A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 05:59 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b98cae0$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4b98c72d$0$8803$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message >> news:WaidncSioueeWwXWnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... >>> Planet A and planet B are similar planets one light year apart. A ship >>> leaves planet A for planet B and the length of the voyage is set for one >>> year, usual for this commuter ship. The month of departure planet A is >>> Mar 2010. The month of scheduled arrival planet B is Mar 2011. The ship >>> leaves planet A on time (Mar 2010) and arrives planet B on time (Mar >>> 2011). >> >> So you have a spaceship travelling at the speed of light. Just a tad >> unrealistic. >> > > I think you should lighten up a bit. Photons travel at c, and this is > really just a special case of a more general question. > > The real problem is that looking at what happens at exactly c doesn't > really show the general principle, which is why real world hypothetical > spacecraft travel at 0.99c. But Mr Bradford maybe doesn't know that. > > I do agree however that his post seemed pointless. Indeed .. I'm not sure if he had a point, or question. > BTW, is you alias Inertial because of SR ? I just liked 'inertial(a)rest' .. it seemed an appropriate name for sci.physics.relativity
From: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 07:04 > > I just liked 'inertial(a)rest' .. it seemed an appropriate name for > sci.physics.relativity > > Hadn't noticed the @rest. Makes it obvious, but now I have motion sickness. Are you moving or stationary?
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 07:08 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b98dc47$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> I just liked 'inertial(a)rest' .. it seemed an appropriate name for >> sci.physics.relativity >> >> > > Hadn't noticed the @rest. Makes it obvious, but now I have motion > sickness. Are you moving or stationary? Doesn't matter .. I'm inertial :):)
From: Ste on 11 Mar 2010 07:40 On 11 Mar, 01:31, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7df1fc51-d0aa-461b-8c57-cbd52d6c9438(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 23:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:e37617e7-52f9-4fbd-a740-bac32eb220dd(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 9 Mar, 05:34, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> Did you look at the diagrams on the Wikipedia page on the twins > >> >> paradox > >> >> as I > >> >> suggested? > > >> >> This shows *exactly* what the moving and stationary clocks see as > >> >> happening > >> >> at all stages of the thought experiment. > > >> > This isn't the twins paradox, > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > > >> Of course it is the twins paradox. Do you even know what the twins > >> paradox > >> is ? Lets see what the web page says > > >> "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special > >> relativity, > >> in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and > >> returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed > >> on > >> Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin > >> as > >> traveling, and so, according to the theory of special relativity, > >> paradoxically each should find the other to have aged more slowly. How > >> the > >> seeming contradiction is resolved, and how the absolute effect (one twin > >> really aging less) can result from a relative motion, can be explained > >> within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been > >> verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in > >> airplanes.[1][2]" > > > I repeat myself again, the scenario we have here is *not* the twins > > paradox. > > Then what are you talking about now? > > >> > so it would be strange to find the > >> > answer to my question there. Also, I've read that page in the past, > >> > and I don't recall it having relevant detail. > > >> Clearly you are either lying about reading it, or you didn't understand > >> it. > > > No, perhaps you didn't understand. As I say, this is *not* the twins > > paradox, because in the twins paradox only *one* twin leaves Earth. > > Then what are you talking about now? Perhaps you should review the previous postings, but as a quick summary, this scenario essentially involves *both* twins leaving Earth, in diametrically opposite directions. Hence when the twins return to Earth, they are the same age as each other (although both younger than a third sibling who remained on Earth).
From: mpc755 on 11 Mar 2010 07:42
On Mar 10, 11:12 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 10, 7:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "But this ether may NOT be thought of > as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as > consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of > motion may NOT be applied to it." > > Cretin. Yes, "as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time." I understand you selectively cut-and-paste one particular line in order to remain ignorant of what Einstein means by 'motion'. The idea of motion may not be applied to the aether because the aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked through time. This does not mean the aether can not be displaced by the matter. "Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." "[extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether." "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." |