Re: The relationship between meter, speed of light and c

In sci.physics.relativity, bz
<bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:24:48 +0000 (UTC)
<Xns98D7561C899EEWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:sidaa4-a91.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In short, I consider IRT is a hopeless muddle, though it
might be repairable to some extent --

Doubtful.

Have you ever tried to pin down what 'absolute' means to him?

It is kind of like what most people mean when they say 'relative' except
that 'absolute motion' is alway vertical wrt the local gravity.

I did note that, and that does pose a pretty problem which is not SR
related (since gravity kinks things in the reference frame).


Leading to the contradictory conclusion that three mutually perpendicular
MMX apparati, located at three points on the globe such as (0,0), (0, 90)
and (90,0) where (x,y) represents x latitude, y longitude, would each be
moving instantanioulsy in different 'absolute directions' at the same time,
even if the earth were to shrink to zero size, putting them in contact with
each other and in orbit around the sun, they would still be moving in
different 'K-absolute directions'.

I suspect repair is impossible without complete teardown and rebuild from
the ground up.

Which SR clearly does not need. :-) Therefore, why is "improvement"
even necessary? :-)

But never mind -- I was being slightly charitable towards Kenseto's
favorite (and only) "theory". After all, he wrote a book and all. :-)
I've not gotten that far.


however, the best I
can do there is slap on an SR "light-defined" coordinate
system onto a MM "real" Newtonian one, and try to relate
the coordinates in a meaningful and slightly useless
fashion, since it's simpler just to use SR exclusively.









--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
fortune: not found

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.