Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?


kenseto wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1127854545.967024.11110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1127797575.074408.125720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Deon Joubert wrote:
> > > > > If the speed of light is the fastest anything can move isn't it
> possible
> > > > > that there is a state of absolute rest - where a body does not have
> any
> > > > > speed. You will say 'in relation to what?' In relation to the
> speed of
> > > > > light...? Surely that is possible? If so then isn't it true the
> speed
> > > of a
> > > > > body is somehow an attribute of the body?
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not possible and here's the rub. Two experimenters measure
> > > > light speed and each determines light speed to be c, thus (according
> to
> > > > you) each would conclude that he is at rest (in relation to the speed
> > > > of light). However, they also observe that they are moving with
> respect
> > > > to each other. So perhaps one of them is at rest and one of them is
> > > > moving. But which one?
> > >
> > > Both experimenters are moving..... But they move at different speeds and
> the
> > > difference of their speeds is the relative velocity between them.
> >
> > You don't know that they are both moving. Indeed, the statement makes
> > no sense, though the fact that they are moving relative to each other
> > does.
>
> If both of them are not moving that would mean that one of them is at
> absolute rest. Do you really want that implication???
> Ken Seto

I'm not implying that at all. I'm implying that you don't *know* that
they are both absolutely moving. The reason you don't know that is
because the idea itself doesn't make sense. The reason it doesn't make
sense is this: to know for sure that something is moving, you have to
distinguish it from the case where something is not moving. Since the
latter is not a sensible statement, then neither is the contrasting
statement that something is absolutely moving. This is what is meant by
"the ONLY uniform motion is relative uniform motion".

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
    ... source charge or its field. ... depending on whether the charge is at rest and the sensor moving, ... An oscillation can occur in a void, whereas a wave requires ... But those two speeds cannot be equal ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Exactly Happens to TIME in GPS Orbit?
    ... which according to B is moving at a constant velocity c relative to B's ... Light entering pockets of space above that, ... If you want to know why variable stars vary run my Vbasic simulation programs. ... speeds wrt local matter it is something you might ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The train and the light inside.
    ... Let's say they are moving at CV as they accelerate, ... I'm sitting on a train headed east at 97 mph. ... Yes, you do, but you and the train are not at CV wrt to the earth. ... only you and the train changed speeds and so you are no longer at CV ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The train and the light inside.
    ... Let's say they are moving at CV as they accelerate, ... I'm sitting on a train headed east at 97 mph. ... Yes, you do, but you and the train are not at CV wrt to the earth. ... only you and the train changed speeds and so you are no longer at CV ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Pioneer 10 test of light speed
    ... >>nothing moving. ... >> intense band occurs when the delay times from two different sources ... >>suggest does not exceed one second ie over distances less than ... >>inside nuclei moving in tight orbits at superluminal speeds. ...
    (sci.astro)