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

Groups > sci.physics > #565902 > unrolled thread

Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-27 06:23 -0700
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-27 13:51 -0700
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 23:07 +0200
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:13 -0500
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 14:51 -0700
        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 12:23 -0700
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 13:40 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:45 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:52 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:47 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:53 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 20:16 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:10 -0700
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:32 -0700
    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 17:11 -0500
      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-31 15:00 -0700
        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 23:35 +0000
          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 06:13 -0700
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:48 -0500
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:44 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:03 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:08 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:14 -0500
                  Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:23 -0700
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:34 -0500
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:39 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 07:50 -0500
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:56 +0000
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:56 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:22 -0500
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:30 +0000
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:07 -0500
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:16 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:12 -0500
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:38 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:45 -0500
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:35 -0500
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 13:35 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:55 -0500
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 18:17 -0500
            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 18:31 +0000
              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-01 14:46 -0700
                Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 23:30 +0000
                  Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-02 06:13 -0700
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 08:38 -0500
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 07:56 -0700
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:44 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:26 -0500
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 07:13 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:02 +0000
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:55 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 15:19 -0600
                              Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:39 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:45 +0000
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-02 07:47 -0700
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 18:52 +0000
                      Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 05:53 -0700
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:28 -0500
                        Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 14:22 +0000
                          Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:06 -0700
                            Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:48 +0000
                    Re: Past and proposed experiments deteting absolute motion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:05 -0500

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#567941

On 4/4/16 3:35 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 3:35:41 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 4/4/16 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> It's trying to....the table stops it and that's why it has weight.
>>
>>     Therefore the net force is zero and the acceleration is zero.
>>
>
> No the net force is no zero....if it is zero the object wouldn't have weight.
>

   If the net force is zero, there is zero acceleration.  F = ma


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567330

On 4/1/16 4:44 PM, kenseto wrote:
> Idiot....assertion is not a valid argument. Inertial frame means no
> acceleration but every location on earth (thus every object on earth)
> is in a state of acceleration. Gee you are stupid.

Space and Time: Inertial Frames
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/

> A “frame of reference” is a standard relative to which motion and
> rest may be measured; any set of points or objects that are at rest
> relative to one another enables us, in principle, to describe the
> relative motions of bodies. A frame of reference is therefore a
> purely kinematical device, for the geometrical description of motion
> without regard to the masses or forces involved. A dynamical account
> of motion leads to the idea of an “inertial frame,” or a reference
> frame relative to which motions have distinguished dynamical
> properties. For that reason an inertial frame has to be understood as
> a spatial reference frame together with some means of measuring time,
> so that uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated
> motions. The laws of Newtonian dynamics provide a simple definition:
> an inertial frame is a reference-frame with a time-scale, relative to
> which the motion of a body not subject to forces is always
> rectilinear and uniform, accelerations are always proportional to and
> in the direction of applied forces, and applied forces are always met
> with equal and opposite reactions. It follows that, in an inertial
> frame, the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or
> in uniform motion. It also follows that any other frame of reference
> moving uniformly relative to an inertial frame is also an inertial
> frame. For example, in Newtonian celestial mechanics, taking the
> “fixed stars” as a frame of reference, we can determine an
> (approximately) inertial frame whose center is the center of mass of
> the solar system; relative to this frame, every acceleration of every
> planet can be accounted for (approximately) as a gravitational
> interaction with some other planet in accord with Newton's laws of
> motion.

   There's more:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567257

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:36:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >No idiot...... absolute motion does not require an absolute reference 
>> >frame. An inertial frame in SR is a defined as an absolute reference 
>> >frame.
>> 
>> How can you argue against SR if you don't even understand SR?  SR doesn't
>> have an absolute reference frame.  The "R" stands for "Relativity", that's
>> the whole point, no absolute anything needed.  An inertial reference frame
>> is defined as one with zero acceleration, and Newton's First Law is valid
>> (all physical laws valid for SR)

>Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on 
>earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why 
>SR and LET derived the same math.

Of course there are inertial frames here.  I can make them up as often as
I want.  There's one now! Whoops, there it goes, right through the floor!

If you don't "get" this, then you don't understand what an inertial frame
is, simple as that.

An inertial frame is simply one where Newton's First Law holds, there
is zero acceleration.  

Now trying to get ordinary objects stationary in an inertial frame can be
difficult, esp. on Earth.  For astronaut training, they created the "Vomit
Comet" which is inertial for a limited time.

>> > Each SR observer considers himself to be an absolute reference 
>> >frame.....that is identical to the LET assumption of the ether frame as 
>> >an absolute reference frame. That's why SR and LET have identical math.

So since you don't understand what an inertial frame (or SR) is, why do
you write this crap?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567321

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:31:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:36:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >No idiot...... absolute motion does not require an absolute reference 
> >> >frame. An inertial frame in SR is a defined as an absolute reference 
> >> >frame.
> >> 
> >> How can you argue against SR if you don't even understand SR?  SR doesn't
> >> have an absolute reference frame.  The "R" stands for "Relativity", that's
> >> the whole point, no absolute anything needed.  An inertial reference frame
> >> is defined as one with zero acceleration, and Newton's First Law is valid
> >> (all physical laws valid for SR)
> 
> >Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on 
> >earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why 
> >SR and LET derived the same math.
> 
> Of course there are inertial frames here.  I can make them up as often as
> I want.  There's one now! Whoops, there it goes, right through the floor!

That's why you are a moron=y. 

> 
> If you don't "get" this, then you don't understand what an inertial frame
> is, simple as that.
> 
> An inertial frame is simply one where Newton's First Law holds, there
> is zero acceleration.  
> 
> Now trying to get ordinary objects stationary in an inertial frame can be
> difficult, esp. on Earth.  For astronaut training, they created the "Vomit
> Comet" which is inertial for a limited time.
> 
> >> > Each SR observer considers himself to be an absolute reference 
> >> >frame.....that is identical to the LET assumption of the ether frame as 
> >> >an absolute reference frame. That's why SR and LET have identical math.
> 
> So since you don't understand what an inertial frame (or SR) is, why do
> you write this crap?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567335

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:31:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on 
>> >earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why 
>> >SR and LET derived the same math.
>> 
>> Of course there are inertial frames here.  I can make them up as often as
>> I want.  There's one now! Whoops, there it goes, right through the floor!

>That's why you are a moron=y. 

So it's true, you don't understand inertial frames at all.

If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
inertial frame, as it is in freefall.  An accelerometer inside it will
read 0.  No acceleration inside, and Newton's First Law holds.  This is
Einstein's elevator gedanken.

Now I know you are about to whine "No, the box is accelerating! It is
falling down!!!!"  But that is how it is viewed from a NON-INERTIAL frame,
someone standing on Earth.  It is non-inertial because of gravity.  An
inertial frame will appear inertial only to a reference of another
inertial frame.

Think of it: If you are in a car accelerating away from a stationary
object such as a lamp pole, you will measure it as accelerating away
from you.  But you (in the car) are accelerating, the pole is stationary.

The box, as viewed from another INERTIAL frame (say, another falling box,
with or without initial velocity in some direction) will see the first box
in constant rectilinear motion relative to it, meeting the definition that
all inertial frames will see each other in constant rectilinear motion.

You really need to learn about inertial frames and SR before critizing 
either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567432

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:31:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on 
> >> >earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why 
> >> >SR and LET derived the same math.
> >> 
> >> Of course there are inertial frames here.  I can make them up as often as
> >> I want.  There's one now! Whoops, there it goes, right through the floor!
> 
> >That's why you are a moron=y. 
> 
> So it's true, you don't understand inertial frames at all.
> 
> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.  

No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.



An accelerometer inside it will
> read 0.  No acceleration inside, and Newton's First Law holds.  This is
> Einstein's elevator gedanken.
> 
> Now I know you are about to whine "No, the box is accelerating! It is
> falling down!!!!"  But that is how it is viewed from a NON-INERTIAL frame,
> someone standing on Earth.  It is non-inertial because of gravity.  An
> inertial frame will appear inertial only to a reference of another
> inertial frame.
> 
> Think of it: If you are in a car accelerating away from a stationary
> object such as a lamp pole, you will measure it as accelerating away
> from you.  But you (in the car) are accelerating, the pole is stationary.
> 
> The box, as viewed from another INERTIAL frame (say, another falling box,
> with or without initial velocity in some direction) will see the first box
> in constant rectilinear motion relative to it, meeting the definition that
> all inertial frames will see each other in constant rectilinear motion.
> 
> You really need to learn about inertial frames and SR before critizing 
> either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567438

On 4/2/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
>> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.
>
> No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.
>
>

   No Seto, because the box is in free fall, the accelerometer says zero.
   Objects in free fall do not feel their own weight.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567454

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/2/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
> >> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.
> >
> > No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.
> 
>    No Seto, because the box is in free fall, the accelerometer says zero.
>    Objects in free fall do not feel their own weight.

I suggest an experiment. We'll put you Sam Worm Liar in the box with
how ever many accelerometers as might fit after allowing for your fat
ass. We'll take a nice slow scenic balloon ride to the top of clouds,
where it doesn't rain. We'll drop said box. How much weight are you Sam
going to feel when the box hits fans atop any highrise building in NYC? 

X-tra Credit: Given your fatness quotient, will the highrise collapse or not?

Let's see, I mean measure, how much you were not accelerating.
Oh... don't worry about terminal velocity, pretend you're falling
in a vacuum, much like the one in your odd brains.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Kids, ask your parents permission before trying.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567826

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/2/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
> >> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.
> >
> > No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.
> >
> >
> 
>    No Seto, because the box is in free fall, the accelerometer says zero.
>    Objects in free fall do not feel their own weight.


No idiot....the accelerometer will say 9.7 meter/sec^2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567835

On 4/4/16 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 4/2/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
>>>> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.
>>>
>>> No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>     No Seto, because the box is in free fall, the accelerometer says zero.
>>     Objects in free fall do not feel their own weight.
>
>
> No idiot....the accelerometer will say 9.7 meter/sec^2
>

   Too bad you can't understand the concept, Seto. As Einstein realized
   in 1908 or so that a falling man does not feel his own weight.
   Similarly an a falling accelerometer reports zero acceleration.

   This is fundamental stuff, Seto, and you obviously don't understand
   it.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567841

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:26:47 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/4/16 7:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 4/2/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
> >>>> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.
> >>>
> >>> No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>     No Seto, because the box is in free fall, the accelerometer says zero.
> >>     Objects in free fall do not feel their own weight.
> >
> >
> > No idiot....the accelerometer will say 9.7 meter/sec^2
> >
> 
>    Too bad you can't understand the concept, Seto. As Einstein realized
>    in 1908 or so that a falling man does not feel his own weight.
>    Similarly an a falling accelerometer reports zero acceleration.

A falling man is canceling the earth's gravity (a deceleration effect)....that does not mean that he is in an inertial frame. He will regain his wt when he hits the ground. Furthermore, there is no location on earth that is in an inertial frame.


> 
>    This is fundamental stuff, Seto, and you obviously don't understand
>    it.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568036

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 4/2/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:

>> > No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.
>> 
>>    No Seto, because the box is in free fall, the accelerometer says zero.
>>    Objects in free fall do not feel their own weight.


>No idiot....the accelerometer will say 9.7 meter/sec^2

The accelerometer in a STATIONARY (relative to the earth's surface) will
register 9.81 m/s^2, because of gravity, but we're talking about a box
in freefall.  It will read 0 because it is in freefall.  Remember 
Einstein's elevator gedanken?  Someone inside a closed elevator cannot
tell the difference between zero gravity, and freefall in a gravitational
field.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568400

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:03:16 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 4/2/16 8:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> 
> >> > No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of the earth.
> >> 
> >>    No Seto, because the box is in free fall, the accelerometer says zero.
> >>    Objects in free fall do not feel their own weight.
> 
> 
> >No idiot....the accelerometer will say 9.7 meter/sec^2
> 
> The accelerometer in a STATIONARY (relative to the earth's surface) will
> register 9.81 m/s^2, because of gravity, but we're talking about a box
> in freefall.  It will read 0 because it is in freefall.  Remember 
> Einstein's elevator gedanken?  Someone inside a closed elevator cannot
> tell the difference between zero gravity, and freefall in a gravitational
> field.

Idiot....experiments in the lab that confirm are not in free fall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568404

In article <05775e09-2822-4ded-ab14-6a5feb733c45@googlegroups.com>,
 kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:

> The accelerometer in a STATIONARY (relative to the earth's surface) will
> register 9.81 m/s^2, because of gravity, but we're talking about a box
> in freefall.  It will read 0 because it is in freefall.  Remember 
> Einstein's elevator gedanken?  Someone inside a closed elevator cannot
> tell the difference between zero gravity, and freefall in a gravitational
> field.
 
That is not quite true. 

Sufficiently accurate accelerometers could, at least in theory, detect a 
a slight difference in direction of acceleration at points at sufficient 
distances apart perpendicularly to the main direction of acceleration if 
it had a point source as from gravity rather than being perfectly 
parallel as in physical acceleration.

I doubt that such a difference could be detected if the gravitating 
center of mass was as distant from the elevator as an earth  radius with 
present day accelerometers, but they get better every year.
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568441

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:19:38 PM UTC-4, Virgil wrote:
> In article <05775e09-2822-4ded-ab14-6a5feb733c45@googlegroups.com>,
>  kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> 
> > The accelerometer in a STATIONARY (relative to the earth's surface) will
> > register 9.81 m/s^2, because of gravity, but we're talking about a box
> > in freefall.  It will read 0 because it is in freefall.  Remember 
> > Einstein's elevator gedanken?  Someone inside a closed elevator cannot
> > tell the difference between zero gravity, and freefall in a gravitational
> > field.
>  
> That is not quite true.

I didn't write that....Moroney did.
 
> 
> Sufficiently accurate accelerometers could, at least in theory, detect a 
> a slight difference in direction of acceleration at points at sufficient 
> distances apart perpendicularly to the main direction of acceleration if 
> it had a point source as from gravity rather than being perfectly 
> parallel as in physical acceleration.
> 
> I doubt that such a difference could be detected if the gravitating 
> center of mass was as distant from the elevator as an earth  radius with 
> present day accelerometers, but they get better every year.
> -- 
> Virgil
> "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#569208

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 10:03:16 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >No idiot....the accelerometer will say 9.7 meter/sec^2
>> 
>> The accelerometer in a STATIONARY (relative to the earth's surface) will
>> register 9.81 m/s^2, because of gravity, but we're talking about a box
>> in freefall.  It will read 0 because it is in freefall.  Remember 
>> Einstein's elevator gedanken?  Someone inside a closed elevator cannot
>> tell the difference between zero gravity, and freefall in a gravitational
>> field.

>Idiot....experiments in the lab that confirm are not in free fall.

They are if they are set up to be in freefall. Like Einstein's elevator 
gedanken.  (ignoring the tiny tidal force between the top and bottom of 
the elevator someone else mentioned)

Of course the problem with that is anything on earth in freefall can only
be in freefall for a short time. They have this nasty habit of crashing
into the earth's surface otherwise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567453

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 9:13:28 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > 
> > >On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:31:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> >Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on 
> > >> >earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why 
> > >> >SR and LET derived the same math.
> > >> 
> > >> Of course there are inertial frames here.  I can make them up as often as
> > >> I want.  There's one now! Whoops, there it goes, right through the floor!
> > 
> > >That's why you are a moron=y. 
> > 
> > So it's true, you don't understand inertial frames at all.
> > 
> > If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
> > inertial frame, as it is in freefall.  
> 
> No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g
> toward the center of the earth.
> 

It might help if you read the other person's
 entire post before replying.
> 
> 
> > An accelerometer inside it will
> > read 0.  No acceleration inside, and Newton's First Law holds.  This is
> > Einstein's elevator gedanken.
> > 
> > Now I know you are about to whine "No, the box is accelerating! It is
> > falling down!!!!"  But that is how it is viewed from a NON-INERTIAL frame,
> > someone standing on Earth.  It is non-inertial because of gravity.  An
> > inertial frame will appear inertial only to a reference of another
> > inertial frame.
> > 
[]
> > 
> > You really need to learn about inertial frames and SR before critizing 
> > either.

But you [kenseto] can only say that about the acceleration
from a frame OUTSIDE the box.
You keep trying to create an absolute reference frame
without even realizing what you are doing.

This is one case where the solution requires thinking
INSIDE the box. (HINT: Picture yourself in the box.)

HTH,
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567533

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:31:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> >Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on 
>> >> >earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why 
>> >> >SR and LET derived the same math.
>> >> 
>> >> Of course there are inertial frames here.  I can make them up as often as
>> >> I want.  There's one now! Whoops, there it goes, right through the floor!
>> 
>> >That's why you are a moron=y. 
>> 
>> So it's true, you don't understand inertial frames at all.
>> 
>> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
>> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.  

>No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of 
>the earth.

I already answered that, but you didn't comment on my answer.  I must
assume you immediately reached for the "reply" button once you read this
far, and never read beyond this point.

Anyway, an inertial frame LOOKS non-inertial, when viewed from a 
non-inertial frame.  Someone standing on the ground is in a non-inertial
frame (due to gravity) sees the inertial frame of the falling box
as non-inertial.  Someone else in another inertial frame will see the
first inertial frame as inertial,.

>>An accelerometer inside it will
>> read 0.  No acceleration inside, and Newton's First Law holds.  This is
>> Einstein's elevator gedanken.
>> 
>> Now I know you are about to whine "No, the box is accelerating! It is
>> falling down!!!!"  But that is how it is viewed from a NON-INERTIAL frame,
>> someone standing on Earth.  It is non-inertial because of gravity.  An
>> inertial frame will appear inertial only to a reference of another
>> inertial frame.

No comment, obviously you didn't even read this.

>> Think of it: If you are in a car accelerating away from a stationary
>> object such as a lamp pole, you will measure it as accelerating away
>> from you.  But you (in the car) are accelerating, the pole is stationary.
>> 
>> The box, as viewed from another INERTIAL frame (say, another falling box,
>> with or without initial velocity in some direction) will see the first box
>> in constant rectilinear motion relative to it, meeting the definition that
>> all inertial frames will see each other in constant rectilinear motion.
>> 
>> You really need to learn about inertial frames and SR before critizing 
>> either.

Or this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567829

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 2:52:49 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 2:31:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >Hey idiot moron-y.....in that case there is no inertial frame exists on 
> >> >> >earth. Also every location in the ether fits your definition. That's why 
> >> >> >SR and LET derived the same math.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Of course there are inertial frames here.  I can make them up as often as
> >> >> I want.  There's one now! Whoops, there it goes, right through the floor!
> >> 
> >> >That's why you are a moron=y. 
> >> 
> >> So it's true, you don't understand inertial frames at all.
> >> 
> >> If I drop a box (in a vacuum), the inside of the box can be considered an
> >> inertial frame, as it is in freefall.  
> 
> >No idiot.....inside the box is accelerating at g toward the center of 
> >the earth.
> 
> I already answered that, but you didn't comment on my answer.  I must
> assume you immediately reached for the "reply" button once you read this
> far, and never read beyond this point.
> 
> Anyway, an inertial frame LOOKS non-inertial, when viewed from a 
> non-inertial frame.  

Idiot....an inertial frame is not relative. It is a defined absolute term.

>Someone standing on the ground is in a non-inertial
> frame (due to gravity) sees the inertial frame of the falling box
> as non-inertial.  Someone else in another inertial frame will see the
> first inertial frame as inertial,.

Idiot....circular argument. There is no inertial frame exists on earth and thus no observer will view the box as inertial.


> 
> >>An accelerometer inside it will
> >> read 0.  No acceleration inside, and Newton's First Law holds.  This is
> >> Einstein's elevator gedanken.
> >> 
> >> Now I know you are about to whine "No, the box is accelerating! It is
> >> falling down!!!!"  But that is how it is viewed from a NON-INERTIAL frame,
> >> someone standing on Earth.  It is non-inertial because of gravity.  An
> >> inertial frame will appear inertial only to a reference of another
> >> inertial frame.
> 
> No comment, obviously you didn't even read this.
> 
> >> Think of it: If you are in a car accelerating away from a stationary
> >> object such as a lamp pole, you will measure it as accelerating away
> >> from you.  But you (in the car) are accelerating, the pole is stationary.
> >> 
> >> The box, as viewed from another INERTIAL frame (say, another falling box,
> >> with or without initial velocity in some direction) will see the first box
> >> in constant rectilinear motion relative to it, meeting the definition that
> >> all inertial frames will see each other in constant rectilinear motion.
> >> 
> >> You really need to learn about inertial frames and SR before critizing 
> >> either.
> 
> Or this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567836

On 4/4/16 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
> There is no inertial frame exists on earth and thus no observer will view the box as inertial.



   Too bad you can't understand the concept, Seto. As Einstein realized
   in 1908 or so, that a falling man does not feel his own weight.
   Similarly an a falling accelerometer reports zero acceleration.

   This is fundamental stuff, Seto, and you obviously don't understand
   it.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web