 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / August 2008There is no rest frame in SRT,
A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT posits that every object (including the observer) in the universe is in a state of motion. Therefore there is no rest or stationary frame (including the observer's frame) as posited by SRT. The consequences of this positulate is that a clock moving with respect to an observer can run slow or fast compared to the observer's clock. That's why there are two sets of IRT transformation equations for time: one for the observed clock is running slow and the other for the observed clock is running fast compared to the observer's clock. The other consequence is that the light path length for a moving rod can be longer or shorter than the light path length of the observer's rod....the light path length of observer's rod is assumed to be the physical length of the observer's rod. That's why there are two sets of IRT transformation equations for length.....one for light path length contraction and the other for light path length expansion. DTG describes gravity as a force. Therefore it is completely compatible with the other forces of nature. The equation of DTG explains why the far reached regions of the univserse is in a state of accelerated expansion. Please also visit my website for other papers on my theory. http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message 5d3a5367-fe20-4d9b-86b0-fad1741ac327@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > of Gravity > (DTG)" is available in the following link: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/SetoPapers.jpg Dirk Vdm > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Ken Seto This is charming, Ken. Perhaps you are having difficulty recalling what a reference frame is. Let's set up a reference frame for you. Position the origin of this reference frame at your third cervical vertebra and at the time of your next heartbeat. Orient the x-axis so that it points horizontally directly forward along your line of sight. Orient the z-axis so that it points vertically upward. Orient the y-axis now accordingly to form a right- handed spatial system, and the t-axis appropriately. Now, in this reference frame, are you at rest or moving right now? PD > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Generally a cordinate system use a reference point origo, origo is the rest space from wich you plot objects moving. However with the choice of origo the rest frame comes also the tools units to do the measurements of the movement. So in general you are alloved to chose what rest frame you want because there is equivalence between the chosen rest frames inertial frames. The emerge of SR do however raise the question if i am free to choose rest frame and origo, but have a theory that states that the units within the frame is only local valid due to the Lorentz transformation. Can i then go on to state that light travels invariant, although the reason it appear to do it is either due to *local units for the frame* or due to *imaginary effects due to the transform* The equvivalence between frames in cartesian cordinate system with different rest frames is dependent on the use of same units for length and time is used when measuring distances and motion. This however is not the case within SR. There is no equivalence between inertial cordinate systems within SR, because there is no common meter or second between the inertial frames only agreement in the measurement of the light speed. And this is a result of the Lorentz transform, so light that do not travel invariant is still measured to travel with c. On Aug 25, 1:28 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > because there is no common meter or second between the inertial frames > only agreement in the measurement of the light speed. Sorry, equivalence of frames has NOTHING to do with whether the units are commensurate. It has to do with the laws of physics taking identical form in those frames. You have misappropriated the condition that makes the frames equivalent. > And this is a result of the Lorentz transform, so light that do not > travel invariant is still measured to travel with c. > On Aug 25, 1:28 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - You are sadly mistaken if you think equivalence between frames is not the same as cordinates system equivalence and unit equivalence within those system. That you by definition state all inertial frames are equivalent does not make them so. That you have a definition of inertial frame that do not support a cordinate system do not mean i can not attach one to it. That you spew that frame equivalence have to do with -->"It has to do with the laws of physics taking identical form in those frames." Like if units was not part of physics is just plain NONSENSE. To do physics you need units that is valid over time and agreed on. TO THINK THAT UNITS DO NOT HAVE TO BE VALID OVER ->SPACE<- IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. You think it is enough to utter *IT IS AN INERTIAL FRAME* to somehow make the units used in that equivalent to the unit used in another inertial system We differ i know it take equivalence between the cordinate systems and units. Some people beleive that it only take a statement a definition a postulat to make things true that is not the case. If i by definition state that all people walks with the same paste that doesn't make it true. I probably would have to come up with a formula where the sidewalk units is dependent upon the speed the person walks with or maybe i just settle with to give them clocks running different rates or maybe a mix of both. There will be problem for different walkers to agree on how long a km of sidewalk is however. But since they never actually measure the same km that really not much of a problem is it. The only thing i need to take care of is that their measurement of meter units and clock ticks is consistent when they HOLA eachother over radio after performing a km walk. So there is no problem constructing none equivalent systems that draw the same conclusion. But what ever you do, do not let a third party f.cker come compare their measurements because it will f.ck it all up. HOPE YOU DO NOT HAVE PROBLEM TO FOLLOW SIMPLE LOGIC REASONING. On Aug 25, 2:44 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 25, 1:28 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > the same as cordinates system equivalence and unit equivalence within > those system. Then we disagree. I don't know where you ever got the idea that equivalence between frames is the same as coordinate system equivalence and unit equivalence. > That you by definition state all inertial frames are equivalent does > not make them so. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > TO THINK THAT UNITS DO NOT HAVE TO BE VALID OVER ->SPACE<- IS OUT OF > TOUCH WITH REALITY. They are of course valid. This does not mean that you end up with the same number in those units frame to frame. This should not cause you to blow a gasket and type in all caps to bellow authoritatively. Kinetic energy is measured can be measured in joules in two different frames, but this is no guarantee that the value of the kinetic energy of the same object will be the same in those two frames. > You think it is enough to utter *IT IS AN INERTIAL FRAME* to somehow > make the units used in that equivalent to the unit used in another [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > HOPE YOU DO NOT HAVE PROBLEM TO FOLLOW SIMPLE LOGIC REASONING. It's not a matter of logic and reasoning. It's a matter of what is measured. No matter what you think measurements *should* do, physics attempts to model what measurements *really* do. PD > It's not a matter of logic and reasoning. It's a matter of what is > measured. No matter what you think measurements *should* do, physics > attempts to model what measurements *really* do. LOL And when the physical measurements don't match with the math, change the measurement standards to fit by using the relativity hammer. So basically Albert used the relativity hammer to make the 2 inch cube, fit into the 2 inch diameter circle hole. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman > On Aug 25, 2:44 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > Then we disagree. I don't know where you ever got the idea that > equivalence between frames is the same as coordinate system equivalence and unit equivalence. > > That you by definition state all inertial frames are equivalent does > > not make them so. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > It's not a matter of logic and reasoning. It's a matter of what is > measured. Here you put out lies, light do not travel invariant *BETWEEN* two objects. It is postulated to do it and it simply isn't true. >No matter what you think measurements *should* do, physics > attempts to model what measurements *really* do. Well your measurements actually do not measure what light really do. > PD- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Now, in this reference frame, are you at rest or moving right now? Sigh.... but my third vertebra is moving around the sun. It was never in a state of rest. Ken Seto > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Sigh.... but my third vertebra is moving around the sun. It was never > in a state of rest. But the sun is at rest in a *different* reference frame than the one with the origin at your 3rd cervical vertebra. In the reference frame with the origin at your 3rd cervical vertebra, the sun is moving; you haven't answered yet whether you are moving in this reference frame. Ken, it appears that you don't know what a reference frame is. Would you like to redefine "reference frame" to mean something that makes sense to you? If so, please redefine "reference frame" for your purposes. PD > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > But the sun is at rest in a *different* reference frame than the one > with the origin at your 3rd cervical vertebra. This is nonsense....the sun at rest wrt what? Are you saying that the sun is at rest wrt itself? Are you saying that my third vertebra is at rest wrt my third vertebra? >In the reference frame > with the origin at your 3rd cervical vertebra, the sun is moving; you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > sun is at rest wrt itself? Are you saying that my third vertebra is at > rest wrt my third vertebra? Ken, as I said before, it appears you do not share the same definition of "reference frame" as what physicists use. Perhaps you'd care to define what a reference frame is for your purposes. If the above example confuses you, then change the reference frame so that the origin is at a point 11.9 inches horizontally to the left of your third cervical vertebra. Now, in this reference frame, are you moving or at rest right now? > >In the reference frame > > with the origin at your 3rd cervical vertebra, the sun is moving; you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > of "reference frame" as what physicists use. Perhaps you'd care to > define what a reference frame is for your purposes. Sigh this is nonsense....at rest wrt youself is self referencing. It has no meaning. When two objects A and B are in relative motion it is derived from individual motion as follows: 1. A is doing the moving individually. 2. B is doing the moving individually. 3. A and B each is moving individually. What this mean is that observer A cannot claim that only B is doing the moving individually. Similarly,observer B cannot claim that only A is doing the moving individually. Since A or B do not know the origin of their relative motion therefore they must include all the above possibilities in their calculations. That's why IRT has two sets of transform equations. Ken Seto Ken Seto > If the above example confuses you, then change the reference frame so > that the origin is at a point 11.9 inches horizontally to the left of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Sigh this is nonsense....at rest wrt youself is self referencing. It isn't wrt yourself. It is wrt to the reference frame, whose origin happens to be where I told you. As I said, if you like, take the origin to be a point 11.9 inches to the left of your 3rd cervical vertebra, so there will be no confusion that I'm asking about your motion with respect to yourself. Now, in that reference frame, are you moving or not? > It > has no meaning. When two objects A and B are in relative motion it is [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > It isn't wrt yourself. Sure it is. >It is wrt to the reference frame, whose origin > happens to be where I told you. As I said, if you like, take the > origin to be a point 11.9 inches to the left of your 3rd cervical > vertebra, so there will be no confusion that I'm asking about your > motion with respect to yourself. The origin is you and thus it is self referencing and thus it is nonsense. > Now, in that reference frame, are you moving or not? Again it is self referencing and it is nonsense. If you say to somebody that you are not moving wrt youself he will laugh his arse off. > > > If the above example confuses you, then change the reference frame so > > > that the origin is at a point 11.9 inches horizontally to the left of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > The origin is you and thus it is self referencing and thus it is > nonsense. ??? The origin is 11.9 inches to the left of your 3rd cervical vertebra. That is decidedly NOT you. Do you know what a reference frame is, Ken? Here, let's try another. Let's set up a reference frame where the origin is 3" above, 2" to the right, and 5" in front of the lower corner of the room behind and to the left of you, and at the time of your next heartbeat. Set the x axis be horizontal and to the right from that point. Set the z-axis to be vertically upward from that point. Set the y- and t-axes appropriately. Now, in this reference frame, are you moving or not? > > Now, in that reference frame, are you moving or not? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message 2b0f2937-fbff-44ea-bd6c-1846d2f392bc@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com [snip] >>>>>>>>> This is charming, Ken. Perhaps you are having difficulty recalling >>>>>>>>> what a reference frame is. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Do you know what a reference frame is, Ken? No, he does not. > Here, let's try another. Let's set up a reference frame where the > origin is 3" above, 2" to the right, and 5" in front of the lower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Now, in this reference frame, are you moving or not? Still self-referencing. Formulate it the way you want - he is not going to say he is not moving. Ken is ALWAYS moving. Tell him the origin is in the lower left corner of his toilet and ask him whether he is moving in that frame when he's having a dump. Still self-referencing. Ken Moving Seto moves in every reference frame. Dirk Vdm Kenseto kens...@erinet.com wrote: There is no rest frame in SRT !!!??? The SRT processes run in " 4-D Minkowski space ". The " 4-D Minkowski space " is an Absolute reference frame for SRT. How do you explain " 4-D Minkowski space " moving? In which another reference frame the " 4-D Minkowski frame " moves . Maybe you don’t need " 4-D Minkowski frame " so in which your reference frame the SRT runs. > > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Now, in this reference frame, are you moving or not? Sigh.....the whole room (including the observer, the clock and the ruler) is in the same frame...this is what we normally call the observer's frame. The point is: the room and everything within it is moving individually. If you set up an origin in the room then you are self referencing. > > > Now, in that reference frame, are you moving or not? > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message d519572f-a8a9-407f-9ca1-7b555acee606@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com [snip] >> Now, in this reference frame, are you moving or not? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > moving individually. If you set up an origin in the room then you are > self referencing. What did I say? Seto is always moving - even in his own reference e-matrix. Dirk Vdm > > > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > moving individually. If you set up an origin in the room then you are > self referencing. Aha. And so if the room is tied to the building, then tying the origin to the corner of the building and asking what your speed is in this reference frame is also self-referencing. And since the building is tied to the earth, then making the origin someplace on the surface of the earth, then asking what your speed is in the earth frame is also self-referencing. And so when you ask what the speed of the observer in the track-train problem is, you can't say what the speed of the track observer is, because that's self-referencing. It appears that you have a different definition of reference frame than what is commonly meant by the term. What's your definition of a reference frame, Ken? PD PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message 8ad3c64b-84d7-4916-a70f-72178f957a40@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com [snip] >>> Do you know what a reference frame is, Ken? >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > PD :-) Dirk Vdm -{keeping fingers painfully crossed}- On Aug 27, 3:12 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Dirk Vdm -{keeping fingers painfully crossed}- Oh, don't bother crossing your fingers. He has yet to hear something that soaks in and changes a whit of what he says. PD PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message 6d345311-eef1-4d2b-9102-8373c546c32e@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com > On Aug 27, 3:12 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Oh, don't bother crossing your fingers. Phew, thanks. That hurt. > He has yet to hear something > that soaks in and changes a whit of what he says. > > PD Dirk Vdm - {gently touching wood}- > > > > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > the earth, then asking what your speed is in the earth frame is also > self-referencing. Sigh....the point is: "in the rest frame of the SR observer" is self referencing. BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why a moving clock is running slow. In real life: an observer does not know who is doing the moving individually. That's why you need two sets of transform equations: one to predict the observed clock is running slow and the other predicts that the observed clock is running fast. Ken Seto > And so when you ask what the speed of the observer in the track-train > problem is, you can't say what the speed of the track observer is, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message b1ca6267-365f-4f3c-a274-bb60e027a494@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com [snip] > Sigh....the point is: "in the rest frame of the SR observer" is self > referencing. BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > transform equations: one to predict the observed clock is running slow > and the other predicts that the observed clock is running fast. Sometimes I wonder, Ken... do you do this on purpose like a few others here? And I also wonder at which point I must grab this to make a fumble entry. You are making it very difficult, you know that? Dirk Vdm > > > > > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > Sigh....the point is: You tend to say this when you find that things are not what you thought. >"in the rest frame of the SR observer" is self > referencing. In a reference frame where the origin is at the top of the fire hydrant just down the street, you are presently at rest. This is your rest frame for you as an observer. I frankly don't understand how this is self-referencing. > BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes > that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why a moving [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > What's your definition of a reference frame, Ken? Would you please answer this question, Ken? > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > rest frame for you as an observer. I frankly don't understand how this > is self-referencing. Sigh...any surruonding object that is not moving wrt an observer or any object that have the same state of individual motion as an observer is in the observer's frame. So if you use any of these objects as the origin of the rest frame of the observer is self- referencing. The correct statement for an SR observer is as follows: "In the frame of the observer" > > BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes > > that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why a moving [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Would you please answer this question, Ken? See above. Ken Seto kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message d13c28c7-f425-4d75-b93f-2277dfbf9e1c@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com [snip] >> In a reference frame where the origin is at the top of the fire >> hydrant just down the street, you are presently at rest. This is your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The correct statement for an SR observer is as follows: > "In the frame of the observer" So, to the question "In this reference frame, are you moving or not?", the answer is "In the frame of the observer" :-) When you ask Seto "Ken, is it raining outside?" he answers "Sigh... outside." but before he gives that answer, one must ask 6 (SIX) times. And then it turns out that he does not even understand what "raining" and "outside" actually mean. >>> BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes >>> that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why a moving [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > See above. i.o.w. "No, I have no idea what a referece frame is, so why would I give a definition?" Dirk Vdm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > objects as the origin of the rest frame of the observer is self- > referencing. And so it is *impossible* for anything to be at rest in a reference frame, according to you, unless it is self-referencing. That is, a tree cannot be viewed as being at rest in the reference frame whose origin is the top of the street sign down the street, because this would be self-referential. > The correct statement for an SR observer is as follows: > "In the frame of the observer" And what do you think this means, Ken? What constitutes the frame of the observer? > > > BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes > > > that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why a moving [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > See above. Let me see if I understand you. You are saying that a reference frame for an observer is the collection of objects that are at rest relative to the observer, and that the origin of the reference frame is positioned between the eyes of the observer? You do understand, don't you, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the term "reference frame" as used by physicists or as used in Newtonian physics or as used by Einstein? You are inventing a whole new meaning of the word. This is OK, but when you talk about what Einstein wrote, he was not using your meaning of the term. He was using a wholly different meaning of the term. PD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > And so it is *impossible* for anything to be at rest in a reference > frame, according to you, unless it is self-referencing. At rest wrt to anything in the same frame is sef-referencing. That is, a > tree cannot be viewed as being at rest in the reference frame whose > origin is the top of the street sign down the street, because this > would be self-referential. At rest wrt to anything in the same frame is sef-referencing. > > The correct statement for an SR observer is as follows: > > "In the frame of the observer" > > And what do you think this means, Ken? What constitutes the frame of > the observer? We are going around in circle. For the last time: The observer's frame includes all the objects that are in the same gravtational potential and that are not moving wrt the observer. > > > > BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes > > > > that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why a moving [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > to the observer, and that the origin of the reference frame is > positioned between the eyes of the observer? No....any object in the observer's frame can be used as origin. > You do understand, don't you, that this has nothing whatsoever to do > with the meaning of the term "reference frame" as used by physicists > or as used in Newtonian physics or as used by Einstein? You are > inventing a Current physics defines the observer's frame as follows: An SR obserever asserts that his frame of reference extends to infinity in all directions. All the objects in the universe are moving in the SR observer's frame and the SR observer is in a state of rest in his frame. That's why all the clocks moving in the observer's frame are running slow. such definition for the SR observer's frame is wrong and incomplete. It gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes. The proper way to define the observer's frame is follows: 1. The observer is not in a state of rest in any frame as assumed by SR. 2. The observer's frame is in a state of individual motion....that means that the observer and any object that is not moving wrt him are in the same frame or the same state of individual motion. This new definition for the observer's frame is complete and it will elinimate all the paradoxes exist in SR. Ken Seto > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > includes all the objects that are in the same gravtational potential > and that are not moving wrt the observer. OK, this is the Ken Seto definition. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the term in any of Einstein's writings, where he meant something completely different by the term. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the term as physicists use it. > > > > > BTW that's the reason why SR is incomplete. It assumes > > > > > that the observed clock is doing the moving and that's why a moving [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > No....any object in the observer's frame can be used as origin. So you are saying that a reference frame for an observer is the collection of objects that are at rest relative to the observer, where the origin is taken to be one of those objects? > > You do understand, don't you, that this has nothing whatsoever to do > > with the meaning of the term "reference frame" as used by physicists [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > observer's frame and the SR observer is in a state of rest in his > frame. No, that is not the current physics definition of the observer's frame. It just isn't. So far, you have listed your own definition of what a reference frame is, and you've listed something else that you THINK is what current physics defines as a reference frame. Neither of these definitions have anything to do with what physicists or special relativity mean by "reference frame". > That's why all the clocks moving in the observer's frame are > running slow. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > No, that is not the current physics definition of the observer's > frame. It just isn't. So what is the current physics definition of the observer's frame? If you don't post such definition I will assume that you don't know. Ken Seto > So far, you have listed your own definition of what a reference frame > is, and you've listed something else that you THINK is what current [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - [...] > So what is the current physics definition of the observer's frame? If > you don't post such definition I will assume that you don't know. "I DARE you to try to make me understand!" Ken has extended this little game into a 14 year quest. [snip] > [...] > > > So what is the current physics definition of the observer's frame? If > > you don't post such definition I will assume that you don't know. > > "I DARE you to try to make me understand!" Exactly. "If I don't know what it is, then tell me. Then I'll tell you you're wrong, and that what I say is better." > Ken has extended this little game into a 14 year quest. > > [snip] > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > So what is the current physics definition of the observer's frame? If > you don't post such definition I will assume that you don't know. A reference frame is an origin and a set of coordinate axes. It is not comprised of *any* physical objects (let alone ones at rest), though objects will have coordinates in a reference frame. *All* physical objects in the universe have coordinates in a given reference frame. An object is at rest in a reference frame if its spatial coordinates do not change with time. Any reference frame in which an object is at rest is a "rest frame" for the object. A single reference frame can be the rest frame for more than one object. And there is more than one rest frame (with different origins) for any particular object. The "observer's frame" is *any* reference frame in which the observer happens to be at rest. Note that *all* objects in the universe, whether moving with respect to the observer or stationary with respect to the observer, are in this reference frame -- that is, they have coordinates in the reference frame. Your understanding of what a reference frame is, is completely unrelated to the physics definition of a reference frame. Moreover, what you THOUGHT a special relativity reference frame is, is not what it really is. PD > > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > A reference frame is an origin and a set of coordinate axes. This is meaningless without specifying who is setting up this origin and this set of coordinate axes. The logical person for this task is the SR observer. That's why I said that an SR observer is at the origin of his frame. If the SR observer is in a state of individual motion he will remain at the origin and thus carry his set of coordinate axes with him. what this mean is that the assertion "at the rest frame of the SR observer" is a self-referencing assertion. Ken Seto >It is not > comprised of *any* physical objects (let alone ones at rest), though [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > This is meaningless without specifying who is setting up this origin > and this set of coordinate axes. That is *completely* irrelevant. A reference frame does not need to be "owned" by anyone, let alone an observer. What you consider meaningless, others do not find meaningless at all. It could be, Ken, that you just don't understand it at all, where other people have no difficulty with it. Chinese is meaningless to people who don't understand Chinese, but it is perfectly meaningful for people who speak Chinese. > The logical person for this task is > the SR observer. That's why I said that an SR observer is at the > origin of his frame. Two comments. - That may be YOUR definition of the origin of a frame, but it is NOT the definition that is used by physicists or by Einstein. - When I asked you if you thought the origin of the observer's frame was between the eyes of the observer, you said no, that ANY object at rest with respect to the observer could be used at the origin. Now you say the origin has to be where the observer is. You cannot seem to make up your mind. It's bad enough that you don't understand the meaning of the term, but to compound it, you flip-flop on your own definitions. > If the SR observer is in a state of individual > motion he will remain at the origin and thus carry his set of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > That is *completely* irrelevant. A reference frame does not need to be > "owned" by anyone, let alone an observer. It is not irrelevant at all. A reference frame has no meaning without an observer. > What you consider meaningless, others do not find meaningless at all. > It could be, Ken, that you just don't understand it at all, where [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > It is not irrelevant at all. A reference frame has no meaning without > an observer. And this is where you are wrong, Ken. There is no need for an observer in a reference frame, as physicists use the term. I understand you have a *different* meaning for the term "reference frame". But you asked me for what the definition of a reference frame is according to current physics. You are trying to teach yourself physics on the web, and you do not have the opportunity to ask people what terms mean when you read them. As a result you make mistakes like this. This is why it is not a good idea to try to learn physics from the web. > > What you consider meaningless, others do not find meaningless at all. > > It could be, Ken, that you just don't understand it at all, where [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > As a result you make mistakes like this. This is why it is not a good > idea to try to learn physics from the web. Sigh....I am trying to teach you a better definition for a reference frame that will eliminate all the paradoxes in SR. A reference frame must associate with a physical object or an observer. Otherwise it has no meaning. Each object in the universe has its own reference frame and the object is at the origin of this frame. As the object moves individually it carries it reference frame along with it. There is no rest frame for any object in the universe. Ken Seto > > > What you consider meaningless, others do not find meaningless at all. > > > It could be, Ken, that you just don't understand it at all, where [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > Sigh....I am trying to teach you a better definition for a reference > frame that will eliminate all the paradoxes in SR. That is beside the point. You asked me what the *current physics* definition of reference frame is. I told you. You disputed this answer. I corrected you. This is not about what YOUR definition of reference frame is. We already know YOUR definition is *different* than what physicists mean by the term. The issue is whether you understand what the current physics definition of reference frame is. You do not. Whether you have a different definition of "reference frame" (and a whole bunch of other terms) or not, you are not in a position to critique SR if you do not know what the current physics meanings of those terms are. You must understand a theory, including the meaning of the terms it uses, *before* you can critique it. You cannot claim to understand a theory if you do not know the meanings of the terms AS USED by current physics. Substituting your own definitions for those terms does NOT allow you to claim understanding of the theory. > A reference frame > must associate with a physical object or an observer. Otherwise it has > no meaning. Each object in the universe has its own reference frame > and the object is at the origin of this frame. As the object moves > individually it carries it reference frame along with it. There is no > rest frame for any object in the universe. The previous sentences are YOUR definition of a reference frame. This has NOTHING to do with the definition of the term as used by physicists and as used by Einstein. > Ken Seto > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh....the point is: > [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > has NOTHING to do with the definition of the term as used by > physicists and as used by Einstein. You can stay ignorant for the rest of your life. I don't care. Ken Seto > > Ken Seto > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > read more » [snip] > You can stay ignorant for the rest of your life. I don't care. Then stop posting. [snip] > > That is beside the point. You asked me what the *current physics* > > definition of reference frame is. I told you. You disputed this [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ken Seto You can harumph all you want, Ken. The fact remains that you are not in a position to do what you claim to do. You cannot critique a theory you do not understand, and you cannot understand a theory if you don't know the meaning of the terms it uses. PD > So what is the current physics definition of the observer's frame? If > you don't post such definition I will assume that you don't know. Ken, we've been telling you for years that making up your own theory is no substitute for learning what words mean. In the course of your conversation with me, you've made it plain that you do not know the meaning of the terms "reference frame" "relative motion" "vector component" "acceleration" "absolute motion" "velocity vector" and yet you take it upon yourself to write long discourses about special relativity. How can you critique something if you do not even know what the words mean? It would be like if you were a chemist and didn't know what "electronegativity" and "pH" meant, then critiquing chemistry based on a completely erroneous guess as to what the terms mean. You need to look up Emily Littella and practice saying what she would say in such cases. PD > > > > > A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory > > > > > of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > sun is at rest wrt itself? Are you saying that my third vertebra is at > rest wrt my third vertebra? Yes Ken, that's exactly what he is saying. Thus we - once again - observe exactly what's been *documented* to confuse Ken for the past 14 years. [snip] kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message 23f9f499-b751-43e3-a779-29e3fef7318a@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >>> A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT)and Doppler Theory >>> of Gravity [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Ken Seto Perhaps indeed he is "having difficulty recalling what a reference frame is". http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NeverRest.html Perhaps it is not even a matter of *recalling*. Perhaps it goes deeper. Perhaps much deeper. A Seto and an Androcles in one and the same day. Not bad :-) Where is Wilson when you need him??? Dirk Vdm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.