Re: On the observation of a moving object.
From: kenneth couesbouc (kencouesbouc_at_yahoo.fr)
Date: 11/26/04
- Next message: Tom Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Previous message: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: YBM: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Reply: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Reply: YBM: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Nov 2004 07:27:45 -0800
YBM <ybmess@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:<41a39337$0$18917$626a14ce@news.free.fr>...
> kenneth couesbouc a écrit :
> > There seems to be some sort of confusion. There is NO rest, nowhere, none anywhere.
> > Regards, Ken
>
> Please, Ken, try to seriously consider what Stephen and I said to you.
> And do not assume that "at rest" has any kind of absolute signification.
> It is only a relative term used in the description to mean that given
> the point of view (the "frame") taken at a point of the discourse to
> emphasize on which point of view is considered. You can even
> remove all "at rest" labels on my drawing, it changes nothing.
>
> Put a hat on you head and take your car. Is the hat not at rest
> relatively to you ?
>
> "K (resp K') at rest" in my drawings only means that at this point I
> consider the point of view of K (rest K') nothing else. And I show
> you how you cannot give any sense to "A is moving faster than B" without
> reference to a third body, and that by considering another body you'll
> get "B moving faster than A". Are you so confused that you really
> cannot consider such elementary dynamic ? Did you ever take a
> train in a busy station ?
I suppose it had to end up with a train story. So, let's imagine I'm
on a train. If I walk towards the engine, I'm going faster than the
other passengers. How do I know this? Because I'm going past them in
their seats. Where is the third body?
Very confused regards, Ken
- Next message: Tom Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- Previous message: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- In reply to: YBM: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Reply: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Reply: YBM: "Re: On the observation of a moving object."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|