Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?


kenseto wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1127942484.235920.217710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 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".
>
> This is just a bunch of cirular words. You said: "You don't know that they
> are both moving." In that case one of them is not moving and thus it must be
> at a state of absolute rest.
>
> Ken Seto

Not so. You are equating not knowing something with knowing the
opposite.
Suppose you told me, "London is north of where you live."
I would say "You don't know that London is north of where I live"
Would this give you the right to say, "Then I know that London is south
of where you live"?

Absolute rest HAS NO MEANING.
Therefore, absolute motion HAS NO MEANING.

You can't say you know anything about an object's absolute motion or
absolute rest, because the two are concepts that don't have any bearing
on reality. It would be like saying something is "artistically
provable".

Only relative motion has meaning.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reasons why SR is an aether theory
    ... >>> don't know which rod is doing the moving). ... >> observer", which is absolutely unambiguous and not misleading at all. ... Ls is in a state of absolute rest," is an assertion on your part. ... > higher is the state of motion of a clock wrt the observer the slower is its ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
    ... >>> distinguish it from the case where something is not moving. ... >> at a state of absolute rest. ... One is at absolute rest and the other is doing the moving. ... absolute motion HAS NO MEANING. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
    ... >>> You don't know that they are both moving. ... The reason you don't know that is ... > "the ONLY uniform motion is relative uniform motion". ... at a state of absolute rest. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Acceleration proves absolute frame of reference
    ... Everything is moving in the universe. ... There is no absolute rest. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity"
    ... through which space-time is moving at almost c. ... The notion of space at absolute rest is bogus. ... operational method possible to measure motion with respect to space at ...
    (sci.physics)