Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #452501 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-13 10:06 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-04-03 06:45 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 95 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-13 10:06 +0100
Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-13 07:15 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-13 07:51 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-13 08:34 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 09:20 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 16:27 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 16:28 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-13 18:39 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 17:49 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 17:49 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-14 13:54 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-14 16:02 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-14 21:47 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 18:02 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-13 18:12 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-13 22:00 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-13 22:55 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 09:19 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 09:32 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 09:52 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 18:07 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-14 12:03 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:18 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-14 21:38 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 16:27 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-15 01:05 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 03:52 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 23:10 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-15 00:16 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 11:55 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 14:40 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-15 16:02 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 15:20 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 09:49 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:49 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 11:26 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-15 04:03 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 15:50 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 21:15 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 10:30 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-15 18:32 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 19:51 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-15 20:56 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-15 23:20 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-16 10:11 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 22:25 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-19 09:17 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 17:57 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 11:16 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 18:43 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 13:02 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-19 21:24 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:32 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-03-20 17:40 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 09:55 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-20 18:25 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 14:21 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-03-20 22:57 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 16:00 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Darryl Fletcher <lu@ewiwwe.tt> - 2018-03-20 23:38 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-22 14:01 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 13:45 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-27 20:18 +0200
Re: Units in spacetime xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 14:40 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-03-26 07:38 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-27 19:53 +0200
Re: Units in spacetime xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-27 16:47 -0400
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-28 09:34 +0200
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-20 21:12 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-16 10:32 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-03-16 12:33 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-17 21:29 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 20:51 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-20 15:41 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-15 14:04 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-15 20:10 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-22 05:57 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-03-27 19:57 +0200
Re: Units in spacetime numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-20 13:49 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 07:26 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-22 15:28 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-23 09:57 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 18:54 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 10:48 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-25 19:03 +0200
Re: Units in spacetime xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-03-26 06:39 -0700
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-03-26 21:43 +0200
Re: Units in spacetime Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 11:00 +0100
Re: Units in spacetime Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-30 10:52 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Will Bos <sllu@wsws.sb> - 2018-03-30 11:02 +0000
Re: Units in spacetime Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-03 06:45 +0200
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 10:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Units in spacetime |
| Message-ID | <fgpik3F5ps8U1@mid.individual.net> |
Hi NG while sorting out old stuff on old harddrives, I have found this nice little text, which I had written about 2010 for 'BAUT' forum. Hope you like that: ****************************************************************** ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². That is (cdt)² +ds²=dx² + dy² + dz². Along the lightcone we have ds=0, hence could take the square root and get units of meters - as expected. For dx=dy=dz=0 we get ds²= -1 * c²dt² . We have to take the square root of –1, what is the imaginary unit i and get i*cdt=ds, or ‘imaginary meters’. For dt=0 we have a negative ds². In spacelike direction we have sqrt(ds²) =sqrt(dx² + dy² + dz²), what has units of meters/i. The term ds seems to be the magnitude of a matrix, indicating the amount of change in space and time, if you think in terms of four vectors a=a0 + a1 e1 + a2 e2 + a3 e3, then det(a) = |a|2 = ao² - a1² - a2² - a3². The velocities in spacetime seems to be dimensionless: meter per meter. So we could use radians as units for velocity. Than we have dimensions of meters per meter or an ‘imaginary angle’. Since here I treat objects as 'self-centred' (at rest in respect to itself), we could make the angle zero along the timeline and the circle perpendicular timeless, hence |a|2 = a a^-1 . A full circle provides a tick at some kind of clock. Since it has this is an anti-symmetric behavior and the clock behaves somehow similar a pendulum, swinging back and forth. In spacetime perspective, that pendulum could be visualized as a pointer, pointing up and down. That is like a pointer, which is performing a circle around a spacelike axis. Actually we have three spacelike axes, hence each could provide a clock and we have to add the change in space along each axis to the total change in time. Since the meter is defined with help of the second and that as some counting of a clock, we have to think about spacetime having no dimensions at all, other than radians and i. The scale has to be put in by hand, according to the scale of the system observed. Even as this seems to be unsatisfactory, the world we live in, behaves like having just such fractal properties. The plank unit h could provide the size of a fundamental unit sphere, since a sphere in spacetime has a volume with units of an action. TH
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9da30bf-feee-4de2-8bd9-e714c0ad3a5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452501 |
Thomas Heger Hi NG while sorting out old stuff on old harddrives, I have found this nice little text, which I had written about 2010 for 'BAUT' forum. Hope you like that: ****************************************************************** ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². That is (cdt)² +ds²=dx² + dy² + dz². Along the lightcone we have ds=0, hence could take the square root and get units of meters - as expected. For dx=dy=dz=0 we get ds²= -1 * c²dt² . We have to take the square root of –1, what is the imaginary unit i and get i*cdt=ds, or ‘imaginary meters’. For dt=0 we have a negative ds². In spacelike direction we have sqrt(ds²) =sqrt(dx² + dy² + dz²), what has units of meters/i. The term ds seems to be the magnitude of a matrix, indicating the amount of change in space and time, if you think in terms of four vectors a=a0 + a1 e1 + a2 e2 + a3 e3, then det(a) = |a|2 = ao² - a1² - a2² - a3². The velocities in spacetime seems to be dimensionless: meter per meter. So we could use radians as units for velocity. https://photos.app.goo.gl/xrSxQ4a2rON6XiiY2 Than we have dimensions of meters per meter or an ‘imaginary angle’. Since here I treat objects as 'self-centred' (at rest in respect to itself), we could make the angle zero along the timeline and the circle perpendicular timeless, hence |a|2 = a a^-1 . A full circle provides a tick at some kind of clock. Since it has this is an anti-symmetric behavior and the clock behaves somehow similar a pendulum, swinging back and forth. http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf On the reversal of sign of secondary Bjerknes force acting between two pulsating gas bubbles In spacetime perspective, that pendulum could be visualized as a pointer, pointing up and down. That is like a pointer, which is performing a circle around a spacelike axis. Actually we have three spacelike axes, hence each could provide a clock and we have to add the change in space along each axis to the total change in time. Since the meter is defined with help of the second and that as some counting of a clock, we have to think about spacetime having no dimensions at all, other than radians and i. The scale has to be put in by hand, according to the scale of the system observed. Even as this seems to be unsatisfactory, the world we live in, behaves like having just such fractal properties. The plank unit h (units of angular momentum) could provide the size of a fundamental unit sphere, since a sphere in spacetime has a volume with units of an action. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p88nm5$1ee8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452511 |
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> wrote: > Thomas Heger > Hi NG > > while sorting out old stuff on old harddrives, I have found this nice > little text, which I had written about 2010 for 'BAUT' forum. > > Hope you like that: > > ****************************************************************** > > > ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². You should be careful here. The formulation of the interval above really only applies to spacelike intervals. For timelike intervals, the interval is written as ds²= (cdt)² - dx² - dy² - dz². You’re going to see why just below, where you take the case dx = dy = dz = 0, which is explicitly a timelike interval. Now you may ask, why doesn’t one formulation of the interval work for both? The reason is the structure of spacetime, where there are two fundamentally different regions: inside the light cone and outside the light cone. It is not really possible to formulate a common expression for both regions with introducing weird stuff like imaginary distances. So one should not try. One should just be careful to use the right expression for the right region. > That is (cdt)² +ds²=dx² + dy² + dz². > > Along the lightcone we have ds=0, hence could take the square root and > get units of meters - as expected. > > For dx=dy=dz=0 we get ds²= -1 * c²dt² . We have to take the square root > of –1, what is the imaginary unit i and get i*cdt=ds, or ‘imaginary > meters’. > > For dt=0 we have a negative ds². In spacelike direction we have > sqrt(ds²) =sqrt(dx² + dy² + dz²), > > what has units of meters/i. > > The term ds seems to be the magnitude of a matrix, indicating the amount > of change in space and time, if you think in terms of four vectors a=a0 > + a1 e1 + a2 e2 + a3 e3, then > det(a) = |a|2 = ao² - a1² - a2² - a3². > > The velocities in spacetime seems to be dimensionless: meter per meter. > > So we could use radians as units for velocity. > > https://photos.app.goo.gl/xrSxQ4a2rON6XiiY2 > > Than we have dimensions > of meters per meter or an ‘imaginary angle’. > > Since here I treat objects as 'self-centred' (at rest in respect to > itself), we could make the angle zero along the timeline and the circle > perpendicular timeless, hence |a|2 = a a^-1 . > > A full circle provides a tick at some kind of clock. Since it has this > is an anti-symmetric behavior and the clock behaves somehow similar a > pendulum, swinging back and forth. > > http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf > > On the reversal of sign of secondary Bjerknes force acting between two > pulsating gas bubbles > > > In spacetime perspective, that pendulum could be visualized as a > pointer, pointing up and down. That is like a pointer, which is > performing a circle around a spacelike axis. > > Actually we have three spacelike axes, hence each could provide a clock > and we have to add the change in space along each axis to the total > change in time. > > Since the meter is defined with help of the second and that as some > counting of a clock, we have to think about spacetime having no > dimensions at all, other than radians and i. > > The scale has to be put in by hand, according to the scale of the system > observed. Even as this seems to be unsatisfactory, the world we live in, > behaves like having just such fractal properties. > > The plank unit h (units of angular momentum) could provide the size of a > fundamental unit sphere, > since a sphere in spacetime has a volume with units of an action. > > > > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c10277f-f46e-4677-9eda-487432662013@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452512 |
Odd Bodkin David (Kronos Prime) Fuller <fuller...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Thomas Heger > Hi NG > > while sorting out old stuff on old harddrives, I have found this nice > little text, which I had written about 2010 for 'BAUT' forum. > > Hope you like that: > > ****************************************************************** > > > ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². You should be careful here. The formulation of the interval above really only applies to spacelike intervals. For timelike intervals, the interval is written as ds²= (cdt)² - dx² - dy² - dz². You’re going to see why just below, where you take the case dx = dy = dz = 0, which is explicitly a timelike interval. Now you may ask, why doesn’t one formulation of the interval work for both? The reason is the structure of spacetime, where there are two fundamentally different regions: inside the light cone and outside the light cone. It is not really possible to formulate a common expression for both regions with introducing weird stuff like imaginary distances. So one should not try. https://photos.app.goo.gl/XGlUbdgp1BmWFLLh2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/DK70uQgSdhA3mbMm1 https://photos.app.goo.gl/wtkUjSXZgmTfoNsx1 One should just be careful to use the right expression for the right region. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87517f3d-2523-4dad-b71b-fb304d2bce46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452513 |
Now you may ask, why doesn’t one formulation of the interval work for both? The reason is the structure of spacetime, where there are two fundamentally different regions: inside the light cone and outside the light cone. It is not really possible to formulate a common expression for both regions with introducing weird stuff like imaginary distances. So one should not try. https://photos.app.goo.gl/XGlUbdgp1BmWFLLh2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/DK70uQgSdhA3mbMm1 https://photos.app.goo.gl/wtkUjSXZgmTfoNsx1 But that is Exactly what the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is... an “imaginary distance”. https://photos.app.goo.gl/wtkUjSXZgmTfoNsx1 http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf It is known that in a certain case, the secondary Bjerknes force, which is a radiation force acting between pulsating bubbles, changes (e.g., from attractive to repulsive) as the bubbles approach each other. In this letter, a theoretical discussion of this phenomenon is given. The present theory, based on analysis of the eigenfrequencies of interacting bubbles, gives an accurate interpretation, which differs from previous ones (e.g., by Doinikov and Zavtrak [Phys. Fluids 7, 1923-1930 (1995)]), of the phenomenon. It is shown, for example, that the first reversal, occurring when both bubbles are larger than the resonance size and the damping effect is sufficiently small, is due to the highest eigenfrequency of the larger bubble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3963ef67-2e08-4acf-8096-b45f16b95aab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452512 |
On March 13, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker wrote: > Thomas Heger > > ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². > > The formulation of the interval only applies to spacelike intervals. This metric only allows faster than light which means it is not applicable in reality. <shrug> > you take the case dx = dy = dz = 0, which is explicitly a timelike > interval. This implies the geometry being described by the observer using (t, x, y, z) is stationary to this observer. <shrug> > the structure of spacetime, where there are two fundamentally > different regions: inside the light cone and outside the light cone... Absolute nonsense. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 16:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p88u5v$1rao$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452518 |
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: > On March 13, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker wrote: >> Thomas Heger > >>> ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². >> >> The formulation of the interval only applies to spacelike intervals. > > This metric only allows faster than light which means it is not > applicable in reality. <shrug> Metrics do not allow anything. Defining a metric doesn’t tell you anything about travel. Idiot. If you don’t know what the terms in a mathematical expression mean, you should attempt to use the mathematical expressions. > >> you take the case dx = dy = dz = 0, which is explicitly a timelike >> interval. > > This implies the geometry being described by the observer using (t, x, y, > z) is stationary to this observer. <shrug> Geometry doesn’t have a motion status. Idiot. > >> the structure of spacetime, where there are two fundamentally >> different regions: inside the light cone and outside the light cone... > > Absolute nonsense. <shrug> > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p88u7i$1rgl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452519 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: >> On March 13, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker wrote: >>> Thomas Heger >> >>>> ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². >>> >>> The formulation of the interval only applies to spacelike intervals. >> >> This metric only allows faster than light which means it is not >> applicable in reality. <shrug> > > Metrics do not allow anything. Defining a metric doesn’t tell you anything > about travel. > Idiot. If you don’t know what the terms in a mathematical expression mean, > you should attempt to use the mathematical expressions. ...should not... > >> >>> you take the case dx = dy = dz = 0, which is explicitly a timelike >>> interval. >> >> This implies the geometry being described by the observer using (t, x, y, >> z) is stationary to this observer. <shrug> > > Geometry doesn’t have a motion status. Idiot. > > > >> >>> the structure of spacetime, where there are two fundamentally >>> different regions: inside the light cone and outside the light cone... >> >> Absolute nonsense. <shrug> >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b62f9c81-199b-4165-8963-877049b0fdd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452519 |
On March 13, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > This metric only allows faster than light which means it is not > > applicable in reality. <shrug> > > Metrics do not allow anything... > Geometry doesn’t have a motion status. Idiot. Nonsense. The geometry is projected to or observed by an observer using the coordinate system (t, x, y, z) and the metric to describe this geometry. Of course, this observation allows for this geometry (an object) in motion to be observed by this observer. Idiot! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fgqglmFcohhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452523 |
Am 13.03.2018 um 17:45 schrieb Koobee Wublee: > On March 13, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> This metric only allows faster than light which means it is not >>> applicable in reality. <shrug> >> >> Metrics do not allow anything... >> Geometry doesn’t have a motion status. Idiot. > > Nonsense. The geometry is projected to or observed by an observer using the coordinate system (t, x, y, z) and the metric to describe this geometry. Of course, this observation allows for this geometry (an object) in motion to be observed by this observer. Idiot! <shrug> > I use the convention, that the observer declares himself as at rest. The trajectory of the observer is ignored and set to zero velocity. This is possible because of the equivalence principle. (IOW: we don't know, how fast we move) This is so for all possible observer in any possible state. These observers are 'self-centered' and the world they observe is called 'universe' (by them). Those universes are not the same, since any observer sees a different one from a different point of view. This is not really satisfying, but doesn't matter very much, since this is simply how we see the world. The trajectory of the observer is called 'timelike' and the space he observers is his past light cone (which is different for every observer). The lightcone has an angle of 45° in respect to the timeline. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p892ue$9qh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452527 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> Nonsense. The geometry is projected to or observed by an observer >> using the coordinate system (t, x, y, z) and the metric to describe >> this geometry. Of course, this observation allows for this geometry >> (an object) in motion to be observed by this observer. Idiot! <shrug> > > I use the convention, that the observer declares himself as at res Impossible. The has a certain valued mechanic and electric impedance. That impedance comes from something, thus that observer will be moving wrt that. People are talking nonsense in relativity around here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p892vo$9qh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452528 |
Térov Balónky wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> Nonsense. The geometry is projected to or observed by an observer >>> using the coordinate system (t, x, y, z) and the metric to describe >>> this geometry. Of course, this observation allows for this geometry >>> (an object) in motion to be observed by this observer. Idiot! >>> <shrug> >> >> I use the convention, that the observer declares himself as at res > > Impossible. The has a certain valued mechanic and electric impedance. > That impedance comes from something, thus that observer will be moving > wrt that. People are talking nonsense in relativity around here. "The empty space has".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 13:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fgskciFr893U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452529 |
Am 13.03.2018 um 18:49 schrieb Térov Balónky: >>>> Nonsense. The geometry is projected to or observed by an observer >>>> using the coordinate system (t, x, y, z) and the metric to describe >>>> this geometry. Of course, this observation allows for this geometry >>>> (an object) in motion to be observed by this observer. Idiot! >>>> <shrug> >>> >>> I use the convention, that the observer declares himself as at res >> >> Impossible. The has a certain valued mechanic and electric impedance. >> That impedance comes from something, thus that observer will be moving >> wrt that. People are talking nonsense in relativity around here. > > "The empty space has". > The assumption of an eternal empty space is one of Newtons axioms. But I tried to prove, that the 4d view of Herman Minkowski is actually correct. I use a spacetime concept similar to that of Minkowski and try to connect this to quantum mechanics. The concept I call 'structured spacetime', where such structures are what we call matter. I have written kind of book about it, that could be found here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8bh1p$afu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452614 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> I use the convention, that the observer declares himself as at rest >>> >>> Impossible. The has a certain valued mechanic and electric impedance. >>> That impedance comes from something, thus that observer will be moving >>> wrt that. People are talking nonsense in relativity around here. >> >> "The empty space has". > > The assumption of an eternal empty space is one of Newtons axioms. But I > tried to prove, that the 4d view of Herman Minkowski is actually > correct. Good point. And yet another flagrant error in Relativity. You cant declare anything at rest in spacetime. In space yes, but not in spacetime. According their own theory and definitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 21:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fgtg2eF32m6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452626 |
Am 14.03.2018 um 17:02 schrieb Térov Balónky: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>> I use the convention, that the observer declares himself as at rest >>>> >>>> Impossible. The has a certain valued mechanic and electric impedance. >>>> That impedance comes from something, thus that observer will be moving >>>> wrt that. People are talking nonsense in relativity around here. >>> >>> "The empty space has". >> >> The assumption of an eternal empty space is one of Newtons axioms. But I >> tried to prove, that the 4d view of Herman Minkowski is actually >> correct. > > Good point. And yet another flagrant error in Relativity. You cant declare > anything at rest in spacetime. In space yes, but not in spacetime. > According their own theory and definitions. > Well, I don't say, that something is at rest. I use the equivalence principle, which says, that you cannot decide between inertial motion and being at rest. This enables me to say, that I can declare anything to be at rest. For reasons of convenience and because of consistency to every-day experience I say, the observer is at rest (by definition). This is kind of 'subjectivism', because any observer gets similar rights and therefor one observer is at rest in his own FoR, while in motion in the FoRs of other observers. This is not really satisfying. But to be happy is not a scientific requirement. It is only a useful convention. And it is also the same way as we actually see the world: from our own point of view. But humans on planet Earth share a certain view: vertically up. The common denominator of human observations is our collective view into the sky. What we see there we call 'universe'. But we do not realize, that this 'universe' is not really universal. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p893o0$cca$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452523 |
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: > On March 13, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> This metric only allows faster than light which means it is not >>> applicable in reality. <shrug> >> >> Metrics do not allow anything... >> Geometry doesn’t have a motion status. Idiot. > > Nonsense. The geometry is projected to or observed by an observer using > the coordinate system (t, x, y, z) and the metric to describe this > geometry. Of course, this observation allows for this geometry (an > object) in motion to be observed by this observer. Idiot! <shrug> > Koobee, you are highly amusing when you look at equations and then just fabricate strings of words to try to describe what they mean. And if anyone points out references that are in conflict with what you just said, then you declare your omniscient and exclusive understanding, despite what anybody else says. You don’t seem to understand that claims of exclusive omniscience are symptoms of serious mental illness. Nice posturing, though. Well puffed. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p894ak$9qh$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452536 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Metrics do not allow anything... >>> Geometry doesn’t have a motion status. Idiot. >> >> Nonsense. The geometry is projected to or observed by an observer >> using the coordinate system (t, x, y, z) and the metric to describe >> this geometry. Of course, this observation allows for this geometry >> (an object) in motion to be observed by this observer. Idiot! <shrug> >> >> > Koobee, you are highly amusing when you look at equations and then just > fabricate strings of words to try to describe what they mean. And if So true indeed. That's exactly the difference from physics. In math Dr. Koobee may do that, however in physics the constraints has to be well defined, otherwise the whole thing will splash. Relativity is mostly about splashes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1_WpC.124337$a15.44105@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #452512 |
Den 13.03.2018 15.36, skrev Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger >> >> ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². metric signature (-,+,+,+) > > You should be careful here. The formulation of the interval above really > only applies to spacelike intervals. For timelike intervals, the interval > is written as > ds²= (cdt)² - dx² - dy² - dz². metric signature (+,-,-,-) see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_convention You will find that both signatures are used in the literature, but it is not common to mix them, the same metric is used for both time-like and space-like intervals. Misner & Thorne & Wheeler: "Gravitation" use (-,+,+,+) Carroll: "Spacetime and Geometry" use (-,+,+,+) d'Inverno: "Introducing Einstein's Relativiy" use (+,-,-,-) Taylor & Wheeler: "Spacetime Physics" use (+,-,-,-) With the signature (-,+,+,+) a positive space time interval s^2 will be space like, s = sqrt(s^2), while a negative s^2 will be time-like, \tau = sqrt(-s^2/c^2). With the signature (+,-,-,-) a negative space time interval s^2 will be space like, s = sqrt(-s^2), while a positive s^2 will be time-like, \tau = sqrt(s^2/c^2). -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-13 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p89kt8$1b9i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #452543 |
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > Den 13.03.2018 15.36, skrev Odd Bodkin: >> Thomas Heger >>> >>> ds²= -(cdt)² + dx² + dy² + dz². > > metric signature (-,+,+,+) > >> >> You should be careful here. The formulation of the interval above really >> only applies to spacelike intervals. For timelike intervals, the interval >> is written as >> ds²= (cdt)² - dx² - dy² - dz². > > metric signature (+,-,-,-) > > see: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_convention > > You will find that both signatures are used > in the literature, but it is not common to mix them, > the same metric is used for both time-like and space-like intervals. > > Misner & Thorne & Wheeler: "Gravitation" use (-,+,+,+) > Carroll: "Spacetime and Geometry" use (-,+,+,+) > d'Inverno: "Introducing Einstein's Relativiy" use (+,-,-,-) > Taylor & Wheeler: "Spacetime Physics" use (+,-,-,-) > > With the signature (-,+,+,+) a positive space time interval s^2 > will be space like, s = sqrt(s^2), while a negative s^2 will be > time-like, \tau = sqrt(-s^2/c^2). > > With the signature (+,-,-,-) a negative space time interval s^2 > will be space like, s = sqrt(-s^2), while a positive s^2 will be > time-like, \tau = sqrt(s^2/c^2). > > Agreed. And notice what -s^2 looks like when expressed in components in flat space. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-14 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72eb5a94-8d6b-47c8-8e84-249ed2c718b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452551 |
On March 13, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PF) the wooden sex toy maker wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_convention > > > You will find that both signatures are used in the literature, but > > it is not common to mix them, the same metric is used for both > > time-like and space-like intervals. > > Agreed. And notice what -s^2 looks like when expressed in components in > flat space. With the (-,+,+,+) signature, ds² is negative. To normal people, one would ask WTF when the distance becomes an imaginary number, but not to Einstein dingleberries, it is another day in the la-la land of make believe science aka mysticism. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web