An international team of NASA and university researchers has found the first direct evidence the Earth is dragging space and time around itself as it rotates.

The researchers believe they have measured the effect, first predicted in 1918 by using Einstein's theory of general relativity, by precisely observing shifts in the orbits of two Earth-orbiting laser-ranging satellites.

The research, reported in the journal Nature, is the first accurate measurement of a bizarre effect that predicts a rotating mass will drag space around it. The Lense-Thirring Effect is also known as frame dragging.

The team was led by Dr. Ignazio Ciufolini of the University of Lecce, Italy, and Dr. Erricos C. Pavlis of the Joint Center for Earth System Technology, a research collaboration between NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and the University of Maryland Baltimore County.

"General relativity predicts massive rotating objects should drag space-time around themselves as they rotate," Pavlis said. "Frame dragging is like what happens if a bowling ball spins in a thick fluid such as molasses. As the ball spins, it pulls the molasses around itself. Anything stuck in the molasses will also move around the ball. Similarly, as the Earth rotates, it pulls space-time in its vicinity around itself. This will shift the orbits of satellites near Earth." The study is a follow-up to earlier work in 1998 where the authors' team reported the first direct detection of the effect.
Ref: UniverseToday (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/frame_dragging_confirmed.html)

I like the molasses analogy, I can kinda see space being 'dragged' along by a massive body here. So its not the gravitational affect that moves the satellites in this particular way although they are obviously being affected primarily by gravity's pull. But in addition to gravity moving these satellites around, the space around the satellite is also moving. It would seem this is an additional affect, and is extremely small compared to the affect on the satallite's movement caused by gravity.

As an alternate example, take a planet hurtling through space, a planet going in a linear direction instead of orbiting around a star for example. As the planet moves along, the space around it actually is being displaced, in effect being dragged in the direction of motion as the planet passes. I imagine a chunk of matter along its path might move in the direction of the planet's motion for some very short distance because the space it is in momentarily shifts in the direction of the planet's motion as it passes.

We've all heard of space being 'warped' in some way, but this is not the same. This sounds like space is actually being moved from one location to another.

Is that correct? Can anyone help explain 'frame dragging'? Perhaps someone knows a bit about the math involved?

Here's a pic of the LAGEOUS satallites. They've been described as beach balls with dozens of small mirrors attached to them.

http://www.sciencemaster.com/jump/images/physical/7667283.jpg

.. This sounds like space is actually being moved from one location to another.

Is that correct? Can anyone help explain 'frame dragging'? Perhaps someone knows a bit about the math involved?
Only a rotating body produces the effect -- it is not present in linear motion.

I ponder if it isn't frame dragging that to some extent might help to cause a captured orbiting satellite to tend to twist some to keep facing the planet. I have no idea.

And I VERY much wonder if frame dragging implies that a radio signal emitted at the 50-yard line, in a latitudinally-oriented stadium, reaches the goal posts simultaneously, according to the native metric, ie. the rotating coordinate system. Uh, someone else told me that the dragging isn't quite that causative. And I wonder if the stadium scenario isn't true anyway, ignoring frame dragging.

edit: and about that scenario.. I wonder if there's even such a thing defined as simultaneity, when reckoning per such a rotating metric.

Why wouldn't linear motion produce the affect? Why only rotational?

The answer is pitifully obvious: linear motion is tantamount to being stopped. Learn your relativity.

dristam, why is the tone of your reply so demeaning?

There is nothing obvious about relativity. For a stationary observer, any mass in motion, rotational or translational, has a higher gravitational attraction than the same mass which is not in motion. So your reply does not even begin to explain.

I've found the obnoxious who profess to be expert know nothing themselves.

For a stationary observer, any mass in motion, rotational or translational, has a higher gravitational attraction than the same mass which is not in motion.

Sorry, but I can't let this one pass. In fact, it is not true that going faster means you create a greater gravitational attraction. This is the old "go fast enough and you'll turn into a black hole" thing. That is not observed to occur.

dristam, why is the tone of your reply so demeaning?
I'm so sorry! I admit I adopted a rather teasing tone.
..There is nothing obvious about relativity. ..your reply does not even begin to explain.
Again, my apologies! Any steadily-coasting entity, uninfluenced by external forces, can claim an inertial frame; and every inertial frame is identical to every other ie. you might as well say you're stationary.
I've found the obnoxious who profess to be expert know nothing themselves.
Alas! you've found wrongly.

I'm so sorry! I admit I adopted a rather teasing tone.

Again, my apologies! Any steadily-coasting entity, uninfluenced by external forces, can claim an inertial frame; and every inertial frame is identical to every other ie. you might as well say you're stationary.

Alas! you've found wrongly.
Michelson-Morely and Dayton Miller in the 20s and 30s measured a relative velocity (both experiments were consistent in finding 10 km/SEC ether drag) of the earth through space. Miller dubbed his finding an "ether drag", MM found a positive result, bo greater than 1/4 of the presumed velocity, noy null.

Ypu can consider any kind of silliness you want. If the frame is of conscious construction, i.e. made by design and it is in free space it got there because it was accelerated from some inertial frame such as Ve, the planet earth. If another frame is also constructed by design both frames, not necessarily accelerated from the same "home planet", it is extremely unlikely that one of the ships decelerated to zero wrt his home planet. Yo7u are full of conjectured hypothesis of a world without reality.

his is the planet with the blue sky. Where are you from anyway?

The planet earth and passenger trains are often considered "inertial" and are not identical. There is never an observation of relative velocity of earth and passenger train unless the passenger train accelerated, and the planet earth did not accelerate. Therefore, the passenger train Vn > Ve > 0, and that is the way it is. Unless the earth did accelerate but the force if felt was of a different kind thatn the train. The planet or accelerometers, maybe did not regicter any acceleration becaurse the accelerometers felt the force where all the mass was accelerated at the same time and the train was what we normally observe. Is this possible?

Anyone considering the train at rest is considering three phyisical impossibilities, (1) That the Ve can and did accelerate, and (2) two frames , inertial, can ever be identical, except in the minds of srists, (3) The inertial mass of the planet is infinitely larger than any Vn and is never accelerated by any reaction of the Vn forces. The predicted future of the earth position is never observed to have that perfect straight line trajectory "acted upon by an outside force" to the extent that any experimental results have been siginificantly affected, nor has the planet motion been distinguiished from straight-line motion. as determined by direct measurement..

So Q_goest, yes you can consider anything, but soemthings considered inanely, and very insanely.

that any experimental results have been siginificantly affected, nor has the planet motion been distinguiished from straight-line motion. as determined by direct measurement.. My lord.... did MacM give you his amnesia medicine again?

.. The planet or accelerometers, maybe did not regicter any acceleration becaurse the accelerometers felt the force where all the mass was accelerated at the same time and the train was what we normally observe. Is this possible?
No, it's not possible. You're daft; that's probable.

In fact, it is not true that going faster means you create a greater gravitational attraction.
My understanding is the rest mass remains invarient, however the relativistic mass as would be measured by a stationary observer increases with velocity (ie: kinetic energy).

Per this, I'm assuming the gravitational force from said mass must increase also. Is this incorrect? I seem to remember this being described as the phenomena in physics classes, though I'll admit that was long ago, and my memory could be playing tricks.

If the relativistic mass increases, how else would one measure (or percieve) the increased mass? The only way I can think of that one could measure an increase in relativistic mass is by force.

Regardless, I'm curious about this phenomena of frame dragging. We talk about space 'expanding'. Is frame dragging a moving of space? How could this be better explained?

..I'm assuming the gravitational force from said mass must increase also. Is this incorrect? ..If the relativistic mass increases, how else would one measure (or percieve) the increased mass?
Perhaps tests are performed on speeding charged particles, and they watch for how much of a deflection occurs when EM force fields are interjected; and from that, they'd know the relativistic mass augment. Or from simple collisions, those are immensely affected by mass of projectile. James R. is right: no boost in gravity is engendered by the mass increase. That mass increase thing is SO dang confusing though, it's almost as if it were thrown in there like some skullduggery just to balance some precious formulae. No uh.

Originally Posted by geistkiesel
".. The planet or accelerometers, maybe did not regicter any acceleration becaurse the accelerometers felt the force where all the mass was accelerated at the same time and the train was what we normally observe. Is this possible?"
]


No, it's not possible. You're daft; that's probable.

Well Mr. Dristam I got the information you quoted from me from James R just this moning. I wanted yo get ypur opinion n the matter.

What is daft anyway? Probably something you aren't, from your own relative position and point of view that is.

Geistkiesel

My lord.... did MacM give you his amnesia medicine again?

Frankly I find it less than acceptable to claim both:

1 - No fabric in space.

2 - It can be curved, contracted and now dragged but yet doesn't tangiably exist. Hmmmm.

Sorry, but I can't let this one pass. In fact, it is not true that going faster means you create a greater gravitational attraction. This is the old "go fast enough and you'll turn into a black hole" thing. That is not observed to occur.

I disagree, JamesR. Let's pick two specially constructed balls with a thin outside shell and an inside part that could be set to rotate very fast. Make the internal part in one of the ball rotate. This rotating ball (A) would have more energy (and more mass by m=E/c²) than the unrotating one (B). If we could measure the difference of the gravitation force exerted by them to a test mass, we should find that 'A' exerts a slightly larger force than 'B'.

Frankly I find it less than acceptable to claim both:

1 - No fabric in space.

2 - It can be curved, contracted and now dragged but yet doesn't tangiably exist. Hmmmm.

What your silly UniKEF theory says about this matter?

What your silly UniKEF theory says about this matter?

You want to discuss UniKEF go to the thread James R initiated for that purpose.

I disagree, JamesR. Let's pick two specially constructed balls with a thin outside shell and an inside part that could be set to rotate very fast. Make the internal part in one of the ball rotate. This rotating ball (A) would have more energy (and more mass by m=E/c²) than the unrotating one (B). If we could measure the difference of the gravitation force exerted by them to a test mass, we should find that 'A' exerts a slightly larger force than 'B'.
Actually, what you claim is not in contradiction to what James R said.
What he said is that people believe that since the condition for being a black hole is given by a condition on the mass (M >= Rc²/2G), if you give a mass a sufficent velocity such that its mass m=E/c² will fulfill the above condition, this mass will become a black hole.
(Please James, correct me if I am wrong, but I belive that this is what you meant).

Of course, this is wrong, and in order to find the effect of a moving mass, you must use the whole stress tensor as a source of gravitational field, and not only the (0,0) component.
In the case of rotating bodies, you must use the Kerr solution, instead of Schwartschild solution.

Actually, what you claim is not in contradiction to what James R said.
What he said is that people believe that since the condition for being a black hole is given by a condition on the mass (M >= Rc²/2G), if you give a mass a sufficent velocity such that its mass m=E/c² will fulfill the above condition, this mass will become a black hole.
(Please James, correct me if I am wrong, but I belive that this is what you meant).

Of course, this is wrong, and in order to find the effect of a moving mass, you must use the whole stress tensor as a source of gravitational field, and not only the (0,0) component.
In the case of rotating bodies, you must use the Kerr solution, instead of Schwartschild solution.

Does this mean the infaliable Paul T has made an error? I'm including switching scenarios to argue something different as either an error or his deliberate habit of doing such things to argue he has superior knowledge.

Frankly I find it less than acceptable to claim both:

1 - No fabric in space.

2 - It can be curved, contracted and now dragged but yet doesn't tangiably exist. Hmmmm.Frankly I find it funny that you assume frames are a physical fabric of space. #2 is all about frames, so you really aren't saying anything.

Frankly I find it funny that you assume frames are a physical fabric of space. #2 is all about frames, so you really aren't saying anything.

The issue is the curving, contracting and dragging of something which is purportedly "Nothing" physical.

MacM,

Does this mean the infaliable Paul T has made an error? I'm including switching scenarios to argue something different as either an error or his deliberate habit of doing such things to argue he has superior knowledge.

You decide it for yourself. Why do you have doubt on whether what I said correct or incorrect? If you think what I said was wrong then you should give me your supporting argument. Can you do that?

The issue is the curving, contracting and dragging of something which is purportedly "Nothing" physical.And it's an issue because.....

Does this mean the infaliable Paul T has made an error? I'm including switching scenarios to argue something different as either an error or his deliberate habit of doing such things to argue he has superior knowledge.
No, this mean that he was unaware of mistakes that some people who do not understand relativity make.
What he wrote was correct

MacM,



You decide it for yourself. Why do you have doubt on whether what I said correct or incorrect? If you think what I said was wrong then you should give me your supporting argument. Can you do that?

Ditto when you comment on my posts would you not think?

And it's an issue because.....

If you have to ask then your footing is not solidly into physical reality an is in lala land.

No, this mean that he was unaware of mistakes that some people who do not understand relativity make.
What he wrote was correct

Not disagreeing with the E=mc^2 mass. Just commenting on that was not the issue and his repeated responses that seem to go off topic and argue his own side issues.

If you have to ask then your footing is not solidly into physical reality an is in lala land.This is still showing a misconception of what areference frame is. Nobody ever said the frame was physical. It is used to compute the effects of relativity... whatever the underlying cause happens to be. It's a metaphor to make it easier to understand.

This is still showing a misconception of what areference frame is. Nobody ever said the frame was physical. It is used to compute the effects of relativity... whatever the underlying cause happens to be. It's a metaphor to make it easier to understand.

So you are finally agreeing that this is all subjective and does not represent reality. No misunderstanding on my part. The misunderstanding is by those that want to argue for the physical reality of Relativity.

So you are finally agreeing that this is all subjective and does not represent reality.Do you know how to read? Waht was so complicated about "It is used to compute the effects of relativity... whatever the underlying cause happens to be."

Do you know how to read? Waht was so complicated about "It is used to compute the effects of relativity... whatever the underlying cause happens to be."

You say above that it is a superficial concept used to correlate changes being made into what is physically "Nothing" - space. Or are you prepared to give space some tangiable fabric such as an ether.

"Nothing" would be hard to curve, contract and drag do you not think?

Mac, space is your 'grid'. Your grid is curving, contracting, and dragging. The grid is not physical. Understand?

Dristam said: Perhaps tests are performed on speeding charged particles, and they watch for how much of a deflection occurs when EM force fields are interjected; and from that, they'd know the relativistic mass augment. Or from simple collisions, those are immensely affected by mass of projectile. James R. is right: no boost in gravity is engendered by the mass increase.
Yes, you're right I believe. Mass can be determined using charged particles in electric or magnetic fields. But the conclusion, that there is no change in the gravitational attraction I believe is incorrect.

The mass of a proton for example, moving at relativistic speed through an electric field will not deflect the same way as one would expect because the inertial mass has increased. But the inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent, per the equivalence principal, regardless of velocity. So therefore, a mass with high velocity relative to an observer will also have a greater gravitational mass.

If this were not true, we would have a method by which to determine absolute motion. One would simply note the difference between gravitational and inertial mass and you could then calculate the absolute velocity of the mass by the difference between the two.

Good point, Q_Goest.

My lord.... did MacM give you his amnesia medicine again?
I am stll awaiting some physics to show within the four corners of your posts.

By the way the forum smartass job is already filled, so ease off on your class clown activity persol, for among us we have a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy, whose flashes of merriment are wont to set the table on a roar!
Can you dig it?

Some solar data*.
Velocities km/sec:
Earth-sun orbit 29.8
Earth rotation (equator) .496
Sun-Orbit# 208
Distances km
Earth-sun radiius 1.49 x 10^8
Earth radius 6378
Some times second
Seconds per day 86146
Seconfds per year 31465687
Angular momentum data kg-m^2/sec
Solar system 3.15 x 10^43
Sun 1.6 x 10^41
Sun/Solar System is 1.6 x 10^41 / 3.15 x 10^43 = .5%
Mass g
Sun 2 x 10^33
Planets 2.7 x 10^30
Earth 6x10^27
*Handbook of Astronautical Engineering Koelle Ed. 1st Edition 1961, McGraw- Hill
#Dayton Miller, 5 The Reviews of Modern Physics 1933 202 243

The earth rotates 6378x2pi = 40047 km/day, but as the earth is being sun dragged, thie distance actually moved is 208x86146= 17.18x10^6 km per day. So in one day the rotation vector is actually pointing more along the sun motion direction. The rotation vector actually rotates at a rate of 360 x(40047/17900000) degress/day or 360 x .00224 = .08 degrees/day, .08/86146 = 10^-6 degrees/sec (360 degrees/4500 days).. 10^-6 degrees/sec or about 31 degrees per year. Result 10^-6 degree/sec

The earth orbit vector is skewed in a similar manner, where the 360/1.49x10^8 degrees/ km-year is actually 360/6.54 x 10^9 = 5.50 x 10^-8 degrees/km-year, or the orbit vector gets stretched considerably.
The point of the direction vector is moving at a rate of 1/2(.0228)/314656870 = 2.07 x 10^-8 degrees/sec. here the angle sutended by the earth sun radius and sun distance is .0228 degrees) degrees (tan-1 (1.49x10^8/6.54 x 10^9 km) = .0228 degrees). Thia vector then moves 2x .0228 /31465687 = 1.45 x 10^-9 degrees/sec. Consider an inertial mass vN, with density of 10g/cm^3 with volume of (10^4)^3 = 10^12^cm^3, or 10^13 g (100 meters on a side). And a 1 cm^3 piece of that mass,Vm, or 10g.
Some Results
The earth rotation rate is 1.2 x 10^-6 degrees/sec
The earth orbit turning rate is 5x10^-8 degrees/sec.
The earth mass to sun mass ratio 3 x10^-3.
The Earth/test mass 6x10^27/ 0^13 = 10^-14
Vm/Vn. 10/10^13 = 10^-12

The Ve/Vn ration is two orders of magnitude larger in proportion than is the 100 meter on a side cube relative to a 1 cm^3 inertial mass.

The earth inertia is 100 times more massive in ratio wrt the test mass than is the test mass frame wrt the 1 cm^3 frame.
This is what I mean that the earth is moving in a straight line.
This is what I mean when I say the earth inertial mass is infinitely larger proportionately, to any conceiveable inertial mass likely to be seen in a state of relative motion wrt Ve, which as we know only exhibits relative motion Vn - Ve > 0 after the Vn has undergone an acceleration and Ve has not undergone an acceleration.

Taken as a whole, this what I mean when I say the inertial frames of Ve and Vn are not eqaul, by any measuremnt and that the Ve moves effectively in a straight line trajectory.

[deleted], none of that contradicts what I said... but nice try. The relative inertias are not in question here, and once agian don't matter. We do NOT know what our initial velocity/position is... so we can never know what our absolute velocity/position is.

All you are trying to do is arrbitraily decide that one frame of reference is 'best'. Unforntunately this needs to be done on a problem by problem basis... but you are just completely out in left field with your attempt to define the Earth as the best -stationary- frame.

If you want to continuing arguing about absolute velocity/position, take it to one of your 11 threads you've already started. You can then attempt to show how you determine initial velocity/position.

Until then you are not posting anything of worth. As much as your dissertation on the sun/earth orbit is probably correct... it is off topic and immaterial.

This is still showing a misconception of what areference frame is. Nobody ever said the frame was physical. It is used to compute the effects of relativity... whatever the underlying cause happens to be. It's a metaphor to make it easier to understand.
So the planet earth Ve, and passengers trains around the world are not inertial frames and that real inertial frames do not exist?

I can understand you wanting to disregard the reality of physical measurement, vaya con dios, special relativity, right?

So if the frames aen't real physical objects and have no physical analog why are you so reactionary when someone starts discussing the reality of motion and inertial frames? Why are you even involved in this thread and the ones accompanying this one? Why do you bother?

Can you prove the postulate of SR that holds that the relative velocity of light and moving frame will always be measured as C? No, you can't do this, because if you did this you'd end up working at MacDonald's, who are hiring by the way, and their sign said they'll train you too!.

You realize that when you accepted all that stuff from your Wizard of Oz, you logically adopted loss of simultaneity, absolute time and space and of course time dilation and frame contraction? Look at all the physics you discard by discarding the velocity of the observer in the moving frame who is measuring the relative velocity of her frame and photon? Of course you will get the "right answer" with all your contrived mathematics, none of which is based on physical law and realism, especially nullifying physical data before it is obtained, to wit, the frame velocity in relative photon and frame velocity measurements.

Dumbass, none of that contradicts what I said... but nice try. The relative inertias are not in question here, and once agian don't matter. We do NOT know what our initial velocity/position is... so we can never know what our absolute velocity/position is.

All you are trying to do is arrbitraily decide that one frame of reference is 'best'. Unforntunately this needs to be done on a problem by problem basis... but you are just completely out in left field with your attempt to define the Earth as the best -stationary- frame.

If you want to continuing arguing about absolute velocity/position, take it to one of your 11 threads you've already started. You can then attempt to show how you determine initial velocity/position.

Until then you are not posting anything of worth. As much as your dissertation on the sun/earth orbit is probably correct... it is off topic and immaterial.

You know nothiing, and that is your problem, I suggest you solve it.

So the planet earth Ve, and passengers trains around the world are not inertial frames and that real inertial frames do not exist?
A fixed point on the Earth is not inertial. There are frames which are inertial in a limited sense.
I can understand you wanting to disregard the reality of physical measurement, vaya con dios, special relativity, right?You may understand it, but I never said that... nice try.
So if the frames aen't real physical objects and have no physical analog why are you so reactionary when someone starts discussing the reality of motion and inertial frames?You don't pay attention do you? The frames ARE the analogy. Nobody except the kooks on this site talk about the reality of mation and inertial frames. Everyone else is talking about whether those ideas provide correct results.
Why are you even involved in this thread and the ones accompanying this one? Why do you bother?I like playing with retarded people. They are so cute.
Can you prove the postulate of SR that holds that the relative velocity of light and moving frame will always be measured as C?You said this before, and I gave you a link... which you kindly ignored. I'm not finiding it again, but it had to do with light measurements from a binary star.
You realize that when you accepted all that stuff from your Wizard of Oz, you logically adopted loss of simultaneity, absolute time and space and of course time dilation and frame contraction?And?
Of course you will get the "right answer" with all your contrived mathematics, none of which is based on physical law and realism, especially nullifying physical data before it is obtained, to wit, the frame velocity in relative photon and frame velocity measurements.Sorry bub, but the results DO agree with reality.

No, this mean that he was unaware of mistakes that some people who do not understand relativity make.


I was aware of the conclusion drawn based on mis-application of the mass concept.

In my opinion, only if someone think that the increase of (kinetic) energy of moving object (implying the increase of mass, based on m=E/c²) is mystical, that is as if the mass(energy) come from nowhere, then he or she would have to face the "black hole paradox". The energy does not come from nowhere, it is either supplied or it is due to the relative velocity between the reference frames.

Consider as a rough approximation, an object with rest mass M moves accross at certain distance from earth and at certain relative velocity, in such a way that the total energy of this object is equivalent to 2M. The weight of this object still 2M*g, where g is the earth gravitational acceleration at the respective distance. However, this object would never collapse and become a black hole whatever close its relative velocity to c, as in the reference frame of that object, its mass remain as M. Based on the scenario that I proposed in my response to JamesR's post, I picked spinning ball instead of linearly moving object. Theoretically, this spinning ball could accumulate lots of energy...but, if we try to compute the required spin for it to accumulate enough energy for it to become a black hole, I suspect (since I did not carry out the actual computation) the ball's molecules would first fly apart due to the spin before it accumulate enough energy. Therefore, in practice, the ball would never become a black hole either. Obviously, since electromagnetic interaction fails to keep the ball's molecules together, gravitational interaction has no chance to do it any better.

Not disagreeing with the E=mc^2 mass. Just commenting on that was not the issue and his repeated responses that seem to go off topic and argue his own side issues.

Your comment doesn't seem to be well thought, as usual.

Look, this is what JamesR referred to:

“ For a stationary observer, any mass in motion, rotational or translational, has a higher gravitational attraction than the same mass which is not in motion. ” JamesR's comment was:
Sorry, but I can't let this one pass. In fact, it is not true that going faster means you create a greater gravitational attraction. This is the old "go fast enough and you'll turn into a black hole" thing. That is not observed to occur.
And I said, I disagree to that conclusion. In fact, I agree to the idea that JamesR thought was wrong. So, you see...I did not make an off-topic comment. You did.

Paul T,

As somebody else pointed out, the gravitational curvature of spacetime is produced by the entire stress-energy tensor, not just one part of it. Therefore, going faster does not make a body gravitate more.

A fixed point on the Earth is not inertial. There are frames which are inertial in a limited sense.

If the fixed point on the earth is not inertial then change its inertia. i.e. position, i.e the points resistance to change. You move it. You can start up passenger trains and move them from a point on the sdurface, but you can't move, accelerate, the surface, and moving the trains requires overcoming the inertia of the body in motion which is uder scrutiny, do you understand?.


I can understand you wanting to disregard the reality of physical measurement, vaya con dios, special relativity, right?

You may understand it, but I never said that... nice try.

You say iy it every time you invoke an argument using SR as your basis.
You didn't pay attention to the post you were responding to.


quote Gseistkiesel
"So if the frames aen't real physical objects and have no physical analog why are you so reactionary when someone starts discussing the reality of motion and inertial frames?"

The frames ARE the analogy. Nobody except the kooks on this site talk about the reality of motion and inertial frames. Everyone else is talking about whether those ideas provide correct results.

quote=Persol]
Why are you even involved in this thread and the ones accompanying this one? Why do you bother?

I like playing with retarded people. They are so cute.[/quote]

Quote Geistkiesel

Your reference to retarded people was framed in such a way that you come off sounding like how racists and sexists thinks.
Quote Geistkiesel:
"Can you prove the postulate of SR that holds that the relative velocity of light and moving frame will always be measured as C?"

You said this before, and I gave you a link... which you kindly ignored. I'm not finiding it again, but it had to do with light measurements from a binary star.

I do not remember your link, but I do remember De Ritter, Dutch wasn't he?.

You do, do you not understand that the postulate is THE BASIC POSTULATE OF SPCIAL RELATIVITY?
Persol, old man, this postulate should be engrained into your thinking processes, but I see you haven't a clue about the significance of the postulate. You read the postuilate, answered the questions correctly on the test paper and promptly forgot all about it.

So your argument is that you have a link that you can't remember what the substance of the link was? Except that it "had to do with light measurement from a binary star." Did you mean to say binary "stars" (plural)?

You realize that when you accepted all that stuff from your Wizard of Oz, you logically adopted loss of simultaneity, absolute time and space and of course time dilation and frame contraction?
”
And?

"And?" ?: You don't understand your own theory, that's the "and?".


Quote Geistkiesel:
"Of course you will get the "right answer" with all your "contrived mathematics, none of which is based on physical law and realism, especially nullifying physical data before it is obtained, to wit, the frame velocity in relative photon and frame velocity measurements."


Sorry bub, but the results DO agree with reality.

Please supply a couple of references to this reality agreement old man?
Which specific "reasults ", your word, make such an agreement?

If the fixed point on the earth is not inertial then change its inertia. i.e. position, i.e the points resistance to change. You move it. You can start up passenger trains and move them from a point on the sdurface, but you can't move, accelerate, the surface,How many times do I need to tell you that the earth and everything on it is naturally accelerating? That's what going in circles does.

So your argument is that you have a link that you can't remember what the substance of the link was? Except that it "had to do with light measurement from a binary star." Did you mean to say binary "stars" (plural)? Dumbass... no, i meant binary star. They only needed to measure one of them.