> 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