Discussion:
Curved space flat space, who cares?
(too old to reply)
Y
2015-04-26 10:51:15 UTC
Permalink
We simply do not need to distinguish.

Don't forget guys. Newtonian mechanics IS set in absolute space and time, therefore your OWN versions of how to use that isn't Newtonian mechanics, that is something else. You are applying relativity to that which you are mean't to use absolute space and time.

That ends in strange evaluations, such as when a projectile is pushed from a table. According to your solutions, a force continues to be applied during (what should be) the free motion of that projectile. If taken as true, the Earth is being thrown away from this projectile, not only from the point of application on the table, but during the motion of that projectile. This doesn't really make any sense does it ? How can the Earth be thrown away by a projectile, but more importantly, the force of this 'throwing' of the earth continues for the duration of projectile motion ?

Eureka! I think you just found the place for Archimedes to stand and move the Earth.

So before you settle yourselves in the confidence of your previous postings, consider this. You do not know how to use the absolute reference frame, because it was too difficult for your teachers to even think about. Therefore they never taught it to you. I will try this now.

I guarantee this will be sufficiently more complex than relativity, so you need to prepare your thinking caps. I have plenty of dry ice here to help cool down those neural networks after you've thought this through. I have my solutions, and will hang onto them for now.

Firstly. In your examples, you are forgetting about absolute time.

When you drop the rocks at different absolute times their freefall motions are offset, (no one will dispute that) but they are still at rest with absolute space, and with respect to Newton's second F=ma=0. The condition of Newton's laws are therefore satisfied. These bodies with respect to each other in absolute space aren't accelerating at all. This is the first point. I will discuss some more, and all this can be done and organised correctly with some complex coordinate work (involving using moving coordinate systems).

So while their coordinate accelerations will show that they are not moving uniformly with respect to each other, they in fact are with respect to absolute space. They are in a state of absolute rest as there are no applications of force associated with these bodies.

Lets keep with the thought experiments for now.

At t=0 in absolute space, an aeronautics race is set into motion, in which rings are set out at equal distances in the field. During the race the pilots are required to fly through the rings. At t=0 the rings are correctly located in this space, and the aeroplanes at the starting line. If you hadn't already deduced, this entire sports event is set in a state of freefall and the planes are pointing towards the Earth's centre.

What emerges is that the conditions under which this event is coordinated and raced through to the end, are identical, to if the entire sports event had been coordinated in flat absolute space. The only difference is that on the surface of the Earth, points of application await, and these planes have been growing their relative momentum relative to these points during the race.

Any accelerations that the pilots make with their planes, are taken with respect to absolute space. So the conditions in which they try to out perform each other are uniform.

Now I don't know what you guys think of that, but in GR you'd call that the equivalence principle. In Newtonian mechanics we can simply use 'points of application', that we take from the work relation. During the freefall, the rings have no points of application, but the aeroplanes still get to race through these accelerating with respect to absolute space.

The point is that from t=0 none of the rings have forces applied to them and any accelerations that the pilots make with their thrusters are with respect to this absolute space.

What this loosely means, is that Flat or curved the conditions of free space are identical. Thus space is neither flat nor curved. All that differentiates a body at rest with absolute space from one that isn't is a point of application where forces apply.

Your examples of the rock do not follow in free space. They only follow with respect to a point of application.

Enjoy

-y
Woody Forrest
2015-04-26 14:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y
We simply do not need to distinguish.
Don't forget guys. Newtonian mechanics IS set in absolute space and
time,
therefore your OWN versions of how to use that isn't Newtonian
mechanics,
that is something else. You are applying relativity to that which you
are mean't to use absolute space and time.
You are error. It must be distinguished, since curved "spacetime" goes a
bit farther than Newton, in explaining Gravity, which undeniable exists.

Newton went not even nearly that farther. It appears that Newton was not a
scientist but a faker, interested merely in the occult and such related. I
would not be surprised at all if sonner will came up that he just got
inspired making that principia from ancient written knowledge he bought on
the black marked at that time.
Y
2015-04-26 17:53:12 UTC
Permalink
It doesn't need distinguishing for inertial bodies.

It only curves with respect to the points of application of bodies: I. E that location where forces apply.

-y
Y
2015-04-26 17:53:12 UTC
Permalink
It doesn't need distinguishing for inertial bodies.

It only curves with respect to the points of application of bodies: I. E that location where forces apply.

-y
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2015-04-26 20:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody Forrest
Post by Y
We simply do not need to distinguish.
Don't forget guys. Newtonian mechanics IS set in absolute space and
time, therefore your OWN versions of how to use that isn't Newtonian
mechanics, that is something else. You are applying relativity to that
which you are mean't to use absolute space and time.
You are error.
You are the nym-shifting troll that has been haunting this hierarchy for
months, if not years, by now. As is evident from your bad English (a proper
way to write it is “You are _in_ error”).
Post by Woody Forrest
It must be distinguished, since curved "spacetime" goes a
bit farther than Newton, in explaining Gravity, which undeniable exists.
Curved spacetime (no quotes, this is a proper term in physics), or, more
precisely, general relativity (GR), provides a different, and, it turns out,
*better* explanation for the observation of gravity. Which is why GR
supersedes classical mechanics when large masses and speeds close to the
speed of light in vacuum are concerned.
Post by Woody Forrest
Newton went not even nearly that farther.
YGCIB.
Post by Woody Forrest
It appears that Newton was not a scientist but a faker, interested merely
in the occult and such related.
Maybe it appears to be that way to a nym-shifting troll who has never read
the “Principia”. While Newton ascribed what he found to immanence, he was
one of those few who established the scientific method. He even invented
calculus to be able to describe motion *exactly*.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Brandy D. Cantor
2015-04-27 09:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Post by Woody Forrest
Post by Y
We simply do not need to distinguish.
Don't forget guys. Newtonian mechanics IS set in absolute space and
time, therefore your OWN versions of how to use that isn't Newtonian
mechanics, that is something else. You are applying relativity to that
which you are mean't to use absolute space and time.
You are error.
You are the nym-shifting troll that has been haunting this hierarchy for
months, if not years, by now. As is evident from your bad English (a
proper way to write it is “You are _in_ error”).
Hey stupid half of an engineer. Get your shit out of this nice place,
nothing coming out your ignorant mouth is not particularly extreme stupid.

As I can see, you are extreme stupid disregard the subject intend for
discussion. Get yourself another hobby, like those many other morons did
before you.

Robert McClintock
2015-04-26 18:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y
We simply do not need to distinguish.
Don't forget guys. Newtonian mechanics IS set in absolute space and time, therefore your OWN versions of how to use that isn't Newtonian mechanics, that is something else. You are applying relativity to that which you are mean't to use absolute space and time.
That ends in strange evaluations, such as when a projectile is pushed from a table. According to your solutions, a force continues to be applied during (what should be) the free motion of that projectile. If taken as true, the Earth is being thrown away from this projectile, not only from the point of application on the table, but during the motion of that projectile. This doesn't really make any sense does it ? How can the Earth be thrown away by a projectile, but more importantly, the force of this 'throwing' of the earth continues for the duration of projectile motion ?
Eureka! I think you just found the place for Archimedes to stand and move the Earth.
So before you settle yourselves in the confidence of your previous postings, consider this. You do not know how to use the absolute reference frame, because it was too difficult for your teachers to even think about. Therefore they never taught it to you. I will try this now.
I guarantee this will be sufficiently more complex than relativity, so you need to prepare your thinking caps. I have plenty of dry ice here to help cool down those neural networks after you've thought this through. I have my solutions, and will hang onto them for now.
Firstly. In your examples, you are forgetting about absolute time.
When you drop the rocks at different absolute times their freefall motions are offset, (no one will dispute that) but they are still at rest with absolute space, and with respect to Newton's second F=ma=0. The condition of Newton's laws are therefore satisfied. These bodies with respect to each other in absolute space aren't accelerating at all. This is the first point. I will discuss some more, and all this can be done and organised correctly with some complex coordinate work (involving using moving coordinate systems).
So while their coordinate accelerations will show that they are not moving uniformly with respect to each other, they in fact are with respect to absolute space. They are in a state of absolute rest as there are no applications of force associated with these bodies.
Lets keep with the thought experiments for now.
At t=0 in absolute space, an aeronautics race is set into motion, in which rings are set out at equal distances in the field. During the race the pilots are required to fly through the rings. At t=0 the rings are correctly located in this space, and the aeroplanes at the starting line. If you hadn't already deduced, this entire sports event is set in a state of freefall and the planes are pointing towards the Earth's centre.
What emerges is that the conditions under which this event is coordinated and raced through to the end, are identical, to if the entire sports event had been coordinated in flat absolute space. The only difference is that on the surface of the Earth, points of application await, and these planes have been growing their relative momentum relative to these points during the race.
Any accelerations that the pilots make with their planes, are taken with respect to absolute space. So the conditions in which they try to out perform each other are uniform.
Now I don't know what you guys think of that, but in GR you'd call that the equivalence principle. In Newtonian mechanics we can simply use 'points of application', that we take from the work relation. During the freefall, the rings have no points of application, but the aeroplanes still get to race through these accelerating with respect to absolute space.
The point is that from t=0 none of the rings have forces applied to them and any accelerations that the pilots make with their thrusters are with respect to this absolute space.
What this loosely means, is that Flat or curved the conditions of free space are identical. Thus space is neither flat nor curved. All that differentiates a body at rest with absolute space from one that isn't is a point of application where forces apply.
Your examples of the rock do not follow in free space. They only follow with respect to a point of application.
Enjoy
-y
alignment of moon and venus to illustrate that space is curved actually alot even on this planet i saw last week think.why is horizon of street going away up anmd away.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...