On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 2:50:42 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:28 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> > >> If you want to meet me in Manhattan you're going to have to give me 4 >>> numbers (aka dimensions); 2 of them will give me the street corner, another >>> one will tell me what floor to get off the elevator, and the fourth will >>> give me the time of the meeting. >>> >> >> *> You seem to have a firm grasp of the obvious. * >> > > Is there any particular reason you always feel the need to be a dick even > to one who is trying his best to answer your questions? >
*I apologize. I really do. But seriously, your explanation for merging space and time is hugely simplistic, and in fact not right. They have to be merged in order to create curvature in 4 dimensions. Otherwise, if only space is involved, we can't even define a Lorentzian metric. AG * > > >> *> Perhaps the reason space and time must be merged is for a much deeper >> reason; namely, only by merging them can we get a curvature of the result. >> AG * >> > > > Talk about a firm grasp of the obvious! You can't have a curve without > at least 2 dimensions. > *I explained at least one of the requirements for going to 4 dimensions. AG * > > > >> *>> Also, why is it that Newton's law of gravity is not Lorentz >>>> invariant, yet it seems to work in all inertial frames? TIA, AG * >>>> >>> >>> Newton's law of gravity only approximately works, although the >>> approximation is quite good provided the speeds involved are not too large >>> and the spacetime curvature (aka gravity) is not too great. Newton's world >>> was not Lorentz invariant because there was no limit on how fast you could >>> go, so the laws of physics would look different depending on how fast you >>> were going; if you could move at the speed of light in a closed elevator >>> you could tell you were moving because a beam of light would look frozen >>> in violation of Maxwell's Equations which says light always moves at the >>> same speed. Therefore if things are Lorentz invariant you can't move at the >>> speed of light in a closed elevator. >>> >>> By the way, when Maxwell came up with his theory some thought the one >>> flaw in the idea was that the speed of light that the theory produced with >>> did not say the speed relative to what. But Einstein realized that >>> Maxwell's greatest flaw was really his greatest triumph. >>> >> >> *> Can you cite any statement by Einstein to this effect? AG * >> > > I could, but it would be obvious. > > >> >>Motion is how a change in time relates to a change in space, if >>> spacetime is flat a given instance in time corresponds to a particular >>> point in space, if spacetime is curved that same instance in time would >>> correspond to a different point in space. >>> >> >> *> Please elaborate.* >> > > No, why should I? > > >> * > I don't understand* >> > > I'm not surprised. > *What you wrote makes no sense. It fails to explain why motion occurs in the absence of force. AG * > > John K Clark > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
