how does science measure their difference?
if you label light as absolute and atom relative
On 8/21/23 12:36 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
how does science measure their difference?It doesn't. In physics, "motion" is replaced by "velocity", which can
only be measured relative to a specified coordinate system. Nobody has
ever described how to measure any sort of "absolute velocity", or how to identify any "absolute frame or coordinates".
[Some people claim the "fixed stars" determine an
"absolute frame"; others claim the CMBR does so.
Neither one deserves that title, as neither one
spans the visible universe; both are as local as
the rest frame of the Milky Way.]
if you label light as absolute and atom relativeThen you are misusing terminology and obtaining nonsense.
Tom Roberts
On 8/21/23 12:36 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
how does science measure their difference?It doesn't. In physics, "motion" is replaced by "velocity", which can
only be measured relative to a specified coordinate system. Nobody has
ever described how to measure any sort of "absolute velocity",
[Some people claim the "fixed stars" determine an
"absolute frame"; others claim the CMBR does so.
Neither one deserves that title, as neither one
spans the visible universe; both are as local as
the rest frame of the Milky Way.]
if you label light as absolute and atom relativeThen you are misusing terminology and obtaining nonsense.
Tom Roberts
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:44:09 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/21/23 12:36 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
how does science measure their difference?It doesn't. In physics, "motion" is replaced by "velocity", which
can only be measured relative to a specified coordinate system.
Nobody has ever described how to measure any sort of "absolute
velocity", or how to identify any "absolute frame or coordinates".
Interesting. And yet the LTs as much as proclaim relativity
velocity as an absolute scaler by eradicating any possibility of a
coordinate relative velocity v'. Coordinate time t' and coordinate
distance x' play their parts in the LTs along with proper time t and
proper distance x. Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go
with proper relative velocity v ? Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
Easy peasy.
On 8/21/23 3:26 PM, patdolan wrote:Truly Tom Roberts, I do sympathize with your situation. What I have typed must be mind-blowing gibberish to you and your ilk. But I assure you, my words could be generated by any rational and circumspect mind. They are comprehendible to anyone who did
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:44:09 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/21/23 12:36 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
how does science measure their difference?It doesn't. In physics, "motion" is replaced by "velocity", which
can only be measured relative to a specified coordinate system.
Nobody has ever described how to measure any sort of "absolute
velocity", or how to identify any "absolute frame or coordinates".
Interesting. And yet the LTs as much as proclaim relativityI have no way to respond to your word salad -- your wording simply does
velocity as an absolute scaler by eradicating any possibility of a coordinate relative velocity v'. Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTs along with proper time t and proper distance x. Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go
with proper relative velocity v ? Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
Easy peasy.
not make sense. You need to learn basic physics and its vocabulary
before you can think about this, much less write about it.
Tom Roberts
On 8/21/23 3:26 PM, patdolan wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:44:09 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/21/23 12:36 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
how does science measure their difference?It doesn't. In physics, "motion" is replaced by "velocity", which
can only be measured relative to a specified coordinate system.
Nobody has ever described how to measure any sort of "absolute
velocity", or how to identify any "absolute frame or coordinates".
Interesting. And yet the LTs as much as proclaim relativityI have no way to respond to your word salad -- your wording simply does
velocity as an absolute scaler by eradicating any possibility of a coordinate relative velocity v'. Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTs along with proper time t and proper distance x. Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go
with proper relative velocity v ? Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
Easy peasy.
not make sense. You need to learn basic physics
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTs along with proper time t and proper distance x.
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v ?
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTs
along with proper time t and proper distance x.
The symbols x,t denote coordinates, just as do the symbols x',t'. The proper time between two timelike-separated events e1 and e2 is given by sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2], and the same proper time is also given by sqrt[(t'2-t'1)^2 - (x'2-x'1)^2].
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v
?
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
As explained to you before, you're confusing (1) the velocities of a given object in terms of two coordinates systems and (2) the mutual velocity between two coordinate systems. If an object moves uniformly from e1
to e2 then its velocity in terms of the x,t coordinates is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1), and
its velocity in terms of the x',t' coordinates is (x'2-x'1)/(t'2-t'1). These are
generally different. However, the velocities of the spatial origins of each coordinate system in terms of the other are equal and reciprocal.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:And, according to you Legion, mutually exclusive. If the coordinate relative velocity v' does not stand on an equal footing with the proper relative velocity v then we have a "preferred" coordinate system in which to calculate relative velocity; and
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTs along with proper time t and proper distance x.The symbols x,t denote coordinates, just as do the symbols x',t'. The proper time between two timelike-separated events e1 and e2 is given by sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2], and the same proper time is also given by sqrt[(t'2-t'1)^2 - (x'2-x'1)^2].
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v ?As explained to you before, you're confusing (1) the velocities of a given object in terms of two coordinates systems and (2) the mutual velocity between two coordinate systems. If an object moves uniformly from e1
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
to e2 then its velocity in terms of the x,t coordinates is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1), and
its velocity in terms of the x',t' coordinates is (x'2-x'1)/(t'2-t'1). These are
generally different. However, the velocities of the spatial origins of each coordinate system in terms of the other are equal and reciprocal.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:therefore a violation of the first postulate.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:56:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:And, according to you Legion, mutually exclusive. If the coordinate relative velocity v' does not stand on an equal footing with the proper relative velocity v then we have a "preferred" coordinate system in which to calculate relative velocity; and
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTsThe symbols x,t denote coordinates, just as do the symbols x',t'. The proper
along with proper time t and proper distance x.
time between two timelike-separated events e1 and e2 is given by sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2], and the same proper time is also given by sqrt[(t'2-t'1)^2 - (x'2-x'1)^2].
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v ?As explained to you before, you're confusing (1) the velocities of a given
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
object in terms of two coordinates systems and (2) the mutual velocity between two coordinate systems. If an object moves uniformly from e1
to e2 then its velocity in terms of the x,t coordinates is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1), and
its velocity in terms of the x',t' coordinates is (x'2-x'1)/(t'2-t'1). These are
generally different. However, the velocities of the spatial origins of each
coordinate system in terms of the other are equal and reciprocal.
Or put another way, Legion in S' and I in S will each measure the identical relative velocity for each other. But we will each disagree with the other's calculation based on what the LTs tell us the other *should* measure. (I may try yet a third way toexplain this in a way that even Tom Roberts can understand)
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:56:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:therefore a violation of the first postulate.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:And, according to you Legion, mutually exclusive. If the coordinate relative velocity v' does not stand on an equal footing with the proper relative velocity v then we have a "preferred" coordinate system in which to calculate relative velocity; and
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTsThe symbols x,t denote coordinates, just as do the symbols x',t'. The proper
along with proper time t and proper distance x.
time between two timelike-separated events e1 and e2 is given by sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2], and the same proper time is also given by sqrt[(t'2-t'1)^2 - (x'2-x'1)^2].
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v ?As explained to you before, you're confusing (1) the velocities of a given object in terms of two coordinates systems and (2) the mutual velocity between two coordinate systems. If an object moves uniformly from e1
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
to e2 then its velocity in terms of the x,t coordinates is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1), and
its velocity in terms of the x',t' coordinates is (x'2-x'1)/(t'2-t'1). These are
generally different. However, the velocities of the spatial origins of each
coordinate system in terms of the other are equal and reciprocal.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:56:11 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:and therefore a violation of the first postulate.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:56:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:And, according to you Legion, mutually exclusive. If the coordinate relative velocity v' does not stand on an equal footing with the proper relative velocity v then we have a "preferred" coordinate system in which to calculate relative velocity;
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTsThe symbols x,t denote coordinates, just as do the symbols x',t'. The proper
along with proper time t and proper distance x.
time between two timelike-separated events e1 and e2 is given by sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2], and the same proper time is also given by sqrt[(t'2-t'1)^2 - (x'2-x'1)^2].
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v ?As explained to you before, you're confusing (1) the velocities of a given
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
object in terms of two coordinates systems and (2) the mutual velocity between two coordinate systems. If an object moves uniformly from e1 to e2 then its velocity in terms of the x,t coordinates is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1), and
its velocity in terms of the x',t' coordinates is (x'2-x'1)/(t'2-t'1). These are
generally different. However, the velocities of the spatial origins of each
coordinate system in terms of the other are equal and reciprocal.
to explain this in a way that even Tom Roberts can understand)Or put another way, Legion in S' and I in S will each measure the identical relative velocity for each other. But we will each disagree with the other's calculation based on what the LTs tell us the other *should* measure. (I may try yet a third way
Let me put this way: We can write another version of the LTs, let's call them the DTs for arguments sake, in which t is always constant and it is v & x that have images v' & x' under the transforms. This is a very Einstein-esque thing to do. I may doit later tonight.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:59:48 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:and therefore a violation of the first postulate.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:56:11 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:56:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:And, according to you Legion, mutually exclusive. If the coordinate relative velocity v' does not stand on an equal footing with the proper relative velocity v then we have a "preferred" coordinate system in which to calculate relative velocity;
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTsThe symbols x,t denote coordinates, just as do the symbols x',t'. The proper
along with proper time t and proper distance x.
time between two timelike-separated events e1 and e2 is given by sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2], and the same proper time is also given by
sqrt[(t'2-t'1)^2 - (x'2-x'1)^2].
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v ?As explained to you before, you're confusing (1) the velocities of a given
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
object in terms of two coordinates systems and (2) the mutual velocity
between two coordinate systems. If an object moves uniformly from e1 to e2 then its velocity in terms of the x,t coordinates is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1), and
its velocity in terms of the x',t' coordinates is (x'2-x'1)/(t'2-t'1). These are
generally different. However, the velocities of the spatial origins of each
coordinate system in terms of the other are equal and reciprocal.
way to explain this in a way that even Tom Roberts can understand)Or put another way, Legion in S' and I in S will each measure the identical relative velocity for each other. But we will each disagree with the other's calculation based on what the LTs tell us the other *should* measure. (I may try yet a third
it later tonight.Let me put this way: We can write another version of the LTs, let's call them the DTs for arguments sake, in which t is always constant and it is v & x that have images v' & x' under the transforms. This is a very Einstein-esque thing to do. I may do
Lorentz Transforms--domain is over independent vDT Theorem: for any pair of observers, the relative velocity and the time that each experiences/measures is differs from the other in just such a fashion so as to keep the distance between them a constant.
f( x, t, v ) -> x'
g( x, t, v ) -> t'
anti-f( x', t', v ) -> x
anti-g( x', t', v ) -> t
Dolantz Transforms--domain is over independent x
h( x, t, v ) -> v'
k( x, t, v ) -> t'
anti-h( x, t', v' ) -> v
anti-k( x, t', v' ) -> t
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:04:46 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:and therefore a violation of the first postulate.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:59:48 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:56:11 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:56:26 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:And, according to you Legion, mutually exclusive. If the coordinate relative velocity v' does not stand on an equal footing with the proper relative velocity v then we have a "preferred" coordinate system in which to calculate relative velocity;
Coordinate time t' and coordinate distance x' play their parts in the LTsThe symbols x,t denote coordinates, just as do the symbols x',t'. The proper
along with proper time t and proper distance x.
time between two timelike-separated events e1 and e2 is given by sqrt[(t2-t1)^2 - (x2-x1)^2], and the same proper time is also given by
sqrt[(t'2-t'1)^2 - (x'2-x'1)^2].
Why not coordinate relativity velocity v' to go with proper relative velocity v ?As explained to you before, you're confusing (1) the velocities of a given
Wouldn't that just be ∆x'/∆t' ?
object in terms of two coordinates systems and (2) the mutual velocity
between two coordinate systems. If an object moves uniformly from e1
to e2 then its velocity in terms of the x,t coordinates is (x2-x1)/(t2-t1), and
its velocity in terms of the x',t' coordinates is (x'2-x'1)/(t'2-t'1). These are
generally different. However, the velocities of the spatial origins of each
coordinate system in terms of the other are equal and reciprocal.
way to explain this in a way that even Tom Roberts can understand)Or put another way, Legion in S' and I in S will each measure the identical relative velocity for each other. But we will each disagree with the other's calculation based on what the LTs tell us the other *should* measure. (I may try yet a third
do it later tonight.Let me put this way: We can write another version of the LTs, let's call them the DTs for arguments sake, in which t is always constant and it is v & x that have images v' & x' under the transforms. This is a very Einstein-esque thing to do. I may
DT Theorem: for any pair of observers, the relative velocity and the time that each observer experiences/measures differs from the other observer in just such a manner so as to keep the distance between them constant.Lorentz Transforms--domain is over independent v
f( x, t, v ) -> x'
g( x, t, v ) -> t'
anti-f( x', t', v ) -> x
anti-g( x', t', v ) -> t
Dolantz Transforms--domain is over independent xDT Theorem: for any pair of observers, the relative velocity and the time that each experiences/measures is differs from the other in just such a fashion so as to keep the distance between them a constant.
h( x, t, v ) -> v'
k( x, t, v ) -> t'
anti-h( x, t', v' ) -> v
anti-k( x, t', v' ) -> t
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 33:46:50 |
Calls: | 6,949 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,397 |
Messages: | 5,441,776 |