Hello Human

Yes of course there are bars and resteruants on the space stations and on
our little ship that took us ten light years food materialised according to
what we ordered ready cooked with plate knife and fork and of course tea and
dessert. There was a double bed and a shower and laundry facilities (I think
it took the soiled clothes, dematerialised them and then materialised
similar clean clothes).


It was like being in a tunnel with blackness each side of us and a silver
orb of where we were going and an even blacker tunnel behind.

There was gravity all the way, we noticed nothing regarding changes in
velocity.

All we did was sex. She had her baby on board. Someone must have helped us.
We did not see them.



--
Chris
http://www.myphilosophy.eu
"ElRon XChile" wrote in message
...

"ElRon XChile" wrote in message
...

"Abonito" wrote in message
k...

"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.

Sounds like it's time for a road trip!



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.

Hey, I never thought of it that way. A locally length-minimizing curve
describes the path of non-acceleration.... Hmm, nice! Wait, could you
think of all objects in the galaxy being the Riemannian Metric?




Abonito, what do you think?

http://www.rense.com/general79/Adt.htm

What are you people talking about? I came here interested in SETI and
instead I find Sci-Fi.
Either way, it all sounds pretty cool :-)
Stephen

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Yes of course there are bars and resteruants on the space stations and on
our little ship that took us ten light years food materialised according
to what we ordered ready cooked with plate knife and fork and of course
tea and dessert. There was a double bed and a shower and laundry
facilities (I think it took the soiled clothes, dematerialised them and
then materialised similar clean clothes).


It was like being in a tunnel with blackness each side of us and a silver
orb of where we were going and an even blacker tunnel behind.

There was gravity all the way, we noticed nothing regarding changes in
velocity.

All we did was sex. She had her baby on board. Someone must have helped
us. We did not see them.



--
Chris
http://www.myphilosophy.eu
"ElRon XChile" wrote in message
...

"ElRon XChile" wrote in message
...

"Abonito" wrote in message
k...

"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.

Sounds like it's time for a road trip!



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.

Hey, I never thought of it that way. A locally length-minimizing curve
describes the path of non-acceleration.... Hmm, nice! Wait, could you
think of all objects in the galaxy being the Riemannian Metric?




Abonito, what do you think?

http://www.rense.com/general79/Adt.htm