absolute is known a priori
From: beda pietanza (beda-pietanza_at_libero.it)
Date: 07/06/04
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity"
- Previous message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Travelling faster than the speed of light."
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Reply: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:22:43 GMT
Case 1)
Two observers moving at .5 C approaching each other
their relative speed (as seen by each other, according to SR) is .8 C
In a second of their time they cover a absolute space of 1 second light
In a second of their time the absolute time is 1.1547 second
Case 2)
Two observers: one at rest and one moving at .8 C
In one second of the time of the observer at rest they cover .8 second light
and the absolute time is 1 second
In one second of the time of the .8 C observer they cover 1.33333333 second
light and the absolute time is 1.6666666 second.
**
There is not equivalence between case 1) and case 2): the absolute times are
different and the absolute spaces involved are also different.
SR ignores this, in this SR math is useless,
the difficulty of detecting the preferred frame cannot be overcome by
tricks.
We know what would happen if we knew the absolute speeds of the observers,
is this not enough ?????
best regards
beda pietanza
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: As soon as there was matter there was gravity"
- Previous message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Travelling faster than the speed of light."
- Next in thread: Harry: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Reply: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: absolute is known a priori"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|