Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585428 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-15 18:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-05 02:15 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 18:48 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 19:01 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-15 21:24 -0500
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-05-15 19:34 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 14:54 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 15:51 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-05-17 23:03 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 01:47 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-16 11:31 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 01:13 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-08 10:11 -0500
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:27 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 13:09 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> - 2022-06-09 18:35 -0400
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 18:38 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 17:49 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 18:50 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 19:50 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 21:25 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 22:10 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-10 13:51 -0500
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 15:55 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 20:31 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 17:43 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 20:46 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 21:47 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 22:31 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 22:56 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 23:46 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 00:36 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 06:47 -0700
New crank? Old crank? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 07:23 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 06:55 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 07:32 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 15:42 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 16:56 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 22:38 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 23:43 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 23:52 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 10:54 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 11:50 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 12:10 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-13 09:26 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-13 01:36 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-13 13:43 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-13 06:16 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-13 18:56 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-13 10:27 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-14 09:28 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 00:31 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-14 18:16 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 09:23 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 17:27 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 18:28 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 19:06 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 23:03 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-13 18:13 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-13 18:35 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 17:33 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 19:17 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 22:48 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 13:00 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-15 17:05 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 03:28 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 06:49 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 08:43 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 07:37 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 12:55 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 22:46 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-18 07:44 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-18 08:46 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 09:31 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-19 12:36 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 08:37 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> - 2022-06-20 12:27 -0400
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-20 16:55 +0000
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 16:18 -0700
Crank Tom Capizzi perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 09:35 -0700
Re: Crank Tom Capizzi perseveres Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 16:19 -0700
Re: Crank Tom Capizzi perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 06:48 -0700
Re: Crank Tom Capizzi perseveres Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 13:00 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 11:39 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 16:24 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 17:22 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 18:57 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-06-20 20:38 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-21 13:01 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 12:51 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 13:38 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 03:44 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 11:07 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 11:19 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 11:34 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-11 10:42 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 20:57 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 16:06 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-10 07:28 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 22:38 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-11 06:47 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 23:34 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-12 07:26 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-12 10:50 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-13 11:27 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-16 15:08 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 01:27 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-05-19 10:36 +1000
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-18 22:50 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-05-19 19:41 +1000
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-19 11:26 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> - 2022-05-20 10:49 -0400
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 01:39 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 01:42 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-06-10 09:33 +1000
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 17:27 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-06-10 11:56 +1000
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-05 10:37 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 01:53 -0700
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-09 09:20 +0200
Re: Special Relativity Fatal Error JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 02:15 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-11 06:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgil30Fbod1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586700 |
Am 10.06.2022 um 07:38 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:28:18 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Appartently the universe 'speaks' in a mathematical language, which is >> also known as 'geometric algebra'. > > The universe is silent, like it always was. If you're > applying some mathematical language to it - that's > because you're trained to try. > > No, the universe is not silent. We see things all around us, which are somehow produced by the universe. Now we could think, the universe itself would operate on a mathematical foundation and acts like a large analoge computer. This was more or less my own assumption, which I have used in my 'book' about 'structured spacetime': https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing This concept works quite well and was based on the assumption, that the universe itself uses a certain kind of math, by which pointlike elements of spacetime are interconnected. This would create certain patterns, which we call 'matter' in case of they are timelike stable. It is actually a relatively simple concept, streight forward and based on a small set of plausible assumptions. The only problem is, that these assumptions are not very intuitive and difficult to understand. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 23:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <561b1901-5002-4537-b258-ef554866d2d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586745 |
On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 12:47:33 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 10.06.2022 um 07:38 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > > On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:28:18 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >> Appartently the universe 'speaks' in a mathematical language, which is > >> also known as 'geometric algebra'. > > > > The universe is silent, like it always was. If you're > > applying some mathematical language to it - that's > > because you're trained to try. > > > > > No, the universe is not silent. > > We see things all around us, which are somehow produced by the universe. > > Now we could think, the universe itself would operate on a mathematical > foundation and acts like a large analoge computer. > > This was more or less my own assumption, which I have used in my 'book' > about 'structured spacetime': > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > > This concept works quite well and was based on the assumption, that the > universe itself uses a certain kind of math, by which pointlike elements > of spacetime are interconnected. > > This would create certain patterns, which we call 'matter' in case of > they are timelike stable. > > > It is actually a relatively simple concept, streight forward and based > on a small set of plausible assumptions. > > The only problem is, that these assumptions are not very intuitive and > difficult to understand. > > > > TH In my own musings, I have considered a similar system. I noticed that through several isomorphisms of spacetime coordinates (I say isomorphisms because there is no combination of Lorentz transforms that can map one to another) the invariant s² and the rapidity w were the same in all of the isomorphisms. I realized it was because s is the hyperbolic magnitude and rapidity is the hyperbolic rotation angle. They are the coordinates of a point in a Cartesian orthogonal coordinate system. Since this grid is orthogonal, the two coordinates are independent, resulting in what we call invariance. In other words, after passing local coordinates through the transform that maps hyperbolic coordinates to another frame, the relationship that restores the hyperbolic magnitude associated with any point in hyperbolic spacetime is just the inverse of the coordinate transform that created the map. Despite the fact that the axes are no longer orthogonal, the inverse transform reconstructs the hyperbolic magnitude. The property of invariance implies an isomorphism to hyperbolic trigonometry, in which hyperbolic magnitude and rotation angle are orthogonal. This seems to imply that the universe prefers hyperbolic coordinate systems. In the hyperbolic coordinate system, the Lorentz transform takes on an especially simple form. If the hyperbolic rotation angle is w, then w1 is initial angle, w2 is the angle associated with a Lorentz boost and w3 is the result. Then, (s,w3) = (0,w2) + (s,w1). In the Minkowski isomorphism, the first and last points are replaced by column vectors, and the boost is a 2x2 matrix. In the Euclidean isomorphism, the 2x2 matrix is diagonal, because the axes are the real eigenvectors of the Lorentz matrix. The elements of the diagonal matrix are the two real eigenvalues of the Lorentz matrix, while in the Minkowski isomorphism, the elements are hyperbolic functions of the rotation angle, the magnitude of which is the natural log of the eigenvalue. The interesting thing about the eigenvector isomorphism is that it cannot be reached by any combination of Lorentz boosts. A single Lorentz boost can take a point that is stationary and boost it to any finite velocity, less than c. For the eigenvector frame to be unreachable by any combination of Lorentz boosts implies that it, like the eigenvectors which are the worldlines of photons, is the frame of lightspeed. How many questions have gone unanswered because we can't transform to the light frame? But this frame maps to both the hyperbolic grid and Minkowski spacetime. As isomorphisms, any disturbance in any one of them produces ripples in all of them. Not necessarily similar, though. What caught my attention was the idea of a set of points being in a fixed geometric pattern. Magnitudes in hyperbolic coordinates are unaffected by relative velocity. So a set of points in a line represents a set of magnitudes that all share the same velocity, and are invariant as a set over all rapidities. These could be structures like atoms or molecules. Does any of this sync with what you're doing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 07:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jglbngFppqdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586752 |
Am 11.06.2022 um 08:34 schrieb Tom Capizzi: > On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 12:47:33 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:38 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>> On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:28:18 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> >>>> Appartently the universe 'speaks' in a mathematical language, which is >>>> also known as 'geometric algebra'. >>> >>> The universe is silent, like it always was. If you're >>> applying some mathematical language to it - that's >>> because you're trained to try. >>> >>> >> No, the universe is not silent. >> >> We see things all around us, which are somehow produced by the universe. >> >> Now we could think, the universe itself would operate on a mathematical >> foundation and acts like a large analoge computer. >> >> This was more or less my own assumption, which I have used in my 'book' >> about 'structured spacetime': >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> This concept works quite well and was based on the assumption, that the >> universe itself uses a certain kind of math, by which pointlike elements >> of spacetime are interconnected. >> >> This would create certain patterns, which we call 'matter' in case of >> they are timelike stable. >> >> >> It is actually a relatively simple concept, streight forward and based >> on a small set of plausible assumptions. >> >> The only problem is, that these assumptions are not very intuitive and >> difficult to understand. >> >> >> >> TH > > In my own musings, I have considered a similar system. I noticed that through several isomorphisms of spacetime coordinates (I say isomorphisms because there is no combination of Lorentz transforms that can map one to another) the invariant s² and the rapidity w were the same in all of the isomorphisms. I realized it was because s is the hyperbolic magnitude and rapidity is the hyperbolic rotation angle. They are the coordinates of a point in a Cartesian orthogonal coordinate system. Since this grid is orthogonal, the two coordinates are independent, resulting in what we call invariance. In other words, after passing local coordinates through the transform that maps hyperbolic coordinates to another frame, the relationship that restores the hyperbolic magnitude associated with any point in hyperbolic spacetime is just the inverse of the coordinate transform that created the map. Despite the fact that the axes are no longer orthogonal, the inverse transform reconstructs the hyperb olic magnitude. The property of invariance implies an isomorphism to hyperbolic trigonometry, in which hyperbolic magnitude and rotation angle are orthogonal. This seems to imply that the universe prefers hyperbolic coordinate systems. In the hyperbolic coordinate system, the Lorentz transform takes on an especially simple form. If the hyperbolic rotation angle is w, then w1 is initial angle, w2 is the angle associated with a Lorentz boost and w3 is the result. Then, (s,w3) = (0,w2) + (s,w1). In the Minkowski isomorphism, the first and last points are replaced by column vectors, and the boost is a 2x2 matrix. In the Euclidean isomorphism, the 2x2 matrix is diagonal, because the axes are the real eigenvectors of the Lorentz matrix. The elements of the diagonal matrix are the two real eigenvalues of the Lorentz matrix, while in the Minkowski isomorphism, the elements are hyperbolic functions of the rotation angle, the magnitude of which is the natural log of the eigenvalue. The interes ting thing about the eigenvector isomorphism is that it cannot be reached by any combination of Lorentz boosts. A single Lorentz boost can take a point that is stationary and boost it to any finite velocity, less than c. For the eigenvector frame to be unreachable by any combination of Lorentz boosts implies that it, like the eigenvectors which are the worldlines of photons, is the frame of lightspeed. How many questions have gone unanswered because we can't transform to the light frame? But this frame maps to both the hyperbolic grid and Minkowski spacetime. As isomorphisms, any disturbance in any one of them produces ripples in all of them. Not necessarily similar, though. > > What caught my attention was the idea of a set of points being in a fixed geometric pattern. Magnitudes in hyperbolic coordinates are unaffected by relative velocity. So a set of points in a line represents a set of magnitudes that all share the same velocity, and are invariant as a set over all rapidities. These could be structures like atoms or molecules. Does any of this sync with what you're doing? First: you should add some white space into your text, what would make it much more readable. Second: yes actually, but I had a different approach. I wanted to find use for a certain quaternion equation, because I wanted to take spacetime as real physical entity and model it as quaternion field. These 'elements of spacetime' are assumed to interact with their direct neighbors in a certain way, which generates certain patterns. These patterns are, what we regard as the real world, while they are in fact internal structure of spacetime. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9498f87-73b4-4a6b-9d2f-acd59e8afe8dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586798 |
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:26:12 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 11.06.2022 um 08:34 schrieb Tom Capizzi: > > On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 12:47:33 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:38 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: > >>> On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:28:18 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> > >>>> Appartently the universe 'speaks' in a mathematical language, which is > >>>> also known as 'geometric algebra'. > >>> > >>> The universe is silent, like it always was. If you're > >>> applying some mathematical language to it - that's > >>> because you're trained to try. > >>> > >>> > >> No, the universe is not silent. > >> > >> We see things all around us, which are somehow produced by the universe. > >> > >> Now we could think, the universe itself would operate on a mathematical > >> foundation and acts like a large analoge computer. > >> > >> This was more or less my own assumption, which I have used in my 'book' > >> about 'structured spacetime': > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> > >> > >> This concept works quite well and was based on the assumption, that the > >> universe itself uses a certain kind of math, by which pointlike elements > >> of spacetime are interconnected. > >> > >> This would create certain patterns, which we call 'matter' in case of > >> they are timelike stable. > >> > >> > >> It is actually a relatively simple concept, streight forward and based > >> on a small set of plausible assumptions. > >> > >> The only problem is, that these assumptions are not very intuitive and > >> difficult to understand. > >> > >> > >> > >> TH > > > > In my own musings, I have considered a similar system. I noticed that through several isomorphisms of spacetime coordinates (I say isomorphisms because there is no combination of Lorentz transforms that can map one to another) the invariant s² and the rapidity w were the same in all of the isomorphisms. I realized it was because s is the hyperbolic magnitude and rapidity is the hyperbolic rotation angle. They are the coordinates of a point in a Cartesian orthogonal coordinate system. Since this grid is orthogonal, the two coordinates are independent, resulting in what we call invariance. In other words, after passing local coordinates through the transform that maps hyperbolic coordinates to another frame, the relationship that restores the hyperbolic magnitude associated with any point in hyperbolic spacetime is just the inverse of the coordinate transform that created the map. Despite the fact that the axes are no longer orthogonal, the inverse transform reconstructs the hyperb > olic magnitude. The property of invariance implies an isomorphism to hyperbolic trigonometry, in which hyperbolic magnitude and rotation angle are orthogonal. This seems to imply that the universe prefers hyperbolic coordinate systems. In the hyperbolic coordinate system, the Lorentz transform takes on an especially simple form. If the hyperbolic rotation angle is w, then w1 is initial angle, w2 is the angle associated with a Lorentz boost and w3 is the result. Then, (s,w3) = (0,w2) + (s,w1). In the Minkowski isomorphism, the first and last points are replaced by column vectors, and the boost is a 2x2 matrix. In the Euclidean isomorphism, the 2x2 matrix is diagonal, because the axes are the real eigenvectors of the Lorentz matrix. The elements of the diagonal matrix are the two real eigenvalues of the Lorentz matrix, while in the Minkowski isomorphism, the elements are hyperbolic functions of the rotation angle, the magnitude of which is the natural log of the eigenvalue. The interes > ting thing about the eigenvector isomorphism is that it cannot be reached by any combination of Lorentz boosts. A single Lorentz boost can take a point that is stationary and boost it to any finite velocity, less than c. For the eigenvector frame to be unreachable by any combination of Lorentz boosts implies that it, like the eigenvectors which are the worldlines of photons, is the frame of lightspeed. How many questions have gone unanswered because we can't transform to the light frame? But this frame maps to both the hyperbolic grid and Minkowski spacetime. As isomorphisms, any disturbance in any one of them produces ripples in all of them. Not necessarily similar, though. > > > > What caught my attention was the idea of a set of points being in a fixed geometric pattern. Magnitudes in hyperbolic coordinates are unaffected by relative velocity. So a set of points in a line represents a set of magnitudes that all share the same velocity, and are invariant as a set over all rapidities. These could be structures like atoms or molecules. Does any of this sync with what you're doing? > First: > > you should add some white space into your text, what would make it much > more readable. > > Second: > > yes actually, but I had a different approach. > > I wanted to find use for a certain quaternion equation, because I wanted > to take spacetime as real physical entity and model it as quaternion > field. These 'elements of spacetime' are assumed to interact with their > direct neighbors in a certain way, which generates certain patterns. > These patterns are, what we regard as the real world, while they are in > fact internal structure of spacetime. > > > TH I have also looked into quaternions. But my model of the universe requires more than 4 dimensions. One of the options is to extend the quaternions to 8 dimensions. There are two popular choices, the biquaternions and the octonions. At the beginning of relativity, it was actually modeled with biquaternions (in addition to quaternions). Much more recently, octonions have been demonstrated to exhibit the properties of subatomic particles. Although the octonion multiplication is commonly represented by the Fano plane (a triangle) or cube, they actually employ the same 8x8 checkerboard Cayley table as the biquaternions, and both are the same underlying table as the Walsh sequency multiplication table. The only difference is the pattern of minus signs in front of the product units, and the patterns of the minus signs are themselves Walsh sequencies. The Walsh table has no minus signs at all, and sequency multiplication is both commutative and associative, unlike the other two. The hypercomplex sets are both isomorphisms of the Walsh sequencies. It turns out that all of them are intimately related to the Klein 4-group, and the Sierpinski triangle and tetrahedron. The Sierpinski figures can be generated by a number of different algorithms, but the one I prefer is Gray code, which is the XOR of a number with half of itself. For numbers represented in binary, like the ones and zeroes of the Sierpinski figures, that is essentially the XOR of adjacent bits, since half a binary number is just a right shift of 1 bit location. The XOR is also the operation that defines the Cayley table for Walsh sequencies, so it is also intimately associated with the hypercomplex algebras associated with relativity and quantum mechanics. I would say looking into interactions of direct neighbors is a productive line of research.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-13 11:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgoe8nFb8mhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586830 |
Am 12.06.2022 um 19:50 schrieb Tom Capizzi: > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:26:12 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 11.06.2022 um 08:34 schrieb Tom Capizzi: >>> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 12:47:33 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:38 schrieb Maciej Wozniak: >>>>> On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:28:18 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Appartently the universe 'speaks' in a mathematical language, which is >>>>>> also known as 'geometric algebra'. >>>>> >>>>> The universe is silent, like it always was. If you're >>>>> applying some mathematical language to it - that's >>>>> because you're trained to try. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No, the universe is not silent. >>>> >>>> We see things all around us, which are somehow produced by the universe. >>>> >>>> Now we could think, the universe itself would operate on a mathematical >>>> foundation and acts like a large analoge computer. >>>> >>>> This was more or less my own assumption, which I have used in my 'book' >>>> about 'structured spacetime': >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This concept works quite well and was based on the assumption, that the >>>> universe itself uses a certain kind of math, by which pointlike elements >>>> of spacetime are interconnected. >>>> >>>> This would create certain patterns, which we call 'matter' in case of >>>> they are timelike stable. >>>> >>>> >>>> It is actually a relatively simple concept, streight forward and based >>>> on a small set of plausible assumptions. >>>> >>>> The only problem is, that these assumptions are not very intuitive and >>>> difficult to understand. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> In my own musings, I have considered a similar system. I noticed that through several isomorphisms of spacetime coordinates (I say isomorphisms because there is no combination of Lorentz transforms that can map one to another) the invariant s² and the rapidity w were the same in all of the isomorphisms. I realized it was because s is the hyperbolic magnitude and rapidity is the hyperbolic rotation angle. They are the coordinates of a point in a Cartesian orthogonal coordinate system. Since this grid is orthogonal, the two coordinates are independent, resulting in what we call invariance. In other words, after passing local coordinates through the transform that maps hyperbolic coordinates to another frame, the relationship that restores the hyperbolic magnitude associated with any point in hyperbolic spacetime is just the inverse of the coordinate transform that created the map. Despite the fact that the axes are no longer orthogonal, the inverse transform reconstructs the hype rb >> olic magnitude. The property of invariance implies an isomorphism to hyperbolic trigonometry, in which hyperbolic magnitude and rotation angle are orthogonal. This seems to imply that the universe prefers hyperbolic coordinate systems. In the hyperbolic coordinate system, the Lorentz transform takes on an especially simple form. If the hyperbolic rotation angle is w, then w1 is initial angle, w2 is the angle associated with a Lorentz boost and w3 is the result. Then, (s,w3) = (0,w2) + (s,w1). In the Minkowski isomorphism, the first and last points are replaced by column vectors, and the boost is a 2x2 matrix. In the Euclidean isomorphism, the 2x2 matrix is diagonal, because the axes are the real eigenvectors of the Lorentz matrix. The elements of the diagonal matrix are the two real eigenvalues of the Lorentz matrix, while in the Minkowski isomorphism, the elements are hyperbolic functions of the rotation angle, the magnitude of which is the natural log of the eigenvalue. The int eres >> ting thing about the eigenvector isomorphism is that it cannot be reached by any combination of Lorentz boosts. A single Lorentz boost can take a point that is stationary and boost it to any finite velocity, less than c. For the eigenvector frame to be unreachable by any combination of Lorentz boosts implies that it, like the eigenvectors which are the worldlines of photons, is the frame of lightspeed. How many questions have gone unanswered because we can't transform to the light frame? But this frame maps to both the hyperbolic grid and Minkowski spacetime. As isomorphisms, any disturbance in any one of them produces ripples in all of them. Not necessarily similar, though. >>> >>> What caught my attention was the idea of a set of points being in a fixed geometric pattern. Magnitudes in hyperbolic coordinates are unaffected by relative velocity. So a set of points in a line represents a set of magnitudes that all share the same velocity, and are invariant as a set over all rapidities. These could be structures like atoms or molecules. Does any of this sync with what you're doing? >> First: >> >> you should add some white space into your text, what would make it much >> more readable. >> >> Second: >> >> yes actually, but I had a different approach. >> >> I wanted to find use for a certain quaternion equation, because I wanted >> to take spacetime as real physical entity and model it as quaternion >> field. These 'elements of spacetime' are assumed to interact with their >> direct neighbors in a certain way, which generates certain patterns. >> These patterns are, what we regard as the real world, while they are in >> fact internal structure of spacetime. >> >> >> TH > > I have also looked into quaternions. But my model of the universe requires more than 4 dimensions. One of the options is to extend the quaternions to 8 dimensions. There are two popular choices, the biquaternions and the octonions. At the beginning of relativity, it was actually modeled with biquaternions (in addition to quaternions). Much more recently, octonions have been demonstrated to exhibit the properties of subatomic particles. Although the octonion multiplication is commonly represented by the Fano plane (a triangle) or cube, they actually employ the same 8x8 checkerboard Cayley table as the biquaternions, and both are the same underlying table as the Walsh sequency multiplication table. The only difference is the pattern of minus signs in front of the product units, and the patterns of the minus signs are themselves Walsh sequencies. The Walsh table has no minus signs at all, and sequency multiplication is both commutative and associative, unlike the other two. The hyper complex sets are both isomorphisms of the Walsh sequencies. It turns out that all of them are intimately related to the Klein 4-group, and the Sierpinski triangle and tetrahedron. I promote bi-quaternions, which have eight entries. They have an equivalent contruct called 'complex four vectors'. (The octonions are not related to this type of objects.) I have written this 'book' some years ago, which is about my idea called 'structured spacetime': https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing I gave up the topic, because there was nobody showing any interest. But still I think, the concept works quite well. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-16 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <486fbc7d-7ae8-45be-8576-800a451af571n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585428 |
El domingo, 15 de mayo de 2022 a las 20:48:24 UTC-5, tgca...@gmail.com escribió: > After years of rereading Einstein and arguing with his legions of cultists, I finally caught his unfixable mistake. He hoisted himself with his own petard. Because I use his own words to prove his theory leads to a contradiction. I've had some crackpot skeptics try to tell me things like "Einstein didn't mean what he wrote" or "it's been tinkered with so much since he wrote it, it isn't even his anymore". In a peer-reviewed format, I would include the direct quotes and their source. For this bunch here, you can find all the source material on the internet. Just search for his books in pdf format. This is what to look for, as I paraphrase it. > Before Einstein would talk about relativity, he had words about measurement. Each book has a slightly different emphasis, but none refute any of the others, so it is safe to assume they are all attributes. He starts with the definition of a direct measurement. It is simply placing rigid measuring rods end to end to match the ends of the distance being measured. The distance is then found by counting the rods (and fractions thereof). Nothing earthshattering there. But there is nothing relative about it either. The interval, the measuring rods and the observer are all stationary relative to each other. In order to observe any relativistic effects, the distance must be in a relatively moving frame and the observer and his measuring rods are in the relatively stationary frame. And then, the size of the effect depends on the relative velocity. Einstein describes this situation as an indirect measurement. The test for whether or not an indirect measurement is valid is whether or not it gets the same measurement as a direct measurement. (That's why we allowed the non-relative definition). All in all, reasonable propositions. But then he goes into his gedanken experiments. And all of them, as well as every experiment ever performed at fast enough relative velocity, predict that the length measurement will be contracted. A contracted measurement is by definition smaller than the direct measurement. Einstein ignored his own protocol, preferring to believe that the math had to be right, and spacetime had to conform to his expectations. > You could say it's just my opinion that this is a contradiction. Consider this. All the main points of Newtonian physics are low-speed approximations of their relativistic counterparts. Except the measurement standard, which is indeed a low-speed approximation. Einstein used it because it had worked that way for hundreds of years, because before relativity, all measurements were made in quasistatic frames. Frames whose relative velocity was so small that the relativistic correction factor was unity. As a rule of thumb, if v = c sin(tilt), the quasistatic range of velocity is basically sin(tilt) ≈ tilt. Einstein used a quasistatic protocol to analyze relativistic events. Since a quasistatic protocol is only valid for small velocities, any relativistic predictions based on this protocol are suspect. > The coup de grace is identifying the relativistic version of the protocol. It turns out that vector spaces come equipped with a protocol for determining how much two arbitrary vectors have in parallel. This operation is the Euclidean dot product. Geometrically, the dot product is the product of the magnitudes of two arbitrary vectors with the cosine of the angle between them. Normally, we would start with two arbitrary vectors, and use the Law of Cosines to find the angle. Algebraically, we could just dot multiply the elements of the two vectors. But in this application, one of the vectors is a reference unit in the static frame. The other vector is the unknown in the moving frame. But the angle between the two vectors is not arbitrary, nor does it depend on any of the vectors. We have already specified this angle by transforming to angular coordinates, v = c sin(tilt). Instead of v being a translation across the page, it is a rotation of the unknown away from its zero phase value. Velocity becomes a phase angle, and the origins of the two frames remain coincident as the velocity vector tilts away from the real axis. The setup is perfect for the dot product. > What this tells us, quite unambiguously is that no observer should EVER expect to measure more than the cosine projection of the tilt angle as defined by relative velocity. In other words, REALITY DOES NOT SHRINK. Everything about the Einstein Interpretation is wrong. And since what we measure is actually a geometric illusion, their is no contradiction, either. Each observer is viewing the same unchanging interval, but from a different angle. > In other words, if I put a unit of time or distance that I have made a direct measurement of into a frame that departs at constant velocity, what will they project through the dot product? If the velocity is slow enough, the cosine is unity and the projection agrees with the Newtonian protocol. But when relative velocity is high, the cosine can be very small. The projections of these units are the primed variables, ct' = ct cos(tilt) and r' = r cos(tilt). These are equivalent to ct = ct' sec(tilt) and r = r' sec(tilt). Given that v/c = sin(tilt), the Lorentz factor is simply γ = sec(tilt), and the equations become ct = γct' and r = γr'. These are the Einstein equations of time dilation and length contraction, but nothing shrank. They are cosine projections of a rigid rotation into, for lack of a better term, Elsewhere. We used to think that Elsewhere was a place that we could not communicate with, because it would require faster than c signals. Turns out we can't exactly dive in headfirst, but any relativistic velocity rotates reality partially into Elsewhere. The part we can no longer see or measure, but that the co-moving observer swears is still there. > And there it is. Special relativity is a poor imitation of the dot product protocol which replaces the Einstein Interpretation. It is built into the hyperbolic trigonometry. Physics cherry-picked the real parts and discarded the rest, forcing the invention of shrinking spacetime. Relativity is just the mathematics of spacetime. No surprise that physics would "discover" a law of mathematics, put a physicist's name on it, and pretend it's now physics. TL;DR Your rant is useless gibberish.You're nothing more than a poor crank, and instead should go and actually learn physics, or get another hobby.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 01:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8b40f49-41ad-40a6-b3d5-6adf61546f19n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585474 |
On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 6:08:20 PM UTC-4, Aldo wrote: > El domingo, 15 de mayo de 2022 a las 20:48:24 UTC-5, tgca...@gmail.com escribió: > > After years of rereading Einstein and arguing with his legions of cultists, I finally caught his unfixable mistake. He hoisted himself with his own petard. Because I use his own words to prove his theory leads to a contradiction. I've had some crackpot skeptics try to tell me things like "Einstein didn't mean what he wrote" or "it's been tinkered with so much since he wrote it, it isn't even his anymore". In a peer-reviewed format, I would include the direct quotes and their source. For this bunch here, you can find all the source material on the internet. Just search for his books in pdf format. This is what to look for, as I paraphrase it. > > Before Einstein would talk about relativity, he had words about measurement. Each book has a slightly different emphasis, but none refute any of the others, so it is safe to assume they are all attributes. He starts with the definition of a direct measurement. It is simply placing rigid measuring rods end to end to match the ends of the distance being measured. The distance is then found by counting the rods (and fractions thereof). Nothing earthshattering there. But there is nothing relative about it either. The interval, the measuring rods and the observer are all stationary relative to each other. In order to observe any relativistic effects, the distance must be in a relatively moving frame and the observer and his measuring rods are in the relatively stationary frame. And then, the size of the effect depends on the relative velocity. Einstein describes this situation as an indirect measurement. The test for whether or not an indirect measurement is valid is whether or not it gets the same measurement as a direct measurement. (That's why we allowed the non-relative definition). All in all, reasonable propositions. But then he goes into his gedanken experiments. And all of them, as well as every experiment ever performed at fast enough relative velocity, predict that the length measurement will be contracted. A contracted measurement is by definition smaller than the direct measurement. Einstein ignored his own protocol, preferring to believe that the math had to be right, and spacetime had to conform to his expectations. > > You could say it's just my opinion that this is a contradiction. Consider this. All the main points of Newtonian physics are low-speed approximations of their relativistic counterparts. Except the measurement standard, which is indeed a low-speed approximation. Einstein used it because it had worked that way for hundreds of years, because before relativity, all measurements were made in quasistatic frames. Frames whose relative velocity was so small that the relativistic correction factor was unity. As a rule of thumb, if v = c sin(tilt), the quasistatic range of velocity is basically sin(tilt) ≈ tilt. Einstein used a quasistatic protocol to analyze relativistic events. Since a quasistatic protocol is only valid for small velocities, any relativistic predictions based on this protocol are suspect. > > The coup de grace is identifying the relativistic version of the protocol. It turns out that vector spaces come equipped with a protocol for determining how much two arbitrary vectors have in parallel. This operation is the Euclidean dot product. Geometrically, the dot product is the product of the magnitudes of two arbitrary vectors with the cosine of the angle between them. Normally, we would start with two arbitrary vectors, and use the Law of Cosines to find the angle. Algebraically, we could just dot multiply the elements of the two vectors. But in this application, one of the vectors is a reference unit in the static frame. The other vector is the unknown in the moving frame. But the angle between the two vectors is not arbitrary, nor does it depend on any of the vectors. We have already specified this angle by transforming to angular coordinates, v = c sin(tilt). Instead of v being a translation across the page, it is a rotation of the unknown away from its zero phase value. Velocity becomes a phase angle, and the origins of the two frames remain coincident as the velocity vector tilts away from the real axis. The setup is perfect for the dot product. > > What this tells us, quite unambiguously is that no observer should EVER expect to measure more than the cosine projection of the tilt angle as defined by relative velocity. In other words, REALITY DOES NOT SHRINK. Everything about the Einstein Interpretation is wrong. And since what we measure is actually a geometric illusion, their is no contradiction, either. Each observer is viewing the same unchanging interval, but from a different angle. > > In other words, if I put a unit of time or distance that I have made a direct measurement of into a frame that departs at constant velocity, what will they project through the dot product? If the velocity is slow enough, the cosine is unity and the projection agrees with the Newtonian protocol. But when relative velocity is high, the cosine can be very small. The projections of these units are the primed variables, ct' = ct cos(tilt) and r' = r cos(tilt). These are equivalent to ct = ct' sec(tilt) and r = r' sec(tilt). Given that v/c = sin(tilt), the Lorentz factor is simply γ = sec(tilt), and the equations become ct = γct' and r = γr'. These are the Einstein equations of time dilation and length contraction, but nothing shrank. They are cosine projections of a rigid rotation into, for lack of a better term, Elsewhere. We used to think that Elsewhere was a place that we could not communicate with, because it would require faster than c signals. Turns out we can't exactly dive in headfirst, but any relativistic velocity rotates reality partially into Elsewhere. The part we can no longer see or measure, but that the co-moving observer swears is still there. > > And there it is. Special relativity is a poor imitation of the dot product protocol which replaces the Einstein Interpretation. It is built into the hyperbolic trigonometry. Physics cherry-picked the real parts and discarded the rest, forcing the invention of shrinking spacetime. Relativity is just the mathematics of spacetime. No surprise that physics would "discover" a law of mathematics, put a physicist's name on it, and pretend it's now physics. > TL;DR > Your rant is useless gibberish.You're nothing more than a poor crank, and instead should go and actually learn physics, or get another hobby. Your comment is a baseless opinion. I don't need to learn any more physics. I have made a detailed argument. According to the rules of logic (ever hear of it?), if you begin an argument with a premise that is false, it will eventually lead to a contradiction. Not only is the argument invalid, but the premise must be negated. I have challenged the fake theory of relativity. It is not logically valid to use any results of special relativity to rebut this claim. That would be circular logic, never valid. If you want to criticize the argument, you must show that the premise actually leads to some contradiction. That should be an interesting read, since the premise that measurement is based on the Euclidean dot product leads to the same mathematics as did relativity. Good luck finding a contradiction. According to the de facto physics standard, if the numbers work, that's good enough. But with my premise, it is not necessary to abandon objective reality or the formal rules of logic. Occam's razor supports my position. Prove otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 10:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jelhoiF4duoU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #585428 |
On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: <snipped due to binary content, apparently> Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-18 22:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a41b3fff-6b88-4084-9a02-571553cf003an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585565 |
On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 02:36:38 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > > <snipped due to binary content, apparently> > > Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity > deniers. Oppositely, it is a standard technique of relativity supporters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 19:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jemhn0Fa5r5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #585571 |
On 19-May-22 3:50 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 02:36:38 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: >> >> <snipped due to binary content, apparently> >> >> Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity >> deniers. > > Oppositely, it is a standard technique of relativity > supporters. Do you have some objection to using one's usual measuring tools for doing measuring? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd0e2f41-3282-4c39-a402-0d8002906855n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585580 |
On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 11:41:56 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19-May-22 3:50 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 02:36:38 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > >> > >> <snipped due to binary content, apparently> > >> > >> Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity > >> deniers. > > > > Oppositely, it is a standard technique of relativity > > supporters. > Do you have some objection to using one's usual measuring tools for > doing measuring? No; it's actually your insane gurus that announce them non-standard and improper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-19 11:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ps77l3.166h1iyv0mo5qN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #585565 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote: > On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > > <snipped due to binary content, apparently> > > Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity > deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I > get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. It actually is much stronger than that. You can't falsify spacetime geometry by measuring, because the geometry tells you what valid ways of measuring are. (elementary relativity texts pass over this point by pretending that we know what rigid rods and so on are) For practicalities: we know that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz-invariant. So everything you would want to measure by pottering about with electromagnetic means must be Lorentz-invariant too. (provided that you have not made some stupid error) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ricardo Jimenez <rickyjim@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-20 10:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ro9f8h10ausrchfctce02qvfgnvr14do70@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585565 |
On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:36:33 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote: >On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > ><snipped due to binary content, apparently> > >Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity >deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I >get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. > >Sylvia. More precisely it answers the question: Suppose observers A and B in uniform relative motion with respect to each other use their "usual tools", viz. rulers and clocks that are at rest with respect to each of the observers, to determine the differences between distances and times of two events, how do A's and B's measurements relate?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 01:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6390882c-3212-4539-98f2-46452c4202efn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585565 |
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 8:36:38 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > > <snipped due to binary content, apparently> > > Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity > deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I > get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. > > Sylvia. Einstein defined measurement as being valid if it agreed with the direct measurement of a relatively stationary observer. Then he showed with his gedanken experiments that the best measurements can only be dilated or contracted with relative velocity. That is a pure contradiction. The only reason that his theory appears to do anything very well is that he compensated for his original mistake of using a Newtonian measurement protocol to analyze non-Newtonian velocities. He shoehorned time dilation and length contraction back into the theory after wrongly excluding them with his Newtonian protocol. Of course, he still had to corrupt the rules of logic to avoid the manifestation of a contradiction. Instead of recognizing that it was his own premise that was at fault, he built his house of cards on sand. One good wave, and it all falls apart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 01:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d90a77db-a37e-4619-94b2-a83d49e87f92n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585565 |
On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 8:36:38 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > > <snipped due to binary content, apparently> > > Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity > deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I > get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. > > Sylvia. I question the validity of any comment that assumes a pure text message is "binary content".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 09:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jgfe9tFpcloU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586586 |
On 08-June-22 6:42 pm, Tom Capizzi wrote: > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 8:36:38 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: >> >> <snipped due to binary content, apparently> >> >> Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity >> deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I >> get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. >> >> Sylvia. > > I question the validity of any comment that assumes a pure text message is "binary content". My news server rejected my reply based on alleged binary content. It accepted it after I snipped the text. What more can I say? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-09 17:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e7d0f54-ee55-450e-9106-f6428f76738en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586678 |
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:20 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 08-June-22 6:42 pm, Tom Capizzi wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 8:36:38 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > >> > >> <snipped due to binary content, apparently> > >> > >> Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity > >> deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I > >> get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I question the validity of any comment that assumes a pure text message is "binary content". > My news server rejected my reply based on alleged binary content. It > accepted it after I snipped the text. What more can I say? > > Sylvia. But it did not snip the content when it displayed the message to you? If so, I can reformat the paragraphs so it looks less like binary data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 11:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jgfmmkFqlk7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586682 |
On 10-June-22 10:27 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:20 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 08-June-22 6:42 pm, Tom Capizzi wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 8:36:38 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 16-May-22 11:48 am, Tom Capizzi wrote: >>>> >>>> <snipped due to binary content, apparently> >>>> >>>> Trying to redefine measurement is a standard technique for relativity >>>> deniers. Yet relativity is answering the question "what result will I >>>> get if I measure using my usual tools?" And it does that very well. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> I question the validity of any comment that assumes a pure text message is "binary content". >> My news server rejected my reply based on alleged binary content. It >> accepted it after I snipped the text. What more can I say? >> >> Sylvia. > > But it did not snip the content when it displayed the message to you? If so, I can reformat the paragraphs so it looks less like binary data. It appears to object somewhere within the sentence "Frames whose relative velocity was so small that the relativistic correction factor was unity." Snipping that and all that follows posts OK to alt.test. Leave it in and snip the rest, and it chokes. It also objects if I snip that sentence and all that follows, and just type random characters at the end of your paragraph. So I think it's a length issue. Most people do not write single paragraphs of that length, so I'm not surprised I've not encountered it before. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 10:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg38baFnm8cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #585428 |
Am 16.05.2022 um 03:48 schrieb Tom Capizzi: > After years of rereading Einstein and arguing with his legions of cultists, I finally caught his unfixable mistake. I had to cut off most of your message, because it is impossible to read long texts without any formatting or white space. Ok, it is in fact possible to read a text, despite the author did everything possible to make it hard. But you shouldn't count on the willingness to do so. But let me try to answer your question, anyhow.. Einstein's worst error in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was, that he attempted to create a function 'tau', which meant a coordinate transformation between two coordinate systems in relative motion. Such coordinate transformations should leave the phenomenon described in system A unchanged, if the desription is converted from A to coordinate system B. But Einstein ascribed the function tau to the phenomenon itself, which was interpreted as deformation of the form of that something (aka 'length contraction'). But coordinate transformations should not do that and change only the description (iow: change the vectors, not the things, the vectors were used to describe). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-08 01:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <174bc459-0fc9-4de5-9bd2-de7f528dae07n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586460 |
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:38:06 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.05.2022 um 03:48 schrieb Tom Capizzi: > > After years of rereading Einstein and arguing with his legions of cultists, I finally caught his unfixable mistake. > I had to cut off most of your message, because it is impossible to read > long texts without any formatting or white space. > > Ok, it is in fact possible to read a text, despite the author did > everything possible to make it hard. > > But you shouldn't count on the willingness to do so. > > > But let me try to answer your question, anyhow.. > > > Einstein's worst error in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' was, > that he attempted to create a function 'tau', which meant a coordinate > transformation between two coordinate systems in relative motion. > > Such coordinate transformations should leave the phenomenon described in > system A unchanged, if the desription is converted from A to coordinate > system B. > > But Einstein ascribed the function tau to the phenomenon itself, which > was interpreted as deformation of the form of that something (aka > 'length contraction'). > > But coordinate transformations should not do that and change only the > description (iow: change the vectors, not the things, the vectors were > used to describe). > > > TH There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of coordinate transformation. What Einstein got totally wrong was the definition of a valid measurement. He applied a standard that had been in use for centuries. Unfortunately for him, he was trying to describe the new physics of relativistic velocity. He took the valid mathematical procedure for determining parallelness and incorrectly assigned the low speed approximation of this mathematical standard to be his measurement protocol. A number of contradictions result, which can only be corrected by the addition of more ad hoc corrections. Reminds me of the failed attempts to correct the geocentric model of the Solar System by the addition of ever more epicycles. The geocentric model was ultimately abandoned because it was wrong. Special relativity deserves the same fate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web