During the middle of the Eocene, about 40 million years ago...

**Androcles[_33_]** · #91 November 16th 10, 10:17 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

**Peter Webb[_2_]** · #92 November 16th 10, 10:31 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| |
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | news | |
| | "Peter Webb" wrote in
message
| | u...
| | |
| | | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | | ...
| | |
| | | "Peter Webb" wrote in
| message
| | | ...
| | | |
| | | | "Androcles" wrote in
message
| | | | ...
| | | |
| | | | "Quadibloc" wrote in message
| | | |
| | |
| |
|
...
| | | | | Google "Minkowski diagram",
| | | |
| | | | **** off, time is not a vector.
| | | |
| | | | Nor is distance.
| | |
| | | Which is shorter, London to Sydney or Sydney to London?
| | |
| | |
| | | They are the same.
| |
| | So you don't believe in the experimental predictions of
relativity?
| |
| |
| | That does not follow.
|
| See Hafele-Keating, they flew clocks around the world and it is
shorter
| from
| London to Sydney than Sydney to London. Distance is a vector, time is
not.
| So you don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?
|
|
| Distance is no more a vector than time is.

Is velocity a vector, ****head?

Yes, velocity is a vector.

I already told you that you don't have to know anything about vector spaces
to understand SR, any more than you need to be able to speak German. There
are lots of derivations of SR that require only simple algebra and are in
the English language.

Why you are making it so hard on yourself ? Why not just learn SR from a
book which doesn't use more advanced mathematics than you are comfortable
with? As I said before, lots of approaches use only high school maths, and
you don't need to know the difference between vectors and scalars or any of
the other mathematical stuff which is apparently causing you so much
trouble.

**Androcles[_33_]** · #93 November 16th 10, 10:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

**oriel36[_2_]** · #94 November 16th 10, 11:00 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

On Nov 16, 9:14*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message

...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
. au...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
|news |
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| . au...
| |
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Peter Webb" wrote in
message
| | u...
| | |
| | | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | ...
| | |
| | | "Quadibloc" wrote in message
| | |
| |
|
...
| | | | Google "Minkowski diagram",
| | |
| | | **** off, time is not a vector.
| | |
| | | Nor is distance.
| |
| | Which is shorter, London to Sydney or Sydney to London?
| |
| |
| | They are the same.
|
| So you don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?
|
|
| That does not follow.

See Hafele-Keating, they flew clocks around the world and it is shorter
from
London to Sydney than Sydney to London. Distance is a vector, time is not.
So you don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?

Distance is no more a vector than time is. But you don't actually need to
know anything about vector spaces to understand SR, which in your case is
just as well!

The Hafele-Keating experiment did not show that the distance from London to
Sydney is different to the distance from Sydney to London. The "thing" that
was being measured was (proper) time, not distance.

Of course, without at least a basic understanding of Relativity, this is
probably all very confusing for you. Hence my suggestion to buy a book. In
English. And at your level. Trying to learn SR from a 100 year exposition
written in German is making this very much harder for you than it needs to
be, which helps explain why you have so much trouble understanding it.

HTH

People in sci.astro.amateur have had the luxury of comprehension for
years in respect to Newton's phony absolute/relative space and motion
as it applies to observations,the attempt to diminish the main Western
astronomical achievement based on treating apparent retrogrades as an
illusion caused by the orbital motion of the Earth whereas Isaac tried
to impose a hypothetical solution and so began the framehopping
business -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Any astronomer,it doesn't have to be a doctorate,can tell that
retrogrades are an illusion caused by the Earth's own orbital motion
and those of the other planets around the Sun so that when
mathematicians attempt to introduce a flawed perspective,it should be
met with an appropriate response.The fact is that empiricists never
understood the system they inherited from Newton but cobbled together
a story out of the scraps hence the exotic relativity idea which
builds opinions out of clocks hence the idea that rulers measure
distance and clocks measure time.Clocks do a single and simple
job,they maintain a constant pace which normally is accepted for
making sense of everything for the convenience of civil life to
dynamics of the Earth as long as people know its limitations.

This is where astronomy is at,the recovery of facts and insights among
the ruins of a concept that itself was an extension of the distortions
and errors of late 17th century thinking,all it requires is people
with enough common sense and confidence to actually tackle what went
wrong instead of dithering around with the outrageous concepts of 100
years ago .

**Chris.B[_2_]** · #95 November 16th 10, 11:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

On Nov 16, 12:00*pm, Professoriel Kelleher enlightened us with his
poisonous gas:
dithering around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnH2pgtt7_I

**Peter Webb[_2_]** · #96 November 16th 10, 11:43 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

**Androcles[_33_]** · #97 November 16th 10, 12:40 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur

**Peter Webb[_2_]** · #98 November 17th 10, 12:45 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

| | |
| | | See Hafele-Keating, they flew clocks around the world and it
is
| | shorter
| | | from
| | | London to Sydney than Sydney to London. Distance is a vector,
time
| is
| | not.
| | | So you don't believe in the experimental predictions of
| relativity?
| | |
| | |
| | | Distance is no more a vector than time is.
| |
| | Is velocity a vector, ****head?
| |
| |
| | Yes, velocity is a vector.
|
| Is speed a vector, ****head?
|
|
| No.

What's the difference between "Geschwindigkeit" (German for speed)
and "Geschwindigkeit" (German for velocity)?

Dunno exactly. I don't speak that much German. You would be better off
asking in a german language newsgroup. What has the German language got to
do with Relativity anyway?

And if you don't know enough German to understand the German words for speed
and velocity, you shouldn't try and learn Relativity from books written in
German. I would have thought this to be obvious. Their are lots of books in
English on the subject.

What's the difference between velocity from A to B and velocity from B to
A?

Hint: a minus sign.

If you say so. I can't see any reason why a particle couldn't travel from A
to B at a completely different speed to that which it moves from B to A.
Swimming upstream from A to B will give you a completely different speed
relative to the earth than swimming downstream from B to A.

What's the difference between distance from A to B and distance from B to
A?

Hint: a minus sign.

No, distance is a scalar. The (Euclidean) distance from A to B is the same
as the (Euclidean) distance from B to A.

You don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?

If you have a point, you should make it.

From here, the fact that you want to discuss the German language suggests
that you have no point. Indeed, it all looks like a somewhat desperate
attempt to avoid answering a simple question - do you believe Relativity's
prediction in the so-called twin paradox that the travelling twin will not
age as much as the stay-at-home twin.

I guess that instead of answering this simple question, you will try and
change the subject again. What will it be this time? Questions concerning
Arabic instead of German? Why not answer my simple question instead? Your
consistent refusal to state what you believe makes it impossible for anybody
to believe that your position is correct, as you refuse to say what that
position actually is. So, again how about answering my question?

**Androcles[_33_]** · #99 November 17th 10, 04:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
| | | |
| | | | See Hafele-Keating, they flew clocks around the world and it
| is
| | | shorter
| | | | from
| | | | London to Sydney than Sydney to London. Distance is a
vector,
| time
| | is
| | | not.
| | | | So you don't believe in the experimental predictions of
| | relativity?
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | Distance is no more a vector than time is.
| | |
| | | Is velocity a vector, ****head?
| | |
| | |
| | | Yes, velocity is a vector.
| |
| | Is speed a vector, ****head?
| |
| |
| | No.
|
| What's the difference between "Geschwindigkeit" (German for speed)
| and "Geschwindigkeit" (German for velocity)?
|
|
| Dunno exactly.

The difference is direction.

And if you don't know enough English to understand the English words for
magnitude and direction, you shouldn't try and learn basic vector algebra
from books written in English. I would have thought this to be obvious.
There are lots of books in English on the subject.

|
|
| What's the difference between velocity from A to B and velocity from B
to
| A?
|
| Hint: a minus sign.
|
|
| If you say so. I can't see any reason why a particle couldn't travel from
A
| to B at a completely different speed to that which it moves from B to A.

I do say so. Velocity is a vector and so is distance, it has direction too.

| Swimming upstream from A to B will give you a completely different speed
| relative to the earth than swimming downstream from B to A.
|
So you don't believe Einstein wrote
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
and he wrote:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
(translation:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.")
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity)

|
| What's the difference between distance from A to B and distance from B
to
| A?
|
| Hint: a minus sign.
|
|
| No, distance is a scalar.

No, distance has direction and magnitude, fulfilling all the axioms
of a vector space.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html

Velocity is distance /time and time is a scalar, so velocity gets
direction too and it doesn't get it from time.
And if you don't know enough English to understand the English words for
magnitude and direction, you shouldn't try and learn basic vector algebra
from books written in English. I would have thought this to be obvious.
There are lots of books in English on the subject.

|
| You don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?
|
|
|
| If you have a point, you should make it.

I already did. The point is you are babbling clueless arsehole that
doesn't know any mathematics.
You don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?

**Peter Webb[_2_]** · November 17th 10, 05:06 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
| | | |
| | | | See Hafele-Keating, they flew clocks around the world and
it
| is
| | | shorter
| | | | from
| | | | London to Sydney than Sydney to London. Distance is a
vector,
| time
| | is
| | | not.
| | | | So you don't believe in the experimental predictions of
| | relativity?
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | Distance is no more a vector than time is.
| | |
| | | Is velocity a vector, ****head?
| | |
| | |
| | | Yes, velocity is a vector.
| |
| | Is speed a vector, ****head?
| |
| |
| | No.
|
| What's the difference between "Geschwindigkeit" (German for speed)
| and "Geschwindigkeit" (German for velocity)?
|
|
| Dunno exactly.

The difference is direction.

And if you don't know enough English to understand the English words for
magnitude and direction,

I do. The words you asked about were in German.

you shouldn't try and learn basic vector algebra
from books written in English. I would have thought this to be obvious.
There are lots of books in English on the subject.

I first studied Vector algebra and vector calculus over 30 years ago, and
feel I have a pretty good understanding of the subject.

That is why I was happy to answer your questions.

|
|
| What's the difference between velocity from A to B and velocity from B
to
| A?
|
| Hint: a minus sign.
|
|
| If you say so. I can't see any reason why a particle couldn't travel
from
A
| to B at a completely different speed to that which it moves from B to A.

I do say so. Velocity is a vector and so is distance, it has direction
too.

Just because two things are both vectors doesn't mean that one of them is
neccesarily minus one times the other one.

| Swimming upstream from A to B will give you a completely different speed
| relative to the earth than swimming downstream from B to A.
|
So you don't believe Einstein wrote
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
and he wrote:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
(translation:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.")
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity)

What a stupid question. Nothing I have said indicates that I think Einstein
is wrong.

|
| What's the difference between distance from A to B and distance from B
to
| A?
|
| Hint: a minus sign.
|
|
| No, distance is a scalar.

No, distance has direction and magnitude, fulfilling all the axioms
of a vector space.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html

No, distance does not have a direction.

If you Google "is distance a scalar or a vector", then the first hit is

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_distanc...or_or_a_scalar

Which has five answers, all of which say distance is a scalar.

The second hit is

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1dkin/u1l1c.cfm

Which says "Distance is a scalar quantity".

The third hit is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_(physics)

Which says: "The distance between two points in three-dimensional space is a
scalar".

So you are obviously wrong.

Not that you need to know much about vectors to learn SR. There are lots of
derivations of SR which don't explicitly use vectors at all; you would be
better off trying to learn SR through an approach which avoids vectors
entirely, you don't really need to know this stuff.

Velocity is distance /time and time is a scalar, so velocity gets
direction too and it doesn't get it from time.

Distance is a scalar.

And if you don't know enough English to understand the English words for
magnitude and direction, you shouldn't try and learn basic vector algebra
from books written in English. I would have thought this to be obvious.
There are lots of books in English on the subject.

And all of them say distance is a scalar. Like the links above.

|
| You don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?
|
|
|
| If you have a point, you should make it.

I already did. The point is you are babbling clueless arsehole that
doesn't know any mathematics.

You are the guy who doesn't know the difference between a scalar and a
vector, not me.

You don't believe in the experimental predictions of relativity?

I do.

Specifically including the prediction that the travelling twin will not age
as much as the stay-at-home twin.

Do you believe this prediction?

Why won't you tell us?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Two blue blood vessel remains beautifully preserved—one on Mars for 3 billion years, the other in Pennsylvania for 300 million years.	Lin Liangtai	Amateur Astronomy	0	July 9th 08 03:47 PM
Two blue blood vessel remains beautifully preserved—one on Mars for 3 billion years, the other in Pennsylvania for 300 million years.	Lin Liangtai	Astronomy Misc	0	July 9th 08 03:47 PM
We Have Less Than 8 Million Years To Live!	[email protected]	Misc	16	February 24th 07 05:54 AM
We Have Less Than 8 Million Years To Live!	G=EMC^2 Glazier	Misc	1	February 1st 07 07:19 PM
100 million years ago	Zague	Amateur Astronomy	14	December 15th 04 08:14 PM