> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com
> posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
> > On 19 Aug, 15:40, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > > I said velocity is measured relative an origin and a relative
> > > > stationary destination point, it is of none importance if a third
> > > > party observer saying these two points are moving relative his
> > > > inertial frame the time keeping is always using the relative origin
> > > > and destination as references.
> > > Relative velocity have no preferreed points of reference.
> > Your a joke, an inertial frame do need a point of origin and
> > destination and their spatial separation agreed upon for measurement
> > of velocity, this is always the prefered frame for measurement
> > understood????????
> Not if we clarify the terms to speak the same language.
> inertial frame does need a point of origin of coordinate system
> inertial frame does need a point of destination nor origin
> in sense of statrt and end point of motion.
> Reference point of velocity measure is the point
> wrt it the velocity is measured.
> There is infinite number of reference points
> wrt which the velocity of object can be measured.
> And no preferred among them.
> > And this adhere to both timelike and spacelike separations AKA
> > intervalls, you do not measure spatial separation by having a car
> > using a moving vehicle drawing markers using timelike separation as
> > start off when creating distances.
> You need not.
> > You could if you could guarantee
> > the velocity of vehicle was invariant, but this has be proven very
> > hard
> You would have first existing absolute rest.
What absolute rest there is no such thing, measurements is all about
consensus using a common unit within a frame of reference. Relativists
really doesn't measure anything they juggle turds, until they get
bored. A unit is invariant by nature, it is not a property of
velocity, distance between point A and B (at rest worth eachother) is
not dependent upon object C's velocity when it pass A.
> On 19 Aug, 12:54, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > spacespe...@gmail.com from spacespe...@gmail.com
> > posted Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
> > > A high speed twin passing a low speed twin will both see the same
> > > measurement of time. Fast in space like light is slow time. By
> > > difference in less speed the other has always the faster clock.
> > > Passing twins will see it that way and there is no lost time....
> > How do you determine who is fast and who is slow ?
> > Both are fast or slow, depending to what you relate their movement.
> > --
> > Poutnik
> Take for example Grails two ships their velocity is measured relative
> the initial body they accelerated from(Earth), or relative their
> designated destination. Generally speaking velocity is relative
> anybody you chose to measure the velocity from but two actually get a
> timing you will actually need more then a point of origin you need a
> designated point of destination, and a measured distance between those
> to points to be able to calculate the speed which the vehicle is
> moving between the two point. That is why one prefer to measure
> velocity for objects moving perpendicular or parallell the objects
> marking the origin and the destination point. Elsewhere you have to
> use a little Pythagoras to measure the objects *ACTUAL* relative speed
> vs the space path.
> It isn't that much more to say about velocities, unless one chose to
> invoke Einsteins fairy and turd fantasies.
While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
opened.
JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com
posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
> A velocity in freespace can not be measured without reference objects
> with a known spatial separation, how old are you? Shouldn't you know
> this thing at your age?
And exactly that I have been saying too by other words
for multiple times.
How old are you? Shouldn't you recognize it this thing at your age?
BTW I am 47, graduated as master of science in Analytical chemistry.
My mark for physics at Masaryk University was excellent.
I am not a physicist, physics is just partly related to my area,
partly as a hobby.
-- Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
> posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
> > motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
> > opened.
> You mix the things.
> Velocity is relative, not the motion in general.
That is rich coming from you Poutnik, who repeatedly exclaims that
motion requires time.
> On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
> > posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > > While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
> > > motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
> > > opened.
> > You mix the things.
> > Velocity is relative, not the motion in general.
> That is rich coming from you Poutnik, who repeatedly exclaims that
> motion requires time.
> -y
It's almost as if your now claiming that motion is independent of
velocity. Which is something I have been trying to teach you for a
while.
Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
posted Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
> On Aug 22, 11:52 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
> > > posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
> > > > motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
> > > > opened.
You could you come to such a stupid thing, that if cans shaken synchronously, they will not explode ? It is basic misunderstanding
of even Galileo relativity.
> > > You mix the things.
> > > Velocity is relative, not the motion in general.
> > That is rich coming from you Poutnik, who repeatedly exclaims that
> > motion requires time.
Without existence of time, the time change is not possible.
That is why motion requires time.
> > -y
> It's almost as if your now claiming that motion is independent of
> velocity. Which is something I have been trying to teach you for a
> while.
> -y
-- Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
