Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 08:33 On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, 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*** That's what you assert .. no evidence to support it. Just as I said. [snip nonsense] As I said .. SR's observer-dependent temporal ordering of (some) events does NOT violate causality. So you claim that causality implies absolute ordering is just plain wrong. Try again. Though that may require you to learn something and think logically .. probably beyond your meager abilities
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Jul 2010 08:50 On 7/20/10 7:15 AM, JT wrote: > 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 You must be referring to the LHC, two particles, each traveling close to c in opposite direction--relative mass increase and time dilation. And you laughing with delight... or is it ignorance?
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Jul 2010 08:53 On 7/20/10 7:16 AM, JT wrote: > temporal order is absolute in the macro cosmos realm, it is very > easy to prove in a simulation. No, temporal order is observer dependent. JT, order of event is observer dependent and nicely presented in the 30-minute episode of the Mechanical Universe you can watch on your computer! The Mechanical Universe series. http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html 42. The Lorentz Transformation If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, depends on who measures it. Lesson 42: The Lorentz Transformation If the speed of light is to be the same for all inertial observers (as indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment) the equations for time and space are not difficult to find. But what do they mean? They mean that the length of a meter stick, or the rate of ticking of a clock depends on who measure it. Text Assignment: Chapter 46 Instructional Objectives Be able to use the Lorentz Transformation to work problems relating time or space intervals in different reference frames. Be able to give some of the hypothetical explanations put forward to account for the Michelson-Morley experiment. Be able to discuss the concept of length contraction. Be able to understand and use spacetime diagrams. Be able to define and discuss the concept of simultaneity. Be able to define and discuss clock synchronization.
From: kenseto on 20 Jul 2010 09:11 On Jul 20, 8:25 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/20/10 6:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 8:48 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/19/10 7:09 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> THE FASTEST RUNNING CLOCK IS A CLOCK IN A STATE OF ABSOLUTE REST IN > >>> THE AETHER. > > >>> KEN SETO > > >> Not so. Some clock run fast if the gravitation well of the clock is > >> less than the observer. > > > Hey idiot gravitational potential effect is due to different states of > > absolute motion at different gravitational potentials. > > There is no motion between the clocks, Seto, in the PoundRebka > experiment. Their states of motion are identical, not different. Different gravitational potential means different states of absolute motion. That's why Pound and Rebka found frequency shift in the vertical direction. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > >> PoundRebka experiment > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment > > >> ...a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run > >> at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is > >> considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision > >> tests of general relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: harald on 20 Jul 2010 09:12
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 Harald |