Proof Minkowski Spacetime is Poorly Conceived

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by danshawen, Apr 21, 2016.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    please demonstrate. You seem to be saying, 2 x omega <> 2 x omega. Now, who is insane?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    First pl settle how the dimension of omega is 1/t.....??

    Then you may like to define, with maths, what the 'effective omega' is for two counter spinning photons..

    Then we will see...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Onus was on you to demonstrate how you arrived at angular speed dimension as 1/t...

    But I will do that for you.....Angular speed is angle covered per it is rad/ is rad/t not 1/t (that 2 pi is not some constant there but it represents one full spin......and mind you radian is a valid SI unit of angle.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    So we have moved from Minkowski being an idiot and a pedantic and intellectually dishonest mathematical ass to being someone who may have presented something with deep meaning and that may only appear to have major flaws.

    I suppose that is progress.
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Of a sort.

    omega = 2 x pi x frequency
    frequency = 1/period, and the dimension of the period is??

    But you got me thinking about whether the omegas (photon 1 and photon 2) actually add or whether the omegas cancel each other out. Good job. You know, they actually could do either. Or even both. I will now see if we can justify that line of reasoning.

    Okay, no one here seems to like my idea that space is simply light travel time. But we've come a much longer way than you think.

    My formal assertion now is that if the limited speed of light achieved by energy propagating in a linear mode means infinite time dilation, THEN for the bound energy that is matter, just the opposite is true. Space within a bound particle of energy appears finite, so time is what must become infinite, Because it doesn't matter what the nominal value you divide by zero is in order to reach infinity, the speed of light is no longer a limit. Matter persists. Time becomes infinite, as far as matter that does not decay is concerned. It is surely as infinite as time dilation is for a photon traveling at c without any inertia, inside of the event horizon of a black hole, or otherwise. But unlike a linear propagation mode for a photon, both the center of the fundamental particle and the time dilation of the rest frame outside of the particle remain unaffected in terms of time dilation. Until or unless the particle begins moving with respect to other particles, that is.

    t(time for energy) becomes 1/t(time for matter), and since we already know that:

    E/m = c^2, it naturally follows that this is in the same ratio squared.

    That is, if we can be absolutely certain that Minkowski was half right. Compared to Einstein, that is actually pretty clever.

    But not clever enough. He missed pegging the origin of time by a mile.
    Last edited: May 8, 2016
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member


    A great answer that got zero for a score (typical for those forums), and speaks volumes:

    "An electron may actually have greater energy than a photon of the same wavelength.", and the reason for that is apparently:
    "Above this energy <mc^2 for an electron>, the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs from photons <of this energy> starts to become important."

    Not to mention, electrons can absorb the energy of photons and remain an electron.

    Some sources equivocate a quantum of energy with a wavelength at a particular energy. Others do not.
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    The right answer is: reciprocal time is simply an artifact of a periodic waveform, nothing more, and you can do the same math for periodic waveforms of photons in free space or bound as fundamental particles, if relativity actually supported that dynamic. There are no Earth shaking extensions to relativity to be had there, just a load more mathematical conventions.

    Thanks for your help, just the same.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member


    "Think Einstein was wrong to make GR out of Minkowski space?"

    a lively discussion on the same subject by real physicists, if you are bored with this thread.

    And, yes, I do think that Einstein was wrong to make GR out of Mink space, but the alternatives weren't all that much better. De Sitter space has some appeal, but it still seems to be missing something essential.

    "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity,
    I do not understand it myself anymore."

    ~Albert Einstein

    For those who were totally lost about what all the fuss was about:

    And finally, is Minkowski rotation real or imaginary? There seem to be two schools of thought:

    Either way, it isn't like meter sticks on a train are going to resolve the issue any time soon. It's like Minkowski was saying: f you can't see them contract, it isn't likely you are going to see them rotate either. BUT WE ALREADY KNOW, WE CAN ACTUALLY "SEE THEM" CONTRACT, CAN'T WE? In a collider like the LHC, every single day it operates. But we couldn't see any rotation that way that could not be explained by other effects.
    Last edited: May 9, 2016
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    And Miles Mathis (an Internet physics crank who occasionally sounds an awful lot like danshawen, particularly on the subject of Mink space), is full of himself as he is of it. Pi isn't 4, a conspiracy of NASA, or an acceleration. It isn't constant either, and that is one huge reason that geometry always fails to yield an exact solution to problems like the one Einstein had when he finally gave up on de Sitter space and settled on Mink space for GR. That's why the GR field equations still contains pi, even though pi is RELATIVE if the wheel is spinning. Maybe that's why Miles thinks it should be 4 instead of 2.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I think that further attempts by me to engage you in a conversation about physics are not likely to be productive. You ignore most of the substantive objections I raise against your ideas. Failing to address objections if not the way to have an honest discussion.

    I also get the strong impression that while I am talking about physics, you're talking about ... something not physics. A lot of the time, what you write reads like a kind of stream-of-consciousness fantasy that you invent anew for each post that you make. Without any critical analysis of your own ideas, you can't ever really hope to learn anything or make any progress.

    I think maybe you just want to play at doing physics, rather than actually doing it.

    Then you must now agree that the interval is invariant in different frames. Right?

    That's meaningless nonsense. That 't' in there is supposed to be the time variable, isn't it?

    The use of imaginary numbers to construct pseudo-4-vectors can be a useful mathematical device, but that's all it is. There's no deep physical significance to that particular mathematical device, and it is certainly not a necessary device for doing relativity.

    Previously you wrote something like "Time = t= ict ", and then you divided both sides by t (the time) to get ic=1, a crazy conclusion. The problem is in the initial claim, obviously. Look, let's start with an obviously wrong statement: 1=7. Now multiply both sides of the equation by x and we get 1x = 7x. Now multiply by i, just for good measure, and we have ix=7ix. And hey! Look what happens if we divide both sides by x: i= 7i. Wow. Deep. And fundamentally wrong.

    Garbage in, garbage out. That's what went wrong with your t = ict.


    Angular velocity having dimensions of 1/time is true, but irrelevant to your previous error.

    This is meaningless nonsense. Can you see that? You're just making stuff up on the spot. No thought. No analysis. You're just acting out a kind of personal fantasy that you're doing physics. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's what you're doing.

    You have shown nothing.

    I have repeatedly asked you to present a mathematical argument for your ideas. You have repeatedly ignored my requests and pretended that I haven't made them. I think this is because you do not actually understand the mathematics of relativity. In fact, nothing I've seen from you so far leads me to think that you can do any maths beyond beginners' algebra, and you're even shaky on that.

    I wrote no such thing.

    It's not an assumption. You have been given a proof. You say you accept the Lorentz transformations. Therefore, you are logically required to accept the invariance of Minkowski's interval.

    Do you accept logic, or reject it? Please let me know, so I know for sure whether I'm completely wasting my time with you or not.

    Where did anybody say that the speed of light is proportional to t or 1/t? What are you talking about?

    This is nonsensical rubbish. Can you see that?

    Do you want to stop pretending to do physics and to actually learn some physics, or do you want to continue with your playful fantasy that you're doing physics?

    The error in your "logic" is that you have failed to accept that the mathematical proof that has been presented to you is unassailable, given your own stated acceptance of the Lorentz transformations.

    Do you accept logic, or defy it?
    Ophiolite likes this.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You have made no attempt to understand that the word "rotation", when applied to a Lorentz transformation, is not meant literally.

    Why is that? Why do you ignore it when people carefully explain a point to you over and over again? Why do you revert to posting nonsense, when careful explanations should have cleared up any confusion you might have? If you didn't understand the explanation, you could ask questions. Instead, we get this play-acting from you, and avoidance of directly facing the things you don't understand.

    Why don't you eat soup with a fork?

    Answer: a fork is not made for eating soup.

    This point has been made to you a number of times. Do you understand the analogy being made? The Lorentz transformations don't do any job that they aren't designed to do. They are designed to transform coordinates between reference frames. That's all. They won't make coffee for you. They won't make things spin around in circles. They won't paint the town green. All they do is transform event coordinates between two reference frames.

    A definition is a definition. It can't be wrong.

    The interval is useful because it turns out that the interval, as defined, is invariant in different frames of reference. The proof of this has been presented to you.

    Do you defy logic, or accept it?

    Periods have dimensions of time. Frequencies have dimensions of inverse time.

    The omegas of what? You see that this is nonsensical, don't you?

    This is meaningless nonsense.

    You claim a "formal assertion" and yet you present only waffle and no formal argument at all. Show me step-by-step how each one of your statements leads to the next. Show me the mathematical reasoning. Justify your claims.

    I know you won't do this, because you can't do it. You only want to play at doing physics. You like to pretend you're doing physics. It's like playing doctor or fireman when you're a kid.

    You don't even say what Minkowski was supposedly half right about. And when you're doing maths, how can you be half right, anyway?

    Are you now actually claiming that the number \(\pi\) is variable?

    Would it be too much to ask you for your mathematical demonstration that pi is not constant?
    Ophiolite likes this.
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    A pair of photons bound in matter have angular velocities just like any other periodic circular motion. It doesn't matter if their wave functions are periodic or not. What would omega look like from the outside? What would omega look like from the inside, at different radii?

    The Lorentz transformations have no velocity transform, and most mathematicians don't think that it needs one. It does. Know why? IT'S BECAUSE THE TRANSFORMS WE KNOW PREDICT TIME DILATION, AND VELOCITIES DEPEND HEAVILY ON TIME INTERVALS. Just like Mink space would if it didn't freeze time by means of simultanaeity. If you wish to read the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, go and read what Mink himself had to say about it. Arrogant prat doesn't begin to describe it, but Miles Mathis did, in some considerable detail. It came off badly only because Miles himself is an arrogant prat. It takes one to know one.

    You can't make a velocity transform without a coordinate system AND an origin to nail it to, and that only works if the universe is as hard as a solid block of granite and as unyielding and with all of the inertia of a mathematician's brain, which it manifestly is not. And you can't make a velocity transform from the Lorentz transforms either, because from their very inception, their coordinate system was nailed to a road that may also be moving. Time dilation is an effect that is due to relative motion and proximity to other matter/ energy. It's not a problem you are likely ever to solve using geometry and meter sticks. Use a clock exclusively and have done with it.

    Be that as it may, I'm not the one being obtuse.

    Logic sometimes fails, when applied incorrectly, or outside of the domain in which it is consistent. Do you argue with that? The Lorentz transformations DID NOT MANAGE TO WORK OUT A TRANSFORM FOR VELOCITY. Velocity addition isn't a complete velocity transform description. The minus signs and reciprocals don't mean what you think they do because by mathematical convention, they have already been co-opted to perform a different function. You don't even recognize when the symbols in your symbolic language fails you. Don't stop checking your math until you have also checked the limits of its ability to convey meaning. Mathematicians are very far from having the understanding of a G-d, or even me, and I'm evidently just an arrogant prat. Just like Mink was and Miles still is.

    No, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove to you that pi isn't constant, or to anyone else who has not resolved the Ehrenfest paradox for themselves. It would be like trying to convince John Doan of the reality of the twin paradox (which I tried to do over 30 years ago), apparently to no effect.

    Come clean. Everyone knows there is something wrong with Mink space, and it isn't just Miles Mathis. Einsteins are rarer than hens teeth, except that in the 21st century, making hens present teeth isn't even much of a challenge.

    Nothing but chickens without teeth here. Move along.
    Last edited: May 9, 2016
  16. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    As I observed earlier, I think, my grasp of physics is basic - very basic. However, as I noted previously, I do recognise conmen and bullshit artists.

    Your last post has a very clear semantic content, which boils down to this:

    I, danshawen, have no idea how to defend what I am saying because what I am saying is felt rather than fathomed. Therefore, I shall ignore all of the refutations of my assertions, I shall ignore all the dismantling of my hypotheses, I shall ignore all the ridiculing of my pretend mathematics and I shall ignore all the specific, pointed and relevant questions.

    In this way I can ignore facing the fact that I am wrong and walk away from here eblieving myself to be not only correct, but seriously perceptive.

    Dan, it's not too late to grow up.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I see you again ignored most of the substance of my posts.

    There's no point talking to you. Goodbye.

    Have fun playing physicist.
  18. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    The Lorentz transformations are a velocity transform: they relate the coordinates of inertial reference frames in relative motion to one another.

    This is easy to see just by considering a constant location in one reference frame and seeing what trajectory it is transformed to in the other reference frame. Start with:

    \(\begin{eqnarray} t' &=& \gamma \bigl( t - \tfrac{v}{c^{2}} x \bigr) \,, \\ x' &=& \gamma (x - v t) \,. \end{eqnarray}\)​

    Now consider the constant (independent of time) location \(x' = x'_{0}\) in the prime reference frame. The second equation implies \(x' = x'_{0} \Rightarrow x'_{0} = \gamma (x - v t)\), which rearranges to the trajectory

    \(\displaystyle x = v t + \tfrac{1}{\gamma} x_{0} \,.\)​

    So the fixed location \(x' = x'_{0}\) in the prime reference frame is moving with velocity \(v\) in the unprimed frame.

    Please wake up. You're writing post after post about Minkowski and Lorentz transformations and it's completely obvious to the rest of us here that you don't understand the most basic things about them.
    Last edited: May 9, 2016
    danshawen likes this.
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Wrong. You failed to compute t- t' in order to compute v.

    The time dilation IS the velocity transform. You ignored completely what I said about the RELATIVE MOTION OF the road onto which you nailed your coordinate system on. Why did you do that? How do you justify it?

    Any REAL velocity transform must work as well for moving garden ants as it does for merging black holes. Have I not been clear about this?
  20. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    I don't think you're competent to make that kind of judgement.

    I'm done here. You've degenerated to just posting whatever random meaningless spew as a response at this point.
  21. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    There is no mass term in your transformation (or in anyone else's). I don't blame you. I apologize if the tone was inappropriate. I do occasionally have a flare up of that condition.

    It was unfair of me to expect velocity transform equations that include masses. If we only had ones that worked fine neglecting mass, I would be OK with that (and yours are probably close), but I don't' believe we really have that either. The Lorentz transformations are rock solid. Nothing else built on them is.

    The correct velocity transform will be able to account for, among other things, how c can be constant and invariant when measured against inertial reference frames that are not (independent of mass). And preferably not by equivocating time with something proportional to ict. I want inertia to be taken into account, the way it really is, and no one is there yet. Time is inertia. Velocity is not independent of either mass nor relative state of motion, in any inertial reference frame.
    Last edited: May 9, 2016
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Yes, and I sincerely hope that they do, Ophiolite.
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member


Share This Page