Re: The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime Geometry
- From: Alen <alen1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:20:58 -0700
On Oct 18, 5:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alen wrote:
[...]
Your "logic" is flawed.
Instead of Minkowski spacetime, consider Euclidean 2-space (i.e. a
plane). Consider your different "experiments" to be rotated differently
in the plane. Why would one need any single "fulcrum" or"spatial axis"?
One doesn't, and the same applies to Minkowski spacetime.
Tom Roberts
There is only one particular stationary frame,
selected in respect of the argument. There is
thus only one particular moving frame at a
particular relative velocity to that particular stationary
frame. All points on the particular spatial axis in this
particular moving frame must therefore share a single
time coordinate, and be a single axis, to which any
experiment, located anywhere in the stationary frame,
can be referred, and not have a separate spatial axis,
with a separate fulcrum of rotation for each experiment,
if Minkowski spacetime is to be only a single spacetime.
This results in the fulcrum of rotation of the moving
frame spatial axis having to be located at infinity.
Alen
.
- References:
- The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime Geometry
- From: Alen
- Re: The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime Geometry
- From: Tom Roberts
- The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime Geometry
- Prev by Date: Re: MMX ***FAILED*** because of HUBBLE
- Next by Date: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Previous by thread: Re: The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime Geometry
- Next by thread: Re: The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime Geometry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
