Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368728 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-06 09:10 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-10-31 18:47 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 15:45 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:03 -0700
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 15:53 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 12:14 -0700
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-31 12:25 -0700
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 22:33 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:51 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:12 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 03:44 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:57 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 10:03 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 15:08 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:44 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:05 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:16 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 14:05 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:28 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:51 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:07 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 06:58 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:09 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:11 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-04 16:30 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 04:52 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:06 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 10:01 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:47 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 13:44 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 11:22 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 15:23 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 12:36 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 16:06 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 13:35 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 16:54 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 14:24 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:50 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 19:48 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 02:42 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 08:18 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 11:33 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:57 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 18:58 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 17:00 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 21:59 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 19:34 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 00:50 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 04:34 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 09:31 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 07:02 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:25 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 09:42 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:56 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 10:29 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 13:36 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 11:02 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 11:40 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-06 20:20 +0100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 08:13 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 09:03 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:45 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:40 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-05 23:29 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 19:37 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 00:53 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 22:01 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 02:32 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:11 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 14:29 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 14:42 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 18:21 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 15:24 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 15:27 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 19:51 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 16:58 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 20:36 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:43 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:58 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:10 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 16:01 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-05 00:14 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:30 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-05 04:16 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:49 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 00:43 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:03 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 01:21 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-05 07:09 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 06:45 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 15:40 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 00:37 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 02:53 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:46 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-06 08:51 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 16:11 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Henry Wilson <HW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 09:04 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 00:52 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) - 2015-10-31 19:52 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 22:36 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:52 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-02 08:59 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Henry Wilson <HW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 09:10 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100 |
| Subject | Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity |
| Message-ID | <jgu93bd0ogku4nmjiubfd3dvdic7g2p2cu@4ax.com> |
Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of none that does. Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in fact they are only mathematical scales. In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between spatial intervals. The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world all intervals must be finite by definition.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n132c0$vst$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368728 |
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Hmmm, it sounds like a beginning to a vast amount of cretinity. > Those objects are > defined in terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time > intervals. All the space and time intervals we experience have a > beginning and an end. We cannot mentally understand how any such > interval can extend to infinity and we know of none that does. This is profoundly similar to the theory of Divergent Matter. Good bye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <s56b3b15j0et5v3tbc0pgnj8pa4gl7b0g2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368729 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:47:33 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > >> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. > >Hmmm, it sounds like a beginning to a vast amount of cretinity. > >> Those objects are >> defined in terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time >> intervals. All the space and time intervals we experience have a >> beginning and an end. We cannot mentally understand how any such >> interval can extend to infinity and we know of none that does. > >This is profoundly similar to the theory of Divergent Matter. Good bye. Nothing to do with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26912600-6825-4763-a4f8-02999a1f2985@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368728 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-10, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in > terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space > and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot > mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of > none that does. > > Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in > the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME > and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in > fact they are only mathematical scales. > > In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on > intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in > fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between > spatial intervals. > > The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore > shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more > relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is > only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world > all intervals must be finite by definition. Hi Doc, The seemingly infinite distance to the edge of the universe, at 13 billion light years away, is only 7000 times as far as I can see with the naked eye. I can see Andromeda galaxy 2 million light years away. The edge of infinity is 7000 times that far. I can see the Moon and Andromeda together, but Andromeda is 500 trillion times farther than the Moon. Summary. I can see, with my naked eyes, objects that are almost at the end of space. Is eternity any different?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <5k6b3bl4f7nqfv2n1d4ikk2521so8a91dh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368734 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-10, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in >> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space >> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot >> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of >> none that does. >> >> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in >> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME >> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in >> fact they are only mathematical scales. >> >> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on >> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in >> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between >> spatial intervals. >> >> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore >> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more >> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is >> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world >> all intervals must be finite by definition. > >Hi Doc, > >The seemingly infinite distance to the edge of the universe, at 13 billion light years away, is only 7000 times as far as I can see with the naked eye. I can see Andromeda galaxy 2 million light years away. The edge of infinity is 7000 times that far. > >I can see the Moon and Andromeda together, but Andromeda is 500 trillion times farther than the Moon. > >Summary. > >I can see, with my naked eyes, objects that are almost at the end of space. >Is eternity any different? Summary. You didn't get the idea at all.... Not surprising....It is probably too hard for anyone here. The point I am making is that the fact that we cannot conceive of infinite intervals does not mean we should have trouble doing the same with space itself. All intervals have a start and a finish..in the physical sense. Space is not like that at all. It is not an interval. It is just some kind of mathematical convenience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <961ec0ee-d23e-4322-92e7-b0f49fdb3652@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368728 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 12:42:02 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is > therefore shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word > 'infinite' has no more relevance to space or time that it does, for > instance, to the colour red. It is only meaningful with regard to > dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world all intervals must be > finite by definition. The interval between 0 and 1 is finite, therefore numbers can't go on forever. I'm glad your finite mind enlightened us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edfbc527-452b-4b1d-b1c9-450a6e6da7ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368736 |
world all intervals must be > finite by definition. The interval between 0 and 1 is finite, therefore numbers can't go on forever. I'm glad your finite mind enlightened us. http://i59.tinypic.com/35hlj05.jpg The why
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 22:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <563703B2.258F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #368739 |
fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote: > > world all intervals must be > > finite by definition. > > The interval between 0 and 1 is finite, therefore numbers can't go on > forever. I'm glad your finite mind enlightened us. > > http://i59.tinypic.com/35hlj05.jpg > > The why You got your math wrong, it's infinity = 0 and finite = 1 Now, what is the interval between 0 and 1? Or, what comes after 0 and 1?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 14:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ee6dnblyeIk3hqjLnZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368728 |
On 10/31/15 1:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in > terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. One must define the movement of an object with respect to some other object as there are no reference frames of an absolute nature. Galileo, Newton and Einstein all understood this, but I'm not sure that Henry Wilson DSc. knows this. Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > harmoniously co-exist. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 16:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ml6b3b5t9n2cm745hlp86pc686l4m6sd1d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368740 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:51:06 -0500, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/31/15 1:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in >> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. > > One must define the movement of an object with respect to some > other object as there are no reference frames of an absolute nature. > > Galileo, Newton and Einstein all understood this, but I'm not sure > that Henry Wilson DSc. knows this. > > Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity > and reference frames > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail > > > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Of course they have trouble understanding it. They are obviosuly a lot brighter than those who reckon they do. >>Evidence is presented > > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > > harmoniously co-exist. Wormey, you fail to see the point at all. Let's call spatial intervals 'lengths' instead. The properties of an object will define various lengths and so will distances between objects. Lengths are not space. Space is just a geometry we use to construct a physical picture of lengths and their inter relationships. Space itself has no bounds and so there should be no mystery as to how it can be infinite. For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 03:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e6afe7a-5f2e-4170-9be4-1a5ab64fa9bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368761 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:12:18 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > Let's call spatial intervals 'lengths' instead. The properties of an object > will define various lengths and so will distances between objects. > > Lengths are not space. Space is just a geometry we use to construct > a physical picture of lengths and their inter relationships. Space > itself has no bounds and so there should be no mystery as to how it > can be infinite. You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, as usual. > For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were > a number 1 metre rods, Imagine that the earth is the only object in the universe. Does it spin? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The content of these ideas is the same as what you imagine: ZERO! > arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside > the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does > not even exist. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Shakespeare "Henry, you are a flop at philosophy, but don't worry. Most philosophers are too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <782dneKkEqmth6vLnZ2dnUU7-SudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368761 |
On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote: > For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number > 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside > the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even > exist. What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of spinning make little sense. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 10:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l0ac3b5drdgjutt4v0a2bbmuvj1pgjflec@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368781 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>> exist.
>
>
> What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
> it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
> there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
> spinning make little sense.
Nonsense, inertia is an attribute of matter,
indexed to the center of mass of each sediment
of matter, all ideas about any kind of background
"control" of inertia are, and always was, nonsense.
The fact that -that index nearly corresponds
to the background of stars is naturally expected,
because rotation is rotation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n159sv$566$6@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368788 |
kefischer wrote:
> Nonsense, inertia is an attribute of matter,
> indexed to the center of mass of each sediment of matter, all ideas
> about any kind of background "control" of inertia are, and always was,
> nonsense.
>
> The fact that -that index nearly corresponds
> to the background of stars is naturally expected,
> because rotation is rotation.
,esnesnoN aitreni si na etubirtta fo ,rettam
dexedni ot eht retnec fo ssam fo hcae tnemides fo ,rettam lla saedi tuoba
yna dnik fo dnuorgkcab "lortnoc" fo aitreni ,era dna syawla ,saw .esnesnon
ehT tcaf taht taht- xedni ylraen sdnopserroc
ot eht dnuorgkcab fo srats si yllarutan ,detcepxe
esuaceb noitator si .noitator
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 04:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n7ic3bp9u9lgngvopq45mauspk3jal6dgn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368781 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote: >> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number >> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside >> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even >> exist. > > > What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin > it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that > there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of > spinning make little sense. You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation itself is absolute. This is off topic anyway. Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'. If at any instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe. It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval). Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated objects. Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 13:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8OadnZXPpr_h_6vLnZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368802 |
On 11/1/15 11:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote: >>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number >>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside >>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even >>> exist. >> >> >> What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin >> it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that >> there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of >> spinning make little sense. > > You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all > Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation > itself is absolute. > This is off topic anyway. > > Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'. If at any > instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to > prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe. > > It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in > spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval). > > Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated > objects. Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this. > Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of spinning make little sense. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <250d3bhbttdblk1c6pdpdrlo1o6eekvglu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368817 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/15 11:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote: >>>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number >>>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside >>>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even >>>> exist. >>> >>> >>> What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin >>> it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that >>> there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of >>> spinning make little sense. >> >> You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all >> Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation >> itself is absolute. >> This is off topic anyway. >> >> Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'. If at any >> instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to >> prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe. >> >> It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in >> spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval). >> >> Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated >> objects. Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this. >> > > Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a > number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. > > What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin > it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that > there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of > spinning make little sense. This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap. Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey. much bigger than I previously thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 14:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05028fd0-9a80-4ca6-99c8-dc4f85a8c359@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368822 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:17:11 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote: > > This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are > gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap. > > Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey. > much bigger than I previously thought. You have not demonstrated that the proposition is false. All you have done is shown that rotation IS absolute in a universe full of matter. Do you even think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 19:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <RqudnVIKGd_NIavLnZ2dnUU7-SudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368822 |
On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a >> number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. >> >> What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin >> it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that >> there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of >> spinning make little sense. > > This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are > gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap. > > Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey. > much bigger than I previously thought. > But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute rotation, Ralph. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 01:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <9ute3btuoj7n1g2nfonnsgghf0eaap3f9h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368833 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:28:48 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote: >> >> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are >> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap. >> >> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey. >> much bigger than I previously thought. >> > > > But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in > some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute > rotation, Ralph. That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them. otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was rotating, it would soon fly apart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web