3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Physics]
|
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 02:25 Thomas Heger schrieb: > Relativity tells us, that different points of view are equivalent, Because the projections of spaces into subspaces depends on every possible point. > but what is seen then is different, too. Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 9 May 2010 08:46 On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > Thomas Heger schrieb: > > > Relativity tells us, that different points of view are equivalent, > > Because the projections of spaces into subspaces depends on > every possible point. > > > but what is seen then is different, too. > > Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or > standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. Heger has been eloquent, and Karl is not necessarily offering an adequate contradiction here. Here is a translation of Einstein: "If the principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore expect that the direction of motion of the earth at any moment would enter into the laws of nature, and also that physical systems in their behaviour would be dependent on the orientation in space with respect to the earth." - http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html I'm sure there is some more apt quote, but already I see ways to falsify Einstein's argument. The sun shines on just half of the earth, for instance. Physical systems certainly do behave differently depending on their orientation with respect to the earth. This is why we see ice sheets near the poles, jungles near the equator. Too simpleminded? I would argue for primitive thinking, and getting these postulates ironed out in a standalone fashion. When we dissect down to say the electron modern science tells us that the electron does have an inherent magnetic moment. This is an anisotropic construction, in comparison to the raw isotropic charge which was assumed in Maxwell's time. - Tim
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 08:54 Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: >> Thomas Heger schrieb: >> >>> Relativity tells us, that different points of view are equivalent, >> >> Because the projections of spaces into subspaces depends on >> every possible point. >> >>> but what is seen then is different, too. >> >> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or >> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. > I'm sure there is some more apt quote... Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship. You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world, so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics?
From: Tim BandTech.com on 9 May 2010 10:04 On May 9, 8:54 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > > On May 9, 2:25 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > >> Thomas Heger schrieb: > > >>> Relativity tells us, that different points of view are equivalent, > > >> Because the projections of spaces into subspaces depends on > >> every possible point. > > >>> but what is seen then is different, too. > > >> Nope, whether you are sitting on earth watching the moon rising or > >> standing on moon watching mother earth rising does'nt change anything. > > I'm sure there is some more apt quote... > > Consider one camera situated one the moon and another one placed on > mother earth, both transmitting their pictures to your space ship. > > You are watching two scenes, but there is still just one world, > so how could the base position of a projection change it? Would > a thousand observers make thousand worlds with different physics? I accept a unified reality and unified spacetime as well. Still in that each position in spacetime is unique then each observer does indeed observe differently than the others. You've completely deleted my argument, and I'm guessing you did not have a direct falsification. This is more the level at which I would attempt to discuss this. The isotropic assumption is not necessarily accurate. Axiomatic thinking is still possible, and if we find one of Einstein's axioms is challengable then we have a lead on a replacement theory. To what degree should Einstein simply have admitted that any theory is built of axioms, and that any axioms which yield correspondence to reality are valid? Einstein has nearly legitimated the old thinking that the surface of the earth is flat, as he has allowed curvature of space itself. Still, we do not see light beams travelling along the horizon of the earth so this curvature cannot be the totality. Again I will try returning to "If the principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore expect that the direction of motion of the earth at any moment would enter into the laws of nature, and also that physical systems in their behaviour would be dependent on the orientation in space with respect to the earth." - http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html Shall we simply attempt the inversion that Einstein himself suggests: The direction of motion of the earth at this moment enters into the laws of nature, and the physical system's behavior is dependent on the orientation in space with respect to the earth. I feel comfortable admitting the truth of this statement to the point of questioning the validity of the translation. I have merely to swing a plumb bob made of a rock and some natural fiber in order to satisfy Einstein's criteria. If you wish to see a more serious version go to science museum and witness their pendulum clock: http://www.flickr.com/photos/seeminglee/3828623537/ Now please, Karl, if you wish to provide a sound falsification, let's try and take it as carefully as possible since these are things so fundamental as to be confused and overlooked within the mimicry which allows this information's propagation. We are mere humans. - Tim
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 10:07
Tim BandTech.com schrieb: > You've completely deleted my argument, and I'm guessing you did not > have a direct falsification. I didn't even read it because my reply is obvious in either case. |