Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 May 2010 18:09 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? Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 25 May 2010 19:39 ...@..(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. > > Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's > imagination? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Sue... on 25 May 2010 20:15 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'. I am a just a Methodist and only for six days out of the week but I will try to answer your question. I say it is 1 hour to Paris. You say it is 1 kilometre to Paris. We are both correct if we are in a Renault moving toward Paris at 1 kilometre per hour. Do our statements imply that time and space are interchangeable? Of course not. They imply that we are in a Renault moving toward Paris at 1 kilometre per hour. The imaginary operator allows us to work with our motion graphically while preserving the difference in temporal and spatial displacement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html That says little more than 'nature pays no attention to our cleaver grid systems and they better have a way to keep space and time separated or they will break down.' > > Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's > imagination? It is just as imaginary as the capacitor banks that reduce the losses in transmitting power to your home. If you think it isn't "real" just make your house look more reactive and read the results on your power bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_power#Real.2C_reactive.2C_and_apparent_power http://www.energytechpro.com/Demo-IC/Basic_Electricity/Distribution.htm Sue... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: whoever on 25 May 2010 20:55 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:5f53e198-d84d-4446-9a4e-24f643898e6c(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > 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'. > > I am a just a Methodist and only for six days out of the > week but I will try to answer your question. > > I say it is 1 hour to Paris. > You say it is 1 kilometre to Paris. > > We are both correct if we are in a Renault moving > toward Paris at 1 kilometre per hour. > > Do our statements imply that time and space are interchangeable? > Of course not. They imply that we are in a Renault moving > toward Paris at 1 kilometre per hour. > > The imaginary operator allows us to work with our > motion graphically while preserving the difference > in temporal and spatial displacement. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > the three space co-ordinates. >> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > That says little more than 'nature pays no attention to > our cleaver grid systems and they better have a way to keep > space and time separated or they will break down.' > > >> >> Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's >> imagination? > > It is just as imaginary as the capacitor banks that reduce > the losses in transmitting power to your home. If you think it > isn't "real" just make your house look more reactive and > read the results on your power bill. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_power#Real.2C_reactive.2C_and_apparent_power > > http://www.energytechpro.com/Demo-IC/Basic_Electricity/Distribution.htm > > Sue... As a nice change, you've managed to post a relevant link and say something sensible. Congrats .. hope you can keep it up :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Edward Green on 25 May 2010 21:16
On May 25, 8:55 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:5f53e198-d84d-4446-9a4e-24f643898e6c(a)j27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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'. > > > I am a just a Methodist and only for six days out of the > > week but I will try to answer your question. > > > I say it is 1 hour to Paris. > > You say it is 1 kilometre to Paris. > > > We are both correct if we are in a Renault moving > > toward Paris at 1 kilometre per hour. > > > Do our statements imply that time and space are interchangeable? > > Of course not. They imply that we are in a Renault moving > > toward Paris at 1 kilometre per hour. > > > The imaginary operator allows us to work with our > > motion graphically while preserving the difference > > in temporal and spatial displacement. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number > > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude > > > sqrt(-1) > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > > the three space co-ordinates. >> > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > That says little more than 'nature pays no attention to > > our cleaver grid systems and they better have a way to keep > > space and time separated or they will break down.' > > >> Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's > >> imagination? > > > It is just as imaginary as the capacitor banks that reduce > > the losses in transmitting power to your home. If you think it > > isn't "real" just make your house look more reactive and > > read the results on your power bill. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_power#Real.2C_reactive.2C_and_a... > > >http://www.energytechpro.com/Demo-IC/Basic_Electricity/Distribution.htm > > > Sue... > > As a nice change, you've managed to post a relevant link and say something > sensible. Congrats .. hope you can keep it up :) Yes. Hear, hear. BTW, does anybody happen to have noticed what became of the thread "Fun with black holes"? I insulted BURT, and the thread disappeared from USEspace. At least I think that may have been cause and effect. |