Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
What does 'westward' mean in this context?

With respect Con to the imaginary stationary ref. However I should add that the observation is made August 4 2026 at 3 pm, in Chicago

But the direction "west" only applies on the Earth's surface. I know that maps are usually flat, and that if you draw a straight line from anywhere on a (conventionally laid out) map in a westerly direction, you will be going to the left, and eventually your pencil will get to the edge of the map, but in the real world, the Earth is a sphere, and if you keep going west, (or in any other direction) you will eventually get back to where you started, and in so doing will have gone in a nearly circular ellipse (the Earth not being a perfect sphere).

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

the imaginary stationary ref.

What imaginary stationary re(erence)? The concept does not mean anything.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

"Explain that. Layman?? (Contrex)

You're making my point for me, aren't you, Contrex? I don't understand what you think needs to be explained.

Everybody knows that trains move from one place to another, and that trains do not remain stationary and their destinations do not come to them.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

the imaginary stationary ref.

That reminds me of the man who goes into a shop, and asks the young lady behind the counter, "Do you keep stationery?" She replies, "Yes, until just before the end, and then I go wild!"

2 Replies

@layman,

See what I'm getting at, Contrex?

A train moving at a uniform speed is NOT is inertial motion (as both Al and Newton defined it).

It is not an object which has "no external forces acting upon it."

It takes a continuous input of energy for the train to maintain it's uniform speed.

The laws of physics easily reveal that it is the train moving relative to the earth, rather than vice versa, right?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Go figure, eh?

"Go figure", the eternal cry of the dumbass. Layman, this forum is plagued with bozos who want to start arguments about relativity being crap.They are a dime a dozen. Some are attention or argument trolls who don't actually believe one bit of what they post, some have mental health and/or comprehension problems. Some of them piss enough people off they have to get new usernames and come back to start all over again. I suspect you are one of these.

4 Replies

@contrex,

" Everybody knows that trains move from one place to another, and that trains do not remain stationary and their destinations do not come to them"

Sorry, I didn't see this comment before making my last post. Yeah, you're right, everybody knows it (except Al, apparently).

0 Replies

@contrex,

I suspect that this forum may also be plagued with the "dime a dozen" robots who insist that SRT is flawless and has been "experimentally proven" because that's what they've been told.

0 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

But the direction "west" only applies on the Earth's surface

Yes Con, I know, and that's exactly why I specified August 4 2026 at 3 pm, in Chicago, the moment Earth is traveling at 60 mph westward (toward your left, Chicago dead ahead) in the direction of the stationary ref

Quote:

...the Earth not being a perfect sphere

Yes, no, Con, of course. Imagine at that instant a straight line passing through Chicago at right angles to your view, roughly parallel to the equator, the planet of course moving along this line to your left but remaining at constant altitude regardless of its rotation

Of course I'm assuming the conventional northern-hemisphere view with NY to your right where art this particular time our line's at a much higher altitude

0 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

Some of them piss enough people off they have to get new usernames and come back to start all over again. I suspect you are one of these.

(Finally saw it, Dale).

So, Contrex, you're saying I'm pissing you off? Why would that be?

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

What imaginary stationary re(erence)? The concept does not mean anything

Yes, Con, no, I realize there's not supposed to be such a point. I imagine however that we might construct one where the average relative speed of everything is minimized. It's w/res to this point at that mom, when we're goin' 60 westerly

I haft admit such a determination might be a little tough to acquire

2 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

….and then I go wild!

Con once again you've made my entire day

0 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

layman wrote:

Go figure, eh?

"Go figure", the eternal cry of the dumbass.

Contrex, are you now actually suggesting that it IS meaningless to say that one object is moving with respect to the other (rather than vice versa)?

If so, this seems to contradict what you've already said about whether or not a train is actually moving with respect to the earth's surface.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

It takes a continuous input of energy for the train to maintain it's uniform speed

Lay that's on account of friction with rail and air. Remove both and the train takes off following that line through Chi that I've been describing to Con, at a perfectly constant rate

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

and then I go wild!"

By the way, I agree with Dale, Contrex. That was funny.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

where "open bbcode editor" is located

Right above the box. It's light blue or green, maybe not too easy to see depending on how you adjust your brightness etc

Edited to remark, on my screen at least, it's gren

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Lay that's on account of friction with rail and air. Remove both and the train takes off following that line through Chi that I've been describing to Con, at a perfectly constant rate

No, not really, Dale. If you removed the friction AND added a continuous input of energy, then the train would not be in an inertial state. It would be accdelerating, right?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

(Finally saw it, Dale)

Sorry Lay but you saw what

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

It would be accdelerating, right?

Yes of course Lay, it would, and forgive me, but so what

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I imagine however that we might construct one where the average relative speed of everything is minimized. It's w/res to this point at that mom, when we're goin' 60 westerly

I have trouble agreeing with your claim, Dale. If we arbitrarily chose a "stationery object" (such as the CMBR), then if the earth was moving "west" at 60 mph relative to the CMBR, a train moving at 60 mph westward on the earth would be moving 120 mph westward with respect to the CMBR, wouldn't it?

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know