From: BURT on 10 Jun 2010 21:23 On Jun 10, 6:06 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Carlo Wah" <kwanalo...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bb13751a-2245-4a6f-90b8-8561319ef5c4(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > It seems to me that the concept of absolute space is necessary to > > solve even the simplest problems. > > No .. its not. What on earth gives you that idea? We cannot even tell > where any absolute frame / space is (if there is such a thing) and we don't > need one because physics works the same in ALL inertial frames anyway. > > > If not, can anyone please explain > > this simple problem from the point of view of the moving frame. > > > Rest frame view. > > That's not the absolute frame .. just an arbitrarily chosen frame that you > have labelled as 'rest frame'. So it is not relevant to your assertion > above about absolute space/frames. > > [snip unrelated problem] > > So .. please show why one needs an absolute space/frames? > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- All that is left is the space frame. Gravity spatial geometry begins at the center of energy density and is spherical. There is space frame and gravity frame. Space frame is distance traveled by light and matter. Gravity frame gives space a geometric center to move around. Mitch Raemsch Mitch Raemsch
From: whoever on 10 Jun 2010 21:41 "Carlo Wah" <kwanalouie(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb13751a-2245-4a6f-90b8-8561319ef5c4(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... [snip] > Thanks, > David Seppala > Bastrop, TX So David .. just wondering why the sudden change in your name to Carlo Wah. Seems a bit odd to do that and still keep your name and town in your signature. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 10 Jun 2010 21:54 "Carlo Wah" <kwanalouie(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb13751a-2245-4a6f-90b8-8561319ef5c4(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > It seems to me that the concept of absolute space is necessary to > solve even the simplest problems. If not, can anyone please explain > this simple problem from the point of view of the moving frame. > > Rest frame view. > There is a flat target (like a piece of plywood) parallel to the > y-z plane. The target is moving in the -x direction at a constant > velocity. The bottom of the target is L meters above the x-axis. The > center of the target is at L+D meters above the x-axis. When the side > of the target facing the positive x direction crosses x=0, a bullet or > photon is fired from x=0,y=0,z=0. It travels in the second quadrant > and hits the center of the target which is at some x = -L1 and y = L > +D. So the bullet is first at an angle from the origin, and remains always directly below the target until it reaches it (ie it has the same x-component of velocity as the target does) > Moving frame view. > Let the moving frame be the rest frame of the target. From this > frame's point of view, the bullet leaves x=0,y=0,z=0, and travels > parallel to or along the y-axis, and hence parallel to the surface of > the target. Fine .. so the gun that fires the bullet is moving away, but the bullet travels directly to the target along the y-axis > How does the moving frame explain why the bullet finally hits the > surface at the point y = L+D above the x-axis Why wouldn't it? It travels L+D up the y-axis toward the target in both frames. > if it was fired from > x=0,y=0,z=0 and travels parallel to or along the y-axis? I really don't see why you are having problems with this. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: waldofj on 13 Jun 2010 21:19 On Jun 10, 3:00 pm, Carlo Wah <kwanalo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me that the concept of absolute space is necessary to > solve even the simplest problems. If not, can anyone please explain > this simple problem from the point of view of the moving frame. > > Rest frame view. > There is a flat target (like a piece of plywood) parallel to the > y-z plane. The target is moving in the -x direction at a constant > velocity. The bottom of the target is L meters above the x-axis. The > center of the target is at L+D meters above the x-axis. When the side > of the target facing the positive x direction crosses x=0, a bullet or > photon is fired from x=0,y=0,z=0. It travels in the second quadrant > and hits the center of the target which is at some x = -L1 and y = L > +D. > > Moving frame view. > Let the moving frame be the rest frame of the target. From this > frame's point of view, the bullet leaves x=0,y=0,z=0, and travels > parallel to or along the y-axis, and hence parallel to the surface of > the target. wrong. The only frame that has the bullet moving parallel to the y axis is the frame that is co-moving with the bullet. And in that frame the target is moving towards the bullet. All other frames have the bullet moving along a diagonal path, the only difference between frames being the angle of the path. In any case, what does this have to do with absolute space?
From: BURT on 14 Jun 2010 14:36 On Jun 13, 6:19 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Jun 10, 3:00 pm, Carlo Wah <kwanalo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > It seems to me that the concept of absolute space is necessary to > > solve even the simplest problems. If not, can anyone please explain > > this simple problem from the point of view of the moving frame. > > > Rest frame view. > > There is a flat target (like a piece of plywood) parallel to the > > y-z plane. The target is moving in the -x direction at a constant > > velocity. The bottom of the target is L meters above the x-axis. The > > center of the target is at L+D meters above the x-axis. When the side > > of the target facing the positive x direction crosses x=0, a bullet or > > photon is fired from x=0,y=0,z=0. It travels in the second quadrant > > and hits the center of the target which is at some x = -L1 and y = L > > +D. > > > Moving frame view. > > Let the moving frame be the rest frame of the target. From this > > frame's point of view, the bullet leaves x=0,y=0,z=0, and travels > > parallel to or along the y-axis, and hence parallel to the surface of > > the target. > > wrong. The only frame that has the bullet moving parallel to the y > axis is the frame that is co-moving with the bullet. And in that frame > the target is moving towards the bullet. All other frames have the > bullet moving along a diagonal path, the only difference between > frames being the angle of the path. > In any case, what does this have to do with absolute space?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is a space frame for motion and a gravity frame with a center. Gravity gives a geometric center to space itself. That is also the energy center. Mitch Raemsch
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: I was beaten badly by two criminals. Next: Did Michelson Morley prove Newton correct? |