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 14:29
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 one 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 to each other in any point in time.

Its just one world which remains the same one at any point of
time no matter where observers are.

Also, Einstein's argument:
"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."

Even this argument does not relate to the different observers argument(!),
because, no matter how the one object mentioned is oriented in space
would any observer just see different views of that one and same object.

There is another theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
but I guess you didn't refer to that one.
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 15:52
On May 9, 11:29 am, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote:
> 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 one 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 to each other in any point in time.
>
> Its just one world which remains the same one at any point of
> time no matter where observers are.
>
> Also, Einstein's argument:
>    "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."
>
> Even this argument does not relate to the different observers argument(!),
> because, no matter how the one object mentioned is oriented in space
> would any observer just see different views of that one and same object.
>
> There is another theory:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
> but I guess you didn't refer to that one.

The Sun sets in the opposite direction than the Earth is turning.
Relative motion is opposite and slows down in the distance. These
things which of Einstein did not see.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 15:58
BURT wrote:

> Relative motion is opposite and slows down in the distance.

I don't understand what you mean by this statement.
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 16:08
On May 9, 12:58 pm, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote:
> BURT wrote:
> > Relative motion is opposite and slows down in the distance.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by this statement.

When driving for instance or in any motion things appear to move
opposite in direction and they slow down as you look into the
distance. It is a simple observation that shows Einstein did not
understand the fact of absolute motion of matter and light in space.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 16:19
BURT wrote:

> When driving for instance or in any motion things appear to move
> opposite in direction and they slow down as you look into the
> distance.

So, looking makes things slower?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
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.