Re: TIME, you old gipsy man
From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Beginner's Question about Bernoulli and Tanks"
- In reply to: Alex: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:56:04 GMT
"Alex" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1108135609.410931.153330@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> "Doesn't really matter what Weyl thinks" Of course it does, relativity
> was not finished with Einstein any more than classical mechanics is
> wholly dependent on the works of Galileo. After Einstein there was
> Minkowski who proposed that the invariance of the space-time interval
> could be modelled with a complex euclidean geometry, and later used a
> non-euclidean approach. Modern work uses the non-euclidean style.
>
> Your view seems to be that length intervals are invariant and time is
> unrelated to space.
Yes, of course.
I think apples are unrelated to oranges as well, so I don't mix those
either.
Time is not a vector, it has no inverse.
When Einstein defined
' the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A. ' the bloody fool didn't know what he
was doing, and he was totally inept mathematically when he wrote
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)).
Maybe you can tell me the time interval between
(x,0,0,t) and (0,0,0,t) if you wildly imagine (x,0,0,0) is time.
> This view is not common nowadays (except on
> sci.physics.relativity and cross posts). Certainly this 'presentism',
> although taught at school, is very problematic and not at all
> intuitive, if only the present exists and this contains no time at
> all,
> how could you know anything? Nothing moves in no time at all, you
> could
> not, for instance, know the recorded information in your brain because
> whatever 'knows' would be frozen at a durationless instant.
So we are discussing nonsense, the idiot Einstein that began it all
didn't know what a vector was, and certainly was attempting to use (and
failed) euclidian geometry.
How many metres are there in an apple and how many oranges are there in
a second anyway, since this "modern work" ?
Androcles.
> Best Wishes
>
> Alex Green
>
- Next message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Beginner's Question about Bernoulli and Tanks"
- In reply to: Alex: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|