From: Koobee Wublee on
On May 26, 9:04 am, 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.

No, it is just a simpler way to write all the equations of the Lorentz
transform into a single equation. Time and space cannot perfectly
form a coordinate system. In doing so, it does seem like spacetime
manifests imaginary stuff in terms of mathematical sense. <shrug>

> 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.

Ditto. <shrug>

> 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.

Gee! Ditto. <shrug>

> Electrical engineers, for example, use designs calculated with
> imaginary numbers all the time,

And what are they?

> and the devices built per those
> designs work very well, thank you.

From my experiences, engineers seem to be smarter and less mystified
than self-styled physicists. I vote to use (j omega t) instead of
stupid (i omega t). <shrug>

> 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."

No, this should be the time for you as a grumpy old man to sit down
and ask yourself why your grand kids don't come to visit anymore.
<shrug>


From: kenseto on
On May 28, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 10:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity?

Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be
falsified, by definition, is not scientific.

> Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. A theory makes
> predictions of measurable quantities -- that is, what will be measured
> under certain circumstances -- and then you go make the measurement.
> If they measurement disagrees with the prediction, then the theory is
> disproven.

The point is: if you use rubber seconds and rubber ruler the
predictions of SR can agree with observations. That's why SR is not
falsifiable.

Ken Seto



>
> > 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).
>
> What you THINK a term is defined as, and what it REALLY is defined as,
> are two completely different things. You haven't caught onto that yet.

From: PD on
On May 29, 12:22 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> No, this should be the time for you as a grumpy old man to sit down
> and ask yourself why your grand kids don't come to visit anymore.
> <shrug>

Gotta love this about you. You are happy to tell me I'm an old man
whether I know it or not, that I have grandkids whether I know it or
not, and that I am mystified whether I know it or not.

From: PD on
On May 29, 12:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 8:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity?
>
> It is not a need to but what experiment shows.  <shrug>

Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a
prediction of relativity?

>
> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory.
>
> Yes, it is.  Just go back to the null results of the MMX.  <shrug>

Relativity predicts null results in the MMX.

>
> > A theory makes
> > predictions of measurable quantities -- that is, what will be measured
> > under certain circumstances -- and then you go make the measurement.
> > If they measurement disagrees with the prediction, then the theory is
> > disproven.
>
> Let's not confuse with completely disproving a theory versus a
> necessary modification to that theory.  <shrug>
>
> In particular,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587f...

From: PD on
On May 29, 8:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 10:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity?
>
> Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be
> falsified, by definition, is not scientific.

I didn't say relativity wasn't falsifiable. It is certainly
falsifiable, and a number of tests have been performed in that
attempt.
I asked why the OP felt the NEED to disprove relativity.

>
> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. A theory makes
> > predictions of measurable quantities -- that is, what will be measured
> > under certain circumstances -- and then you go make the measurement.
> > If they measurement disagrees with the prediction, then the theory is
> > disproven.
>
> The point is: if you use rubber seconds and rubber ruler the
> predictions of SR can agree with observations.

Rulers are rulers and clocks are clocks. The standards for rulers and
clocks are all pretty clear and documented at NIST.

> That's why SR is not
> falsifiable.

Eh? So if a theory makes predictions that agree with observations,
then it is not falsifiable, and therefore it is not a scientific
theory?

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > > 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).
>
> > What you THINK a term is defined as, and what it REALLY is defined as,
> > are two completely different things. You haven't caught onto that yet.
>
>

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave