Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424266 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-08 05:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-29 20:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 125 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-08 05:05 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 14:09 +0200
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:57 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-12 20:26 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-13 03:48 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-13 11:47 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-14 03:07 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-14 03:44 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-14 06:46 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 21:12 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-14 19:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-14 20:02 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 04:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:21 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 08:10 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 08:13 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 08:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-16 13:08 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 10:57 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:12 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 12:05 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:42 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-17 21:45 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-19 05:27 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-19 08:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-26 01:25 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-26 05:05 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-26 20:49 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-27 10:59 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:10 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 09:34 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:59 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:01 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:35 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 11:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:05 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:17 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:47 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:01 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 13:04 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:45 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-27 12:52 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 18:06 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:11 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 18:04 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:11 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 05:59 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 04:07 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-16 13:22 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-17 05:26 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 08:03 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:59 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 11:37 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-18 12:55 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 11:41 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-18 22:59 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 05:13 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 10:00 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 10:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 22:04 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 07:16 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:21 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 07:15 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 21:51 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 11:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 12:14 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 13:55 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 23:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 01:05 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 04:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 11:37 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 13:25 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 10:40 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 17:57 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:38 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 19:12 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 22:05 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 12:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-19 22:13 +0200
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 14:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 13:44 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 13:52 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:58 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-19 22:04 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 21:05 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 12:08 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 13:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 20:45 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:04 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:09 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 11:55 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:47 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:59 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 23:03 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-29 00:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:01 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 12:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 12:38 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 23:25 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:29 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:39 +1000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-07-13 12:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:21 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:28 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 22:12 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 08:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:35 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:13 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-29 11:50 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 13:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-29 20:45 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-29 20:43 +0000
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 05:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book |
| Message-ID | <d66198bf-5642-443b-8654-16df31cee6d7@googlegroups.com> |
Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. 1. Rotation is with respect to an absolute frame roughly aligned with the aggregate mass of the universe. Google 'Newton's Bucket' or 'Mach's Principle'. 2. Each of the space traveling twins moves equal and opposite to the frame of the other but only one's clock time actually ran slower though both observed each other's clock time run slower during the movement. Thus there are ACTUAL relativistic effects, and OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects. A critical distinction not recognized by relativity itself. Now the difference can only be that actual relativistic effects are with respect to a universal absolute background frame, whereas observational relativistic effects are with respect to an observer's own frame. Now what is this absolute frame? There can be only one answer. It's the single computational frame within which everything is actually computed. Thus there is a single computational frame in which everything is computed and this takes the form of a universal entanglement network that expresses the dimensional relations among all the particles in the universe resulting from the conservation of mass-energy in their interactions. It's the dimensional consistency of this entanglement network that human observers interpret as an all encompassing spacetime in their mental simulations of reality. This is all explained in detail in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available under my name on Amazon. Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 14:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojqhqm$tb1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #424266 |
Dne 08/07/2017 v 14:05 Edgar L. Owen napsal(a): > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. It is remarkable that several errors occur even in the first sentence. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59612CBD.2061@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424267 |
Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 08/07/2017 v 14:05 Edgar L. Owen napsal(a): > > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. > > It is remarkable that several errors occur even in the first sentence. It's not perisqiitive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 09:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojsumc$mg1$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424267 |
Poutnik wrote: > Dne 08/07/2017 v 14:05 Edgar L. Owen napsal(a): >> Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid >> and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. > > It is remarkable that several errors occur even in the first sentence. Those errors must be yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 20:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2K-dndaTk8zUUfvEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424266 |
On 7/8/17 7/8/17 7:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and > there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. No it isn't "false", it's just that you don't understand what relativity ACTUALLY says. > 1. Rotation is with respect to an absolute frame roughly aligned with the > aggregate mass of the universe. Google 'Newton's Bucket' or 'Mach's > Principle'. Not true. Rotation is relative to local inertial frames. These frames are "special" in that they reflect a symmetry of the world we inhabit; they are not in any way "absolute". For example, Gravity Probe B demonstrated its local inertial frame [#] is rotating relative to the distant "fixed" stars. And it is rotating at the rate predicted by GR as induced by the rotation of the earth. [#] In the sense of GR, not SR. > 2. Each of the space traveling twins moves equal and opposite to the frame > of the other but only one's clock time actually ran slower though both > observed each other's clock time run slower during the movement. The point is that one twin remains at rest in an inertial frame and the other doesn't. You need to learn what SR actually says, and how it applies. > Thus there are ACTUAL relativistic effects, and OBSERVATIONAL relativistic > effects. A critical distinction not recognized by relativity itself. You attempt to make a distinction without a difference. > [... further nonsense based on the above errors] You REALLY need to learn what relativity ACTUALLY says -- your GUESSES are wrong. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 03:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c8df133-8927-44ff-8ab0-80f7cd50e790@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424673 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:26:41 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/8/17 7/8/17 7:05 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and > > there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. > > No it isn't "false", it's just that you don't understand what relativity > ACTUALLY says. > > > 1. Rotation is with respect to an absolute frame roughly aligned with the > > aggregate mass of the universe. Google 'Newton's Bucket' or 'Mach's > > Principle'. > > Not true. Rotation is relative to local inertial frames. These frames are > "special" in that they reflect a symmetry of the world we inhabit; they are not > in any way "absolute". > > For example, Gravity Probe B demonstrated its local inertial > frame [#] is rotating relative to the distant "fixed" stars. > And it is rotating at the rate predicted by GR as induced by > the rotation of the earth. > > [#] In the sense of GR, not SR. > > > 2. Each of the space traveling twins moves equal and opposite to the frame > > of the other but only one's clock time actually ran slower though both > > observed each other's clock time run slower during the movement. > > The point is that one twin remains at rest in an inertial frame and the other > doesn't. You need to learn what SR actually says, and how it applies. > > > Thus there are ACTUAL relativistic effects, and OBSERVATIONAL relativistic > > effects. A critical distinction not recognized by relativity itself. > > You attempt to make a distinction without a difference. > > > [... further nonsense based on the above errors] > > You REALLY need to learn what relativity ACTUALLY says -- your GUESSES are wrong. > > Tom Roberts Tom, Thanks for the reasonable response, rare on this group. However I have to disagree. Consider observer A on earth and observer B moving at a constant near light speed past earth. Both observers are "inertial" because neither is subject to any appreciable acceleration or gravity. Both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than their own by equal amounts. This is an OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effect. However only observer B's clock is actually running slower. This is the ACTUAL relativistic effect. What's the difference? It must be that observer B is moving relative to some absolute frame, and this can only be the frame in which the universe is actually computed. The absolute frame is roughly that of the aggregate mass of the universe because it's the result of its computational creation. You are also misinformed about rotation which is absolute, not relative to any observer's inertial frame. Rotation reveals itself by its centrifugal force and resistance to tilting. This is a property of the rotation itself and independent of all observer frames. This is all explained in detail in my book Universal Reallity 2.0. Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 11:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YJmdnRtjG_OFOfrEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424703 |
On 7/13/17 7/13/17 - 5:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Consider observer A on earth and observer B moving at a constant near light > speed past earth. Both observers are "inertial" because neither is subject to > any appreciable acceleration or gravity. Hmmm. Here on earth, gravity seems very "appreciable" to me. And we _DO_ orbit the sun, with a corresponding acceleration.... But compared to an observer moving at "near light speed", those are negligible. "Appreciable" is the wrong word; here "negligible" is the right one. > Both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than their own by equal > amounts. This is an OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effect. However only observer > B's clock is actually running slower. This is the ACTUAL relativistic > effect. This is simply not true. NEITHER clock is "actually running slower", because each one ticks at its usual rate. As I said before: you REALLY need to learn what relativity _ACTUALLY_ says. Your GUESSES are wrong. Note that many/most elementary books on SR take a verbal shortcut to get the basic point across. Any book that claims "moving clocks run slow" is WRONG -- get a better book. I suggest: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. The actual situation is that a clock moving relative to an inertial frame will be measured to run slow compared to the frame's time coordinate. In accordance with the PoR, this is symmetric for all pairs of inertial frames. In essence you have ASSUMED some sort of "absolute" frame for the earth observer A. That's completely invalid in SR. And downright silly, as the earth is CLEARLY not at rest in any inertial frame (much less some fictitious "absolute" one). > [... further nonsense based on that error] Note that rotation is not "absolute" as you claim. Gravity probe B showed its local inertial frame is rotating relative to the "fixed stars", and that its rotation is consistent with the GR prediction for being induced by the rotating earth. In the world we inhabit, rotation _IS_ relative to locally inertial frames. You claim to have written a book on this -- that's a total waste of time (both yours and any reader's), as it is clear that you do not understand the fundamental concepts and vocabulary of very basic physics. Would you bother with a math book that claims to present "A whole new way to do advanced calculus" written by someone who does not understand elementary arithmetic? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 03:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cc006e0-6ea6-456b-88fc-2d15715a07c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424750 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 12:47:27 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/13/17 7/13/17 - 5:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Consider observer A on earth and observer B moving at a constant near light > > speed past earth. Both observers are "inertial" because neither is subject to > > any appreciable acceleration or gravity. > > Hmmm. Here on earth, gravity seems very "appreciable" to me. And we _DO_ orbit > the sun, with a corresponding acceleration.... > > But compared to an observer moving at "near light speed", those are negligible. > > "Appreciable" is the wrong word; here "negligible" is the right one. > > > Both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than their own by equal > > amounts. This is an OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effect. However only observer > > B's clock is actually running slower. This is the ACTUAL relativistic > > effect. > > This is simply not true. NEITHER clock is "actually running slower", because > each one ticks at its usual rate. > > As I said before: you REALLY need to learn what relativity _ACTUALLY_ says. Your > GUESSES are wrong. > > Note that many/most elementary books on SR take a verbal > shortcut to get the basic point across. Any book that claims > "moving clocks run slow" is WRONG -- get a better book. > I suggest: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. > > The actual situation is that a clock moving relative to an inertial frame will > be measured to run slow compared to the frame's time coordinate. In accordance > with the PoR, this is symmetric for all pairs of inertial frames. > > In essence you have ASSUMED some sort of "absolute" frame for the earth observer > A. That's completely invalid in SR. And downright silly, as the earth is CLEARLY > not at rest in any inertial frame (much less some fictitious "absolute" one). > > > [... further nonsense based on that error] > > Note that rotation is not "absolute" as you claim. Gravity probe B showed its > local inertial frame is rotating relative to the "fixed stars", and that its > rotation is consistent with the GR prediction for being induced by the rotating > earth. In the world we inhabit, rotation _IS_ relative to locally inertial frames. > > You claim to have written a book on this -- that's a total waste of time (both > yours and any reader's), as it is clear that you do not understand the > fundamental concepts and vocabulary of very basic physics. > > Would you bother with a math book that claims to present > "A whole new way to do advanced calculus" written by > someone who does not understand elementary arithmetic? > > Tom Roberts Tom, You continually repeat your baseless claim that I don't understand relativity but I actually understand it quite well. And in fact i again have to correct your false assertion that rotation is relative to an inertial frame when it's actually absolute as can be easily Googled. There is a long history of trying to understand what rotation is relative to and more importantly WHY going back to Newton's bucket and Mach's Principle, and current physics still hasn't been able to come up with an answer. Of course rotation is largely with respect to the aggregate mass of the universe but there was no explanation of why this should be so whatsoever in relativity or any other theory until I discovered it was because the universe is computational and dimensionality is computed by particle interactions in the form of the internal consistency of all individual particle dimensional relationships. This internal dimensional consistency is of course largely consistent with the aggregate mass of the universe because it was computed within it. Sadly you are also dead wrong that the moving space traveler's clock isn't actually slowed down. That is a basic fact of relativity you have completely wrong. That's why the traveler has aged less when he returns to earth. This is relativity 101. Do you also believe that a clock in an intense gravitational field isn't actually slowed down? it's exactly the same concept of the presence of spatial velocity with respect to the absolute computational background slowing the velocity of time so that the total spacetime velocity of everything in the universe remains equal to c. So I understand relativity quite well, apparently considerably better than you do. You only display your own ignorance by claiming I don't. Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 03:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01f3deca-4194-4ea0-aded-41ccadc49893@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424831 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 6:07:14 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 12:47:27 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/13/17 7/13/17 - 5:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Consider observer A on earth and observer B moving at a constant near light > > > speed past earth. Both observers are "inertial" because neither is subject to > > > any appreciable acceleration or gravity. > > > > Hmmm. Here on earth, gravity seems very "appreciable" to me. And we _DO_ orbit > > the sun, with a corresponding acceleration.... > > > > But compared to an observer moving at "near light speed", those are negligible. > > > > "Appreciable" is the wrong word; here "negligible" is the right one. > > > > > Both A and B see each other's clocks running slower than their own by equal > > > amounts. This is an OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effect. However only observer > > > B's clock is actually running slower. This is the ACTUAL relativistic > > > effect. > > > > This is simply not true. NEITHER clock is "actually running slower", because > > each one ticks at its usual rate. > > > > As I said before: you REALLY need to learn what relativity _ACTUALLY_ says. Your > > GUESSES are wrong. > > > > Note that many/most elementary books on SR take a verbal > > shortcut to get the basic point across. Any book that claims > > "moving clocks run slow" is WRONG -- get a better book. > > I suggest: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. > > > > The actual situation is that a clock moving relative to an inertial frame will > > be measured to run slow compared to the frame's time coordinate. In accordance > > with the PoR, this is symmetric for all pairs of inertial frames. > > > > In essence you have ASSUMED some sort of "absolute" frame for the earth observer > > A. That's completely invalid in SR. And downright silly, as the earth is CLEARLY > > not at rest in any inertial frame (much less some fictitious "absolute" one). > > > > > [... further nonsense based on that error] > > > > Note that rotation is not "absolute" as you claim. Gravity probe B showed its > > local inertial frame is rotating relative to the "fixed stars", and that its > > rotation is consistent with the GR prediction for being induced by the rotating > > earth. In the world we inhabit, rotation _IS_ relative to locally inertial frames. > > > > You claim to have written a book on this -- that's a total waste of time (both > > yours and any reader's), as it is clear that you do not understand the > > fundamental concepts and vocabulary of very basic physics. > > > > Would you bother with a math book that claims to present > > "A whole new way to do advanced calculus" written by > > someone who does not understand elementary arithmetic? > > > > Tom Roberts > > Tom, > > You continually repeat your baseless claim that I don't understand relativity but I actually understand it quite well. And in fact i again have to correct your false assertion that rotation is relative to an inertial frame when it's actually absolute as can be easily Googled. There is a long history of trying to understand what rotation is relative to and more importantly WHY going back to Newton's bucket and Mach's Principle, and current physics still hasn't been able to come up with an answer. > > Of course rotation is largely with respect to the aggregate mass of the universe but there was no explanation of why this should be so whatsoever in relativity or any other theory until I discovered it was because the universe is computational and dimensionality is computed by particle interactions in the form of the internal consistency of all individual particle dimensional relationships. This internal dimensional consistency is of course largely consistent with the aggregate mass of the universe because it was computed within it. > > Sadly you are also dead wrong that the moving space traveler's clock isn't actually slowed down. That is a basic fact of relativity you have completely wrong. That's why the traveler has aged less when he returns to earth. This is relativity 101. > > Do you also believe that a clock in an intense gravitational field isn't actually slowed down? it's exactly the same concept of the presence of spatial velocity with respect to the absolute computational background slowing the velocity of time so that the total spacetime velocity of everything in the universe remains equal to c. > > So I understand relativity quite well, apparently considerably better than you do. You only display your own ignorance by claiming I don't. > > Edgar L. Owen Tom, Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. Absolute motion is motion that can actually be felt and directly confirmed by readings on a comoving scale. Acceleration is absolute motion. There are 3 distinct varieties of acceleration, rotation, linear acceleration, and gravitational weight. All 3 can be directly felt and confirmed by a scale. By contrast linear RELATIVE motion cannot be felt. It's only measurable with respect to some other object and there is no immediate way to tell whether it's you or the object that is actually moving. (However one can tell by finding whose clock is actually running slower.) In case you don't know your relativity, gravitational free fall is inertial motion that can't be felt. However standing on the surface of the earth is a braking force against this inertial motion that is felt as an acceleration as Einstein explained in his Equivalence Principle. While it is true that rotation is roughly with respect to the aggregate mass of the universe that isn't a causal relationship as you seem to imply because there is no mechanism recognized by physics why that should be true. Neither relativity nor any other theory predicts it. This is the perennial unsolved problem originally posed by Newton in the form of his rotating bucket, and discussed by Mach as Mach's Principle or conjecture. However my computational theory solves both problems by explaining that dimensional spacetime is created by particle interactions in the form of the dimensional consistency among all the individual dimensional particle relationships produced by the conservation of energy in their interactions. This dimensional consistency takes the form of a universal entanglement network among all particles in the universe back to the original interaction event of the big bang. This dimensional consistency is the stored numeric data that human simulations of reality interpret as a surrounding dimensional spacetime in the exact same way as a virtual reality controller takes stored numeric data and projects it into the semblance of a dynamic 3D space. It's well known that the entire universe of our experience is actually just neural data stored in our brains. There is no denying that. It's cognitive science 101. Now because all subsequent particle interactions are computed with respect to this entanglement network it acts as an absolute frame with respect to which Actual as opposed to Observational relativistic effects occur. This includes rotation, and it provides the WHY that explains what rotation is relative to that has been missing since Newton. And it simultaneously explains what the actual linear motion that actually slows time as opposed to the observational linear motion that doesn't actually slow time is with respect to. This was also missing from relativity. Now I know this may be difficult for you to understand but you should try to understand my theory before you start commenting on it. I'm certainly more than happy to answer any questions you or anyone may have. And I assure you it's completely compatible with relativity which continues to work within this revolutionary new framework exactly as before. Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c40274b0-f148-476b-abeb-4c9bb6be7590@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424833 |
Edgar Owen wrote Tom, Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. Absolute motion is motion that can actually be felt and directly confirmed by readings on a comoving scale. Acceleration is absolute motion. There are 3 distinct varieties of acceleration, rotation, linear acceleration, and gravitational weight. All 3 can be directly felt and confirmed by a scale. By contrast linear RELATIVE motion cannot be felt. It's only measurable with respect to some other object and there is no immediate way to tell whether it's you or the object that is actually moving. (However one can tell by finding whose clock is actually running slower.) Hi Edgar Tom will Never Agree with you because You speak of an Absolute Motion relative to a "Relative Motion" I bet in Tom's way of thinking & in his mind "an (Absolute Motion) relative to a (Relative Motion) is fully Equivalent to an Aether. In Tom's head, there is no need for an Aether Medium https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/sinewave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 21:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JYGdnZP_gb255_TEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424833 |
On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. > [...] Don't bother. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not understand relativity. So I have no interest in your ramblings and word salad. History shows that people who do not understand current theories and experiments of physics have NO HOPE of making useful contributions to the field. So if you want to contribute, first you must STUDY. If you actually do that, you'll surely find that most if not all of your current notions are simply wrong. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45885938-794b-42fb-b2d3-7dffcd460e6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424949 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:12:59 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. > > [...] > > Don't bother. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not understand > relativity. So I have no interest in your ramblings and word salad. > > History shows that people who do not understand current theories and experiments > of physics have NO HOPE of making useful contributions to the field. So if you > want to contribute, first you must STUDY. If you actually do that, you'll surely > find that most if not all of your current notions are simply wrong. > > Tom Roberts Tom, Sadly your last two long posts are full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of relativity. Let me cut to the core issues and ask you two simple questions which hopefully you can give concise answers to without descending into obsessive name calling.. 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin isn't running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school kids know it is. 2. You claim rotation isn't absolute but relative to a local inertial frame. But you totally missed my simple explanation that accelerations of all types are absolute because they can be felt by the accelerating object itself. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. If you get these wrong then you not only don't understand relativity, you don't even understand Newtonian physics.... Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 20:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80e7f4f4-e66f-498d-8744-bc78c15a86ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424958 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:49:36 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:12:59 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. > > > [...] > > > > Don't bother. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not understand > > relativity. So I have no interest in your ramblings and word salad. > > > > History shows that people who do not understand current theories and experiments > > of physics have NO HOPE of making useful contributions to the field. So if you > > want to contribute, first you must STUDY. If you actually do that, you'll surely > > find that most if not all of your current notions are simply wrong. > > > > Tom Roberts > > Tom, > > Sadly your last two long posts are full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of relativity. > > Let me cut to the core issues and ask you two simple questions which hopefully you can give concise answers to without descending into obsessive name calling.. > > 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin isn't running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school kids know it is. > > 2. You claim rotation isn't absolute but relative to a local inertial frame. But you totally missed my simple explanation that accelerations of all types are absolute because they can be felt by the accelerating object itself. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > If you get these wrong then you not only don't understand relativity, you don't even understand Newtonian physics.... > > Edgar L. Owen 2. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. The Mass Subjected to Gravitational Acceleration Does Not feel the Acceleration The ( Space Time the Mass is Embedded in ) is accelerating You are having a Brain Fart. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8362328-76f4-40eb-8836-1328069569d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424959 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 11:02:15 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:49:36 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:12:59 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. > > > > [...] > > > > > > Don't bother. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not understand > > > relativity. So I have no interest in your ramblings and word salad. > > > > > > History shows that people who do not understand current theories and experiments > > > of physics have NO HOPE of making useful contributions to the field. So if you > > > want to contribute, first you must STUDY. If you actually do that, you'll surely > > > find that most if not all of your current notions are simply wrong. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Tom, > > > > Sadly your last two long posts are full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of relativity. > > > > Let me cut to the core issues and ask you two simple questions which hopefully you can give concise answers to without descending into obsessive name calling.. > > > > 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin isn't running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school kids know it is. > > > > 2. You claim rotation isn't absolute but relative to a local inertial frame. But you totally missed my simple explanation that accelerations of all types are absolute because they can be felt by the accelerating object itself. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > > > If you get these wrong then you not only don't understand relativity, you don't even understand Newtonian physics.... > > > > Edgar L. Owen > > 2. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > The Mass Subjected to Gravitational Acceleration Does Not feel the Acceleration > The ( Space Time the Mass is Embedded in ) is accelerating > > You are having a Brain Fart. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html David, You just got a big fat ZERO grade on your statement above. A free falling mass is NOT accelerating. It's in inertial motion. However when its inertial motion is continually braked by standing on the surface of the earth it feels this as an acceleration because an acceleration is a change to an inertial motion. This is what Einstein meant by his Equivalence Principle. Weight is the experience of an acceleration against the inertial force of gravity. Of course a free falling mass SEEMS to be accelerating relative to the surface of the earth, but it's actually the earth's surface that's continually accelerating upward against gravity rather than the free falling mass which is moving inertially. Again basic relativity 101. Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <833c4a6f-206c-4fc2-a15b-cbb245fdc29c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425010 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:22:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 11:02:15 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:49:36 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:12:59 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Don't bother. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not understand > > > > relativity. So I have no interest in your ramblings and word salad. > > > > > > > > History shows that people who do not understand current theories and experiments > > > > of physics have NO HOPE of making useful contributions to the field. So if you > > > > want to contribute, first you must STUDY. If you actually do that, you'll surely > > > > find that most if not all of your current notions are simply wrong. > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > Sadly your last two long posts are full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of relativity. > > > > > > Let me cut to the core issues and ask you two simple questions which hopefully you can give concise answers to without descending into obsessive name calling.. > > > > > > 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin isn't running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school kids know it is. > > > > > > 2. You claim rotation isn't absolute but relative to a local inertial frame. But you totally missed my simple explanation that accelerations of all types are absolute because they can be felt by the accelerating object itself. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > > > > > If you get these wrong then you not only don't understand relativity, you don't even understand Newtonian physics.... > > > > > > Edgar L. Owen > > > > 2. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > > > The Mass Subjected to Gravitational Acceleration Does Not feel the Acceleration > > The ( Space Time the Mass is Embedded in ) is accelerating > > > > You are having a Brain Fart. > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html > > David, > > You just got a big fat ZERO grade on your statement above. > > A free falling mass is NOT accelerating. It's in inertial motion. However when its inertial motion is continually braked by standing on the surface of the earth it feels this as an acceleration because an acceleration is a change to an inertial motion. > > This is what Einstein meant by his Equivalence Principle. Weight is the experience of an acceleration against the inertial force of gravity. > > Of course a free falling mass SEEMS to be accelerating relative to the surface of the earth, but it's actually the earth's surface that's continually accelerating upward against gravity rather than the free falling mass which is moving inertially. > > Again basic relativity 101. > > Edgar L. Owen That is what I Just Said you fucking Retard, how is it a "BIG ZERO" for me?? Calculate Something .. Anything.... I don't think you can because you are a Fucking Idiot Just Like Ed Lake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <affdf1cb-4624-4857-98cc-8cf5f0dccc24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425020 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 9:21:58 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:22:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 11:02:15 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:49:36 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:12:59 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Don't bother. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not understand > > > > > relativity. So I have no interest in your ramblings and word salad. > > > > > > > > > > History shows that people who do not understand current theories and experiments > > > > > of physics have NO HOPE of making useful contributions to the field. So if you > > > > > want to contribute, first you must STUDY. If you actually do that, you'll surely > > > > > find that most if not all of your current notions are simply wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > Sadly your last two long posts are full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of relativity. > > > > > > > > Let me cut to the core issues and ask you two simple questions which hopefully you can give concise answers to without descending into obsessive name calling.. > > > > > > > > 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin isn't running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school kids know it is. > > > > > > > > 2. You claim rotation isn't absolute but relative to a local inertial frame. But you totally missed my simple explanation that accelerations of all types are absolute because they can be felt by the accelerating object itself. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > > > > > > > If you get these wrong then you not only don't understand relativity, you don't even understand Newtonian physics.... > > > > > > > > Edgar L. Owen > > > > > > 2. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > > > > > The Mass Subjected to Gravitational Acceleration Does Not feel the Acceleration > > > The ( Space Time the Mass is Embedded in ) is accelerating > > > > > > You are having a Brain Fart. > > > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html > > > > David, > > > > You just got a big fat ZERO grade on your statement above. > > > > A free falling mass is NOT accelerating. It's in inertial motion. However when its inertial motion is continually braked by standing on the surface of the earth it feels this as an acceleration because an acceleration is a change to an inertial motion. > > > > This is what Einstein meant by his Equivalence Principle. Weight is the experience of an acceleration against the inertial force of gravity. > > > > Of course a free falling mass SEEMS to be accelerating relative to the surface of the earth, but it's actually the earth's surface that's continually accelerating upward against gravity rather than the free falling mass which is moving inertially. > > > > Again basic relativity 101. > > > > Edgar L. Owen > > That is what I Just Said you fucking Retard, how is it a "BIG ZERO" for me?? > > > Calculate Something .. Anything.... I don't think you can because you are a Fucking Idiot Just Like Ed Lake David, Glad we agree. Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4479c5a-162d-443b-9633-c36720a6fe84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425020 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 9:21:58 AM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:22:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 11:02:15 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:49:36 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:12:59 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > Let me try to explain to you the difference between absolute and inertial motion. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Don't bother. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you do not understand > > > > > relativity. So I have no interest in your ramblings and word salad. > > > > > > > > > > History shows that people who do not understand current theories and experiments > > > > > of physics have NO HOPE of making useful contributions to the field. So if you > > > > > want to contribute, first you must STUDY. If you actually do that, you'll surely > > > > > find that most if not all of your current notions are simply wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > Sadly your last two long posts are full of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of relativity. > > > > > > > > Let me cut to the core issues and ask you two simple questions which hopefully you can give concise answers to without descending into obsessive name calling.. > > > > > > > > 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin isn't running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school kids know it is. > > > > > > > > 2. You claim rotation isn't absolute but relative to a local inertial frame. But you totally missed my simple explanation that accelerations of all types are absolute because they can be felt by the accelerating object itself. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > > > > > > > If you get these wrong then you not only don't understand relativity, you don't even understand Newtonian physics.... > > > > > > > > Edgar L. Owen > > > > > > 2. Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation absolute. > > > > > > The Mass Subjected to Gravitational Acceleration Does Not feel the Acceleration > > > The ( Space Time the Mass is Embedded in ) is accelerating > > > > > > You are having a Brain Fart. > > > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html > > > > David, > > > > You just got a big fat ZERO grade on your statement above. > > > > A free falling mass is NOT accelerating. It's in inertial motion. However when its inertial motion is continually braked by standing on the surface of the earth it feels this as an acceleration because an acceleration is a change to an inertial motion. > > > > This is what Einstein meant by his Equivalence Principle. Weight is the experience of an acceleration against the inertial force of gravity. > > > > Of course a free falling mass SEEMS to be accelerating relative to the surface of the earth, but it's actually the earth's surface that's continually accelerating upward against gravity rather than the free falling mass which is moving inertially. > > > > Again basic relativity 101. > > > > Edgar L. Owen > > That is what I Just Said you fucking Retard, how is it a "BIG ZERO" for me?? > > > Calculate Something .. Anything.... I don't think you can because you are a Fucking Idiot Just Like Ed Lake David, If we agree and I'm a retard what does that make you? :-) Try to lighten up and enjoy. All that hostility isn't good for your health... Edgar L. Owen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3e173f7-1398-48a2-bb7a-ac6265f1c729@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425027 |
Edgar L. Owen David, If we agree and I'm a retard what does that make you? :-) Try to lighten up and enjoy. All that hostility isn't good for your health... Edgar L. Owen You are essentially calling people like Tom Roberts & Koobee Wublee Morons It seems GR & SR is like a foreigner speaking Chinese. You don't just jump in and swim like an expert Tom is an Expert like an Olympic swimmer You are just playing. A hobbyist ... a part timer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Su6dncgctvUBNvbEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424958 |
On 7/14/17 7/14/17 9:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Tom, Sadly your last two long posts are full of misunderstandings and > misrepresentations of relativity. Nope. The mistakes and misunderstandings are YOURS. Your #1 is definitely your personal misunderstanding of relativity; your #2 could be argued to be just about words. In both cases, a major part of your problem is reliance on sound bytes that are incapable of capturing the details, and thus turn out to be wrong. > 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin isn't > running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school kids know it > is. Again, it's not what I "believe" that is at issue, it's what relativity predicts. Relativity UNAMBIGUOUSLY and DEFINITIVELY predicts that the traveling twin's clock runs at its usual rate, and is MOST DEFINITELY NOT "running slower" than any other identical clock -- identical clocks ALWAYS run at identical rates. That is what "identical clocks" MEANS. Anybody who thinks the traveling twin's clock is "running slower than the home twin's clock" is WRONG, including "school kids", AND YOU. Basically you have assumed that "running slower" is ALWAYS a comparison to the home twin's frame, or perhaps relative to some "absolute" frame. THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG (indeed it is nonsensical in relativity). You also need to understand basic English usage: When you say "this clock is running slow", you are discussing THE CLOCK ITSELF, and NOTHING ELSE. The clock ITSELF runs at its usual rate. This _IS_ what that phrase means, and how it applies in relativity. When you say "this clock runs slower than that clock", you are comparing the two clocks' INTRINSIC rates. But since the clocks are identical, their intrinsic rates are identical. This _IS_ what that phrase means, and how it applies in relativity. A correct statement about this situation is: the traveling twin's clock IS MEASURED to run slower than the time coordinate of the home twin's inertial frame, when measured in the usual way. (The home twin's clock displays that time coordinate.) As I have said, your claims are wrong on two levels: English phrasing, and physics. > 2. You claim rotation isn't absolute but relative to a local inertial frame. > But you totally missed my simple explanation that accelerations of all types > are absolute because they can be felt by the accelerating object itself. The basic problem is that you are not precise enough about what you mean by "rotation". HERE THERE BE DRAGONS. The conventional meaning of "absolute rotation" is relative to the "fixed stars". There is no doubt that this is what Mach meant. The issue is that this is NOT good enough. The rotation of Gravity Probe B's physics package cannot be "felt" by the package (because it is always at rest in a locally inertial frame). Yet it is ROTATING relative to the "fixed stars" -- i.e. it has nonzero "absolute rotation". If you claim that since GPB;s package's rotation cannot be "felt", it is zero "absolute rotation", then YOU are using locally inertial frames as the standard for zero "absolute rotation" -- that is decidedly non-standard for that phrase. Indeed, we now know that the "fixed stars" are not fixed at all. This destroys any hope of validity for the conventional meaning of "absolute rotation". > Do you actually deny that an acceleration can be felt by the accelerating > object itself? That's precisely what makes accelerations including rotation > absolute. You are just arguing about words. The word "absolute" has such terrible historical connotations that IMHO it should be avoided completely; "absolute rotation" is even worse, as its standard is clearly inappropriate. The phrase "absolute rotation" has a meaning DIFFERENT from what you seem to want to use. GPB's package cannot "feel" its "absolute rotation", but it definitely has nonzero "absolute rotation", for the normal meaning of that phrase. Bottom line: the sound bites you insist on using are nearly always WRONG, because relativity requires conditions and caveats. That's why my descriptions are so much longer than yours -- YOU miss the details and subtleties. And for #1 you just got the physics wrong. This is augmented by your ignorance of the history and vocabulary of physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okgagn$1hls$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425180 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> 1. Do you actually believe that the clock of the space traveling twin >> isn't running slower than that of the stay at home twin? Even school >> kids know it is. > > Again, it's not what I "believe" that is at issue, it's what relativity > predicts. Relativity UNAMBIGUOUSLY and DEFINITIVELY predicts that the > traveling twin's clock runs at its usual rate, and is MOST DEFINITELY > NOT "running slower" > than any other identical clock -- identical clocks ALWAYS run at > identical rates. That is what "identical clocks" MEANS. lol, better than television. I believe this is what happens when people don't have the basics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web