Re: Minkowski spacetime and GRT.


"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tq6dnZY-aJe1W2nVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Spirit of Truth wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:RPWdnR4oDOSxrGnVnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Spirit of Truth wrote:
"Hayek" <hayektt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48f213dc$0$191$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
socratus wrote:
=============
1.
SRT.

Minkowski spacetime was born in SRT.
In SRT gravity is absent.

Not quite.

In the center of the Earth, gravity is also absent.
But its effects, the slowing of the clock, are at its most.

But because it is "flat", this is ignored.

Time is nothing but a manifestion of motion.
Motion is controlled by inertia.

A clock is an inertiameter.

In SRT, inertia increases also, because our inertiameters slow
down, as our speed increases.


Well that appears correct, but what about simple time dilation
shown in the following link. Because the apparently the photon's
speed does not increase in the moving frame, it does not arrive in
the same time as in the non-moving frame:

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/sr7/sr7.htm

In the photon bouncing sillyness,
The secondary frame that sees the photon traveling further
should stop ignoring the longer distance it is seen to travel
and that the relative speed of that photon would have to have
changed. According to the moving observer the photon traveled a
further distance per the same "bounce" time.
So that page is actually proof lightspeed is not constant to
all and there is no time dilation going on at all there.
That page proves lightspeed is relative but confuses it for
the bounce time changing rate when it does not change rate
at all.
:)

It is shown travelling the longer distance but at the same speed
= C, therefore the time factor is said to dilate.

If the speed did not increase, it would not make that trip
in the same bounce rate.
The trick they pull is the bouncing light.
The bouncing light is not moving at c.
It is a spot of light shined onto a plate and moved up and down,
Then of course they move the apparatus.
The bounce did not take a different time to get from top to bottom,
The path increases and the time it took to travel a longer distance
was the same time it took to travel from one side to the other when
not in motion.
The path is longer, the time is the same.
Lightspeed is not "constant" to all frames.
Simple as that.
.......................................................................................................

Their fundamental is light speed must remain c from every
Observer's viewpoint, and state that it concurs with Maxwell.

The light originating in the moving frame....but NOT subject to the
speed of that moving frame....but still being dragged along in that
moving frame!


:)


Spirit of Truth


.

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: The "thought" experiment of David Strich
    ... is moving at v in the X direction. ... if he doesn't see it travel in both X and Y? ... the relatively stationary frame. ... This was demonstrated in astronomy by observing ...
    (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? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRs Basic Mistake.
    ... sees light moving in his frame at c and also sees a train moving, ... not a good way to teach SRT, ... Then stay away from engineering! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Reviewing Statements in Einsteins 1905 paper.
    ... between moving FoRs? ... to his own frame as if the source was in his frame. ... the equations say that light will travel at c. ... The second car catches up to the first, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)