Re: An interesting SR puzzle
From: Prai Jei (pvstownsend_at_zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: 02/16/05
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: peak oil revisited"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: An interesting SR puzzle"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: An interesting SR puzzle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:38:46 +0000
John Kennaugh (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<rbNSCNSlU5ECFwGh@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>:
> In message <cudv81$qd9$1@dolly.uninett.no>, Paul B. Andersen
> <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> writes
>>Sue... wrote:
>>> An event can't be observed before it occurs but calculate to your
>>> heart's content if it makes you feel better.
>>> Sue...
>>>
>>
>>I suppose this truism is supposed to be a defence of your
>>statement:
>>Sue wrote:
>>| Anyone observing a blueshifted clock at constant distance, will sooner
>>| or later be expected to observe a tick before it occurs, an obvious
>>| causality violation.
>>
>>This time I am asking you:
>>How did you arrive at this conclusion?
>>Show the logic.
>>Repeating the conclusion won't do.
>>
>>But you won't because you can't, right?
>
> If something is 'blueshifted' it is coming towards you, so surely
> observing something blueshifted cannot be at a constant distance by
> definition. - or have I missed something.
On that argument, neither can anything redshifted.
-- Paul Townsend Pair them off into threes Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: peak oil revisited"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: An interesting SR puzzle"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: An interesting SR puzzle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|