Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: eric gisse on 27 May 2010 02:00 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > 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. Do you think just because something is squared makes it an 'area' ? The quantity 's' is the distance between two events, which can be positive, negative, or zero. Non-Euclidean geometries predate relativity by a solid 70 years. That you can't think outside the Cartesian box tells you more about your limitations than anything else. Untold thousands of mathematicians and physicists manage - why can't you, if you are as smart as you think you are? No, saying everyone else is stupid is both wrong and egocentric. > So what? Do you think declaring such entities > imaginary achieves anything other than amusement for mathematicians? If you want to learn relativity, just ask and folks will give you lots of textbooks to read. The method of "I dare you to make me understand" hasn't worked in the previous ten years so I don't see why you'd expect it to work now. > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 May 2010 05:14 On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:00:44 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:20:48 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>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. > >Do you think just because something is squared makes it an 'area' ? The >quantity 's' is the distance between two events, which can be positive, >negative, or zero. Non-Euclidean geometries predate relativity by a solid 70 >years. > >That you can't think outside the Cartesian box tells you more about your >limitations than anything else. Untold thousands of mathematicians and >physicists manage - why can't you, if you are as smart as you think you are? > >No, saying everyone else is stupid is both wrong and egocentric. > >> So what? Do you think declaring such entities >> imaginary achieves anything other than amusement for mathematicians? > >If you want to learn relativity, just ask and folks will give you lots of >textbooks to read. > >The method of "I dare you to make me understand" hasn't worked in the >previous ten years so I don't see why you'd expect it to work now. So Einstein has conned the world into believing a theory based on negative areas and volumes. What kind of matter occupies a negative volume? AntiMatter? Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: PD on 27 May 2010 09:32 On May 26, 6:54 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:04:22 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On May 25, 5:09 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> I would like a relativist to explain why the distance term ct is imaginary in > >> 4D 'spacetime'. > > >> Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's > >> imagination? > > >A couple of comments. > >1. It isn't a distance term. It's the time component, converted into > >units meters with the conversion factor c. > > It is the distance a ray of light moves wrt its source in time t. Numerically it is equivalent to that, yes. However, in a 4D spacetime interval, it is the time component, converted into units meters with the conversion factor c. If you used natural units, the factor c would not appear at all. > > >2. It *isn't* an imaginary number in 4D spacetime. In spacetime with > >metric signature +--- or -+++, all the components are real numbers (in > >the mathematical sense of "real number", not your bonehead > >misconstrual). There is a way to make the spacetime signature LOOK > >Cartesian (that is, with signature ++++ ) by using an imaginary number > >for the time component, but it certainly isn't native to spacetime's > >geometry. > > What justification is there in subtracting the distance light move in time t > from the distance an object moves? That's what this is all about. > I cannot see any physical connection. You're not doing that. See above. > > >3. An imaginary number is not a fictitious number, contrary to your > >bonehead misconstrual. Imaginary and real numbers are classes of > >numbers, both of which are commonly instantiated in real life. > >Electrical engineers, for example, use designs calculated with > >imaginary numbers all the time, and the devices built per those > >designs work very well, thank you. > > I am very familiar with AC theory. > It has nothing whatsoever to do with this. You're right. But the use of imaginary numbers here would imply that the physics is imaginary no more than the use of imaginary numbers in AC circuits would imply that AC circuits are imaginary. > > >This should be the point where you get embarrassed and say to > >yourself, "Well, perhaps I should read something, on the off chance > >that it will at least slow me from saying something equally boneheaded > >tomorrow." > > I have yet to find any justification for the minus sign in the metric. > Obviously I am wasting my time asking anyone here for a reason. You didn't ASK for the justification of the minus sign in the metric. You asked if the appearance of imaginary numbers if the metric was forced to look Cartesian implied that relativity was only a figment of imagination. I'm sure you can see the difference. > > >PD > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 27 May 2010 15:22 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:00:44 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:20:48 -0700, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>>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. >> >>Do you think just because something is squared makes it an 'area' ? The >>quantity 's' is the distance between two events, which can be positive, >>negative, or zero. Non-Euclidean geometries predate relativity by a solid >>70 years. Looks like you plowed right past this while continuing to claim there's negative area. >> >>That you can't think outside the Cartesian box tells you more about your >>limitations than anything else. Untold thousands of mathematicians and >>physicists manage - why can't you, if you are as smart as you think you >>are? >> >>No, saying everyone else is stupid is both wrong and egocentric. >> >>> So what? Do you think declaring such entities >>> imaginary achieves anything other than amusement for mathematicians? >> >>If you want to learn relativity, just ask and folks will give you lots of >>textbooks to read. >> >>The method of "I dare you to make me understand" hasn't worked in the >>previous ten years so I don't see why you'd expect it to work now. > > So Einstein has conned the world into believing a theory based on negative > areas and volumes. There are no negative areas or volumes in relativity. You are making things up - again. > > What kind of matter occupies a negative volume? AntiMatter? > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eon on 27 May 2010 15:47
On May 27, 9:22 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [mercifully ...] > > There are no negative areas or volumes in relativity. You are making things > up - again. why, are there negative lengths in nature? |