Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: eric gisse on 27 May 2010 22:09 pmb wrote: > On May 25, 7:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> > I would like a relativist to explain why the distance term ct is >> > imaginary in 4D 'spacetime'. >> >> It isn't. >> >> Don't make stuff up, Ralph. > > Actually it "can" be imaginary. No, it can't. The coordinate values on a Lorentzian manifold are real BY DEFINITION. Complex values are not permitted. [snip rest]
From: pmb on 28 May 2010 03:27 On May 27, 10:09 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > pmb wrote: > > On May 25, 7:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> > I would like a relativist to explain why the distance term ct is > >> > imaginary in 4D 'spacetime'. > > >> It isn't. > > >> Don't make stuff up, Ralph. > > > Actually it "can" be imaginary. > > No, it can't. The coordinate values on a Lorentzian manifold are real BY > DEFINITION. Complex values are not permitted. > That isn't true. There are two ways of working with the spacetime manifold. One is the way it is done in, say, Mould's text and one is the way it is done in, say, MTW. What, exactly, do ypou think that R_0 = ict means? Pete
From: PD on 28 May 2010 09:50 On May 27, 5:41 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT), eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > >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? > > poor little eric reads too many books that he cannot understand. > > The Minkowski metric defines a perfectly Euclidean negative area.... And the Pythagorean rule must then perfectly define the area of a triangle. Hmmmm.... > > QED > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative areas.
From: whoever on 27 May 2010 23:45 "pmb" <pmb61(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:517bf2e0-2971-44c1-90e0-1c7681b8b12c(a)j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On May 27, 6:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:23:23 -0700 (PDT), pmb <pm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On May 25, 7:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> > I would like a relativist to explain why the distance term ct is >> >> > imaginary >> >> > in 4D 'spacetime'. >> >> >> It isn't. >> >> >> Don't make stuff up, Ralph. >> >> >Actually it "can" be imaginary. It just depends on the conventions an >> >author chooses to use. In fact some modern textbooks still use that >> >convention. For example, see "Basic Relativity" by Richard A. Mould, >> >Springer Press. See section 3.7 "Four Vectors" on page 71. Usually the >> >usage is reserved for special relativity. When this is the case the >> >metric is g = diag(1, 1, 1, 1), i.e. the metric to a 4-D Euclidean >> >space. >> >> Forget about the 4D jargon...just use x and t. It's a lot easier. >> >> Minkowski's s^2 is a negative area.....no such thing exists... >> Multiply it by a length and you have a negative volume...Hahahhahha! > > It is illogical to claim that because a quantity is squared then it > must represent an area. Don't you know that kinetic energy is an area of velocity, because the formula has v^2 in the formula? Or is it an area divided by a squared time ... what sort of an 'area' is squareed time anyway .. what does that physically correspond to. It also appears in the formula for how far an accelerating object travels .. s = at^2 has t^2 in it too. My goodness .. there are strange time areas all over the place in physics ;):):):) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: kenseto on 28 May 2010 11:37
On May 25, 6:09 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? > SR uses a rubber meter stick (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second) to measure length and rubber second a rubber second to measure time.....as such it cannot not be disproved. Definition for a rubber second: Every SR observer assumes that his clock second is a standard unit of time and yet at the same time the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. What this mean is that a clock second in different frame have different duration (different time content). Ken Seto |