Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 10:58 On Jul 20, 7:07 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 Juli, 15:16, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/19/10 5:41 AM, JT wrote: > > > > Yes the law of casuality. > > > > JT > > > Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality > > > According to Sowa (2000),[5] up until the twentieth century, three > > assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the > > definition of causality: > > > 1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of > > an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A > > of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, > > phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect. > > > 2."Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least > > simultaneous with, the effect. > > > 3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial > > contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." > > (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000) > > > However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics > > have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements > > of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at > > the level of human experience." > > Sam causality have always ruled macrocosmos there is no process in > macrocosmos that is not governed by causuality. That turns out not to be the case. > Quantum mechanic is > only applicable on lightquanta in microcosmos and is only a > ***theory*** of undecidability not of nonecasuality. > > And there is a very good reason for why event in microcosmos may turn > out to be undeciable in macrocosmos. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 11:00 On Jul 20, 7:29 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 20 Juli, 14:20, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 10:00 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 19 Juli, 00:56, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > "JT" wrote in message > > > > >news:8184e5eb-4594-494f-a73b-e9ab4388cc78(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > Temporal order of spatial separated events is absolute > > > > > Because you say so. Any proof other than you deciding how nature MUST work? > > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > > Change nick to whatever it would be more suiting, your nonsense > > > critique. > > > I see you're the same old coward and can't come up with any > > justification for your nonsense > > No i answered that causuality is evidence of abolute temporal order > ruling ***cosmos*** But time-ordered causality does not even apply in the macrocosm. It only appears to. > > You can stir your mashed potato even throw it in the air and juggle > with it all accoriding to the law of causuality where forces creates > motion upon masses with inertia, but you cannot turn the mashed potato > inside out within our cosmos, only SR manage to do that. > > It is called ***cosmos*** for a reason, > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: harald on 20 Jul 2010 11:25 On Jul 20, 3:55 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 20 Juli, 15:12, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 2:16 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 19 Juli, 17:47, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 12:41 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 19 Juli, 00:56, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "JT" wrote in message > > > > > > >news:8184e5eb-4594-494f-a73b-e9ab4388cc78(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > >Temporalorder of spatial separated events is absolute > > > > > > > Because you say so. Any proof other than you deciding how nature MUST work? > > > > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > > > > Yes the law of casuality. > > > > > > JT > > > > > The temporal order of *certain* spatially separated events is > > > > "absolute" in the sense that everyone agrees. Simply put, if you *see* > > > > a distant supernova before your own sun explodes, *everyone* will > > > > agree that that the other star exploded first. > > > > Opinions become "relative" when your sun explodes *before* you see the > > > > other star explode, because then you must make assumptions about the > > > > one-way speed of light, which - strictly speaking - cannot really be > > > > measured as it is declared to be c by definition ("synchronization > > > > convention"). Thus in such cases we cannot determine which event > > > > really occurred before the other. > > > > > Note that according to quantum mechanics, if reality exists and > > > > causality must be obeyed then there must still *be* a real order of > > > > certain events; but we still cannot *determine* the order if those > > > > events happen quickly after each other (or practically simultaneously) > > > > at a great distance from each other. > > > > > Harald > > > > No temporal order is absolute in the macro cosmos realm, it is > > > very easy to prove in a simulation. > > > > JT > > > Let's see, first you assert: > > > "Temporal order of spatial separated events is absolute" > > > And I gave a detailed comment on that. Now you reply: > > > "No temporal order is absolute in the macro cosmos realm, it is > > very easy to prove in a simulation." > > > Whatever that sentence was supposed to mean (if anything), it > > appears that you are trolling - so I won't fall for that again. > > > Goodbye, > > Harald > > > No you are [..] Ah NOW I see it - you had forgotten to add a comma, like you did again here! Coincidentally, that inversed the meaning of your sentence. As your phrase after "no" didn't necessarily contradict what I wrote, evidently you didn't read or understand it. Harald
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 11:32 On 20 Juli, 14:24, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:15 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 Juli, 15:37, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 8:41 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 19 Juli, 00:56, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > "JT" wrote in message > > > > > >news:8184e5eb-4594-494f-a73b-e9ab4388cc78(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups..com... > > > > > > >Temporalorder of spatial separated events is absolute > > > > > > Because you say so. Any proof other than you deciding how nature MUST work? > > > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > > > Yes the law of casuality. > > > > Doesn't make any difference. Causality is limited in speed .. the > > > maximum speed at which information can be send. Unless you think it > > > is possible for an action on one 'side' of the universe to instantly > > > affect something on the other side. That speed limit (in relativity) > > > is what we call c. > > > > If two events are far enough apart in distance and close enough in > > > time .. nothing that happens at one event can effect the other .. > > > because the information (the cause and effect) cannot travel fast > > > enough. > > > > It is only events that are unrelated (wrt cause and effect) that can > > > have different orders depending on frame of reference. > > > > Seeing its events that are not causally related, that means the > > > causality does NOT demand that event ordering is absolute. > > > > Try again. > > > Warning wordsallad!!!!!!!!! > > Let me reword for you, if you're having trouble > > The only pairs of events for which the order of events is observer > dependent are those which cannot be related by cause and effect. > > So the differences in observed ordering does NOT affect or contradict > causality. > > > Guaranted not gourmet. > > > > If two events are far enough apart in distance and close enough in > > > time .. nothing that happens at one event can effect the other .. > > > because the information (the cause and effect) cannot travel fast > > > enough > > > Bwahhahahahahahahh far apart but close enough in time poor > > Yeup .. is that too difficult for you? I tried to make it very simple > for morons like you to understand > > > sucker > > dreaming of two particles travelling near c towards eachother going > > for a date using slow clocks bwahahahah > > Nope .. nothing like that. Just two events a distance apart so that > one does not have a causal effect on the other. Well obviously you are so deluded in your juggling dreamworld that you can not leave your clownsuite, there is no need for causual effect only for a temporal order driven by the causuality that drive cosmos. The point of view for events do not change it, the temporal expansion of something do not care about when the information reach the observer. As i said a faraway supernova can be observed go nova at the same time as a nearby supernova it has todo with their temporal order going nova in cosmos understood? JT > > I can tell you right now the only slow clock is the one in your brain, > > please adjust the frequensy. > > I didn't mention clocks .. you really should try to keep up > > > Well maybe you even have something to learn from Kens ***proper > > time***, > > Nope > > > you know they are not alone in the universe, only SR seems to > > think there can only be two interactions in a scenario, poor sucker. > > No .. it doesn't. Like most anti-relativity crackpots .. you attack > from ignorance. And you have a large supply of ignorance.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Jul 2010 11:47
On 7/20/10 10:32 AM, JT wrote: > As i said a faraway supernova can be observed go nova at the same time > as a nearby supernova it has todo with their temporal order going nova > in cosmos understood? > > JT > Do you even understand the difference between novae and supernovae? |