Questions on world-line
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 27 Aug 2006 08:20 "YBM" <ybmess(a)nooos.fr> wrote in message news:44f049bc$0$19777$636a55ce(a)news.free.fr... > kenseto a ?crit : > > "YBM" <ybmess(a)nooos.fr> wrote in message > > news:44efa79f$0$19782$636a55ce(a)news.free.fr... > > > >>kenseto a ?crit : > >> > >>>World line is a path of an object in space traces out by its absolute > >>>motion. > >> > >>Whis this definition, which assumes absolute motion, it is indeed clear > >>that worldline => absolute motion. > >> > >>Note that it is NOT the definition of worldline for the rest of us. > > > > > > SO???? It just mean that the rest of you are wrong. :-) > > > >>>Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference > >>>of the vector components of A's absolute motion and the vector component > > > > of > > > >>>B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B. > >> > >>For the rest of us relative motion does NOT need to refer to absolute > >>motion to be defined. Could you provide at least one case where your > >>definition of relative motion will give another result than the usual > >>one ? > > > > > > You and I are standing side by side. That means that you and I are in the > > same state of absolute motion. I accelerated away from you and maintain a > > constant relative velocity wrt you. My acceleration causes me to have a > > different state of absolute motion than you and thus a different world line > > than you. This clearly show that the relative velocity between us is derived > > from my individual motion. > > You and I are standing side by side. That means that you and I have a > relative velocity of 0. You accelerated away from me, then you change > your relative velocity wrt me. Your acceleration causes you to have a > different relative velocity wrt me than you had before. > Hey idiot.....I don't need you as a reference to know that I experienced a change in my state of motion due to my acceleration. It appears that you don't know what acceleration means.
From: YBM on 27 Aug 2006 13:08 kenseto wrote : > "YBM" <ybmess(a)nooos.fr> wrote in message > news:44f049bc$0$19777$636a55ce(a)news.free.fr... .... >>You and I are standing side by side. That means that you and I have a >>relative velocity of 0. You accelerated away from me, then you change >>your relative velocity wrt me. Your acceleration causes you to have a >>different relative velocity wrt me than you had before. >> > > Hey idiot.....I don't need you as a reference to know that I experienced a > change in my state of motion due to my acceleration. Got it, you're dense.
From: Igor on 27 Aug 2006 13:25 kenseto wrote: > "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message > news:1156614861.712755.257860(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message > > > news:1156525443.210500.226300(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:1156435588.287603.157960(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:1156353371.333406.159360(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > news:1156349832.759078.175940(a)74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > news:1156265582.026355.324580(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The worldline is invariant. Motion is relative. That's all > there > > > is > > > > > > > > to it. Beyond that, I don't really understand what you're > even > > > > > asking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I am asking is: what motion of an object that gives rise to > it > > > > > > > worldline? Is it the object's absolute motion (individual > motion)? > > > If > > > > > not > > > > > > > why not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > Ask Galileo. This is not just an issue with SR. You might want > to > > > > > > reprase your question as "How can motion in space be relative and > > > still > > > > > > have a well-defined trajectory?" > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is an issue with SR. SR claims that there is only > relative > > > > > motion and the fact that each object has its own world line refute > this > > > > > claim. The world line of an object is due to the individual motion > of > > > the > > > > > object in space. > > > > > > > > But Galileo claimed the exact same thing, except with invariant time. > > > > So it's not strictly a SR thing. Thus, the notion of relative motion > > > > has been around since the 17th century. So how can you have relative > > > > motion and still have a well-defined trajectory? > > > > > > SO???? Both Galileo and SR failed to recognize that world line is the > result > > > of absolute motion and relative motion between A abnd B is the vector > > > components difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and > the > > > vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B. > > > > > > > It's simple. How the > > > > motion is described is entirely dependent on the coordinate system, > > > > hence relative motion, but all inertial observers must see the same > > > > trajectory. > > > > > > > But relative motion is derived from the absolute motions of the > interacting > > > objects. > > > All inertial observers do not see the same world line for the same > object. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > Not only do all inertial observers see the same world line in SR, all > > non-inertial observers see the same world line in GR. > > What is your proof that all inertial observers see the same world line for > the same object?? Asymmetric aging. Look it up. Besides, all geometries have a line element that is invariant. When integrated between start and end points, it provides the worldline. >You assertion doesn't count. If all inertial observers > sees the same world line for the same object how come that the coordinates > of the same object is observer dependent? Coordinates of everything are observer dependent. Coordinate systems are entirely arbitrary. Why do even have to ask? That's a given from step one. If you're still stuck on that one, it's time to hang it up. > >You obviously > > don't know what you are talking about. But it's not my problem. > > I think that it is you who don't know what you are talking about. > > >You > > claim there is absolute motion. How do you get to that? > > The only way to proof if absolute motion wrt light is by doing the > experiments in the following link. > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf Okay, how do YOU define absolute motion? > >Even prior to > > SR, most reasonable believers in absolute motion still had it tied down > > to relative motion WRT the aether. > > So?? The newer version of ether theory describes absolute motion as that > motion of an object wrt light that is being transmitted by the ether. My > ether theory give rise to a new theory of relativity call IRT (Improved > Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the > equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A > descriptiuon of IRT is in the following link: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2995Unification.pdf That's still relative motion. How is it absolute? > >How can you believe in absolute > > motion when simple everyday experiences can shoot it down? And one > > more thing, how you model any such absolute motion mathematically? It > > can't be done. > > Nothing shoots it down.....only the mis-interpretations of the past > experimental results. For example, the null result of the MMX can be > interpreted as that there is no motion of the apparatus in the horizontal > plane of the light rays. If the MMX is performed with the plane of the light > rays oriented vertically, non-null results will be obtained. This > interpretation is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiments as well as > the observed gravitational red shift in the vertical direction. Well, the fact that objects around me appear to move in the opposite direction from the direction I'm going seem to disprove that ridiculous notion. The fact that most of them stop when I do provides even more evidence. Aether or no aether, all there is is relative motion. And no, the P&R experiment is fully in agreement with GR. Your ideas are all wet. Again, define ABSOLUTE motion for us, please.
From: YBM on 29 Aug 2006 08:47 Bob Cain a ?crit : >>kenseto wrote: .... >>Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light being transmitted >>by the aether. This is the only kind of absolute motion that is detectable. > > > If there's lotsa light in the vicinity, which part of it is your > absolute motion with respect to? What a question ! The one going in the (absolute) vertical direction !
From: Bob Cain on 29 Aug 2006 18:30
YBM wrote: > Bob Cain a ?crit : >>> kenseto wrote: > ... >>> Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light being >>> transmitted >>> by the aether. This is the only kind of absolute motion that is >>> detectable. >> >> >> If there's lotsa light in the vicinity, which part of it is your >> absolute motion with respect to? > > What a question ! The one going in the (absolute) vertical direction ! > Ah! That clarifies it. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |