Re: GR ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122315453.90945.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dc2ss1$2id@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | Significant Zero wrote:
> | > Tom seems to be saying the time and distance are invariant except when
> he
> | > needs them to be variant to support some view like the Twins.
> |
> | You need to SIGNIFICANTLY improve your reading ability. I have said
> | nothing whatever like that.
> |
> | Measurements of elapsed proper time are invariant.
>
> Fine you have the view that there is a proper time that is invariant
> cosmically ?

First how about you actually investigate what proper time is - once you do
you will trivially see that from its very definition it is invariant.
Hint - to a person viewing the watch on his/her wrist does the time change?

> or under local environmental changes ?
> And you also hold the view that the same is true for length ?

Instead of posting questions whose answer is obvious once you understand the
concept why not expend a bit of effort to understand the concept?

>
> | Projections of
> | invariant intervals onto coordinate axes are NOT invariant (meaning they
> | are not independent of the axes used). You seem unable to distinguish
> | these cases. Until you learn how you will remain mystified....
>
> Fine and this is similar to the effect of perspective? i.e rotation of the
> observer around the observed and the rotation of the plane of record of
> measurment in relation to the plane of the observed.

That is your definition of perspective - which is not what is always meant.
What you are describing is simply geometric projection which is exactly what
the geometric interpretation of SR claims is going on.

>
> |
> | Note I never discuss "time" or "distance" unqualified, except when
> | responding to others. Your attempt to distill what I have written into a
> | sound bite is hopeless -- this is subtle and such sound bites are
> | completely inadequate. <shrug>
>
> Perhaps if you were more clear coherent and concise in stating your views
I
> would not find this investigation necessary.

Perhaps if you actually investigated the concepts you ask questions about
you would understand them well enough to know the answer.

Bill

>
> |
> |
> | Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problems of four-velocity
    ... Tom, pardon top post...I studied your reply. ... >> Tom, Minkowski spacetime is NOT flat, ... > sense that the Riemann curvature tensor is identically zero ... "s" is invariant and is therefore ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR ?
    ... | Measurements of elapsed proper time are invariant. ... observer around the observed and the rotation of the plane of record of ... | Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sorting a map by value
    ... >automatically or with the sort function.) ... You can't - std::map has an invariant that it is sorted by key. ... parallel maps. ... Tom ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: Big G invariance?
    ... invariance is always "under" some transformation. ... invariant, ... relates the measurement of G to the accuracy of measuring the ... Relative to observer at rest K, the period is measured and a G is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is charge conserved between frames?
    ... A typical "bilge" post if I ever saw on which demonstrates yor poor ... understanding of relativity. ... Just because some quantities are not invariant it doesn't mean its ... The introduction of a specific Lorentz observer into spacetime can be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)