kenseto wrote: "beda pietanza" wrote
in message
oups.com...
kenseto wrote: "beda pietanza" wrote in message oups.com...
. kenseto ha scritto:
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
ups.com...
Absolute and relative launch pads.

A launch pad floating in outer space:

Relativistic approach: the launch pad is at rest in its frame, a
object
launched from the launch pad acquires a relative speed versus the
launch pad original frame while the launch pad its self is
backfired
in
the opposite direction at a opposite relative speed versus the
original
frame.
Both the launch pad and the object acquire the same and opposite
kinetic energy versus the original frame of the launch pad.

Etherist approach: The launch pad has an absolute speed at the
start
(versus the ether), when a object is launched, the object acquires
a
final absolute speed that includes the launch pad original
absolute
speed; while the launch pad is backfired modifying its original
absolute speed.
Both the launch pad and the object acquire a final kinetic energy
that
include the original kinetic energy of the launch pad.

It is obvious that the etherist approach is more complete because
it
includes in the scenario all the masses of the universe

The old refrain of the impossibility of determining the absolute
speeds
is groundless because the only limit there is, is in the grade of
approximation we can achieve; not on the impossibility as a
principle.

Said the above there is a further consideration about all the
obsolete
misconceptions that the denying the absolute approach has
prevented
from investigating.

It is obvious that the pad and the object are no longer in the same
state of
motion as before the launch. In that sense you can say that they are
in
different states of absolute motion. At the same time they acquired
a
relative motion between them. In order to relate relative motion
with
the
absolute motions the following definition is used:
Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference
of
the
vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of
B's
absolute motion along the line joining A and B.

In the simplest case of A moving at absolute speed of .5 C approaching
B and B moving at absolute speed of .4 C approaching A, both moving
along the same straight line their relative speed is absolutely .9 C
and relatively .75 C

In a absolute sense a relative speed of A and B could be higher than C
up to 2 * C.

No...not if each using his own clock and rod to do the relative speed
measurements. The speed of light as measured by all observers is a
constant
math ratio c as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute itme content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.

Ken Seto

Please depict a example with numbers:

Now, if a road moving at .5 C contract to .8660254 while a commoving
clock time rate is also .8660254 the result is, as you say, 1=C, but
this is acceptable for a two ways measurement, for one way you need to
synch the clocks so your OWSL is a groundless assumption.

Two touching and synchronized clocks moving at a slow speed in the opposite
directions and come to rest again......these two clocks will remain
synchronized (according to all theories). --

TWO clocks side by side on a GR WORLD-line in SPACE-time ..even
TWO adjacent GR-POiNT-mass clocks (if they could have mass in GR)
CANNOT ..by GR definition, occupy syncronous POiNTs in TiME, duh.

Row, row, row the boat, dimwit.!!
brian a m stuckless

-- Using such two clocks measure the
flight time call this tF.
The OWLS for this measurement = tF in light seconds / tF in clock second =1

Ken Seto.