Re: SRT , GRT and " Minkowski space ".

<valls@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187891405.299006.66700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 23 ago, 06:05, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:oHdzi.52422$L85.1526@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx







"socratus" <israel...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187863911.728547.158600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: ===========================
: SRT doesn't have a gravity field.
: If there is no gravity field , the space will be flat,
: and this space is called " Minkowski space "
: (negative 4-D united space/time continuum).
: ======.
: Is the " Minkowski space "abstract continuum, as everybody says?
: I think this space is a real one.
: I think this space is Vacuum.
: Why?
: 1. " Minkowski space "has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
: 2. Only Vacuum space has negative parameter : T= - 273.
: 3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
: which are joined together absolutely .
: 4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
: light quanta in Vacuum.
: 5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
: and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
: 6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
: then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
: =======.
: And in 1915 Einstein put a " MASS " in the
: " Minkowski space " and it curved. Why?
: And in 1921 A. Freedman put " TIME" in the
: " Minkowski space " and it also curved. Why?
: ==========
: If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
: beginning of his calculations then after some
: operations it grows into a big one.

This isn't a "small mistake", it's an outright arrogant lie:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Albert Einstein,

One track mind Androcles with his distorted quotes. And not a single
piece
of logical reasoning why the time to travels from A to B should NOT be
the
same as the time to travel from B to A
You need first a space in order to have afterward points A and B in
it. Einstein considers the ether superfluous, not existing at all.
Then, he has only bodies to state his theory. If he considers a point
A over some body and another point B some distance apart, he needs to
be very careful when sending a light ray from A to B. A little ahead
in his writing he considers two clocks fixed to the ends of a moving
rigid rod, needing to re-synchronize them in a condition where vacuum
light speed is c in the "stationary system" and independent on source
velocity (postulate 2). But is the rod moving or not? For a
"stationary system" observer the rod is moving, for a "moving system"
observer the rod is at rest. This is why Einstein needs at the
beginning to DEFINE that light takes equal time to go from A to B that
from B to A, as part of his explanation about the meaning of the
"time" concept, reaching at the end to a relative time depending on co-
ordinate system. The time to travel from A to B IS different to the
time to travel from B to A if the points (clocks) are moving! Since
then, time is no more absolute (clocks synchronization as defined by
Einstein is frame dependent).
By the way, I think that the condition of constant velocity for the
moving rod is not necessary. The two clocks at the extremes of the rod
remain re-synchronized even changing later the velocity!
(This post is specially directed to both, Jeckyl and my good friend
Androcles.)

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

Of course, the second postulate of SR says that light will travel at c in
all frames of reference, so therefore the time taken MUST be the same fro A
to B and B to A. Otherwise the postulates of SR would not hold.

There is no particular reason to think that because a rod is moving its
clocks will or will not remain in sync. You cannot categorically say that
"the time to travel from A to B IS different to the time to travel from B to
A if the points (clocks) are moving" .. it really depends on your model of
the universe. Yes?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SRT , GRT and " Minkowski space ".
    ... And the second SRT postulate tells about moving ... light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires ... But is the rod moving or not? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRT , GRT and " Minkowski space ".
    ... And the second SRT postulate tells about moving ... light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires ... But is the rod moving or not? ... time to travel from B to A if the points (clocks) are moving! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Minkowski spacetime and GRT.
    ... Minkowski spacetime was born in SRT. ... the same time as in the non-moving frame: ... According to the moving observer the photon traveled a ... The path increases and the time it took to travel a longer distance ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can the Special Theory of Relativity be "explained"
    ... |> light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires ... |> Why would anyone make that absurd assumption? ... or forward and reverse light speeds or anything else. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: space travel
    ... I'm still not moving. ... well here goes, i make my mega-uber-space ship warp both space and time, ... it take atleast 2 month to travel to mars today. ... > we biuld somekind generator which stretch out the spacetime continuum ...
    (sci.space.policy)