Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by milli360
Exactly.
|
The flaw in K’s logic is when he considers the earth to be the only “stationary” object in the universe, and when he measures the “speeds” of all objects relative only to the earth. This is a geocentric point of view, which Galileo did away with 500 years ago. |
Nope. K's view of the laws of physics is the same as anyone else. That is Postulate 1 from Special Relativity.
Quote:
|
The moving rocket is moving not only relative to the earth but relative to everything else, and so we can't decide on the absolute atomic oscillation rates of the rocket and its passengers, based only on its motion speed relative to the earth, since, relative to some other objects, the rocket is not “moving” relatively at all.
|
Wrong. We can measure, in principle, the time dilation between two clocks which are in relative motion.
Quote:
|
For example, if the rocket is moving away from the earth at 90% of the speed of light, in the direction of a galaxy that is ALSO moving away from the earth at 90% of the speed of light, then the rocket is NOT MOVING relative to the galaxy.
|
So they are comoving.
Quote:
|
Therefore, no one can’t say that the absolute atomic oscillation rates of the atoms in the rocket “slow down” a lot, due to the motion of the rocket relative to the earth, but not at all, due to the motion of the rocket relative to the galaxy.
|
Since there are no absolute times we cannot say that there is such a concept of "absolute atomic oscillation". So wrong again.
Furthermore, Einstein estaablished that the rate at which a clock "ticks" is dependent on its position in a gravitational field, so although the clock maybe comoving with the galaxy, its clock rate will be different since it is not in the same position in the gravitational field, as the galaxy.
Quote:
|
There can be only one absolute oscillation rate of the atoms in the rocket.
|
There can be only one absolute reply: WRONG!
Quote:
|
The “speed limit” was invented by Lorentz, not Einstein,
|
WRONG!
Quote:
|
and it was related to the “resistance” to the motion of a mass put up by a field through which the mass was moving.
|
WRONG! If Lorentz assumed an ether, he did not predict time dilation because of movement through an Ether. Einstein showed that the concept of a stationary ether that produced a Newtonian absolute frame of reference was unnecessary and inconsistent with Maxwell's Electrodynamics. Don't you read ANYTHING?
Quote:
|
And then, of course, there are the earth-relative “superluminal” galaxies, which are traveling at more than “c”, relative to the earth, and we are traveling at more than “c”, relative to them.
|
...a result of geometry and doppler delay and nothing more. No object actually travels at or greater than c in any frame of reference.
Sheesh. Five wrong and the thread is yet young....