Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [usa-tesla] A Wimp by any other name

Expand Messages
  • David Knaack
    From: Paul R. Eitson ... of ... I suppose that it is trapped in the gravitational fields of all mass in the visible universe. ... I
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 11, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Paul R. Eitson <xyme2@...>
      > Jim Farrer wrote:
      > > "Paul R. Eitson" wrote:
      > > The speed of light is HIGHLY HIGHLY claimed to be the
      > > same for all observers, regardless of the relative
      > > speed of observer and source. Experiment after
      > > experiment seems to have borne this out. Thus, you
      > > really *don't* have to take into account the earth's
      > > rotational speed, its speed in orbit, etc., etc.
      > I would point out that all light we observe is trapped in the suns field
      > gravitation.

      I suppose that it is 'trapped' in the gravitational fields of all mass
      in the visible universe.

      > I cannot logically see how the speed could be measured unless
      > one was outside the field and completely stationary.

      I cannot see how you can be outside a gravitational field, since,
      to our knowledge, the effects of gravity are extrodinarily far
      reaching, and not shieldable. Possably you could be far enough
      away from any other mass that gravitational effects could be
      considered negligable, but they would still be present.

      On the other hand, if the gravitational force is transmitted by
      a particle (a theory I tend to disbelieve), perhaps if a mass
      were sufficently far away the interval between the arrival of
      particles could be long enough that observations could be
      performed between arrivals. (But you would still be immersed
      in your own field and the fields of your instruments).

      Also, how do you propose to be 'completely stationary'? Stationary
      relative to the sun (which wobbles a bit as planets orbit)?
      Maybe relative to some other star? or the core of some galaxy?
      All these things are moving relative to something.

      > If you are inside and
      > airplane and throw a ball, how fast is it moving? I think you would have
      > be outside the plane to determine that and completely stationary.

      The problem is that the question has an implicit 'relative to the observer'
      at the end. The ball does not have any absolute velocity, it only has
      relative to some other object.

      > It has been
      > noted that atomic clocks flown in different directions around the equator
      > register different times. These record time due to a constant rate of
      > The suggestion here is that one clock has moved backward in time.

      Actually, the suggestion is that the flow of time in the two moving frames
      refrence is not the same.

      > > How could this much
      > > > mass totally not effect esisting mass? It is know
      > > > that nertrinos have a very
      > > > negative effect on life forms.
      > >
      > > I don't believe this. Never heard this claim before.
      > I was referring to the Neutron bomb. Suppose to pass through structures
      > without damage. Not so people within a mile of the blast, even in bunkers
      > underground. (If the media is to be believed)

      Minor confusion, neutrons and neutrinos are different beasts.

      > Time is an abstract concept that
      > cannot be proven except in terms of change.

      What exactly do you mean by 'proving time'?

      > In a motionless environment there would be no way to measure time.

      Supposing that by 'motionless' you mean absolutly motionless, down
      to the fundamental structure of reality, then an exterrnal observer
      would measure the passage of time to be zero. An internal observer,
      as always, would measure the passage of time to be exactly the same
      as it always was (ignoring the minor detail that if his time was
      passing at a rate of zero, he wouldn't be measuring anything at all).

      > Since the only way we can measure time is
      > movement then any figure that has time included must be based on time
      > relative to our movement through our galaxy and not absolute time measured
      > from a stationary point. (As shown by the clock experiment)

      Well, that depends on how you want to measure it. I suppose a
      starship captain that routinely traveled at relativistic velocities
      could end up having difficulty calculating his physical age, since
      the date back on Earth wouldn't reflect the same passage of time
      that he had experienced.

      I would expect a relativistic traveler would use the local time
      wherever he went (just as we use the local time when changing
      timezones), but would keep a watch on his person in order to
      track his local time.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.