"CFran" wrote in message ps.com...
|
| Henry Haapalainen wrote:
| "more stupid than Sue"? Androcles wrote that. Let's make a vote about it. I
| think that somebody is stupid, but is it Sue or Androcles? I give my vote to
| Androcles, so Androcles is leading a stupidity contest by one to zero.
|
| Two by zero now. Androcles, you need to stop insulting people.

Two of you have just insulted me. Pot, kettle, black.
Do you want discuss physics or people?
If physics, discuss physics.
If people, **** off to alt.gossip.people, you pair of stooopid morons,
you are in the wrong newsgroup.
Androcles.

"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Sue... wrote:
| | CFran wrote:
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| | |
| | | Androcles wrote:
| | | "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | | | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
| | |
| | | You got it wrong.
| |
| | [snip rest]
| |
| | You've still got it wrong. You've been talking to idiots Sue the medium and her ectoplasm,
| | she holds a seance daily with her charges but she's good for a laugh, Dinky Van der mumble the peeing puppy and Hayek. I don't know much about Hayek except he thinks clocks run infinitely fast in an empty universe, as if anyone cared, and wants to "send pobes of in 6 directions."
| | Pobes of what?
| | They can't help you understand anything, they don't know anything.
| | I can't help you either, you don't listen. You WANT to believe in time dilation, so go ahead and do so.
| | Androcles.
| |
| | You ain't gotta insult them
|
| I discuss (and teach) physics and mathematics here. They do not. Sue never has anything to say herself, she merely quotes web pages, usually irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
| Dinky Van der mumble has no intention of discussing anything and repeats text books which anyone can read, his main objective is to be disruptive, Hayek wants to discuss an empty Universe.
|
| And you just show pictures of Einstein and you're laughing because he
| ain't looking at the camera.

I do that as well. Do you have any physics to discuss? If not, **** off.
Androcles.



|

TomGee wrote:
CFran wrote:
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe.

All particles of water are in motion in a cloud, but to the extent that the
boundaries of the cloud are definable in some way, it's possible to discern the
relative speed of any object to the cloud itself.

Yeah, that makes more sence I think.


It does? How so? It has nothing to do wrt the universe, which is what
I was referring to. What you think makes more sense does not
contradict what I've said because it is not the same situation. It is
only possible to discern the relative speed of an object wrt another
object. We cannot discern the speed of an object wrt the universe but
only wrt to another object. Even those objects that are stationary wrt
each other are moving wrt the universe, although they are moving at the
same speed and in the same direction. Both statements should make the
same amount of sense to you if you understood them equally well.

Maybe I didn't understand you're statement very well, it sounded like
you were saying that nothing can be stationary wrt the universe.

CFran wrote:
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe.

All particles of water are in motion in a cloud, but to the extent that the
boundaries of the cloud are definable in some way, it's possible to discern the
relative speed of any object to the cloud itself.

Yeah, that makes more sence I think.

Physics is about forces and what we can measure...
So any distant event is conditioned by this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...orces/isq.html

In between the doctrines of religion and
science, stand the philosophical perspective
of metaphysical cosmology. This ancient field
of study seeks to draw logical conclusions
about the nature of the universe, man, god
and/or their connections based on the extension
of some set of presumed facts borrowed from
religion and/or observation. One example is
the cosmological argument which is an argument
for the existence of God based primarily on the
point of view that the mere existence of a
universe demands a creator.

As a finer distinction between religion and
philosophy, esoteric cosmology is distinguished
from religion in its more sophisticated construction
and reliance on intellectual understanding rather
than faith, and from philosophy in its emphasis
on techniques of psycho-spiritual transformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

That is not to say the discussion is not a part
of physics. Only to point out that a
"reference frame" can plot a point three universes
down the street and around the corner till
the dog barks where Mr. Jones's old cow used to
be tied up. )

Sue...

CFran, nothing we can observe has ever been found to be stationary wrt
the universe. In fact, physicists love to argue that there is no
center to the universe, as the BB "happened" everywhere at once
creating a universe where everything visible in it is in motion and so
we cannot locate any stationary object in space from which to measure
how fast we are moving in the universe.

The BBT claims that space came out of the BB and so that too is
expanding still. I tried to explain that there are two qualifying
phrases that must be included when talking about stationary objects.
It is important to know that in reality nothing can be said to be
stationary in the universe. Only when compared to another object can
we say something is stationary. So when we say that something is
stationary, we intuitively know that we mean it is stationary wrt
another object because nothing can ever be stationary wrt the universe.
I hope that helps.

*PHYSiCs* is about words (i.e. *NOMENCLATURE*) and *EQUATiONs*.!!
*UNiVERSE*, is ..ALL, "..about forces and WHAT we can measure".!!
brian a m stuckless

Sue... wrote:
Physics is about forces and what we can measure... Sue...

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

CFran wrote:
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe.

All particles of water are in motion in a cloud, but to the extent that the
boundaries of the cloud are definable in some way, it's possible to discern
the
relative speed of any object to the cloud itself.

Yeah, that makes more sence I think.


It does? How so? It has nothing to do wrt the universe, which is what
I was referring to. What you think makes more sense does not
contradict what I've said because it is not the same situation. It is
only possible to discern the relative speed of an object wrt another
object. We cannot discern the speed of an object wrt the universe but
only wrt to another object.

Why is that? Saying so doesn't make it so. Do you believe that there is an
infinite amount of matter in the universe? If so, do you agree that at any
given instant, there is a center of mass of the amalgam of all of the matter in
the universe? If so, why is that not analogous to the location and speed of a
cloud?




Even those objects that are stationary wrt
each other are moving wrt the universe, although they are moving at the
same speed and in the same direction. Both statements should make the
same amount of sense to you if you understood them equally well.

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
CFran, nothing we can observe has ever been found to be stationary wrt
the universe.

That's because we cannot observe the boundaries of the universe. But does that
mean that the universe in infinately large?



In fact, physicists love to argue that there is no
center to the universe, as the BB "happened" everywhere at once
creating a universe where everything visible in it is in motion and so
we cannot locate any stationary object in space from which to measure
how fast we are moving in the universe.

The BBT claims that space came out of the BB and so that too is
expanding still.

Space is the absence of matter and energy. Naturally, the absence of something
is infinite. However, if you're claiming that space itself is expanding, this
means that it has a boundary, and that means that the geometrical ,center of
that boundary would be calculable if the boundary could be observed.



I tried to explain that there are two qualifying
phrases that must be included when talking about stationary objects.
It is important to know that in reality nothing can be said to be
stationary in the universe. Only when compared to another object can
we say something is stationary. So when we say that something is
stationary, we intuitively know that we mean it is stationary wrt
another object because nothing can ever be stationary wrt the universe.
I hope that helps.

David Park wrote:
If you like a graphical and geometrical approach, and if you have
Mathematica, you may wish to try out the SpacetimeGeometry notebook at my
web site.

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/Mathematica.html

Your notebook appears to require a package called DrawGraphics, for which
you appear to charge $50.

You've already excluded the majority of your audience just by requiring
Mathematica, and of those remaining, I can't believe that anyone would pay
$50 to see your diagrams without even an example of what they look like. I
think that the effort you put into this notebook will largely be wasted
unless you at least provide a minimal free version of DrawGraphics to use
with it, or better yet convert the presentation to TeX or HTML.

-- Ben

CFran wrote:
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

No, this is incorrect, although you're hardly alone in believing it. Here's
an article I posted previously on this subject -- let me know if it helps.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a649653249add9

-- Ben