Why doesn't everything happen all at once?
Barry
happening all at once.
Relativity suggests a different answer.
The finite value "c" is what stops everything from happening all at once.
If "c" were infinite, all messages would be instantaneous, and the
Universe would be done and finished in a flash ( more accurately, before
a flash).
Travelling in time takes time, but travelling in space takes space.
Barry
Sorcerer
"Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
| One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
| happening all at once.
|
| Relativity suggests a different answer.
Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
both ends of a train simultaneously and then said they were
not simultaneous.
[rest snipped, I can't stand the drool]
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:_dGKg.111444$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Yes, his understanding of special relativity is just as
non-existent as yours. Paradox!
Howzdad?
Dirk Vdm
Barry
> "Sorcerer" wrote:
>>"Barry" wrote:
>>| One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
>>| happening all at once.
>>| Relativity suggests a different answer.
>>Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
>>both ends of a train simultaneously and then said they were
>>not simultaneous.
In these days of The War On Terror?
I think not!
> Yes, his understanding of special relativity is just as
> non-existent as yours. Paradox!
Not a paradox at all, there can be more than one opinion that's contrary
to received opinion.
We don't seem to live in a world of two valued logic, no matter how much
we might want to.
Can one who doesn't understand special relativity ask a question of one
who does?
If we live in a spacetime and move at 4-velocity "c", what do you think
would happen, or not, in the limit, as c tends to infinity?
That's a good exam question to test a student's understanding, give it a
go. Please show us your mettle.
Or don't.
No matter
Barry
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:41:46 GMT
<_dGKg.111444$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
> | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> | happening all at once.
> |
> | Relativity suggests a different answer.
>
> Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
> both ends of a train simultaneously and then said they were
> not simultaneous.
It isn't simultaneous even in Newtonian space: if one has
two LEDs that flash synchronously (the modern variant)
in the loco and the caboose, as measured by someone in
the exact middle of the train, then the head engineer will
notice a discrepancy of L/K, where K is local lightspeed
and L is the train length (in contemporary theory K =
c/r, where r is the refractive index of the medium;
however, since c is not lightspeed in your theory you'll
probably have to find another symbol and I've yet to see
any suggestions from you as to what symbol should be used
since Einstein's 'c' is clearly not correct in your world).
Or, if one prefers, one can stand near the tracks. Two
LEDs on posts flashing synchronously (as measured by
someone at the exact midpoint between the posts) will
not flash synchronously as observed by someone near
a post.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Sorcerer
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
|
| > "Sorcerer" wrote:
|
| >>"Barry" wrote:
|
|
| >>| One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
| >>| happening all at once.
|
| >>| Relativity suggests a different answer.
|
| >>Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
| >>both ends of a train simultaneously and then said they were
| >>not simultaneous.
|
| In these days of The War On Terror?
|
| I think not!
|
| > Yes, his understanding of special relativity is just as
| > non-existent as yours. Paradox!
|
| Not a paradox at all, there can be more than one opinion that's contrary
| to received opinion.
Dork doesn't understand it, so he assumes nobody else does.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
|
| We don't seem to live in a world of two valued logic, no matter how much
| we might want to.
|
| Can one who doesn't understand special relativity ask a question of one
| who does?
|
| If we live in a spacetime and move at 4-velocity "c", what do you think
| would happen, or not, in the limit, as c tends to infinity?
|
| That's a good exam question to test a student's understanding, give it a
| go. Please show us your mettle.
|
| Or don't.
|
| No matter
|
| Barry
|
It is rather difficult for a supposed constant to tend to infinity,
one would expect it to tend to its own value.
Or to put it another way, what would happen if two
tended to three? GIGO...
Androcles.
Barry
> It is rather difficult for a supposed constant to tend to infinity,
> one would expect it to tend to its own value.
> Or to put it another way, what would happen if two
> tended to three? GIGO...
The price of gasoline would go up.
Barry
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:3r1ss3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote
| on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:41:46 GMT
| <_dGKg.111444$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
| > news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
| > | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
| > | happening all at once.
| > |
| > | Relativity suggests a different answer.
| >
| > Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
| > both ends of a train simultaneously and then said they were
| > not simultaneous.
|
| It isn't simultaneous even in Newtonian space:
Yes it is.
"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year."--Newton.
| if one has
| two LEDs that flash synchronously (the modern variant)
| in the loco and the caboose, as measured by someone in
| the exact middle of the train, then the head engineer will
| notice a discrepancy of L/K, where K is local lightspeed
| and L is the train length (in contemporary theory K =
| c/r, where r is the refractive index of the medium;
| however, since c is not lightspeed in your theory you'll
| probably have to find another symbol and I've yet to see
| any suggestions from you as to what symbol should be used
| since Einstein's 'c' is clearly not correct in your world).
You are confusing the absolute simultaneity of the events
with some arbitrary observer's view at some abitrary distance,
and no two observers agree because the speed of light is finite.
Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature flows equably without regard to ANYTHING external.
GPS rather depends on all satellites ticking off each hour
simultaneously.
|
| Or, if one prefers, one can stand near the tracks. Two
| LEDs on posts flashing synchronously (as measured by
| someone at the exact midpoint between the posts) will
| not flash synchronously as observed by someone near
| a post.
Fuck the tracks, I've got GPS in Britain, you've got it where
you live. The satellites represent the train, they all carry clocks
that are synchronized, they synchronize with UTC and with
Cassini at Saturn, even though it's time always appears to be
"slow" by an HOUR.
From Cassini's pov, Earth is slow by an hour.
Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its
own nature flows equably without regard to anything external,
INCLUDING light signals or fucking turtles carrying post-it
notes on their back that say "The time in London is 2:20pm
precisely" when they get off the fucking plane in New York,
dipshit.
It WAS 2:20pm precisely when they got on the plane, but time
has since passed when the arrive in New York, and
time has since passed when the fucking lightning hit both
ends of the train simultaneously, even in a fucking gedanken.
And now for something completely different, a word on
behalf of your sponsor, Dork Van de merde:
What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started?
3) An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
4) Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The 'shit' in question 4 is a reprise of the 'shit' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.
Didn't they teach you to write English in Belgium?
How old are you?
"The man is a malicious troll" - Dork Van de merde.
Androcles
Barry
> Yes it is.
> "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
> flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
> called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
> external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
> motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
> a month, a year."--Newton.
And Einstein decided to use "unequable" clocks and redefined "time" as
being "what clocks measure".
Absolute time was not "put in" to SR, so it isn't "in" there, so it
doesn't "come out". Most posters seem to think that SR shows that there
is no absolute time. In fact, SR has nothing to say about absolute time,
it bypasses the issue altogether - for operational reasons.
SR doesn't prove that there is no absolute time, it just doesn't use it.
It uses "proper time" (which clocks measure, and the use of which has
some practical merit) and "coordinate time" (which is a misnomer).
And then its users forget these facts and chunner on about time travel
and alternate Universes.
And when quantum connections are found to travel faster than light, they
can't use the concept of absolute time to resolve the issue - because
they threw it out of their toolbox. So they decide that quantum
connections they aren't "messages".
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Barry
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<SPJKg.200806$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:3r1ss3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
> | <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
> | wrote
> | on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:41:46 GMT
> | <_dGKg.111444$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> | >
> | > "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
> | > news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
> | > | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> | > | happening all at once.
> | > |
> | > | Relativity suggests a different answer.
> | >
> | > Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
> | > both ends of a train simultaneously and then said they were
> | > not simultaneous.
> |
> | It isn't simultaneous even in Newtonian space:
>
> Yes it is.
> "Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
> flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
> called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
> external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
> motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
> a month, a year."--Newton.
Good point. In Newtonian theory
t_A = t_O
which means absolute synchronization of all clocks is
always possible. Of course with variable lightspeed one
might have some difficulties using light to synchronize
said clocks, but it doesn't matter; move it slowly using
a controlled screw, fire it using a rocket, use a sling
and toss it over a wall, bounce it on the ground to one's
co-worker (assuming sufficient ruggedness), it won't matter
in Newtonian theory.
SR and GR, of course, might beg to differ, and that's where
Hafele-Keating comes in.
>
>
> | if one has
> | two LEDs that flash synchronously (the modern variant)
> | in the loco and the caboose, as measured by someone in
> | the exact middle of the train, then the head engineer will
> | notice a discrepancy of L/K, where K is local lightspeed
> | and L is the train length (in contemporary theory K =
> | c/r, where r is the refractive index of the medium;
> | however, since c is not lightspeed in your theory you'll
> | probably have to find another symbol and I've yet to see
> | any suggestions from you as to what symbol should be used
> | since Einstein's 'c' is clearly not correct in your world).
>
> You are confusing the absolute simultaneity of the events
> with some arbitrary observer's view at some abitrary distance,
> and no two observers agree because the speed of light is finite.
The speed of light is not only *finite* -- it's *variable*.
For example, if the light source is on the train, what is the
speed of light relative to the train? Also, how much variance
can one expect from thermal motion?
>
> Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
> nature flows equably without regard to ANYTHING external.
>
> GPS rather depends on all satellites ticking off each hour
> simultaneously.
And fails miserably, obviously.
>
> |
> | Or, if one prefers, one can stand near the tracks. Two
> | LEDs on posts flashing synchronously (as measured by
> | someone at the exact midpoint between the posts) will
> | not flash synchronously as observed by someone near
> | a post.
>
> Fuck the tracks,
[OK, tracks fucked]
Sorcerer
Are you always so trivial?
Can it be that in high school you were compelled to
attend and the teachers could be honest about you,
whereas in college your payments required a certain
decorum on the part of the college representatives, thus
causing them to declare you a star student among star
students?
Androcles
Barry
> "Barry" wrote
> | The price of gasoline would go up.
> Are you always so trivial?
Read what I write, then decide for yourself.
If you think I am of little worth or importance, then don't read what I
write and don't decide.
> Can it be that in high school you were compelled to
> attend and the teachers could be honest about you,
> whereas in college your payments required a certain
> decorum on the part of the college representatives, thus
> causing them to declare you a star student among star
> students?
So you do read what I write, trivial though it might be.
I didn't go to High School, I went to Grammar School. I feel good that
my teachers felt that they could be honest about me, I respect that.
And my University fees were paid by scholarships that my University
department awarded to me. I actually didn't need the money, I was
working full time anyway. They were kind, but what you suggest may be
right. They might have been dishonest. I can't help that, it was, and
remains outside of my control.
Barry
Joe Jakarta
Barry wrote:
> One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> happening all at once.
>
> Relativity suggests a different answer.
>
> The finite value "c" is what stops everything from happening all at once.
Well, good for relativity!
Sorcerer
Bad point. A car travels two miles in two minutes for an average
speed of 60 mph, and takes two minutes to the mid-point
at the top of the hill. In relativity theory, the average time is
(2+0)/2 = 1 minute so the mid-point moved to the destination.
The car's speed is an average 120 mph from the top of the hill
for the descent. You said it was out of time, but you did not use
relativity theory, you fell back on Newtonian theory. You are
not consistent. In relativity theory, time is averaged.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
That's what the half is for.
Now I know I said the car goes down the other side of the hill,
but in relativity theory it turns around and descends on the same
road it came up on, but that's ok, the average time is still 2 minutes.
[rest snipped (hopefully to annoy you, you stooopid cunt) ]
Androcles.
Barry
> Barry wrote:
> Well, good for relativity!
If relativity is a correct model then it's "excellent", not "good".
But if relativity is a poor model, then it's "atrocious", not "bad".
Barry
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<gaUKg.203623$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Then turns around, travels back to its starting point, for
an average velocity of zero. Brilliant!
> In relativity theory, the average time is
> (2+0)/2 = 1 minute so the mid-point moved to the destination.
Not at *those* speeds. You're talking a gamma of about 1+4.002*10^-15.
[rest snipped]
Sorcerer
Yes, I know I am. Thank you.
|
| > In relativity theory, the average time is
| > (2+0)/2 = 1 minute so the mid-point moved to the destination.
|
| Not at *those* speeds.
Speed has fuck all to do with it, fuckwit. The average time is
one minute in relativity theory, Einstein said so.
You're talking a gamma of about 1+4.002*10^-15.
NO I'm not. The speed of the car is v = 44 fps,
the speed of the motorcycle is 2AB/(t'A-tA) where
A = (0,0,0,0), B = (0.8, 0. 0.6, ?) and ? = unknown, at least in
relativity theory.
You don't get to use Newtonian Mechanics, shithead.
Go ahead, average the time, moron.
You think you can annoy me, cunt? I can piss higher
than you or Van de merde, anytime I choose.
Androcles
Joe Jakarta
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play ...
(Hope this reply ain't too mystical.)
Barry
> Barry wrote:
My dad was in the army, serving first in India and then in France and
Belgium.
That's as mystical as life gets for me.
Barry
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
> | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> | happening all at once.
> |
> | Relativity suggests a different answer.
>
> Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
> both ends of a train simultaneously
You'll have to cite that one. As far as I know he didn't do any such
thing.
Sorcerer
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157477120....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
| > news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
| > | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
| > | happening all at once.
| > |
| > | Relativity suggests a different answer.
| >
| > Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
| > both ends of a train simultaneously
|
| You'll have to cite that one. As far as I know he didn't do any such
| thing.
I don't have to at all, but I will since you are ignorant of relativity.
Barnes & Noble.com - Books: Einstein 1905, by John S. Rigden ... Let M' be
the mid-point of the distance A -> B on the travelling train. Just when the
flashes (as judged from the embankment) of lightning occur, ...
search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780674015449&z=y
- 45k - Cached - Similar pages
Section 41.5 - Simultaneity, or the lack thereof Now, Einstein changed the
scenario: He put the train in motion. Einstein asked again: would they both
say that the lightning bolts struck simultaneously? ...
www.kineticbooks.com/physics/trialpse/41_Special%20Relativity/05/sp.html
- 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Section 41.7 - Interactive problem: Conduct Einstein's ... The lightning
bolts also scorch the sides of the train as they hit the rods. ... This lets
you go beyond Einstein's thought experiment, where the time ...
www.kineticbooks.com/physics/trialpse/41_Special%20Relativity/07/sp.html
- 14k - Cached - Similar pages
The Light Cone: Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime A trip on Einstein's Train.
Lightning strikes the front and back ends of a moving train. The lightning
strikes leave marks on the train and on the tracks. ...
physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html - 17k -
Cached - Similar pages
Chapter 9. The Relativity of Simultaneity. Einstein, Albert. 1920 ... Let M'
be the mid-point of the distance A -> B on the travelling train. Just when
the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with ...
www.bartleby.com/173/9.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Credo: Einstein's Train Einstein's Train: A Thought Experiment ... The
cowboy sees the lightning bolts strike the two ends of the train
simultaneously. ...
www.cord.edu/dept/physics/credo/etrain_credo.html - 5k - Cached -
Similar pages
FOUR DIMENSIONAL In Einstein's example, just because it appears as though
two bolts of lightning have struck the train at the opposite ends at the
same time, does not mean ...
www.outersecrets.com/real/5_4d_3.htm - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - By Miles Hodges Einstein, in another thought
experiment, posited a train station example. Two bolts of lightning strike a
train as it is passing through a train station, ...
www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/einstein2.htm - 41k - Cached -
Similar pages
From: thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) Newsgroups: sci.physics ... CJ Luke
insists that Einstein's conclusion is flawed, and there is a conflict ...
The lightning *does* have two different time coordinates in the train ...
sheol.org/throopw/luke-vs-einstein02.txt - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
Subject: A Rebuttal of the Relativity of Simultaneity From: cj ... By this
point in the book, Einstein has stated the Principal of ... Lightning
strikes A and B on the train which are equidistant from the observer at M'.
...
sheol.org/throopw/luke-vs-einstein01.txt - 10k - Cached - Similar
pages
[ More results from sheol.org ]
Einstein's train destroyed by lightning!!!!!!!!!! on the observer (Einstein)
by placing a shield in the path of the light flash from the front of the
train then only one stroke of lightning ...
www.gatago.com/sci/physics/relativity/16851122.html - 34k - Cached -
Similar pages
Logical Invalidity of Einstein's "Train" Thought-Experiment This is the way
Einstein thought up his "Train" thought-experiment (cf. the ... As the train
passes the man, two lightning bolts strike either end of the ...
homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Einstein'sTrain.html - 11k - Cached -
Similar pages
EINSTEIN'S "TRAIN" THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT ITSELF DISPROVES THE THEORY ...
Einstein's "Train" Thought-Experiment ... As the train passes the man, two
lightning bolts strike either end of the train, leaving burn marks on the
track, ...
homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/TrainDisprovesRelativity.html - 9k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from homepage.mac.com ]
Relativity - What if the lightning strikes at the midpoint ... In Einstein's
train thought experiment he has the lightning strikes occurring at Point A
and Point B simultaneously relative to the embankment. ...
astronomyphysics.com/read.php?f=33&i=326&t=326 - 17k - Cached -
Similar pages
Relativity - Re: PHYSICS & ASTRONOMY When Einstein states, "Observers who
take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the
conclusion that the lightning flash B took ...
astronomyphysics.com/read.php?f=33&i=313&t=245 - 187k - Cached -
Similar pages
Flaws in the logic of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity In this case
the simultaneity of lightning strokes must be observed by any ... By way of
his example with a train moving along an embankment, Einstein uses ...
uweb.superlink.net/dialect/theory.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
Question about Einstein's train and lightning Text - Physics ... [Archive]
Question about Einstein's train and lightning Special & General Relativity.
www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-88802.html - 9k - Cached -
Similar pages
Question about Einstein's train and lightning Question about Einstein's
train and lightning Special & General Relativity.
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88802 - 29k - Cached -
Similar pages
[PDF] Comment on 'Reinterpreting the famous train embankment experiment ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
such that they do meet at M, then by Einstein's convention, all frames
must conclude that the. lightning bolts struck the ends of the train
simultaneously ...
www.iop.org/EJ/article/0143-0807/25/5/L01/ejp4_5_l01.pdf - Similar
pages
Relativity: Special and General Theory (2) - EINSTEIN December ... Let M' be
the mid-point of the distance A - B on the travelling train. Just when the
flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with ...
evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/einstein_relativity02.htm -
39k -
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157477120....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
> | > news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
> | > | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> | > | happening all at once.
> | > |
> | > | Relativity suggests a different answer.
> | >
> | > Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
> | > both ends of a train simultaneously
> |
> | You'll have to cite that one. As far as I know he didn't do any such
> | thing.
>
> I don't have to at all, but I will since you are ignorant of relativity.
Ah, and it appears you can't read. Thanks for demonstrating that. Note
that Einstein doesn't set up an experiment such that lightning strikes
in two places simultaneously. He imagines a *scenario* (imagination is
not quite the same thing as experimentation) in which the lightning
strikes are simultaneous *as judged by* a particular observer (what one
observer ascertains is in no way to be attributed as an absolute
statement).
PD
Sorcerer
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1157477120....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
| > | > news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
| > | > | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
| > | > | happening all at once.
| > | > |
| > | > | Relativity suggests a different answer.
| > | >
| > | > Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
| > | > both ends of a train simultaneously
| > |
| > | You'll have to cite that one. As far as I know he didn't do any such
| > | thing.
| >
| > I don't have to at all, but I will since you are ignorant of relativity.
|
| Ah, and it appears you can't read.
What did you write? I can't read, you see.
Androcles
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157634337.7...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1157477120....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> | > |
> | > | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > | > "Barry" <sasa...@squaw.ca> wrote in message
> | > | > news:EPAKg.44744$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga...
> | > | > | One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> | > | > | happening all at once.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Relativity suggests a different answer.
> | > | >
> | > | > Repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
> | > | > both ends of a train simultaneously
> | > |
> | > | You'll have to cite that one. As far as I know he didn't do any such
> | > | thing.
> | >
> | > I don't have to at all, but I will since you are ignorant of relativity.
> |
> | Ah, and it appears you can't read.
>
> What did you write? I can't read, you see.
And you can't write coherently, either. So what good are ya?
PD
> Androcles
surrealis...@hotmail.com
> One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> happening all at once.
>
> Relativity suggests a different answer.
>
> The finite value "c" is what stops everything from happening all at once.
>
Einstein did not invent, nor would he have ever wanted to claim that he
invented, the notion that the measured speed of light in a vacuum in an
inertial frame is a constant. He made that assumption in his 1905
theory of SR because he knew that principle to be well confirmed
empirically (say by Romer's measurement of the speed of light, and by
the negative result of the MMX) and theoretically (by the Lorentz
transformation properties of the so-called Maxwell equations).
Barry
> Barry wrote:
Much truth in that, but I don't see that it's relevant to my point.
I didn't talk about "Einstein" or the "notion that the measured speed
of light in a vacuum in an inertial frame is a constant".
In relativity, "c" is the magnitude of 4-velocity and what I wrote was:
________________
If "c" were infinite, all messages would be instantaneous, and the
Universe would be done and finished in a flash ( more accurately,
before
a flash).
______________
Barry
Sorcerer
I cited what you asked for, shithead. If a copy/paste isn't comprehensible
to you, see a psychiatrist. <shrug>
Or better yet, repeat the experiment where Einstein made lightning strike
both ends of a train simultaneously and then said it wasn't simultaneous.
Androcles
Androcles.
PD
No, you cited a bunch of stuff that is NOT what I asked for, you
doofus. The fact that you think it is points to your lack of ability to
read, which is even more apparent since I'm having to explain even that
simple statement to you again.
What you cited was not an experiment, and what Einstein asserted about
it was not that the lightning struck the ends of the train
simultaneously.
Now, how many times would you like to repeat the same mistake before
getting tired of it? Usually you don't tire of it until you've made a
complete fool of yourself.
PD
Sorcerer
Joe Jakarta
Barry wrote:
> One common saying is that "time" is what prevents every thing from
> happening all at once.
>
> Relativity suggests a different answer.
>
"c is God's way of stopping everything from happening at once", to
paraphrase.
>
> If "c" were infinite, all messages would be instantaneous, and the
> Universe would be done and finished in a flash ( more accurately, before
> a flash).
In fact, we couldn't define time, including "a flash" and "before" (a
flash or anything), at all.
Bugger, I've forgotten what else I was going to say.
Joe Jakarta
In the War, I fought with the boys of the Barsetshire Light Cavalry;
then with the boys of the Highland Foot and Mouth; and after that, with
the boys of the Wessex Dragoons.
It seemed I just couldn't get on with anybody.
OK, at least it's original!!
Joe Jakarta
Joe Jakarta wrote:
[...]
> Bugger, I've forgotten what else I was going to say.
Ah yes. Sergei Sepanov in his VSL contribution, had a static Universe
with c originally infinite, and the Universe infinitely hot, and then c
falling to cooler values .....