Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:26:15 GMT
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1127762491.342493.256030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Daniel Weston wrote:
> > I am sure that this is a naive question, but I would like it to be
> > clarified in my own mind. Take a laboratory as a FOR. Does movement
> > within the lab destroy the lab as a FOR? If a scientist changes
> > position from one end of the lab to the other, is the scientist in the
> > lab's FOR during this travel? Does the lab cease to consist of 1 FOR
> > upon internal motion? If motion within the lab destroys the lab and its
> > contents from being in the same FOR, does this mean that a moving
> > experiment cannot be done within a single FOR?
> >
> > Depending on the answer I have some follow up questions.
>
> Let's put it this way, an electrostatic spray paint booth
> would be a bad place to test the "principle of relativity"
> with a charged comb and pith ball experiment.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
>
> Sue...
http://dennisthemenacetv.homestead.com/
Dirk Vdm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- From: Sue...
- Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- References:
- Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- From: Sue...
- Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- Prev by Date: Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- Next by Date: Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
- Previous by thread: Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- Next by thread: Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
