The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: doug on 22 Sep 2009 23:30 Inertial wrote: > > "doug" <xx(a)xx.com> wrote in message > news:04-dnXcD3--J8STXnZ2dnUVZ_r5i4p2d(a)posted.docknet... > >> >> >> Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:28:15 -0400, Jonah Thomas >>> <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero >>>>>> vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands >>>>>> that it work like that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Huh? You're disturbed that the Minkowski norm of a vector can be >>>>> lightlike??? Light cones represent a "bug"??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Tell me about it? What is the result you want? >>> >>> >>> >>> ......Jonah, this is typical of the jargon used by relativists to >>> make them >>> appear smarter than everyone else. In act it is meaningless drivel. >>> >> >> So ralph just tries to lie his way out of it again. > > > No .. I'm actually sure that to Henry, physics is meaningless drivel. You notice that ralph has even lied about his own name. > > You'll note that, like all crackpots, Henry attributes to everyone else > but him his own failings. Of course. He has personal esteem issues so he tried to bluster and help his porr self image. It does not work but he is too blind to see that. > > It is *Henry* who uses jargon he doesn't understand in an attempt to > make himself appear smarter than everyone else, although he is talking > absolute drivel. Fortunately those of us who understand the physics see > it for what it is. Unfortunately that will not stop him or ken seto or benj or paul stowe or mpc755 or phil or ... > >
From: Jerry on 23 Sep 2009 01:23 On Sep 22, 8:28 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero > > > vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands > > > that it work like that. > > > Huh? You're disturbed that the Minkowski norm of a vector can be > > lightlike??? Light cones represent a "bug"??? > > Tell me about it? What is the result you want? Let me try again. Vectors are classified by the sign of their Minkowski norm, timelike if negative, spacelike if positive, lightlike (i.e. null) if zero. The set of all lightlike vectors at an event defines the light cone of that event. By your statement, "When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero vectors as a result, that's a bug", you are in effect stating that lightlike vectors shouldn't exist, and that a light cone is a flawed concept. You -say- that you object to the Minkowski inner product because it is not positive definite. I suspect the -real- reason you object to Minkowski space is because it is not Euclidian. Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 23 Sep 2009 02:26 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero > > > > vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands > > > > that it work like that. > > > > > Huh? You're disturbed that the Minkowski norm of a vector can be > > > lightlike??? Light cones represent a "bug"??? > > > > Tell me about it? What is the result you want? > > Let me try again. > > Vectors are classified by the sign of their Minkowski norm, > timelike if negative, spacelike if positive, lightlike (i.e. null) > if zero. The set of all lightlike vectors at an event defines the > light cone of that event. > > By your statement, "When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors > and you get zero vectors as a result, that's a bug", you are > in effect stating that lightlike vectors shouldn't exist, and that > a light cone is a flawed concept. > > You -say- that you object to the Minkowski inner product because > it is not positive definite. > > I suspect the -real- reason you object to Minkowski space is > because it is not Euclidian. I have no problem with a zero dot-product, if you're careful with it. You could get the result you want easily with quaternions. Multiply two four-vectors the quaternion way (t1,A1)(t2,A2)=(t3,A3) and if t3=0 then you have your minkowski norm=0. But A3 will not equal zero at the same time unless one of those 4-vectors was all zeroes. And that system gives you easy division, too. You don't have to put up with a broken multiplication. But you do it.
From: Jerry on 23 Sep 2009 23:42 On Sep 23, 1:26 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero > > > > > vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands > > > > > that it work like that. > > > > > Huh? You're disturbed that the Minkowski norm of a vector can be > > > > lightlike??? Light cones represent a "bug"??? > > > > Tell me about it? What is the result you want? > > > Let me try again. > > > Vectors are classified by the sign of their Minkowski norm, > > timelike if negative, spacelike if positive, lightlike (i.e. null) > > if zero. The set of all lightlike vectors at an event defines the > > light cone of that event. > > > By your statement, "When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors > > and you get zero vectors as a result, that's a bug", you are > > in effect stating that lightlike vectors shouldn't exist, and that > > a light cone is a flawed concept. > > > You -say- that you object to the Minkowski inner product because > > it is not positive definite. > > > I suspect the -real- reason you object to Minkowski space is > > because it is not Euclidian. > > I have no problem with a zero dot-product, if you're careful with it. > > You could get the result you want easily with quaternions. Multiply two > four-vectors the quaternion way > > (t1,A1)(t2,A2)=(t3,A3) and if t3=0 then you have your minkowski norm=0. > But A3 will not equal zero at the same time unless one of those > 4-vectors was all zeroes. > > And that system gives you easy division, too. You don't have to put up > with a broken multiplication. But you do it. You really ought to learn to walk before attempting to run. The link between hyperbolic quaternions and spacetime theory has long been recognized. Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 06:52
Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get > > > > > > zero vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real > > > > > > world demands that it work like that. > > > > > > > Huh? You're disturbed that the Minkowski norm of a vector can > > > > > be lightlike??? Light cones represent a "bug"??? > > > > > > Tell me about it? What is the result you want? > > > > > Let me try again. > > > > > Vectors are classified by the sign of their Minkowski norm, > > > timelike if negative, spacelike if positive, lightlike (i.e. null) > > > if zero. The set of all lightlike vectors at an event defines the > > > light cone of that event. > > > > > By your statement, "When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors > > > and you get zero vectors as a result, that's a bug", you are > > > in effect stating that lightlike vectors shouldn't exist, and that > > > a light cone is a flawed concept. > > > > > You -say- that you object to the Minkowski inner product because > > > it is not positive definite. > > > > > I suspect the -real- reason you object to Minkowski space is > > > because it is not Euclidian. > > > > I have no problem with a zero dot-product, if you're careful with > > it. > > > > You could get the result you want easily with quaternions. Multiply > > two four-vectors the quaternion way > > > > (t1,A1)(t2,A2)=(t3,A3) and if t3=0 then you have your minkowski > > norm=0. But A3 will not equal zero at the same time unless one of > > those 4-vectors was all zeroes. > > > > And that system gives you easy division, too. You don't have to put > > up with a broken multiplication. But you do it. > > You really ought to learn to walk before attempting to run. > The link between hyperbolic quaternions and spacetime theory > has long been recognized. Yse, but hyperbolic quaternions are bad. They are not positive-definite. |