The absolute frame.
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 11 Aug 2010 00:17 rotchm wrote: > >> Math hides nothing. If you can't find it, it doesn't exist. > > The path of a commet can not be foud, yet it exist. Three body > problem. > > Many things in math can not be found but can be shown to exist > (mathematically). Uh, you have heard of a 'computer', right?
From: Inertial on 11 Aug 2010 03:02 "GogoJF" wrote in message news:b67ee66c-3f7e-4e4e-a37b-a2a7b0b48211(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Aug 10, 8:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "GogoJF" wrote in message > > news:31d7324c-6003-4871-a0de-19ef7ae233e2(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > >But, I would say more than anything- that the > > instantaneousness of light is the most absolute frame to me. > > It isn't instantaneous. > > Try again >This is what I put and pile everything- of my ideas and theories on. Then you've piled it on a falsehood [snip irrelevant waffle] Nothing left
From: GogoJF on 11 Aug 2010 11:07 On Aug 11, 2:02 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "GogoJF" wrote in message > > news:b67ee66c-3f7e-4e4e-a37b-a2a7b0b48211(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 10, 8:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "GogoJF" wrote in message > > >news:31d7324c-6003-4871-a0de-19ef7ae233e2(a)z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > > >But, I would say more than anything- that the > > > instantaneousness of light is the most absolute frame to me. > > > It isn't instantaneous. > > > Try again > >This is what I put and pile everything- of my ideas and theories on. > > Then you've piled it on a falsehood > > [snip irrelevant waffle] > > Nothing left Inertial, when did you start to believe in finite light? What was the single, overwhelming piece of evidence that converted you?
From: harald on 11 Aug 2010 12:39 On Aug 10, 8:34 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides this. > > There are three possibilities : > > 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute frame. > > 2.a moves and b moves faster first then returns slower > wrt the absolute frame to a > > 3.a moves and b moves slower first then returns faster > wrt absolute frame. You forgot to introduce the context about what your a. and b. refer to... > first case : b's clock will move slower than a's on the > outward voyage and slower than a's on the way back. My first guess: perhaps you have Langevin's "twin" scenario in mind. If so, then obviously the random chances of 1. are about zero. > second case : b's clock will move muuuuch slower that > a's on the outward voyage and faster than a's on the way > back, in total, because the gamma factor has a quadradic > term we will end up just as slow as in the first case > and third case. > > Third case : b's clock will move faster that a's on the > outward voyage and muuuuch slower than a's on the way > back, and again, in total, because the gamma factor has > a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as in the > first case and in the second case. > > So no matter what case you choose : because there is > acceleration on the return point, the speed wrt to > absolute frame changes, and because of the quadratic > gamma factor, two way voyages always make the returning > twin age more, if not on the outward track, then it is > on the inbound track, or on both tracks. The > instantaneous clock rate is decided by the speed wrt to > the absolute frame, Yes that has been explained in a number of papers, even the first one on that topic. > the average mass distribution of the universe. That is your hypothesis; if we postulate that matter started out "in rest", then conservation of momentum tells us that your hypothesis should be correct. > SR-ians can make funny claims, What are "SR-ians"? Do you mean people who used to be described as "geometers" in journals such as Nature? > and so can I, because > there is no way of verifying this, without Faster Than > Light transmission, which SR-ians exclude from their > theory, mainly because this would destroy SR, and > secondly because they do not know what proper time > exactly is. > They think it is "speed of passage through time", while > it actually is slowing the motion of objects and clocks > by increasing inertia. A clock is an inertiameter, or an > inertial field strength meter. What is "inertial field strength"?? > If inertia becomes > stronger, the escapement of your clock is harder to move > back and forth, hence the clock slows. "harder to move" isn't the best choice of words... > Because this > applies to any object moving in this higher inertia, "in" inertia?? > we think this is "time" we are measuring, while in fact it > does not much more than your freezer, alowing the motion > of the molecules. Good try, but probably too inaccurate to convince anyone. Harald
From: Karl Heinz on 11 Aug 2010 13:05
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <4c619ba8$0$22940$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl> <i3suu3$ias$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:05:08 +0200 e |