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, ghi...@gmail.com 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
