Jump to content
Science Forums

Are There Some Types Of Relativity?


xersan

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

I want to define the essences and details for  the types of relativity:

 Essentially relativity: An automobile on a road. It applies power to road and its speed is generated through the road. This value of speed is “essentially relative” according to road. The automobile moves away from starting point by this speed. 

 

Titular/nominal/pseudo relativity: Two moving automobiles (A,  B on the same road. The speed of B according to A is “pseudo relative”; or the speed of A according to B. They do not apply any power to each other. Actually we can say that it is the increasing/decreasing speed of the distance between A and B. 

 

Momentary/temporary relativity: When a player throws a ball. The speed of the ball according to player is “momentary relative”. The power has applied momentarily. After throwing, the player may go to anywhere freely; he does not need to follow the ball. Therefore, the distance between player and the ball cannot calculated with only ball’s speed; it requires considering vectorial total of their speeds.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to define the essences and details for  the types of relativity:

 

Essentially relativity: An automobile on a road. It applies power to road and its speed is generated through the road. This value of speed is “essentially relative” according to road. The automobile moves away from starting point by this speed. 

 

 

We have been discussing the meaning of "relative speed" as it is applied in theories of motion in another thread.  I can't see what you're getting at here.  "Essentially relative?"  I would say the motion is "essentially absolute."  No sensible person thinks that, as between the car and the road, it is the road that is moving while the car remains motionless. 

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to define the essences and details for  the types of relativity:

 

 

 

Titular//nominal/pseudo relativity: Two moving automobiles (A,  B on the same road. The speed of B according to A is “pseudo relative”; or the speed of A according to B. They do not apply any power to each other. Actually we can say that it is the increasing/decreasing speed of the distance between A and B. 

 

For the same reason, I can't see why in the world you would call this "pseudo relativity."  You are describing relative motion in it's purest sense, the way I see it--nothing "nominal" about it.  There is no reference here, implied or otherwise, to anything which would suggest that absolute motion is being discussed (although, in theory, the speed in question could be absolute).

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Momentary/temporary relativity: When a player throws a ball. The speed of the ball according to player is “momentary relative”. The power has applied momentarily. After throwing, the player may go to anywhere freely; he does not need to follow the ball. Therefore, the distance between player and the ball cannot calculated with only ball’s speed; it requires considering vectorial total of their speeds.  

 

 

And, finally, I don't know why you would call this an example of "relative motion," either.  Acceleration is generally deemed to be absolute, not relative.

 

You appear to be trying to take the notion of applied forces into account in your various definitions.  I also think that's an extremely important factor when trying to decide if a particular motion is relative or absolute, but I can't see how this factor would generate the various definitions you propose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In SR, none.  That would be an absolute speed, not a relative one.

 

In universe, there is not any thing that has not motion.

 

SR  gives reference role to the source/moving body and it accepts that light's velocity is essentially relative value according to its source and everything.

 

However, the source or photon does not apply a power for motion to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vacuum has no motion. You can't put a vacuum in a closed bottle, shoot it into space and do any test that will differentiate the vacuum locked in the bottle and the vacuum outside the bottle. The MMX proved earth has no relative velocity to the vacuum or the light that uses the vacuum as an electromagnetic medium for propagation. The speed of the source or receiver does not add or subtract to the velocity of light because light self propagates through the capacitance and inductance (equivalent to inertia and elasticity in material mediums) of its electromagnetic medium which can't move relative to matter like the material medium for sound waves can. But like sound waves, the motion of the source or receiver can affect light's frequency via the Doppler effect.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serious differences for the types of relativity. 

 

If an object (A) gets its speed due to another object ( B ). The speed of A is "essentially relative" according to B.

 

If A player throws a ball, the ball's speed is "momentary relative" according to the player. For following times, the player can go to anywhere freely; and the distance between the ball and player does not change by only the ball's speed; so, we cannot say "directly relative" for following time. The ball's speed is "pseudo relative" according to the player for other times any more. 

 

http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044

Edited by xersan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There are serious differences for the types of relativity. 

 

 http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044

 

 

Well, I see where you initial post came from.  This article was written by some person named Özgen Ersan.  No credentials, resume, university affilition, or anything else, other than an email address, serve to identify him.

 

I read the article, and did not find it contained much worthwhile.  As I already said, I don't agree with his definitional analysis.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't agree with his definitional analysis.

 

Yes, also Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein had not distinguished the types of relativity (Poincare had some intuituonal reservation and he had not sufficiently adopted). 

 

However these nuances are the reality of nature and one of key factors for light kinematics and SR.

 

You may allow yourself to see and internalize these key factors and probably you may estimate/discover a possibility for cosmological analysis.

 

Special relativity is a valuable theory by being first approach for light linematics. LCS concept is improved due to SR.

 

Summary, Light kinematics and cosmological analyses must be consider through 7-8 factors; if we neglected some of them, we will generate some theories like SR.

Edited by xersan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...