Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387488 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 18:02 +0200
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 16:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 17:55 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-10 07:16 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:04 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:25 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 10:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:00 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 17:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:12 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:08 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:42 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:07 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:29 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 22:48 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 07:03 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:37 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 22:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-16 22:17 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:47 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 07:09 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-17 10:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 06:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 15:27 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-16 15:31 +1000
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-16 12:15 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-18 15:01 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Greg Buttler <grgb@novotnysite.org> - 2016-07-22 16:09 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 12:21 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Tsvetana Kasatkina <tzve@noemail.info> - 2016-07-29 20:23 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 08:14 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:43 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-23 12:33 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:41 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-24 07:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 09:21 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-27 07:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-23 11:21 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 09:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:02 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 16:23 +0200
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:44 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:22 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-29 13:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 11:32 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:19 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:35 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:56 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 13:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 16:09 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 15:03 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 16:05 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 12:30 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 13:36 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 08:27 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 14:17 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 18:01 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-05 08:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:40 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-06 14:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-10 10:52 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:46 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-07-26 12:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-07 11:16 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:21 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:36 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 10:10 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 13:14 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:16 -0700
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 12:09 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 13:35 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:17 -0400
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 17:51 -0400
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:41 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 05:27 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-05 05:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:07 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 07:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:57 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:49 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05980596-8ec5-43b4-a223-17f0c8f106a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389509 |
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:25:05 PM UTC-7, astro...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2016 22:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-7, astro...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu sobota, 6 sierpnia 2016 21:40:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > No, it's based on certain rules which, among other things, includes intellectual honesty. > > > > > > Indeed. The males was and still are more primitive... beings, stupid, naïve, > > > therefore they are more vulnerable to the indoctrination, dogmatism, religion, fanaticism and any other fallacious semi-, para-, and pseudoscientific ideology. > > > > > > > You won't get anywhere in physics with what you do. > > > > > > You didn't seen and never met any physics yet, as any stupid male malcontent. > > > > You are talking about yourself in the third person again. > > Stupid. > Your idiotic pseudoscience has been destroyed long time ago. > > You are like the dinosaur in the garden.. very big immaterial idiocy. As far as physics is concerned, it doesn't matter what you say. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4053a894-37a7-41df-9fed-0bb154a235d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389517 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2016 23:16:04 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:25:05 PM UTC-7, astro...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2016 22:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-7, astro...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu sobota, 6 sierpnia 2016 21:40:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > No, it's based on certain rules which, among other things, includes intellectual honesty. > > > > > > > > Indeed. The males was and still are more primitive... beings, stupid, naïve, > > > > therefore they are more vulnerable to the indoctrination, dogmatism, religion, fanaticism and any other fallacious semi-, para-, and pseudoscientific ideology. > > > > > > > > > You won't get anywhere in physics with what you do. > > > > > > > > You didn't seen and never met any physics yet, as any stupid male malcontent. > > > > > > You are talking about yourself in the third person again. > > > > Stupid. > > Your idiotic pseudoscience has been destroyed long time ago. > > > > You are like the dinosaur in the garden.. very big immaterial idiocy. > > As far as physics is concerned, it doesn't matter what you say. physicists said: I have a theory... about your theory, haha! Go away, stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dvlqrnFf53gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388212 |
On 23/07/2016 1:39 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/16/16 7/16/16 12:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're >> different, >> they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one would have >> to be wrong. > > Sure there can, as long as they predict the same result(s) for the > experiments. > > Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different > theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any > experiment within their domain (which is common to all). I'd tend to regard them as different manifestations of the same underlying theory. > > Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet > they predict the same results for any experiment within their common > domain. They are mathematically the same. LET is just derived differently, based on the assumption of something that the theory doesn't include, and doesn't describe. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 16:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dvlqtmFf53gU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388336 |
On 25/07/2016 4:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > I'd tend to regard them as different manifestations of the same > underlying theory. "formulations" is more appropriate word than "manifestations". Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn4kuj$a4d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #388336 |
On 07/25/2016 08:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 23/07/2016 1:39 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> >> Sure there can, as long as they predict the same result(s) for the >> experiments. >> >> Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different >> theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any >> experiment within their domain (which is common to all). > > I'd tend to regard them as different manifestations of the same > underlying theory. But a theory is a model. Different theories/models cannot be different formulations of the unknown model. There can exist different interpretations of the same known model. It can later come ( and often comes ) a model, that unifies the previous models, or one of models is abandoned having unnecessery assumptions, narrower scope, or they are distinguished later by not yet known phenomena. > >> >> Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet >> they predict the same results for any experiment within their common >> domain. > > They are mathematically the same. LET is just derived differently, based > on the assumption of something that the theory doesn't include, and > doesn't describe. > Being equivalent does not mean being the same, what is not limited neither to theories neither to physics. Like there is several very different yet equivalent formulations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 12:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <U_idnTIRiouy0QvKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388336 |
On 7/25/16 7/25/16 - 1:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 23/07/2016 1:39 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different >> theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any >> experiment within their domain (which is common to all). > > I'd tend to regard them as different manifestations of the same underlying theory. OK, let's be more careful. To me a physical theory consist of: 1. A set of postulates (aka axioms) and theorems derived from them. 2. A set of definitions for the meaning of every symbol in #1. Two theories are "the same" if their #1 and #2 are both identical sets. Note that in #1 the distinction between postulate and theorem disappears, and any sufficient set of postulates will yield the same theory. In this sense, Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are indeed all the same theory. >> Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet >> they predict the same results for any experiment within their common >> domain. > > They are mathematically the same. LET is just derived differently, based on the > assumption of something that the theory doesn't include, and doesn't describe. Not in the above sense. LET starts out with a postulate "There is an ether which is at rest in a unique inertial frame." -- that does not appear in SR, so they are NOT the same theory. Indeed there are lots of theorems in LET that do not appear in SR; these two theories always give the same predictions for MEASUREMENTS, but not for internal calculations [#]. [#] E.g. in LET the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c only in the ether frame, but MEASUREMENTS of its speed will yield c in any inertial frame. This happens because the behavior of REAL clocks and rulers exactly cancels the underlying anisotropy in the speed. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57caa905-fc01-4015-948c-38cf3da8bf69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388388 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 25 lipca 2016 19:28:21 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 7/25/16 7/25/16 - 1:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 23/07/2016 1:39 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different > >> theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any > >> experiment within their domain (which is common to all). > > > > I'd tend to regard them as different manifestations of the same underlying theory. > > OK, let's be more careful. To me a physical theory consist of: > 1. A set of postulates (aka axioms) and theorems derived from them. > 2. A set of definitions for the meaning of every symbol in #1. > > Two theories are "the same" if their #1 and #2 are both identical sets. Note > that in #1 the distinction between postulate and theorem disappears, and any > sufficient set of postulates will yield the same theory. > > In this sense, Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are indeed all > the same theory. > > > >> Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet > >> they predict the same results for any experiment within their common > >> domain. > > > > They are mathematically the same. LET is just derived differently, based on the > > assumption of something that the theory doesn't include, and doesn't describe. > > Not in the above sense. LET starts out with a postulate "There is an ether which > is at rest in a unique inertial frame." -- that does not appear in SR, so they > are NOT the same theory. Indeed there are lots of theorems in LET that do not > appear in SR; these two theories always give the same predictions for > MEASUREMENTS, but not for internal calculations [#]. > > [#] E.g. in LET the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c > only in the ether frame, but MEASUREMENTS of its speed will > yield c in any inertial frame. This happens because the > behavior of REAL clocks and rulers exactly cancels the > underlying anisotropy in the speed. You are talking nonsenses. One simple fact: the LET predicts precisely the real speed in the ether frame for any body, thus there are no paradoxes, contradictions, which are typical for the SR. What is a speed of the Solar System in the SR? None.. but in the LET it exists, thus it can be measured - verified!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 12:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn7d1l$1msu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388388 |
Op 25/07/2016 om 19:28 schreef Tom Roberts: > On 7/25/16 7/25/16 - 1:45 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 23/07/2016 1:39 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different >>> theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any >>> experiment within their domain (which is common to all). >> >> I'd tend to regard them as different manifestations of the same >> underlying theory. > > OK, let's be more careful. To me a physical theory consist of: > 1. A set of postulates (aka axioms) and theorems derived from them. > 2. A set of definitions for the meaning of every symbol in #1. > > Two theories are "the same" if their #1 and #2 are both identical sets. > Note that in #1 the distinction between postulate and theorem > disappears, and any sufficient set of postulates will yield the same > theory. > > In this sense, Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are > indeed all the same theory. > > >>> Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet >>> they predict the same results for any experiment within their common >>> domain. >> >> They are mathematically the same. LET is just derived differently, >> based on the >> assumption of something that the theory doesn't include, and doesn't >> describe. > > Not in the above sense. (...) Another example is that SRT can be obtained from a set of (intuitive) "relativity" axioms, yielding constant speed of light as a theorem instead of taking in as a (non-intuitive) axiom. -- guido 'wugi'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <geOdnWcUmrurdgXKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388447 |
On 7/26/16 7/26/16 - 5:11 AM, wugi wrote: > Another example is that SRT can be obtained from a set of (intuitive) > "relativity" axioms, yielding constant speed of light as a theorem instead of > taking in as a (non-intuitive) axiom. Yes. I have pointed this out many times around here. But I would characterize the postulate as "invariance" or "symmetry" rather than "relativity", even though Einstein did call it the "principle of relativity". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e00hv8F6396U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388521 |
Am 27.07.2016 19:11, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> Another example is that SRT can be obtained from a set of (intuitive) >> "relativity" axioms, yielding constant speed of light as a theorem >> instead of >> taking in as a (non-intuitive) axiom. > > Yes. I have pointed this out many times around here. But I would > characterize the postulate as "invariance" or "symmetry" rather than > "relativity", even though Einstein did call it the "principle of > relativity". > The principle of relativity includes variance of length of material objects (length contraction) and time intervals (time dilation). To call this a 'postulate of invariance' is a little twisted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity Quote "The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion. — Henri Poincaré, 1904" So the laws of nature do not change (are invariant). Since some parts of nature do in fact change (e.g. length of material objects) it is the question, which laws are not subject to a change of velocity in uniform motion. Especially the 'speed of time' seems to be variable. This is not measurable, hence get 'normalised' away. In a spacetime diagram the axis of time is put into vertical and the hyperplane of the present in horizontal direction - irrespective of 'real' movement. This is actually possible, but makes time a local unit and linked to the co-moving hyperplane of the present. So time is 'movement with no space' and present means 'movement with no time'. What we call 'space' is therefore 'relative', too, since it is a combination of both 'movements' in space and time (the past light cone). So with every possible axis of time we also have an associated 'universe', but only one in every single case. What is not an invariant upon such changes of the length of time intervals, that is the content of such a 'universe' - whether they are material or not. So one ray of light is a ray of light only in respect to the universe it passes through. Also material objects would vanish if time is altered. So we have variance of items, which we usually regard as invariant. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfh99$1alu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
On 7/29/2016 3:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > So the laws of nature do not change (are invariant). > > Since some parts of nature do in fact change (e.g. length of material > objects) it is the question, which laws are not subject to a change of > velocity in uniform motion. And so it's useful to learn the difference between laws (which are invariant) and the values of properties which appear in those laws (which are variant). -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <no7kh212cnu@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:21:40 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > Relativity can be used to model: > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > relative to the spatial dimensions. > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a supreme dunce! Relativity is used to transform 4-vectors (ct, x, y, z) within a 4-D manifold (space) according to the Lorentz transformation. All dimensions are on an equal footing. The same for energy-momentum 4-vectors. Your statement above is only a strange gibberish that uses a few of the appropriate terms but embodies absolutely no appropriate meaning. Get back to your Microsoft Windows. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 11:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <359a43fc-8b9e-4e30-b27b-bd1e7b0e5b4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389390 |
W dniu niedziela, 7 sierpnia 2016 17:36:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks napisał: > On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:21:40 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > Relativity can be used to model: > > > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > > relative to the spatial dimensions. > > > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > What a supreme dunce! > > Relativity is used to transform 4-vectors (ct, x, y, z) > within a 4-D manifold (space) according to the Lorentz > transformation. > > All dimensions are on an equal footing. The same for > energy-momentum 4-vectors. So, this is a fantasy only, because no 4D space exists in reality. In the math you can use: the complex pairs, quaternions, pentagons, octets, etc. stupid abstraction only... like the numbers: you never seen any number in the reality yet, stupid man! > Your statement above is only a strange gibberish that > uses a few of the appropriate terms but embodies absolutely > no appropriate meaning. However You are still more stupid...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 13:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <5694c53e-2782-484c-9064-883cd12e5ef8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389395 |
On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 11:16:57 AM UTC-7, astro...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 7 sierpnia 2016 17:36:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks napisał: > > On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:21:40 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > > > > > > > Relativity can be used to model: > > > > > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > > > relative to the spatial dimensions. > > > > > > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > > > What a supreme dunce! > > > > Relativity is used to transform 4-vectors (ct, x, y, z) > > within a 4-D manifold (space) according to the Lorentz > > transformation. > > > > All dimensions are on an equal footing. The same for > > energy-momentum 4-vectors. > > So, this is a fantasy only, because no 4D space exists in reality. This is irrelevant: all physics consists of models which don't exist in reality. So this is a non-sequitur "objection". > In the math you can use: the complex pairs, > quaternions, pentagons, octets, etc. Pentagons? Dunce hats? > stupid abstraction only... like the numbers: > you never seen any number in the reality yet, stupid man! In other words, you have no point to make except asserting a general philosophical triviality. > > Your statement above is only a strange gibberish that > > uses a few of the appropriate terms but embodies absolutely > > no appropriate meaning. > > However You are still more stupid... Yes, even an ignoramus can say that. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | astrofoton@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 13:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <881685a4-e714-4699-afe8-e2cc70fc5806@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389508 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 8 sierpnia 2016 22:22:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > Pentagons? Try this: pentoquantipiramidonosolononsense. Good enough? > > stupid abstraction only... like the numbers: > > you never seen any number in the reality yet, stupid man! > > In other words, you have no point to make except asserting a general > philosophical triviality. 'Philosophical triviality'. bahahaha! Another uneducated... mass of a fresh meat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <beednVspjt797TrKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
On 8/7/16 8/7/16 9:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Thomas_Heger wrote: >> the 'speed of time' seems to be variable. > > Relativity can be used to model: > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > relative to the spatial dimensions. No. You REALLY need to learn something about relativity before attempting to write about it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <7ssgqbt3625q980qhd48rmbjcukjtp1n06@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #389393 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >On 8/7/16 8/7/16 9:21 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. |
| Message-ID | <e0qj1uFf62dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #388633 |
Am 07.08.2016 16:21, schrieb Jeff-Relf.Me: > Thomas_Heger wrote: >> the'speed of time' seems to be variable. > > Relativity can be used to model: > > The rate at which the time axis grows, > relative to the spatial dimensions. Usually I go the opposite way: (local) time is put into vertical direction. 'Space' as a concept is based on light, So we want to express with something remote in space (say a star), that intervals in space are measured in light-years. This is not really the same thing as we denote with 'distance' in our close vicinity, which we usually measure with rigid devices. But distant objects are far away also in time (and in space). If we add timelike and spacelike intervals equally, we get what is called the 'past-light-cone'. So what we see in space is actually restricted to our own past light cone. This light-cone is always centred around the axis of time. The inverse to the axis time is called spacelike and that denotes the 'hyper-plane' of the present. That hyperplane is perpendicular to the axis of time. Now we move along our local axis of time by some sort of force, which tends to 'push' us into the future. The light-cone and the hyperplane of the present we take with us (into the future). Now we could watch other objects and think about their local axis of time. Then we find, their time seems to run at slightly different rates, compared with ours. Usually their time runs slower by a very small amount. That means: their local axis of time has an angle toward our own local axis of time, since the other objects are at other places. We could also define the set of all places, where the time-rate is equal to ours, while the vertical at an angle. This is apparently the surface of planet Earth, where all clocks tick at the same rate. (The set of places with such a feature I call 'time-domain'.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 10:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. |
| Message-ID | <fa89bed4-e154-46e8-83a7-e361706735cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389427 |
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:12:42 AM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, > the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will". > > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. Baloney! This kind of nonsense makes you a victim of time, a whining weasel. I am not a victim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. |
| Message-ID | <57A8C933.47F3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #389427 |
Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > TakuyaSaitoh wrote: > > I need to go back to the past some 30 years > > to warn myself of some disastrous events coming. > > _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past; > the (4d) TimeScape is static. The more ignorant you are, > the more you (erroneously) believe in "free will". > > We were programmed by nature to breathe, drink, etc. you can easily change the past if the information of the past is wrong... from example if you discover late that your mother is not your mother..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web