"Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:026d333b$0$20667$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:05cb6df2-507f-4861-bbbf-0d91277e6a15@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 14, 8:05 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:95471494-cc92-4d8c-b988-2de404f0dda8@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Jul 14, 4:11 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >> "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote in >>> >> messagenews:HHV6m.15653$bq1.7920@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> >>> >> > "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> >> >news:0077f42c$0$9680$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >>> >> >> "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote in message >>> >> >>news:vlT6m.10982$Jb1.3792@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com... >>> >>> >> >>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message >>> >> >>>news:hJz6m.782029$yE1.228877@attbi_s21... >>> >> >>>> Spirit of Truth wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>>> Stop being such an uncompromising idiot. Go read Brian Greene's >>> >> >>>>> Best Sellers and when you understand a little about science >>> >> >>>>> come >>> >> >>>>> back and then open your at the moment idiot mouth. >>> >>> >> >>>>> Spirit of Truth >>> >>> >> >>>> That's really interesting that you suggest reading Brian >>> >> >>>> Greene. >>> >>> >> >>>> 1. Brian Green gets relativity right! You don't! >>> >>> >> >>>> 2. Greene's book are loaded with "ifs" and "what ifs" and most >>> >> >>>> lay >>> >> >>>> people cannot sort out the science from the speculation. I >>> >> >>>> think >>> >> >>>> you are one of those people, Spirit! >>> >>> >> >>> No, Sam. if you have Greene's books look up block universe >>> >> >>> which appears in both of them. >>> >>> >> >>> I have made no error whatsoever in my statements to you. >>> >>> >> >> Can you supply an excerpt. I don't have access to the book you >>> >> >> are >>> >> >> referring to. >>> >>> >> >> BTW: You're still not said WHY the universe cannot be block, and >>> >> >> how >>> >> >> you >>> >> >> could tell whether or not it is. Other than we have to take it on >>> >> >> faith >>> >> >> and your assurances. >>> >>> >> > I don't have time to do Greene for you, but have a read of the >>> >> > following >>> >> > conversation, I hope it posts OK: >>> >>> >> Thanks >>> >>> >> BTW: You do know that in SR if you and another observer are at the >>> >> same >>> >> place now, regardless of your relative motion, you will experience >>> >> exactly >>> >> the same universe at that 'now'. Things the you see as simultaneous, >>> >> they >>> >> will see as simultaneous. >>> >>> > When I saw this I had to double check to make sure you had written the >>> > above and that you were not quoting someone else. The above is not >>> > correct. The obvious example is the train experiment. When M and M' >>> > coincide they are at the same place. For M the strikes are happening >>> > at A and B now. For M' the strike already happen at B before he met >>> > M, while the strike at A has yet to happen. >>> >>> But they EXPERIENCE the same things. What you experience is what you >>> sense >>> .. what you sense is what happens where you are .. not at some other >>> location. >> >> Somehow I don't think many readers would interpert "same universe" > > it is the same universe. the universe is the universe ..there are not > different ones for each observer > >> as >> meaning just the event happening at that one location the instant they >> are together. > > I said their experience of it .. what reaches them from the events in the > past > >> That is a mighty small universe. If you mean >> everything they can see from that spot at that one instant I think you >> will find things differ. I will explain further down. Also when we >> talk of simultaneity in SR we are usually speaking of events seperated >> by space. Technically I suppose you can say an event is simultaneous >> with itself, but that's begging for confusion. > > That's right .. so that is why, at a given location in time and space, the > events there are observed at the same time by all observers .. even if > that event is a photon arriving from some distant location. > >>> Indeed, it is impossible for something happening now somewhere >>> else to affect you. These are events in space-time at your location. >>> And >>> the speed of an observer does not change events at some location. >>> That's >>> why I used the word experience. >> >> I think if you get detailed enough about what they see their >> experiences are different even when at the same spot. Again, further >> down. > > I can hardly wait > >>> Perhaps it would be a little clearer if I worded it as "you will have >>> the >>> same experience of the universe at the 'now'". >>> >>> An example is that if two observers meet, travelling at different speeds >>> (maybe one is walking past), .. for each of them a remote point at that >>> time >>> in their mutual x-direction in (say) another galaxy will correspond to >>> different points in time in that remote galaxy. However, they will both >>> have >>> identical experiences of that galaxy. So, if there was a telescope >>> where >>> they pass, they would each see the same image of the galaxy from a >>> single >>> time. Even though what they consider (but not experience) as 'now' in >>> that >>> galaxy is different times.- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> Try looking away from the x axis. > > Fine > >> Let's say N' is moving parallel to >> M' and is perpendicular to M'. > > Umm parallel and perpendicular to the same thing? Not sure if I follow > yet .. let me see. Do you mean at any given time N' and M' have the same > x coordinate, but a different y coordinate? > >> In the path of N' lies N some distance >> in the -x direction from the y axis. > > what does 'the -x direction from the y axis' mean? > >> When N' coincides with N a flash >> is emitted. The flash arrives at the location of M and M' just as >> they coincide. > > What and where is M and where is it travelling .. its suddenly appeared > form nowhere in your description > >> M will see the flash coming from N, who is to the - side of the y >> axis. He will also see N' at that location. M' will see the flash >> come from N', who is perpendicular to him on the y' axis. M' will >> also see N at the flash. >> >> So even though M and M' agree that N and N' were together when the >> flash happen, they don't agree on where the flash took place. > > They may disagree on how they label their axes, that's all. > > Further .. separate remote events, that one observer at a given point in > spacetime sees as simultaneous, another relatively moving observer at the > same point in spacetime will also see as simultaneous. Note that this is > different to what they would calculate by convention as being > simultaneous. > >> And by >> that I don't mean the grid coordinates as reported by other observers, >> but what M and M' would see of distant events with their own eyes. If >> M and M' both point their (narrow field of view) telescopes >> perpendicular to the x axis M' will see the flash but M will not. > > Either the photon arrives there, or it doesn't. Either both telescopes > are there or they aren't. if the light arrives through one of the > telescopes to one observer, it arrives through that same telescope for the > other. One observer may choose differently which photons to pay attention > to, of course.
Note that further, what each observer gets when they use that information to calculate what is 'really' happening can be different. If the observers know the speed of light is c for both of them, and know their relatives velocities etc, then one observer may calculate that the events 'really' were simultaneous, and the other that they 'really' weren't.
