|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Jun 9, 2008 14:06
I want to tackle some problems associated with absolute and relative
positions. I will introduce these problems through a popular example of
motion:
If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to
zero. It follows that if I travel at LESS than the speed of light and
where distances are NOT zero, then there must be a correlation between
speed and length (eg., as given by the Lorentz expansion/contraction).
This correlation is real, but is it absolute or relative? We might think
that if it is real, then it must be absolute; yet relativity says otherwise.
If I demand, and get, an "absolute" correlation between speed and
length, then it seems I can establish absolute motion and rest. Such a
demand is met by a framework that enfolds our universe of motion. Motion
in our universe can then be externally and absolutely assessed. However,
this leads me into an infinite regress: the framework that offers an
absolute positional reference must itelf be absolutely positioned by a
yet higher framework. I do not want to go down the path of an infinite
regress.
|
| Show full article (2.39Kb) |
|
| | 8 Comments |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jun 9, 2008 16:24
On Jun 10, 7:06 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> I want to tackle some problems associated with absolute and relative
> positions. I will introduce these problems through a popular example of
> motion:
>
> If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to
> zero. It follows that if I travel at LESS than the speed of light and
> where distances are NOT zero, then there must be a correlation between
> speed and length (eg., as given by the Lorentz expansion/contraction).
> This correlation is real, but is it absolute or relative? We might think
> that if it is real, then it must be absolute; yet relativity says otherwise.
>
> If I demand, and get, an "absolute" correlation between speed and
> length, then it seems I can establish absolute motion and rest. Such a
> demand is met by a framework that enfolds our universe of motion. Motion
> in our universe can then be externally and absolutely assessed. However,
> this leads me into an infinite regress: the framework that offers an
> absolute positional reference must itelf be absolutely positioned by a
> yet higher framework. I do not want to go down the path of an infinite
> regress. ...
|
| Show full article (2.84Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 9, 2008 18:29
"John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
news:g2k5vb$ea2$1@aioe.org...>I want to tackle some problems associated with absolute and relative
>positions. I will introduce these problems through a popular example of
>motion:
Not that I'm one to interrupt. But what's so popular about
this example?
> If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to zero.
If you were traveling at the speed of light, then your posts
would come with far lower frequency. Red-shifted and
all that.
> It follows that if I travel at LESS than the speed of light and where
> distances are NOT zero, then there must be a correlation between speed and
> length (eg., as given by the Lorentz expansion/contraction).
|
| Show full article (3.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jun 9, 2008 20:56
On Jun 9, 2:06 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> I want to tackle some problems associated with absolute and relative
> positions. I will introduce these problems through a popular example of
> motion:
>
> If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to
> zero. It follows that if I travel at LESS than the speed of light and
> where distances are NOT zero, then there must be a correlation between
> speed and length (eg., as given by the Lorentz expansion/contraction).
> This correlation is real, but is it absolute or relative? We might think
> that if it is real, then it must be absolute; yet relativity says otherwise.
>
> If I demand, and get, an "absolute" correlation between speed and
> length, then it seems I can establish absolute motion and rest. Such a
> demand is met by a framework that enfolds our universe of motion. Motion
> in our universe can then be externally and absolutely assessed. However,
> this leads me into an infinite regress: the framework that offers an
> absolute positional reference must itelf be absolutely positioned by a
> yet higher framework. I do not want to go down the path of an infinite
> regress. ...
|
| Show full article (8.51Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 9, 2008 21:56
"Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4019c823-bf1e-4561-bd2a-2b046cb7bb54@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 9, 2:06 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> I want to tackle some problems associated with absolute and relative
> positions. I will introduce these problems through a popular example of
> motion:
>
> If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to
> zero. It follows that if I travel at LESS than the speed of light and
> where distances are NOT zero, then there must be a correlation between
> speed and length (eg., as given by the Lorentz expansion/contraction).
> This correlation is real, but is it absolute or relative? We might think
> that if it is real, then it must be absolute; yet relativity says
> otherwise.
>
> If I demand, and get, an "absolute" correlation between speed and
> length, then it seems I can establish absolute motion and rest. Such a
> demand is met by a framework that enfolds our universe of motion. Motion
> in our universe can then be externally and absolutely assessed. However,
> this leads me into an infinite regress: the framework that offers an ...
|
| Show full article (3.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Jun 10, 2008 05:03
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:06:10 +0100, John Jones wrote:
> If I demand, and get, an "absolute" correlation between speed and
> length, then it seems I can establish absolute motion and rest.
Let us say there are two one kilometer strips of material.
One is located on the earth, the other the sun.
It takes X amount of time to travel the length of this material on earth.
If we leave earth and travel to the sun, will it take the same time to
travel the kilometer?
If we land on the sun first (become 'at rest'), zero then becomes sun
relative? If we do not land, zero is still earth relative and a different
amount of time would be needed to travel the same distance.
Is this correct?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
Author: JackJack Date: Jun 10, 2008 05:24
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JackJack Date: Jun 10, 2008 05:28
>
> If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to zero.
Then why does it take eight minutes for light from the sun to reach earth?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jun 10, 2008 20:20
On Jun 9, 9:56 pm, "Shrikeback" hotmail.com> wrote:> "Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4019c823-bf1e-4561-bd2a-2b046cb7bb54@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 2:06 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> I want to tackle some problems associated with absolute and relative
>> positions. I will introduce these problems through a popular example of
>> motion:
>
>> If I travel at the speed of light then all distances are reduced to
>> zero. It follows that if I travel at LESS than the speed of light and
>> where distances are NOT zero, then there must be a correlation between
>> speed and length (eg., as given by the Lorentz expansion/contraction).
>> This correlation is real, but is it absolute or relative? We might think
>> that if it is real, then it must be absolute; yet relativity says ...
|
| Show full article (4.96Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
