Re: When does a FOR cease to be a FOR?


"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:QVXZe.5726$jJ1.364572@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Daniel Weston" <daniel009@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:29512-4338462A-1217@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

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?


No.

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?


Of course.
"Being at rest in a FOR" and "being in motion in a FOR" are
meaningful concepts, but just "being in a FOR" is meaningless.

Does the lab cease to consist of 1 FOR
upon internal motion?


No.
But the scientist can decide to have his own frame of reference.
The lab remains a frame of reference as long as someone contemplates
times and locations of events with respect to the lab frame.

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?


Motion within the lab does not destroy the lab.


Depending on the answer I have some follow up questions.








blank lines?














more blank lines?












and more blank lines?











Why all these blank lines at the end of every post you make?

Dirk Vdm

I've explained this to you before, dip***, he's posting from WebTV. 

.