wrote:

BIFF wrote:


I THINK U R RITE I ALWAYZ THOT TEH PHYZICISTZ WER HIDING
SUMTHING!!!!11

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*



Lets say a ship takes off at mars and starts to travel
through space toward the earth; can we say that the
earth is traveling through space toward the ship?
No we cannot. Its motion is only relative to the
absolute motion through space-time of the ship.




Even if there were such a thing as absolute space and absolute motion,
what reason would we have to believe that the earth and mars are at rest
in this absolute space? If the earth and mars were moving at 100 km/sec
through absolute space along the line from earth to mars, and the ship
accelerated from mars towards earth until it was moving 100 km/sec
relative to Mars, wouldn't it be at rest in absolute space?

Jesse

No it would not.
You show how it could.

There is original motion and it is acceleration through space. It
starts its motion through space.
Not changing speed and not moving through space is relative or
apparent motion
to whatever has changed speed and is moving through space-time.

wrote:

BIFF wrote:
I THINK U R RITE I ALWAYZ THOT TEH PHYZICISTZ WER HIDING
SUMTHING!!!!11

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

Lets say a ship takes off at mars and starts to travel
through space toward the earth; can we say that the
earth is traveling through space toward the ship?
No we cannot. Its motion is only relative to the
absolute motion through space-time of the ship.

Hey git - nothing is moving in spcetime at all. What appears to be
movement in space is sloshing space and time coordinates. Epicycles
gave a better fit to historic astronomic observations than initial
heliocentric calculations. When NASA wants to hit a planet they
consider about more than you can imagine. NASA management stinks but
its technical staff is adequate.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect

None of your proffered bull**** by calculation and by observation.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Space-time has no back- ground coordinates. Fool.

wrote:

No it would not.
You show how it could.

There is original motion and it is acceleration through space. It
starts its motion through space.
Not changing speed and not moving through space is relative or
apparent motion
to whatever has changed speed and is moving through space-time.




Do you agree that if there is such a thing as absolute space, at any
given moment the earth could have nonzero velocity in absolute space?
Say at this moment, the earth is moving at 100 km/sec to the right,
relative to an observer at rest in absolute space. Even if you'd say
this observer is not "really" moving, wouldn't he *appear* to be moving
from the point of view of an observer on earth?

Jesse

No, as soon as there is acceleration space-time metric changes.
Follow?

Mitch Raemsch

wrote:

No, as soon as there is acceleration space-time metric changes.
Follow?

Mitch Raemsch




I wasn't talking about acceleration, just motion at constant velocity.
Are you agreeing that for two observers moving at constant velocity,
there is no definite truth about which is moving and which is at rest?

Jesse

One of them accelerated or space-time expanded inbetween both.
Follow?

wrote:

One of them accelerated or space-time expanded inbetween both.
Follow?



Who cares if one or both accelerated in the past, as long as they are
*currently* travelling at constant velocity relative to one another? In
any case, are you really arguing that the one that accelerated in the
past is automatically the one that is "really" moving? Suppose two ships
are travelling at constant velocity relative to absolute space, and then
one ship accelerates until it is at absolute rest (in physics,
'acceleration' means any change in velocity, so it can mean decreasing
velocity as well as increasing velocity). In this case, it is the one
that accelerated that is "really" at rest relative to absolute space,
and the one that did not accelerate is "really" moving.

Jesse

Jesse Mazer wrote:
wrote:

One of them accelerated or space-time expanded inbetween both.
Follow?



Who cares if one or both accelerated in the past, as long as they are

*currently* travelling at constant velocity relative to one another?

I care. You can't understand it otherwise.
Though you may claim to.
Which one is moving through space toward or away from the other?
Only one is. The other only has a relative motion.
Like a ship from mars traveling to earth. The earth isn't
traveling through space toward the ship.

Einstein was wrong. He took relativity to far.
Moving through space is absolute. And if its not it is
because space can expand inbetween objects. That is
how the universe was created. Matter was flung out by
space motion.
Got it?
Mitch Raemsch