Re: Proof That LENGTH is Absolute
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 May 2007 11:57:19 -0700
On May 6, 5:57 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Allow me to clarify an important principle.
Take a rigid rod.
Assign to it, BY DEFINITION, the spatial interval of ONE STANDARD LENGTH UNIT.
This is certainly possible, and also stupid. Sort of like saying that
the speedometer reading on a car is assigned, BY DEFINITION, to
provide an absolute velocity reading. (Let's call it the "Wilson per
Wilson".)
(The 'Wilson')
Divide its length into smaller intervals with calibration marks.
Make an extremely large number of calibrated copies or the rod, all exactly one
Wilson in length.
Fire the rods at random to all corners of the universe.
Since we know that the rods do not change physically in any way during this
process, any observer anywhere can subsequently grab the nearest rod and use it
to measure lengths of other objects in his own frame (in standard universal
Wilsons),
Only by ensuring that the Wilson and the object to be measured are
both at rest in that observer's frame.
knowing full well that the answers he gets will represent the same
absolute spatial intervals as they would in any other observer frame.
Why, no. You seem to be confusing "frame" with "locality" -- as in,
everything my frame are the things that are close to me and everything
that is in your frame are the things that are close to you. That's not
at all what a frame of reference means. Please try again.
PD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proof That LENGTH is Absolute
- From: karandash2000
- Re: Proof That LENGTH is Absolute
- Prev by Date: Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
- Next by Date: Re: Proof That LENGTH is Absolute
- Previous by thread: Re: Proof That LENGTH is Absolute
- Next by thread: Re: Proof That LENGTH is Absolute
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
