Re: This about Newton's First Law


"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:BVMle.3500$BR4.1704@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.05.27.19.04.42.402285@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:56:40 +0000, Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1117129736.977597.202340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Mr Savain has rightly pointed out that nothing moves in the early 20th
> > > century relativistic concept but the same applies to Newtonian
> terrestial
> > > ballistics applied to planetary motion.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > > It might be a good idea for you to explain what you mean by nothing
> moves.
> >
> > I can't comment on Savain's notion of reality,
>
> He is simply an idiot who can not even understand what a grade 8 science
> student can - namely Newton's first law of motion.
>
> > but the observation that
> > "nothing moves" in relativity is actually pretty reasonable, I think ...
> > at least from one point of view.
> >
> > In the 4-d representation of the universe, all events just "are". They
> > have particular coordinates which don't change. Worldlines are sets of
> > events, and they don't change either. In this sense, I think it's fair to
> > say "nothing moves", and thinking of it that way can actually help with
> > understanding it, IMHO.
>
> Errrrrr - Sal what would that make the v in the lorentz transformations
> then?

It makes perfect sense.
Motion in space is modeled as a wordline in space*time*.
A worldline is fixed in spacetime. It contains the entire past
and future of the particle. It's not even relativity related.
Brian Greene describes it this way in his "Elegant Universe".
It's a question of how you look at things.

The fact that some seem to like this picture and others don't,
apparently triggered some kind of disaster in Savain's mind
(well, mind... whatever). Interesting to watch, actually :-)

Dirk Vdm


.

Relevant Pages