Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Sue... on 26 May 2010 22:54 On May 26, 9:52 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > Time is not related to space in any way. I suggest you give up your very amateur physics and launch a new career peddling ultra lucky guns and swayback race horses. By sheer *chance* your bullets are always 300 metres downrange, 1 second after firing. Of course the horse can never loose, just so the gun is fired often enough to keep the lucky juices flowing. :-)) << Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications Sue... > > >Sue... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: YBM on 26 May 2010 23:16 Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:51:50 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > ... >> l is imaginary. Not a physically relevant quantity! There's a reason I asked >> you to explain what you think 's' means. > > It certainly is imaginary...so imaginary that that it doesn't exist. Get an education, Ralph. There�s nothing imaginary about complex numbers Lynn C. Kurtz, Ph.D. Arizona State University http://math.asu.edu/~kurtz/complexarticle.pdf
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 May 2010 00:03 On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:10:32 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:51:50 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Its 'pathlength' in spacetime should be given by s^2 = (vt)^2 + (ct)^2. >>> >>>Except it isn't, nor should it be. >> >> Why not? > >Because the geometry that SR requires is not Euclid. > >Minkowski figured this out over a century ago. He figured how to make a quick dollar by backing the idiot Einstein. Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 May 2010 00:13 On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:54:44 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >On May 26, 9:52�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >[...] >> >> Time is not related to space in any way. > >I suggest you give up your very amateur physics >and launch a new career peddling ultra lucky guns >and swayback race horses. > >By sheer *chance* your bullets are always 300 metres >downrange, 1 second after firing. Of course the >horse can never loose, just so the gun is fired >often enough to keep the lucky juices flowing. :-)) > ><< Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to >gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, >by just analyzing the various transformations that would >make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: > > * the invariance of physical systems with respect > to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws > of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives > the law of conservation of linear momentum; > * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law > of conservation of angular momentum; > * invariance with respect to time translation gives > the well-known law of conservation of energy >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > >Sue... irrelevant as usual Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 May 2010 00:23
On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:20:48 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:58:31 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> >>>[...] >>> >>>> How can the negative sign be justified? >>>> Why isn't the metric just: s^2 = (vt)^2 + (ct)^2 >>> >>>...because SR isn't Euclid. >> >> We know what SR is.....plain bullshit > >Is there something about my answer that you did not understand? > >Why can't you discuss SR honestly without spazzing over it? You've spent ten >years so far, calm the hell down and read a book about it. Have you ever considered the physical significance of (vt+ct)(vt-ct) It's a negative area. So what? Do you think declaring such entities imaginary achieves anything other than amusement for mathematicians? Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. |