On 6 March 2014 11:01, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from >> +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over >> them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set? >> > > There's no inherent problem with defining measures on uncountably infinite > sets--for example, a bell curve is a continuous probability measure defined > over the infinite real number line from -infinity to +infinity, which can > be integrated over any specific range to define a probability that a result > will fall in that range. But as I've said, the problem is that although you > can define a measure over all frames in relativity, if it looks like a > uniform distribution when you state the velocity of each frame relative to > a particular reference frame A, then it will be a non-uniform distribution > when you state the velocity of each frame relative to a different reference > frame B, so any such measure will be privileging one frame from the start. > > Ah, yes, I know you can integrate some continuous function from + to - infinity, but I was assuming that cases like Bell curves were privileging one particular point (e.g. starting from or centred on 0) - but I guess I got that wrong.

-- 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.