Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 203 of 203
Thanks Tree26Thanks

Thread: Xians have it wrong...jesus wasn't crucified

  1. #201
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    So the speed of light c1=c2=c3=c4=c5=...=c in all system, which move in a speed of any percentage of the speed of light. And from any system of this system you watched any other system of this systems then you will always measure the speed of light = c.
    Correct -- as long as they are inertial reference frames. If you are at rest, or moving at a constant velocity v, you will measure the speed of light as c.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    What you call a "non-inertial system" is the same as an accelerated inertial system.
    Inertia means at rest or moving at a constant velocity. So an accelerated system cannot possibly be 'inertial'.

    A non-inertial reference frame could be accelerating, going in uniform circular motion, or at a specific gravitational equipotential surface. An observer in a non-inertial reference frame would observe the speed of light in another reference frame to be changing.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    That's what you say and what I doubt.
    It is a phenomenon of general relativity and it has been proven repeatedly, from navigation systems, black holes and extra-galactic radiations.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    It has to do with speed. An accelerating system changes the speed.
    It has to do with CONSTANT velocity -- neither the speed nor direction is changing from one moment to the next. An acceleration CHANGES the speed or direction from one moment to the next.

    The lorentz factor, lower case gamma, is used to transform quantities like length, mass an time in one reference frame relative to another, co-moving (constant velocity) reference frame.

    It is not, however, used in general relativity for the simple reason that the derivation of the lorentz factor was restricted ONLY to inertial reference frames.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Good grief. If something has to move a longer way in the same speed then changes not the speed if someone measures a different time for a different distance.
    It is longer only in 4d space-time, not in 3d.

    The analogy is distances in a 2d map (measured as horizontal distance) are different in 3d (measured as slope distance). On a map, everything is flat but in 3d reality, all features on the map have different elevations.

    And to take the analogy further, two points on the earth define a straight line (you can connect these two points with a laser) but, when you plot all the points in between on a map, you would discover that it is an s-curve called a geodesic (if the line is sufficiently long). It curves because at each point on the line, the north direction is changing.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    And the speed of light is invariant and constant in both reference frames. Are "reference frame" and "inertial system" for you a difference?
    A reference frame is merely a cartesian space+time with an arbitrary origin x,y,z,t=0 from which physical phenomena are observed. These reference frame may be at rest, moving at a velocity v, moving at an acceleration g, or moving at a constant speed but changing direction (as in circular or curvilinear motion).

    When an observer is at an inertial reference frame (at rest or moving at a constant velocity, v), the speed of light is observed to be constant regardless of the velocity of that rf.

    When an observer is at a non-inertial ref frame (accelerating, in uniform circular motion, and in the presence of gravity) the speed of light is observed to be changing depending on the acceleration of that ref frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    As well in time and space are changes - what you call "4-d space time" is - as far as I understand - only a form of calculation. Nothing transforms space in time or time in space. This are different qualities.
    No.

    The motion of any physical object is defined in a reference frame using x,y,z,t. In newtonian mechanics x,y,z and t are uniform quantities in any arbitrarily chosen reference frame. One can use any arbitrary unit and their measures will still be the same -- 1 foot=0.3048 meters, 1 minute=60 seconds, etc. In special and general relativity, space and time are not uniform quantities in all reference frames -- a foot in one rf is shorter that 1 foot in another rf. Clocks run slower in one rf than in another.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Everywhere in the universe are existing exactly the same natural laws.
    The laws of physics are based on uniform quantities of mass, space and time, hence a phenomenon at the edge of the universe is exactly repeatable in the other edge of the universe. That is why physical laws are said to be background-independent. However, we already know that mass, space and time are not uniform. They are dependent on the observer's reference frame. So, special and general relativity are means by which we transform measures from one rf to another such that our understanding of natural laws are still the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Still you said nothing what this makes plausible. Let me say this: A measurement of the speed of light is very fast. If I measure in an accelerating system the speed of light in another accelerating inertial system then I'm not able to see what in this very short time should really change. I don't see any reason why this is not comparable with a measurement in normal inertial system.
    I have already provided an example of this -- the sagnac effect in navigation systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Schwarzschild. His name was Karl Schwarz-schild. "Schwarz" means black and "schild" means shield in the German language.
    My bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Still no idea why you say so. Physics is not political propaganda. I don't see any plausibility in this what you say. The speed of light is invariant.
    Precisely. Physics is not political propaganda and it is a scientific fact that the speed of light would change depending on the acceleration of the reference frame from which you are measuring light.

    It is invariant ONLY in vacuum and ONLY in inertial reference frames. You can easily google 'speed of light is invariant' it will come up with what I am saying here -- it is invariant in inertial rf and variant in non-inertial rf.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    The world is full of idiots but not every reference frame is always the same. In Germany everyone is an idiot, in the USA everyone else is an idiot.
    I'm from asia, so.....

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Einsteins wife asked in Mont Palomar the people what they are doing there. After they had explained this she said: "For this you need all this instruments? My husband is always using a pencil and the cuff of his shirt for such problems."

    Michelson and Morley had really a problem. It was crazy what they had measured, normally completely impossible. Very very strange result. But they published it. Great men.
    Correct. The results of the michelson-morley experiment was counter-intuitive given the galilean transformation. But it was not only accurate, but it brought experimental validation to einstein's postulate of constancy of c.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Galileo? Was not Kepler more important in this context? Kepler inspired Newton. Newton inspired Einstein.

    Galileo formulated the concept.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

    In physics, a Galilean transformation is used to transform between the coordinates of two reference frames which differ only by constant relative motion within the constructs of Newtonian physics.

  2. #202
    New Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    132

    From
    Germany
    The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him, and he said: 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'
    -----

  3. #203
    New Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    132

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Correct -- as long as they are inertial reference frames. If you are at rest, or moving at a constant velocity v, you will measure the speed of light as c.

    Inertia means at rest or moving at a constant velocity. So an accelerated system cannot possibly be 'inertial'.
    The color red in the US-American flag besides the third white stripe is for example a "not inertial system". So we know now a not intertial system is white striped? The word Einsteins used is "Bezugssystem" - reference system. This reference system is able to be in "gleichförmig linearer Bewegung" - in uniform linear motion. So I'm not sure what you say if you use the expression "inertial". So perhaps the best could be to speak about "linear system" and "accelerated system".

    A non-inertial reference frame
    is everything else except an inertial reference frame.

    could be accelerating, going in uniform circular motion, or at a specific gravitational equipotential surface. An observer in a non-inertial reference frame would observe the speed of light in another reference frame to be changing.
    A linear system is not pushed from outside.

    It is a phenomenon of general relativity
    General gravity is a theory - a theory in the reference frame of natural philosophy (=physics). "Phenomenon" is a very inaccurate description. We would need now some mathematics - mathematics is by the way not science - 0to understand in a better way what we try to speak about.

    and it has been proven repeatedly, from navigation systems, black holes and extra-galactic radiations.
    Physics asks the nature in a mathematical way of understanding of the world - and the natural world answers to this questions full of spirit with results in experiments.

    It has to do with CONSTANT velocity -- neither the speed nor direction is changing from one moment to the next. An acceleration CHANGES the speed or direction from one moment to the next.

    The lorentz factor, lower case gamma, is used to transform quantities like length, mass an time in one reference frame relative to another, co-moving (constant velocity) reference frame.
    That's the first easy understandable sentence you said here now. 1/lf or 1/gamma is by the way a circle.

    It is not, however, used in general relativity for the simple reason that the derivation of the lorentz factor was restricted ONLY to inertial reference frames.
    The Lorentz factor bases in the invariance of the speed of light. The Lorentz factor is always important, if something is moving within the near of the speed of light - independent whether a reference frame is linear or accelerated.

    is longer only in 4d space-time, not in 3d.
    The universe is not 4D only because someone uses a 4-D mathematics. In our universe exist three dimensions of space (up-down, forward-backward, left-right) and a half dimension time (forward) in the sphere where we live.

    The analogy is distances in a 2d map (measured as horizontal distance) are different in 3d (measured as slope distance). On a map, everything is flat but in 3d reality, all features on the map have different elevations.
    If we would live in a 4-D world then we could see cubes coming and going which are passing in the 4th dimension of space our 3 dimensions.

    And to take the analogy further, two points on the earth define a straight line (you can connect these two points with a laser) but, when you plot all the points in between on a map, you would discover that it is an s-curve called a geodesic (if the line is sufficiently long). It curves because at each point on the line, the north direction is changing.
    An you tell this now whom, where and on exactly what reason?

    A reference frame is merely a cartesian space+time with an arbitrary origin x,y,z,t=0 from which physical phenomena are observed.
    Every event in the universe has an individuality - is unique - by using this 4 coordinates. If we had a computer in the size or energy of some universes we could use this coordinate system to simulate the universe here. We could call this computer "turtle 1"

    These reference frame may be at rest, moving at a velocity v, moving at an acceleration g, or moving at a constant speed but changing direction (as in circular or curvilinear motion).

    When an observer is at an inertial reference frame (at rest or moving at a constant velocity, v), the speed of light is observed to be constant regardless of the velocity of that rf.

    When an observer is at a non-inertial ref frame (accelerating, in uniform circular motion, and in the presence of gravity) the speed of light is observed to be changing depending on the acceleration of that ref frame.

    No.

    The motion of any physical object is defined in a reference frame using x,y,z,t. In newtonian mechanics x,y,z and t are uniform quantities in any arbitrarily chosen reference frame. One can use any arbitrary unit and their measures will still be the same -- 1 foot=0.3048 meters,
    1 meter = 3ft 3.370079in. The standard in physics is "meter".

    1 minute=60 seconds, etc. In special and general relativity, space and time are not uniform quantities in all reference frames -- a foot in one rf is shorter that 1 foot in another rf. Clocks run slower in one rf than in another.


    The laws of physics are based on uniform quantities of mass, space and time, hence a phenomenon at the edge of the universe is exactly repeatable in the other edge of the universe.
    A paradigma of physics.

    That is why physical laws are said to be background-independent.
    What means "background" in this context?

    However, we already know that mass, space and time are not uniform.
    I know time flows, mass is heavy and space always disappears if u need him.

    They are dependent on the observer's reference frame. So, special and general relativity are means by which we transform measures from one rf to another such that our understanding of natural laws are still the same.

    I have already provided an example of this -- the sagnac effect in navigation systems.



    My bad.



    Precisely. Physics is not political propaganda and it is a scientific fact that the speed of light would change depending on the acceleration of the reference frame from which you are measuring light.

    It is invariant ONLY in vacuum and ONLY in inertial reference frames. You can easily google 'speed of light is invariant' it will come up with what I am saying here -- it is invariant in inertial rf and variant in non-inertial rf.



    I'm from asia, so.....



    Correct. The results of the michelson-morley experiment was counter-intuitive given the galilean transformation. But it was not only accurate, but it brought experimental validation to einstein's postulate of constancy of c.



    Galileo formulated the concept.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
    Which concept?

    In physics, a Galilean transformation is used to transform between the coordinates of two reference frames which differ only by constant relative motion within the constructs of Newtonian physics.
    Ah ... the concept of reference frames. ... Whatever. I guess you said something here but you said nothing essential about the invariance of the speed of light. Today is by the way "Good Friday". I never understood why the English speaking world calls this day "good" - it's a terrible day. The light of the world died on a cross this day. Sigh.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 13th April 2017 at 08:11 PM.

Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021

Similar Threads

  1. Jesus wasn't an actual person
    By knight in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 236
    Last Post: 19th February 2016, 03:21 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20th June 2015, 11:21 AM
  3. Rick Perry On What Went Wrong In 2012: 'I Wasn't Healthy'--
    By GordonGecko in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26th May 2015, 05:42 PM
  4. Bible Spice getting crucified
    By Think for myself in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 7th November 2008, 07:09 PM
  5. Maybe Obama Wasn't Wrong....
    By Migi e! in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 18th April 2008, 12:10 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed