| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2005 08:44:31 AM |
| Object: |
Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
In Euclidean physics a body will "rest", or move at a constant speed;
in a straight line, unless a (net) force is exerted on, and/or by it:
In non-Euclidean physics bodies are constantly changing speed and
direction; depending on their proximity to other bodies.
Don
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 08:52:05 AM |
|
|
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion
continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external
force *independent* of the geometry"!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 10:20:25 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion
continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external
force *independent* of the geometry"!
Well I don't think that a body at rest, can stay at rest and a body in
motion can not change its speed or direction, if it's in space-time
geometry. Isn't the curvature of space-time constantly changing as
bodies roll around on those rubber sheets?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
16 Oct 2005 09:28:37 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in
motion continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon
by an external force *independent* of the geometry"!
Well I don't think that a body at rest, can stay at rest and a
body in motion can not change its speed or direction, if it's in
space-time geometry. Isn't the curvature of space-time constantly
changing as bodies roll around on those rubber sheets?
You make it sound like some kind of fetish orgy on a king-size
double bed ;-P
Gotta admit though, at the risk of sounding patronising, you are
branching out from displacements and slugs, which is a good thing.
Just because spacetime can be curved doesn't mean it _is_ curved
everywhere - In a locally flat region, masses can remain at rest
or move in uniform motion a-la Newton's laws.
Also, contrary to what you said in another post, in Relativity
gravity isn't the only force that can act on a body. There can
be electromagnetic forces involved as well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 11:08:31 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion
continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external
force *independent* of the geometry"!
Well I don't think that a body at rest, can stay at rest and a body in
motion can not change its speed or direction, if it's in space-time
geometry. Isn't the curvature of space-time constantly changing as
bodies roll around on those rubber sheets?
Rest is no different that not rest... it's just a matter of perspective.
Geodesic (Shead take a look at geodesic)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 12:23:15 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion
continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external
force *independent* of the geometry"!
Well I don't think that a body at rest, can stay at rest and a body in
motion can not change its speed or direction, if it's in space-time
geometry. Isn't the curvature of space-time constantly changing as
bodies roll around on those rubber sheets?
Rest is no different that not rest... it's just a matter of perspective.
Geodesic (Shead take a look at geodesic)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html
Well you see Sam, in Euclidean physics, space is nothingness, so there
are no surfaces relative to which geodesic curved paths of moving
bodies can bend extend or even exist: That is absolute motion in
Euclidean space proceeds without bending, or changing speed around
bodies, unless a net force is exerted on and/or by a body, and causes
it to change speed, or direction.
The only net force that will curve a body around another is caused by
gravitation; where all bodies are constantly gravitating toward each
other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 01:14:55 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Rest is no different that not rest... it's just a matter of perspective.
Geodesic (Shead take a look at geodesic)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html
Well you see Sam, in Euclidean physics, space is nothingness, so there
are no surfaces relative to which geodesic curved paths of moving
bodies can bend extend or even exist: That is absolute motion in
Euclidean space proceeds without bending, or changing speed around
bodies, unless a net force is exerted on and/or by a body, and causes
it to change speed, or direction.
The only net force that will curve a body around another is caused by
gravitation; where all bodies are constantly gravitating toward each
other.
Well I'll be.... Do you try to be this way or does it just come
naturally, Shead?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
17 Oct 2005 09:20:03 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion
continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external
force *independent* of the geometry"!
Well I don't think that a body at rest, can stay at rest and a body in
motion can not change its speed or direction, if it's in space-time
geometry. Isn't the curvature of space-time constantly changing as
bodies roll around on those rubber sheets?
Rest is no different that not rest... it's just a matter of perspective.
Geodesic (Shead take a look at geodesic)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html
Well you see Sam, in Euclidean physics, space is nothingness, so there
are no surfaces relative to which geodesic curved paths of moving
bodies can bend extend or even exist: That is absolute motion in
Euclidean space proceeds without bending, or changing speed around
bodies, unless a net force is exerted on and/or by a body, and causes
it to change speed, or direction.
No, Don, the question really amounts to this: If I set two things off
in the same direction (e.g. in parallel lines) and arrange things as
best I can so that they will go straight, will their paths eventually
cross (as Riemann says can happen) or will they stay parallel (as
Euclid says must happen)? The experimental fact is that they cross.
Once one recognizes that the space is Riemannian, then one can puzzle
over things like, "But there are no surfaces for the two objects to
roll onn...."
The only net force that will curve a body around another is caused by
gravitation; where all bodies are constantly gravitating toward each
other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
17 Oct 2005 10:19:09 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion
continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external
force *independent* of the geometry"!
Well I don't think that a body at rest, can stay at rest and a body in
motion can not change its speed or direction, if it's in space-time
geometry. Isn't the curvature of space-time constantly changing as
bodies roll around on those rubber sheets?
Rest is no different that not rest... it's just a matter of perspective.
Geodesic (Shead take a look at geodesic)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html
Well you see Sam, in Euclidean physics, space is nothingness, so there
are no surfaces relative to which geodesic curved paths of moving
bodies can bend extend or even exist: That is absolute motion in
Euclidean space proceeds without bending, or changing speed around
bodies, unless a net force is exerted on and/or by a body, and causes
it to change speed, or direction.
No, Don, the question really amounts to this: If I set two things off
in the same direction (e.g. in parallel lines) and arrange things as
best I can so that they will go straight, will their paths eventually
cross (as Riemann says can happen) or will they stay parallel (as
Euclid says must happen)? The experimental fact is that they cross.
Not only does Euclid say that straight lines stay straight, but Newton
does too. Once one realizes that space is nothing, then it becomes
clear that a net force is required to change the speed, and or
direction of a body moving in a straight line. Like you say, there are
no surfaces in space to roll around on.
The problem must be in _arranging_ two things so that they will go
straight and parallel.
Once one recognizes that the space is Riemannian, then one can puzzle
over things like, "But there are no surfaces for the two objects to
roll onn...."
The only net force that will curve a body around another is caused by
gravitation; where all bodies are constantly gravitating toward each
other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
17 Oct 2005 10:52:16 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
PD wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Shouldn't that be "a body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion
continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external
force *independent* of the geometry"!
Well I don't think that a body at rest, can stay at rest and a body in
motion can not change its speed or direction, if it's in space-time
geometry. Isn't the curvature of space-time constantly changing as
bodies roll around on those rubber sheets?
Rest is no different that not rest... it's just a matter of perspective.
Geodesic (Shead take a look at geodesic)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html
Well you see Sam, in Euclidean physics, space is nothingness, so there
are no surfaces relative to which geodesic curved paths of moving
bodies can bend extend or even exist: That is absolute motion in
Euclidean space proceeds without bending, or changing speed around
bodies, unless a net force is exerted on and/or by a body, and causes
it to change speed, or direction.
No, Don, the question really amounts to this: If I set two things off
in the same direction (e.g. in parallel lines) and arrange things as
best I can so that they will go straight, will their paths eventually
cross (as Riemann says can happen) or will they stay parallel (as
Euclid says must happen)? The experimental fact is that they cross.
Not only does Euclid say that straight lines stay straight, but Newton
does too.
Yes, it turns out that Newton wasn't right about this, either.
Once one realizes that space is nothing, then it becomes
clear that a net force is required to change the speed, and or
direction of a body moving in a straight line. Like you say, there are
no surfaces in space to roll around on.
The problem must be in _arranging_ two things so that they will go
straight and parallel.
Ah, yes, must be an *experimental* problem. If we can't get the
experimental results to line up with our theoretical expectations, it
must be a problem with the *experiment*.
Once one recognizes that the space is Riemannian, then one can puzzle
over things like, "But there are no surfaces for the two objects to
roll onn...."
The only net force that will curve a body around another is caused by
gravitation; where all bodies are constantly gravitating toward each
other.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Minus XVII" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 01:26:28 PM |
|
|
don't "reify" the coordinate system, Dood.... actually,
I don't know the exact definition of that word, but
it's not pronounced "rifey."
to give an example of what I mean,
Schroedinger's Exploding Headgasket is an example
of reification by the Copenhagen Schoolers;
you don't know if *most* *****-cats are dead or alive, either.
Well you see Sam, in Euclidean physics, space is nothingness, so there
are no surfaces relative to which geodesic curved paths of moving
bodies can bend extend or even exist: That is absolute motion in
Euclidean space proceeds without bending, or changing speed around
bodies, unless a net force is exerted on and/or by a body, and causes
it to change speed, or direction.
The only net force that will curve a body around another is caused by
gravitation; where all bodies are constantly gravitating toward each
other.
thus:
there's also a technical term for Noam,
Fabian Socialist. that is the core
of the "Labor Party" of Britain;
their official rag is The New Statesman,
where they also called Australian PM Howard,
"Dubya's lapdog," which is a total fabrication
re Blair or any other Subject.
after all, Blair's policy was the same as Thatcher's
-- Hey, George; let's you and Saddam fight!
see http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac.
thus:
just as a possible nonsequiter,
"nonlinear" also refers to teh sequence,
fermatian (or cartesian), cylindrical, spherical, ________; or,
trilinear, bilinear, unilinear, nonlinear; or
nonpolar, unipolar, bipolar, tripolar co-ordination.
them which are all equivalent, of course,
by trigonametrical (and tetrahedronom.) substitution, but
"some integrals etc. may be simpler, thereby."
thus:
well of course there is curvature of "space-time;"
Gauss measured it with his theodolite!
thus quoth:
"We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual
rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates."
--Trickier *****'s Obnoxicon?
http://larouchepub.com/other/2005/3237energy_heist.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 10:27:47 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
In Euclidean physics a body will "rest", or move at a constant speed;
in a straight line, unless a (net) force is exerted on, and/or by it:
In non-Euclidean physics bodies are constantly changing speed and
direction; depending on their proximity to other bodies.
Idiot Dumb Donny *****. Hey Dumb Donny *****, what ***** wll
you spew when you spew some non-commutative geometry from your *****?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 01:51:22 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43511FF3.F9F467B1@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles posted the
orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
done. They literally drool foaming spit.
They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
are.
The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
LITLE PEOPLE LIKE UNCLE SNIPCRAP HATE THAT and will
throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
Standard
of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result. The net result is
the
trivially reproducible falsification of Special Relativity in existing
mathematics
all over the world. Professionals call this "science." We don't care
what
god-fearing witch burners and wog haters call it.
Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
rogue
researcher.
It's happening. Let the universe decide.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
16 Oct 2005 02:01:50 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
16 Oct 2005 05:01:45 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4352A39E.939EC05B@hate.spam.net...
| Androcles wrote:
| [snip crap]
|
| Androcles <=>Jämmerlichkeit
|
|
| --
| Uncle Al
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
| (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Auntie Alice <=> Wanker
Schwartz is *****.
The Chinese told him "*****, you DUMB *****"
They were right.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Euclidean physics vs Non-Eucliean physics |
15 Oct 2005 12:25:23 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Don1 wrote:
In Euclidean physics a body will "rest", or move at a constant speed;
in a straight line, unless a (net) force is exerted on, and/or by it:
In non-Euclidean physics bodies are constantly changing speed and
direction; depending on their proximity to other bodies.
Idiot Dumb Donny *****. Hey Dumb Donny *****, what ***** wll
you spew when you spew some non-commutative geometry from your *****?
Blow it out of your nose Potty Mouth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
