|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#311
December 8th 06, 01:47 PM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: jem wrote: kenseto wrote: How can they be "arriving" at the detector when they're not moving wrt the detector? Sigh....isotropy means that the light rays are moving toward the detector at the same speed in all directions. And how is it that "the light rays are moving toward the detector", when "the detector and the light rays are not in a state of relative motion"? OK....maybe I should say that isotropy means that the light rays from all directions are in the same state of relative motion wrt the detector. If they're in the "same state of motion", how does one move towards the other? Sigh....notice that in the same state of relative motion wrt the detector. Just what do you think it means for two things to "share the same state of relative motion"? Don't just repeat your MMX light ray mantra - specify the criteria that determine whether *any* two things share the same motion. Sigh....share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. OK, so let's apply your criteria. According to you, *any* two things share the same relative motion, if they share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. Are you sure that's what you wanted to say? What's "the DETECTOR", and just how does this mysterious DETECTOR go about determining whether two things share the same relative motion? 
|
|
#312
December 8th 06, 04:20 PM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
"jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: jem wrote: kenseto wrote: How can they be "arriving" at the detector when they're not moving wrt the detector? Sigh....isotropy means that the light rays are moving toward the detector at the same speed in all directions. And how is it that "the light rays are moving toward the detector", when "the detector and the light rays are not in a state of relative motion"? OK....maybe I should say that isotropy means that the light rays from all directions are in the same state of relative motion wrt the detector. If they're in the "same state of motion", how does one move towards the other? Sigh....notice that in the same state of relative motion wrt the detector. Just what do you think it means for two things to "share the same state of relative motion"? Don't just repeat your MMX light ray mantra - specify the criteria that determine whether *any* two things share the same motion. Sigh....share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. OK, so let's apply your criteria. According to you, *any* two things share the same relative motion, if they share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. NO.....The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. Are you sure that's what you wanted to say? What's "the DETECTOR", and just how does this mysterious DETECTOR go about determining whether two things share the same relative motion?
|
|
#313
December 8th 06, 10:11 PM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
"kenseto" wrote: NO.....The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. Vector or scalar? -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
#314
December 9th 06, 04:01 AM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article , "kenseto" wrote: NO.....The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. Vector or scalar? Paper or plastic?
|
|
#315
December 9th 06, 10:54 AM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
Art Deco wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , "kenseto" wrote: NO.....The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. Vector or scalar? Paper or plastic? Sapphire or Steel? -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
#316
December 9th 06, 11:02 AM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Art Deco" wrote in message ... Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , "kenseto" wrote: NO.....The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. Vector or scalar? Paper or plastic? Scissors cut paper.
|
|
#317
December 9th 06, 11:18 AM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news  In article , Art Deco wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , "kenseto" wrote: NO.....The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. Vector or scalar? Paper or plastic? Sapphire or Steel? Ah. One of my favourite programs. Never did understand it though.
|
|
#318
December 9th 06, 11:39 AM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
In article ,
"T Wake" wrote: "Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message news In article , Art Deco wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article , "kenseto" wrote: NO.....The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. Vector or scalar? Paper or plastic? Sapphire or Steel? Ah. One of my favourite programs. Never did understand it though. Used to freak me out big time as a kid as well. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
#319
December 9th 06, 02:04 PM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: jem wrote: kenseto wrote: How can they be "arriving" at the detector when they're not moving wrt the detector? Sigh....isotropy means that the light rays are moving toward the detector at the same speed in all directions. And how is it that "the light rays are moving toward the detector", when "the detector and the light rays are not in a state of relative motion"? OK....maybe I should say that isotropy means that the light rays from all directions are in the same state of relative motion wrt the detector. If they're in the "same state of motion", how does one move towards the other? Sigh....notice that in the same state of relative motion wrt the detector. Just what do you think it means for two things to "share the same state of relative motion"? Don't just repeat your MMX light ray mantra - specify the criteria that determine whether *any* two things share the same motion. Sigh....share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. OK, so let's apply your criteria. According to you, *any* two things share the same relative motion, if they share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. NO..... All I did was repeat what you said, so apparently what you said isn't what you wanted to say. ..The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. OK, so the revised criteria is that *any* two things share the same relative motion if they're measured to have the same velocity relative to a detector (the observer). where "velocity" is a vector valued quantity that specifies both a speed and direction. Right? Are you sure that's what you wanted to say? What's "the DETECTOR", and just how does this mysterious DETECTOR go about determining whether two things share the same relative motion?
|
|
#320
December 9th 06, 02:58 PM
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interpreting the MMX null result
"jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... kenseto wrote: "jem" wrote in message ... Sigh....share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. OK, so let's apply your criteria. According to you, *any* two things share the same relative motion, if they share the same relative motion as determined by the DETECTOR. NO..... All I did was repeat what you said, so apparently what you said isn't what you wanted to say. ..The detector (the observer) measures the two objects have the same relative velocity wrt him. OK, so the revised criteria is that *any* two things share the same relative motion if they're measured to have the same velocity relative to a detector (the observer). Sigh....the two things doesn't share the same relative motion wrt each other. They are measured to have the same relative motion wrt the observer. where "velocity" is a vector valued quantity that specifies both a speed and direction. Right? Direction got nothing to do with it.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Proper explanation for the MMX null result. | kenseto | Astronomy Misc | 23 | September 28th 06 10:58 PM |
| "Interpreting Astronomical Spectra", D. Emerson | Greg Heath | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 29th 06 05:44 AM |
| Best novice result yet | Spurs Dave | UK Astronomy | 0 | May 11th 06 03:58 PM |
| Astronomy Course Result | Sir Loin Steak | UK Astronomy | 1 | September 18th 04 11:41 PM |
| Null test lens for a 30" F/4 mirror? | Lawrence Sayre | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | March 4th 04 05:54 AM |
Linear Mode
