Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 08:00 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. JT
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 08:07 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. 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
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 08:15 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!!!!!!!!! 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 sucker dreaming of two particles travelling near c towards eachother going for a date using slow clocks bwahahahah I can tell you right now the only slow clock is the one in your brain, please adjust the frequensy. Well maybe you even have something to learn from Kens ***proper time***, 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. JT
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 08:16 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
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 08:20
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 |