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: BURT on 9 May 2010 16:20
On May 9, 1:19 pm, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote:
> 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?

Well we observe a slower flow out into the distance and its always
opposite.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 16:29
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?

> Well we observe a slower flow out into the distance and its always
> opposite.

What flows?
From: BURT on 9 May 2010 16:57
On May 9, 1:29 pm, Karl Heinz <karlhe...(a)sofort-mail.de> wrote:
> 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?
> > Well we observe a slower flow out into the distance and its always
> > opposite.
>
> What flows?

Energy flows while in motion through space. But sometimes the energy
flow is simply an appearence of you passing something it while moving
through space

Relaitivity is the theory of the appearence of motion that slows in
the distance and is opposite. Unfortunately Einstein never identified
these things for if he would of we would have started with the correct
theory of absolute speed of light and matter in space.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Karl Heinz on 9 May 2010 17:09
BURT wrote:

>> What flows?
>
> Energy flows while in motion through space.

Hmm, but energy is conserved, tho.

> But sometimes the energy flow is simply an appearence of
> you passing something it while moving through space

Ok, that is gravity. When you consider things like moving cars
tho, not moving galaxy centres with a few million sun masses,
the gravity is fully negligible.
From: Thomas Heger on 9 May 2010 18:03
Tim BandTech.com schrieb:
> 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:

>>>> 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.

The argument with Earth and Moon (of Karl Heinz) isn't very helpful in
this context, because these Planets seem to be comoving. There is
possibly some movement perpendicular to the ecliptic, that we can't see,
because we are fixed to our FoR. But from somewhere in the far distance
we could see this and our worldline would be visible.
The limited speed of light makes our impression distorted, since we
could not see, what is happening now. Since the distances at a remote
spot are different, too, seen from there, we would have a different
impression of the universe. So our view is special to us, because our
view is depending on location and movement. This is the case for every
single spot, hence we have some kind of multiverse, that is actually the
same, but different parts are visible and we would see different
configurations of the same things.
Events, that happened for us could be invisible somewhere distant,
because there they have not happened. So our view of space is our
impression only and does not represent something 'real'.
So, what is 'real' then? Since we could take invisible events as at
imaginary distances (if we describe observed distances with real
numbers), the universe could be based on such relations in general.
This is Minkowski's 4D view with imaginary numbers, what would lead us
to complex four-vectors.

Greetings

Thomas
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 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.