Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Way off topic: oil and politics (was: Hexagonal grid and its three directions)
Next: WHATS NEW Robert L. Park Friday, May 28, 2010 Washington,DC
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 19:01 On May 31, 3:25 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 29, 8:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 2:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 12:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > > > > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > > > > > you must have something which is fixed > > > > > > fixed wrt what ?? > > > > > Light and matter energy move through absolute space. > > > > Which you keep saying is unmeasurable. > > > No. I have never said that. I am actually saying the opposite. > > > The space frame reveals movement in terms of slow time. > > > > If it can't be measured in any way, why do you believe in it? > > > Mark. You are not going to get away with putting words into my mouth. > > I'm trying to get words *out* of your mouth. > > > You are the one who is saying that speed through space is imeasurable > > not me. > > > If distance is measurable so is any speed through it. > > It is not that hard. But you cany deny it if you want. > > Then please tell me how to measure speed (not acceleration) through If acceleration is just changing speed then by measuring energy acceleration you can measure its end speed. You do it by calculating with energy's weight fluctuations in the opposite direction. > "absolute" space, without using any other physical object or > phenomenon as a reference as required in Relativity. > > Take Einstein's infamous elevator for example. Einstein's point was > that though acceleration is measurable, it isn't possible to > distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due > to force applied to the elevator car. You are claiming that unchanging > velocity is similarly measurable. > > Say I am in a small, enclosed space (the elevator car with no > windows) and I have performed experiments and have determined I am not > under acceleration. Now, my task is to measure my velocity through > space. How do you suggest I do it? What equipment will I need, how > shall I employ it, and what indications should I expect to see that > will tell me what my speed is? > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If speed slows time then your clock running slow would give an idea of your motion. Mitch Raemsch
From: Edward Green on 31 May 2010 19:57 On May 31, 6:25 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 8:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 2:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 12:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > > > > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > > > > > you must have something which is fixed > > > > > > fixed wrt what ?? > > > > > Light and matter energy move through absolute space. > > > > Which you keep saying is unmeasurable. > > > No. I have never said that. I am actually saying the opposite. > > > The space frame reveals movement in terms of slow time. > > > > If it can't be measured in any way, why do you believe in it? > > > Mark. You are not going to get away with putting words into my mouth. > > I'm trying to get words *out* of your mouth. > > > You are the one who is saying that speed through space is imeasurable > > not me. > > > If distance is measurable so is any speed through it. > > It is not that hard. But you cany deny it if you want. > > Then please tell me how to measure speed (not acceleration) through > "absolute" space, without using any other physical object or > phenomenon as a reference as required in Relativity. > > Take Einstein's infamous elevator for example. Einstein's point was > that though acceleration is measurable, it isn't possible to > distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due > to force applied to the elevator car. A curious claim, since acceleration due to gravity involves curved spacetime, and ordinary acceleration involves (let's say for the sake of argument) flat spacetime. Are you saying there is no way to distinguish the local geometry of spacetime through local measurement? I'm not talking about tidal effects, either.
From: nuny on 31 May 2010 21:32 On May 31, 4:57 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On May 31, 6:25 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 30, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 8:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 2:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 12:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > > > > > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > > > > > > you must have something which is fixed > > > > > > > fixed wrt what ?? > > > > > > Light and matter energy move through absolute space. > > > > > Which you keep saying is unmeasurable. > > > > No. I have never said that. I am actually saying the opposite. > > > > The space frame reveals movement in terms of slow time. > > > > > If it can't be measured in any way, why do you believe in it? > > > > Mark. You are not going to get away with putting words into my mouth. > > > I'm trying to get words *out* of your mouth. > > > > You are the one who is saying that speed through space is imeasurable > > > not me. > > > > If distance is measurable so is any speed through it. > > > It is not that hard. But you cany deny it if you want. > > > Then please tell me how to measure speed (not acceleration) through > > "absolute" space, without using any other physical object or > > phenomenon as a reference as required in Relativity. > > > Take Einstein's infamous elevator for example. Einstein's point was > > that though acceleration is measurable, it isn't possible to > > distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due > > to force applied to the elevator car. > > A curious claim, since acceleration due to gravity involves curved > spacetime, and ordinary acceleration involves (let's say for the sake > of argument) flat spacetime. Are you saying there is no way to > distinguish the local geometry of spacetime through local > measurement? I'm not talking about tidal effects, either. Yes, if the experimental volume is limited to a "point" as in the original gedankenexperiment. If you try to do measurements at spatially separated points, then compare them, you cannot prove that the (say flat spacetime) acceleration vector didn't change while you were recording one measurement and moving to record the other (so as to resemble curved spacetime). Real-world measurements, say with vertically separated gradiometers or horizontally separated plumb bobs, kinda ignore this. Personally I think the way to resolve this is to carefully examine what "point" means in this context. AIUI it means a zero-dimensional mathematically ideal point, but also AIUI there cannot be such a thing in the real world mainly thanks to Heisenberg et. al. Rather than talk about "ideal" measurements, we should consider "ideally *achievable*" ones using actual matter and energy tools which are forced to occupy minimum volumes. This might seem like an "error bars" issue, but it isn't really. It's about what matter and energy can be observed to do in the real world, not what we'd like them to do in an "ideal" situation which can not exist. Mark L. Fergerson
From: nuny on 31 May 2010 21:37 On May 31, 4:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 3:25 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 30, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 8:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 2:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 12:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > > > > > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > > > > > > you must have something which is fixed > > > > > > > fixed wrt what ?? > > > > > > Light and matter energy move through absolute space. > > > > > Which you keep saying is unmeasurable. > > > > No. I have never said that. I am actually saying the opposite. > > > > The space frame reveals movement in terms of slow time. > > > > > If it can't be measured in any way, why do you believe in it? > > > > Mark. You are not going to get away with putting words into my mouth. > > > I'm trying to get words *out* of your mouth. > > > > You are the one who is saying that speed through space is imeasurable > > > not me. > > > > If distance is measurable so is any speed through it. > > > It is not that hard. But you cany deny it if you want. > > > Then please tell me how to measure speed (not acceleration) through > > If acceleration is just changing speed then by measuring energy > acceleration you can measure its end speed. "Energy acceleration"? What's that? Also, how can you know what it's *beginning* speed was? > You do it by calculating with energy's weight fluctuations in the > opposite direction. I didn't ask about calculations, I asked about measurements. What do you propose to *measure*? What form of energy do you mean ? How do you propose to measure its weight? > > "absolute" space, without using any other physical object or > > phenomenon as a reference as required in Relativity. > > > Take Einstein's infamous elevator for example. Einstein's point was > > that though acceleration is measurable, it isn't possible to > > distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due > > to force applied to the elevator car. You are claiming that unchanging > > velocity is similarly measurable. > > > Say I am in a small, enclosed space (the elevator car with no > > windows) and I have performed experiments and have determined I am not > > under acceleration. Now, my task is to measure my velocity through > > space. How do you suggest I do it? What equipment will I need, how > > shall I employ it, and what indications should I expect to see that > > will tell me what my speed is? > > If speed slows time then your clock running slow would give an idea of > your motion. Except your clock can only be said to be "running slow" with respect to some external standard moving at some *relative* velocity that is different from yours, which you cannot observe from within the elevator car. How do you propose to measure this *within* the elevator car? Mark L. Fergerson
From: Hawkman on 31 May 2010 21:55
Motion is weird because it is impossible to model motion on paper or on a computer screen. It is only possible to model motion in real life. In a perfectly dark place somewhere in outer space there is no way for you to know if you are moving if there is only one visible object in front of you because all you see is blackness around you + the object. You can still know if one of you is moving by measuring the distance but you have no way to know which one of you is moving. |