Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 21 Jul 2010 14:56 On Jul 21, 9:06 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes aether....you are stupid.
From: kenseto on 21 Jul 2010 14:59 On Jul 21, 2:00 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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". No idiot....the top of a building have a different state of absolute motion than the ground floor. Ken Seto
From: oriel36 on 21 Jul 2010 15:04 On Jul 21, 7:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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 > Why stop there,the building further North towards the geographical poles is moving faster the the building nearer the equator. The thing about that is once you give the maximum equatorial speed,the entire show is over - 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour thank you very much !. On second thoughts,carry on,you all seem to be enjoying yourselves even if Flamsteed,whom Newton apparently hated,gets the last laugh with his 'sidereal time' reasoning which divorces the Earth planetary dynamics from the original astronomical references and shoves them into a celestial sphere mess called right ascension. > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 15:13 On Jul 21, 1:59 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > No idiot....the top of a building have a different state of absolute > motion than the ground floor. > > Ken Seto Ken, you've said in the past that relative motion is the difference between two absolute motion vectors. So if there is a difference in absolute motion between the top and the ground floor, then there would have to be nonzero relative motion between top and ground floor. Are the top and bottom of a building in relative motion?
From: kenseto on 21 Jul 2010 15:45
On Jul 21, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:59 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > No idiot....the top of a building have a different state of absolute > > motion than the ground floor. > > > Ken Seto > > Ken, you've said in the past that relative motion is the difference > between two absolute motion vectors. So if there is a difference in > absolute motion between the top and the ground floor, then there would > have to be nonzero relative motion between top and ground floor. Are > the top and bottom of a building in relative motion? I said that relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector components difference of their absolute motion along the line joining them. This means that the vector components difference of A and B of a building at the vertical direction is zero. But it does not mean that A and B have the same state of absolute motion in the aether. |