Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Jul 2010 09:05 On 7/21/10 7:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 20, 11:49 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/20/10 9:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> On Jul 20, 9:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Different gravitational potential means different states of absolute >>>>> motion. That's why Pound and Rebka found frequency shift in the >>>>> vertical direction. >> >>>> You obviously don't understand the word "motion", Ken. >> >>> Wormy you obviously don't understand the term "absolute motion". >> >> I take it you thing absolute motion means no motion. Perhaps you >> can articulate what you mean by "absolute motion", Ken. > > Hey idiot it does not mean no motion. It mean motion wrt the aether or > the light waves being carried by the aether. I forgot that is your catchall "definition" of motion, Ken. As it turns out, the clocks in the Pound and Rebka experiment are stationary with respect to each other, and yet the tick at different rates due to time dilation as predicted by general relativity. No aether, no motion, no absolute anything is require. What is important is the RELATIVE difference in the earth's gravitation at the sites of the two clocks.
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Jul 2010 09:06 On 7/21/10 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot...absolute motion is that motion of an object in the aether > or that motion of an object wrt the light waves being carried by the > aether. You are so stupid.... No aether, Ken. You make this stuff up in your head.
From: JT on 21 Jul 2010 11:52 On 21 Juli, 01:14, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:32 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Nope > > > that you > > can not leave your clownsuite, > > I don't have one. I do have a santa suit that I sometimes wear at > xmas > > > there is no need for causual effect > > Who said there was? > > > only for a temporal order driven by the causuality that drive cosmos. > > Causality doesn't have any impact on object that could not possibly > interact, due to them being too far apart in distance and too close in > time for any information to get from one to another. The temporal > order of such events does not make any difference to causality. Back to juggling are we? Do not forget the clownsuit. > > 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. > > I never said it did. You really do have major problems with > comprehension. That explains a lot > > > 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? > > And so the observer would know they are not simultaneous, that one > happens before the other. Is that supposed to proof some sort of > point you think you are making? Yes you try to juggle far objects who is at to far distance to be considering interact by causual effects, and i tell you that does not matter the cosmos favor temporal order, there is no random events on the macroscale. > Now what if you see the far one happen before the near one? SR says > that the far one happens before the near one (and all observers would > agree) No SR can not deal with multiple simultaneous observations of different objects, it breaks down. I proved it in a thread recently discussing with Sam and PD. They were unable to plot the position of third object. JT
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Jul 2010 14:00 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 20, 12:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >Wormy you obviously don't understand the term "absolute motion". >> >> Is your definition of "absolute motion" another "a zebra is a black and >> white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" type of definition that >> nobody other than yourself uses? >Hey idiot...absolute motion is that motion of an object in the aether >or that motion of an object wrt the light waves being carried by the >aether. You are so stupid.... Well, consider that you've already come up with your own definitions for word or phrases such as "physical", "material", "preferred frame" etc., how the heck am I supposed to know what you think the phrase "absolute motion" means? For all I know you define it as a glowing purple flying pig. Of course, just by the name "Special RELATIVITY" that phrase has no meaning in the theory of special relativity. However, in the Pound-Rebka experiment, the source and detector are stationary with respect to each other so if "absolute motion" existed, they'd have the _same_ "absolute motion".
From: kenseto on 21 Jul 2010 14:55
On Jul 21, 9:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/21/10 7:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 11:49 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/20/10 9:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> On Jul 20, 9:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Different gravitational potential means different states of absolute > >>>>> motion. That's why Pound and Rebka found frequency shift in the > >>>>> vertical direction. > > >>>> You obviously don't understand the word "motion", Ken. > > >>> Wormy you obviously don't understand the term "absolute motion". > > >> I take it you thing absolute motion means no motion. Perhaps you > >> can articulate what you mean by "absolute motion", Ken. > > > Hey idiot it does not mean no motion. It mean motion wrt the aether or > > the light waves being carried by the aether. > > I forgot that is your catchall "definition" of motion, Ken. > > As it turns out, the clocks in the Pound and Rebka experiment > are stationary with respect to each other, and yet the tick at > different rates due to time dilation as predicted by general > relativity. No idiot....they have different absolute motions at different heights....the top of a building move faster wrt the aether than the ground floor. Ken Seto > > No aether, no motion, no absolute anything is require. What is > important is the RELATIVE difference in the earth's gravitation > at the sites of the two clocks.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |