Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #374992 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-27 19:42 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-28 09:46 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 66 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 19:42 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-28 04:44 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 19:48 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-28 15:28 +1100
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-27 22:58 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-28 19:57 +1100
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-28 01:07 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-28 22:08 +1100
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-28 03:51 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-29 10:53 +1100
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 19:31 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 06:40 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-28 22:29 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:57 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:08 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 23:18 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:24 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 06:25 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:19 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:30 -0600
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:21 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 10:48 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:55 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:16 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-29 00:35 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Polikwaptiwa <polikw@polikwamail.org> - 2016-01-30 16:32 +0000
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:02 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:19 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 23:23 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:28 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 23:39 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:56 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 10:09 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-30 11:34 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 06:20 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-29 23:12 +1100
Re: Car decelerates... Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-29 12:33 +0000
Re: Car decelerates... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-30 22:16 +1100
Re: Car decelerates... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-30 12:25 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-30 22:34 +1100
Re: Car decelerates... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-30 13:45 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-29 04:42 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 06:17 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-29 06:23 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-29 06:17 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-01-28 13:37 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-28 19:33 +0000
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 20:08 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 20:28 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 20:34 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 20:50 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-27 23:00 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 23:34 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 07:23 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 09:59 -0600
Re: Car decelerates... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-01-28 22:27 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 16:49 +0000
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:29 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 20:53 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 07:47 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 18:22 +0000
Re: Car decelerates... Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:31 +0100
Re: Car decelerates... Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 23:59 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 00:19 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-28 08:18 -0800
Re: Car decelerates... Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-01-28 09:46 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 19:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Car decelerates... |
| Message-ID | <69476ed3-b8bc-4a33-b883-6e6e9de59188@googlegroups.com> |
Drivers body moves forward. From cars reference frame, what causes forward body movement? A gravitational field?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 04:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160128044428.3584ea24@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #374992 |
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:42:41 -0800 (PST) Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> wrote: > Drivers body moves forward. > > From cars reference frame, what causes forward body movement? > > A gravitational field? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 19:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cd38cd4a-1dab-4cdd-be75-02a0fb67d6dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374993 |
Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 15:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgtjmlFobvvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #374994 |
On 28/01/2016 2:48 PM, Jon Price wrote: > Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest.... > The car's reference frame is accelerated. The laws of physics in an accelerated frame are not the same as the laws of physics in an inertial frame. In an accelerated frame, unconstrained objects accelerate. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 22:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ff9149dc-01e6-4a1e-9f05-fb673fce9226@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #374998 |
W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 05:28:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 28/01/2016 2:48 PM, Jon Price wrote: > > Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest.... > > > > The car's reference frame is accelerated. Tom would explain You, that if accelerated, there is no reference frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 19:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgu3gaFruvlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375017 |
On 28/01/2016 5:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 05:28:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 28/01/2016 2:48 PM, Jon Price wrote: >>> Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest.... >>> >> >> The car's reference frame is accelerated. > > Tom would explain You, that if accelerated, there > is no reference frame. > It's not an inertial reference frame. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 01:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bac0f55f-0d4e-48bc-9db5-01ee66942518@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375028 |
W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 09:57:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 28/01/2016 5:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 05:28:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 28/01/2016 2:48 PM, Jon Price wrote: > >>> Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest.... > >>> > >> > >> The car's reference frame is accelerated. > > > > Tom would explain You, that if accelerated, there > > is no reference frame. > > > > It's not an inertial reference frame. Quoting Tom: This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used. This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics. End of quoting. But, don't worry. Your relativity is obviously inconsistent, so You're free to write oppositely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 22:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgub5gFtrbfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375029 |
On 28/01/2016 8:07 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 09:57:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 28/01/2016 5:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 05:28:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 28/01/2016 2:48 PM, Jon Price wrote: >>>>> Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest.... >>>>> >>>> >>>> The car's reference frame is accelerated. >>> >>> Tom would explain You, that if accelerated, there >>> is no reference frame. >>> >> >> It's not an inertial reference frame. > > Quoting Tom: > This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is > more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of > rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually > synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at > rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used. > This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics. > End of quoting. > > But, don't worry. Your relativity is obviously > inconsistent, so You're free to write oppositely. > I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. The unadorned word "frame" does mean inertial frame. One doesn't have to go around sticking the word "inertial" in everywhere. But this is English, not math. One is free to qualify the word "frame" with the word "accelerated", without introducing any contradiction. Physicists don't usually concern themselves with accelerated frames, because they represent a needless complication. However the OP is discussing an accelerated frame. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 03:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d45793e9-b176-44b8-9be3-3230fb826b89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375030 |
W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 12:08:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 28/01/2016 8:07 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 09:57:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> On 28/01/2016 5:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >>> W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 05:28:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >>>> On 28/01/2016 2:48 PM, Jon Price wrote: > >>>>> Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest.... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The car's reference frame is accelerated. > >>> > >>> Tom would explain You, that if accelerated, there > >>> is no reference frame. > >>> > >> > >> It's not an inertial reference frame. > > > > Quoting Tom: > > This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is > > more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of > > rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually > > synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at > > rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used. > > This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics. > > End of quoting. > > > > But, don't worry. Your relativity is obviously > > inconsistent, so You're free to write oppositely. > > > > I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. The unadorned word > "frame" does mean inertial frame. One doesn't have to go around sticking > the word "inertial" in everywhere. But this is English, not math. One is > free to qualify the word "frame" with the word "accelerated", without > introducing any contradiction. Sylvia, You really don't have to convince me, that physicists are free to break the rules they invented and are demanding from others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgvnvkFal3aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375031 |
On 28/01/2016 10:51 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 12:08:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >> On 28/01/2016 8:07 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 09:57:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>> On 28/01/2016 5:58 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> W dniu czwartek, 28 stycznia 2016 05:28:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: >>>>>> On 28/01/2016 2:48 PM, Jon Price wrote: >>>>>>> Ah, I wasn't clear. Consider cars reference frame to be at rest.... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The car's reference frame is accelerated. >>>>> >>>>> Tom would explain You, that if accelerated, there >>>>> is no reference frame. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not an inertial reference frame. >>> >>> Quoting Tom: >>> This is wrong. In relativity and essentially all of modern physics there is >>> more: a frame of reference consists of a 3-D rectangular FRAME (latticework) of >>> rulers with a clock located at each junction; the clocks must all be mutually >>> synchronized. Constructing such a FRAME requires that the entire FRAME be at >>> rest in some inertial frame. It is NOT coincidence that the same word is used. >>> This _IS_ what "frame" means in modern physics. >>> End of quoting. >>> >>> But, don't worry. Your relativity is obviously >>> inconsistent, so You're free to write oppositely. >>> >> >> I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. The unadorned word >> "frame" does mean inertial frame. One doesn't have to go around sticking >> the word "inertial" in everywhere. But this is English, not math. One is >> free to qualify the word "frame" with the word "accelerated", without >> introducing any contradiction. > > Sylvia, You really don't have to convince me, that physicists > are free to break the rules they invented and are demanding > from others. > No rules are being broken here. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 19:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b9bee12-075a-42d1-a479-510806686f40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375083 |
Ok,from cars (noninertial) reference frame which person in car considers to be at rest, persons body moves toward windshield. Person considers this due to a gravitational field. Is space-time curved here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 06:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8etqn$46o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #375096 |
Dne 29/01/2016 v 04:31 Jon Price napsal(a): > Ok,from cars (noninertial) reference frame which person in car considers to be at rest, persons body moves toward windshield. Person considers this due to a gravitational field. > > Is space-time curved here? > To be distinguished equivalence and identity. The fact the acceleration is for local effects equivalent to locally homogeneous gravity does not mean it is gravity. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 22:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa2b5c5a-d906-48b3-9f74-4457ac10b0c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375109 |
W dniu piątek, 29 stycznia 2016 06:40:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > To be distinguished equivalence and identity. Your Shit assumes identity, not equivalence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cabd9948-189c-4070-b48b-3e06424ce359@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375109 |
Poutnik said: The fact the acceleration is for local effects equivalent to locally homogeneous gravity does not mean it is gravity ------- Ok, but is space-time curved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 08:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8f30p$fro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #375113 |
Dne 29/01/2016 v 07:57 Jon Price napsal(a): > Poutnik said: > > > The fact the acceleration is for local effects > equivalent to locally homogeneous gravity > does not mean it is gravity > > ------- > > Ok, but is space-time curved? > Yes, by presence of massive objects like Sun and Earth. Not by the car deceleration. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 23:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6df3902d-3132-405c-9e71-a3f1b6674699@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375115 |
Dne 29/01/2016 v 07:57 Jon Price napsal(a): - show quoted text - Poutnik said: Yes, by presence of massive objects like Sun and Earth. Not by the car deceleration. - show quoted text - Then if cars reference frame is considered to be at rest, what causes body to move toward windshield? I believe Einstein said that it would be valid to consider the cause to be a gravitational field. But if space-time is not curved, then what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 08:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8f3u0$ih6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #375116 |
Dne 29/01/2016 v 08:18 Jon Price napsal(a): > Dne 29/01/2016 v 07:57 Jon Price napsal(a): > - show quoted text - > > Poutnik said: > Yes, by presence of massive objects like Sun and Earth. > Not by the car deceleration. > - show quoted text - > > Then if cars reference frame is considered to be at rest, what causes body to move toward windshield? The car reference frame can be considered in rest, but acceleration remains, not being relative, in contrary to velocity. Newton motion laws in usual form are not valid in non inertial reference frames. Objects without any external force acting upon them are accelerating. > > I believe Einstein said that it would be valid to consider the cause to be a gravitational field. But if space-time is not curved, then what? > Again, equivalence is not identity. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 06:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1dee0212-a728-4be4-a542-08cdca8e8430@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375116 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:18:23 AM UTC-5, Jon Price wrote: > Then if cars reference frame is considered to be at rest, > what causes body to move toward windshield? I told you this many times. Cant you read or understand? YOU "caused" it to move toward the windshield by simply positing it. YOU said: "let the body move towards the windshield". Therefore, it moves towards the windshield. > I believe Einstein said that it would be valid to consider the cause > to be a gravitational field. Yes, it can be *considered* like that. Or, you can even say that fairies "cause" it. No matter what the causes, x = at². Thats why "causes" in physics are irrelevant and belongs to philosophy or metaphysics or to popular descriptions as a aid. > But if space-time is not curved, then what? What dont you understand by x = at² ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4777e903-057d-4650-af44-621e5811e446@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375148 |
Rotchm: Don't think I caused it. Think that in this scenario it's factual, objective. Car decelerates. Body moves forward. That's not a widely accepted and known thing? When you brake your car, does your upper body move forward?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 13:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8gel6$1sas$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375157 |
On 1/29/2016 12:19 PM, Jon Price wrote: > Rotchm: > > Don't think I caused it. Think that in this scenario it's factual, objective. > Car decelerates. Body moves forward. > > That's not a widely accepted and known thing? > > When you brake your car, does your upper body move forward? > Relative to the car, yes. When I'm pacing another car on the highway, both of us going 70 mph, and I apply my brakes, the other car goes forward just by continuing at 70 mph. Has it accelerated away from me? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web