Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433376

Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Show all headers | View raw

Am 22.09.2017 um 21:13 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>>> IOW: speed is 'relative'.
>>>>
>>>> The spaceship crew could say 'well, we don't know how fast we are. But
>>>> at least we are at rest in respect to ourselves'.
>>>
>>> It's incredibly wise and the ship's navigator will
>>> obviously be delighted with incredibly wise guru
>>> providing him such incredibly helpful information
>>>
>>>> This does in fact make some sense and that is actually what we usually do.
>>>
>>> Your driving license should be immediately revoked, if
>>> you ever managed to obtain any with such approach.
>>>
>>
>> I did not say, that pace on a rood is 'relative'.
>
> Sure. When you drive a car, you can no way determine its speed:(
>
>
>> Certainly you regard the road as at rest and the car as moving. This is
>> actually what we usually do.
>
> Right. This is what we usually do. For good reasons.

Well, 'good reason' is a relative term, too.

In fact roads are moving as well, since the Earth rotates about its 
axis. That axis rotates around the sun. And the entire solar system 
rotates around the center of our home galaxy.

So: streets are not at rest at all (even if they seem to be).


>> But we're not talking about cars on streets, but about theoretical
>> physics and the validity of SRT.
>> Since SRT uses a term 'v' (for velocity) in its equations, it should be
>> legitimate to ask, in respect to which reference point this v is measured.
>>
>> This is especially legitimate, since SRT assumes the validity of the
>> principle of equivalence. That means, that you cannot distinguish
>> unaccelerated motion from being at rest.
>>
>> So what does this term 'v' (of SRT) mean in a physical sense?
>
> Soon nobody sane will care about your "physical sense".
> Just like me. Unless those like you get conscious.
>

  I was NOT talking about my 'physical sense', of course, but about the 
'meaning of the term v in SRT'.

so: what do you think, how this 'v' should be interpreted?


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-20 17:23 +0200
  Failures of the Galilean transformation (was: The Song of Lt. Cdr. Data) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-20 08:36 -0700
  Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-21 15:10 +0200
    Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 06:29 -0700
      Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 20:27 +0200
        Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 12:13 -0700
          Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-22 21:36 +0200
            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-22 20:09 +0000
              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:10 +0200
            Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-22 13:30 -0700
              Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-23 12:56 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-23 05:09 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-24 21:31 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-24 21:43 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:26 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-25 22:00 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 21:45 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-29 01:52 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:50 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-24 22:57 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 10:23 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 02:07 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-25 21:14 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-25 13:10 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-26 22:12 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-26 22:41 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-28 21:09 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-28 13:14 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-29 14:10 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-29 06:09 -0700
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-30 16:39 +0200
                Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-30 08:12 -0700

csiph-web