Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: "EL" <hemetis@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Jun 2005 02:01:47 -0700
[Curious wrote]
> My question isn't answered yet, by the way. What I see as happening
> during motion, and please correct me if this is not possible, is that
> all atoms involved in that motion oscillate, 'function' or 'exist'
> slower.
[EL]
Slower than what or slower than when?
The word slower is a comparative expression that makes no sense when it
stands alone.
Motion could be relatively inertial or relatively accelerating, so
which one did you mean?
It is not that easy to be meticulous and rigorous on the path towards
better knowledge.
> To an observer in the system looking at a more slowly moving
> frame of reference it would appear that that other frame was speeded up
> in time. But within their own frame of reference, *everything* would
> appear normal and function as normal. There would, in other words, be
> no discernible absolute reference of time or motion to measure against,
> without looking at an external frame.
[EL]
Yes, indeed, although your wording is objectionable, I can understand
what you try to say.
That is precisely what I said when I asked, "slower that what or slower
than when?"
In fact, it takes three things not two to build up a relativistic
world.
1- The first thing required is an arbitrated system of dimensions and
scalar metrics of units with which we can measure physical quantities.
2- The second thing required is the mind to which observed states and
changes of states endures time. States and changes of states then must
be related to the quantitative units of the arbitrated systems of
scales and metrics.
3- The third thing required is the object under observation and its
relation to the observer as measured by the arbitrated units.
In special relativity, the speed of light is postulated to be constant
to all inertial frames and its value is per medium where vacuum is the
referential medium of such speed scale. It is by means of the yard and
the clock inherent in the speed of light that we measure relative
speeds distances and time intervals.
>
> So my question is, in this state, how can we cater for this?
>
[EL]
Relativistically, of course.
Please read what Bilge has to say with great tolerance to learn from
the man.
He kindly gave you a good exercise.
And by the way, look for the definition of event and world-line and use
them, they will help you clear a lot of ambiguity. Relativity is not
difficult to understand if you study the definitions first and then
focus on the relational formalism.
kindest regards.
EL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: EL
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: EL
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: EL
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Prev by Date: Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- Next by Date: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Previous by thread: Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Next by thread: Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
