| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Henry Haapalainen" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2005 11:02:32 AM |
| Object: |
Expedition in falling space |
Let us make a voyage into four-dimensional space (falling space is the
fourth dimension). In the theory, I say that the events should be seen from
a correct perspective, and the correct perspective is the basic state where
we experience no force acting on us.
You are floating somewhere in space. But then in the vicinity you see a
point that starts to enlarge. You identify it as a planet that seems to
approach you with increasing speed. You can only wait and fear for the
worst. But the planet does not hit you after all, it passes close by. And a
strange thing happens: in passing, it changes its direction. You stay still
all the time, and not even a hair moves on your head. If you had been
sleeping, you would know nothing about it.
Now we change the scenario: two planets approach you from separate
directions. Luckily they miss you again, although they both go pretty close.
Will you float serenely again? Not this time. You get into quite a turmoil,
and that is because of tidal force.
As you float in space, you can move almost at the speed of light, comparing
to something other, or stay still - it will not affect your state, and you
are not aware of it.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
04 Sep 2005 12:54:33 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen:
Let us make a voyage into four-dimensional space (falling space is the
fourth dimension). In the theory, I say that the events should be seen from
a correct perspective, and the correct perspective is the basic state where
we experience no force acting on us.
Quantify that statement.
You are floating somewhere in space. But then in the vicinity you see a
point that starts to enlarge. You identify it as a planet that seems to
approach you with increasing speed. You can only wait and fear for the
worst. But the planet does not hit you after all, it passes close by. And a
strange thing happens: in passing, it changes its direction. You stay still
all the time, and not even a hair moves on your head. If you had been
sleeping, you would know nothing about it.
Now we change the scenario: two planets approach you from separate
directions. Luckily they miss you again, although they both go pretty close.
Will you float serenely again? Not this time. You get into quite a turmoil,
and that is because of tidal force.
As you float in space, you can move almost at the speed of light, comparing
to something other, or stay still - it will not affect your state, and you
are not aware of it.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
03 Sep 2005 11:05:52 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
Let us make a voyage into four-dimensional space (falling space is the
fourth dimension). In the theory, I say that the events should be seen from
a correct perspective, and the correct perspective is the basic state where
we experience no force acting on us.
You are floating somewhere in space. But then in the vicinity you see a
point that starts to enlarge. You identify it as a planet that seems to
approach you with increasing speed. You can only wait and fear for the
worst. But the planet does not hit you after all, it passes close by. And a
strange thing happens: in passing, it changes its direction. You stay still
all the time, and not even a hair moves on your head. If you had been
sleeping, you would know nothing about it.
Now we change the scenario: two planets approach you from separate
directions. Luckily they miss you again, although they both go pretty close.
Will you float serenely again? Not this time. You get into quite a turmoil,
and that is because of tidal force.
As you float in space, you can move almost at the speed of light, comparing
to something other, or stay still - it will not affect your state, and you
are not aware of it.
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Can you do like Einstein... and define what you are talking about
mathematically?
I'm not talking about the few "derived" equations you have at the
above web site, but the fundamental equations defining your
four-dimensional space.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
03 Sep 2005 05:12:18 PM |
|
|
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Can you do like Einstein... and define what you are talking about
mathematically?
I'm not talking about the few "derived" equations you have at the
above web site, but the fundamental equations defining your
four-dimensional space.
Sam Wormley
There is all the math you may possible need in the theory. Should I be
ashamed of its simplicity.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
04 Sep 2005 02:33:13 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen:
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Can you do like Einstein... and define what you are talking about
mathematically?
I'm not talking about the few "derived" equations you have at the
above web site, but the fundamental equations defining your
four-dimensional space.
Sam Wormley
There is all the math you may possible need in the theory. Should I be
ashamed of its simplicity.
You should be ashamed of referring to your handwaving soliloquy
as a theory. A theory can be used to calulate the things it purports
to explain. Your so-called theory is nothing more than a collection
of false statements used to set up strawmen for a personal diatribe
against science. You should be ashamed of being simple-minded and
conflating that with simplicity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
03 Sep 2005 05:15:48 PM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Can you do like Einstein... and define what you are talking about
mathematically?
I'm not talking about the few "derived" equations you have at the
above web site, but the fundamental equations defining your
four-dimensional space.
Sam Wormley
There is all the math you may possible need in the theory. Should I be
ashamed of its simplicity.
Henry Haapalainen
You should be at least embarrassed that you can't define it
mathematically while expecting to be taken seriously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
03 Sep 2005 05:53:12 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:ogpSe.308073$_o.50191@attbi_s71...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
Can you do like Einstein... and define what you are talking about
mathematically?
I'm not talking about the few "derived" equations you have at the
above web site, but the fundamental equations defining your
four-dimensional space.
Sam Wormley
There is all the math you may possible need in the theory. Should I be
ashamed of its simplicity.
Henry Haapalainen
You should be at least embarrassed that you can't define it
mathematically while expecting to be taken seriously.
Sam, having engaged Henry it is obvious he does not even understand what his
own site contains - see
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/10ebc86fa5ad5de6/bffc1ae8f50393d3?q=hobba+Haapalainen&rnum=1#bffc1ae8f50393d3
I am still wafting for the reference to the physics text that says - 'But
what is the source of the pessimism that gravity can never be explained by
theory'
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
03 Sep 2005 06:26:21 PM |
|
|
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
You should be at least embarrassed that you can't define it
mathematically while expecting to be taken seriously.
Sam Wormley
Yes, I may be embarrassed, but I would like to know if you need maths for
maths' sake. But if you need the maths for something specific, just ask me.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Expedition in falling space |
04 Sep 2005 02:41:25 AM |
|
|
Henry Haapalainen:
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
You should be at least embarrassed that you can't define it
mathematically while expecting to be taken seriously.
Sam Wormley
Yes, I may be embarrassed, but I would like to know if you need maths for
maths' sake. But if you need the maths for something specific, just ask me.
If everything was contained in your so-called theory as you suggested,
there would be no need to ask you. You don't _really_ want an example
of something specific, do you? I'll be more than happy to provide as
many as you like, all of which are within the scope of phenomena to
which you claim your theory applies, but in all likelyhood probably
had no idea those things could be calculated. So, be my guest and dig
yourself a deeper hole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
