A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » The Theory of Relativity
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: ,

Defining *Event*?(kst)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 21st 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity
Pmb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 779
Default Defining *Event*?(kst)


"Alfred Einstead" wrote in message
om...
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote:
Spacetime point.
bilge

That's imaginary, it's not physicaly measureable.


Counter-example:

Longitude: 90 deg. 0' 0'' west
Latitude: 45 deg. 0' 0'' north
Altitude: 200 meters above surface
Time: 12:00 Midnight, CST, January 1, 2001.

A physical measurement of an event.


What does it mean for a physical location not to be "measureable"? If
"physical locations" cannot be made "measureable" then how does one yank it
out of the theory of relativity? If one does not claim that a "physical
location" is not measureable then why can't an event not be made
measureable. Its detectable so why not measureable?

Pmb


Ads
  #12  
Old November 21st 03 posted to sci.physics.relativity
Ken S. Tucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,544
Default Defining *Event*?(kst)

(Alfred Einstead) wrote in message . com...
(Ken S. Tucker) wrote:
Spacetime point.
bilge

That's imaginary, it's not physically measureable.


Counter-example:

Longitude: 90 deg. 0' 0'' west
Latitude: 45 deg. 0' 0'' north
Altitude: 200 meters above surface
Time: 12:00 Midnight, CST, January 1, 2001.

A physical measurement of an event.


On 11/17 in this thread I did agree with
Bilge not to fool with the definition of *event*
as commonly used. However Alfred placed
the phrase "physical measurement" as a modifier,
*after* defining x,y,z,t = a spacetime point,
without providing the necessary d(energy)
required to fix the *occurance*. I use the term
occurance as *an event defined by a measureable
phenomena*
((in cooperation with Bilge's objections)).

Anyway, I don't see any *physical measurement*
as far as Alfred went.

((BTW Alfred, we discussed basis vectors
awhile back and I learned alot, so no disrespect
is intended in my rebuttal)).

Regards Ken S. Tucker

PS: I think a finite integer is given by D(Occurance),
where D is a finite increment.
In other words, Occurances change by increments.
I think this is a good place to normalize, so
DO = integers like 0,1,2,3....

And from my first post the Occurance is defined
by the invariant,

DO = DE*DV = Dx Dy Dz Dt De =DO' .
KST
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A sphere of light in GR by KST Ken S. Tucker Physics - General Discussion 11 February 10th 06 10:44 AM
About EMR (kst) Uncle Al Physics - General Discussion 3 August 5th 05 06:36 PM
About EMR (kst) TomGee Physics - General Discussion 1 August 5th 05 05:12 PM
On 5D vs 4D (kst) Dr *** Physics - General Discussion 1 May 10th 05 12:20 AM
Introduction to Unitivity. (kst) Ken S. Tucker Physics - General Discussion 31 November 3rd 04 01:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
MPAA - Credit Card Consolidation - Power Rangers - Current Accounts - Personal Loans