[This QUESTION is deemed Overly speculative.in s.p.r.]

Dear All,

I am wondering if the following might be quick and dirty helpful way of
illustrating the effects and influences of inertial mass in some teaching
situations:

In contrast to the rather earth-centric traditional thinking that the
local
region is moving at 0 m/s and light is moving at +300,000 m/s, might it
be
somewhat useful to provisionally normalize all velocities so that light
"moves at 0 m/s" and the local region moves at -300,000 m/s? Yeah, it's a
different convention, and I am certainly not clear on what a negative
velocity might be. However, the juxtapositon seems to place the local
region "down a hole" and perhaps it emphasize the ties that bind
electrons
and quarks -- matter -- closer to the bubbling Diracian sea of so-called
virtual particles.

The rule of everything moving slower that the speed of light still holds
and, when c is seen as a difference, mc^2 is not going to change whether
the difference is positive of negative. However, in the alternate
convention, when I press on the accelerator and burn energy to get my old
Saab rolling faster, it seems clear that as my car and I move closer to
the speed of light. we're definitely doing work to stretch the many fibers
that hold us to Great Slowness of the local region.

...whereas, I don't get that impression as clearly, if at all when I try
to
think of the local region moving at 0 m/s and light traveling at +300,000
m/s. the less traveled way ~feels~ like a tighter fit.

Any thoughts or comments?

Ralph

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:21:12 -0500, "Ralph E. Frost"
wrote:

[This QUESTION is deemed Overly speculative.in s.p.r.]

Dear All,

I am wondering if the following might be quick and dirty helpful way of
illustrating the effects and influences of inertial mass in some teaching
situations:

In contrast to the rather earth-centric traditional thinking that the
local
region is moving at 0 m/s and light is moving at +300,000 m/s, might it
be
somewhat useful to provisionally normalize all velocities so that light
"moves at 0 m/s" and the local region moves at -300,000 m/s? Yeah, it's a
different convention, and I am certainly not clear on what a negative
velocity might be. However, the juxtapositon seems to place the local
region "down a hole" and perhaps it emphasize the ties that bind
electrons
and quarks -- matter -- closer to the bubbling Diracian sea of so-called
virtual particles.

The rule of everything moving slower that the speed of light still holds
and, when c is seen as a difference, mc^2 is not going to change whether
the difference is positive of negative. However, in the alternate
convention, when I press on the accelerator and burn energy to get my old
Saab rolling faster, it seems clear that as my car and I move closer to
the speed of light. we're definitely doing work to stretch the many fibers
that hold us to Great Slowness of the local region.

...whereas, I don't get that impression as clearly, if at all when I try
to
think of the local region moving at 0 m/s and light traveling at +300,000
m/s. the less traveled way ~feels~ like a tighter fit.

Any thoughts or comments?

Ralph
yeah 300,000,000 m/s







Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).

Ralph E. Frost wrote:
'In contrast to the rather earth-centric traditional thinking that the local
region is moving at 0 m/s and light is moving at +300,000 m/s, might it be
somewhat useful to provisionally normalize all velocities so that light
"moves at 0 m/s" and the local region moves at -300,000 m/s?'

Normalize? It does notmatter what you do light travels at an invariant
velocity in inertial reference frames. This means it moves some distance in
any time interval so no amount of redefining of anything can ever give it
zero velocity. Local region moving -300,000 m/s?. Change to an inertial
reference frame with the x axis reversed and it moves at 300,000 m/s ie at
the speed of light. Massive objects are simply not allowed to do that.

I think you might need a quick refresher course on SR. May I suggest
Rindler - Introduction to Special Relativity.

Thanks
Bill