Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Failures of the Galilean transformation Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:23:43 +0200 Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <2017091221064667105-@news.giganews.com> <10921718.O9o76ZdvQC@PointedEars.de> <1b97f699-d4c7-41fc-9041-3fdec761811b@googlegroups.com> <5311903.lOV4Wx5bFT@PointedEars.de> <89f48ca9-98d8-4280-8a10-d279f2c660c5@googlegroups.com> <2a741386-495b-4222-9fb8-004e69ced8ec@googlegroups.com> <3c19801d-7773-44ec-8b5d-38902280db57@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net hBLpWTCjKkzxdGX6vCZIcgNVDwiiYJBdHQCpfiZZa4jQOWGdNA Cancel-Lock: sha1:5L/JzN++gZrRyHGWl79uwEYXvTU= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 In-Reply-To: <3c19801d-7773-44ec-8b5d-38902280db57@googlegroups.com> Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:433730 Am 25.09.2017 um 07:57 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: > W dniu niedziela, 24 września 2017 21:31:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > >> The laws of nature are not changing in time. > > "Laws" and "nature" are excluding each other. > >> So, something wrong in times of Galileo is still wrong today. > > Right. Nobody was seeing trees and buildings running around > him in Galileo's time and nobody is seeing them now. > Coordinate - what does this word mean? Co-ord - does it sound > a bit familiar? > Coordinates are to be COMMON, poor idiot. Your > observer dependent frames are a functional nonsense. > And nature has nothing to do with them. > Sure. But WE have something to do with 'observer dependent frames'. IOW: common human beings regard themselves as more or less at rest, even if this not true. Earth rotates around its axis and swirls together with the entire solar system around the center of our galaxy. But still we think, that our chair is not moving, while we sit on it. So, physical truth and common sense do not match. But if common sense could not be used in physics, how do we define something correct then? Possible questions are: what is actually time? Is matter for one observer also matter for all possible others? Is mass constant? (And so forth...) You make a statement about coordinates ('Coordinates are to be COMMON'). But how do you justify this demand? If space and time are in fact 'relative', then coordinates are not common at all, but 'relative'. Since we lack any other possible references, 'relative' means 'relative to the observer' (what you rejected). TH ..