Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433366
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation |
| Date | 2017-09-22 20:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f2l314F2lbU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <10921718.O9o76ZdvQC@PointedEars.de> <1b97f699-d4c7-41fc-9041-3fdec761811b@googlegroups.com> <5311903.lOV4Wx5bFT@PointedEars.de> <f2hs19F7eolU1@mid.individual.net> <89f48ca9-98d8-4280-8a10-d279f2c660c5@googlegroups.com> |
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'. But actually towards which point of reference a car runs 'absolute'? Certainly you regard the road as at rest and the car as moving. This is actually what we usually do. 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? 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
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