"ElRon XChile" wrote in message
...

"Abonito" wrote in message
. uk...
I have to confess I do not understand relativity, special or general and I
have trouble with gallilean relativity.

Ahem, if you are familiar with fossil fuel-based propulsion, the following
may help:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00719.htm


However I do know from experience that ten light years takes about six
months and there is no twin paradox. It was six months on earth and on my
travels. My Ancestor Gulliver Goddard found the same when he gathered the
material for his account in "Gullivers travels" (first edition).

Hmm, that is not instantaneous and there is a twin paradox.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm

Of course, this prepends the assumption that gallilean relativity is the
only solution to consider.

Oh! Ha! You made a funny! Gulliver Goddard, traveling at those speeds
would appear as a bigger mass to the little people!!!


I also know that teleportation is used for huge distance travel
instantaneously over hundreds of light years. As far as I understand it
it is done as a series of hops between space stations.

Are there bars on those space stations? (obviously that may reduce the
instaneous nature of huge distance travel until after, say, the third or
fourth drinkee-poo)
yes and for the men we have strippers, we are getting to understand you now.


With Galilean relativity if you are walking at velocity v1,v2,v3 on a
boat and relative to the deck which is moving at a velocity w1,w2,w3 then
the resultant velocity is v1+w1,v2+w2,v3+w3 but if the velocity of the
ship is very high like w=0.9c and the velocity of the walk is high like
v=0.9c then the sum is less than 1.8c and is still less than c. I do not
recall the solution.

I do not think you are correct in your assumption that different relative
ship/walk ratios changes the sum. It is unobserveable to you...
http://brainflux.org/Physics/Special...ity/index.html


Does anyone know what it is?

y=(w-v)/(1-wv/c^2)... (I looked it up).

y=1.8c/(1+.9x.9)=1.8c/1.81=0.9945c

This again due to the phenomina of looking at 4 space in as a projection
on to 3 space. In 4-space y=w-v as usual and 0.9c is in reality
.9c/sqr(1-.9^2) =2.064c and y=4.129c.

Relativity is in reality a form of perspective and an example of affine
geometry.

It is but a dream that time is constant. Change perspective to consider
non-linearity... I don't mean quasi-collapse-affine nor duel cateory, I
mean Lyapunov stability analysis/implicit function theory - be
adaptive.... er, take the Red pill, Neo....


As with galilean geometry there is no absolute velocity in space and any
point not accelerating can be taken as being at rest.

Well, no. Galilean relativity assumes a finite fuel source that results in
the force of acceleration reaching a theoretical peak, at which time the
mass that was accelerated remains at constant velocity; at least until an
accident occurs such as smashing into something.


However it also means that since all objects in space are under the
influence of gravity all objects are accelerating and so nothing is at
rest. You could take the center of gravity of the milky way galaxy as at
rest and take a particular time like AD 0 and work out the position of a
particularly significant star's position at that time and take that as
the 0 on the angle of polar co-ordinates and another star nearly over the
centre of gravity of the hub to be the z axis and give positions as z
angle theta for all objects in the galaxy. However the milky way is
accelerating relative to M31 but it could be taken as to be at rest to a
first approximation.

No, nothing is ever at rest.
True but any object on a geodesic can be taken as being at rest.