Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Feb 28, 3:21 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 16:01:11 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 27, 5:23 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 27 Feb 2007 07:11:36 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Yes. A frame dependent one...but you don't know what that means Draper.

Sure I do, and on this small point we're in agreement.
So tell me, what makes momentum a physical entity and spacetime not?

Momentum has physical rammifications. Spacetime is just a method of viewing a
physical situation.

Which "physical rammifications" do you have in mind for momentum.
Do you think that 3D space has "physical rammifications"? Does
Euclidean geometry count as a "physical rammification"?

No

So what physical "rammifications" do you have in mind for momentum?

You don't consider the measurable distance between here and the
library being invariant, independent of the orientiation of the
coordinate system, to be a physical "rammification"?


Oh crap Draper.
You blokes like to rave about this 'spacetime' when you haven't a clue what you
are even talking about.

Try plotting the snapping of fingers in a 4D representation Draper.

Sure. It's a little blot on a 4D space, kind of like the period at the
end of this sentence.

Hahahojhohoh!

Ah, I see this is news to you. Whenever someone tells you something
you didn't know, your first reaction is to laugh. I can see why you
did so well in school.


Better still, try something simple like a ball falling to ground. You can plot
that in 2D.

That's not a spacetime event, Henri. That's a sequence of spacetime
events. Now, the ball *landing* on the ground, that's a spacetime
event.

Hahahahwhwhahwahwahawhawhohohohohohoh!

More news, I see.


Then tell me in which school, and under what professor, using which
textbook, you got the idea that a frame is everything at rest with
respect to a defined point.

Everything at rest wrt a particular point or frame is in that frame and can
define that frame.
Other objects can move wrt that frame but are not in it.

And that's ridiculous, Henri.

See? You can't answer a simple question. I asked you where you got
this notion, and all you can do is repeat it.
HW: "2+2=7.43"
PD: "Why Henri, wherever did you get that idea?"
HW: "Don't be an idiot, PD. 2+2=7.43"

Draper, most people here - excluding the ratpack - show a few signs of
intelligence. Why can't you?


Ah, so because you say I should show a few signs of intelligence, that
means I should take your word that 2+2=7.43?


Now once again: Where did you get the idea that a frame is everything
that is at rest with respect to a defined point?

You really can't answer a simple question, Henri? This isn't about me
going to school, it's about where YOU got this idea.

stop raving Draper. You are a waste of time...

Every time I ask you a question you don't want to answer (or you can't
remember what the answer is), you say it's raving.

Every time you say something stupid and I point it out to you, you say
that any "real physicist" understands what you are talking about and
agrees with it, and then when I ask you what "real physicist" that is,
you suddenly say I am raving. It's like a little pattern with you. I
can ring a little bell and you'll salivate.

I know you're just trying to waste my time Draper.

'If you can't beat 'em, at least slow them down"

Nah, just pointing out when you say something stupid, Henri. That
normally *does* slow people down. However, in your case, you proceed
full speed ahead. Explains a lot.


A reference frame is simply something that can be used to compare velocities.

Really? How can a reference frame be something that can be used to
compare velocities, if the only things that are in the frame are
things that are mutually at rest?

Or are you saying that the only way to compare the velocity of a stop
sign and a truck is to find the two reference frames in which each of
these things is at rest and then compare the two reference frames?
Sort of a "Have your people talk to my people" kind of thing?

Gord, you really are hopeless Draper.



Are you really this dense?

And what "real physicist" says that a reference frame is defined as
everything that is at rest with respect to a defined point? And which
"real physicist" says that a reference frame is simply something that
can be used to compare velocities? You still haven't answered either
of these questions.

Why don't you ask captain Roberts.

Why? I asked you about YOUR idea. Now you deflect. Avoiding, Henri?


IT'S A BLOODY REFERENCE FOR VELOCITIES.
EVERYTHING THAT IS MUTUALLY AT REST IS IN THE SAME FRAME.

As well as everything that is not mutually at rest -- all in the same
frame. Do you disagree with that?

You are a moron Draper. Are you thinking of an ant walking across a framed
picture?

Objects that are moving wrt a frame ARE NOT in that frame. The ant is NOT in
the frame of the picture.

Of course the ant is not in the frame of the picture. The frame of a
picture forms a boundary around a picture. What does this have to do
with a reference frame, Henri? Were you thinking that a reference
frame is a box around a collection of objects?

No but you apparently are.

I didn't bring up ants and a picture frame. You did.
I didn't say a reference frame is everything at rest with respect to a
defined point. You did.

I said that everything that is moving with respect to a defined point
is *also* in that frame. You apparently don't think so. I've asked you
where on earth you got that idea. You've yet to answer.

Is life one big game of dodge-ball for you, Henri?

PD