Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:22:41 -0700
Dear Curious:
"Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1115460223.017965.207910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for your reply - very interesting indeed.
> I'm puzzled by this though:
> In any frame, if the time t is a particular value,
> is the time not that same value for any
> location in that frame?
All locations in that frame will eventually "pass through that
time value", yes. But as you formulated, distance correlates to
delay *in observation*. It is not possible to know that
correctly synchronized clocks achieve the same value *now* from
some absolute God-like perspective. We are stuck with what we
can measure, so we typically limit a frame size to "something
that our instruments cannot measure a delay across". And this is
getting smaller.
We already had problems with "meeting at noon", when two people
are from different time zones.
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- From: Curious
- Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- References:
- Two photons... relative distance question
- From: Curious
- Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- From: Curious
- Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- From: Jon Bell
- Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- From: Curious
- Two photons... relative distance question
- Prev by Date: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by Date: Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity
- Previous by thread: Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- Next by thread: Re: Two photons... relative distance question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|