Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
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 -
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. |