"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
"Boyan" wrote in message
...
Picture me how I 'WALK' & I shall give you $1.000.000 :-)


OK, was kidding a bit. But I do wonder if someone here can portray me
a picture of how we move through space... By my own limited imagination
and using Google.com I came up with this. Clarifying this is
appreciated.


Imagine this example:

1) I am walking through train carriages at 3 km/h.

2) I am traveling with train at speed of 100 km/h.

3) I am rotating, with train, around Earth at 1,670 km/h.

4) I am orbiting, with Earth, around Sun at 107,000 km/h.

5) I am moving, with Solar System, with respect to the
nearby stars at 72,000 km/h.

6) I am spinning, with Solar System, in spiral around
Milky Way centre at 828,000 km/h.

7) I am moving, with our Galaxy Milky Way, toward
the center of the Local Group at 144,000 km/h.

8) I am moving, with Local Group of galaxies (Local Supercluster),
at about 2,200,000 km/h relative to the universe as a whole.

9) I am moving, with everything, through space while Universe expands at
???


Is 9th point even to consider -- do we move because of Universe
expansion?
Are presented velocities correct? Are there other motions in space?


This is how we move through space and we don't even consider it, right?
(Not that it is practical for our life, but it is interesting to
picture...)

So, in more of "fun spirit" I'd ask this:
By above example (or something similar but "fixed") if you walk
for 10 meters, how many kilometers you travel in space-time?


While here I'd like to point you to this article and ask you for
opinion:
Because Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light the
Universe
is 156 billion light-years wide even though it is 13.7 billions years
old:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040524.html

Very interesting post. You give me a chance to talk about what I
denote by Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS). All movement is relative
to some inertial system, but all inertial systems are NOT equivalent,
they are in a hierarchical relationship.

A note to the original poster. This guy is speaking ****. The POR
guarantees the equivalence of all inertial systems.

Rest of rubbish mercifully snipped.

Thanks
Bill
If your note is for the original poster, why do you sent it to me?
Can you support the idea that the Earth-Moon center of mass system is
equivalent to the center of mass Solar one? Can you describe the Solar
System center of mass movement taking as rest the center of mass of
the Earth-Moon system? (as you describe the Earth-Moon center of mass
taking as rest the center of mass of the Solar System). Are you
vindicating Ptolomeo? I vindicate Galileo!
I will suppose that you are not thinking that I have no knowledge
about the POR, that refers to inertial systems without any mention at
all about the existence or not of massive bodies, how many or where
they are located. I have a lot to say about this apparently simple
detail.
(Just to start a talking that will be more serious that you can
think).
Being optimist, I will take for granted that you will accept.
My first question: do you think that gravitation (or any other kind of
field) was excluded from Relativity (not yet named "special") in 1905?

RVHG

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
"Boyan" wrote in message
...
Picture me how I 'WALK' & I shall give you $1.000.000 :-)


OK, was kidding a bit. But I do wonder if someone here can portray
me
a picture of how we move through space... By my own limited
imagination
and using Google.com I came up with this. Clarifying this is
appreciated.


Imagine this example:

1) I am walking through train carriages at 3 km/h.

2) I am traveling with train at speed of 100 km/h.

3) I am rotating, with train, around Earth at 1,670 km/h.

4) I am orbiting, with Earth, around Sun at 107,000 km/h.

5) I am moving, with Solar System, with respect to the
nearby stars at 72,000 km/h.

6) I am spinning, with Solar System, in spiral around
Milky Way centre at 828,000 km/h.

7) I am moving, with our Galaxy Milky Way, toward
the center of the Local Group at 144,000 km/h.

8) I am moving, with Local Group of galaxies (Local Supercluster),
at about 2,200,000 km/h relative to the universe as a whole.

9) I am moving, with everything, through space while Universe
expands at
???


Is 9th point even to consider -- do we move because of Universe
expansion?
Are presented velocities correct? Are there other motions in space?


This is how we move through space and we don't even consider it,
right?
(Not that it is practical for our life, but it is interesting to
picture...)

So, in more of "fun spirit" I'd ask this:
By above example (or something similar but "fixed") if you walk
for 10 meters, how many kilometers you travel in space-time?


While here I'd like to point you to this article and ask you for
opinion:
Because Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light the
Universe
is 156 billion light-years wide even though it is 13.7 billions
years
old:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040524.html

Very interesting post. You give me a chance to talk about what I
denote by Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS). All movement is relative
to some inertial system, but all inertial systems are NOT equivalent,
they are in a hierarchical relationship.

A note to the original poster. This guy is speaking ****. The POR
guarantees the equivalence of all inertial systems.

Rest of rubbish mercifully snipped.

Thanks
Bill
If your note is for the original poster, why do you sent it to me?
Can you support the idea that the Earth-Moon center of mass system is
equivalent to the center of mass Solar one? Can you describe the Solar
System center of mass movement taking as rest the center of mass of
the Earth-Moon system? (as you describe the Earth-Moon center of mass
taking as rest the center of mass of the Solar System). Are you
vindicating Ptolomeo? I vindicate Galileo!

By the principle of equivalence a freely falling frame placed between
galaxies and screened from outside influences such as EM is about as
inertial as you can get.. Please demonstrate to me how you will tell the
difference between such a frame and one traveling at constant velocity
relative to it? Note I said - screened from outside influences - you can
not peek outside to see how fast you are moving relative to the fixed stars
(or galexies in this case).

I will suppose that you are not thinking that I have no knowledge
about the POR, that refers to inertial systems without any mention at
all about the existence or not of massive bodies, how many or where
they are located. I have a lot to say about this apparently simple
detail.

Having engaged you in the past I know you do - it is all rubbish. To prove
me wrong describe to me the experiment that can distinguish one inertial
frame from another (in the sense of a frame as described above) without
arbitrarily deciding on what frame is special in the first place eg by
marking it with red paint or imagining it to contain the CMBR or some such
rot. When you can do that then you will have a basis for your claims.

Bill

(Just to start a talking that will be more serious that you can
think).
Being optimist, I will take for granted that you will accept.
My first question: do you think that gravitation (or any other kind of
field) was excluded from Relativity (not yet named "special") in 1905?

RVHG

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" wrote in message
om...
"Boyan" wrote in message
...
Picture me how I 'WALK' & I shall give you $1.000.000 :-)


OK, was kidding a bit. But I do wonder if someone here can portray
me
a picture of how we move through space... By my own limited
imagination
and using Google.com I came up with this. Clarifying this is
appreciated.


Imagine this example:

1) I am walking through train carriages at 3 km/h.

2) I am traveling with train at speed of 100 km/h.

3) I am rotating, with train, around Earth at 1,670 km/h.

4) I am orbiting, with Earth, around Sun at 107,000 km/h.

5) I am moving, with Solar System, with respect to the
nearby stars at 72,000 km/h.

6) I am spinning, with Solar System, in spiral around
Milky Way centre at 828,000 km/h.

7) I am moving, with our Galaxy Milky Way, toward
the center of the Local Group at 144,000 km/h.

8) I am moving, with Local Group of galaxies (Local Supercluster),
at about 2,200,000 km/h relative to the universe as a whole.

9) I am moving, with everything, through space while Universe
expands at
???


Is 9th point even to consider -- do we move because of Universe
expansion?
Are presented velocities correct? Are there other motions in space?


This is how we move through space and we don't even consider it,
right?
(Not that it is practical for our life, but it is interesting to
picture...)

So, in more of "fun spirit" I'd ask this:
By above example (or something similar but "fixed") if you walk
for 10 meters, how many kilometers you travel in space-time?


While here I'd like to point you to this article and ask you for
opinion:
Because Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light the
Universe
is 156 billion light-years wide even though it is 13.7 billions
years
old:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040524.html

Very interesting post. You give me a chance to talk about what I
denote by Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS). All movement is relative
to some inertial system, but all inertial systems are NOT equivalent,
they are in a hierarchical relationship.

A note to the original poster. This guy is speaking ****. The POR
guarantees the equivalence of all inertial systems.

Rest of rubbish mercifully snipped.

Thanks
Bill
If your note is for the original poster, why do you sent it to me?
Can you support the idea that the Earth-Moon center of mass system is
equivalent to the center of mass Solar one? Can you describe the Solar
System center of mass movement taking as rest the center of mass of
the Earth-Moon system? (as you describe the Earth-Moon center of mass
taking as rest the center of mass of the Solar System). Are you
vindicating Ptolomeo? I vindicate Galileo!

By the principle of equivalence a freely falling frame placed between
galaxies and screened from outside influences such as EM is about as
inertial as you can get.. Please demonstrate to me how you will tell the
difference between such a frame and one traveling at constant velocity
relative to it? Note I said - screened from outside influences - you can
not peek outside to see how fast you are moving relative to the fixed stars
(or galexies in this case).

You do not answer any of my questions (not an easy way to interact!).
Why do you interpret that I am rejecting the PoR? I am not doing that!
The physical laws remain the same for any of the HIS I had introduced.
You know that I am referring to 1905 Relativity. Why then you speak
about the principle of equivalence that corresponds to General
Relativity?
I will suppose that you are not thinking that I have no knowledge
about the POR, that refers to inertial systems without any mention at
all about the existence or not of massive bodies, how many or where
they are located. I have a lot to say about this apparently simple
detail.

Having engaged you in the past I know you do - it is all rubbish. To prove
me wrong describe to me the experiment that can distinguish one inertial
frame from another (in the sense of a frame as described above) without
arbitrarily deciding on what frame is special in the first place eg by
marking it with red paint or imagining it to contain the CMBR or some such
rot. When you can do that then you will have a basis for your claims.

Totally absurd from your side. From where did you take the idea that I
reject the 1905 Principle of Relativity? I am just vindicating it!
Bill

(Just to start a talking that will be more serious that you can
think).
Being optimist, I will take for granted that you will accept.
My first question: do you think that gravitation (or any other kind of
field) was excluded from Relativity (not yet named "special") in 1905?

Why do you not answer my first question? It is crucial for the topic I
am addressing here. If you cannot answer it, then you are completely
confused about what I am claiming. But do not worry too much, surely
in a couple of posts or so we will be engaged in an interesting
discussion
RVHG

RVHG