Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406996 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-28 06:58 +1100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-01 12:18 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-28 06:58 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-27 20:15 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 14:20 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-27 20:30 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 02:17 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Irvin Starrett <etrrarn@arneir.etr> - 2017-02-02 05:03 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 12:37 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-28 00:48 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-29 09:44 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 15:03 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-27 14:33 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-29 10:04 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 10:31 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-30 06:46 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 21:55 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-30 20:40 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-30 21:20 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:05 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-31 10:54 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 09:40 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-31 10:20 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 09:27 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-31 15:45 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 11:04 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 16:47 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-02 06:58 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 14:42 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-01 14:00 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-30 17:50 -0500
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-30 17:39 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:08 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-30 09:06 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:12 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-28 12:04 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-28 03:03 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:26 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-29 11:40 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-28 18:21 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:27 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 00:45 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 11:52 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 12:51 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 14:36 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 18:04 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-30 23:42 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 20:10 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-31 10:17 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 09:43 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-02 22:44 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-02 09:37 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-03 08:24 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-03 16:59 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 12:08 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-03 20:18 -0500
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-03 21:39 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-04 12:37 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-04 14:32 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-03 20:23 -0500
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 12:06 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-29 19:50 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 19:59 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-30 06:50 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-30 09:25 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:19 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-31 10:59 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-31 10:49 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-31 10:44 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 10:10 +1100
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 19:03 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-31 10:43 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 10:12 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-01 11:46 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 15:20 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-02 07:00 +1100
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:13 -0800
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:18 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 10:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5890D567.61CC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407322 |
HGW, DSc. wrote: > > On 31/01/17 07:20, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > On 30.01.2017 10:40, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >> On 30/01/17 07:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> I suspected this would be too hard for you. I was right. > >> > >> In an x-t diagram, constant speed of an object is represented by a > >> straight line. Nothing 'moves'. Acceleration causes the line to be > >> curved. Again nothing moves. > > > > And since acceleration causes the x-t line to curve but not to move, > > it is obvious that any movement represents Newtonian acceleration. > > > > Another crystal clear thought. :-D > > > >> Ask yourself, what is an object doing if its x-t LINE IS continually > >> changing somehow? > > > > My parser returns the message "doesn't parse". > > > > Hanry, you are a master of nonsensical self contradictory statements, > > and even if I find them quite funny at times, I have had enough for now. > > Can't answer can you? I'll ask again. What does movement signify in > space/time? the only thing i know that moves in your space/time is tiny little particles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 09:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o6r2uo$1ml5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407385 |
On 01/02/17 05:20, The Starmaker wrote: > HGW, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> Hanry, you are a master of nonsensical self contradictory statements, >>> and even if I find them quite funny at times, I have had enough for now. >> >> Can't answer can you? I'll ask again. What does movement signify in >> space/time? > > > the only thing i know that moves in your space/time is tiny little > particles. ..and what does that actually mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 15:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5891218F.57DA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407428 |
HGW, DSc. wrote: > > On 01/02/17 05:20, The Starmaker wrote: > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > >>> > >>> Hanry, you are a master of nonsensical self contradictory statements, > >>> and even if I find them quite funny at times, I have had enough for now. > >> > >> Can't answer can you? I'll ask again. What does movement signify in > >> space/time? > > > > > > the only thing i know that moves in your space/time is tiny little > > particles. > > ..and what does that actually mean? you want an example? the earth, the planet earth...that thing you walk on yous call a planet..is just a particle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 11:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58923125.526E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407444 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > On 01/02/17 05:20, The Starmaker wrote: > > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > >>> > > >>> Hanry, you are a master of nonsensical self contradictory statements, > > >>> and even if I find them quite funny at times, I have had enough for now. > > >> > > >> Can't answer can you? I'll ask again. What does movement signify in > > >> space/time? > > > > > > > > > the only thing i know that moves in your space/time is tiny little > > > particles. > > > > ..and what does that actually mean? > > you want an example? the earth, the planet earth...that thing you walk > on yous call a planet..is just a particle. carl sagan calls it...a blue dot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 11:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58923334.7317@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407505 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > On 01/02/17 05:20, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> Hanry, you are a master of nonsensical self contradictory statements, > > > >>> and even if I find them quite funny at times, I have had enough for now. > > > >> > > > >> Can't answer can you? I'll ask again. What does movement signify in > > > >> space/time? > > > > > > > > > > > > the only thing i know that moves in your space/time is tiny little > > > > particles. > > > > > > ..and what does that actually mean? > > > > you want an example? the earth, the planet earth...that thing you walk > > on yous call a planet..is just a particle. > > carl sagan calls it...a blue dot. Just imagine if you will.. somebody looking through a very powerful microscope... at all these particles, and suddendly sees.. a pale blue dot. What does it mean? It means they have to get funding for a more powerful microscope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 16:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <589281B8.44D2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407507 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > > > On 01/02/17 05:20, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hanry, you are a master of nonsensical self contradictory statements, > > > > >>> and even if I find them quite funny at times, I have had enough for now. > > > > >> > > > > >> Can't answer can you? I'll ask again. What does movement signify in > > > > >> space/time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only thing i know that moves in your space/time is tiny little > > > > > particles. > > > > > > > > ..and what does that actually mean? > > > > > > you want an example? the earth, the planet earth...that thing you walk > > > on yous call a planet..is just a particle. > > > > carl sagan calls it...a blue dot. > > Just imagine if you will.. > > somebody looking > through a > very powerful > microscope... > at all these particles, > and suddendly sees.. > > a pale blue dot. > The problem with the 'scientific community' is that they don't understand the blue dot. One example, if you're looking for another earth, you'll discover that there only exist only one planet in the entire universe that it's surface is blue like the planet earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 19:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <BtGdnVKR05droQzFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #407322 |
On 1/31/17 1/31/17 3:05 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > What does movement signify in space/time? You repeatedly display your complete IGNORANCE of what science actually is. Physics in general, and spacetime in particular, are MODELS of the world we inhabit, or of interesting alternative worlds. In the MODEL that is spacetime, a pointlike object IN THE MODELED WORLD is represented as a line (its "worldline"). In the MODELED WORLD it can move arbitrarily (within the constraints of its equations of motion), and variations in its motion correspond to bends in its worldline -- inertial pointlike objects have straight worldlines (in SR, geodesic worldlines in GR), while accelerated (non-inertial) pointlike objects have non-straight worldlines. So think about the earth orbiting the sun. In spacetime, using coordinates in which the sun is at rest, its worldline is a helix with radius 1 a.u. and period 1 year; its axis is parallel to the time coordinate. Such a model requires GR, in which this helix is a geodesic path through spacetime. (I am omitting some caveats and conditions for clarity.) In the MODEL those lines are eternal and unchanging (because after all, what is happening in the world is determined by the equations of motion of all its constituents). To THE ANALYST, the entire 4-d spacetime MODEL is available for inspection at any time (i.e. ANALYST'S TIME), and TO THE ANALYST nothing is moving IN THE MODEL. But IN THE WORLD BEING MODELED anything can move within the constraints of its equations of motion. BTW This is no different from Newtonian mechanics -- that is a different model, but the analyst can examine any and all times and locations in the model. So we see that HGW's confusion is due to his poor phrasing, imprecise language, and reliance on PUNS -- "movement" has different meanings (in the world or in the model; relative to other objects in the world being modeled, or relative to the analyst). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 06:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o6tej3$1bop$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407451 |
On 01/02/17 12:42, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 1/31/17 1/31/17 3:05 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> What does movement signify in space/time? > > You repeatedly display your complete IGNORANCE of what science > actually is. > > Physics in general, and spacetime in particular, are MODELS of the > world we inhabit, or of interesting alternative worlds. > > In the MODEL that is spacetime, a pointlike object IN THE MODELED > WORLD is represented as a line (its "worldline"). In the MODELED > WORLD it can move arbitrarily (within the constraints of its > equations of motion), and variations in its motion correspond to > bends in its worldline -- inertial pointlike objects have straight > worldlines (in SR, geodesic worldlines in GR), while accelerated > (non-inertial) pointlike objects have non-straight worldlines. Thank you for repeating what I just told you. I hope you are not trying to take credit for it. ....but you still have not gotten the idea that Einstein's spacetime is bullshit and Galilean is perfectly legitimate. > So think about the earth orbiting the sun. In spacetime, using > coordinates in which the sun is at rest, its worldline is a helix > with radius 1 a.u. and period 1 year; its axis is parallel to the > time coordinate. Such a model requires GR, in which this helix is a > geodesic path through spacetime. See! You don't know Galilean space/time does exactly the same. It does NOT need GR. > (I am omitting some caveats and conditions for clarity.) > > In the MODEL those lines are eternal and unchanging (because after > all, what is happening in the world is determined by the equations of > motion of all its constituents). To THE ANALYST, the entire 4-d > spacetime MODEL is available for inspection at any time (i.e. > ANALYST'S TIME), and TO THE ANALYST nothing is moving IN THE MODEL. > But IN THE WORLD BEING MODELED anything can move within the > constraints of its equations of motion. yes we know all that.... > BTW This is no different from Newtonian mechanics -- that is a > different model, but the analyst can examine any and all times and > locations in the model. > > So we see that HGW's confusion is due to his poor phrasing, > imprecise language, and reliance on PUNS -- "movement" has different > meanings (in the world or in the model; relative to other objects in > the world being modeled, or relative to the analyst). My question to PA was, "what would a moving point or curve signify on a space/time diagram?" I assume you cannot answer that either. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 14:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58926464.4F98@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407513 |
HGW, DSc. wrote: > > On 01/02/17 12:42, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 1/31/17 1/31/17 3:05 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >> What does movement signify in space/time? > > > > You repeatedly display your complete IGNORANCE of what science > > actually is. > > > > Physics in general, and spacetime in particular, are MODELS of the > > world we inhabit, or of interesting alternative worlds. > > > > In the MODEL that is spacetime, a pointlike object IN THE MODELED > > WORLD is represented as a line (its "worldline"). In the MODELED > > WORLD it can move arbitrarily (within the constraints of its > > equations of motion), and variations in its motion correspond to > > bends in its worldline -- inertial pointlike objects have straight > > worldlines (in SR, geodesic worldlines in GR), while accelerated > > (non-inertial) pointlike objects have non-straight worldlines. > > Thank you for repeating what I just told you. I hope you are not trying > to take credit for it. > ....but you still have not gotten the idea that Einstein's spacetime is > bullshit and Galilean is perfectly legitimate. maybe you don't understand what spacetime means... i can explain it to you clearly.. spacetime is the samething as e=mc2, in otherwords energy is mass and mass is energy space is time and time is space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 10:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58938022.1A57@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407531 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > On 01/02/17 12:42, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > On 1/31/17 1/31/17 3:05 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > >> What does movement signify in space/time? > > > > > > You repeatedly display your complete IGNORANCE of what science > > > actually is. > > > > > > Physics in general, and spacetime in particular, are MODELS of the > > > world we inhabit, or of interesting alternative worlds. > > > > > > In the MODEL that is spacetime, a pointlike object IN THE MODELED > > > WORLD is represented as a line (its "worldline"). In the MODELED > > > WORLD it can move arbitrarily (within the constraints of its > > > equations of motion), and variations in its motion correspond to > > > bends in its worldline -- inertial pointlike objects have straight > > > worldlines (in SR, geodesic worldlines in GR), while accelerated > > > (non-inertial) pointlike objects have non-straight worldlines. > > > > Thank you for repeating what I just told you. I hope you are not trying > > to take credit for it. > > ....but you still have not gotten the idea that Einstein's spacetime is > > bullshit and Galilean is perfectly legitimate. > > maybe you don't understand what spacetime means... > > i can explain it to you clearly.. > > spacetime is the samething as e=mc2, > > in otherwords > > energy is mass and mass is energy > > space is time and time is space. of course, if you don't like the word "spacetime", you can call it something else...gravityland.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 14:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cf57c028-7aef-4177-8ef5-07d3bf8785ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407451 |
W dniu środa, 1 lutego 2017 02:42:20 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 1/31/17 1/31/17 3:05 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > What does movement signify in space/time? > > You repeatedly display your complete IGNORANCE of what science actually is. > > Physics in general, and spacetime in particular, are MODELS of the world we > inhabit, Yes. they are models of your sick imagination - the only world you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 17:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <588fc31a$0$53041$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #407139 |
On 1/29/2017 2:46 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 29/01/17 20:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 29.01.2017 00:04, HGW, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> 'AT rest' in Minkowski coordinates merely >>> means constant velocity in Newtonian. >>> >> >> :-D > > I am not at all surprised that you do not understand the significance of > 'spacetime'. Since Newtonian 'velocity' is static in 4D space, it should > be obvious that any 'movement' in 4D represents Newtonian acceleration. > > As the once regular poster here, Louis Savain, used to point out, > "nothing MOVES' in spacetime. Only if you assume spacetime to be a 4 dimensional manifold. Clearly since it "warps" such an assumption is incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 17:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28883107-21de-47d5-ab25-3c06a6fdd05d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407285 |
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 5:50:05 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > On 1/29/2017 2:46 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > On 29/01/17 20:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 29.01.2017 00:04, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >>> > >>> 'AT rest' in Minkowski coordinates merely > >>> means constant velocity in Newtonian. > >>> > >> > >> :-D > > > > I am not at all surprised that you do not understand the significance of > > 'spacetime'. Since Newtonian 'velocity' is static in 4D space, it should > > be obvious that any 'movement' in 4D represents Newtonian acceleration. > > > > As the once regular poster here, Louis Savain, used to point out, > > "nothing MOVES' in spacetime. > > Only if you assume spacetime to be a 4 dimensional manifold. Clearly > since it "warps" such an assumption is incorrect. xxein: Why? What is spacetime then? I want to know exactly what it is so that I may ponder it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 20:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o6pk5m$sm9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407285 |
On 31/01/17 09:50, benj wrote: > On 1/29/2017 2:46 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> On 29/01/17 20:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> On 29.01.2017 00:04, HGW, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>> 'AT rest' in Minkowski coordinates merely >>>> means constant velocity in Newtonian. >>>> >>> >>> :-D >> >> I am not at all surprised that you do not understand the significance of >> 'spacetime'. Since Newtonian 'velocity' is static in 4D space, it should >> be obvious that any 'movement' in 4D represents Newtonian acceleration. >> >> As the once regular poster here, Louis Savain, used to point out, >> "nothing MOVES' in spacetime. > > Only if you assume spacetime to be a 4 dimensional manifold. Clearly > since it "warps" such an assumption is incorrect. Well if you are so knowledgeable, you might like to help Paul Andersen explain what 'movement in spacetime' means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 09:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mpmdnSIQB7QYyxLFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #407086 |
On 1/28/17 1/28/17 - 5:04 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > 'AT rest' in Minkowski coordinates merely means constant > velocity in Newtonian. You merely display your PERSONAL IGNORANCE of what these terms actually mean. > You haven't answered my question at all. How can an object thrown from the ISS > towards the ground be considered inertial? That's because you didn't bother to read what I wrote. I did answer it: >> In General Relativity, a SMALL [#] free falling object is inertial in >> the sense that its proper acceleration is identically zero. Bottom line: when you insist on thinking in sound bites you have no hope of understanding subtle concepts, such as modern physics. And when you don't understand the subject and refuse to study it, you have even less hope. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 20:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o6pkcp$t3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407209 |
On 31/01/17 02:06, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 1/28/17 1/28/17 - 5:04 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> 'AT rest' in Minkowski coordinates merely means constant >> velocity in Newtonian. > > You merely display your PERSONAL IGNORANCE of what these terms actually > mean. > >> You haven't answered my question at all. How can an object thrown from >> the ISS >> towards the ground be considered inertial? > > That's because you didn't bother to read what I wrote. I did answer it: > >>> In General Relativity, a SMALL [#] free falling object is inertial in >>> the sense that its proper acceleration is identically zero. > > Bottom line: when you insist on thinking in sound bites you have no hope > of understanding subtle concepts, such as modern physics. And when you > don't understand the subject and refuse to study it, you have even less > hope. Q) Readers, if it walks like a physicist, talks like a physicist, quacks like a physicist but thinks like a duck, what is it? A) Tom Roberts. > Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-28 12:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ef291iF9qj7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #406996 |
On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > the state of free fall is inertial. > Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a non-inertial observer. As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-28 03:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7bb8505-ea18-44b8-83b6-4eae1cab2ea9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407027 |
W dniu sobota, 28 stycznia 2017 02:04:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > non-inertial observer. And, as every physicist is on the ground - they never apply this rule. Right, lady?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 13:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ef5263Fqm0eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #407047 |
On 28/01/2017 10:03 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 28 stycznia 2017 02:04:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a >> non-inertial observer. > > And, as every physicist is on the ground - they > never apply this rule. > Right, lady? > Wrong. Where theory indicates that the fact that we're non-inertial in the vertical direction, that is taken into account. A physicist who mistakenly neglects the issue will find that their experiments don't produce the expected results, which will prod them to consider what they'd overlooked. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87090d48-c39d-45f1-a450-4053e0a26b00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407094 |
W dniu niedziela, 29 stycznia 2017 03:26:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 28/01/2017 10:03 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 28 stycznia 2017 02:04:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > >> non-inertial observer. > > > > And, as every physicist is on the ground - they > > never apply this rule. > > Right, lady? > > > > Wrong. Where theory indicates that the fact that we're non-inertial in > the vertical direction, that is taken into account. A physicist who > mistakenly neglects the issue will find that their experiments don't > produce the expected results In other words, lady, what You wrote 2 paragraphes above is naive, worthless and has nothing in common with reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web