Re: Vista beta vs. OSX

In news:znu-AFE406.04242816122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
> In article <1134721179.547029.210410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Edward Scholl" <edscholl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>> In article <G4Qnf.39946$D13.38786@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> "ed" <news_test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>> It's true, there's no particular reason to believe the entire
>>>>> universe can be modeled with a formal system like mathematics.
>>>>> But it's worked pretty well so far, so I'd say it's the way to
>>>>> bet.
>>>>
>>>> yeah, and there were mathematical models that agreed w/
>>>> observations of a geocentric solar system as well. way to have
>>>> the faith. ;D
>>>
>>> Review your Reletivity. All frames are equally valid. The math is
>>> just neater in some than in others.
>>
>> whoooa now, take a couple steps back. sure, all frames are valid in
>> relativity, but that absolutely does not mean all descriptions of
>> relative motions are correct if the math works out. i.e just because
>> your frame of reference is earth does not mean that the geocentric
>> model with the sun revolving around it is correct (IT'S NOT).
>
> Yes, but the only reason Relativity doesn't allow for a geocentric
> model
> is because acceleration is directly detectable (that is, unlike
> motion,
> it doesn't have to be measured relative to something else). The
> geocentric mathematical models of the solar system, as far as I'm
> aware,
> only looked at motion, not at acceleration, and from that limited
> perspective, Relativity doesn't say they're wrong.
>
> My point, though, was really that geocentric models managed to produce
> useful results, despite being a bit messy and, clearly, not quite
> right.
> IOW, they weren't the kind of failure for mathematical modeling that
> ed was trying to present them as.

you're talking to the same guy buddy. ;D
and your point almost certainly was not what you're saying now- the
implication os your glib statement was almost certainly that according to
relativity that there was nothing wrong with a geocentric model of our
universe.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Debate with Zielinski on GR and Quantum Gravity
    ... But this is not enough to give us *actual physical relativity* ... holds *formally* in non-inertial frames; ... where tuv(pure gravity) = 0 everywhere-when BORING BORING BORING. ... his special relativity principle to encompass accelerated motion. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Debate with Zielinski on GR and Quantum Gravity
    ... But this is not enough to give us *actual physical relativity* ... holds *formally* in non-inertial frames; ... where tuv(pure gravity) = 0 everywhere-when BORING BORING BORING. ... his special relativity principle to encompass accelerated motion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Debate with Zielinski on GR and Quantum Gravity
    ... But this is not enough to give us *actual physical relativity* ... holds *formally* in non-inertial frames; ... where tuv(pure gravity) = 0 everywhere-when BORING BORING BORING. ... his special relativity principle to encompass accelerated motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins disservice to physics
    ... constant c in all inertial frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative uniform ... This distinguishes Special Relativity from Galilean relativity and is ... different inertial frames K1, K2, K3, etc. in relative uniform motion. ... infinitely many inertial reference frames K1, K2, K3, etc. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins disservice to physics
    ... constant c in all inertial frames K1, K2, K3 etc. in relative uniform ... This distinguishes Special Relativity from Galilean relativity and is ... different inertial frames K1, K2, K3, etc. in relative uniform motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)