> Timberwoof wrote:

>> In article comcast.com>,
>>  "Spaceman" wrote:

>

>>> Timberwoof wrote:

>>>> In article comcast.com>,
>>>>  "Spaceman" wrote:

>

>>>>> Painius wrote:

>>>>>> Time is most definitely a degree of freedom, Thomas.
>>>>>> We may call it a dimension because it is indeed a real
>>>>>> dimension.  If the Universe only offers three degrees
>>>>>> of *movement*, then how do you explain the totally
>>>>>> different area of space by which your three complex
>>>>>> perpendicular planes will be defined after *movement*
>>>>>> takes place?  Your argument only works when there is
>>>>>> NO movement of your three-coordinate system.  And
>>>>>> since this is impossible, because in the real Universe
>>>>>> EVERYTHING is ALWAYS in motion, time has to be a
>>>>>> very real dimension.  When time is considered, then
>>>>>> one can begin to see how all the spatial coordinates
>>>>>> change value WHEN THE SYSTEM MOVES.

>

>>>>> The coordinate system does not move.
>>>>> If you allow motion of the system itself, you have no base
>>>>> reference for motion within the system.

>

>>>> There is no privileged system of measurement. in anything you do,
>>>> you have to pick some coordinate system.

>

>>> No shit.
>>> If you wish to model the universe you must pick a universal
>>> coordinate system, and you would also need to model smaller
>>> coordinate systems
>>> that move in such a system.

>

>> No, you don't. Any one coordinate system can be translated into any
>> other; there's no need for a "universal" one.

>
> You truly know nothing about "modeling in 3D" then.
>

>>> I think Relativists should be forced to use a 3D program and see how
>>> reality works so well when absolute time and absolute distances are
>>> used. They might actually gain a tiny bit of insight again instead
>>> of this rubber ruler land thoughts they are worshipping today.

>

>> Well, your rehtoric has a long dash of hyperbole. A
>> euclidian/newtonian 3D program won't work; you have to add Lorentz
>> transformations and C for it to match up to reality.

>
> Nope.
> You prove again you know nothing about 3D space.
>
>
>
>
>

>>>> For instance, if I want talk about how a motorcycle wheelies, I
>>>> pick a coordinate system that's anchored to my test track. The
>>>> motorcycle moves within that coordinate system. However, the Earth
>>>> rotates and it orbits about the sun. The sun orbits about the
>>>> center of the galaxy. The galaxy... So the test track is a moving
>>>> coordinate system already.

>

>>> Yet another that does not understand simple 3D and absolute time and
>>> absolute distances.
>>> All "wireframe" coordinates need to move in the larger wireframes.
>>> The largest wireframe would be the universe.

>

>> There are no measurements that you can take that will establish a
>> unique and unarguable reference to "the" coordinate system. Everyone
>> will come up with his own, and through the Lorentz transformations,
>> any one can be translated into another.

>
> The "transform" is a silly self limiting math trick.
> It is a joke to anyone that understands the math being used in it.

>> Look, you don't impress me by calling me an idiot or a moron. I've
>> read Penrose as well as books on 3D modeling. Your simple systems
>> don't account for real-world effects that astronomers and physicists
>> measure. They're good for making pretty pictures, but they fail at
>> relativistic effects.

>
> Actually it does, The simple system accounts for everything.
> If you knew how it works, you would agree, but sadly you have been
> brainwashed by the transform crap that actually DOES NOT WORK
> and will cause crashing before crashing would actually occur
> according to your silly transform bullshit.