Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 24 Jul 2010 23:05 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >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. Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've redefined. > The absolute motion of an >object is V_a which is less than c. Well, yes, any object with mass cannot move at c. > The relativevelocity of an object >wrt light is c-/+V_a Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high accuracy for years. So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like h, or G, or alpha or several others. The earlier definitions of the meter (the length of some bar in Paris, or the number of waves of a krypton atom) means that trying to measure a velocity has two sources of error, the error in the definition of a second, and the error in the definition of a meter. Since c is a fundamental constant of the universe, it makes sense to define the meter and second in terms of each other. Since we can measure the second to better accuracy than the length of a bar in Paris or even the length of a bunch of wavelengths of krypton light, it makes more sense to define the meter in terms of the second than the other way around.
From: JT on 25 Jul 2010 07:21 On 25 Juli, 03:49, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - You are delusional Sam if two 24 FPS PAL video transmitters leaves earth at 0.3 c respective 0.6 c the received video transmission rate at earth will be 16 FPS *0.954 respective 8 FPS*0.800. And this is if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma factor which is highly suspectfull. But in not way will the infalling transmission rate relative earth be constant, it will be a function of the relative speed just as Newton concluded. There is no ***aether*** that adjust and stretch out the transmission front relative the transmitter depending of the velocity relative earth, only dreamwork. Ritz was right all the long there is no stretching aether for transmission that adjust the signal propagation, there is only a constant velocity relative the emitter not the receiver when measuring from a third part observer at rest in the emitter frame. The fact is that your dreamwork can not handle two simultaneous incoming transmissions, and calculate respective FPS that is how broken it is. JT
From: kenseto on 25 Jul 2010 08:46 On Jul 24, 9:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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! Hey idiot....how can the speed of light be a fundamental constant when the clock second use to measure light speed is not a universal interval of time??....for example the passage of a clcok second in A's frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. So wormy the speed of light is a defined contant ratio of (1 light-second/1 second). Ken Seto > > > > > > >> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: JT on 25 Jul 2010 08:51 On 25 Juli, 14:46, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 9:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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! > > Hey idiot....how can the speed of light be a fundamental constant when > the clock second use to measure light speed is not a universal > interval of time??....for example the passage of a clcok second in A's > frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. > So wormy the speed of light is a defined contant ratio of > (1 light-second/1 second). > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > >> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - All true Ken universal constant speed of light require invariant unit use in d/t=c JT
From: kenseto on 25 Jul 2010 09:01
On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >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. > > Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that > what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the > aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've > redefined. Uou are an idiot....the aether occupies all of space (vacuum). > > > The absolute motion of an > >object is V_a which is less than c. > > Well, yes, any object with mass cannot move at c. > > > The relativevelocity of an object > >wrt light is c-/+V_a > > Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. > This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high > accuracy for years. Hey idiot the one-way speed of light never been measured. The reason is that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance dependent. The speed of light is a defined constant ratio as follows: 1-light-second/1 second. > > So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the > variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" > of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. No idiot....frequency shift between the source and the detector is indication of difference in absolute motion between the source and the detector. > > In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is > because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like > h, or G, or alpha or several others. No the speed of light is defined to be c to fix SR. the mesure one-way speed of light using physical ruler does not have a constant value of c.....it is distance dependent. >The earlier definitions of the meter > (the length of some bar in Paris, or the number of waves of a krypton > atom) means that trying to measure a velocity has two sources of error, > the error in the definition of a second, and the error in the definition > of a meter. Since c is a fundamental constant of the universe, it makes > sense to define the meter and second in terms of each other. Since we can > measure the second to better accuracy than the length of a bar in Paris or > even the length of a bunch of wavelengths of krypton light, it makes more > sense to define the meter in terms of the second than the other way > around. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |