Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463933 > unrolled thread

Why did Einstein bring up the concept of simultaneity when he formulate SRT?

Started by	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
First post	2018-07-09 07:37 -0700
Last post	2018-07-24 13:46 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 277 — 20 participants

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

Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →

#464457

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-15 21:07 +0200
Message-ID	<04acb6d8-c273-e183-86fa-75ead6be258e@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464456

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Now you try to reconcile relativity and absolute motion?
> 
> No, I don’t.  You describe the principle (not: postulate) or relativity
> almost correctly (_inertial_, not "internal"), […]

Again: _of_, not “or” (I’ll get the hang of this keyboard eventually.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#464547

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-16 17:57 +0200
Message-ID	<fr3tj1F4jh5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464456

Am 15.07.2018 um 21:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 14.07.2018 um 15:28 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 12.07.2018 um 18:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Am 11.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>> No, Ken, you are showing your lack of knowledge of relativistic motion.
>>>>>>> If the moving observer uses a clock showing his proper time (a local,
>>>>>>> co-moving clock, for example his wristwatch), he should cook a 5 minute
>>>>>>> egg for 5 minutes on his clock. Only if he is trying to use the
>>>>>>> stationary observer's clock should he invoke the gamma factor.
>>>>>> There are no 'stationary observers'.
>>>>> Yes, there are.
>>>> The postulate of relativity was, that you cannot distinguish an internal
>>>> frame of reference with some velocity from one at rest.
>>> By experiment, regarding *absolute* motion.
>>
>> Now you try to reconcile relativity and absolute motion?
> 
> No, I don’t.  You describe the principle (not: postulate) or relativity
> almost correctly (_inertial_, not "internal"), but you neglect to mention
> that from it follows that there is no *absolute* motion.  Obviously, the
> principle of *relativity* does NOT deny *relative* motion; if it did,
> *that* would be a contradiction in terms.
> 
>>>> So how could you distinguish one at rest from one with a certain velocity???
>>> In relative motion of two frames of reference, you pick one frame
>>> as the rest frame or “(coordinate( system at rest” (Einstein, “On the
>>> Electrodynamics of  Moving Bodies” [OE(d)oMB]).  Then the other frame
>>> is the “moving frame” (ibid.).
>>
>> Einstein wrote something really strange in his book.
> 
> Einstein’s *books* (he was usually only a *co-author* of them) are
> *summaries* of his work for the interested layman.  They are NOT his
> scientific theories; those have been published, as it is done, in
> scientific papers and his doctoral thesis:
> 
> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/>
> 
>> The concept is imho nonsense:
> 
> But you have no clue, so your no-so-humble opinion does not matter.

The quote was not from Einstein's book, but from 'Annalen der Physik' 1905.

That was his original -peer reviewed- paper in a scientific magazine.

It was in German, but google provides a (rough) translation, which I 
provide here:

***********quote**************************

We also think of the two bar ends (A and B) attached clocks, which are 
synchronous with the clocks of the system at rest, that means: their 
measurement correspond respectively to the "time of the system at rest" 
at the place where they are located; So these clocks are "synchronous in 
the system at rest".

We further imagine that each clock has an observer moving with it, and 
that these observers apply to the two clocks the criterion for the 
synchronous movement of two clocks set forth in §1. At the time *) t_g, 
let a ray of light emanate from A, be reflected in B at time t_B, and 
return to A at time t_A. Taking into account the principle of the 
constancy of the speed of light, we find:

           t_B -t_A = r_AB /V-v

wherein r_AB is the length of the moving rod - measured in the 
stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find 
the two clocks out of sync, while observers in the system at rest would 
declare the clocks in sync. Thus, we see that we must not attach 
absolute importance to the concept of equality, but that two events 
which, viewed from one coordinate system, are simultaneous, viewed from 
a system moving relative to that system, are no longer to be understood 
as simultaneous events ,

*) "Time" here means "time of the stationary system" and at the same 
time "pointing of the moving clock, which is in the place in question".

************end quote**********************************************
(translation by google, a little adjusted by me)

What Einstein does is this:

he declared the runtime of the signal would be caused by the different 
times at the moving clocks at the ends of the rod.

But that is nonsense, since the runtime of a signal is caused by the 
signal in motion, not by the time of the starting point.

To make this a little more obvious we could replace light by sound and 
use 330 m/s instead of 300,000 km/s.

Then we would have a much 'shorter' rod (in Einstein's 'logic'), if the 
speed would reach c (speed of sound).

But that is not a very good idea, since the signal and its finite 
velocity does not alter the moving rod, but the measurement by the 
moving observers. Also times would then be different at both ends, since 
time is assumed as readings of clocks (in SRT logic).

So his concept of simultaneity (what is meant with '§1') is not a good 
idea neither.

Instead the finite velocity of light should be taken into account and 
the run-time of the signals should be compensated.

What Einstein does instead is declaring the distorted measurements as real.

TH

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

#464678

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-17 20:51 +0200
Message-ID	<fr6s5qFm05kU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464547

Am 16.07.2018 um 17:57 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 15.07.2018 um 21:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 14.07.2018 um 15:28 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 12.07.2018 um 18:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 11.07.2018 um 23:26 schrieb Volney:
>>>>>>>> No, Ken, you are showing your lack of knowledge of relativistic 
>>>>>>>> motion.
>>>>>>>> If the moving observer uses a clock showing his proper time (a 
>>>>>>>> local,
>>>>>>>> co-moving clock, for example his wristwatch), he should cook a 5 
>>>>>>>> minute
>>>>>>>> egg for 5 minutes on his clock. Only if he is trying to use the
>>>>>>>> stationary observer's clock should he invoke the gamma factor.
>>>>>>> There are no 'stationary observers'.
>>>>>> Yes, there are.
>>>>> The postulate of relativity was, that you cannot distinguish an 
>>>>> internal
>>>>> frame of reference with some velocity from one at rest.
>>>> By experiment, regarding *absolute* motion.
>>>
>>> Now you try to reconcile relativity and absolute motion?
>>
>> No, I don’t.  You describe the principle (not: postulate) or relativity
>> almost correctly (_inertial_, not "internal"), but you neglect to mention
>> that from it follows that there is no *absolute* motion.  Obviously, the
>> principle of *relativity* does NOT deny *relative* motion; if it did,
>> *that* would be a contradiction in terms.
>>
>>>>> So how could you distinguish one at rest from one with a certain 
>>>>> velocity???
>>>> In relative motion of two frames of reference, you pick one frame
>>>> as the rest frame or “(coordinate( system at rest” (Einstein, “On the
>>>> Electrodynamics of  Moving Bodies” [OE(d)oMB]).  Then the other frame
>>>> is the “moving frame” (ibid.).
>>>
>>> Einstein wrote something really strange in his book.
>>
>> Einstein’s *books* (he was usually only a *co-author* of them) are
>> *summaries* of his work for the interested layman.  They are NOT his
>> scientific theories; those have been published, as it is done, in
>> scientific papers and his doctoral thesis:
>>
>> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/>
>>
>>> The concept is imho nonsense:
>>
>> But you have no clue, so your no-so-humble opinion does not matter.
> 
> The quote was not from Einstein's book, but from 'Annalen der Physik' 1905.
> 
> That was his original -peer reviewed- paper in a scientific magazine.
> 
> It was in German, but google provides a (rough) translation, which I 
> provide here:
> 
> ***********quote**************************
> 
> We also think of the two bar ends (A and B) attached clocks, which are 
> synchronous with the clocks of the system at rest, that means: their 
> measurement correspond respectively to the "time of the system at rest" 
> at the place where they are located; So these clocks are "synchronous in 
> the system at rest".
> 
> We further imagine that each clock has an observer moving with it, and 
> that these observers apply to the two clocks the criterion for the 
> synchronous movement of two clocks set forth in §1. At the time *) t_g, 
> let a ray of light emanate from A, be reflected in B at time t_B, and 
> return to A at time t_A. Taking into account the principle of the 
> constancy of the speed of light, we find:
> 
>            t_B -t_A = r_AB /V-v
> 
> wherein r_AB is the length of the moving rod - measured in the 
> stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find 
> the two clocks out of sync, while observers in the system at rest would 
> declare the clocks in sync. Thus, we see that we must not attach 
> absolute importance to the concept of equality, but that two events 
> which, viewed from one coordinate system, are simultaneous, viewed from 
> a system moving relative to that system, are no longer to be understood 
> as simultaneous events ,
> 
> *) "Time" here means "time of the stationary system" and at the same 
> time "pointing of the moving clock, which is in the place in question".
> 
> ************end quote**********************************************
> (translation by google, a little adjusted by me)
> 
> 
> What Einstein does is this:
> 
> he declared the runtime of the signal would be caused by the different 
> times at the moving clocks at the ends of the rod.
> 
> But that is nonsense, since the runtime of a signal is caused by the 
> signal in motion, not by the time of the starting point.
> 
> To make this a little more obvious we could replace light by sound and 
> use 330 m/s instead of 300,000 km/s.
> 
> Then we would have a much 'shorter' rod (in Einstein's 'logic'), if the 
> speed would reach c (speed of sound).
> 
> But that is not a very good idea, since the signal and its finite 
> velocity does not alter the moving rod, but the measurement by the 
> moving observers. Also times would then be different at both ends, since 
> time is assumed as readings of clocks (in SRT logic).
> 
> So his concept of simultaneity (what is meant with '§1') is not a good 
> idea neither.
> 
> Instead the finite velocity of light should be taken into account and 
> the run-time of the signals should be compensated.
> 
> What Einstein does instead is declaring the distorted measurements as real.
> 
Einstein did more, what is not recommended, if you want to model nature.

At first: he refereed to Euclidean space and Cartesian coordinates.

Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.

More 'natural' would be polar coordinates.

This is the case, because series of events are a bit like pearls on a 
chain, where one event follows the other.


A more obvious way to connect events would be like a chain of 
connections, one emerging from the previous event.

This would require angles from the the axis of stability of the previous 
event. And angles are, what we use with polar coordinates (not Cartesian).

Second: Einstein used a single dimension of time and a three dimensional 
space.

This is not that obvious, but actually he wrote about his 'system at 
rest' as 'homogeneous Euclidean space, in which the laws of Newton hold 
good'.

(This is not a good idea neither.)

Third: he assumes, that equations about space and time must be linear.

 From this assumption we can assume, that Einstein refers to the space 
of Newton.

This is particularly strange, since his theory is about relativity.


TH

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

#464680

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-17 11:56 -0700
Message-ID	<b222c0fa-3bb4-4a88-821c-e175038cf1be@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464678

On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 20:51:42 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:



> Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.

Which, precisely, experiment has falsified Euclidean
geometry, poor idiot?

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

#464689

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-17 21:34 +0200
Message-ID	<fr6ultFmfnfU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464680

Am 17.07.2018 um 20:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 20:51:42 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.
> 
> Which, precisely, experiment has falsified Euclidean
> geometry, poor idiot?
> 

If you want to follow the path of a - say - stone through space and 
time, you would certainly do it like this:

the stone is somewhere at the beginning.

This 'somewhere' is its position in space.

But stones are not very smart and do not know, where they are.

Instead the stone is 'feeling' movements to other locations.

So: the moving stone's worldine is curved.

In usual spacetime view, the axis representing time is pointing up.

A velocity in respect to the local axis of time is then an angle between 
this axis of time and the worldline of the stone.

This 'angle towards the axis of time' requires polar coordinates (in 
spacetime), because the vectors of movements are attached to the 
previous positions and point in direction of the position at time 'a 
little later'.

Cartesian coordinates in contrast are not that natural, since we would 
require from the stone to have knowledge about the values of x, y and z.

But that is in violation to the assumed stupidity of stones.

TH

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

#464698

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-17 13:45 -0700
Message-ID	<ab645fd2-bfe7-440b-ae67-b57228dbcdc1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464689

On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 21:34:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> Am 17.07.2018 um 20:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 20:51:42 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.
> > 
> > Which, precisely, experiment has falsified Euclidean
> > geometry, poor idiot?
> > 
> 
> If you want to follow the path of a - say - stone through space and 
> time, you would certainly do it like this:
> 
> the stone is somewhere at the beginning.

If the EG gave any conclusions about stones,
it would be full of theorems of stones. It
is not. You can't conclude anything about
stones from it. And thus, you can't falsify
it with experiments of stones.

Try again. Which, precisely, experiment has 
falsified Euclidean geometry?

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

#464765

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-18 08:32 +0200
Message-ID	<fr858aFsvaaU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464698

Am 17.07.2018 um 22:45 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 21:34:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>> Am 17.07.2018 um 20:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 20:51:42 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.
>>>
>>> Which, precisely, experiment has falsified Euclidean
>>> geometry, poor idiot?
>>>
>>
>> If you want to follow the path of a - say - stone through space and
>> time, you would certainly do it like this:
>>
>> the stone is somewhere at the beginning.
> 
> If the EG gave any conclusions about stones,
> it would be full of theorems of stones. It
> is not. You can't conclude anything about
> stones from it. And thus, you can't falsify
> it with experiments of stones.
> 
> Try again. Which, precisely, experiment has
> falsified Euclidean geometry?
> 

I meant, that stones would prefer polar coordinates (instead of 
Cartesian), since they don't know, where they are.

The values x,y and z, as coordinates in Euclidean space, are not 
'natural'. That wouldn't render EG wrong.

But things and states evolve from previous states and are not subject to 
absolute coordinates.

A stone was just an example of a thing in nature. Those are 
predominantly not very smart and not aware of their position.

You are certainly much smarter, but even you cannot really say, where 
you are (in some kind of absolute coordinates).

Relativity also tells, that you cannot distinguish between inertial 
motion and being at rest.

Also time is very difficult to measure as absolute value. Instead we use 
calenders based on certain events. That is a relative measurement, too.

So it would be more 'natural' to think in terms of change from former 
inertial motion and arbitrary previous positions, rather than in x, y 
and z (and t of course) coordinates.

Than you get angles in spacetime, which could be measured with complex 
numbers, (if i is regarded as an angle in a complex plane).

TH

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

#464773

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-18 00:42 -0700
Message-ID	<92d2d43d-8342-4db3-9af1-ec0d292f1a23@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464765

On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 08:32:43 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> Am 17.07.2018 um 22:45 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 21:34:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> >> Am 17.07.2018 um 20:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> >>> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 20:51:42 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.
> >>>
> >>> Which, precisely, experiment has falsified Euclidean
> >>> geometry, poor idiot?
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you want to follow the path of a - say - stone through space and
> >> time, you would certainly do it like this:
> >>
> >> the stone is somewhere at the beginning.
> > 
> > If the EG gave any conclusions about stones,
> > it would be full of theorems of stones. It
> > is not. You can't conclude anything about
> > stones from it. And thus, you can't falsify
> > it with experiments of stones.
> > 
> > Try again. Which, precisely, experiment has
> > falsified Euclidean geometry?
> > 
> 
> I meant, that stones would prefer polar coordinates (instead of 
> Cartesian), since they don't know, where they are.

Stones can't prefer anything as they have no brains, 
you know. 

> So it would be more 'natural' to think

It surely would be very natural to be dumb.
Being an uneducated, dumb monkey is obviously 
a natural state, while being  a civilized, 
educated  human is not.

But I'm not asking you what is natural, I'm asking
you how did you falsify EG.

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

#464837

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-18 21:54 +0200
Message-ID	<fr9k7tF5udnU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464773

Am 18.07.2018 um 09:42 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 08:32:43 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>> Am 17.07.2018 um 22:45 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 21:34:24 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>>> Am 17.07.2018 um 20:56 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 20:51:42 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cartesian coordinates is actually not the way, in which nature behaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, precisely, experiment has falsified Euclidean
>>>>> geometry, poor idiot?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to follow the path of a - say - stone through space and
>>>> time, you would certainly do it like this:
>>>>
>>>> the stone is somewhere at the beginning.
>>>
>>> If the EG gave any conclusions about stones,
>>> it would be full of theorems of stones. It
>>> is not. You can't conclude anything about
>>> stones from it. And thus, you can't falsify
>>> it with experiments of stones.
>>>
>>> Try again. Which, precisely, experiment has
>>> falsified Euclidean geometry?
>>>
>>
>> I meant, that stones would prefer polar coordinates (instead of
>> Cartesian), since they don't know, where they are.
> 
> Stones can't prefer anything as they have no brains,
> you know.

Sure.

But stones are an example for an item in nature.

I could use a different example, but most other items have no brain neither.

What I wanted to show was this: nature does not need brains and does not 
need humans to figure things out.

Humans have brains and want to calculate, but nature operates with other 
methods. What those methods are, that is a subject of science, 
especially physics.

So I take again the stone and assume for a minute, it had some sort of 
intelligence and would like to use it in a 'natural way'.

Then the most unlikely method be to use Cartesian coordinates and 
Euclidean space.

More logic would be a behavior I would call 'subjectivism'. That means: 
the stone evolves into the future from the present state, without 
worrying too much about absolute coordinates.

Rectangular coordinates are a typical human invention and do not reflect 
the way, in which natural systems behave.

Other 'unnatural' assumptions are, that space must be linear and 
homogeneous and time must be a universal external dimension.

> 
>> So it would be more 'natural' to think
> 
> It surely would be very natural to be dumb.
> Being an uneducated, dumb monkey is obviously
> a natural state, while being  a civilized,
> educated  human is not.
> 
> But I'm not asking you what is natural, I'm asking
> you how did you falsify EG.
> 

EG is not wrong, but a mathematical concept, which has some merits.

The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean 
space.

I would say: no, they don't. What we do find instead are system, that 
behave like fractals.

TH

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

#464839

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-18 13:18 -0700
Message-ID	<8af7ebc7-1b15-4164-bfab-5e84f0dd71a2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464837

On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 21:54:40 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:

> The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean 
> space.
> 
> I would say: no, they don't.

And it's probably true that you would say it.

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

#464918

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-19 18:47 +0200
Message-ID	<frbtldFlp9vU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464839

Am 18.07.2018 um 22:18 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 21:54:40 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> 
>> The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean
>> space.
>>
>> I would say: no, they don't.
> 
> And it's probably true that you would say it.
> 

Our universe is not a Euclidean space.

The main reason:

space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not. 
It is also (apparently) not a linear space.

So the construct 'Euclidean space' is a local approximation. That is 
similar to a plane, that approximates the surface of a ball in the 
vicinity of the touching point.

So straight lines in Euclidean space are a plausible assumption for the 
close vicinity (to the observer), while the 'real thing' is kind of 
'super-set'.

TH

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

#464922

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-19 09:55 -0700
Message-ID	<2ce85297-3484-422e-a627-300a2017518d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464918

On Thursday, 19 July 2018 18:47:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:

 
> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.


As the universe isn't an abstract, it's
rather obvious.

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

#465001

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-20 18:34 +0200
Message-ID	<freh9fF9b18U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464922

Am 19.07.2018 um 18:55 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> On Thursday, 19 July 2018 18:47:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> 
>   
>> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
> 
> 
> As the universe isn't an abstract, it's
> rather obvious.
> 

Sure..

But if the universe is not a Euclidean space, what features does it have 
then???

I think, the universe behaves like a field of pointlike 'elements' which 
are interconnected similar to a how biquaternions behave.

Biquaternions is an older name for what is now called 'complex four 
vectors' and were invented by Hammilton in the 19th century.

There are only a few people (that I have heard about), who try to 
utilize such a concept.

These are:
Jonathan Scott
W. E. Baylis
David Hestenes

(and me, of course)

The best mathematical book is from Jonathan Scott, Baylis' various 
papers are closer to physics, but mine has the nicest pictures:

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

TH

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

#465005

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-20 09:50 -0700
Message-ID	<39fe1178-64c5-4ff3-8953-fed48d30922c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#465001

On Friday, 20 July 2018 18:34:58 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> Am 19.07.2018 um 18:55 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> > On Thursday, 19 July 2018 18:47:44 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
> > 
> >   
> >> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
> > 
> > 
> > As the universe isn't an abstract, it's
> > rather obvious.
> > 
> 
> Sure..
> 
> But if the universe is not a Euclidean space, what features does it have 
> then???

That it can be described by an Euclidean space.
Or by zillion others constructs.

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

#465035

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-20 21:16 +0200
Message-ID	<f0370718-8f84-4c00-8e88-ec0a890e5d2f@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464918

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.07.2018 um 22:18 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>> On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 21:54:40 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>> The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean
>>> space.
>>> I would say: no, they don't.
>> And it's probably true that you would say it.
> 
> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.

That much is true.

> The main reason:
> 
> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not. 

That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
“Euclidean space” means.

> It is also (apparently) not a linear space.

But it is.  Obviously you have no idea what “linear space” means either.

> So the construct 'Euclidean space' is a local approximation.

No, it is not.

> [more nonsense]

Once again: Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#465155

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-21 20:13 +0200
Message-ID	<frhbeiFsng9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#465035

Am 20.07.2018 um 21:16 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

>> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
> 
> That much is true.
> 
>> The main reason:
>>
>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not.
> 
> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
> “Euclidean space” means.


My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own past 
light-cone.

(The further away the longer ago).

This 'universe' is not universal at all, but a local impression of 
something else ('the real thing').

This 'real universe' is mainly invisible, because we can only observe a 
certain subset (-> our own past light-cone).

So the question is, how that 'real universe' behaves (which we cannot see).

>> It is also (apparently) not a linear space.
> 
> But it is.  Obviously you have no idea what “linear space” means either.

'space' in connection with 'universe' means something three-dimensional 
- more or less in the sense of Newton.

But I prefer the four-dimensional view of Herman Minkowski.

This is then the 'real thing' and our impression of that is based on our 
position on planet Earth.

>> So the construct 'Euclidean space' is a local approximation.
> 
> No, it is not.

Sure it is. We ascribe the features of Euclidean space to something, 
that is actually something different.

For instance we use 'light-years' for distance, but usually we do not 
subtract that year per light-year in time.

> 
>> [more nonsense]
> 
> Once again: Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.
> 

Well, but your educated guesses are also hopeless. Sometimes I think, 
that physicist get (intentionally) brainwashed by their 'education'.

TH

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

#465159

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-21 20:54 +0200
Message-ID	<00b01e45-46e5-35f8-d713-6151511e99ad@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#465155

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 20.07.2018 um 21:16 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
>> That much is true.
>>
>>> The main reason:
>>>
>>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not.
>> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
>> “Euclidean space” means.
> 
> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own past 
> light-cone.

Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.

>>> It is also (apparently) not a linear space.
>>
>> But it is.  Obviously you have no idea what “linear space” means either.
> 
> 'space' in connection with 'universe' means something three-dimensional 
> - more or less in the sense of Newton.
> 
> But I prefer the four-dimensional view of Herman Minkowski.
> 
> This is then the 'real thing' and our impression of that is based on our 
> position on planet Earth.

Not even wrong.  FYI:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_space>

redirects to

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space>

as those terms are *synonyms*.

>>> So the construct 'Euclidean space' is a local approximation.
>> No, it is not.
> 
> Sure it is.

No, it is not.

> We ascribe the features of Euclidean space to something, 
> that is actually something different.

*You* might do that, in your blissful ignorance.  *We* (people who know
what they are talking about) do not.

> For instance we use 'light-years' for distance, but usually we do not 
> subtract that year per light-year in time.

Word salad.

>>> [more nonsense]
>> Once again: Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.
> 
> Well, but your educated guesses are also hopeless.

LOL

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#465216

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-22 14:17 +0200
Message-ID	<frjau0Fbj1tU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#465159

Am 21.07.2018 um 20:54 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 20.07.2018 um 21:16 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
>>> That much is true.
>>>
>>>> The main reason:
>>>>
>>>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not.
>>> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
>>> “Euclidean space” means.
>>
>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own past
>> light-cone.
> 
> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
>

When and by whom?

I cannot recall anybody, who tried to disprove this statement.

Of course my idea is slightly off the mainstream. But I think it's true, 
nevertheless.

If you want to disprove it, than, please, do it.

But you have NOT done that in the past.

..

>> Sure it is.
> 
> No, it is not.

'No, it is not' is not an argument (just a waste of bytes on the UseNet).

> 
>> We ascribe the features of Euclidean space to something,
>> that is actually something different.
> 
> *You* might do that, in your blissful ignorance.  *We* (people who know
> what they are talking about) do not.
> 

'pluralis majestatis' ??

>> For instance we use 'light-years' for distance, but usually we do not
>> subtract that year per light-year in time.
> 
> Word salad.

'Word salad' does not count as an argument neither.


> 
>>>> [more nonsense]
>>> Once again: Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.
>>
>> Well, but your educated guesses are also hopeless.
> 
> LOL


It's actually not funny...

;-)


TH

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

#465226

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-22 15:53 +0200
Message-ID	<844516e7-0d3d-57b9-d8ac-b6c879fd0d56@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#465216

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.07.2018 um 20:54 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 20.07.2018 um 21:16 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
>>>> That much is true.
>>>>
>>>>> The main reason:
>>>>>
>>>>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not.
>>>> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
>>>> “Euclidean space” means.
>>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own past
>>> light-cone.
>> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
> 
> When and by whom?

You feign amnesia now?  It was about a month ago, in de.sci.physik, I and
others.

> I cannot recall anybody, who tried to disprove this statement.

Of course not.  Selective amnesia is a requirement for a crackpot, so that
the old, long-refuted arguments can be made over and over again.

> Of course my idea is slightly off the mainstream. But I think it's true, 
> nevertheless.

That you think that your fantasies are true really does not matter.

> If you want to disprove it, than, please, do it.

BTDT.

> But you have NOT done that in the past.

Yes, I have.  I have showed that you have no clue what you are talking about
when talking about Minkowski space(time).  In excruciating detail.

>>> For instance we use 'light-years' for distance, but usually we do not
>>> subtract that year per light-year in time.
>>
>> Word salad.
> 
> 'Word salad' does not count as an argument neither.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

>>>>> [more nonsense]
>>>> Once again: Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.
>>> Well, but your educated guesses are also hopeless.
>> LOL
> 
> It's actually not funny...

Oh, but it is.  Hilariously.
 --
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#465246

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-22 22:42 +0200
Message-ID	<frk8gsFia5hU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#465226

Am 22.07.2018 um 15:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
...
>>>>>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not.
>>>>> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
>>>>> “Euclidean space” means.
>>>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own past
>>>> light-cone.
>>> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
>>
>> When and by whom?
> 
> You feign amnesia now?  It was about a month ago, in de.sci.physik, I and
> others.

No, you have not.

Instead you say you did, what you didn't (ad nauseam...).

This is not an argument, but dumb rhetoric.

>> I cannot recall anybody, who tried to disprove this statement.
> 
> Of course not.  Selective amnesia is a requirement for a crackpot, so that
> the old, long-refuted arguments can be made over and over again.

I could also step back to insults, if I wanted. But usually I don't.

(BTW: insults are no argument neither.)

>> Of course my idea is slightly off the mainstream. But I think it's true,
>> nevertheless.
> 
> That you think that your fantasies are true really does not matter.

Depends on what you understand with 'it matters'.


Anyhow: what I think is true, that matters (at least for me).

If you think it is wrong, that you can try to disprove it.

...

>>>>>> [more nonsense]
>>>>> Once again: Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.
>>>> Well, but your educated guesses are also hopeless.
>>> LOL
>>
>> It's actually not funny...
> 
> Oh, but it is.  Hilariously.


Well, I also laugh from time to time.


TH

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

Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →

csiph-web

Why did Einstein bring up the concept of simultaneity when he formulate SRT?

Contents

#464457

#464547

#464678

#464680

#464689

#464698

#464765

#464773

#464837

#464839

#464918

#464922

#465001

#465005

#465035

#465155

#465159

#465216

#465226

#465246