But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: BURT on 4 Jun 2010 22:51 On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 4, 9:52 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 5:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:21 am,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 2, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > >> >news:1b535b20-6942-4ddd-a024-00b44bb80195(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > > On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > >> Unfortunately the only people arguing are those who are too stupid > > > >> > >> to > > > >> > >> understand the theory. > > > > >> > >xxein: Likewise for you. Just because you think you understand a > > > >> > > theory, it hardly makes it a correct one. Dorothy was in Oz and > > > >> > > Alice > > > >> > > was in Wonderland. They each understood a theory of how things > > > >> > > worked > > > >> > > (where they were) to get back to the reality. > > > > >> > >> Reference frames do not require physical objects to exist. > > > > >> > > So then they only require the imaginary ones? > > > > >> > That does not follow. Really. .you should learn how to construct a > > > >> > logical > > > >> > argument > > > > >> > > You just proved that > > > >> > > you are just imaginary. > > > > >> > No .. he didn't. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical > > > >> > argument > > > > >>xxein: OK. I read in what he said was that a reference frame does > > > >> not require any existence to exist. Without energy and matter, how > > > >> can a reference frame exist? Either than energy and matter, what else > > > >> do you think of an existence? Then... Reference to what? > > > > >> If you want to think that an empty and infinite space has reference > > > >> points without the motion of something, you are welcome to believe > > > >> that. But show me how that reference frame is realizable without an > > > >> existence. I'm afraid that you have just lost time and distance > > > >> (along with any velocity you may want to ascribe to them). > > > > > Bravo! That is what I an getting at. Reality (oops did I say the wrong > > > > word?) > > > > Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe > > > completely devoid of matter > > > > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > > > > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > > > Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of > > > coruse. > > > > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > > > Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > > > > > I think AE envisaged it as follows: If you were to travel on the > > > > forward tip of the EM wave, then again the laws for the EM wave have > > > > to hold, therefore if you shone a light while traveling on a light > > > > beam, that light beam would also travel, according to your > > > > measurements at c, and if you where to ride on > > > > t h a t light beam it would also be measured at c. So you end up > > > > traveling at multiples of c > > > > No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR > > > Sorry I did not complete the line of thought - since AE then saw the > > impossibility of travelling at more than he speed of light, as above, > > he sought a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas. > > > OK, a question then - is permitivity defined between two reference > > points ( inside or outside the vacuum) regardless of the relative > > movement between the two points? Surely the units must be all wrong ? > > If not, does permitivity specify that the points are not moving with > > respect to each other? OR Permitivity is defined within a stationary > > reference frame only? These are my questions. Hope it wont return > > void(). Void is better then nothing I suppose. :) > > > > > Meanwhile how does permitivity apply when you are barreling through > > > > space at speeds that were not addressed by the initial definition of > > > > permitivity that is the permitivity of free space between two points > > > > fixed with respect to one another? Seems like an unjustified leap. > > > > You don't your argument again is flawed- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: Permitivity wrt what in a vacuum? You are now giving physical > properties to a vacuum which should have none. > > You have a lot to learn if you want to make any theory of physics a > viable explanation of the physic.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that energy fluctuating in the space? If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy would gather space energy to itself. Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. Mitch Raemsch
From: GogoJF on 4 Jun 2010 22:57 On Jun 4, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 9:52 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 5:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:21 am,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > >> On Jun 2, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > > >> >news:1b535b20-6942-4ddd-a024-00b44bb80195(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >> > > On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Unfortunately the only people arguing are those who are too stupid > > > > >> > >> to > > > > >> > >> understand the theory. > > > > > >> > >xxein: Likewise for you. Just because you think you understand a > > > > >> > > theory, it hardly makes it a correct one. Dorothy was in Oz and > > > > >> > > Alice > > > > >> > > was in Wonderland. They each understood a theory of how things > > > > >> > > worked > > > > >> > > (where they were) to get back to the reality. > > > > > >> > >> Reference frames do not require physical objects to exist. > > > > > >> > > So then they only require the imaginary ones? > > > > > >> > That does not follow. Really. .you should learn how to construct a > > > > >> > logical > > > > >> > argument > > > > > >> > > You just proved that > > > > >> > > you are just imaginary. > > > > > >> > No .. he didn't. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical > > > > >> > argument > > > > > >>xxein: OK. I read in what he said was that a reference frame does > > > > >> not require any existence to exist. Without energy and matter, how > > > > >> can a reference frame exist? Either than energy and matter, what else > > > > >> do you think of an existence? Then... Reference to what? > > > > > >> If you want to think that an empty and infinite space has reference > > > > >> points without the motion of something, you are welcome to believe > > > > >> that. But show me how that reference frame is realizable without an > > > > >> existence. I'm afraid that you have just lost time and distance > > > > >> (along with any velocity you may want to ascribe to them). > > > > > > Bravo! That is what I an getting at. Reality (oops did I say the wrong > > > > > word?) > > > > > Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe > > > > completely devoid of matter > > > > > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > > > > > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > > > > Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of > > > > coruse. > > > > > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > > > > Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > > > > > > I think AE envisaged it as follows: If you were to travel on the > > > > > forward tip of the EM wave, then again the laws for the EM wave have > > > > > to hold, therefore if you shone a light while traveling on a light > > > > > beam, that light beam would also travel, according to your > > > > > measurements at c, and if you where to ride on > > > > > t h a t light beam it would also be measured at c. So you end up > > > > > traveling at multiples of c > > > > > No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR > > > > Sorry I did not complete the line of thought - since AE then saw the > > > impossibility of travelling at more than he speed of light, as above, > > > he sought a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas. > > > > OK, a question then - is permitivity defined between two reference > > > points ( inside or outside the vacuum) regardless of the relative > > > movement between the two points? Surely the units must be all wrong ? > > > If not, does permitivity specify that the points are not moving with > > > respect to each other? OR Permitivity is defined within a stationary > > > reference frame only? These are my questions. Hope it wont return > > > void(). Void is better then nothing I suppose. :) > > > > > > Meanwhile how does permitivity apply when you are barreling through > > > > > space at speeds that were not addressed by the initial definition of > > > > > permitivity that is the permitivity of free space between two points > > > > > fixed with respect to one another? Seems like an unjustified leap.. > > > > > You don't your argument again is flawed- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > xxein: Permitivity wrt what in a vacuum? You are now giving physical > > properties to a vacuum which should have none. > > > You have a lot to learn if you want to make any theory of physics a > > viable explanation of the physic.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that > energy fluctuating in the space? > > If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through > the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy > would gather space energy to itself. > Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. > > Mitch Raemsch Hi Burt. Remember, we are only good as we make it- how smart we are. Sometimes, I feel, that there really is no well defined phenomena when it comes to relativity. We are going to get smarter- if nothing else- out of sheer boredom.
From: GogoJF on 4 Jun 2010 23:15 On Jun 4, 9:57 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 9:52 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 5:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:21 am,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 2, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > > > >> >news:1b535b20-6942-4ddd-a024-00b44bb80195(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> > > On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> Unfortunately the only people arguing are those who are too stupid > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > >> > >> understand the theory. > > > > > > >> > >xxein: Likewise for you. Just because you think you understand a > > > > > >> > > theory, it hardly makes it a correct one. Dorothy was in Oz and > > > > > >> > > Alice > > > > > >> > > was in Wonderland. They each understood a theory of how things > > > > > >> > > worked > > > > > >> > > (where they were) to get back to the reality. > > > > > > >> > >> Reference frames do not require physical objects to exist.. > > > > > > >> > > So then they only require the imaginary ones? > > > > > > >> > That does not follow. Really. .you should learn how to construct a > > > > > >> > logical > > > > > >> > argument > > > > > > >> > > You just proved that > > > > > >> > > you are just imaginary. > > > > > > >> > No .. he didn't. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical > > > > > >> > argument > > > > > > >>xxein: OK. I read in what he said was that a reference frame does > > > > > >> not require any existence to exist. Without energy and matter, how > > > > > >> can a reference frame exist? Either than energy and matter, what else > > > > > >> do you think of an existence? Then... Reference to what? > > > > > > >> If you want to think that an empty and infinite space has reference > > > > > >> points without the motion of something, you are welcome to believe > > > > > >> that. But show me how that reference frame is realizable without an > > > > > >> existence. I'm afraid that you have just lost time and distance > > > > > >> (along with any velocity you may want to ascribe to them). > > > > > > > Bravo! That is what I an getting at. Reality (oops did I say the wrong > > > > > > word?) > > > > > > Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe > > > > > completely devoid of matter > > > > > > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > > > > > > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > > > > > Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of > > > > > coruse. > > > > > > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > > > > > Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > > > > > > > I think AE envisaged it as follows: If you were to travel on the > > > > > > forward tip of the EM wave, then again the laws for the EM wave have > > > > > > to hold, therefore if you shone a light while traveling on a light > > > > > > beam, that light beam would also travel, according to your > > > > > > measurements at c, and if you where to ride on > > > > > > t h a t light beam it would also be measured at c. So you end up > > > > > > traveling at multiples of c > > > > > > No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR > > > > > Sorry I did not complete the line of thought - since AE then saw the > > > > impossibility of travelling at more than he speed of light, as above, > > > > he sought a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas. > > > > > OK, a question then - is permitivity defined between two reference > > > > points ( inside or outside the vacuum) regardless of the relative > > > > movement between the two points? Surely the units must be all wrong ? > > > > If not, does permitivity specify that the points are not moving with > > > > respect to each other? OR Permitivity is defined within a stationary > > > > reference frame only? These are my questions. Hope it wont return > > > > void(). Void is better then nothing I suppose. :) > > > > > > > Meanwhile how does permitivity apply when you are barreling through > > > > > > space at speeds that were not addressed by the initial definition of > > > > > > permitivity that is the permitivity of free space between two points > > > > > > fixed with respect to one another? Seems like an unjustified leap. > > > > > > You don't your argument again is flawed- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > xxein: Permitivity wrt what in a vacuum? You are now giving physical > > > properties to a vacuum which should have none. > > > > You have a lot to learn if you want to make any theory of physics a > > > viable explanation of the physic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that > > energy fluctuating in the space? > > > If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through > > the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy > > would gather space energy to itself. > > Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Hi Burt. Remember, we are only good as we make it- how smart we are. > Sometimes, I feel, that there really is no well defined phenomena when > it comes to relativity. > We are going to get smarter- if nothing else- out of sheer boredom. There are some things that just don't go away- like the speed of gravity- 9.8 m/s2. The pressure of mercury. We have to build off of what is indisputable.
From: BURT on 4 Jun 2010 23:39 On Jun 4, 7:57 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 9:52 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 5:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:21 am,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 2, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > > > >> >news:1b535b20-6942-4ddd-a024-00b44bb80195(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> > > On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> Unfortunately the only people arguing are those who are too stupid > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > >> > >> understand the theory. > > > > > > >> > >xxein: Likewise for you. Just because you think you understand a > > > > > >> > > theory, it hardly makes it a correct one. Dorothy was in Oz and > > > > > >> > > Alice > > > > > >> > > was in Wonderland. They each understood a theory of how things > > > > > >> > > worked > > > > > >> > > (where they were) to get back to the reality. > > > > > > >> > >> Reference frames do not require physical objects to exist.. > > > > > > >> > > So then they only require the imaginary ones? > > > > > > >> > That does not follow. Really. .you should learn how to construct a > > > > > >> > logical > > > > > >> > argument > > > > > > >> > > You just proved that > > > > > >> > > you are just imaginary. > > > > > > >> > No .. he didn't. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical > > > > > >> > argument > > > > > > >>xxein: OK. I read in what he said was that a reference frame does > > > > > >> not require any existence to exist. Without energy and matter, how > > > > > >> can a reference frame exist? Either than energy and matter, what else > > > > > >> do you think of an existence? Then... Reference to what? > > > > > > >> If you want to think that an empty and infinite space has reference > > > > > >> points without the motion of something, you are welcome to believe > > > > > >> that. But show me how that reference frame is realizable without an > > > > > >> existence. I'm afraid that you have just lost time and distance > > > > > >> (along with any velocity you may want to ascribe to them). > > > > > > > Bravo! That is what I an getting at. Reality (oops did I say the wrong > > > > > > word?) > > > > > > Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe > > > > > completely devoid of matter > > > > > > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > > > > > > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > > > > > Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of > > > > > coruse. > > > > > > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > > > > > Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > > > > > > > I think AE envisaged it as follows: If you were to travel on the > > > > > > forward tip of the EM wave, then again the laws for the EM wave have > > > > > > to hold, therefore if you shone a light while traveling on a light > > > > > > beam, that light beam would also travel, according to your > > > > > > measurements at c, and if you where to ride on > > > > > > t h a t light beam it would also be measured at c. So you end up > > > > > > traveling at multiples of c > > > > > > No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR > > > > > Sorry I did not complete the line of thought - since AE then saw the > > > > impossibility of travelling at more than he speed of light, as above, > > > > he sought a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas. > > > > > OK, a question then - is permitivity defined between two reference > > > > points ( inside or outside the vacuum) regardless of the relative > > > > movement between the two points? Surely the units must be all wrong ? > > > > If not, does permitivity specify that the points are not moving with > > > > respect to each other? OR Permitivity is defined within a stationary > > > > reference frame only? These are my questions. Hope it wont return > > > > void(). Void is better then nothing I suppose. :) > > > > > > > Meanwhile how does permitivity apply when you are barreling through > > > > > > space at speeds that were not addressed by the initial definition of > > > > > > permitivity that is the permitivity of free space between two points > > > > > > fixed with respect to one another? Seems like an unjustified leap. > > > > > > You don't your argument again is flawed- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > xxein: Permitivity wrt what in a vacuum? You are now giving physical > > > properties to a vacuum which should have none. > > > > You have a lot to learn if you want to make any theory of physics a > > > viable explanation of the physic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that > > energy fluctuating in the space? > > > If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through > > the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy > > would gather space energy to itself. > > Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Hi Burt. Remember, we are only good as we make it- how smart we are. > Sometimes, I feel, that there really is no well defined phenomena when > it comes to relativity. > We are going to get smarter- if nothing else- out of sheer boredom.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - People will get smarter with the help of genius. That is all there is to it. Mitch Raemsch
From: GogoJF on 4 Jun 2010 23:50
On Jun 4, 10:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 7:57 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 9:52 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 4, 5:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:21 am,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Jun 2, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > >> >news:1b535b20-6942-4ddd-a024-00b44bb80195(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > >> > > On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > >> Unfortunately the only people arguing are those who are too stupid > > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > > >> > >> understand the theory. > > > > > > > >> > >xxein: Likewise for you. Just because you think you understand a > > > > > > >> > > theory, it hardly makes it a correct one. Dorothy was in Oz and > > > > > > >> > > Alice > > > > > > >> > > was in Wonderland. They each understood a theory of how things > > > > > > >> > > worked > > > > > > >> > > (where they were) to get back to the reality. > > > > > > > >> > >> Reference frames do not require physical objects to exist. > > > > > > > >> > > So then they only require the imaginary ones? > > > > > > > >> > That does not follow. Really. .you should learn how to construct a > > > > > > >> > logical > > > > > > >> > argument > > > > > > > >> > > You just proved that > > > > > > >> > > you are just imaginary. > > > > > > > >> > No .. he didn't. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical > > > > > > >> > argument > > > > > > > >>xxein: OK. I read in what he said was that a reference frame does > > > > > > >> not require any existence to exist. Without energy and matter, how > > > > > > >> can a reference frame exist? Either than energy and matter, what else > > > > > > >> do you think of an existence? Then... Reference to what? > > > > > > > >> If you want to think that an empty and infinite space has reference > > > > > > >> points without the motion of something, you are welcome to believe > > > > > > >> that. But show me how that reference frame is realizable without an > > > > > > >> existence. I'm afraid that you have just lost time and distance > > > > > > >> (along with any velocity you may want to ascribe to them). > > > > > > > > Bravo! That is what I an getting at. Reality (oops did I say the wrong > > > > > > > word?) > > > > > > > Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe > > > > > > completely devoid of matter > > > > > > > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > > > > > > > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > > > > > > Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of > > > > > > coruse. > > > > > > > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > > > > > > Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > > > > > > > > I think AE envisaged it as follows: If you were to travel on the > > > > > > > forward tip of the EM wave, then again the laws for the EM wave have > > > > > > > to hold, therefore if you shone a light while traveling on a light > > > > > > > beam, that light beam would also travel, according to your > > > > > > > measurements at c, and if you where to ride on > > > > > > > t h a t light beam it would also be measured at c. So you end up > > > > > > > traveling at multiples of c > > > > > > > No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR > > > > > > Sorry I did not complete the line of thought - since AE then saw the > > > > > impossibility of travelling at more than he speed of light, as above, > > > > > he sought a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas. > > > > > > OK, a question then - is permitivity defined between two reference > > > > > points ( inside or outside the vacuum) regardless of the relative > > > > > movement between the two points? Surely the units must be all wrong ? > > > > > If not, does permitivity specify that the points are not moving with > > > > > respect to each other? OR Permitivity is defined within a stationary > > > > > reference frame only? These are my questions. Hope it wont return > > > > > void(). Void is better then nothing I suppose. :) > > > > > > > > Meanwhile how does permitivity apply when you are barreling through > > > > > > > space at speeds that were not addressed by the initial definition of > > > > > > > permitivity that is the permitivity of free space between two points > > > > > > > fixed with respect to one another? Seems like an unjustified leap. > > > > > > > You don't your argument again is flawed- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > xxein: Permitivity wrt what in a vacuum? You are now giving physical > > > > properties to a vacuum which should have none. > > > > > You have a lot to learn if you want to make any theory of physics a > > > > viable explanation of the physic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that > > > energy fluctuating in the space? > > > > If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through > > > the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy > > > would gather space energy to itself. > > > Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Hi Burt. Remember, we are only good as we make it- how smart we are. > > Sometimes, I feel, that there really is no well defined phenomena when > > it comes to relativity. > > We are going to get smarter- if nothing else- out of sheer boredom.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > People will get smarter with the help of genius. > That is all there is to it. > > Mitch Raemsch There is no doubt in my mind that there is but one genius in the history of physics- and his name was Isaac Newton. Everything else is borrowed time. |