On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:36:08 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Brent, and Liz, > > We have to be careful in our choice of words here. > > It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that > each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give > the same results here. > > However when one twin returns with a different clock time and STOPS both > twins agree on the resulting different clock times. > > Relativity says this is due to the acceleration of the traveling twin. But > my question is 'acceleration relative to WHAT?' > Acceleration is relative to itself yeah? meters per second <--> per second squared. And the speed of light.
> > The very notion of acceleration (including that of Newton's bucket) > assumes there is an absolute background space in some sense that > acceleration is relative to. > no it doesn't big doughnut :o) Edgar, mate, you must know what you've learned and what you haven't? This is a serious science list mate...there's academics here, people doing Phd's. You should know what you know, so be sensible. Edgar > > I have a theory to explain this by the way spacetime is created by quantum > events and thus must take on aspects of the frames of the events that > create it. The cumulative large scale effect of this is to produce a very > particular notion of absoluteness roughly aligned with the distribution of > the mass of the universe. This because that mass undergoes the quantum > events that produce the space that mass resides in. > > This explains why Mach Principle that the rotational acceleration of > Newton's bucket is with respect to the cosmological mass of the universe is > roughly correct. But it provides an actual theory for why this is true. > > Edgar > > > > > > On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:06:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> Ghibbsa, >>> >>> Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to >>> choose one frame over the other to get the correct results. >>> >> >> You don't. But in almost all cases there is a frame in which it is easy >> to apply the equations, one that takes advantage of symmetries and leaves >> out negligible effects. So you do the analysis is that frame and then you >> transform the answer if necessary to some other frame of interest. But in >> general what you're interested in is frame independent: Did the spaceship >> rendezvous with the planet or miss it? Did the tank fall in the pit or >> not? To do the transformation you have to know how things transform, which >> for inertial frames in flat spacetime is by Lorentz transformations, i.e. >> those that leave lightcones invariant. >> >> Brent >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
