Prev: The Death of Christianity... BYE BYE
Next: Station's clock with respect to the train
From: Just Me on 3 Apr 2010 02:39
On Mar 31, 3:45 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2:19 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On page 42, Graham Farmelo, in speaking of Dirac's attendance to the
> > early lectures of Charlie Broad as per Relativity and the Pythagorean
> > theorem, has this to say . . .
>
> > "In the space-time of (SR), things are different: the square of the
> > distance between two points in space-time is equal to the sum of the
> > squares of the spatial lengths *minus* the square of the time. Dirac
> > later recalled 'the tremendous impact' on him of Broad's writing down
> > that minus sign."
>
> > I should say so!  But doesn't this strike you as more in the realm of
> > GR than SR?  In other words, with a purely geometric observation of
> > distance between the three points of a right triangle--how can TIME
> > enter into the consideration, where there is no event involved?  OR,
> > is this to say that in curved Riemannian (or geodesic) space, where
> > space is curved by an influence of gravity, space IS AN EVENT now to
> > be called "space-time"?  TIME being the essence of gravity
> > (acceleration) and therefore that curvature.  I.e., in space without
> > mass & gravity, such space would be Euclidian, where TIME is not of
> > the essence. Not of the essence because not of an event of masses
> > accelerating in time to be observed.
>
> > Or what?
> > --
> > JM

From: Frisbieinstein on 3 Apr 2010 07:31
On Apr 1, 11:59 pm, Just Me <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> So, maybe the physicists hanging around these groups never heard of
> Paul Dirac?
>
> On Apr 1, 12:02 am, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 3:45 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 2:19 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On page 42, Graham Farmelo, in speaking of Dirac's attendance to the
> > > > early lectures of Charlie Broad as per Relativity and the Pythagorean
> > > > theorem, has this to say . . .
>
> > > > "In the space-time of (SR), things are different: the square of the
> > > > distance between two points in space-time is equal to the sum of the
> > > > squares of the spatial lengths *minus* the square of the time. Dirac
> > > > later recalled 'the tremendous impact' on him of Broad's writing down
> > > > that minus sign."
>
> > > > I should say so!  But doesn't this strike you as more in the realm of
> > > > GR than SR?  In other words, with a purely geometric observation of
> > > > distance between the three points of a right triangle--how can TIME
> > > > enter into the consideration, where there is no event involved?  OR,
> > > > is this to say that in curved Riemannian (or geodesic) space, where
> > > > space is curved by an influence of gravity, space IS AN EVENT now to
> > > > be called "space-time"?  TIME being the essence of gravity
> > > > (acceleration) and therefore that curvature.  I.e., in space without
> > > > mass & gravity, such space would be Euclidian, where TIME is not of
> > > > the essence. Not of the essence because not of an event of masses
> > > > accelerating in time to be observed.
>
> > > > Or what?
> > > > --
> > > > JM

Ain't nobody here but us chickens, boss.
From: Just Me on 5 Apr 2010 12:42
On Mar 31, 3:45 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2:19 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On page 42, Graham Farmelo, in speaking of Dirac's attendance to the
> > early lectures of Charlie Broad as per Relativity and the Pythagorean
> > theorem, has this to say . . .
>
> > "In the space-time of (SR), things are different: the square of the
> > distance between two points in space-time is equal to the sum of the
> > squares of the spatial lengths *minus* the square of the time. Dirac
> > later recalled 'the tremendous impact' on him of Broad's writing down
> > that minus sign."
>
> > I should say so!  But doesn't this strike you as more in the realm of
> > GR than SR?  In other words, with a purely geometric observation of
> > distance between the three points of a right triangle--how can TIME
> > enter into the consideration, where there is no event involved?  OR,
> > is this to say that in curved Riemannian (or geodesic) space, where
> > space is curved by an influence of gravity, space IS AN EVENT now to
> > be called "space-time"?  TIME being the essence of gravity
> > (acceleration) and therefore that curvature.  I.e., in space without
> > mass & gravity, such space would be Euclidian, where TIME is not of
> > the essence. Not of the essence because not of an event of masses
> > accelerating in time to be observed.
>
> > Or what?
> > --
> > JM

From: Just Me on 5 Apr 2010 18:46
On Mar 31, 3:45 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2:19 pm, J Seymour MacNicely <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On page 42, Graham Farmelo, in speaking of Dirac's attendance to the
> > early lectures of Charlie Broad as per Relativity and the Pythagorean
> > theorem, has this to say . . .
>
> > "In the space-time of (SR), things are different: the square of the
> > distance between two points in space-time is equal to the sum of the
> > squares of the spatial lengths *minus* the square of the time. Dirac
> > later recalled 'the tremendous impact' on him of Broad's writing down
> > that minus sign."
>
> > I should say so!  But doesn't this strike you as more in the realm of
> > GR than SR?  In other words, with a purely geometric observation of
> > distance between the three points of a right triangle--how can TIME
> > enter into the consideration, where there is no event involved?  OR,
> > is this to say that in curved Riemannian (or geodesic) space, where
> > space is curved by an influence of gravity, space IS AN EVENT now to
> > be called "space-time"?  TIME being the essence of gravity
> > (acceleration) and therefore that curvature.  I.e., in space without
> > mass & gravity, such space would be Euclidian, where TIME is not of
> > the essence. Not of the essence because not of an event of masses
> > accelerating in time to be observed.
>
> > Or what?
> > --
> > JM

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: The Death of Christianity... BYE BYE
Next: Station's clock with respect to the train