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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #452501 > unrolled thread

Units in spacetime

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

Contents

  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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#453364

Op 20-mrt-2018 om 22:21 schreef Koobee Wublee:
> On March 20, 2018, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snot]

 >>>
 >>> No, Koobee Wublee is not Mr. Way,

 >> Oh yes, James, you most certainly are.
 >> It just takes WHOIS an an old accidental post of yours.
 >> Caught with your pants down, James.
 >> All that trouble you went through to hide who you are?
 >> Waste of your time.

> 
> The sperm lover is wrong as usual.  Koobee Wublee is not James.  Do
> you have balls to contact Mr. Way to find out yourself or just love
> sperms?  <shrug>


-------------------
X-Received: by 10.224.185.201 with SMTP id cp9mr10085698qab.6.1364336992019;
         Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.27.42 with SMTP id q10mt3725873igg.1.1364336991966; 
Tue,
  26 Mar 2013 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
aioe.org!news.glorb.com!ca1no8542669qab.0!news-out.google.com!k8ni11100qas.0!nntp.google.com!ca1no8542668qab.0!postnews.google.com!vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.56.86.238; 
posting-account=PTS84AoAAACr67p51zvy0Hlr3LkoIUcc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.56.86.238
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
  Trident/6.0; MDDCJS),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: 
<c9809736-e495-445d-8b9f-2eafa12b78e6@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Spacetime Geometry
From: Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:29:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: aioe.org sci.physics.relativity:243140 sci.physics:381723
------------

https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=99.56.86.238
Exposed dishonest idiot.

Dirk Vdm

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

#453367

On March 20, 2018, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > **  ds² = - c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²
> 
> > Rederive it as:
> 
> > **  ds  = c dt √(v²/c²-1)
> 
> > Where
> 
> > **  v² = (dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²
> 
> > Then, it follows that:
>
> > **  s = ∫(ds) = c ∫(dt √(v²/c²-1))
>
> > The problem now is that √(v²/c²-1) is an imaginary number since
> > (1 >= v²/c²) where nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.
>
> > The signature of a metric is associated with the geometry that
> > the metric is describing using a specific set of coordinate system.
> > What you are doing is to measure the distance between two
> > independent points and nothing about the geometry at either point.
> > Paul and the rest of Einstein dingleberries are mystically confused
> > beyond laughing.  <shaking head>
>
> > Notice Landau and Lifshitz agree with Koobee Wublee on the
> > mathematics.  Carrying on further, it can only mean the signature
> > (-,+,+,+) does not describe the real world.  <shrug>
>
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/TRaZOYMVSHA/IoIpWsRsAQAJ
>
> -------------------
> X-Received: by 10.224.185.201 with SMTP id cp9mr10085698qab.6.1364336992019;
>          Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Received: by 10.50.27.42 with SMTP id q10mt3725873igg.1.1364336991966; 
> Tue,
>   26 Mar 2013 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: 
> aioe.org!news.glorb.com!ca1no8542669qab.0!news-out.google.com!k8ni11100qas.0!nntp.google.com!ca1no8542668qab.0!postnews.google.com!vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
> Injection-Info: vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.56.86.238; 
> posting-account=PTS84AoAAACr67p51zvy0Hlr3LkoIUcc
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.56.86.238
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
>   Trident/6.0; MDDCJS),gzip(gfe)
> Message-ID: 
> <c9809736-e495-445d-8b9f-2eafa12b78e6@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Spacetime Geometry
> From: Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:29:52 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Xref: aioe.org sci.physics.relativity:243140 sci.physics:381723
> ------------
> 
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=99.56.86.238

So, this is how the sperm lover discuss science by fabricating lies and unrelated subjects.  Why the sperm lover think discussing personal information as doing science?  The sperm lover has nothing to contribute but attack personal issues.  How fvcking low the sperm lover can be.  <shrug>

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.56.86.238

How is that having anything to do with James or Way?  <shrug>

> Exposed dishonest idiot.

Idiot, you should be fvcking fired from your job.  Last checked, the sperm lover worked as an IT person of some sorts.  <shrug>

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

#453372

Koobee Wublee wrote:

>> Exposed dishonest idiot.
> 
> Idiot, you should be fvcking fired from your job.  Last checked, the
> sperm lover worked as an IT person of some sorts.  <shrug>

Not that bad, likely strong in Structured Computer Organization, 
Computer Networks etc, and probably not. Here is what already 
happened with relativity.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/881e35c0b4c136843d382b4a1faa749e72049881bf27df23e8163dbd96730e66.gif?w=600&h=231

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

#453488

Den 20.03.2018 17.32, skrev Koobee Wublee:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:

The following maths is Koobee Wublee's attempt
to solve the trivial problem:

| calculate the interval s² between the events:
| (0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0) using the metric:
|    ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz² ?

His blunder was to fail to see the obvious,
the interval between the events is spacelike,
and you can't calculate it as if it is a timelike
interval.
Or maybe you were ignorant of the existence
of spacelike intervals? :-D

>>> **  ds² = - c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²
>>>
>>> Rederive it as:

Which can only be done if it is a timelike
interval, that is if s² is negative.

>>> **  ds  = c dt √(v²/c²-1)

Not quite. With the signature (-,+,+,+)
and a negative s², we have s² = -(c⋅dτ)²

dτ = √(1 - v²/c²)

You can see the derivation above here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
see equation (7)

But this is not relevant in this case
because the interval is spacelike.

>>>
>>> Where
>>>
>>> **  v² = (dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²
>>>
>>> Then, it follows that:
>>>
>>> **  s = ∫(ds) = c ∫(dt √(v²/c²-1))
>>>
>>> The problem now is that √(v²/c²-1) is an imaginary number since
>>> (1 >= v²/c²) where nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.

The problem is that you have no clue.

The answer is s² = 1, s² is positive so it is
a spacelike interval.

s is the interval between the events
t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
and
t = 0, x = 1, y = 0, z = 0

The events are simultaneous, and s = 1
is the spatial distance between them.

http://tinyurl.com/y88jgzrn

How the calculation can be done:
--------------------------------

The interval between the events
E₀(t₀,x₀,y₀,z₀) and E₁(t₁,x₁,y₁,z₁)
calculated with the metric:
ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz²

can be found by integrating s² along
the path from E₀ to E₁

         t₁         x₁        y₁         z₁
s² = -(c∫dt)² + ( ∫dx)² + ( ∫dy)² + ( ∫dz)²
         t₀        x₀        y₀         z₀

s² = -c²(t₁-t₀)² + (x₁-x₀)² + (y₁-y₀)² + (y₁-y₀)²

Examples:
---------

#1:
The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0):
s² = (1-0)² = 1, positive, spacelike interval
s = 1 a distance
================

#2:
The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (1,1,0,0):
s² = = -c²(1-0)² + (1-0)² = -(c²-1), negative, timelike interval
s² = -(cτ)²
τ = √(1-1/c²) a proper time
===========================

#3:
The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (1,2c,0,0):
s² = -c²(1-0)² + (2c-0)² = 3c², positive, spacelike interval
s = √3⋅c, a distance
===========================

Note that for the time like interval #2,
(and only for timelike intervals) we could
have written dx² + dy² + dz² = v²dt² where
v² = dx²/dt² + dy²/dt² + dz²/dt²
v² = (x₁-x₀)²+(y₁-y₀)²+(z₁-z₀)²/(t₁-t₀)²

ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + v²dt²
         t₁         t₁
s² = -(c∫dt)² + ( v∫dt)² = -c² + v²
         t₀         t₀

In example #2: v = 1
s² = -(c²-1), negative, timelike interval
s² = -(cτ)²
τ = √(1-1/c²) a proper time
===========================


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#453511

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:01:11 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> The following maths is Koobee Wublee's attempt to solve the trivial
> problem:
> 
> | calculate the interval s² between the events:
> | (0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0) using the metric:
> |    ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz² ?
> 
> His blunder was to fail to see the obvious, the interval between
> the events is spacelike, and you can't calculate it as if it is a
> timelike interval. Or maybe you were ignorant of the existence of
> spacelike intervals? :-D

The metric above describe the spacetime geometry at a specific point in spacetime, and the signature of a metric only applies to the metric at that specific point in spacetime.  So, what Koobee Wublee has done below is correct by calculating the interval as it traverses from (0,0,0,0) to (0,1,0,0).  This episode demonstrates how clueless Paul Andersen has been.  <shrug>

> > **  ds² = - c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²
> 
> > Rederive it as:
> 
> > **  ds  = c dt √(v²/c²-1)
> 
> > Where
> 
> > **  v² = (dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²
> 
> > Then, it follows that:
>
> > **  s = ∫(ds) = c ∫(dt √(v²/c²-1))
>
> > The problem now is that √(v²/c²-1) is an imaginary number since
> > (1 >= v²/c²) where nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.
>
> > The signature of a metric is associated with the geometry that
> > the metric is describing using a specific set of coordinate system.
> > What you are doing is to measure the distance between two
> > independent points and nothing about the geometry at either point.
> > Paul and the rest of Einstein dingleberries are mystically confused
> > beyond laughing.  <shaking head>
>
> > Notice Landau and Lifshitz agree with Koobee Wublee on the
> > mathematics.  Carrying on further, it can only mean the signature
> > (-,+,+,+) does not describe the real world.  <shrug>
>
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/TRaZOYMVSHA/IoIpWsRsAQAJ

> [...]

There is no such thing as timelike, spacelike, lightlike, or whatever crap like.  There is how the geometry at a specific point in spacetime is projected to or observed by an observer using the coordinate system (t,x,y,z).  The mathematics indicates that the signature what the Einstein dingleberries call spacelike cannot possibly exist in your universe.  <shrug> 

> The interval between the events
> E₀(t₀,x₀,y₀,z₀) and E₁(t₁,x₁,y₁,z₁)
> calculated with the metric:
> ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz²
> 
> can be found by integrating s² along
> the path from E₀ to E₁
> 
>          t₁         x₁        y₁         z₁
> s² = -(c∫dt)² + ( ∫dx)² + ( ∫dy)² + ( ∫dz)²
>          t₀        x₀        y₀         z₀
> 
> s² = -c²(t₁-t₀)² + (x₁-x₀)² + (y₁-y₀)² + (y₁-y₀)²
> 
> Examples:
> ---------
> 
> #1:
> The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0):
> s² = (1-0)² = 1, positive, spacelike interval
> s = 1 a distance
> ================
> 
> #2:
> The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (1,1,0,0):
> s² = = -c²(1-0)² + (1-0)² = -(c²-1), negative, timelike interval
> s² = -(cτ)²
> τ = √(1-1/c²) a proper time
> ===========================
> 
> #3:
> The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (1,2c,0,0):
> s² = -c²(1-0)² + (2c-0)² = 3c², positive, spacelike interval
> s = √3⋅c, a distance
> ===========================
> 
> Note that for the time like interval #2,
> (and only for timelike intervals) we could
> have written dx² + dy² + dz² = v²dt² where
> v² = dx²/dt² + dy²/dt² + dz²/dt²
> v² = (x₁-x₀)²+(y₁-y₀)²+(z₁-z₀)²/(t₁-t₀)²
> 
> ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + v²dt²
>          t₁         t₁
> s² = -(c∫dt)² + ( v∫dt)² = -c² + v²
>          t₀         t₀
> 
> In example #2: v = 1
> s² = -(c²-1), negative, timelike interval
> s² = -(cτ)²
> τ = √(1-1/c²) a proper time

Paul is a matheMagician and an alchemist.  It is really laughable.  Don’t quit your day job unless you are already retired.  :-D

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

#454005

Den 22.03.2018 21.45, skrev Koobee Wublee:
> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 6:01:11 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Koobee Wublee failed to solve the following trivial problem:

>> The following maths is Koobee Wublee's attempt to solve the trivial
>> problem:
>>
>> | calculate the interval s² between the events:
>> | (0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0) using the metric:
>> |    ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz² ?
>>
>> His blunder was to fail to see the obvious, the interval between
>> the events is spacelike, and you can't calculate it as if it is a
>> timelike interval. 
>>
>> Maybe you were ignorant of the existence of spacelike intervals? :-D
>
> There is no such thing as timelike, spacelike, lightlike, or whatever crap like.  

Thanks for a clear answer.


Hocus-pocus:
>> The interval between the events
>> E₀(t₀,x₀,y₀,z₀) and E₁(t₁,x₁,y₁,z₁)
>> calculated with the metric:
>> ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz²
>>
>> can be found by integrating s² along
>> the path from E₀ to E₁
>>
>>           t₁         x₁        y₁         z₁
>> s² = -(c∫dt)² + ( ∫dx)² + ( ∫dy)² + ( ∫dz)²
>>           t₀        x₀        y₀         z₀
>>
>> s² = -c²(t₁-t₀)² + (x₁-x₀)² + (y₁-y₀)² + (y₁-y₀)²
>>
>> Examples:
>> ---------
>>
>> #1:
>> The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0):
>> s² = (1-0)² = 1, positive, spacelike interval
>> s = 1 a distance
>> ================
>>
>> #2:
>> The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (1,1,0,0):
>> s² = = -c²(1-0)² + (1-0)² = -(c²-1), negative, timelike interval
>> s² = -(cτ)²
>> τ = √(1-1/c²) a proper time
>> ===========================
>>
>> #3:
>> The interval between (0,0,0,0) and (1,2c,0,0):
>> s² = -c²(1-0)² + (2c-0)² = 3c², positive, spacelike interval
>> s = √3⋅c, a distance
>> ===========================
>>
>> Note that for the time like interval #2,
>> (and only for timelike intervals) we could
>> have written dx² + dy² + dz² = v²dt² where
>> v² = dx²/dt² + dy²/dt² + dz²/dt²
>> v² = (x₁-x₀)²+(y₁-y₀)²+(z₁-z₀)²/(t₁-t₀)²
>>
>> ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + v²dt²
>>           t₁         t₁
>> s² = -(c∫dt)² + ( v∫dt)² = -c² + v²
>>           t₀         t₀
>>
>> In example #2: v = 1
>> s² = -(c²-1), negative, timelike interval
>> s² = -(cτ)²
>> τ = √(1-1/c²) a proper time
> 
> Paul is a matheMagician and an alchemist. 

I note with interest that Koobee Wublee finds
mathematics to be magic.

> It is really laughable. 
Indeed! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#454026

PA had a legitimate gripe.  I changed the last part of the blog though it's very hard to pin down so-called "stationary".  I think the obscurity of Appendix 1 relates to this.

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

#453886

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:01:11 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

++++

I actually clicked on PA’s web page.  Rarely do I click on anything.  It is a good page in the sense of layout and navigation.  Content wise, it has the usual problem: tries to do too much, too much reliance on gobbledygook, not enough on shop floor facts.

You are welcome to flame my page.  I use Google’s blogspot, now archaic.  But like Google Groups, it is free of malware and clickbait.

No navigation is involved.  A short text page and nothing else.  About 6 typescript pages.   Towards the end I have a numerical example.  These things are good in that they are very definite.  Bad because they take up fantastic column inches. 

www.lengthcontraction.blogspot.com/

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

#453998

Den 26.03.2018 16.38, skrev xip1415926@gmail.com:
> 
> www.lengthcontraction.blogspot.com/
>


Can you please explain the meaning of the following statement?
   "
    In essence, the forward and inverse transforms banish
    the moving observer entirely.  If there is an observer,
    he is stationary.   Then no Lorentz Transformation occurs
    in his presence because none is necessary.  Paradox.
   "

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#454011

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:53:47 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 26.03.2018 16.38
> > 
> > www.lengthcontraction.blogspot.com/
> >
> 
> 
> Can you please explain the meaning of the following statement?
>    "
>     In essence, the forward and inverse transforms banish
>     the moving observer entirely.  If there is an observer,
>     he is stationary.   Then no Lorentz Transformation occurs
>     in his presence because none is necessary.  Paradox.
>    "
> 
> -- 
> Paul

It is Einstein’s Principle 2 of EDoMB-1905 Section 2:

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.  Hence 

velocity = light path ÷ time interval

where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § 1.

Unquote.

What is the meaning of the word “stationary” in quotes?  Here are the forward and inverse spatial transforms.

Forward: x′ = g · ( x – vt )  

Inverse: x = g · ( x′ + vt′ )  

Right hand side values x and x′ occur on axes X and X′ which are equally entitled to be stationary.  The observer is always on the right side and the right hand side is always stationary.   The observer creates the stationary state and in fact stationary states operate in unison.

Right hand side values x and x′ ( light path destinations ) are x = c · t on axis X and x′ = c · t′ on axis X′. 

The latter equation on axis X′ is not the result of a transform.  It results from Principle 2 on axis X′ where variable names are x′ and t′.  

Appendix 1 – 1920 ( Bartleby.com ) says something along these lines:

Furthermore, the principle of relativity teaches us that, as judged from X, the length of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest with reference to X′ must be exactly the same as the length, as judged from X′, of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest relative to X.

Unquote.

We have “as judged from X” and “as judged from X′  ”.  These judges, these observers, are on axes X and X′ both of which have stationary status.

That is why each observer will have x = c · t and x′ = c · t′ without recourse to the LT’s.

Established as stationary on either of X and X′, the observer can go ahead and apply the LT’s to the axis which he deems to be moving, and there will result light path equations which are the result of LT's.

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

#454021

On 3/27/18 3:21 PM, xip1415926@gmail.com wrote:
> It is Einstein’s Principle 2 of EDoMB-1905 Section 2: [...] What is
> the meaning of the word “stationary” in quotes? 

You really ought to read the article you are quoting.

In the second sentence of I.1 he explicitly defines "stationary" as a 
LABEL of an arbitrary "system of co-ordinates in which the equations of 
Newtonian mechanics hold good" (which we call an inertial frame today).

> Here are the forward
> and inverse spatial transforms.

This has nothing to do with it. You CLEARLY do not understand this paper.

Tom Roberts

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

#454062

Den 27.03.2018 21.21, skrev xip1415926@gmail.com:
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:53:47 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 26.03.2018 16.38
>>>
>>> www.lengthcontraction.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can you please explain the meaning of the following statement?
>>     "
>>      In essence, the forward and inverse transforms banish
>>      the moving observer entirely.  If there is an observer,
>>      he is stationary.   Then no Lorentz Transformation occurs
>>      in his presence because none is necessary.  Paradox.
>>     "
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul
> 
> It is Einstein’s Principle 2 of EDoMB-1905 Section 2:
> 
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.  Hence
> 
> velocity = light path ÷ time interval
> 
> where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § 1.
> 
> Unquote.
> 
> What is the meaning of the word “stationary” in quotes?  Here are the forward and inverse spatial transforms.
> 
> Forward: x′ = g · ( x – vt )
> 
> Inverse: x = g · ( x′ + vt′ )
> 
> Right hand side values x and x′ occur on axes X and X′ which are equally entitled to be stationary.  The observer is always on the right side and the right hand side is always stationary.   The observer creates the stationary state and in fact stationary states operate in unison.
> 
> Right hand side values x and x′ ( light path destinations ) are x = c · t on axis X and x′ = c · t′ on axis X′.
> 
> The latter equation on axis X′ is not the result of a transform.  It results from Principle 2 on axis X′ where variable names are x′ and t′.
> 
> Appendix 1 – 1920 ( Bartleby.com ) says something along these lines:
> 
> Furthermore, the principle of relativity teaches us that, as judged from X, the length of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest with reference to X′ must be exactly the same as the length, as judged from X′, of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest relative to X.
> 
> Unquote.
> 
> We have “as judged from X” and “as judged from X′  ”.  These judges, these observers, are on axes X and X′ both of which have stationary status.
> 
> That is why each observer will have x = c · t and x′ = c · t′ without recourse to the LT’s.
> 
> Established as stationary on either of X and X′, the observer can go ahead and apply the LT’s to the axis which he deems to be moving, and there will result light path equations which are the result of LT's.
> 
> 

Thought so. No clue. Can't read.
I am not going to try to remedy your confusion.

<plonk>

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#453348

Am 19.03.2018 um 21:24 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 19.03.2018 18.36, skrev Koobee Wublee:
>> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:17:19 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> The following maths is Koobee Wublee's attempt
> to solve the trivial problem:
>
> | calculate the interval s² between the events:
> | (0,0,0,0) and (0,1,0,0) using the metric:
> |    ds² = -(c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz² ?
>
>
>>>> **  ds² = - c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²
>>>>
>>>> Rederive it as:
>>>>
>>>> **  ds  = c dt √(v²/c²-1)
>>>>
>>>> Where
>>>>
>>>> **  v² = (dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²
>>>>
>>>> Then, it follows that:
>>>>
>>>> **  s = ∫(ds) = c ∫(dt √(v²/c²-1))
>>>>
>>>> The problem now is that √(v²/c²-1) is an imaginary number since
>>>> (1 >= v²/c²) where nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.
>
> Whenever Koobee Wublee realizes that he has made
> a fool of himself by uttering a stupid statement,
> he will respond by snipping everything including
> the quotation of his stupidity, and replace it with
> his failed attempt to solve the trivial problem,
> so that it appears that my response quoted below
> was to his maths.
>
>>>
>>> No further comment. <shrug>
>
> But my real response to his maths above was:
> |
> | The problem is that you have no clue.
> |
> | The answer is s² = 1, s² is positive so it is
> | a spacelike interval.
> |
> | s is the interval between the events
> |   t = 0, x = 0, y = 0, z = 0
> | and
> |   t = 0, x = 1, y = 0, z = 0
> |
> | The events are simultaneous, and s = 1
> | is the spatial distance between them.
>


This is only half true.

The two events occur at the same time, but one distance unit separated.

This unit of distance could be - say - one light-year.

The problem is, that light does not move spacelike, but light-like.

We also define the term 'units of length' by using light in vacuum.

IOW: the term 'space' (or 'universe') does in fact refer to what is 
called 'past light-cone' and this is in an angle to the direction called 
'space-like'.

Now we have a problem with the conceptual understanding of the realm 
beyond the light-cone, since it is kind of invisible (~>'imaginary').

This problem is visible, if we try to relate it to an event one light 
away, that we can actually see.

Such an event is not spacelike separated, but light-like, hence the 
spacelike separated event in one light-year distance is somewhere else 
(other than in our realm of visibility).


TH

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

#452878

Am 16.03.2018 um 07:20 schrieb Koobee Wublee:
> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 12:56:11 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> **  ds² = - c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²
>>
>>> Rederive it as:
>>
>>> **  ds  = c dt √(v²/c²-1)
>>
>>> Where
>>
>>> **  v² = (dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²
>>
>>> Then, it follows that:
>>
>>> **  s = ∫(ds) = c ∫(dt √(v²/c²-1))
>>
>>> The problem now is that √(v²/c²-1) is an imaginary number since
>>> (1 >= v²/c²) where nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.
>>> Is the la-la land of science truly fvcked up or what?  <shrug>
>>
>> Nothing can be present at both events. That's why the interval is
>> space-like.
>
> What you called spacelike is just not a possibility in real world as Koobee Wublee has demonstrated with sound mathematics above.  Only by prove the math wrong you can have your spacelike nonsense.  <shrug>
>

Sure it is possible.

You refer to SRT and assume, that nothing can be faster than light, 
hence no infinite velocity is possible.

B U T: 'light speed in vacuum' and 'empty space' are obviously 
interconnected terms.

So we remove the restriction of 'empty space'. We also remove the 
restriction to our own timeline.

Than we could say, that 'spacelike' is equivalent to 'timeless' (no delay).

Timeless is equivalent to 'perpendicular to the axis of time'.

If we take real numbers for time, the realm called 'spacelike' is like a 
rotation by 90 ° or like  a multiplication of time by the imaginary unit i.


TH

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

#452883

Den 16.03.2018 10.32, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 16.03.2018 um 07:20 schrieb Koobee Wublee:
>> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 12:56:11 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>
>>>> **  ds² = - c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²
>>>
>>>> Rederive it as:
>>>
>>>> **  ds  = c dt √(v²/c²-1)
>>>
>>>> Where
>>>
>>>> **  v² = (dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²
>>>
>>>> Then, it follows that:
>>>
>>>> **  s = ∫(ds) = c ∫(dt √(v²/c²-1))
>>>
>>>> The problem now is that √(v²/c²-1) is an imaginary number since
>>>> (1 >= v²/c²) where nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.
>>>> Is the la-la land of science truly fvcked up or what?  <shrug>
>>>
>>> Nothing can be present at both events. That's why the interval is
>>> space-like.
>>
>> What you called spacelike is just not a possibility in real world as 
>> Koobee Wublee has demonstrated with sound mathematics above.  Only by 
>> prove the math wrong you can have your spacelike nonsense.  <shrug>
>>
> 
> Sure it is possible.
> 
> You refer to SRT and assume, that nothing can be faster than light, 
> hence no infinite velocity is possible.
> 
> B U T: 'light speed in vacuum' and 'empty space' are obviously 
> interconnected terms.
> 
> So we remove the restriction of 'empty space'. We also remove the 
> restriction to our own timeline.
> 
> Than we could say, that 'spacelike' is equivalent to 'timeless' (no delay).
> 
> Timeless is equivalent to 'perpendicular to the axis of time'.
> 
> If we take real numbers for time, the realm called 'spacelike' is like a 
> rotation by 90 ° or like  a multiplication of time by the imaginary unit i.
> 
> 
> TH

They come in all colours! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#453014

Am 16.03.2018 um 12:33 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 16.03.2018 10.32, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am 16.03.2018 um 07:20 schrieb Koobee Wublee:
>>> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 12:56:11 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen
>>> wrote:
>>>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>
>>>>> **  ds² = - c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²
>>>>
>>>>> Rederive it as:
>>>>
>>>>> **  ds  = c dt √(v²/c²-1)
>>>>
>>>>> Where
>>>>
>>>>> **  v² = (dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²
>>>>
>>>>> Then, it follows that:
>>>>
>>>>> **  s = ∫(ds) = c ∫(dt √(v²/c²-1))
>>>>
>>>>> The problem now is that √(v²/c²-1) is an imaginary number since
>>>>> (1 >= v²/c²) where nothing can travel beyond the speed of light.
>>>>> Is the la-la land of science truly fvcked up or what?  <shrug>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing can be present at both events. That's why the interval is
>>>> space-like.
>>>
>>> What you called spacelike is just not a possibility in real world as
>>> Koobee Wublee has demonstrated with sound mathematics above.  Only by
>>> prove the math wrong you can have your spacelike nonsense.  <shrug>
>>>
>>
>> Sure it is possible.
>>
>> You refer to SRT and assume, that nothing can be faster than light,
>> hence no infinite velocity is possible.
>>
>> B U T: 'light speed in vacuum' and 'empty space' are obviously
>> interconnected terms.
>>
>> So we remove the restriction of 'empty space'. We also remove the
>> restriction to our own timeline.
>>
>> Than we could say, that 'spacelike' is equivalent to 'timeless' (no
>> delay).
>>
>> Timeless is equivalent to 'perpendicular to the axis of time'.
>>
>> If we take real numbers for time, the realm called 'spacelike' is like
>> a rotation by 90 ° or like  a multiplication of time by the imaginary
>> unit i.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> They come in all colours! :-D
>


see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

TH

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

#452683

Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On March 14, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 
>>> With the (-,+,+,+) signature, ds² is negative.  
>> 
>> It is negative for timelike intervals, not for spacelike intervals.
>> Obviously.
> 
> ds² is negative PERIOD for (-,+,+,+) signature, idiot!  <shrug>

No, it’s not. Sorry, but you are just mistaken. 

> 
>>> 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>
>> 
>> What connection?
> 
> The mathematics is the connection, imbecile!  <shrug>

Again, you apparently don’t know what the mathematical symbols mean.
Worse, you have invented your own meanings for them to fill that vacuum,
and then your egomania has fed you the lie that you and you alone in the
whole world (and in fact the whole history of the world) know what they
truly mean. And this little bit of psychosis doesn’t concern you at all.  

> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#453365

Koobee Wublee wrote

On March 14, 2018, Odd Bodkin (aka PD) the wooden sex toy maker wrote: 
> Koobee Wublee wrote: 

> > With the (-,+,+,+) signature, ds² is negative.   
> 
> It is negative for timelike intervals, not for spacelike intervals. 
> Obviously. 

ds² is negative PERIOD for (-,+,+,+) signature, idiot!  <shrug> 

If Bulk Modulus is applied to a the system the signature of the metric doesn’t matter as it is an oscillating System

http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf

All of Planck’s Work matches Bulk Modulus of an ideal Fluid

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

#452764

Am 14.03.2018 um 17:19 schrieb Koobee Wublee:
> 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>
>

The concept of space is based on distance and that on the idea of a 
multiplication of a unit length with a real number.

But look at the similarity between a Minkowski diagram and an Argand 
diagram.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Minkowski_diagram_-_photon.svg/256px-Minkowski_diagram_-_photon.svg.png

vs.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Argand-diagram



My assumption is, that spacetime behave like complex numbers (complex 
four vectors) and our space is a certain subset.

Our universe is actually our own past light cone.

Or: the subset of something more complex, that we are able to see.

That 'something more complex' is then spacetime and the world we observe 
its internal structure.

I call this idea 'structured spacetime' and have written this 'book' 
about it:


https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

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

#452816

Am 15.03.2018 um 14:04 schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>
>> 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>
>>
>
> The concept of space is based on distance and that on the idea of a
> multiplication of a unit length with a real number.
>
> But look at the similarity between a Minkowski diagram and an Argand
> diagram.
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Minkowski_diagram_-_photon.svg/256px-Minkowski_diagram_-_photon.svg.png
>
>
> vs.
>
> https://www.britannica.com/science/Argand-diagram
>


maybe this one is better:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArgandDiagram.html

The idea is, that an 'i-step' (up) and a '1-step' to the right would get 
you to an angle of 45 degrees.

This is an angle between the hyperplane of the present and the 
light-cone, also between axis of time and the light cone.

So c is measured in radians.

(Actually I prefer a real time-line and an imaginary hyperplane of the 
present, so the picture is tilted and the imaginary axis points sideways.)

Now we allow a spectrum between zero and infinity for this angle 
(between zero and 90 degree).

This generates such cones, if we 'wrap up' light around the axis of time.

This creates a circle, which is actually a (very tiny) sphere.

Now combine a tiny sphere with a timelike core.

Timelike is how mass behaves.

IOW: combine a tiny shell and a masslike core and you get an atom.

This 'atom' depends on the axis of time, since if the axis tilts, the 
'light unwraps' (kind of).



> I call this idea 'structured spacetime' and have written this 'book'
> about it:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>

As proof of concept I had 'Growing Earth' and the creation of dust out 
of nowhere ('magic dust').


TH

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web