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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #465253 > unrolled thread

Deep Thought

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

Contents

  Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-22 14:26 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-23 16:43 +0200
      Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-23 18:08 +0200
        Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-23 21:45 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-24 11:42 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 11:21 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:52 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-25 22:31 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 20:23 -0700
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-25 23:36 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 10:00 -0400
                    Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-26 11:23 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-27 12:15 -0700
                Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-25 23:56 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-26 00:00 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-07-27 17:01 +1000
                    Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-27 10:38 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-28 10:38 -0700
                    Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-27 14:29 -0700
                      Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-28 12:00 +0200
                        Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-28 14:44 +0200
                          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-07-30 18:18 +0200
                            Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-30 18:37 +0200
                              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-01 22:38 +0200
                                Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-03 23:33 +0200
                                  Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-04 11:03 +0200
                                    Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-04 13:15 +0200
                                      Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-05 18:48 +0200
                                        Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-05 21:52 +0200
                                          Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-06 19:34 +0200
                                            Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-06 19:56 +0200
                                              Re: Deep Thought Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-08-06 22:26 +0200
                  Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 15:59 -0700
                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-12 16:15 -0700
                      Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-12 16:30 -0700
                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 21:20 -0700
                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 21:30 -0700
                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-13 21:37 -0700
                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-13 23:42 -0700
                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-14 00:36 -0700
                            Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 00:21 -0700
                              Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-28 00:56 -0700
                                Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2018-08-28 19:23 +1000
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 00:01 -0700
                                Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-28 23:58 -0700
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 11:09 -0700
                                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-29 20:24 +0200
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 13:39 -0700
                                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:43 +0200
                                          Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-08-29 20:43 -0700
                                            Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-31 00:52 +0200
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:58 -0700
                                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 03:48 +0200
                                  Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-29 18:09 -0700
                                    Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-30 04:36 +0200
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 21:12 -0700
                                        Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 21:17 -0700
                                      Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 14:49 -0700
          Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-24 21:19 +0200
            Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 13:04 -0700
              Re: Deep Thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-25 03:36 +0200
                Re: Deep Thought The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-24 22:44 -0700
                  Re: Deep Thought pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 17:52 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:41 -0700
            Re: Deep Thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-24 16:54 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:05 -0400
    Re: Deep Thought "C. Deifir" <cdf@dfr.net.inv> - 2018-07-23 21:18 +0100
      Re: Deep Thought mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 18:12 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 21:49 -0700
    Re: Deep Thought consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-07-24 13:28 -0700

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

#466043

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 27.07.2018 um 23:29 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>> On 7/27/2018 12:01 AM, Daniel60 wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 26/07/2018 4:56 PM:
>>>> On 7/25/2018 1:31 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> That would be a creation out of nothing.
>>>> Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the
>>>> "big-bang"?
>>> The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came 
>>> from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The 
>>> Big Bank!!
>>
>> I wonder if a super cluster of hyper massive black holes that finally 
>> merges into one, can perhaps create new child universes within the 
>> resulting crazy giant black hole. This means that our own universe has 
>> many children.
> 
> We could compare 'black hole' to 'length contraction' in 3D.

But that would be “not even wrong”.

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

> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x' 
> direction).

Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
relative motion, whatever direction that is.  Typically (for simplicity) one
chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
−x direction.

> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of 
> relativistic shrinking.
> 
> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,

No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.

> caused by high velocity

By ANY NON-ZERO RELATIVE velocity v.  The Lorentz transformation
of the coordinate of space in the direction of relative motion is

   x' = γ (x − v t)    (1).

We consider two spatially separated events

  e₁ = (x₁, t₁) ≡ (x₁', t₁')
  e₂ = (x₂, t₂) ≡ (x₂', t₂').

By application of (1) and the assumption of linearity regarding uniform
motion and the passage of time, it follows trivially:

  x₁' = γ (x₁ − v t₁)
  x₂' = γ (x₂ − v t₂)

  ∆x  = x₂  − x₁
  ∆t  = t₂  − t₁
  ∆x' = x₂' − x₁'

→ ∆x' = γ (∆x − v ∆t)

When we measure lengths we measure the distance in space between end points
AT THE SAME TIME:

   t₁ = t₂
→ ∆t  = 0

→ ∆x' = γ ∆x
  ∆x  = ∆x'∕γ

  γ  := 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) > 1 if v ≠ 0.

→ ∆x  < ∆x'                if v ≠ 0. ∎

> and a changing axis of time.

There is no “changing axis of time”.  You have STILL not even understood
SPECIAL relativity.

Once again (how many more times do I have to explain that to you?):
In a Minkowski spacetime diagram –

  time
  ^
  :
  :
  :
  :
  :
  :
  '-------------> space

–, the axis of time (with coordinates t') of a frame of reference that is
moving parallel to the axis of space of a chosen rest frame (with
coordinates x) has to be skewed compared to the axis of time of that rest
frame (with coordinates t) because the x-origin of the moving frame
(x' = 0) is moving relative to the rest frame, and in the moving frame, too,
proper time has to be measured:

    t      t'
    ^      ^
    :     :
    :    :
    :   :
    :  :
    : :
    ::
    :-------------> x
   :
  x' = 0

The x-axis of the moving frame (with coordinates x') is skewed compared to
the axis of space of the rest frame because of the RELATIVITY OF
SIMULTANEITY (t₁ = t₂ = t₁' → t₂ < t₂') that is a consequence of the
isotropic speed of light (c = const.):

  t      t'
  ^      ^
  :     :
  :    :
  :   :        _> x'
  :  :     _.-'
  : :  _.-'
  ::.-'
  +-------------> x
  :\
  : \
  :  x' = 0
  :
  x = 0

As a result, because we define length as the distance in space between two
end points in space AT THE SAME TIME, lengths in the rest frame (t₁ = t₂)
are shorter than the otherwise same lengths in the moving frame (t₁' = t₂').

                          t₂'
                 ∆x' _.-:
                 _.-'   :
             _.-'     . :
  t₁, t₁'  -'-----------' t₂
          x₁     ∆x     x₂

  ∆x'² = ∆x²  + (t₂' − t₁)²
  ∆x²  = ∆x'² − (t₂' − t₂)²

→ ∆x²  < ∆x'²    [all lengths are positive, so: ]

  ∆x   < ∆x' ∎.

    [Yes, the Pythagorean theorem.  Special relativity is that simple.]

> If we would apply a Lorentz transform to a large piece of space, the 3d 
> version off length contraction would look like a black hole.

No, it would not.  Black holes are a consequence of GENERAL relativity,
where spacetime is CURVED in the presence of (non-zero) energy–momentum density.

> [more nonsense]

Your posting this in rec.arts.sf.written was appropriate because it is
PURE FICTION.  (Your amok-crossposting was inappropriate.)

Pass Physics 101 first.

F’up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#466219

Am 28.07.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

>>>>> Where did the matter come from? What state was it in before the
>>>>> "big-bang"?
>>>> The matter that formed our Universe at the time of The Big Band came
>>>> from the two other Universes that smacked together at the time of The
>>>> Big Bank!!
>>>
>>> I wonder if a super cluster of hyper massive black holes that finally
>>> merges into one, can perhaps create new child universes within the
>>> resulting crazy giant black hole. This means that our own universe has
>>> many children.
>>
>> We could compare 'black hole' to 'length contraction' in 3D.
> 
> But that would be “not even wrong”.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>
> 
>> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x'
>> direction).
> 
> Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
> relative motion, whatever direction that is.  Typically (for simplicity) one
> chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
> is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
> −x direction.
> 
I have told you recently, that I think SRT is wrong. So SRT is not among 
the axioms I would use.

You have actually said, that spacetime is curved - according to GR.

How do you match that with our own statement, that spacetime is flat?


>> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of
>> relativistic shrinking.
>>
>> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,
> 
> No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
> The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
> CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.

You cannot proof physics mathematically.

Spacetime might be flat or curved, but that is not a mathematical 
question, but one, we should decide by observation of nature.

> 
>> caused by high velocity
> 
> By ANY NON-ZERO RELATIVE velocity v.  The Lorentz transformation
> of the coordinate of space in the direction of relative motion is
> 
>     x' = γ (x − v t)    (1).
> 
> We consider two spatially separated events
> 
>    e₁ = (x₁, t₁) ≡ (x₁', t₁')
>    e₂ = (x₂, t₂) ≡ (x₂', t₂').
> 
> By application of (1) and the assumption of linearity regarding uniform
> motion and the passage of time, it follows trivially:
> 
>    x₁' = γ (x₁ − v t₁)
>    x₂' = γ (x₂ − v t₂)
> 
>    ∆x  = x₂  − x₁
>    ∆t  = t₂  − t₁
>    ∆x' = x₂' − x₁'
> 
> → ∆x' = γ (∆x − v ∆t)

Again you have only proven, that physics education produces nothing like 
brainwashed zombies.

> 
> When we measure lengths we measure the distance in space between end points
> AT THE SAME TIME:
> 
>     t₁ = t₂
> → ∆t  = 0
> 
> → ∆x' = γ ∆x
>    ∆x  = ∆x'∕γ
> 
>    γ  := 1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) > 1 if v ≠ 0.
> 
> → ∆x  < ∆x'                if v ≠ 0. ∎
> 
>> and a changing axis of time.
> 
> There is no “changing axis of time”.  You have STILL not even understood
> SPECIAL relativity.

Sure I do.

But again you argue, that spacetime might not be curved, because SRT 
forbids.

THAT is WRONG.

Not because of the statement itself, but because you cannot tell nature 
what to do.

...

TH

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

#466227

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 28.07.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x'
>>> direction).
>>
>> Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
>> relative motion, whatever direction that is.  Typically (for simplicity) one
>> chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
>> is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
>> −x direction.
>>
> I have told you recently, that I think SRT is wrong.

Then your "Herman" Minkowski is wrong, too, because he assumes that SRT is
correct.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

>>> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of
>>> relativistic shrinking.
>>>
>>> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,
>>
>> No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
>> The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
>> CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.
> 
> You cannot proof physics mathematically.

But you can.

> Spacetime might be flat or curved,

That is not a question of “might”.  The 1919 solar eclipse showed the
bending of light.  Light does not travel in a curve unless there is a
*physical* reason.

> but that is not a mathematical question,

Yes, it is.  Spacetime is first and foremost a mathematical construct.
Which you would know if you understood what Minkowski said.

> but one, we should decide by observation of nature.

There is no contradiction .  Physics uses models to describe reality.  Those
models need to allow for measurements that confirm or falsify the models, so
they have produce numbers; they have to be mathematical.  Physics is one of
the *exact* sciences, and you do not understand it at all.

>>> caused by high velocity
>>
>> By ANY NON-ZERO RELATIVE velocity v.  The Lorentz transformation
>> of the coordinate of space in the direction of relative motion is
>>
>>     x' = γ (x − v t)    (1).
>>
>> We consider two spatially separated events
>>
>>    e₁ = (x₁, t₁) ≡ (x₁', t₁')
>>    e₂ = (x₂, t₂) ≡ (x₂', t₂').
>>
>> By application of (1) and the assumption of linearity regarding uniform
>> motion and the passage of time, it follows trivially:
>>
>>    x₁' = γ (x₁ − v t₁)
>>    x₂' = γ (x₂ − v t₂)
>>
>>    ∆x  = x₂  − x₁
>>    ∆t  = t₂  − t₁
>>    ∆x' = x₂' − x₁'
>>
>> → ∆x' = γ (∆x − v ∆t)
> 
> Again you have only proven, that physics education produces nothing like 
> brainwashed zombies.

Blithering fool!  You claim that the Minkowski metric as written by
Minkowski says something else than the Lorentz transformation.  Prove it.
Shut up and calculate!

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#466511

Am 30.07.2018 um 18:37 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>> Am 28.07.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x'
>>>> direction).
>>>
>>> Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
>>> relative motion, whatever direction that is.  Typically (for simplicity) one
>>> chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
>>> is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
>>> −x direction.
>>>
>> I have told you recently, that I think SRT is wrong.
> 
> Then your "Herman" Minkowski is wrong, too, because he assumes that SRT is
> correct.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The relevant work of Minkowski stems from 1908 and 1909.

SRT is from 1905 and Minkowski helped his student Einstein.

Most likely he agreed, but that is not really relevant.

Relevant are Minkowski's late publications.

This a copy of the German version:

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)

and here is an English version:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha)

>>>> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of
>>>> relativistic shrinking.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,
>>>
>>> No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
>>> The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
>>> CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.
>>
>> You cannot proof physics mathematically.
> 
> But you can.

No.
If nature uses mathematical methods, then we need to find out, what 
these methods are.

But we cannot tell nature how to operate.

So we could eventually mimic natural behavior by using similar 
mathematical principles as nature does itself somewhere at very low 
levels (supposed that nature actually uses mathematical methods).

But a mathematical model about a non mathematical phenomenon is not 
really a description of the natural 'machinery'. It would be a more or 
less valid approximation by means, that we regard as useful.


TH



> 
>> Spacetime might be flat or curved,
> 
> That is not a question of “might”.  The 1919 solar eclipse showed the
> bending of light.  Light does not travel in a curve unless there is a
> *physical* reason.

So spacetime is curved.

Case close and SRT is wrong.

(or what?)

>> but that is not a mathematical question,
> 
> Yes, it is.  Spacetime is first and foremost a mathematical construct.

Well, that is a question of debate.

I personally regard spacetime as real physical entity.

Our world -as we see it- is something, that I call 'structures' (of 
spacetime).

(the book I wrote is about 'structured spacetime'

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


> Which you would know if you understood what Minkowski said.
> 
>> but one, we should decide by observation of nature.
> 
> There is no contradiction .  Physics uses models to describe reality.  Those
> models need to allow for measurements that confirm or falsify the models, so
> they have produce numbers; they have to be mathematical.  Physics is one of
> the *exact* sciences, and you do not understand it at all.

Really is something different than a model.

You are actually claiming, the model would be more relevant than what 
model is modeling (the real world).

So: no, I do not agree.


TH

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

#466772

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.07.2018 um 18:37 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 28.07.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x'
>>>>> direction).
>>>>
>>>> Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
>>>> relative motion, whatever direction that is.  Typically (for simplicity) one
>>>> chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
>>>> is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
>>>> −x direction.
>>>>
>>> I have told you recently, that I think SRT is wrong.
>>
>> Then your "Herman" Minkowski is wrong, too, because he assumes that SRT is
>> correct.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
> The relevant work of Minkowski stems from 1908 and 1909.
> 
> SRT is from 1905

No, it is not.  The work and concept only *started* in 1905, with the two
/annus mirabilis/ papers “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” and
“Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”.

> and Minkowski helped his student Einstein.

Indirectly, yes.  The four-vectors that originate from Minkowski’s idea of
“space-time” (sic!) are easier to handle mathematically than the separate
equations for space and time of the Lorentz transformation.  (Which is why
we use them today.)

They led Einstein to find out (after Minkowski died in 1909) that flat,
Minkowski space(-)time is insufficient to describe our universe properly.
Therefore, general relativity in 1915.  See my previous quotation and
citation (which you have ignored).

> Most likely he agreed, but that is not really relevant.

But it *is* relevant.  You keep on claiming that Minkowski somehow said
something else than Einstein.  He did not.  He was an early supporter of
SRT, and just formulated the same thing differently mathematically.

> Relevant are Minkowski's late publications.

Which you have no clue about, otherwise you would not claim your nonsense.

> This a copy of the German version:
> 
> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)
> 
> and here is an English version:
> 
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha)

And you have not read comprehensively either one, otherwise you would not
claim your nonsense.

>>>>> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of
>>>>> relativistic shrinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,
>>>> No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
>>>> The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
>>>> CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.
>>> You cannot proof physics mathematically.
>> But you can.
> 
> No.

Yes.

> If nature uses mathematical methods, then we need to find out, what 
> these methods are.

It does not matter if Nature "uses mathematical methods" as long as our
mathematical models correctly predict how she behaves.  And the good models,
the ones that survived the test of experiment and observation, do.  So we
keep using them.

> But we cannot tell nature how to operate.

True, but we can predict it.  We can observe how she behaves, formulate
hypotheses how she is going to behave – that includes writing equations
that relate physical quantities to each other –, and test those hypotheses
against observation.

This is the approach known as the scientific method, and it has worked quite
well for about 400 years now.  The devices that you use to post nonsense,
and to read could not have been designed and built without it, and they
would not work with applying working scientific concepts.  It is only you
who *in your mind* is still living in the early Middle Ages.  And yet you
claim to understand physics.  Can you see how incredibly ridiculous your
claim is?

See also:

Messenger Lectures: Richard Feynman – The Character of Physical Law (1964)
Lecture 2 - The Relation of Mathematics and Physics
<http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics>

(The “CC” button in the video frame provides “closed captions”, or
subtitles, for better understanding.)

>>> Spacetime might be flat or curved,
>>
>> That is not a question of “might”.  The 1919 solar eclipse showed the
>> bending of light.  Light does not travel in a curve unless there is a
>> *physical* reason.
> 
> So spacetime is curved.

More precisely, it *can* be.  It *is* apparently *measurably* curved near
objects that have a large mass in a comparably small volume (i.e. large mass
density), like a star.

> Case close and SRT is wrong.

(That would be “case close_d_”.)

No, because a curved space is *locally* flat.  If this sounds wrong to you,
consider the surface of Earth then: you have to travel quite some way, or
look very far, on it before you can find out that it is not flat, because
Earth is so large.  (And disturbingly, in this time and age there are still
ignoramuses who think it is *globally* flat.)

    [The same may be true of our universe.  The observable universe is
     approximately flat, i.e. the *spatial* geometry appears to be
     Euclidean.  But that need not be true of the whole universe,
     which has to be much larger than the observable one, due to
     universal expansion.]

>>> but that is not a mathematical question,
>> Yes, it is.  Spacetime is first and foremost a mathematical construct.
> 
> Well, that is a question of debate.

No, it is not.  That is how it is defined.

> I personally regard spacetime as real physical entity.

This reminds me of

  “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”

    – Obi-Wan Kenobi to Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader
      in “Star Wars: Episode Ⅲ – Revenge of the Sith”

I did _not_ say “*only* a mathematical construct”, did I?

> (the book I wrote is about 'structured spacetime'
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ).

Given that you evidently do not understand what spacetime is, I expect that
book to be full of ridiculous blunders like your statement above.

>>> but one, we should decide by observation of nature.
>>
>> There is no contradiction .  Physics uses models to describe reality.  Those
>> models need to allow for measurements that confirm or falsify the models, so
>> they have produce numbers; they have to be mathematical.  Physics is one of
>> the *exact* sciences, and you do not understand it at all.
> 
> Really is something different than a model.

Yes, a model can only be an approximation of reality.

But if you are saying that therefore the model is not useful or is
incorrect, then you must stop supporting the mathematical model of
Minkowski spacetime, too, or you are contradicting yourself.

Especially as Minkowski spacetime is flat *by definition*.

> You are actually claiming, the model would be more relevant than what 
> model is modeling (the real world).

No, I am saying that a good model describes the real world, as we observe
it, very closely.  That is, close enough.  And this is something that every
scientist knows.

> So: no, I do not agree.

Then you have to disagree with Minkowski, Einstein’s former professor of
*mathematics*, as well, or you are contradicting yourself.

I also note, with subsiding interest, that you have still not proved which
was required of you: that Minkowski spacetime is not equivalent to the
Lorentz transformation as derived by Einstein.

IOW, AISB, you are still only a “blithering fool” (JFYI, that is English for
the German word „Dummschwätzer“).

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#466808

Am 03.08.2018 um 23:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 30.07.2018 um 18:37 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 28.07.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x'
>>>>>> direction).
>>>>>
>>>>> Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of
>>>>> relative motion, whatever direction that is.  Typically (for simplicity) one
>>>>> chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system
>>>>> is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or
>>>>> −x direction.
>>>>>
>>>> I have told you recently, that I think SRT is wrong.
>>>
>>> Then your "Herman" Minkowski is wrong, too, because he assumes that SRT is
>>> correct.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
>> The relevant work of Minkowski stems from 1908 and 1909.
>>
>> SRT is from 1905
> 
> No, it is not.  The work and concept only *started* in 1905, with the two
> /annus mirabilis/ papers “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” and
> “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”.

This works by Einstein ARE , what he had to say and what was his version 
of relativity.

Minkowski's work was, what he wrote in 1908.

So we can actually compare SRT (in the 1905 version, made by Einstein) 
and Minkowski's work from 1908.

There is a discrepancy and Minkowski was right and Einstein was wrong.

> 
>> and Minkowski helped his student Einstein.
> 
> Indirectly, yes.  The four-vectors that originate from Minkowski’s idea of
> “space-time” (sic!) are easier to handle mathematically than the separate
> equations for space and time of the Lorentz transformation.  (Which is why
> we use them today.)
> 
> They led Einstein to find out (after Minkowski died in 1909) that flat,
> Minkowski space(-)time is insufficient to describe our universe properly.
> Therefore, general relativity in 1915.  See my previous quotation and
> citation (which you have ignored).
> 

Well, now you agreed to what you said was wrong.

If Einstein has rewritten his theory of relativity in 1915, based on 
Minkowski's ideas, than he had revoked his on theory from 1905 and 
replaced it with GR.

GR is therefor correct and SRT is not.

That was, what I had written and what you rejected.

>> Most likely he agreed, but that is not really relevant.
> 
> But it *is* relevant.  You keep on claiming that Minkowski somehow said
> something else than Einstein.  He did not.  He was an early supporter of
> SRT, and just formulated the same thing differently mathematically.
> 

No, he used a different concept about space and time, which could hardly 
be called being just mathematically convenient.

>> Relevant are Minkowski's late publications.
> 
> Which you have no clue about, otherwise you would not claim your nonsense.
> 
>> This a copy of the German version:
>>
>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)
>>
>> and here is an English version:
>>
>> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha)
> 
> And you have not read comprehensively either one, otherwise you would not
> claim your nonsense.
> 
>>>>>> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of
>>>>>> relativistic shrinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform,
>>>>> No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light.
>>>>> The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the
>>>>> CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY.
>>>> You cannot proof physics mathematically.
>>> But you can.
>>
>> No.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> If nature uses mathematical methods, then we need to find out, what
>> these methods are.
> 
> It does not matter if Nature "uses mathematical methods" as long as our
> mathematical models correctly predict how she behaves.  And the good models,
> the ones that survived the test of experiment and observation, do.  So we
> keep using them.
>

Well, depends on what you want.

I take weather as an example of a natural phenomenon and weather 
forecast as a model, which aims to predict that natural phenomenon.

You say: as long as the predictions are good, we don't mind how weather 
actually functions.

I say: I do not mind the forecast, but want to understand the 
'mechanics' of nature.

If nature utilizes principles, that are somehow mathematical, than is 
would be essential to find out, what these methods are, even if it is in 
principle impossible to use the same methods in a predictive model.

The main reason is, that nature operates in ways, we never can: with 
(almost) infinite amounts of time and computational power, organized in 
parallel operation.

The usual computers operate very fast, but mainly in a serial fashion.

>> But we cannot tell nature how to operate.
> 
> True, but we can predict it.  We can observe how she behaves, formulate
> hypotheses how she is going to behave – that includes writing equations
> that relate physical quantities to each other –, and test those hypotheses
> against observation.
> 

Well, depends on what you want.

If prediction is your desire, then maybe it is not necessary to 
understand the functionality of the system, that you want to predict.

> This is the approach known as the scientific method, and it has worked quite
> well for about 400 years now.  The devices that you use to post nonsense,
> and to read could not have been designed and built without it, and they
> would not work with applying working scientific concepts.  It is only you
> who *in your mind* is still living in the early Middle Ages.  And yet you
> claim to understand physics.  Can you see how incredibly ridiculous your
> claim is?
> 

'Scientific method' is a term defined by Karl Popper in a very different 
way than you want to use the term.

You also confuse science and engineering.

Machines are, what engineers build, including computers. 'Science' is 
mainly about nature.

..

TH

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

#466811

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.08.2018 um 23:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> SRT is from 1905
>>
>> No, it is not.  The work and concept only *started* in 1905, with the two
>> /annus mirabilis/ papers “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” and
>> “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”.
> 
> This works by Einstein ARE ,

ARE?

> what he had to say and what was his version of relativity.

Not even wrong.

> Minkowski's work was, what he wrote in 1908.

And his *flat* space–time is inconsistent with gravity.  Hermann Minkowski
did not realize that, but Albert Einstein did.  That is in part because,
although Minkowski concerned himself with physical matters, he was by
training a mathematician, and not a physicist like Einstein.

And there is a very important difference between mathematics and physics:

  “Now I would like to make a number of remarks on the relation of
   mathematics and physics which are a little more general. The first is
   that the mathematicians only are dealing with the structure of the
   reasoning. And they do not really care about what they're talking. They
   don't even need to know what they're talking about or, as they themselves
   say, or whether what they say is true. Now I explain that.

   If you state the axioms, you say, such and such is so, and such and such
   is so, and such and such is so, what then? Then the logic can be carried
   out without knowing what the such and such words mean. That is, if the
   statements about the axioms are true, I mean, are carefully formulated
   and complete enough, it is not necessary for the man who is doing the
   reasoning to have any knowledge of the meaning of these words.

   And he'll be able to deduce in the same language new conclusions. If I
   use the word ‘triangle’ in one of the axioms, there'd be some statement
   about triangles in the conclusion, whereas the man who is doing the
   reasoning might not know what the triangle is. But then I can read his
   thing back and say, oh, a triangle. Well, that's just a three-sided
   what-have-you that's a so and so. And so I know this new fact.

   In other words, mathematicians prepare abstract reasoning that's ready to
   be used if you will only have a set of axioms about the real world. But
   the physicist has meaning to all the phrases. And there's a very
   important thing that a lot of people who study physics that come from
   mathematics don't appreciate. [That] physics is not mathematics, and
   mathematics is not physics. One helps the other.

   But you have to have some understanding of the connection of the words
   with the real world. It's necessary to, at the end, to translate what
   you've figured out into English, into the world, into the blocks of
   copper and glass that you're going to do the experiments with to find out
   […] whether the consequences are true. And this is a problem which is not
   a problem of mathematics at all.”

     –Richard P. Feynman,
      Messenger Lectures: The Character of Physical Law (1964).
      Lecture 2 - The Relation of Mathematics and Physics:

<http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics>

However:

,-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Minkowski#Work_on_relativity
|
| Einstein at first viewed Minkowski's treatment as a mere mathematical
| trick, before eventually realizing that a geometrical view of space–time
| would be necessary in order to complete his own later work in general
| relativity (1915).

Note the key words: “geometrical view”.

> So we can actually compare SRT (in the 1905 version, made by Einstein) 
> and Minkowski's work from 1908.

Yes, and we find that they are equivalent.

> There is a discrepancy and Minkowski was right and Einstein was wrong.

No, that is just your /idée fixe/ that you are unwilling or unable to prove,
so your claims stand unsupported.

>>> and Minkowski helped his student Einstein.
>>
>> Indirectly, yes.  The four-vectors that originate from Minkowski’s idea of
>> “space-time” (sic!) are easier to handle mathematically than the separate
>> equations for space and time of the Lorentz transformation.  (Which is why
>> we use them today.)
>>
>> They led Einstein to find out (after Minkowski died in 1909) that flat,
>> Minkowski space(-)time is insufficient to describe our universe properly.
>> Therefore, general relativity in 1915.  See my previous quotation and
>> citation (which you have ignored).
> 
> Well, now you agreed to what you said was wrong.

Not at all.

> If Einstein has rewritten his theory of relativity in 1915, based on 
> Minkowski's ideas, than he had revoked his on theory from 1905 and 
> replaced it with GR.

No, he used Minkowski’s mathematical formulation, the “geometrical view”,
only.  Learn to read.

> GR is therefor correct and SRT is not.

No.

> That was, what I had written and what you rejected.

Because what you had written is wrong.

>>> Most likely he agreed, but that is not really relevant.
>>
>> But it *is* relevant.  You keep on claiming that Minkowski somehow said
>> something else than Einstein.  He did not.  He was an early supporter of
>> SRT, and just formulated the same thing differently mathematically.
> 
> No, he used a different concept about space and time,

No, he did not.

> which could hardly be called being just mathematically convenient.

Therefore, you are wrong.

>>> If nature uses mathematical methods, then we need to find out, what
>>> these methods are.
>>
>> It does not matter if Nature "uses mathematical methods" as long as our
>> mathematical models correctly predict how she behaves.  And the good models,
>> the ones that survived the test of experiment and observation, do.  So we
>> keep using them.
> 
> Well, depends on what you want.

What one wants is scientific precision, not your pre-medieval uneducated
mumbo-jumbo.

> I take weather as an example of a natural phenomenon and weather 
> forecast as a model, which aims to predict that natural phenomenon.

I happen to work for a meteorological company now and can assure you that
mathematics is at the core of all weather forecasting.

> You say: as long as the predictions are good, we don't mind how weather 
> actually functions.

No, that is not what I am saying.  You really need to stop putting your
wrong ideas into my mouth.

> I say: I do not mind the forecast, but want to understand the 
> 'mechanics' of nature.

We do, to a large extent, thanks to physics and other sciences.

> If nature utilizes principles, that are somehow mathematical, 

You are still stuck in your pre-medieval thinking.  Nature does not use
mathematical principles.  WE use mathematical principles to DESCRIBE, and
therefore PREDICT, Nature, because — for whatever reason – that works so well.

As Feynman said, “Mathematics is not just a language. Mathematics is a
language plus reasoning. It's like a language plus logic.”

>> This is the approach known as the scientific method, and it has worked quite
>> well for about 400 years now.  The devices that you use to post nonsense,
>> and to read could not have been designed and built without it, and they
>> would not work with applying working scientific concepts.  It is only you
>> who *in your mind* is still living in the early Middle Ages.  And yet you
>> claim to understand physics.  Can you see how incredibly ridiculous your
>> claim is?
> 
> 'Scientific method' is a term defined by Karl Popper in a very different 
> way than you want to use the term.

On the contrary:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper>
|
| […]
| Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on
| the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified,
| meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> You also confuse science and engineering.

Not at all.  Mathematics and science is the basis of all engineering.

I can see from your argument that you have not watched, or you have not
understood, Feynman’s Messenger Lecture, “The Relation of Mathematics and
Physics”, that I referred you to, in which all of this is explained.

Instead, your keep arguing from your own ignorance.  Your approach is a
fallacy.  It is hopeless and ultimately wrong, because it can only by
accident lead to correct conclusions.  And so far, none of your conclusions
have been correct.  That should tell you something.
 --
PointedEars

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

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

#466968

Am 04.08.2018 um 13:15 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
...

> ,-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Minkowski#Work_on_relativity
> |
> | Einstein at first viewed Minkowski's treatment as a mere mathematical
> | trick, before eventually realizing that a geometrical view of space–time
> | would be necessary in order to complete his own later work in general
> | relativity (1915).
> 
> Note the key words: “geometrical view”.
> 
>> So we can actually compare SRT (in the 1905 version, made by Einstein)
>> and Minkowski's work from 1908.
> 
> Yes, and we find that they are equivalent.
> 
>> There is a discrepancy and Minkowski was right and Einstein was wrong.
> 
> No, that is just your /idée fixe/ that you are unwilling or unable to prove,
> so your claims stand unsupported.
> 
>>>> and Minkowski helped his student Einstein.
>>>
>>> Indirectly, yes.  The four-vectors that originate from Minkowski’s idea of
>>> “space-time” (sic!) are easier to handle mathematically than the separate
>>> equations for space and time of the Lorentz transformation.  (Which is why
>>> we use them today.)
>>>
>>> They led Einstein to find out (after Minkowski died in 1909) that flat,
>>> Minkowski space(-)time is insufficient to describe our universe properly.
>>> Therefore, general relativity in 1915.  See my previous quotation and
>>> citation (which you have ignored).
>>
>> Well, now you agreed to what you said was wrong.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
>> If Einstein has rewritten his theory of relativity in 1915, based on
>> Minkowski's ideas, than he had revoked his on theory from 1905 and
>> replaced it with GR.
> 
> No, he used Minkowski’s mathematical formulation, the “geometrical view”,
> only.  Learn to read.

Well, Minkowski was a world class mathematician and Einstein a little 
slow in thinking.

So I would have a lot more confidence in the quality of his insight into 
physics than in Einstein's grip of mathematics.

>> GR is therefor correct and SRT is not.
> 
> No.
> 
>> That was, what I had written and what you rejected.
> 
> Because what you had written is wrong.
> 
>>>> Most likely he agreed, but that is not really relevant.
>>>
>>> But it *is* relevant.  You keep on claiming that Minkowski somehow said
>>> something else than Einstein.  He did not.  He was an early supporter of
>>> SRT, and just formulated the same thing differently mathematically.
>>
>> No, he used a different concept about space and time,
> 
> No, he did not.
> 
>> which could hardly be called being just mathematically convenient.
> 
> Therefore, you are wrong.

The main difference between Einsteins SRT and Minkowski's spacetime is, 
that Minkowski wanted to allow multiple timelines into arbitrary directions.

That was a HUGE difference in the concept between them.


>> If nature utilizes principles, that are somehow mathematical,
> 
> You are still stuck in your pre-medieval thinking.  Nature does not use
> mathematical principles.  WE use mathematical principles to DESCRIBE, and
> therefore PREDICT, Nature, because — for whatever reason – that works so well.


I ASSUME, that nature uses a relatively simple mechanism, which is very 
similar to certain mathematical constructs.

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

These constructs are called 'biquaternions' and 'Pauli algebra'.

This was an assumption, that seemingly works and which could be applied 
to all sort of questions in physics.

But it is actually difficult to use the method in our own models, 
because much of the input data cannot be known in principle and man has 
not enough computational power to compete with nature.

So we can only understand the principles.

But it should be interesting enough anyhow to know, with what kind of 
'machinery' nature actually works.

...


TH

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

#466982

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 04.08.2018 um 13:15 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> If Einstein has rewritten his theory of relativity in 1915, based on
>>> Minkowski's ideas, than he had revoked his on theory from 1905 and
>>> replaced it with GR.
>> No, he used Minkowski’s mathematical formulation, the “geometrical view”,
>> only.  Learn to read.
> 
> Well, Minkowski was a world class mathematician and Einstein a little 
> slow in thinking.

    [It is fascinating how, in order not to destroy your little crackpot
     fantasy world, you carefully ignore the fact that Einstein successfully
     used Minkowski’s mathematical approach after 1908.]

You could say that Minkowski was a world-class mathematician, yet (or which
is why) he did not realize that his idea of flat space–time was incompatible
with the observable, *physical* effect of gravitation.  It took Albert
Einstein to find that out.

You could also say, and Einstein would be the first to admit it, that
Einstein was a little slow in thinking.  But he thought more deeply about
things than other people in his lifetime to compensate.  Which is why his
theories stood all tests of observation until today, 113 years later, and
were instrumental in the advances in engineering that shaped modern society.

In fact, special relativity enabled the special-relativistic quantum field
theory of quantum electrodynamics which is important in building all the
electronic devices that you are using to post here.  So you should show a
little bit more respect, gratitude and humility towards those whose
scientific work made that possible, yes?

> So I would have a lot more confidence in the quality of his insight into 
> physics than in Einstein's grip of mathematics.

While it is true that Einstein at first struggled with the tensor calculus
required to formulate *general* relativity efficiently mathematically (which
is evident from a letter that he wrote, by contrast to you in all humility,
to Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro), eventually he did learn it ON HIS OWN and
contributed to mathematics for example the summation notation for operations
with tensors that we are still using today (called “Einstein notation” or
“Einstein summation convention”; look it up in e.g. Wikipedia).

So again, you are merely arguing from your own staggering ignorance.

>>> which could hardly be called being just mathematically convenient.
>> Therefore, you are wrong.
> 
> The main difference between Einsteins SRT and Minkowski's spacetime is, 
> that Minkowski wanted to allow multiple timelines into arbitrary directions.

Simply wrong.

>>> If nature utilizes principles, that are somehow mathematical,
>>
>> You are still stuck in your pre-medieval thinking.  Nature does not use
>> mathematical principles.  WE use mathematical principles to DESCRIBE, and
>> therefore PREDICT, Nature, because — for whatever reason – that works so well.
> 
> I ASSUME, that nature uses a relatively simple mechanism, which is very 
> similar to certain mathematical constructs.

But EVIDENTLY you have no clue what you are talking about, so your
assumptions are WORTHLESS.  You fare no better in your UNEDUCATED guesses
than a medieval alchemist who has no idea of atoms and tries to explain all
their observations within the framework of "the four elements of nature" ­—
earth, water, air, and fire.

In fact, your thinking is not very different from that of the Pythagoreans
who believed in the 6th century BCE that nature is inherently mathematical
because there is an intrinsic beauty to that.  IOW, your thinking is now
2600 years out of date.

It would seem, as you are unwilling or, which is much more likely, UNABLE to
substantiate your claim that there is a fundamental difference between the
Lorentz transformation equations of special relativity and the mathematics
of Minkowski’s space–time (sic), I have to prove to you (again; I already
did it in de.sci.physik) that they are exactly equivalent.

However, in order not to waste my precious free time again, first I require
you to say what *you* understand either one to be, so that we can start from
common ground.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467092

Am 05.08.2018 um 21:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> The main difference between Einsteins SRT and Minkowski's spacetime is,
>> that Minkowski wanted to allow multiple timelines into arbitrary directions.
> Simply wrong.
> 

Simply right!

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)

" Der Zeitachse kann hiernach eine völlig beliebige Richtung nach der 
oberen halben Welt t > 0  gegeben werden"

in English:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha)

"According to this we can give the time-axis any possible direction in 
the upper half of the world t > 0. "


TH

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

#467097

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.08.2018 um 21:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> The main difference between Einsteins SRT and Minkowski's spacetime is,
>>> that Minkowski wanted to allow multiple timelines into arbitrary directions.
>> Simply wrong.
> 
> Simply right!

No.

> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)
> 
> " Der Zeitachse kann hiernach eine völlig beliebige Richtung nach der 
> oberen halben Welt t > 0  gegeben werden"
> 
> in English:
> 
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha)
> 
> "According to this we can give the time-axis any possible direction in 
> the upper half of the world t > 0. "

First of all, “timeline” is not the same as “time-axis”.

Second, there is no mention of “multiple” („mehrfach“).  Minkowski speaks of
only ONE time axis (for ONE specific frame of reference).

So we have determined by now that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what Minkowski
space–time even IS.  Obviously then you are also simply UNABLE to realize
that its metric is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to the metric that arises from the
Lorentz transformation of special relativity, and that it does NOT satisfy
gravity.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467128

Am 06.08.2018 um 19:56 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 05.08.2018 um 21:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> The main difference between Einsteins SRT and Minkowski's spacetime is,
>>>> that Minkowski wanted to allow multiple timelines into arbitrary directions.
>>> Simply wrong.
>>
>> Simply right!
> 
> No.
> 
>> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)
>>
>> " Der Zeitachse kann hiernach eine völlig beliebige Richtung nach der
>> oberen halben Welt t > 0  gegeben werden"
>>
>> in English:
>>
>> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha)
>>
>> "According to this we can give the time-axis any possible direction in
>> the upper half of the world t > 0. "
> 
> First of all, “timeline” is not the same as “time-axis”.
> 

Minkowski used 'Zeitachse' (axis of time) and 'Weltlinie' (worldline). 
These are different concepts, even if they are related.

Minkowski discusses the features of a four dimensional spacetime, which 
has to any axis of time three axis of space.

So there should be a multiple set of spaces and many possible axis of time.

This is, in short, what Minkowski wrote in 1908.

Einstein had a different concept about space (and Minkowski mentioned 
this explicitly).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha)

quote

"But to perceive clearly that the time of an electron is as good as the 
time of any other electron, i.e. t, i' are to be regarded as equivalent, 
has been the service of A. Einstein [Ann. d. Phys. 891, p. 1905, Jahrb. 
d. Radis... 4-4-1 1—1907] There the concept of time was shown to be 
completely and unambiguously established by natural phenomena. But the 
concept of space was not arrived at, either by Einstein or Lorentz, 
probably because in the case of the above-mentioned spatial 
transformations, where the (x', y') plane coincides with the x-t plane, 
the significance is possible that the x-axis of space some-how remains 
conserved in its position.

We can approach the idea of space in a corresponding manner, though some 
may regard the attempt as rather fantastical.

According to these ideas, the word "Relativity-Postulate" which has been 
coined for the demands of invariance in the group G, seems to be rather 
inexpressive for a true understanding of the group Gc, and for further 
progress. Because the sense of the postulate is that the 
four-dimensional world is given in space and time by phenomena only, but 
the projection in time and space can be handled with a certain freedom, 
and therefore I would rather like to give to this assertion the name 
"The Postulate of the Absolute world" [World-Postulate]. "


So Minkowski WROTE in his book, that Einstein had a different view.


TH

>

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

#467660 — Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

> > creation out of nothing.
> 
> Where did the matter come from? 
> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?

Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy" 
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).

Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.

Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.

Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us 
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
   is the most likley outcome.

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

#467661 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>> creation out of nothing.
>>
>> Where did the matter come from?
>> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> 
> Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> 
> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> 
> Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> 
> Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
>     is the most likley outcome.
> 

Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a 
black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg 
problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from? 
Was there ever a true beginning, or first hyper massive star that went 
ultra, hyper nova? If so, what the heck created it, and what created the 
intelligence of the thing that created in the first place?

Was GOD every truly alone?

Argh!

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

#467663 — Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Chris asked:
> Where did the first black hole originate from? 

Exergy is always diminishing ( i.e. entropy is increasing );
whether we think it's a lot or little is a matter of opinion.

> Was there ever a true beginning, or first hyper massive 
> star that went ultra, hyper nova? 

There's a beginning, and an edge, to "The Known Universe";
outside of that is "the random universe", 
where anything can happen.

> If so, what the heck created it, and what created the 
> intelligence of the thing that created in the first place?

Intrinsically, nothing is random.
Randomness is just ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

The 4 dimensional TimeScape is static, immutable, eternal;
it is, at once, everything _ and nothing.

We call ourselves "consumers" and the GDP measures our progress.
We're "robot aliens" ( consumption machines ), exploiting a niche,
(poorly) programmed by nature to take the LessBad "option".

> Was GOD every truly alone? Argh!

Mother Nature is God; she is everything and nothing.

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

#467797 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
> On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> >>> creation out of nothing.
> >>
> >> Where did the matter come from?
> >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> >
> > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> >
> > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> >
> > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> >
> > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> >     is the most likley outcome.
> >
> 
> Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?


The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang. 

Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.

In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die. 


The Starmaker

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

#467799 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > >>> creation out of nothing.
> > >>
> > >> Where did the matter come from?
> > >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> > >
> > > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> > >
> > > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> > >
> > > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> > >
> > > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> > >     is the most likley outcome.
> > >
> > 
> > Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> > black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> > problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
> 
> 
> The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang. 
> 
> Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
> 
> In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die. 
> 
> 
> The Starmaker

There is No before an absolute beginning Roy Masters.
And after Big Bang 0 there is No Black Hole beginning
that Hawking theorized. That is a beginning that can't
begin. The universe can't proceed from a black hole.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#467803 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

On 8/13/2018 9:30 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 9:21:07 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>>>>> creation out of nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did the matter come from?
>>>>> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
>>>>
>>>> Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
>>>> At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
>>>> ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
>>>>
>>>> Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
>>>> leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
>>>> but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
>>>>
>>>> Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
>>>> that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
>>>> -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
>>>>      is the most likley outcome.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
>>> black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
>>> problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
>>
>>
>> The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
>>
>> Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
>>
>> In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
>>
>>
>> The Starmaker
> 
> There is No before an absolute beginning Roy Masters.
> And after Big Bang 0 there is No Black Hole beginning
> that Hawking theorized. That is a beginning that can't
> begin. The universe can't proceed from a black hole.

Think of a black hole as a point of n-ary bifurcation. It can start from 
a single root node. The branching is occurring within the black hole itself.

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

#467807 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >
> > On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > >>> creation out of nothing.
> > >>
> > >> Where did the matter come from?
> > >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> > >
> > > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> > >
> > > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> > >
> > > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> > >
> > > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> > >     is the most likley outcome.
> > >
> >
> > Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> > black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> > problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
> 
> The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
> 
> Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
> 
> In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
> 
> The Starmaker


I mean...i thought i explained all this already..

the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.

In other words, just the right amount of stars.


The Starmaker

I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars. 

Too many stars is what caused the big bang.


i even already provided an illustration:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif


during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.


for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.

Do you need a list?

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

#467808 — Re: Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/12/2018 3:59 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > > >>> creation out of nothing.
> > > >>
> > > >> Where did the matter come from?
> > > >> What state was it in before the "big-bang"?
> > > >
> > > > Entropy converts black holes into SpaceTime.
> > > > At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
> > > > ( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
> > > >
> > > > Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
> > > > leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
> > > > but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is residual eXergy.
> > > >
> > > > Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
> > > > that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
> > > > -- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
> > > >     is the most likley outcome.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Afaict, even my little idea wrt "our universe is contained within a
> > > black hole,  residing in our parent universe" is a chicken-and-egg
> > > problem in and of itself. Where did the first black hole originate from?
> >
> > The first black hole originated from moments After the big bang.
> >
> > Before the big bang heat death didn't exist, so black holes didn't exist.
> >
> > In other words, before the big bang stars didn't die.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> I mean...i thought i explained all this already..
> 
> the purpose of a black hole is too consume stars and galaxies for the purpose of keeping a balance universe.
> 
> In other words, just the right amount of stars.
> 
> The Starmaker
> 
> I mean, before the big bang there were simply too many stars.
> 
> Too many stars is what caused the big bang.
> 
> i even already provided an illustration:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif
> 
> during the actual explosion...new laws of physics were created.
> 
> for example, before the big bang galaxies didn't exist.
> 
> Do you need a list?




To put it simply, the universe was ...different. 

It used to be different.

And the way it is today is because

it didn't work very well before..

So new laws of physics had to be made.

Before, when the universe was different...stars didn't die.

They didn't burn out.

Which caused a problem..

with so many new stars being born...

it simply ran out of space.

Now, you have plenty of space.



The question is, why is it so hard for yous to understand this?

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

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

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

csiph-web