Re: Fastest Time
From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/28/05
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?."
- Previous message: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- In reply to: franklinhu_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Next in thread: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Mar 2005 06:53:08 -0800
franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >
> > What special relativity says instead is, not only is it not
possible
> to
> > identify an object as having zero velocity in space, it is also not
> > possible to rank objects according to velocity, as that ranking
> depends
> > solely on the choice of observer and has no independent reality.
> >
>
> Can you expand upon this statement, since I have often wondered about
> this idea that you can stack rank objects according to speed by
> measuring the rate at which time flows at each object. Logically, if
> you placed an atomic clock at points (or reference frames) A, B and
C,
> leave them there for some time and then bring them all back ot point
A,
First of all, there's a world of difference between different points in
the same reference frame and different reference frames. Secondly,
there's an inherent asymmetry introduced in the "bringing them all
back", which is precisely the asymmetry that is present in the twin
paradox.
Note that in truly inertial frames, there is no "bringing it back" and
then there is symmetry in the SR accounting. That is A finds B's clock
is running slower, AND B finds A's clock is running slower. Obviously,
in this case, there is no ranking possible, since the two observers
cannot agree on a ranking.
> you could tell the relative differences between the flow of time due
to
> the changed time shown and hence the relative speed (assuming there
> aren't effects due to gravity slowing down the clock as well). I
don't
> think it matters where you start this measurement from point A or
point
> C, you should then be able to do the same test with objects D, E, F
and
> start to build up an absolute rank order of slowest to fastest. One
of
> these points will have the absolute slowest speed. This doesn't mean
> this position is necessarily at zero velocity, but I would think it
> would be possible to at least stack rank them. If it were possible to
> find a frame of reference which was slower than any other frame, then
> this might be a zero velocity frame - but you say this is impossible,
> why?
> fhutime
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Only Some Energy Has Mass?."
- Previous message: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: The Big Bang's Little Problem"
- In reply to: franklinhu_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Next in thread: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
