Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 8 Apr 2010 22:43 On 9 Apr, 01:44, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > My definition is, BY DEFINITION, frame independent. > > What definition? If you mean what you say below, you simply ASSERT it is > frame independent. OK, then we will discuss it. > >> Can you provide a more detailed description of your definition of > >> simultaneous, so I can validate whether it is, or is not. equivalent. Or > >> if > >> it is differen,t in what way, and dos it actually 'work'. > > > I've just said, what is "simultaneous" is "those events which would be > > simultaneous if information propagated instantly". > > That makes no sense .. you've defined simultaneous in terms of simultaneous. But the definition you've given is frame dependent, and therefore "simultaneous" is not necessarily "simultaneous" at all.
From: Ste on 8 Apr 2010 23:03 On 9 Apr, 03:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > How am I avoiding the question? > > Obviously, by not answering how you see you own motion relative to you. Do > you deny that you consdier yourself as at rest, whereas I consider you to be > in motion? I don't consider myself anything "with respect to myself". The question is an absurdity. If I talk about "my own motion relative to my frame", then I could say "I am stationary with respect to my frame" (and the frame is an independent object, that has a meaningful velocity relative to me), but it is just meaningless waffle to say "I am stationary with respect to myself" because I could not possibly be moving with respect to myself, because moving involves a change of relative position between two objects. > > but no one says it is "common > > sense" that states or relationships are *really* different just > > because you're using different numbers to quantify it. > > You are misrepresenting again. I am not saying the relationships are > different because the number are differnet. The numbers are different > because the relationships are different. But a change of frame does not involve a change (or discrepancy) of values in the same relationships. The change of numbers is because you're describing different relationships. > You have it backwards. > > Of course it is really different. A velocity of 100km/hr is REALLY > different to one of 50km/hr Only because you're describing *a completely different relationship*, because you're stating the speed of the common object against a *completely different reference object*.
From: Ste on 8 Apr 2010 23:05 On 9 Apr, 03:13, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > - but for completeness, it simply means whether > > the full extent of the ladder could be at once contained within the > > confines of the barn. > > 'At once' is what makes it frame dependent. So the answer depends on which > frame of reference is dertmining whether or not the doors are closed 'at > once' But I reject the idea that "at once" can be frame dependent, although I don't refute that it can *appear* to be frame dependent, because it takes different lengths of time for the information to propagate (which, in this case, is akin to saying it is an optical illusion).
From: Inertial on 9 Apr 2010 00:22 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9115ca67-0286-45d5-95cc-733574a400ec(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Apr, 01:44, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > My definition is, BY DEFINITION, frame independent. >> >> What definition? If you mean what you say below, you simply ASSERT it is >> frame independent. > > OK, then we will discuss it. Please do .. I'm waiting >> >> Can you provide a more detailed description of your definition of >> >> simultaneous, so I can validate whether it is, or is not. equivalent. >> >> Or >> >> if >> >> it is differen,t in what way, and dos it actually 'work'. >> >> > I've just said, what is "simultaneous" is "those events which would be >> > simultaneous if information propagated instantly". >> >> That makes no sense .. you've defined simultaneous in terms of >> simultaneous. > > But the definition you've given is frame dependent, What definition did I give? What is YOUR definition (other than saying it is what is simultaneous). please note that such definition should also entail what it means for clocks to be synchronized. > and therefore > "simultaneous" is not necessarily "simultaneous" at all. Don't try to divert from your own errors to fictional ones you imagine I am making.
From: Inertial on 9 Apr 2010 00:29
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e665dd98-0c26-482b-9a56-219714820533(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On 9 Apr, 03:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > How am I avoiding the question? >> >> Obviously, by not answering how you see you own motion relative to you. >> Do >> you deny that you consdier yourself as at rest, whereas I consider you to >> be >> in motion? > > I don't consider myself anything "with respect to myself". More avoiding the question > The > question is an absurdity. No it is not > If I talk about "my own motion relative to > my frame", then I could say "I am stationary with respect to my > frame" EXACTLY !! Thank you for finally answering .. It wasn't that hard > (and the frame is an independent object, that has a meaningful > velocity relative to me), but it is just meaningless waffle to say "I > am stationary with respect to myself" No .. its not > because I could not possibly be > moving with respect to myself, Then that simply make 'I am stationary with respect to myself' a fact, it doesn't make it meaningless. > because moving involves a change of > relative position between two objects. Or at least between an 'object' and a frame of reference. That is .. a difference in spatial position over time. >> > but no one says it is "common >> > sense" that states or relationships are *really* different just >> > because you're using different numbers to quantify it. >> >> You are misrepresenting again. I am not saying the relationships are >> different because the number are differnet. The numbers are different >> because the relationships are different. > > But a change of frame does not involve a change (or discrepancy) of > values in the same relationships. Yes .. it can > The change of numbers is because > you're describing different relationships. Just as for the pole and barn (in fact, you don't even need the barn), there is also the frame of reference involved. The length of a pole is frame dependent. Different frames will get different measurements due to the difference in relationship (the difference relative velocity) Why do you find that so hard to grasp? >> You have it backwards. >> >> Of course it is really different. A velocity of 100km/hr is REALLY >> different to one of 50km/hr > > Only because you're describing *a completely different relationship*, A relationship with a different frame of reference. > because you're stating the speed of the common object against a > *completely different reference object*. Just like the length of a pole in the frame of a barn. It is going to be different than the length of the same pole wrt some other frame of reference. This is really a major problem for you in understanding physics. You have this set-in-concrete assumption that length is frame independent, and that order of events is frame independent, and that rate of clocks is frame independent (and all three of these are interrelated .. you can't have one without the other) You need to free yourself from that limited mindset, instead of insisting that reality must work the way you think it must. |