 

Now if someone can show me some empty space actually curving then I would be more than happy to accept it can but excuse me if it is theoretical only as far as I am concerned[/quote']

"Curvature" is just another analogy. It is not curved in the sense of a circle is curved.

 

What it measn is that the space is non euclidian. This means that two parralel lines can cross, or that the sum of the angles in a triangle can be more than 180 degrees.

 

If space is "curved" like this (and this is what the theory of relativity predicts), then they have seen curved space.

 

Light from a star diverges out. That is light, emitted formt eh star, traveling slightly to the left will not cross light traveling slightly to the right in space that is not "curved". However. Astronomers have seen light traveling from a star (in the way described above), cross. They use it regularly. The phenomina is called gravitational lensing.

 

If you look on some astronomy sites looking for gravitational lensing, then you should be able to find actual photographs of Gravitational lensing events and see with your own eyes the results of curved space.

 

So, yes, they have shown that space can be curved.

 

Light does not "shape" the space, but it does draw a straight line. Under euclidian space, two paralle light beams can not cross or diverge. It has been observed in our universe that they can. Our universe does not have euclidian space. Non euclidian space is curved (by definition). Space can be curved.

 

so you cannot expect me to simply accept these things cart blanche.

I never do expect people to just accept what I say without question. That is why I don't get upset when people question what I say. I actually expect people to question me and if they don't then I can only assume that the agree (or don't disagree).

[Farsight]

Happy Christmas everybody. (Thank Christ it's over!)

 

For the record, I don't think gravity is curved spacetime. IMHO we see a lightbeam curve because there's a tension gradient in space. I'll try to explain my thoughts here in my next essay.

[jck]

Edtharan,

I agree with you completely about the nature of debate, it is not a matter of anyone being correct but sharing ideas and different viewpoints. If everyone agreed on here this site would soon run down.

 

The issue of one observer comes from still frames of the universe where there is a place for every particle and every particle is in its place. Should any particle be in two places then the mass of the universe would be in turmoil and gravity would chaotic for it would not just be one such particle having a duality would it.

 

Now granted a fairly stable gravitational force and the mass not swinging violently from one extreme to another each instant then I am confident the one observer case is correct. The illusion of the same thing being as many different things as you like can for those willing to look at things from that perspective seem viable.

 

I am afraid I am even more sceptical when mathematics have to be deployed to support curved space, why not just show some space in isolation doing something for real? See the non euclidian geometry was first lines and curves on some paper then some models were made to explain the maths, so far so good as at least with models of something you can actually see what is being said in reality. Now translating this to empty space which is nothing at all the curves have to be imagined, well that is stretching my imagination too far.

 

I still only get light effects and attributed geometry but no actual empty space doing anything at all because actually empty space cannot do anything can it?

 

john

jck

[Edtharan]

why not just show some space in isolation doing something for real?

Umm, because you can't "see" space. Only its effects on physical objects.

 

Other effects of curved space is that the distance between two points can be different for differnet paths. These paths can be chosen that under noncurved space they would be identical, but under curved space they would be different.

 

For instance: If you had a space ship in orbit around Mars and it was sending a regular signal pulse. You could measure the time it takes to reach the Earth as Mars passes behind the sun.

 

We know the distance the Mars orbits and can work out its position compared to the Earth. So we have a distance for this.

 

Now we can measure the time it takes the signal to reach the Earth from this Space ship in orbit of Mars.

 

If the gravity of the sun does not curve space, then we can work out what time it should take to reach us.

 

We can also work out, using relativity and curved space, how long it would take to reach us.

 

As we know that light has a constant velocity (around 300,000km/s), these measuremnts and calculations are failry straight formward.

 

When the numbers are crunched, it turns out that the distance the light traveled actually does match that of curved space.

 

These cacultaions are performed every day. They are the most studdied phenomina of relitivity and are needed for the GPS sattalites. Without taking into account that space is curved the curvature of space caused by Earth, would cause the GPS system to report an ever more increasing error in position.

 

As GPS doesn't do this, we can assume that the maths for the curvature of space is correct.

 

The issue of one observer comes from still frames of the universe where there is a place for every particle and every particle is in its place.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you clarify it more. What do you mean by "still frames", do you mean a stationary frame of reference (relativity)?

 

Should any particle be in two places then the mass of the universe would be in turmoil and gravity would chaotic for it would not just be one such particle having a duality would it.

Actually none of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity would produce this result. It is one thing that the both agree on. What are you basing this statemnt on?

 

There are models in QM that treat all particles as the same particle. That is that each electron in the universe is the same electron (they even interact with no problem). This model is based on the concept that an Antimatter partical is identical to a Normal Particle traveling backwards in time (it may or may not be, but the fact that it would be indistinguishable if it was means that this can be considdered).

 

So according to QM particals have no problem being in two places at the same time.

 

Under relativity, it treats all matter as identical so any one electron is the same as any other electron. As far as Relativity is concerned, they could be the same piece of matter in a different location. It has no prolem with the same matter being in two locations at the same time, it just treast them as seperate observers.

 

Now granted a fairly stable gravitational force and the mass not swinging violently from one extreme to another each instant then I am confident the one observer case is correct.

But you don't need extreme swings of mass to generate a second observer. All you need is a different frame of reference.

 

So an observer with a constant motion relative to the first observer is a different frame of reference and therfore needs a second observer. An observer that is accelerating in in a differrent frame of reference.

 

Even if two observers are at different hights on a tower (but not moving) are in different frames of reference. This is in a stabel gravitational force, and yet it can create two different frames of reference.

 

The Universe can not just have a single frame of reference. It is physically imposible.