Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 08:24 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. > I can tell you right now the only slow clock is the one in your brain, > please adjust the frequensy. I didn't mention clocks .. you really should try to keep up > Well maybe you even have something to learn from Kens ***proper > time***, Nope > you know they are not alone in the universe, only SR seems to > think there can only be two interactions in a scenario, poor sucker. No .. it doesn't. Like most anti-relativity crackpots .. you attack from ignorance. And you have a large supply of ignorance.
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Jul 2010 08:25 On 7/20/10 6:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 19, 8:48 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/19/10 7:09 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> THE FASTEST RUNNING CLOCK IS A CLOCK IN A STATE OF ABSOLUTE REST IN >>> THE AETHER. >> >>> KEN SETO >> >> Not so. Some clock run fast if the gravitation well of the clock is >> less than the observer. > > Hey idiot gravitational potential effect is due to different states of > absolute motion at different gravitational potentials. There is no motion between the clocks, Seto, in the Pound�Rebka experiment. Their states of motion are identical, not different. > > Ken Seto > >> >> Pound�Rebka experiment >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment >> >> ...a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run >> at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is >> considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision >> tests of general relativity. >
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 08:28 On Jul 20, 10:16 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 Juli, 17:47, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 12:41 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. > > > > JT > > > The temporal order of *certain* spatially separated events is > > "absolute" in the sense that everyone agrees. Simply put, if you *see* > > a distant supernova before your own sun explodes, *everyone* will > > agree that that the other star exploded first. > > Opinions become "relative" when your sun explodes *before* you see the > > other star explode, because then you must make assumptions about the > > one-way speed of light, which - strictly speaking - cannot really be > > measured as it is declared to be c by definition ("synchronization > > convention"). Thus in such cases we cannot determine which event > > really occurred before the other. > > > Note that according to quantum mechanics, if reality exists and > > causality must be obeyed then there must still *be* a real order of > > certain events; but we still cannot *determine* the order if those > > events happen quickly after each other (or practically simultaneously) > > at a great distance from each other. > > > Harald > > No temporal order is absolute in the macro cosmos realm, it is very > easy to prove in a simulation. Wrong .. According to SR, SOME temporal oder is absolute (those that are separated such that they could be related by cause and effect). SOME temporal ordering is observer dependent (for events that could NOT be related by cause and effect). Look up time-like, space-like, and light-like intervals .. that's if you're at all interested in learning something. Though I'm sure you'd rather remain ignorant so that the truth doesn't get in the way of your lies.
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 08:29 On 20 Juli, 14:20, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:00 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.... > > > > > Temporal order 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 --- > > > Change nick to whatever it would be more suiting, your nonsense > > critique. > > I see you're the same old coward and can't come up with any > justification for your nonsense No i answered that causuality is evidence of abolute temporal order ruling ***cosmos*** You can stir your mashed potato even throw it in the air and juggle with it all accoriding to the law of causuality where forces creates motion upon masses with inertia, but you cannot turn the mashed potato inside out within our cosmos, only SR manage to do that. It is called ***cosmos*** for a reason, JT
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 08:33
On Jul 20, 10:29 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 20 Juli, 14:20, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 10:00 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... > > > > > > Temporal order 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 --- > > > > Change nick to whatever it would be more suiting, your nonsense > > > critique. > > > I see you're the same old coward and can't come up with any > > justification for your nonsense > > No i answered that causuality is evidence of abolute temporal order > ruling ***cosmos*** That's what you assert .. no evidence to support it. Just as I said. [snip nonsense] As I said .. SR's observer-dependent temporal ordering of (some) events does NOT violate causality. So you claim that causality implies absolute ordering is just plain wrong. Try again. Though that may require you to learn something and think logically .. probably beyond your meager abilities |