Re: SR, frames, light and spatial separation

On Feb 3, 8:51 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 2, 5:29 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 2, 3:27 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 2, 12:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 2, 9:56 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 2, 10:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 2, 9:39 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 2, 10:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 2, 9:35 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 27, 9:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 27, 8:06 pm, jonas.thornv...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jan 27, 7:47 pm, Jim Newman <j...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

jonas.thornv...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 Jan, 16:12, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 26, 6:01 am, jonas.thornv...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

So Eric can two spatial separated objects constitute a frame in SR.

JT

*CAN* they? Sure. The whole planet Earth can be considered a frame if
you so choose.

I always thougt it did travel in an elliptic path around the sun and
thus was accelerated. Apparently i was wrong muhahaahahah

A frame can be non-inertial and still be a frame. I thought you knew that.

Well according to PD a frame could be the Aether too,

I didn't say the Aether, either. It doesn't have to be EITHER an
object OR the aether. Why do you think a frame has to be one or the
other?

no need for
object or observer you just imagine a point that need no place since
there is no absolulte space and this point is free to be moved
anywhere at once, to adjust the speed of light to c.

Go figure on that one for a while..........
And come back with a coherent definition for inertial frame.

None of you have any clue about what an inertial frame is, you only
keep on guessing from the dreamwork of Einstein.

A none inertial frame is quite useless for measuring the speed of
light, time dilation and length contraction,
*****i thought you knew that.*********

Because SRians always been invalidating accelerated frames for
comparisson of time dilation. That is the SRIANs main argument dealing
with anyone who asking them why objects orbiting around sun with
higher velocity than others do not experience any relative time
dilation to objects orbiting with lower velocities.

AND also you have the fact that an object at the earthpoles have a
relative lower speed than an object at the equator, and that clock
there should experience relative time dilation compared with clocks at
the poles.

But i thought you new that, or do you want to change your position so
we also can use accelerated frames to disprove SR fairy stories?

JT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But you need an ether for light (the wave) to travel through.  Unless
you again invoke an exception to the rule...

What rule are you thinking of?

What rule are you thinking of?

Is this similar to the rule that mammals all give live birth to their
young?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First you diagnose your own condition, now you extend your BS into
biology?  You are on a flight of ideas, Schizo-boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Schizo, do you need everything spelled out for you?  You want me to
feed you everything in a rubber coated spoon?  You need to get up from
your chair and do some real work!

You want me to read your mind to determine what rule you're thinking
of?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You asked the question so I presume you were on to something.  It is
obvious you are clueless about your own line of inquiry...

You made a statement: "But you need an ether for light (the wave) to
travel through.  Unless you again invoke an exception to the rule..."

So I asked you what rule you had in mind. You've not answered what
rule you had in mind.

So from the information we have from you so far about your claim,
either
1) You don't have a rule in mind, but you just said "exception to
*the* rule" for the hell of it.
2) You had a rule in mind, but you've forgotten what it was.
3) You have a rule in mind, but you are keeping it secret.
4) You don't have the foggiest recollection ever making that
statement.

Which of these is right?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that you seem to be holding on to reality, here is the rule.  By
definition, a wave requires a medium.

What definition are you referring to?
There is no physical definition of a wave that requires the presence
of a medium, other than one you just made up.

 Water waves require water.

Bats are born with wings. Bats are mammals. Therefore mammals are born
with wings.

 The
water molecules do not travel.  Only the water wave does.  Sound
requires air.  The air molecules do not travel.  Thus both water waves
and sound waves travel at velocities INDEPENDENT of the source.

Yes.

 Light
had been postulated to travel at velocities INDEPENDENT of the
source.  What is its medium?

There isn't any.

Balloons travel upward. They do this because they are lighter than
air.
Rockets travel upward. This must mean that rockets are lighter than
air.

 The ether was postulated, and then
debunked.  To maintain the isotropy of lightspeed, a medium must be
found.

At this point, you are ready to depart from realtiy again, so I am
merely reminding you to try to keep on the course.

For someone with an IQ of 200, you have a few problems with logic.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sorry, I sneezed. New AT2021 and Rode Omni acoustic guitar clips up
    ... Actually that's inaccurate, Glenn. ... only the energy of the wave. ... Similarly, the molecules of water, or air, don't actually travel ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Nuclear Fusion Reactor.
    ... i.e. they are helical wave electrons which can have a choice ... > wave electrons can even be amplitude or frequency modulated. ... > wave particles that travel from A to B. ... I think you'll find that waveguide current and voltage ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity: what if you can measure how far the light traveled?
    ... Suppose person A is at km marker 0, and B is at km marker 1. ... Since B can move 1 km in the time the beams can travel 2 km, ... switch to B's frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Thoughts on time and space
    ... frame, so we see the motion of the moon. ... Because this energy is ultimately ... We are what we eat, so as we travel through our ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Flight from Phoenix to LAS
    ... The tip off to your level of ignorance was the casual use of "SWA" ... as the choice of boorish louts, the Jukes and Kallikaks of the travel world, ... with truck and tucker bags, across the land, sort of Greyhounds of the air. ... Do they tattered and unwashed fly WN after locating the occasional bargain? ...
    (rec.travel.air)