Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #366490 > unrolled thread

The Necessity Alternate Theories

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Necessity Alternate Theories kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-08 13:01 -0400
    Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:09 +0000
    Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 13:30 -0500
      Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-08 22:45 +0200
        Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-08 22:58 +0200
          Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:56 +0000
            Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-09 06:39 +0200
              Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-09 10:59 +0000
                Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-09 20:29 +0200
                  Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-09 18:44 +0000
                    Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-10 09:40 +0200
                      Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 12:08 +0000
                        Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 05:25 -0700
                          Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 12:37 +0000
                          Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-10 14:54 +0200
                            Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 06:02 -0700
                        Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-10 17:49 +0200
                          Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 16:08 +0000
                            Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-10 18:13 +0200
                          Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 16:16 +0000
                            Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-10 19:08 +0200
                              Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 18:02 +0000
                                Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-10 20:17 +0200
                                  Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 18:37 +0000
                                    Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-10 20:54 +0200
                                      Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:00 +0000
                                        Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 16:40 -0400
                  Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 15:31 -0700
    Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 02:42 -0400
      Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-09 11:44 +0000
        Re: The Necessity Alternate Theories kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 08:00 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#366737

Natalina Nazvarova wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Natalina Nazvarova wrote:
>>>> But does not imply that so many have to be zeroed.
>>> 
>>> But it does; that is how you write the metric tensor for Minkowski
>>> spacetime.  Otherwise the spacetime would not be a Minkowski one, it
>>> would not be flat (measuring distances would depend on the
>>> four-position).
>>> 
>>> And if you replace the components with their values in the expansion
>>> above, you can see that only the summands where µ = ν remain as the
>>> coefficients of those where µ ≠ ν are all 0.  (That is what multiplying
>>> with a diagonal matrix left-hand side does.)
>>> 
>>> Leaving only
>>> ds² = g_µν dx^µ dx^ν = g_00 dx^0 dx^0 + g_11 dx^1 dx^1
>>> + g_22 dx^2 dx^2 + g_33 dx^3 dx^3
> 
> What is this??

This is the metric partially expanded (on the g_µν where µ ≠ ν) by writing 
what Einstein summation notation (in which the general metric is expressed) 
actually means.

When you expand it completely, by replacing g_00, g_11, g_22 and g_33 (the 
g_µν where µ = ν) with the corresponding values of the components of the 
metric tensor, you will see that the result is precisely what I used as 
basis of deriving the equation for calculating the proper time interval in 
Minkowski spacetime.
 
>> Sorry for the confusion, of course it is
>> = g_00 dx^0 dx^0 − g_11 dx^1 dx^1 − g_22 dx^2 dx^2 − g_33 dx^3 dx^3.
>> instead.
> 
> Which is still incorrect of course.

It is _not_ “*still* incorrect”, but it *is* incorrect because the minus 
sign comes from the tensor’s components, in particular g_11, g_22, and g_33, 
instead.  Which is why I had canceled and deleted that posting 8 minutes 
before you replied to it.

> […] [as] you postulated already, as that being "a vector" (without having
> the demanded UNIT vectors attached at it).

So you have not done your homework (#1) yet.

> Then your another blunder,

Unfortunately, despite my sincere efforts, you still have no clue what you 
are talking about.

> that those terms should stand for "values".

They do:

  g_00 = c²

  g_11 = −1

  g_22 = −1

  g_33 = −1

All the other components of the metric tensor/matrix are 0, which means that 
the summands vanish when the tensor/matrix is multiplied with the vectors.

Homework assignment #2: Write in explicit matrix/vector form, using 
variables for the component values only, the equation for muliplying a 4 × 4 
matrix with a 4-vector.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366738

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> Then your another blunder,  that those terms should stand for "values".
> 
> They do: g_00 = c²   g_11 = −1 g_22 = −1 g_33 = −1
> All the other components of the metric tensor/matrix are 0, which means
> that the summands vanish when the tensor/matrix is multiplied with the
> vectors.

Hmm, hence a 3½ years of bachelor education wasted on you entirely. Not 
knowing what a TERM stands for. Write down the terms entirely, and let me 
hear that those are still values, as you already loudly said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366739

The ’nym-shifting troll wrote as "Natalina Nazvarova":

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Then your another blunder,  that those terms should stand for "values".
>> 
>> They do: g_00 = c²   g_11 = −1 g_22 = −1 g_33 = −1
>> All the other components of the metric tensor/matrix are 0, which means
>> that the summands vanish when the tensor/matrix is multiplied with the
>> vectors.
> 
> Hmm, hence a 3½ years of bachelor education wasted on you entirely.

That’s enough.  Again.

> Not knowing what a TERM stands for.

I know.  You don’t: 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_(logic)#Formal_definition>

> Write down the terms entirely, […]

I already did.  I cannot give you that which you deny yourself.


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366740

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> Write down the terms entirely, […]
> 
> I already did.  I cannot give you that which you deny yourself.

Lying chick, cornered once again. You said

    "On the near right-hand side of the equation you can see the tensor 
with its components and on the far right-hand side their corresponding 
values. "

to this:

  ds² = g_00 dx^0 dx^0 − g_11 dx^1 dx^1 − g_22 dx^2 dx^2 − g_33 dx^3 dx^3.

Is RHS still their "corresponding values"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366743

The ’nym-shifting troll wrote as "Natalina Nazvarova":

> […] You said
> 
>     "On the near right-hand side of the equation you can see the tensor
> with its components and on the far right-hand side their corresponding
> values. "

Yes, I did.

> to this:
> 
>   ds² = g_00 dx^0 dx^0 − g_11 dx^1 dx^1 − g_22 dx^2 dx^2 − g_33 dx^3 dx^3.

No, not to this.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366744

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
 
> Yes, I did.
> 
>> to this:
>> ds² = g_00 dx^0 dx^0 − g_11 dx^1 dx^1 − g_22 dx^2 dx^2 − g_33 dx^3 dx^3.
> 
> No, not to this.

NASA finds living insect on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhig9EHLHlQ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366746

On 10/10/2015 03:00 PM, Natalina Nazvarova wrote:
No, not to this.
>
> NASA finds living insect on Mars.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhig9EHLHlQ
>
Of course they did. Someone lifted the welcome mat out side the secret 
American base there and took a picture of it. Of course they will deny 
it is real. Only the possibility of water and bacteria on Mars are 
approved for discussion at present.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366659

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 7:29:48 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The ’nym-shifting troll wrote as "Natalina Nazvarova":
> 
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> The ’nym-shifting troll wrote as "Natalina Nazvarova":
> >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>> […]  (The proper time interval for uniform motion in spacetime is
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>    ∆τ = √((∆t²) – (∆x_i)²∕c²).
> >>>> 
> >>>> Correction:
> >>>> 
> >>>>   ∆τ = √((∆t)² – (∆x_i)²∕c²).
> >>> 
> >>> Why should it be like that?
> >> 
> >> Because the metric of a space is in general
> >> 
> >>    ds² = g_µν dx^µ dx^ν
> > 
> > What's this crap??
> 
> It is the metric …
> 
> > No tensors content inside the above equality I asked about, cretin.
> 
> … that leads to the equality that I stated, if only you cared to read.
> 
> But you do not; you are not interested in the truth, not interested in 
> learning, you are just a ‘nym-shifting troll, right?
> 
> >> Granted, this is not the trivial real *troll* life that you are living,
> >> where you are blathering about tensors without having the slightest clue
> > 
> > Has nothing to do with tensors,
> 
> Yes, it has.  The equation is that way because of the metric of spacetime, 
> and because of the signature of the metric tensor of spacetime.
> 
> > idiot,
> 
> Not pleased to meet you.
> 
> > you dont even know what you wrote.
> 
> I know.  I also know that either you have not read it, or not understood it, 
> or you have both read and understood it and pretend that you did not because 
> that would take away your twisted rationale for trolling.  In either case 
> further reading your postings, let alone replying to you, appears to be a 
> waste of time.  Please prove me wrong there.
> 
> > Here we go once again
> > 
> >     ∆τ = √((∆t)² – (∆x_i)²∕c²).
> > 
> > No tensors.
> 
> Actually, the x_i are the components of a tensor.  This is obvious to anyone 
> who has the slightest idea what a tensor is.
> 
> > Which seems to be consistent.
> 
> Of course it is consistent.  You can read how one must arrive at this by 
> reading what I wrote much more carefully than you did, if that.
> 
> > As you, an almost half of an engineer, are discombobulated when it comes
> > to the domain of tensors.
> 
> I had not thought that the gibberish you present here as English could get 
> more hilarious, but I was wrong.  So thanks for the laugh and the unlikely 
> addition of “discombobulated” to my vocabulary.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
>    does it take to change a light bulb?  
> A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

hmm, not too sure about that, as current thinking suggests it actually takes five theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity to change a light bulb:
four, to hold one corner each of that big rubber sheet they unroll in order to demonstrate that space-time is curved by the presence of a large mass, and then one more to bounce up and down in the middle until they get high enough to reach the light fitment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366550

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:01:04 -0400, kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com>
wrote:

>The Necessity of Alternate Theories
>
>          Essentially all gravitational research now involves 
>the same type of theory having the same anticipated type 
>of effect.
>
>         The type of theory involves action of some type
>to cause objects to appear to change motion due to
>gravity.
>
>         And the type of effect involves an apparent
>change in motion caused by another entity of some
>kind.
>
>
>       The problem that exists is the question,
>"what if the apparent change of motion is NOT
>a change of motion at all?".
>       While General Relativity may consider all 
>motion in space to be inertial, and all motion
>in spacetime to be straight lines, there may
>be the possibility that all motion is inertial AND
>in straight lines.
>       Should gravity research consider such a
>vacuous possibility?     Only if an alternate
>theory models it in a rational way.
>
>      And the type of effect in that alternate theory
>must be different enough to warrant consideration.
>
>
>      The Divergent Matter model provides a
>rational physics where objects moving in
>space do not deviate from inertial motion
>or straight lines.
>      
>      And they type of effect is totally different,
>even though it still "appears" that gravity
>works as Newton and Einstein described.
>
>
>      The big differences are in astrophysics
>and cosmology.      Many researchers still
>"talk" of gravity being an attraction, and seem
>to think that two objects move together under
>the effect of gravity.
>      In the Divergent Matter model this does
>not happen, all objects simply continue their
>motion, as inertial, and in straight lines, the
>apparent effect of gravity is just "apparent".


        "Space" in the Divergent Matter model
is Euclidean, and absolute, because space
in the model is vacuum nothingness, with
nothing "guiding" the motion of objects,
so they move under their own momentum.

       In the model, this "space" is not an entity,
it is just a complete lack of anything, with
matter moving through it.
      And because matter is expanding, this
"space" appears to change, not because
it is anything that could change, but because
the measuring devices are changing.
     This "space" is absolute, only because
the model defines it as absolute, beginning
at the instant math calculations begin.

      As matter expands, and the meter and
second get longer, the absolute space has
the same dimensions all the way through
the math calculation, in t(zero) meters.
      After about 600 seconds the current
meter length is about two t(zero) meters,
and the time interval, the second, is two
t(zero) seconds long.

 
       The Earth and all matter, after about
600 seconds, is twice the size as at the
instant of t(zero).

       The outward velocity of the Earth's
surface has increased about 9.8 * 600
of the y(zero) meters per second, plus
twice the outward velocity of the t(zero)
velocity, but because the second is twice 
as long, can be assumed to be the same
t(current) velocity, even though it cannot
be measured directly.

       The math can be ordinary Newtonian
mechanics for a first approximation as long
as these concepts are used, with gravity
being the apparent result of matter expanding.



>     Even though some of these apparent
>effects of Divergent Matter have been 
>described, all responses have avoided
>detailed discussion of the processes
>involved.
>
>      Any serious in-depth rebuttal will be 
>appreciated, if it is the detailed physics
>of the described physical processes and
>their effects.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366568

kefischer wrote:

>         "Space" in the Divergent Matter model
> is Euclidean, and absolute, because space in the model is vacuum
> nothingness, with nothing "guiding" the motion of objects,
> so they move under their own momentum.

Not again!! Space is namely NOT Euclidean, nor Einsteinian, nor anyother 
kind of space found in literature. This reveals once again that you are 
total VOID, like a printable blank letter paper, when it comes to the 
beautiful vast domain of Divergent Matter.

    http://www.tsatski.ca/?p=1671

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366571

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:44:23 +0000 (UTC), Natalina Nazvarova
<natana42@hotmail.com> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>>         "Space" in the Divergent Matter model
>> is Euclidean, and absolute, because space in the model is vacuum
>> nothingness, with nothing "guiding" the motion of objects,
>> so they move under their own momentum.
>
>Not again!! Space is namely NOT Euclidean, nor Einsteinian, nor anyother 
>kind of space found in literature. This reveals once again that you are 
>total VOID, like a printable blank letter paper, when it comes to the 
>beautiful vast domain of Divergent Matter.
>
>    http://www.tsatski.ca/?p=1671

         Is that a book of everything you know?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web