Re: Fastest Time
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/28/05
- Next message: aleksandar.vukelja_at_gmail.com: "Re: on origin of inertia"
- Previous message: bz: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Mar 2005 09:07:24 -0800
PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > PD is full of it; I don't believe SR says such a thing about
ranking
> by
> > velocity.
>
> You have no basis for judging what SR says and what it does not say.
> You only use Encarta and Scientific American for a reference, and so
> what you believe is at best lightly informed.
>
>
What I read has no relevance to the fact you make up stuff and credit
it to SR without citing where you "read" it. I accused you of making
that up; all you had to do was cite a quote, but you didn't 'cause you
can't.
>
>
> > SR claims as an independent reality that the astronaut twin
> > has really aged less than his Earthbound twin at the end of the
trip,
> > and that reality is evident to all who compare the twins visually.
>
> Yes, that's correct, and it's one of many, many predictions of SR,
and
> it's also irrelevant to SR's claim that ranking by absolute velocity
is
> impossible.
>
>
If so, cite a quote from SR where it say that, wydoncha?
>
>
> Note that the twin paradox does NOT amount to ranking by
> absolute velocity,
>
>
But how can velocity be absolute if it is a vector?
>
>
> contrary to your opinion about that. (Your ranking
> is done in one particular reference frame, not an absolute reference
> frame.)
>
>
What's the difference?
> > >
> > >
> > > 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,
> > > 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).
> > >
> > >
> > There would be differences only if the points were not at constant
> > velocity wrt each other, according to my model.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, I agree. We could fire off rockets at different speeds with
> > sychronized clocks in each and when recovered, the clocks will show
> > different times on them. Then we simply stack rank them from the
> > slowest time to the fastest time, or vice-versa.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > All objects or ref. frames can be at constant velocity within a
> moving
> > ref. frame and as such they can be considered to be at 0 velocity
wrt
> > to each other. However, since everything in the universe is in
> motion,
>
> And you know this how??
>
>
Because my model agrees with scientific research. How do you know the
universe is static? For that, you have to overthrow Hubble and the
BBT, and even AE since he admitted he was wrong in using his math
constructs to prove the universe is not expanding.
TomGee
- Next message: aleksandar.vukelja_at_gmail.com: "Re: on origin of inertia"
- Previous message: bz: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Next in thread: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Reply: PD: "Re: Fastest Time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
