Re: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame

Tom Roberts wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:24:28 -0700, harry
<harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:48 am, Surfer <sur...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which leads me to think that absolute motion, special
relativity effects and Lorentz symmetry might all be
compatible.
That is correct and all well-informed people here know that: it
has been discussed and re-explained for years (are you really new
here?).

But then, this "absolute motion" is completely unobservable,

So Far. The efforts to look for an experiment that observes this are
very little to nonexistent.


and the "compatibility" is only for theories that are essentially
useless and FAR more difficult to work with than SR (in which you can
select any convenient inertial frame, not just the "one, true,
frame").

In particular, this "absolute motion" that is compatible with SR is
not at all the "absolute motion" of Newton or Maxwell.

There could be no absolute motion in Newton or Maxwell, all motion was
relative. But then, when one measures a limit to light speed,
immediately the question arises : c relative to what ? That gave rise to
speculations on the Aether.

Imo, the question not sufficiently adressed is :
If you fire a photon in empty space, what acts on this foton and limits
its speed ?

The only solution is : the mass distribuition of the surrounding masses,
in most cases : the mass distribution of the universe.

Beware of PUNs.


I have tended to neglect relativity in favor of QM. So it is a very
interesting learning experience.

SR is a piece of cake compared to QM (though it's not trivial, as the
many people around here display daily). GR is a rather different
story....

The key is in understanding GR and its equivalence principle, helped by
Mach´s principle. It was actually Einstein that first used the term
"Mach's Principle"

Talking about a flat gravitational field, where there is no gravitation,
as it is neutralized on all sides, is rather silly. Flat spacetime is
completely obfuscating the matter, for something simple like an inertial
field.

So if we have a "flat" inertial field, without a gradient, that means no
gravitation, then that means that wherever we go our clocks will run the
same. Our clocks do not measure time, they measure inertia. A clock is
an inertiameter.

You can imagine what happens if the inertia increases towards infinity :
it would be impossible for the pendulum of a clock to move back and
forth, time would halt. For an outside observer c=0.

Now, you also can imagine what happens if inertia becomes zero : the
pendulum of a clock would move at infinite speed back and forth (for an
outside observer now c=inf) : if you were trying to grab it at the left
or right side, you would have a chance of 50% of succeeding. It would
look as if the pendulum was at both places at the same time, it would
look as if it teleported form left to right, it would look like a wave,
and yet if you caught the pendulum, it was a particle, and the wave
would seemingly collapse.

Uwe Hayek.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time dilatation and a space referential
    ... If a mass affects ... > a clock, then lots of mass will also affect a clock, ... >> a property of the general relativity. ... it meanse inertia has varied. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The problems with a "constant" speed
    ... spacetime paths traversed by each clock. ... Special Relativity time dilation effect. ... critically examine the concept of inertia. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... are similarly effected by relative inertial motion. ... The reference you offered for you light clock did not say ... Einstein and Mach say gravity there causes inertia here. ... interpretation of the Principle of Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz factor of 400
    ... only one thing has increased: the inertia ... Imagine it has a little clock on board with a little ... pendulum: that pendulum would be subjected to 400 times more inertia, ... The mass does not increase. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz factor of 400
    ... Imagine it has a little clock on board with a little pendulum: that pendulum would be subjected to 400 times more inertia, thus it would move 400 times slower. ... If a mass undergoes 400 times more inertia, it becomes 400 times harder to accelerate: you not to apply much more energy to accelerate it even further. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)