0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: GoC on 03/03/2017 12:00:30timey- Relativity does not fall short no matter what your patience level might be for it to fall short. Its always the understanding that falls short. Even with so called physicists.This is the type of post that makes me feel like deleting my profile here!
timey- Relativity does not fall short no matter what your patience level might be for it to fall short. Its always the understanding that falls short. Even with so called physicists.
I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.
Quote from: Mike Gale on 03/03/2017 12:59:09I still don't have the gist of Goc's theory, but I think timey's theory involves an absolute reference frame, which she calls the reference frame of free space. The problem with that approach is that motion is relative. If you and I are moving past one another in free space, far removed from everything else, we have no point of reference to determine which of us is in motion and which of us is stationary. Even Galileo would have to admit that the answer is observer dependent. Maxwell proposed some kind of average of the fixed stars, but there's no way to know how many stars are currently beyond our visible horizon in any given direction and I may see more or fewer than you do, depending on our vantage points, and that makes it observer dependent again. There's just no way to pin it down.Oh thank goodness. A post I can respond to. Mike - I do get what you are saying, but you present an unlikely if not impossible scenario. If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere.Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.If we were able to observe each other for an observer dependent perspective, we would be in close proximity to each other, and even if we could not observe each other, being in radio contact with each other, we could work out our relative speeds via both of our g-field trajectories in much the same way as all space trajectories are calculated.Therefore by knowing where one is in the g-field, and understanding how M is moving to create the g-field, if there is no actual dilation going on in spatial terms and the metre always remains constant, then our relative speeds are now easily definable.
If you or I were moving in space relative to each other, we would have both arrived at our positions 'from' somewhere. Unless we were extremely remiss, or unaccountably forgetful we would both know where that somewhere was that we had departed from, and be able to work out where we were in relation to each other.