Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?



N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear Curious:
>
> "Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1117326809.298604.216880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Martin Hogbin wrote:
> ...
> >> > But I will try to figure out a way to show that there
> >> > must be an absolute frame of reference.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> How do you know that there is one?
> >
> > I don't *know*. I beieve there must be. The
> > explanation of acceleration to account for
> > the choice of who ages doesn't make sense.
>
> What other "sensible" (in the meaning of being able to be sensed
> or measured) differences are there between the two twins? Where
> in an absolute frame of reference does inertia reside?
>
> David A. Smith

I'm not sure of what you're hinting at here (why hint, btw?)
But if in defense of 'no absolute frame', it is unjustifiable to use
measurable differences which imply a preferred frame: these differences
are exactly my point.

.

Quantcast