Re: [usa-tesla] A Wimp by any other name
- From: Paul R. Eitson <xyme2@...>
> Jim Farrer wrote:of
> > "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 unlessI cannot see how you can be outside a gravitational field, since,
> one was outside the field and completely stationary.
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 andto
> 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 beendecay.
> 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 muchMinor confusion, neutrons and neutrinos are different beasts.
> > > 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)
> Time is an abstract concept thatWhat exactly do you mean by 'proving time'?
> cannot be proven except in terms of change.
> 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 isWell, that depends on how you want to measure it. I suppose a
> 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)
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.