Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 09:26 On Jul 23, 10:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. Ken Seto >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".
From: whoever on 24 Jul 2010 09:33 "kenseto" wrote in message news:a63abf0b-da52-481b-83f4-b63841e75449(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt > light. So .. everything has an absolute motion of c. That's a pretty pointless notion. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: G. L. Bradford on 24 Jul 2010 13:35 "whoever" <whoever(a)whereever.com> wrote in message news:i2eq47$rrf$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > "kenseto" wrote in message > news:a63abf0b-da52-481b-83f4-b63841e75449(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... >> Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt >> light. > > So .. everything has an absolute motion of c. That's a pretty pointless > notion. ====================== That depends upon whether "everything" exists in an environmental universe of more than one dimension. Every time you shake hands or touch anything at all, you've reached the finish line (0) at precisely the same time light reaches the finish line (0). You are immediately interacting at precisely the same moment light is interacting. Regarding 'currency' (0), it didn't beat you to the finish line and never beats you to it. Having to do with light and c, the only thing that ever beats any real-time traveler (0), any material matter or energy, to any real-time finish line (0) is history (-).....a 1-dimensional string of time (-), and times (-(-)-), before time (0=0). The real-time traveler that hasn't arrived yet is the future, coming from the future to here and now. The [unobserved], and [unobservable], traveler (0) coming from the unobserved and unobservable universe (0) FORWARD of the "observable universe (-)" (and thus the "observable traveler (-)") in space and time. To catch the "observable traveler" at the finish line of the observer, the unobserved traveler coming from behind seemingly must travel faster than the speed of light in order to catch up with and merge with the observed traveler at the finish line..... Maybe this is all to multi-dimensional for you to grasp. Suffice to say the always slower "observable traveler (-)," whether going away or oncoming, is always positioned in space, relative to the observer, between the faster, meaning the more current in time, real-time traveler (0) and that same observer (0) -- again whether the observer is rearward or forward of the traveler. The anchoring rock for all this splitting, or merging (or expanding or contracting), multiplicity of dimension is the single UNIVERSAL constancy of 'c'. There is a vast difference between knowing bare physics by surface rote and realizing fuller, deeper, meanings. GLB =====================
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Jul 2010 15:17 On 7/24/10 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt > light. > > Ken Seto Seto is DEFINING "absolute motion" as the motion of a object with respect to light. Since all observer measure the speed of light to be c, then Seto is claiming that all every object has absolute motion c. Nonsense! However... It can be said that all object travel at c in SPACE-TIME. But Seto didn't say that, nor do I think he understands that.
From: eric gisse on 24 Jul 2010 18:20
kenseto wrote: [...] Ken, you've accomplished nothing here in 15 years. Why do you persist? |