| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"TomGee" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2005 12:35:17 PM |
| Object: |
Error in BHOT? |
I wonder if anyone else has had some doubtful moments as I have had
regarding a passage in "ABHoT", Ch. 9, page 146?
In the last sentence, 2nd-to-last paragraph, Prof. Hawking states,
"When the cup was broken, they would remember it being on the table,
but when it was on the table, they would not remember it being on the
floor."
It seems that the latter effect he describes is opposite to that which
should ensue if disorder would decrease with time. I.e., if in the
future a cup we are looking at in the present falls off the table and
breaks, and entropy is decreased during the time we saw it and until it
fell, it seems we should remember it having been on the floor first and
at some time after that, we must see it on the table unbroken.
If the analogy is to stand, we must see the cup unbroken once and
broken afterward when entropy increases, and we must also see the cup
broken once and unbroken next. It seems to me that we must see the cup
broken and unbroken in both directions of entropy in order for the
analogy to be properly compared.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
23 Sep 2005 09:15:33 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
I wonder if anyone else has had some doubtful moments as I have had
regarding a passage in "ABHoT", Ch. 9, page 146?
In the last sentence, 2nd-to-last paragraph, Prof. Hawking states,
"When the cup was broken, they would remember it being on the table,
but when it was on the table, they would not remember it being on the
floor."
It seems that the latter effect he describes is opposite to that which
should ensue if disorder would decrease with time. I.e., if in the
future a cup we are looking at in the present falls off the table and
breaks, and entropy is decreased during the time we saw it and until it
fell, it seems we should remember it having been on the floor first and
at some time after that, we must see it on the table unbroken.
If the analogy is to stand, we must see the cup unbroken once and
broken afterward when entropy increases, and we must also see the cup
broken once and unbroken next. It seems to me that we must see the cup
broken and unbroken in both directions of entropy in order for the
analogy to be properly compared.
Did you post this nonsense somewhere else under a different name
[Thomas Garcia]?
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
23 Sep 2005 10:43:25 PM |
|
|
And the relevance of your question to mine, James, is ...?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
23 Sep 2005 11:28:50 PM |
|
|
The relevance is; are you Tom Gee and Thomas Garcia? Or are you Tom Gee
copying Thomas Garcia? Or is this just a coincidence with an
infintesimal probability actually being realized? Kinda like the broken
cup spontaneously reorganizing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
24 Sep 2005 03:15:28 PM |
|
|
So how is that relevant, v...? Don't tell us you believe in infinite
probabilities ever occurring some day? If you do, you must believe
angels and compassionate conservatives exist! Some day you must come
to the realization that because in our minds anything is possible,
physical law does not obey our minds no matter how much we wish upon a
star.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
25 Sep 2005 01:09:01 PM |
|
|
My guess [have to guess since you are to embarrased to anser my
original query] is you post as Tom Gee and Thomas Garcia. Both are
knuckleheads of the first order. Two knuckleheads for the price of one.
Telescopic time travel into the future, hilarious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
25 Sep 2005 02:28:55 PM |
|
|
Well, Bruce, you post as two idiots, so what?
I don't recall your response to "Telescopic Time Travel?" under either
name. Which means you were too stupid to understand the question or
too afraid of looking stupid by answering.
Others did answer, however, and at least tried to answer the question.
Apparently you think it was not a question but a claim and so you
think that was hilarious. If I did claim that it would have been
funny, I agree, but you cannot tell the difference between a question
and a statement so I guess everything is funny to you.
If I had made a claim about that, I would have been in good company, as
Einstein made claims that were later hilarious. You claim objects can
move without an energy source and that is truly hilarious. I'm just
starting with you so you'll have to wait for me to discover other
hilarious claims you make.
Oh yes, you make wild statements without any support for them which
identifies you as incapable of proper debate. All you can do is post
opinions without any basis of support. Pity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
19 Sep 2005 07:03:12 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
I wonder if anyone else has had some doubtful moments as I have had
regarding a passage in "ABHoT", Ch. 9, page 146?
In the last sentence, 2nd-to-last paragraph, Prof. Hawking states,
"When the cup was broken, they would remember it being on the table,
but when it was on the table, they would not remember it being on the
floor."
It seems that the latter effect he describes is opposite to that which
should ensue if disorder would decrease with time. I.e., if in the
future a cup we are looking at in the present falls off the table and
breaks, and entropy is decreased during the time we saw it and until it
fell, it seems we should remember it having been on the floor first and
at some time after that, we must see it on the table unbroken.
If the analogy is to stand, we must see the cup unbroken once and
broken afterward when entropy increases, and we must also see the cup
broken once and unbroken next. It seems to me that we must see the cup
broken and unbroken in both directions of entropy in order for the
analogy to be properly compared.
xxein: 'So the disorder would increase with time as opposed with the
disorder decreased with time' (as he states in a nutshell). I see your
point.
He does seem to have ventured into his own fantasy. He uses 'time' as
the order of events and then tries to re-invest it as an 'entropy only
time'. How sad.
It would help those without a copy of his book to have included the
three relevant paragraphs, verbatim. Or more?
It may be sad, also, that we all think we know things. It is even
sadder when we have no doubt.
Chow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
19 Sep 2005 08:41:29 PM |
|
|
x..., I was concerned with copyright abuse. I paraphrased as much as I
could, hoping I had explained it well. I was not sure I was reading
the book correctly, too. I thought I may be missing something in the
passage. I think he meant to say it right, but he he or his helpers
got it wrong, I think. It does not affect his idea, it is just that he
explained his idea in a wrong way.
Why hasn't anyone else discovered the error, I thought to myself.
Maybe because I am wrong in my comprehension of what he is saying. I
struggled with it off and on and finally decided to ask others about
it.
I may still be wrong, but it seems to me that his example is invalid
because it could not occur and because even assuming it could occur
(all's fair in love and theoretical physics), the observers would first
see the broken cup and not remember it being on the table (Hawkings
claims they would remember it being on the table), and next see it
being on the table and remember it being broken on the floor. Since
time is running backward, the present is the past (broken cup), and the
future comes later (unbroken cup). Hope that helps, as it's confusing
as hell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
19 Sep 2005 10:06:00 PM |
|
|
From my understanding, if time went backwards, then our memories will
also be backwards: we will remember things before they happened and
forget them once they happened. That is exactly what is described in
the book. What it means is, time may or may not already be going
backwards but we will not be able to observe it since our perception is
still to see the cup on the table then later broken on the floor. What
he's saying is it doesn't matter which direction "actual" time is
flowing. What matters is the direction entropy is flowing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
20 Sep 2005 05:16:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
From my understanding, if time went backwards, then our memories will
also be backwards: we will remember things before they happened and
forget them once they happened. That is exactly what is described in
the book.
Thanks for your response. Hawking makes no such claim that our
memories would also run "backwards". In fact, he starts out by
assuming that God decided that entropy should run backwards, and that
disorder would decrease with time, and that we would see broken cups on
the floor gather themselves up and come together on a tabletop, and any
human beings observing the cups would be living in that same universe
where disorder increased with time, and that they would have a backward
"psychological arrow of time" and remember the future but not their
past. All that clearly shows that the observers are in the same
reference frame (i.e., that particular universe) and see the same
things that are occurring in that frame in succession and not
backwards. If our memories were accessed backwardly, in a universe
where we would see first a broken cup and secondly unbroken, our
memories would remember first an unbroken cup and next a broken one.
Thus, our memories could not be said to be running backward as well.
Your argument to the contrary, Hawking states that the observers would
see the broken cup first (the future) and remember it being unbroken
(the past), but then when later they saw the cup unbroken (the past),
they would _not_ remember seeing it being broken (the future). Why
not? If they saw the cup broken at first, then later saw the cup
unbroken, why should they not then remember seeing it broken
previously?
Like Einstein and his static universe calculations, no one wants to
admit they cannot understand his posit else they be thought dumb. Or
else, as I first suspected, no one but me saw it as a contradiction in
his explanation. I have nothing to lose here except face, but I can
turn red in private and that helps to save some face, so I admit having
the idea that Hawking could be wrong in his explanations of his
assumptions.
What it means is, time may or may not already be going
backwards but we will not be able to observe it since our perception is
still to see the cup on the table then later broken on the floor. What
he's saying is it doesn't matter which direction "actual" time is
flowing. What matters is the direction entropy is flowing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
20 Sep 2005 04:29:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
From my understanding, if time went backwards, then our memories will
also be backwards: we will remember things before they happened and
forget them once they happened. That is exactly what is described in
the book. What it means is, time may or may not already be going
backwards but we will not be able to observe it since our perception is
still to see the cup on the table then later broken on the floor. What
he's saying is it doesn't matter which direction "actual" time is
flowing. What matters is the direction entropy is flowing.
That is a very naive argument. It is like arguing that the direction of
time is a matter of convention or something like taking absolute values
of t and -t. That naive thinking cannot support entropy as the cause of
the arrow of time. The real question is, since the equations of motion
are symmetric in t and -t, why there are no phenomena in which time is
reversing, i.e. the cup assembled back from the pieces after it breaks.
By asserting that it is entropy that causes the arrow of time, it is
like begging thr question. Instead of dealing with he mystery of time,
we are left with the mistery of entropy.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
19 Sep 2005 10:37:05 PM |
|
|
That's what's nice about cybernetics. You don't even entertain the
thought that time can flow backwards. It adopts physical
constructivism. It's the difference between living in a Spielberg
fantasy world and one where you actually achieve things.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
18 Sep 2005 02:35:47 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
I wonder if anyone else has had some doubtful moments as I have had
regarding a passage in "ABHoT", Ch. 9, page 146?
In the last sentence, 2nd-to-last paragraph, Prof. Hawking states,
"When the cup was broken, they would remember it being on the table,
but when it was on the table, they would not remember it being on the
floor."
Hawking, being another crank like Einstein, never learned logic. he
does not understand the concept of necessity and sufficieny. What he
describes is necessary but not sufficient for not having time reversal.
There may be other processes, mechanisms, etc. that prevent humans
being aware of time reversals. For instance, Russell once said that one
cannot prove that the world was not created 5 minutes ago with all the
artifacts and memories necessary so we think it has been there for a
long time.
Of course, Russell was a logician whereas Hawking is just a crank.
Mike
It seems that the latter effect he describes is opposite to that which
should ensue if disorder would decrease with time. I.e., if in the
future a cup we are looking at in the present falls off the table and
breaks, and entropy is decreased during the time we saw it and until it
fell, it seems we should remember it having been on the floor first and
at some time after that, we must see it on the table unbroken.
If the analogy is to stand, we must see the cup unbroken once and
broken afterward when entropy increases, and we must also see the cup
broken once and unbroken next. It seems to me that we must see the cup
broken and unbroken in both directions of entropy in order for the
analogy to be properly compared.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
18 Sep 2005 03:36:45 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1127072147.933019.119000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Hawking, being another crank like Einstein, never learned logic.
Let's be fair, Mike. He admitted last Thursday on BBC's Horizon
programme
that he was wrong. I expect it will be shown on PBS's "Nova" in a few
weeks.
Hawking's greatest mistake was allowing his first wife to wheel his
gurney
away when I offered to buy him a beer down at Sussex U.
I could have straightened his sorry arse out 31 years ago but he was
***** whipped.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "June R Harton" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
20 Sep 2005 01:23:54 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:xdkXe.42190$k22.24529@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Cool.
But, anyway, I have a question for you....
In SR it is arbitrarily considered that the transverse direction to the
direction of travel does not change....they thus derive the 'time
dilation' (by inserting the 'ct' for that direction) and go on to examine
the direction of travel and 'prove' non-simultaneity and length
contraction in the direction of travel.
My Q is...WHAT IF the transverse dimension actually contacted?
Say, for instance, if in the direction of travel the front gets quashed
back some and all other dimensions contact except the rear
which GREW? It appears to me that not only would a certain
degree of contaction in the transverse direction make a ZERO
time dilation, but the scenario could also get rid of non-simultaneity
and also, depending on the amount of growth to the rear it would
also get rid of length contraction.
What do you think, could the math work on this?
Thanks!
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
20 Sep 2005 12:58:04 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Hawking's greatest mistake was allowing his first wife to wheel his
gurney
away when I offered to buy him a beer down at Sussex U.
I could have straightened his sorry arse out 31 years ago but he was
***** whipped.
What other reason could there possibly be for him
to refuse an invitation from such a charming fellow
as you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "June R Harton" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
20 Sep 2005 01:39:58 AM |
|
|
Typos corrected:
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:xdkXe.42190$k22.24529@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Cool.
But, anyway, I have a question for you....
In SR it is arbitrarily considered that the transverse direction to the
direction of travel does not change....they thus derive the 'time
dilation' (by inserting the 'ct' for that direction) and go on to examine
the direction of travel and 'prove' non-simultaneity and length
contraction in the direction of travel.
My Q is...WHAT IF the transverse dimension actually contacted?
Say, for instance, if in the direction of travel the front gets squashed
back some and all other dimensions contract except the rear
which GREW? It appears to me that not only would a certain
degree of contraction in the transverse direction make a ZERO
time dilation, but the scenario could also get rid of non-simultaneity
and also, depending on the amount of growth to the rear it would
also get rid of length contraction.
What do you think, could the math work on this?
Thanks!
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
20 Sep 2005 08:15:39 AM |
|
|
Dear June R Harton:
"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:29OXe.287$8B6.19@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
....
My Q is...WHAT IF the transverse dimension actually contacted?
Then experiments that confirm length contraction fail. Consider
the thought experiment where light is reflected back and forth
between two mirrors... with the reflection path perpendicular to
the line-of-motion of the mirrors. If the distance between the
mirrors was reduced, then the witnessed speed of light in the
moving frame must be lower.
Additionally, transverse contraction would provide potential
sources for black holes, since decreasing all spatial dimensions,
increases density. We've pushed electrons to high enough
energies that they should have become black holes and evaporated
as something other than electrons. Yet they consistently stay as
electrons, with the proper momentum.
Length contraction and time dilation are fully in agreement with
"an ilusion of persepctive on 4D spacetime". No need in reading
into it more than it can support.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "June R Harton" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
28 Sep 2005 01:42:00 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:%XTXe.253988$E95.202144@fed1read01...
Ok, but there appears to be errors in the thought process re relativity.
Look at that transverse direction in the moving frame. They use the fact
of the light being shifted by the moving system to get the triangle where
they work out the time dilation. That means the photon is _shifted_ by
the moving system...IS affected by it....
_But_ in the direction of motion...they have "no effect" on the photon
by the moving system and that causes lack of simultaneity!
Something appears to stink in the state of relativity. Review that
contradiction and let me know if there is any way that it can be justified.
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
28 Sep 2005 08:24:02 AM |
|
|
Dear June R Harton:
"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:YWq_e.393$qX7.354@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in
message news:%XTXe.253988$E95.202144@fed1read01...
Ok, but there appears to be errors in the thought process
re relativity.
Look at that transverse direction in the moving frame. They
use the fact of the light being shifted by the moving system
to get the triangle where they work out the time dilation.
If it is "fact", why are you questioning it?
That means the photon is _shifted_ by
the moving system...IS affected by it....
Don't use "photon", rather use "light". What is affected by the
motion of the observer is the relationship between the emitter
and the observer. In space with low curvature, the "choice of
path" has little effect.
_But_ in the direction of motion...they have "no effect"
on the photon by the moving system and that causes
lack of simultaneity!
Light's velocity is c (in a vacuum) for all frames. What
"effect" do you expect any appartus or artificial geometry to
impose on its speed?
Something appears to stink in the state of relativity.
Review that contradiction and let me know if there is
any way that it can be justified.
I find no justification for your choice of "contradiction", no.
All round trips achieve a two way light speed average of c.
Tested ad nauseum, in as many ways as we could devise.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "June R Harton" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
29 Sep 2005 02:11:38 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:RPw_e.288063$E95.170404@fed1read01...
You are missing the point. Transverse it shifts with the motion BUT
in the direction of motion no shift occurs. Bogus situation.
If light is independent it should not shift in the transverse diection.
If it is not independent it should also shift in the direction of motion.
Or YOU can explain why not?
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
29 Sep 2005 08:01:59 AM |
|
|
Dear June R Harton:
"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:KsM_e.1371$cF6.344@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in
message news:RPw_e.288063$E95.170404@fed1read01...
You are missing the point. Transverse it shifts with the
motion BUT in the direction of motion no shift occurs.
Bogus situation.
Bogus description. Light doesn't care what vectors you
artifically break it up into, that is *your* problem. So
correctly said "Path it appears to shift with motion." Which is
true for any thing that moves.
If light is independent it should not shift in the transverse
diection. If it is not independent it should also shift in the
direction of motion.
Or YOU can explain why not?
Done.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "June R Harton" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
28 Jan 2006 03:42:10 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:7BR_e.304056$E95.171520@fed1read01...
Dear June R Harton:
"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:KsM_e.1371$cF6.344@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in
message news:RPw_e.288063$E95.170404@fed1read01...
You are missing the point. Transverse it shifts with the
motion BUT in the direction of motion no shift occurs.
Bogus situation.
Bogus description. Light doesn't care what vectors you
artifically break it up into, that is *your* problem. So
correctly said "Path it appears to shift with motion." Which is
true for any thing that moves.
If light is independent it should not shift in the transverse
diection. If it is not independent it should also shift in the
direction of motion.
Or YOU can explain why not?
Done.
David A. Smith
So consider a pair of mirrors in 'empty space and they are facing
each other and moving to the right with a constant velocity and a
lightray is omitted from the bottom mirror towards the top mirror
....why does that lightpath trace out a hypotenuse...what makes
it go along to the right with the two mirrors?
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
28 Jan 2006 05:28:22 PM |
|
|
"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:S%GCf.8974$NS6.5037@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:7BR_e.304056$E95.171520@fed1read01...
Dear June R Harton:
"June R Harton" <JUNEHARTON@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:KsM_e.1371$cF6.344@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in
message news:RPw_e.288063$E95.170404@fed1read01...
You are missing the point. Transverse it shifts with the
motion BUT in the direction of motion no shift occurs.
Bogus situation.
Bogus description. Light doesn't care what vectors you
artifically break it up into, that is *your* problem. So
correctly said "Path it appears to shift with motion." Which is
true for any thing that moves.
If light is independent it should not shift in the transverse
diection. If it is not independent it should also shift in the
direction of motion.
Or YOU can explain why not?
Done.
David A. Smith
So consider a pair of mirrors in 'empty space and they are facing
each other and moving to the right with a constant velocity and a
lightray is omitted from the bottom mirror towards the top mirror
...why does that lightpath trace out a hypotenuse...what makes
it go along to the right with the two mirrors?
Why do right triangles obey Pythagoras's theorem?
Bill
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
28 Jan 2006 06:22:45 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:q6TCf.229789$V7.10151@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Why do right triangles obey Pythagoras's theorem?
Bill
Because there is no local space-time curvature in the problem - i.e. the
space is Euclidean, so the prerequisites for the Pythagorean theorem are
satisfied.
If a simple gravitational field *had* been specified, then space-time would
exhibit a positive curvature and A^2 + B^2 would be *less than* C^2.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "June R Harton" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
09 Feb 2006 02:05:21 AM |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RsidneNJwJJgl0HeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:q6TCf.229789$V7.10151@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Why do right triangles obey Pythagoras's theorem?
Bill
Because there is no local space-time curvature in the problem - i.e. the
space is Euclidean, so the prerequisites for the Pythagorean theorem are
satisfied.
If a simple gravitational field *had* been specified, then space-time
would
exhibit a positive curvature and A^2 + B^2 would be *less than* C^2.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Tom, how does Minkowski's 3D 'Pythag' theorem work?
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
29 Jan 2006 05:11:37 PM |
|
|
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RsidneNJwJJgl0HeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:q6TCf.229789$V7.10151@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Why do right triangles obey Pythagoras's theorem?
Bill
Because there is no local space-time curvature in the problem - i.e. the
space is Euclidean, so the prerequisites for the Pythagorean theorem are
satisfied.
If a simple gravitational field *had* been specified, then space-time
would
exhibit a positive curvature and A^2 + B^2 would be *less than* C^2.
Correct. But of course Tom we know you know what you are talking about. I
simply want idiots who post silly questions like 'why does that lightpath
trace out a hypotenuse' to think at the level you would expect of a 12 year
old. Even someone of that age recognizes a simple application of geometry
when they see it and can nut out the assumptions being made. The basic
assumption is one of Euclidian geometry which really is based on the
Pythagorean theorem, which is equivalent to Playfairs axiom, which is
equivalent to the angles of a triangle adding up to 180% etc.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ParallelPostulate.html
One simply notes that from the definition of an inertial frame stationary
straight lines and points obey Euclidian geometry.
Thanks
Bill
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "June R Harton" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
09 Feb 2006 02:05:22 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:JYbDf.230575$V7.28210@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RsidneNJwJJgl0HeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:q6TCf.229789$V7.10151@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Why do right triangles obey Pythagoras's theorem?
Bill
Because there is no local space-time curvature in the problem - i.e. the
space is Euclidean, so the prerequisites for the Pythagorean theorem are
satisfied.
If a simple gravitational field *had* been specified, then space-time
would
exhibit a positive curvature and A^2 + B^2 would be *less than* C^2.
Correct. But of course Tom we know you know what you are talking about.
I
simply want idiots who post silly questions like 'why does that lightpath
trace out a hypotenuse' to think at the level you would expect of a 12
year
old. Even someone of that age recognizes a simple application of geometry
when they see it and can nut out the assumptions being made. The basic
assumption is one of Euclidian geometry which really is based on the
Pythagorean theorem, which is equivalent to Playfairs axiom, which is
equivalent to the angles of a triangle adding up to 180% etc.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ParallelPostulate.html
One simply notes that from the definition of an inertial frame stationary
straight lines and points obey Euclidian geometry.
Thanks
Bill
Not as simple as that, Bill. Theory is theory. The fact that a light ray
(Photon)
is supposed to be independent of the source etc WOULD make a relevent
Q as to why it would not simply go straight in the moving system of which it
is
independent as described. You should be able to see that a CAUSE would be
required.
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
28 Jan 2006 08:31:01 PM |
|
|
In article <RsidneNJwJJgl0HeRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, "tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> writes:
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message
news:q6TCf.229789$V7.10151@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Why do right triangles obey Pythagoras's theorem?
Bill
Because there is no local space-time curvature in the problem - i.e. the
space is Euclidean, so the prerequisites for the Pythagorean theorem are
satisfied.
If a simple gravitational field *had* been specified, then space-time would
exhibit a positive curvature and A^2 + B^2 would be *less than* C^2.
This has nothing to do with what triangles do, in Euclidean geometry.
Only with the issue whether Euclidean geometry is a good map of the
observable world.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Error in BHOT? |
29 Jan 2006 12:55:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
This has nothing to do with what triangles do, in Euclidean geometry.
The question was about the Pythagorean theorem. This theorem *presumes*
Euclidean geometry.
The dynamics of triangles was never a question.
Only with the issue whether Euclidean geometry is a good map of the
observable world.
That is an interesting question as well, touching as it does upon the
limits of applicability of Newtonian physics (i.e. is Newton 'good
enough' to describe the observable world?) which in turn raises the
question of what level of accuracy are we persuing in our measurements.
This question, however, is *also* not the question to which I was
responding, which was "Why do right triangles obey Pythagoras's
theorem?"
Focus, Mati, focus!
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
