Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #464837

Re: Why did Einstein bring up the concept of simultaneity when he formulate SRT?

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why did Einstein bring up the concept of simultaneity when he formulate SRT?
Date	2018-07-18 21:54 +0200
Message-ID	<fr9k7tF5udnU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <b222c0fa-3bb4-4a88-821c-e175038cf1be@googlegroups.com> <fr6ultFmfnfU1@mid.individual.net> <ab645fd2-bfe7-440b-ae67-b57228dbcdc1@googlegroups.com> <fr858aFsvaaU1@mid.individual.net> <92d2d43d-8342-4db3-9af1-ec0d292f1a23@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Am 18.07.2018 um 09:42 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 08:32:43 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>> Am 17.07.2018 um 22:45 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 21:34:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>>> Am 17.07.2018 um 20:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 20:51:42 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, precisely, experiment has falsified Euclidean
>>>>> geometry, poor idiot?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to follow the path of a - say - stone through space and
>>>> time, you would certainly do it like this:
>>>>
>>>> the stone is somewhere at the beginning.
>>>
>>> If the EG gave any conclusions about stones,
>>> it would be full of theorems of stones. It
>>> is not. You can't conclude anything about
>>> stones from it. And thus, you can't falsify
>>> it with experiments of stones.
>>>
>>> Try again. Which, precisely, experiment has
>>> falsified Euclidean geometry?
>>>
>>
>> I meant, that stones would prefer polar coordinates (instead of
>> Cartesian), since they don't know, where they are.
> 
> Stones can't prefer anything as they have no brains,
> you know.

Sure.

But stones are an example for an item in nature.

I could use a different example, but most other items have no brain neither.

What I wanted to show was this: nature does not need brains and does not 
need humans to figure things out.

Humans have brains and want to calculate, but nature operates with other 
methods. What those methods are, that is a subject of science, 
especially physics.

So I take again the stone and assume for a minute, it had some sort of 
intelligence and would like to use it in a 'natural way'.

Then the most unlikely method be to use Cartesian coordinates and 
Euclidean space.

More logic would be a behavior I would call 'subjectivism'. That means: 
the stone evolves into the future from the present state, without 
worrying too much about absolute coordinates.

Rectangular coordinates are a typical human invention and do not reflect 
the way, in which natural systems behave.

Other 'unnatural' assumptions are, that space must be linear and 
homogeneous and time must be a universal external dimension.

> 
>> So it would be more 'natural' to think
> 
> It surely would be very natural to be dumb.
> Being an uneducated, dumb monkey is obviously
> a natural state, while being  a civilized,
> educated  human is not.
> 
> But I'm not asking you what is natural, I'm asking
> you how did you falsify EG.
> 

EG is not wrong, but a mathematical concept, which has some merits.

The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean 
space.

I would say: no, they don't. What we do find instead are system, that 
behave like fractals.

TH

Thread

csiph-web