Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: Hayek on 22 Jul 2010 11:25 Sam Wormley 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. One small note : there are no clocks in the Pound Rebka, it is about atoms catching photons, in accord with Einstein's thought experiment where a photon should turn redder when escaping from a gravitational source. The photon is emitted, and cannot be absorbed because its frequency has been changed by gravitational redshift. Then the upper part of the experiment is lowered at a fixed speed, in order to compensate for the redshift, and then the photons are absorbed again, by the same sort of atoms that emitted them below. > 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. I could say something about an universe sized elephant in the room, but I am keeping that for a later "time". First finish my text about the Arrow of Time, and submit it to Nature. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: harald on 23 Jul 2010 05:19 On Jul 22, 2:32 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 5:18 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:45 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Actually that is quite correct: even in the ECI frame the relative > > velocity of the top floor of a building and the cellar is non-zero. > > Now, those velocities are *nearly* the same, but that isn't important. > > > You wrote: > > > "Different gravitational potential means different states of absolute > > motion." > > > The gravitational potential is independent of the rotation of the > > Earth. One could put two clocks at the North pole on different floors > > of a building in EQUAL inertial motion. As a result, with the > > stationary ether model they are ALSO in equal "absolute" motion BUT at > > a different gravitational potential. > > We are talking about absolute motion and absolute motion is that > motion of an object wrt light. Aha, you even try to alter the meaning of the term "absolute motion". No Ken, if a building does not move wrt light, it will always be dark inside! "Absolute motion" means the motion of things relative to a physical (but not necessarily detectable) reference; I'm sure that people already gave the example of sound relative to the air. In discussions of "relativity" it particularly refers to such concepts as Newton's "absolute space" or Lorentz's "stationary ether". Have you been stuck on this starting point for 5 years now, or was it longer? Harald > When the source and the detector shows > frequency shift that means that there is a difference of absolute > motions between them. In the same gravitational potential there is no > frequency shift between the source and the detector and thus there is > no difference in the states of absolute motion between the source and > the detector. > > > > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: kenseto on 23 Jul 2010 09:39 On Jul 23, 5:19 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 22, 2:32 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 5:18 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 9:45 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Actually that is quite correct: even in the ECI frame the relative > > > velocity of the top floor of a building and the cellar is non-zero. > > > Now, those velocities are *nearly* the same, but that isn't important.. > > > > You wrote: > > > > "Different gravitational potential means different states of absolute > > > motion." > > > > The gravitational potential is independent of the rotation of the > > > Earth. One could put two clocks at the North pole on different floors > > > of a building in EQUAL inertial motion. As a result, with the > > > stationary ether model they are ALSO in equal "absolute" motion BUT at > > > a different gravitational potential. > > > We are talking about absolute motion and absolute motion is that > > motion of an object wrt light. > > Aha, you even try to alter the meaning of the term "absolute motion". > No Ken, if a building does not move wrt light, it will always be dark > inside! No idiot I didn't try to alter the meaning of absolute motion. Absolute motion is that motion of an object in a staionary aether and light is being transmitted by this stationary aether at a constant speed and therefore absolute motion of an object is also that motion of the object wrt light. Ken Seto > > "Absolute motion" means the motion of things relative to a physical > (but not necessarily detectable) reference; > I'm sure that people > already gave the example of sound relative to the air. In discussions > of "relativity" it particularly refers to such concepts as Newton's > "absolute space" or Lorentz's "stationary ether". Have you been stuck > on this starting point for 5 years now, or was it longer? > > Harald > > > > > When the source and the detector shows > > frequency shift that means that there is a difference of absolute > > motions between them. In the same gravitational potential there is no > > frequency shift between the source and the detector and thus there is > > no difference in the states of absolute motion between the source and > > the detector. > > > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 23 Jul 2010 09:48 On Jul 22, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 7:41 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 2:45 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Which means that the difference in the absolute motion has to be > > > solely in the horizontal direction. Otherwise, a vertical component of > > > the difference would appear. > > > No, NO, NO.... > > We are talking about absolute motion and absolute motion is that > > motion of an object wrt light. > > Nevertheless, Ken, if there is a difference in the absolute motion > from top to bottom, then this means that there is a relative motion. No absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. At the bottom of the buidling the source is at a standard frequency....light from the bottom to the top shows a frequency shift that means that the top is in a different state of absolute motion. Ken Seto > If you have one bird flying horizontally at 15 mph out a 1st story > window, and another bird flying horizontally at 30 mph out a 30th > story window, there is relative motion between the birds. Do you see > that? > > > > > When the source and the detector shows > > frequency shift that means that there is a difference of absolute > > motions between them. Since there is a frequency shift in the vertical > > direction and thus there is a difference in the states of absolute > > motion between the source and the detector. > > In the same gravitational potential (on the surface of the earth) > > there is no frequency shift between the source and the detector and > > thus there is no difference in the states of absolute motion between > > the source and the detector. > > > Ken Seto > > > > Now that we've established that the difference in the absolute motion > > > is wholly horizontal, it is worth noting that there are two orthogonal > > > directions in the horizontal plane, and you can always choose > > > coordinates in a plane such that a horizontal vector has zero > > > magnitude in one horizontal direction and nonzero magnitude in the > > > other horizontal direction. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 23 Jul 2010 22:42
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >> Nevertheless, Ken, if there is a difference in the absolute motion >> from top to bottom, then this means that there is a relative motion. >No absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. At the >bottom of the buidling the source is at a standard frequency....light >from the bottom to the top shows a frequency shift that means that the >top is in a different state of absolute motion. If there is a difference in motion between two objects, there is *always* a relative motion between them. It is nothing more than vector subtraction (for low velocities). Therefore, if there was a difference between the absolute motion of the top and bottom of a building, then we'd be able to detect the top moving away from the bottom...or approaching it.. or moving sideways. If this doesn't happen, then it's not "motion". Pure and simple. Or is "motion" another word that Ken doesn't know the meaning of, and therefore he makes up his own meaning. Let's start a list of words Ken makes up his own meaning for: "Motion" "Physical" "Material" "Preferred frame" perhaps "before" and "after" perhaps even "twice" since he keeps claiming SR predicts the bug dies "twice". |