Re: Absolute Motion Of Earth Relative To CB
- From: dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bilge)
- Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 08:16:08 GMT
Paul Stowe:
> No, the PoR is the postulates. That is to say, given the
> properties of physical systems must remain unchanged if you just
> change your perspective view AND the TWLS is an observed invariant
> THEN from any observational point of view, one veiw is just as good
> as any other. As eveyone knows, one should NEVER question the
> physical reasons for this to be so, it just plain geometry.
Just because you never question the geometry doesn't mean no one has. In
fact, physicists _have_ done that, which is why they recognized that
blindly accepting 3-d euclidean geometry and creating convoluted schemes
to deal with lorentz invariance was silly. Nature could have just as
easily chosen the geometry of the universe to be the four dimensional
spacetime and skipped all of the convoluted schemes necessary to only make
the universe appear to be four dimensional spacetime. Let me know when you
have a theory that explains 3-dimensional euclidean space rather than
blindly accepting it and then waxing hypocritic. Why do you blindly
attribute so much physics to geometry, paul?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: CMBR- A More Explicit Answer
- Next by Date: Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Absolute Motion Of Earth Relative To CB
- Next by thread: Time Travel, Saigon "Watching George Bush Trying to Pull a Rabbit Out of His Hat"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
