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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433374

Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation

Show all headers | View raw

W dniu piątek, 22 września 2017 20:27:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 21.09.2017 um 15:29 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > W dniu czwartek, 21 września 2017 15:10:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> >
> >> This is so, because the spaceship cannot define an absolute zero point
> >> in space, in respect which it has a certain velocity.
> >>
> >> IOW: speed is 'relative'.
> >>
> >> The spaceship crew could say 'well, we don't know how fast we are. But
> >> at least we are at rest in respect to ourselves'.
> >
> > It's incredibly wise and the ship's navigator will
> > obviously be delighted with incredibly wise guru
> > providing him such incredibly helpful information
> >
> >> This does in fact make some sense and that is actually what we usually do.
> >
> > Your driving license should be immediately revoked, if
> > you ever managed to obtain any with such approach.
> >
> 
> I did not say, that pace on a rood is 'relative'.

Sure. When you drive a car, you can no way determine its speed:(


> Certainly you regard the road as at rest and the car as moving. This is 
> actually what we usually do.

Right. This is what we usually do. For good reasons.

> But we're not talking about cars on streets, but about theoretical 
> physics and the validity of SRT.
> Since SRT uses a term 'v' (for velocity) in its equations, it should be 
> legitimate to ask, in respect to which reference point this v is measured.
> 
> This is especially legitimate, since SRT assumes the validity of the 
> principle of equivalence. That means, that you cannot distinguish 
> unaccelerated motion from being at rest.
> 
> So what does this term 'v' (of SRT) mean in a physical sense?

Soon nobody sane will care about your "physical sense". 
Just like me. Unless those like you get conscious.



> 
> Certainly not meant is the speed of a car on some sort of road.
> 
> SRT uses in fact a schizophrenic concept of relative motion and an 
> absolute space (plus absolute time).
> 
> But the real deal would be, that space is relative to an arbitrary 
> observer, equipped with local time only.
> 
> 
> TH

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

Thread

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

csiph-web