coilfo... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
I posted this at alt.sci.physics but this is probably a better
place....  Sorry for the doubling up.

Please pardon the simple question, but

if there is no hierarchy for frames of reference, how does one decide
what is moving and what is staying in place?

So, if I am walking along a path, am I moving forward or is my pushing
on the ground moving the earth (and the rest of the universe)
backward?

Thanks in advance.

Well, if you wish to "support" relativity you first must learn
to only use "relative motion" when it supports the theory.
So you would ignore relative motion of anything that is
"against" relativity such as moving towards a lightsource.
such as in this case here.
In relativity if you are moving towards a lightsource
and the lightwaves are coming towards you at c and you
are moving towards the source at 0.5c you would have to
ignore your "relative" motion and just respect only the c that
the light is moving at so the light would still pass you at c even
though in reality it would have to pass by you at 1.5c.
They have a nice "light speed limiting equation" known as a transform
you can babble about to mathematically prove the light
is not moving at 1.5c.
:)

In short, use relativty only when it supports relativity
and you will learn it great, but of course you will be learning
a bunch of inconsistant crap.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

I posted this at alt.sci.physics but this is probably a better
place....  Sorry for the doubling up.

Please pardon the simple question, but

if there is no hierarchy for frames of reference, how does one decide
what is moving and what is staying in place?

So, if I am walking along a path, am I moving forward or is my pushing
on the ground moving the earth (and the rest of the universe)
backward?

Thanks in advance.

On Jul 17, 11:39 pm, coilfo... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:

I posted this at alt.sci.physics but this is probably a better
place....  Sorry for the doubling up.

Please pardon the simple question, but

if there is no hierarchy for frames of reference, how does one decide
what is moving and what is staying in place?

So, if I am walking along a path, am I moving forward or is my pushing
on the ground moving the earth (and the rest of the universe)
backward?

Thanks in advance.

Good question.

Back in the 1600's and ever since, people thought that it didn't
matter which you thought was moving and which not.  They called that
Gallilean Relativity.  Then in the mid 1800's electromagnetism was
discovered, and people saw that a moving electric charge created a
magnetic field, and that light (an electromagnetic field) moved at the
speed c=186,000 miles/sec.  But moving with respect to what?  Suddenly
it seemed that there was a certain frame of reference that was the
medium light moved in.

But the efforts of some brilliant people could not find any such
medium, and the Theory of Relativity was created.  That, again, said
that light medium or no light medium, it doesn't matter what frame of
reference you choose;  physics should work either way.

How that works out is difficult to get your mind around, and there are
many odd-ball folks in this newgroup who will tell you that it is all
nonsense and they can prove it.  But they are wrong. The GPS system
today would not work right unless the theory was good.

Welcome to the group!

Uncle Ben

I posted this at alt.sci.physics but this is probably a better
place.... Sorry for the doubling up.

Please pardon the simple question, but

if there is no hierarchy for frames of reference, how does one decide
what is moving and what is staying in place?

So, if I am walking along a path, am I moving forward or is my pushing
on the ground moving the earth (and the rest of the universe)
backward?

Thanks in advance.

On Jul 17, 8:48 pm, "Spaceman" <space... at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
coilfo... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
I posted this at alt.sci.physics but this is probably a better
place.... Sorry for the doubling up.

Please pardon the simple question, but

if there is no hierarchy for frames of reference, how does one
decide what is moving and what is staying in place?

So, if I am walking along a path, am I moving forward or is my
pushing on the ground moving the earth (and the rest of the
universe) backward?

Thanks in advance.

Well, if you wish to "support" relativity you first must learn
to only use "relative motion" when it supports the theory.
So you would ignore relative motion of anything that is
"against" relativity such as moving towards a lightsource.
such as in this case here.
In relativity if you are moving towards a lightsource
and the lightwaves are coming towards you at c and you
are moving towards the source at 0.5c you would have to
ignore your "relative" motion and just respect only the c that
the light is moving at so the light would still pass you at c even
though in reality it would have to pass by you at 1.5c.
They have a nice "light speed limiting equation" known as a transform
you can babble about to mathematically prove the light
is not moving at 1.5c.
:)

In short, use relativty only when it supports relativity
and you will learn it great, but of course you will be learning
a bunch of inconsistant crap.
:)

Huh? Any chance you could explain that in layman's terms for me?

Back in the 1600's and ever since, people thought that it didn't
matter which you thought was moving and which not. They called that
Gallilean Relativity. Then in the mid 1800's electromagnetism was
discovered, and people saw that a moving electric charge created a
magnetic field, and that light (an electromagnetic field) moved at the
speed c=186,000 miles/sec. But moving with respect to what? Suddenly
it seemed that there was a certain frame of reference that was the
medium light moved in.

But the efforts of some brilliant people could not find any such
medium, and the Theory of Relativity was created. That, again, said
that light medium or no light medium, it doesn't matter what frame of
reference you choose; physics should work either way.

How that works out is difficult to get your mind around, and there are
many odd-ball folks in this newgroup who will tell you that it is all
nonsense and they can prove it. But they are wrong. The GPS system
today would not work right unless the theory was good.

PD wrote:
Then if you like, let's do it this way.
Now how would you do it for a bullet fired from a gun fixed to the
ground, as seen from a moving train? That is, how would you *measure*
the velocity of the bullet relative to the ground, *measure* the
velocity of the train relative to the ground, and *measure* the
velocity of the bullet relative to the train? You'd have to do all
three to see if your "add" rule works.

And silly me, they do all match up perfectally.
Lets slow everything down and use "onsies".
The bullet is moving at 1 mps to the ground.
(measured by the same method as I just explained)
marked miles on the actual ground and timed
to come up with that speed.

The train is moving at 0.5 mps to the ground.
also measured by marked miles on the ground
and timed to come up with that speed.

Closing speed is 1.5 mps.
1+ 0.5 =1.5

and.. if you use "a single standard for time and single standard
for distance.
All frames in motion, or not, will also measure the closing
speed of the bullet to the train as 1.5 mps.
I see you must have failed basic math and you never learned
how to use a single standards of measurements.
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jul 18, 3:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space... at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
Then if you like, let's do it this way.
Now how would you do it for a bullet fired from a gun fixed to the
ground, as seen from a moving train? That is, how would you
*measure* the velocity of the bullet relative to the ground,
*measure* the velocity of the train relative to the ground, and
*measure* the velocity of the bullet relative to the train? You'd
have to do all three to see if your "add" rule works.

And silly me, they do all match up perfectally.
Lets slow everything down and use "onsies".
The bullet is moving at 1 mps to the ground.
(measured by the same method as I just explained)
marked miles on the actual ground and timed
to come up with that speed.

The train is moving at 0.5 mps to the ground.
also measured by marked miles on the ground
and timed to come up with that speed.

OK, that's two measurements.


Closing speed is 1.5 mps.
1+ 0.5 =1.5

No, that's not a measurement. That's a predictive *calculation*.
What's the *measurement* you'd use to measure the speed of the bullet
relative to the train?

You do know the difference between a measurement and a calculation
don't you?

Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:P5OdnQyhS5G6nxzVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
How do you know that? You haven't seen my math.
Again, you're just making things up to suit the
story you're telling yourself in your head. Probably
accompanied by carnival music.

Your rubber ruler rules, would make you use the
transform to "see the lightfront coming at the train
from the trains point of view.
Your silly rubber ruler world has collisions occuring
after they physically occur in reality.

If you have something to say, write an equation.
Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Show me your equation that proves I am blowing smoke
about what you would post.

And you better not show a "transform" of any kind because
that would prove I did not blow any smoke at all.

Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:9O2dnSQTBcJGnBzVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Yes.
What's the matter, you can't use 2 different and seperate frames in
your rubber ruler world huh?

Of course. Then you must apply the appropriate frame
transformations to use values from one in another.

You must do the same thing with certain quantities in
Newtonian mechanics, like kinetic energy.

I am not figuring for kinetic energy.
I am figuring for closing speeds and what other frames
would measure.

I don't need transforms for such because I use single standards
for each measurement system.

I see you still don't know how to do that huh?

Wrong.
You would need to use a transform to find the
"closing speed" from the trains point of view.

It is what it is from his point of view. That's
the value I suggested.

You view is proven wrogn then because the time
it takes for the lightwave to hit the train would be
less than you figure.

I again see you can't use single standards for each measurement
system to find such out.

The transform is not flawed (if you think it is,
prove it. Show the math), and *all* observations
are limited by the speed c. If you think not,
cite an example of something that moves faster.

You will have the collision occuring later than
it actually does.

Again you can't figure that out huh?

"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:xLWdnWVRafbMixzVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:P5OdnQyhS5G6nxzVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
How do you know that? You haven't seen my math.
Again, you're just making things up to suit the
story you're telling yourself in your head. Probably
accompanied by carnival music.

Your rubber ruler rules, would make you use the
transform to "see the lightfront coming at the train
from the trains point of view.
Your silly rubber ruler world has collisions occuring
after they physically occur in reality.

If you have something to say, write an equation.
Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Show me your equation that proves I am blowing smoke
about what you would post.

Sorry, I asked first.

"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:L8adnT3bzYi7ihzVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:9O2dnSQTBcJGnBzVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Yes.
What's the matter, you can't use 2 different and seperate frames in
your rubber ruler world huh?

Of course. Then you must apply the appropriate frame
transformations to use values from one in another.

You must do the same thing with certain quantities in
Newtonian mechanics, like kinetic energy.

I am not figuring for kinetic energy.
I am figuring for closing speeds and what other frames
would measure.

Right, so you need to apply the appropriate transforms.

No, standards have nothing to do with it. If you don't
known why transforms are required then you don't know
anything about physics.

Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:xLWdnWVRafbMixzVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:P5OdnQyhS5G6nxzVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
How do you know that? You haven't seen my math.
Again, you're just making things up to suit the
story you're telling yourself in your head. Probably
accompanied by carnival music.

Your rubber ruler rules, would make you use the
transform to "see the lightfront coming at the train
from the trains point of view.
Your silly rubber ruler world has collisions occuring
after they physically occur in reality.

If you have something to say, write an equation.
Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Show me your equation that proves I am blowing smoke
about what you would post.

Sorry, I asked first.

So,
As I figured you would use transforms and I would not
simply because the train will not see the lightwave coming
until it is too late to measure anyway, since the train can not see
the light coming
until it actually gets there.

Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:L8adnT3bzYi7ihzVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:9O2dnSQTBcJGnBzVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Yes.
What's the matter, you can't use 2 different and seperate frames
in your rubber ruler world huh?

Of course. Then you must apply the appropriate frame
transformations to use values from one in another.

You must do the same thing with certain quantities in
Newtonian mechanics, like kinetic energy.

I am not figuring for kinetic energy.
I am figuring for closing speeds and what other frames
would measure.

Right, so you need to apply the appropriate transforms.

No transforms are needed to predict actual motion Greg.
You seem to not know how to use classical physics with motion
anymore huh?
You always think other objects must observe things.
That is also a joke you still don't get about yourself.
LOL

No, standards have nothing to do with it. If you don't
known why transforms are required then you don't know
anything about physics.

Your transform is going to change the "closing speed" to a limited
to "lightspeed" and you will get hit by the light before
you think it would actually be there.
You are affraid to show that math huh?