Re: This about Newton's First Law


"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:r8Nle.103153$1h5.6160518@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BVMle.3500$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.

Sure - looked at that way it is simply an issue in semantics. I recall I
even got into a discussion about a particle moving at the speed of light
though time based on something Brian Green said. I took exception to that
remark and argued against it - even to the point that I made some statements
I now know were silly. But I do think those that take the view "nothing
moves" need to be careful people understand the sense they mean it.

> 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 :-)

All the cranks are interesting in their own way. One particularly
interesting quality about Savin is his quick resort to foul language and his
obvious fascination with acts involving the orifice that excretes our solid
waste.

Thanks
Bill

>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>


.