Yes, Aqueous Id is truelly a scientific genius to discover that no one could possibly know anything about physics when they don't know how to spell. I am going to apply that to my own scientific work and say everything spelled correctly is scientifically true and everything with a spelling error would have to be scientifically false. I really see no better way to do real scientific work.
"Light is frame-dependent in PF, but constant in SR"
- Thread starter Maxila
- Start date
Thinking errors of every kind can be purged merely by a strenous application of axioms of geometry? That is fantastic! You clearly missed the whole point I was trying to make. I was introducing axioms of the geometry of relativity in order to get the correct proper time. Finding solutions in modern relativity this way is not generally accepted as being correct or an accurate solution. That is exactly what I was trying to do and show. You have simply fortified my position in saying this.
You end up getting solutions like this when two sides of your light triangle are the same distance, and then it will always simplify to 0 = 0. Two sides of a right triangle cannot be the same size and it still remain a right triangle. Because then they would have to intersect the third side at the same point, so then it would just be a line and not a triangle. That is one reason why it is important to assign different variables to different frames in relativity that cannot be exchanged for each other.
Are you serious?
A simple example — Take a square cut it in half corner to corner and you have two right triangles.., not two lines!
You could also look up the definition, say on Wiki, Wiki on right triangles.
I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify it please. I'm sure you know the two sides adjacent to the 90 degree angle can be the same size and it would still be a right triangle; a bit more specificity would be helpful.
Maxila
Then it should now be painfully obvious why "lights physical change" and "1/5c" were both very poor ways to say what you now claim you meant, and no wonder that these warranted the responses they did.
But it is obvious you are incapable of admitting error, contrary to your claim otherwise.
One side adjacent to the 90 degree angle and the hypotenus cannot be the same size. The hypotenus has to be at an angle from one of the sides adjacent to the 90 degree angle. If it was the same length as one of those sides then it could not be at another angle and still be the same size as the other side. It would then have to be the same line. This is what causes the relationship to give equations of 0 = 0. One side would have to be zero in length inorder for it to allow the other two sides to be the same length. So then it falls on the same line.
That is true, but the hypotenus cannot be the same length as the other sides. The hypotenus in that case is then a different length than the other two sides even though they are congruent. An equilateral triangle does not have a 90 degree angle.
Sorry for delays in replying Maxilla, Been bouncing around the country due to work and not had much time or inclination to come onto the forum for a few days.
For example, it is possible to reformulate a large amount of probability theory into different geometry language through the use of the Fisher information metric. This then allows people familiar with differential geometry to bring to bear a lot of tools developed by people like Riemann (Riemannian geometry is at the heart of relativity) to solve probability problems. Only someone ignorant of the history of mathematical physics would say what you said.
But if you're so awesome perhaps you could just rattle off a few answers to these. Introductory course in special relativity for undergraduates. Surely no problem for someone who considers themselves better than Einstein, right?
Then you are provably delusional.
You haven't done anything novel. The rearrangement to get $$t' = \gamma t$$ is well known from the light clock example. It gives a transform for a very particular case, namely a time-like observer of light, but it is extremely limited in its application. It is something anyone with rudimentary algebra abilities can do but it doesn't give any insight into Lorentz transforms.
Seriously? You've just asked why do we need a new way of viewing a model. What harm can more understanding give? Until Minkowski reformulated special relativity into being essentially the geometry of a Lorentzian space-time the transforms for SR and the group structure they have are somewhat clumpsy in their interpretation. Once the geometric view point was given then Lorentz transforms become the isometries of the space-time metric. This then served as the starting interpretation for general relativity, where gravity is geometry. I know you're completely ignorant of the inner workings of relativity (special or general), whatever you might claim, so you don't realise the use of different mathematical tools but that's your problem, not anyone else's.
For example, it is possible to reformulate a large amount of probability theory into different geometry language through the use of the Fisher information metric. This then allows people familiar with differential geometry to bring to bear a lot of tools developed by people like Riemann (Riemannian geometry is at the heart of relativity) to solve probability problems. Only someone ignorant of the history of mathematical physics would say what you said.
You never prove equations, you only verify their approximate validity within a limited domain.
Yes, who cares whether you use flawed reasoning and reach unjustified conclusions
I can only conclude you're trolling. The alternative is too depressing to consider.
But if you're so awesome perhaps you could just rattle off a few answers to these. Introductory course in special relativity for undergraduates. Surely no problem for someone who considers themselves better than Einstein, right?
It doesn't reduce to 0=0. Clearly you've never done any Lorentz transform calculations, which means you'll be unable to do any of the questions asked in that problem sheet I just linked to.
You've obviously failed to understand what is going on here, a result of the problem you have with thinking in terms of spatial lengths, that's a very Newtonian way to view things. You can get away with it somewhat with the light clock example but it doesn't work in more general cases. The Euclidean metric is $$ds^{2} = dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}$$, with time not coming into it. Any Galilean transform will preserve this metric, ie translations and rotations. Special relativity modifies this to say "It is not the spatial part which is invariant and the time part separately invariant but they form a single invariant combination $$ds^{2} = -dt^{2} + dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}$$". Now you have to consider not just the length of a path in space but also in time. Obviously any transform which leads the time part alone and leaves the spatial part invariant will leave that combination invariant, ie translations and rotations, but there are now additional transformations, namely boosts, which leave the combination invariant by mixing the time and space parts.
Anyone who has done any Euclidean geometry will know how Pythagoras's theorem generalised to N dimensions, ie if you move $$dx$$ in one direction, $$dy$$ in another and $$dz$$ in the third then you've moved $$ds$$ in total from your starting place where $$ds^{2} = dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}$$. This is just the Euclidean distance. Someone in a different set of coordinates, linked to yours by a Galilean transform, will see you to have moved by an amount dx' in the x' direction, dy' in the y' direction and dz' in the z' direction but and while $$dx \neq dx'$$ etc might be the case we know that $$dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2} = (dx')^{2} + (dy')^{2} + (dz')^{2}$$ by construction of the Galilean transforms. All the sides of this 'cube' formed from the 3 directions might change but the diagonal has the same length.
Fine for Euclidean geometry but in special relativity you also consider the amount of time it took to do that, dt. Special relativity says the length you have moved in space-time from your initial location is $$ds^{2} = -dt^{2} + dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}$$. This is a single length, a single little line element. Doing a Lorentz transform then gives different dt', dx', dy', dz' but the diagonal length in this non-Euclidean space is unchanged. If you don't like thinking about non-Euclidean structures (or more likely cannot) then consider that $$-dt^{2} + dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2} = -(dt')^{2} + (dx')^{2} + (dy')^{2} + (dz')^{2}$$ can rearrange to $$(dt')^{2} + dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2} = dt^{2} + (dx')^{2} + (dy')^{2} + (dz')^{2}$$. This we can now view in the same manner as the Euclidean case, we have 2 4d cubes with side lengths dt',dx,dy,dz and dt,dx',dy',dz' and although $$dt' \neq dt$$ etc might be the case the length of the diagonal from one corner to another is the same for each cube.
That is a highly non-trivial property, not this "oh it becomes 0=0" nonsense you said. Lorentz transforms modify and warp the cubes but always preserve the diagonal in the construction I've just given. If you have a transform $$(dt,dx,dy,dz) \to (dt',dx',dy',dz')$$ which results in the two cubes $$(dt',dx,dy,dz)$$ and $$(dt,dx',dy',dz')$$ not having the same diagonal length then you haven't got a Lorentz transform. The fact we've had to swap dt and dt' to give it a Euclidean interpretation (so you can understand it) makes this somewhat inelegant but clearly grasping non-Euclidean geometry is something you haven't gotten around to yet (I doubt you're capable of it anyway). The use of the geometric models of Minkowski, which you lambasted, makes all of this straight forward. You can view the Lorentz transforms as linear maps on a matrix of metric components, $$\eta_{ab} \to \Lambda^{c}_{a}\eta_{cd}\Lambda^{d}_{b} = \eta_{ab}$$. If the matrix isn't left unchanged then you don't have a Lorentz transform. That way you can avoid having to think about lengths of lines in non-Euclidean space and just crunch through some matrix-matrix products. But then something tells me you cannot do any matrix mathematics either.....
All you would have to do in that equation you gave that I was referring to is bring the variables to the other side. Then you would get negative gamma squared plus positive gamma squared. The left side would then be zero, and then the right side would be zero, since negative gamma squared plus positive gamma squared would then be zero. If it reduces to 0 = 0 then it is no longer a relation to a right triangle.
$$-dt^{2} + dx^{2} = -(dt')^{2} + (dx')^{2}$$
$$ 0 = - \gamma^{2} + \gamma^{2}$$
$$ 0 = 0 $$
You mean "truly".
It takes no genius whatsoever to respond as I did. So far you are one of the very few people here who claims genius exceeding that of celebrated scientists. I'm not aware of your "scientific" work, but you evidently never had to calibrate for time dilation, or you wouldn't be calling it "dialation". This speaks to your lack of familiarity with the subject. That was the point, not one of spelling per se. I was arguing that if you don't grasp fundamentals, you aren't in a position to represent yourself as a teacher or person of superior wisdom. Spelling faux pas may be typos, or the product of haste and oversight, or they may reveal a glaring lack of preparation. In your case, the latter applies. More to the point is the connection I made between this and your apparent lack of understanding of time rate of change, i.e., differential calculus. It's freshman material, not the stumbling block of a teacher and self-proclaimed genius, one who would claim
I said that because from reading books I have found that spacetime dilation (happy now?) is actually a difference in time, and from a lot of people on the net that claim to be real scientist, they say that it is only an illusion. From my mathmatical proof, I have shown that it is not simply an illusion of the perceived time and it is the actual difference in time of how they would measure it and experience it. The mathmatical proof for that side has been missing, I have demostrated how that is possible to show mathmatically. Almost all of the famous scientist that write about this stuff are under the same opionion but it is nothing special, the only difference is that I have shown it mathmatically when they have not.
I admit that I am a bad speller, but just because you are bad at one thing does not mean that you are bad at everything else. People that have better abilities in one area are often said to have lackings in others. I was always good at math and science through school, and I have always been bad in spelling and literature. I just have not read on the subject in a long time, and it is pronounced more like dialation, and not dilation, so then I spell it dialation because that is more like how the pronounciation sounds. I sound out words in order to spell them. I don't memorize how words are spelled. Their are probably a ton of spelling errors in this, but I don't really care. I am not going to be turning it in to an english teacher. And if they can't spell words like how they are pronounced, that is not my problem. They should spell them better when they make them up.
I often pronounce words incorrectly because I have only read them and then I pronounce them the way they would sound because of the way they are spelled. It is then hard to pronounce them correctly because I have thought them allowed in my head so many times the wrong way. The english language is known for this, and I took the shortcut of sounding things out and knowing the rules of how they are supposed to be spelled and pronounced. So then words do not go along with that method, then I spell and pronounce them wrong. It is a fallacy of the english language and is the worst of most languages in this respect.
On another note, I made up the word multiverse. It seemed to catch on very well... It got too clucky thinking about it otherwise. It really saved a lot of time thinking about it. So remember everytime someone says multiverse they are just repeating something Prof.Layman just made up, lol.
Last edited:
Are you really this stupid?
Stupidism = The right to be stupid and to remain so indefinitely.
Ineducable fool.
How would I know if you didn't even tell me what was dumb about it? So yes, I think I still reserve that right.
Didn't you say that you know relativity theory as well as Einstein did? You're the poster child for the dummy level of the Dunning and Kruger effect. I would suggest you need a timeout to figure out what that means.
At least I don't claim to be a particle phycisist and that time doesn't even exist. There is a lot of debate on the net if time is an actual thing and if time actually goes slower, and I think I have proven mathmatically that it is and does. I haven't seen anyone else doing that, or even making an attempt, or even a valid attempt to disprove that, what I have done. I just get trolled with nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual science. This is a prime example of that.
Last edited:
By now you should have absorbed from the folks who have a formal education in math and science that relativity follows the laws set forth by Lorentz & Einstein, et al. Conversations about illusion do not alter this.
Here you are simply demonstrating that you never read any important treatise on relativity, beginning with Einstein's 1905 paper, and that you couldn't understand them if you did actually read them.
That's impossible without any knowledge of basic math.
In your case you lack both the language and math of science.
You haven't yet demonstrated high school proficiency in math or science.
No, it's pronounced "dilation", just like it's spelled:
http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=dilation&submit=Submit
You mean like a beginning reader?
It's never too late to try to develop yourself. But you would first have to drop the pretense. More to the point, you would have to drop it to get anywhere discussing technical topics here.
Along with dropping pretense, you would have to stop blaming the authoritative source materials (and experts) for your lack of training.
A legend in your own mind.
That statement pretty well speaks for itself.
I don't even feel like responding to this garbage, let me know when you decide to grow up Aquous ID, you will need one for the amount of trolling you do. Are you proud of yourself now?
You need some self analysis before you go full psychotic and wind up grazing the funny farm.