3 dimensions and their 6 directions
in [Math]
|
Prev: how much is...
Next: " THE END OF AN HISTORIC ERA OF PRIME NUMBER HEGEMONY OF MATHEMATICS" AN INVITATION TO ALL MATHEMATICIANS, BY INVERSE19 MATHEMATICS TO SEE THE "WIZARD" IN HIS BOX.
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.
From: Tim BandTech.com on 9 May 2010 14:03 On May 9, 10:07 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: > 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. OK Karl. Thanks for your input. - Tim
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 14:16
Tim BandTech.com wrote: > On May 9, 10:07 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote: >> 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. > > OK Karl. Thanks for your input. Hey Tim... Did you mean this 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." It is the same argument for both observers. That is, for both of them are THE SAME ice sheets near the poles and the only difference is that one might see them while the other may not. Of course, will the movies from earth and moon be different, but there ist still just one earth and one moon which have a single relation at any point in time. Its just one world which remains the same one at any point of time no matter where observers are. There is another theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation but I guess you didn't refer to that one. |