Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 24 Jul 2010 18:34 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. OK, so everything in the universe has an absolute motion velocity of c. Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c relative to all observers. But of we ignore that little (MAJOR!) detail for the moment, since Ken states the bottom and the top of the building have a different absolute motion velocity, even though that conflicts with his own definition. If the bottom and top of the building have different absolute velocities, then there would exist a nonzero relative velocity. In other words, there'd be a detectable motion between the top and bottom of the building. That doesn't happen, except during earthquakes or something. So... we can add "motion" to the list of Ken's Redefined Words. Real scientists define motion as dr/dt, where r is a vector in (x,y,z) 3d space.
From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 19:27 On Jul 24, 9:33 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "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. No idiot....light has a velocity of c in the aether....an object has a velocity of c+/-V_a wrt light. Where V_a=absolute motion of the object. Ken Seto > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---
From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 19:57 On Jul 24, 3:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No idiot....the value for the one-way speed of light never been measured it is a defined constant as follows: 1 meter=1/299,92,458 light-second Therefor ethe speed of light is defined constant ratio as follows: c=1 light-second/1 second=1 Ken Seto 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: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 20:02 On Jul 24, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >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. > > OK, so everything in the universe has an absolute motion velocity of c. > Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c > relative to all observers. No....the speed of light in the aether is c. The absolute motion of an object is V_a which is less than c. The relativevelocity of an object wrt light is c-/+V_a Ken Seto > > But of we ignore that little (MAJOR!) detail for the moment, since Ken > states the bottom and the top of the building have a different absolute > motion velocity, even though that conflicts with his own definition. > > If the bottom and top of the building have different absolute velocities, > then there would exist a nonzero relative velocity. In other words, > there'd be a detectable motion between the top and bottom of the building.. > That doesn't happen, except during earthquakes or something. > > So... we can add "motion" to the list of Ken's Redefined Words. > Real scientists define motion as dr/dt, where r is a vector in (x,y,z) > 3d space.
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Jul 2010 21:49
On 7/24/10 6:57 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 24, 3:17 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > No idiot....the value for the one-way speed of light never been > measured it is a defined constant as follows: > 1 meter=1/299,92,458 light-second > Therefor ethe speed of light is defined constant ratio as follows: > c=1 light-second/1 second=1 The speed of light, a fundamental constant of the universe, does not need any human originated units to exist. It is a constant, Seto! All observer measure is speed the same, 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. > |