TomGee wrote:

PD wrote:

TomGee wrote:

franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:

PD wrote:

What special relativity says instead is, not only is it not

possible

to

identify an object as having zero velocity in space, it is

also

not

possible to rank objects according to velocity, as that

ranking

depends

solely on the choice of observer and has no independent

reality.

Can you expand upon this statement, since I have often

about

this idea that you can stack rank objects according to speed

measuring the rate at which time flows at each object.

PD is full of it; I don't believe SR says such a thing about

ranking

by

velocity.

You have no basis for judging what SR says and what it does not

say.

You only use Encarta and Scientific American for a reference, and

so

what you believe is at best lightly informed.

What I read has no relevance to the fact you make up stuff and

it to SR without citing where you "read" it. I accused you of

that up; all you had to do was cite a quote, but you didn't 'cause

you

can't.

I've given you plenty of references. You just won't read them. You

me to extract a 25-words-or-less epistle and type it in here in
quotation marks. Not going to do it. You have to do some work.
Understanding comes from study, not from newspaper clippings and
sound-bites.

Here are some references for you.
Fishbane, Gasiorowicz, Thornton, Physics for Scientists and

3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 2005; pgs 1073-1101.
Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 1st edition,
Addison-Wesley, 2004; pgs 1151-1188.
Taylor, Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, Freeman, 1992; whole damn thing.
Mermin, Space and Time in Special Relativity, Waveland, 1991; whole
damn thing.
Rindler, Special Theory of Relativity, Oxford University Press, 1991;
Chps, 2-4,12.
Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity, Routledge, 1996; Chps 4,5,10
Garder, Relativity Simply Explained, Dover, 1997, Chps 1-4.
Carrol, Spacetime and Geometry, Addison-Wesley, 2003; Chps 1-3.

SR claims as an independent reality that the astronaut twin
has really aged less than his Earthbound twin at the end of the

trip,

and that reality is evident to all who compare the twins

visually.

Yes, that's correct, and it's one of many, many predictions of

and

it's also irrelevant to SR's claim that ranking by absolute

velocity

is

impossible.

If so, cite a quote from SR where it say that, wydoncha?

Note that the twin paradox does NOT amount to ranking by
absolute velocity,

But how can velocity be absolute if it is a vector?

Huh?

contrary to your opinion about that. (Your ranking
is done in one particular reference frame, not an absolute

reference

frame.)

What's the difference?

A bunch of difference. If I have one reference frame that says that
velocity ordering gives A<B<C<D<E<F, and another that gives
D<E<B<C<F<A, I think there's going to be a problem establishing which
is absolutely right, don't you?

Logically, if
you placed an atomic clock at points (or reference frames) A,

and

C,

leave them there for some time and then bring them all back

point

A,

you could tell the relative differences between the flow of

time

due

to

the changed time shown and hence the relative speed (assuming

there

aren't effects due to gravity slowing down the clock as

There would be differences only if the points were not at

constant

velocity wrt each other, according to my model.

I don't
think it matters where you start this measurement from point

or

point

C, you should then be able to do the same test with objects

E,

F

and

start to build up an absolute rank order of slowest to

One

of

these points will have the absolute slowest speed. This

mean

this position is necessarily at zero velocity, but I would

think

it

would be possible to at least stack rank them.

Yes, I agree. We could fire off rockets at different speeds

sychronized clocks in each and when recovered, the clocks will

show

different times on them. Then we simply stack rank them from

slowest time to the fastest time, or vice-versa.

If it were possible to
find a frame of reference which was slower than any other

frame,

then

this might be a zero velocity frame - but you say this is

impossible,

why?
fhutime

All objects or ref. frames can be at constant velocity within a

moving

ref. frame and as such they can be considered to be at 0

wrt

to each other. However, since everything in the universe is in

motion,

And you know this how??

Because my model agrees with scientific research. How do you know

the

universe is static?

I didn't say that it was.

A lot of objects (not everything, mind you)
are in a state of *relative* motion -- most galaxies included. This
does NOT mean that everything is in a state of absolute motion, nor
does current scientific research say that it is.

Current scientific research also does not say that wombats are the
results of cross-breeding between badgers and housecats, but I'm sure
not going to try to dig up a reference that says "Wombats are not the
results of cross-breeding between badgers and housecats." If you

current scientific research says that everything is in a state of
absolute motion, then you provide the reference, please, and I'll be
happy to read it.

For that, you have to overthrow Hubble and the
BBT, and even AE since he admitted he was wrong in using his math
constructs to prove the universe is not expanding.

AE did not use his math constructs to prove the universe is not
expanding. He showed that general relativity's mathematical laws are
*consistent* with a universe that is not expanding. They are also
consistent with a universe that is expanding. The value of a constant
that goes into the equation is different for both those solutions.

PD wrote:

How do I know?
I can see it for myself.
At the begining everything began to move.

With respect to each other, yes. With respect to space -- how do

know?
If I give you 19,472 objects all moving with respect to each other,

how

do you know that all 19,472 are moving and not *one* of them is
stationary?

Everything is moving through space.
They were created that way.

And this is a statement of faith that is not based on empirical
information, correct? If you disagree, what empirical information

you using?

PD

There are only relative stillnesses.

mitch

Everything has undergone a force.
And accelerating is moving through space.
Everthing at creation began to move - through space -
relative to the other.

An example: If a space ship leaves Mars accelerating toward
earth can you say it is not moving through space?
No you cannot.
It accelerated through space. In that context it's absolute.

Can you say the earth is moving toward the ship?
No you cannot.
One is moving through space the other isn't.
It's as simple as that.