Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Koobee Wublee on 29 May 2010 01:22 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 29 May 2010 09:03 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 29 May 2010 09:45 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 29 May 2010 09:46 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 29 May 2010 09:49
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. > > |