Remenber this? It's from the 1905 manifesto:

t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z

These were the Lorentz transform for motion along x axis.

As physicists were ashamed of repeating the same decade after decade, they decided to rewrite exactly the same shit, but with a different odor:
Enter Minkowski and spacetime.

With ds = (cdτ)² = (cdt)² - dx² - dy² - dz² = (cdt)² - drᵛ . drᵛ , (ᵛ is for vector),

the spacetime 4-vector is defined by

Rᵛ = Matrix |ct / rᵛ|, so that Rᵛ. Rᵛ = (ct)² - x² - y² - z²

The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime coordinates. They are defined so that the length of a four-vector is invariant under a coordinate transformation, due to the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. Following this, the definition of the energy-momentum four-vector was introduced, under the premise that the rest mass of a particle is invariant under coordinate transformations.

The use of matrixes and tensor notation gave the basic transforms a new shape and room to play with REDEFINITION of terms of classic physics. So
you have:

1. Four-position
2. Four-gradient
3. Four-velocity
4. Four-acceleration
5. Four-momentum
6. Four-force
7. Four-energy/momentum
8. Four-current
9. Four-potential
10. Four-frequency
11. Four-wavevector
12. Four-heat flux
13. Four-entropy
14. Four-spin
15. Four-rotation
16. Four-boost

As you can see, FOUR opened a door to legions of imbeciles to try an entire redefinition of the classic mechanics, thermodynamics, kinematics and electromagnetism under spacetime.

But, how different is this FOUR shit from the 1905 manifesto? It only takes to analyze how is managed the first one: FOUR-POSITION.

Matrix S' = Matrix L . Matrix S

OR

|ct'| = |γ....... -βγ......0......0| |ct|
|x' | = |-βγ....... γ......0......0| |x |
|y' | = |0...........0......1......0| |y |
|z' | = |0...........0......0......1| |z |

If you do the math, like you learned in high school, you get a new matrix

|ct'| = |γct - βγx| = |γc (t - vx/c²)|
|x' | = |-β γct + γx| = |γ (x - vt)|
|y' | = |y |
|z' | = |z |

See? 1905 Lorentz transforms.

So, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. SAME SHIT WITH DIFFERENT ODOR.

From this on, the 12 remaining FOUR redefinition (except Dirac's 7.
Four-energy/momentum, 15 and 16) are just rewritings of OLD FORMULAE, seeking to bury old physics with new jargon and notations.

This is why you have Tom's behavior with FOUR, of which he fills his MOUTH all the time. FOUR shit here, FOUR shit there, FOUR shit everywhere.

And THIS HAPPENS because relativists CAN'T GET A FUCKING NEW IDEA beyond 1905, so they are rewriting to DISGUISE their IMPOTENCE, IGNORANCE and LACK OF INTELLECT when it comes to justify the STUPID 1905 RELATIVITY.

El lunes, 15 de mayo de 2023 a las 19:26:14 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:

>
> So, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. SAME SHIT WITH DIFFERENT ODOR.
>
> From this on, the 12 remaining FOUR redefinition (except Dirac's 7.
> Four-energy/momentum, 15 and 16) are just rewritings of OLD FORMULAE, seeking to bury old physics with new jargon and notations.
>
> This is why you have Tom's behavior with FOUR, of which he fills his MOUTH all the time. FOUR shit here, FOUR shit there, FOUR shit everywhere.
>
> And THIS HAPPENS because relativists CAN'T GET A FUCKING NEW IDEA beyond 1905, so they are rewriting to DISGUISE their IMPOTENCE, IGNORANCE and LACK OF INTELLECT when it comes to justify the STUPID 1905 RELATIVITY.

Do you really have a point?

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:52:26 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 15 de mayo de 2023 a las 19:26:14 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
>
> >
> > So, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. SAME SHIT WITH DIFFERENT ODOR.
> >
> > From this on, the 12 remaining FOUR redefinition (except Dirac's 7.
> > Four-energy/momentum, 15 and 16) are just rewritings of OLD FORMULAE, seeking to bury old physics with new jargon and notations.
> >
> > This is why you have Tom's behavior with FOUR, of which he fills his MOUTH all the time. FOUR shit here, FOUR shit there, FOUR shit everywhere.
> >
> > And THIS HAPPENS because relativists CAN'T GET A FUCKING NEW IDEA beyond 1905, so they are rewriting to DISGUISE their IMPOTENCE, IGNORANCE and LACK OF INTELLECT when it comes to justify the STUPID 1905 RELATIVITY.
> Do you really have a point?

I thought I was clear: The FOUR-xyz jargon is just the same crap as 1905 high school math based paper, only that WIDENED the
SR narrative, using snob and pretentious mathematics.

Not a single concept has been added to the stupid ideas of the 1905 SR, except changing xyzt by x₁x₂x₃x₄, in order to disguise the
stupidity of 4D spacetime, being time a physical dimension, ORTHOGONAL to the other three. That's why it is called pseudo-riemannian.

Also, I criticize the attempt to replace all of classic physics, as I detailed, by this FOUR-xyz crap.

The fact that Lorentz rotation was introduced to align ANY xyz direction of motion to the original motion on x axis only is another proof
of the lack of intellectual power and creativity of relativists. Plus, the use of Lorentz boost makes me puke.

Relativists HAVE NOTHING NEW to bring on the table after more than one century, because relativity is METAPHYSICS,
a PSEUDOSCIENCE that can't milked anymore.

So, I'd propose to relativists to popularize the stupid theory in CANTONESE, so it looks like something new and fancy.

In this way, Tom could be parroting around with his FOUR-shit gaining new adepts, because currently he's beyond boredom,
and yet has the face to call himself a researcher on relativity.

On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime coordinates.

And your problem with that is?

First, it's not "Tom's" four-vectors. It is used for relativistic
physics everywhere, and the four (instead of three for ordinary space)
is to include the time dimension with the other three space dimensions,
and this simplifies things a lot, especially when the four vectors wind
up having certain characteristics.

On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
>> coordinates.
>
> And your problem with that is?

The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
form a 4-vector.

Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.

The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> >> coordinates.
> >
> > And your problem with that is?
> The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> form a 4-vector.
>
> Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
>
> The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
>
> Tom Roberts

The redefinition of SR mathematics around 4-vectors has clearly two main objectives:

1) To use 4D conception to replace every single 3D+t conceptions of classic physics in every possible field. It represents
the aspiration of relativists to erase 300+ years of newtonian/maxwellian physics by the farce of einstenian pseudo-physics.

2) To disguise the stupid and infantile expressions that plague the 1905 SR manifesto by using fancy mathematics (matrix, tensors),
coupled with Minkowski's spacetime, so SR can be presented as a serious theory centered in Lorentz and constant c.
In this way, it looks like that SR has made advances since the 1905 crap, when in reality nothing has changed in 118 years
(except the attempt to bury the shameful and incredibly stupid concepts of length contraction and different versions of masses).

But, even when Gamma factor and v are being tried to be hidden under the carpet with crap like 4-vector energy/momentum, the real
thing is that relativists can't extract more milk from the SR cow, so they are frenetically seeking a new animal to provide more milk.
But this won't happen, because SR is brain-dead as it can't provide answers to explain infinities of masses when the speed c is almost
reached. Nor old/new SR can solve paradoxes or explain how come any length come to zero, or any time duration come to infinity in
the upper limit of motion near c. And the entire set of imbecilities is what makes SR NOT REASONABLE, NONPHYSICAL and just
a PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY to be used by intellectuals in café meetings to discuss about eternal youth and the relativity of being.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:51:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > >> coordinates.
> > >
> > > And your problem with that is?
> > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > form a 4-vector.
> >
> > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
> >
> > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> The redefinition of SR mathematics around 4-vectors has clearly two main objectives:
>
> 1) To use 4D conception to replace every single 3D+t conceptions of classic physics in every possible field. It represents
> the aspiration of relativists to erase 300+ years of newtonian/maxwellian physics by the farce of einstenian pseudo-physics.
>
> 2) To disguise the stupid and infantile expressions that plague the 1905 SR manifesto by using fancy mathematics (matrix, tensors),
> coupled with Minkowski's spacetime, so SR can be presented as a serious theory centered in Lorentz and constant c.
> In this way, it looks like that SR has made advances since the 1905 crap, when in reality nothing has changed in 118 years
> (except the attempt to bury the shameful and incredibly stupid concepts of length contraction and different versions of masses).
>
>
> But, even when Gamma factor and v are being tried to be hidden under the carpet with crap like 4-vector energy/momentum, the real
> thing is that relativists can't extract more milk from the SR cow, so they are frenetically seeking a new animal to provide more milk.

Lovely similes, Richard.

And thank you for pointing out the attempt to conceal gamma and it's odious "v". The tensor treatment of SR provides new grist for our logico-mathmatical mills to grind away on.

> But this won't happen, because SR is brain-dead as it can't provide answers to explain infinities of masses when the speed c is almost
> reached. Nor old/new SR can solve paradoxes or explain how come any length come to zero, or any time duration come to infinity in
> the upper limit of motion near c. And the entire set of imbecilities is what makes SR NOT REASONABLE, NONPHYSICAL and just
> a PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY to be used by intellectuals in café meetings to discuss about eternal youth and the relativity of being.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 8:01:53 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:51:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:10:18 AM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > > >> coordinates.
> > > >
> > > > And your problem with that is?
> > > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > > form a 4-vector.
> > >
> > > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
> > >
> > > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > The redefinition of SR mathematics around 4-vectors has clearly two main objectives:
> >
> > 1) To use 4D conception to replace every single 3D+t conceptions of classic physics in every possible field. It represents
> > the aspiration of relativists to erase 300+ years of newtonian/maxwellian physics by the farce of einstenian pseudo-physics.
> >
> > 2) To disguise the stupid and infantile expressions that plague the 1905 SR manifesto by using fancy mathematics (matrix, tensors),
> > coupled with Minkowski's spacetime, so SR can be presented as a serious theory centered in Lorentz and constant c.
> > In this way, it looks like that SR has made advances since the 1905 crap, when in reality nothing has changed in 118 years
> > (except the attempt to bury the shameful and incredibly stupid concepts of length contraction and different versions of masses).
> >
> >
> > But, even when Gamma factor and v are being tried to be hidden under the carpet with crap like 4-vector energy/momentum, the real
> > thing is that relativists can't extract more milk from the SR cow, so they are frenetically seeking a new animal to provide more milk.
> Lovely similes, Richard.
>
> And thank you for pointing out the attempt to conceal gamma and it's odious "v". The tensor treatment of SR provides new grist for our logico-mathmatical mills to grind away on.
> > But this won't happen, because SR is brain-dead as it can't provide answers to explain infinities of masses when the speed c is almost
> > reached. Nor old/new SR can solve paradoxes or explain how come any length come to zero, or any time duration come to infinity in
> > the upper limit of motion near c. And the entire set of imbecilities is what makes SR NOT REASONABLE, NONPHYSICAL and just
> > a PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY to be used by intellectuals in café meetings to discuss about eternal youth and the relativity of being.
The tensor smoke screen has been successfully used to hide the GR farce since 1915. Don't believe me? Then I dare you to use GR to calculate the normal force exerted on a tabletop by a brick. Show your work.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:10:18 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> >> coordinates.
> >
> > And your problem with that is?
> The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> form a 4-vector.
>
> Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.

> The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
>
> Tom Roberts

I'd say a 4-vector is a geometrical object with a magnitude and orientation in Minkowski space-time: Hence all 4-vectors of some physical quantity can be assigned 4 numbers that allows us to compute its magnitude and orientation relative to other 4-vectors. This can be done in various ways with some more computationally efficient than others. This was a huge step from previously believing that the physical world was Euclidean, composed of physical objects with a magnitude and orientation in 3d space with time a separate parameter.

You saying that 4-vectors are rank-1 tensors I find to be similar to this quote from Zee's book:

---start quote---
A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor

Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, 'What exactly is a tensor?' I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, "A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor."
---end quote---

Larry

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:10:18 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > >> coordinates.
> > >
> > > And your problem with that is?
> > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > form a 4-vector.
> >
> > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
>
> > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> I'd say a 4-vector is a geometrical object with a magnitude and orientation in Minkowski space-time: Hence all 4-vectors of some physical quantity can be assigned 4 numbers that allows us to compute its magnitude and orientation relative to other 4-vectors. This can be done in various ways with some more computationally efficient than others. This was a huge step from previously believing that the physical world was Euclidean, composed of physical objects with a magnitude and orientation in 3d space with time a separate parameter.
>
> You saying that 4-vectors are rank-1 tensors I find to be similar to this quote from Zee's book:
>
> ---start quote---
> A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor
>
> Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, 'What exactly is a tensor?' I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, "A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor."
> ---end quote---
>
> Larry

I was interested in the derivation of 4-momentum, done by three or four university professors, and in particular HOW COME
TIME component might have momentum.

Every presentation, used in their classrooms, was different. One, in particular, made c=1, what makes the reading of the material PAINFUL.
In a given time, the imbecile LOST THE COUNT about where c=1 should exist, giving a horrible equation where energy was equal
to momentum. Poor students.

But the worse, by far, was the development since the 4-velocity expression, because GAMMA FACTOR was used as calculated from
the module of velocity, which is the speed v.

But the cretin, even when motion on x,y,z axis was independent, applied the Gamma Factor for the speed v, instead of ONE GAMMA
FACTOR per dimension, as v_x, v_y and v_z are completely different.Also, used this general Gamma Factor (which is INCORRECT)
for the momentum of the time component of the spacetime interval.

And the imbecile relativists THINK that the 4-SHIT is a serious advance over classic physics (all of it).

Things like this make me puke.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Remenber this? It's from the 1905 manifesto:
>
> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> y' = y
> z' = z
>
> These were the Lorentz transform for motion along x axis.
>
> As physicists were ashamed of repeating the same decade after decade, they decided to rewrite exactly the same shit, but with a different odor:
> Enter Minkowski and spacetime.

No, that was not the reason. The rest of your post is asinine.

--
Jan

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 1:01:52 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Remenber this? It's from the 1905 manifesto:
> >
> > t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
> > x' = γ (x - vt)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> >
> > These were the Lorentz transform for motion along x axis.
> >
> > As physicists were ashamed of repeating the same decade after decade, they decided to rewrite exactly the same shit, but with a different odor:
> > Enter Minkowski and spacetime.
> No, that was not the reason. The rest of your post is asinine.
>
> --
> Jan

Explain how come the TIME component of spacetime interval has MOMENTUM, exerts FORCE or has VELOCITY, just to start.

On 5/21/2023 12:04 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 1:01:52 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> Remenber this? It's from the 1905 manifesto:
>>>
>>> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
>>> x' = γ (x - vt)
>>> y' = y
>>> z' = z
>>>
>>> These were the Lorentz transform for motion along x axis.
>>>
>>> As physicists were ashamed of repeating the same decade after decade, they decided to rewrite exactly the same shit, but with a different odor:
>>> Enter Minkowski and spacetime.
>> No, that was not the reason. The rest of your post is asinine.

> Explain how come the TIME component of spacetime interval has MOMENTUM, exerts FORCE or has VELOCITY, just to start.
>
The time component is energy, fool. Look up the energy-momentum vector.
It indicates conservation of energy and of momentum are really the same
thing.

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 2:06:36 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 5/21/2023 12:04 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > Explain how come the TIME component of spacetime interval has MOMENTUM, exerts FORCE or has VELOCITY, just to start.
> >
> The time component is energy, fool. Look up the energy-momentum vector.
> It indicates conservation of energy and of momentum are really the same thing.

I think that you just replied using stored data in your relativity ROM. You are not thinking!

One thing is PURE MATHEMATICS intruding into the realm of physics, thanks to Minkowski, Grossman and Hilbert.

A completely different thing is applying mathematics, BY A PHYSICIST, in order to explain events or develop models THAT FIT THE DATA.

Some examples are: Maxwell, Planck, Sagnac, Heaviside, Bohr, Schrödinger, Shockley, Ebers-Moll, etc.

Forcing the concept of indissoluble spacetime, due to the alleged constancy of c, with a temporal fourth dimension ict, generates
a great number of stupid applications of 4-vectors, where the TIME COMPONENT is given a mathematical (not physical) value.

I cited 4-velocity and 4-force too, but you didn't comment about it BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWER. You just quote what
you read like a PARROT.

Explain the rationality of the role derived for the fourth dimension (TIME) in the following list. Please THINK, don't act as a PARROT:

Four-velocity
Four-acceleration
Four-momentum
Four-force
Four-energy/momentum
Four-current
Four-potential
Four-frequency
Four-wavevector
Four-heat flux
Four-entropy
Four-spin

YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLE OF TIME AS HAVING ANY PHYSICAL MEANING IN ANYTHING FROM THE ABOVE LIST.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:54:07 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:10:18 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > > >> coordinates.
> > > >
> > > > And your problem with that is?
> > > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > > form a 4-vector.
> > >
> > > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
> >
> > > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > I'd say a 4-vector is a geometrical object with a magnitude and orientation in Minkowski space-time: Hence all 4-vectors of some physical quantity can be assigned 4 numbers that allows us to compute its magnitude and orientation relative to other 4-vectors. This can be done in various ways with some more computationally efficient than others. This was a huge step from previously believing that the physical world was Euclidean, composed of physical objects with a magnitude and orientation in 3d space with time a separate parameter.
> >
> > You saying that 4-vectors are rank-1 tensors I find to be similar to this quote from Zee's book:
> >
> > ---start quote---
> > A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor
> >
> > Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, 'What exactly is a tensor?' I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, "A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor."
> > ---end quote---
> >
> > Larry
> I was interested in the derivation of 4-momentum, done by three or four university professors, and in particular HOW COME
> TIME component might have momentum.
>
> Every presentation, used in their classrooms, was different. One, in particular, made c=1, what makes the reading of the material PAINFUL.
> In a given time, the imbecile LOST THE COUNT about where c=1 should exist, giving a horrible equation where energy was equal
> to momentum. Poor students.
>
> But the worse, by far, was the development since the 4-velocity expression, because GAMMA FACTOR was used as calculated from
> the module of velocity, which is the speed v.
>
> But the cretin, even when motion on x,y,z axis was independent, applied the Gamma Factor for the speed v, instead of ONE GAMMA
> FACTOR per dimension, as v_x, v_y and v_z are completely different.Also, used this general Gamma Factor (which is INCORRECT)
> for the momentum of the time component of the spacetime interval.
>
> And the imbecile relativists THINK that the 4-SHIT is a serious advance over classic physics (all of it).
>
> Things like this make me puke.

I thought the same way when I started to learn about SR in trying to stick to a 3d Euclidean way of initially trying to understanding it via Einstein's 1905 paper. The MIT book Special Relativity by AP French does the same, defining a relativistic 3-force which, upon reflection, now seems pointless to me.

So over the years I've changed my mind and can now see that the above is pointless time wasting: four-vectors should be taught from the start as quickly as possible, emphasizing the hyperbolic geometry of flat space-time. The problem I've come across is that various teachers have their unique ways of defining a 4-vector which I've found confusing. Minkowski first defined four-vectors in his famous 1908 lecture which can be found online here with a very useful historical commentary:
https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~b3tran/cgm/Minkowski_SpaceAndTime_1909.pdf

But it's not easy reading for a beginner. I've found page 48 of Gravitation pretty easy to understand in comparison:
https://archive.org/details/GravitationMisnerThorneWheeler/page/n71/mode/1up

Larry

On 5/21/2023 6:00 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 2:06:36 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 5/21/2023 12:04 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Explain how come the TIME component of spacetime interval has MOMENTUM, exerts FORCE or has VELOCITY, just to start.
>>>
>> The time component is energy, fool. Look up the energy-momentum vector.
>> It indicates conservation of energy and of momentum are really the same thing.
>
> I think that you just replied using stored data in your relativity ROM. You are not thinking!

Anyone can look up such things on Google. When I do so I read some of
the hits.
>
> One thing is PURE MATHEMATICS intruding into the realm of physics, thanks to Minkowski, Grossman and Hilbert.

Physics is based on Models, and frequently the models have a math basis.
>
> A completely different thing is applying mathematics, BY A PHYSICIST, in order to explain events or develop models THAT FIT THE DATA.

Which is what happens.

> Some examples are: Maxwell, Planck, Sagnac, Heaviside, Bohr, Schrödinger, Shockley, Ebers-Moll, etc.
Einstein, Minkowski, Grossman and Hilbert as well.
>
> Forcing the concept of indissoluble spacetime, due to the alleged constancy of c,

More than "alleged". At Einstein's time all attempts to measure the
speed of light came up with c, regardless of the velocity of the source.

> with a temporal fourth dimension ict,

It turns out that's the best way to model it.

> generates a great number of stupid applications of 4-vectors, where the TIME COMPONENT is given a mathematical (not physical) value.

It has as much meaning as the others. Or do you disbelieve in energy?
>
> I cited 4-velocity and 4-force too, but you didn't comment about it BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWER.

You can research such things as well as anybody.

> You just quote what
> you read like a PARROT.
>
> Explain the rationality of the role derived for the fourth dimension (TIME) in the following list. Please THINK, don't act as a PARROT:
>
> Four-velocity

If velocity is the rate of change of position, four-velocity should be
the rate of change of four-position using proper time, correct?

> Four-acceleration

If acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, four-acceleration
should be the rate of change of four-velocity over proper time.

> Four-momentum

(Invariant) Mass * four-velocity.

> Four-force

(Invariant) Mass * four-acceleration

> Four-energy/momentum

Already answered.

> Four-current

The 3d current and the charge through/in a small volume.

> Four-potential
> Four-frequency
> Four-wavevector
> Four-heat flux
> Four-entropy
> Four-spin
>
> YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLE OF TIME AS HAVING ANY PHYSICAL MEANING IN ANYTHING FROM THE ABOVE LIST.

You just have to figure out/look up what the time component means in
each case. For example, four-current in an incremental volume has 3 3D
current components and the time component is charge. Four position is
simple; it's just the x,y,z,t components of an event.

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:50:55 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:54:07 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:10:18 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > > > >> coordinates.
> > > > >
> > > > > And your problem with that is?
> > > > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > > > form a 4-vector.
> > > >
> > > > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS..
> > >
> > > > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > > > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > > > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > > > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > > > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Roberts
> > > I'd say a 4-vector is a geometrical object with a magnitude and orientation in Minkowski space-time: Hence all 4-vectors of some physical quantity can be assigned 4 numbers that allows us to compute its magnitude and orientation relative to other 4-vectors. This can be done in various ways with some more computationally efficient than others. This was a huge step from previously believing that the physical world was Euclidean, composed of physical objects with a magnitude and orientation in 3d space with time a separate parameter.
> > >
> > > You saying that 4-vectors are rank-1 tensors I find to be similar to this quote from Zee's book:
> > >
> > > ---start quote---
> > > A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor
> > >
> > > Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, 'What exactly is a tensor?' I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, "A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor."
> > > ---end quote---
> > >
> > > Larry
> > I was interested in the derivation of 4-momentum, done by three or four university professors, and in particular HOW COME
> > TIME component might have momentum.
> >
> > Every presentation, used in their classrooms, was different. One, in particular, made c=1, what makes the reading of the material PAINFUL.
> > In a given time, the imbecile LOST THE COUNT about where c=1 should exist, giving a horrible equation where energy was equal
> > to momentum. Poor students.
> >
> > But the worse, by far, was the development since the 4-velocity expression, because GAMMA FACTOR was used as calculated from
> > the module of velocity, which is the speed v.
> >
> > But the cretin, even when motion on x,y,z axis was independent, applied the Gamma Factor for the speed v, instead of ONE GAMMA
> > FACTOR per dimension, as v_x, v_y and v_z are completely different.Also, used this general Gamma Factor (which is INCORRECT)
> > for the momentum of the time component of the spacetime interval.
> >
> > And the imbecile relativists THINK that the 4-SHIT is a serious advance over classic physics (all of it).
> >
> > Things like this make me puke.
> I thought the same way when I started to learn about SR in trying to stick to a 3d Euclidean way of initially trying to understanding it via Einstein's 1905 paper. The MIT book Special Relativity by AP French does the same, defining a relativistic 3-force which, upon reflection, now seems pointless to me.
>
> So over the years I've changed my mind and can now see that the above is pointless time wasting: four-vectors should be taught from the start as quickly as possible, emphasizing the hyperbolic geometry of flat space-time. The problem I've come across is that various teachers have their unique ways of defining a 4-vector which I've found confusing. Minkowski first defined four-vectors in his famous 1908 lecture which can be found online here with a very useful historical commentary:
> https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~b3tran/cgm/Minkowski_SpaceAndTime_1909.pdf
>
> But it's not easy reading for a beginner. I've found page 48 of Gravitation pretty easy to understand in comparison:
> https://archive.org/details/GravitationMisnerThorneWheeler/page/n71/mode/1up
>
> Larry

According to Tom Roberts, 4-vector math is essential to understand events and behaviors in particle physics. This implies to bring
spacetime intervals to the quantum world, the world of things existing below 10E-10 meters, the average size of atoms.

In this case Tom and, as I can foresee, you, accept that Minkowski mathematical theory is close to the developments about quantum
gravity theories, on which SPACETIME is the essential building block.

Maybe you both should join forums on that matter, as it's far from what SR means in THIS forum.

Spacetime is the invention of a mathematician, after which legions of bored rookie physicists ran, because it was fashionable and trendy.

But spacetime has NO SUBSTANCE by itself, it's a mathematical construct that has been carried so far away as to call it the fabric of the
universe. Nothing more irrational, sterile and yet fertile ground for the generations of physicists and mathematicians that have created
a mystic context, only available in its meaning for those who adhere to SR and GR under the language of tensors and differential geometry.

It's just plastic, synthetic matter with no grounds on reality. Only in the library of mathematical developments of developments that
were piled up since its inception, spacetime find its role, sadly unrelated to the reality of nature.

For me, it's just some kind of snob under-world, with no value except for the vain, narcissists physicists that want to show off, like peacocks, trying to impress people: "Look how smart I am. Look mom, no hands!".

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:59:33 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:50:55 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:54:07 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:10:18 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > > > > >> coordinates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And your problem with that is?
> > > > > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > > > > form a 4-vector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
> > > >
> > > > > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > > > > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > > > > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > > > > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > > > > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > I'd say a 4-vector is a geometrical object with a magnitude and orientation in Minkowski space-time: Hence all 4-vectors of some physical quantity can be assigned 4 numbers that allows us to compute its magnitude and orientation relative to other 4-vectors. This can be done in various ways with some more computationally efficient than others. This was a huge step from previously believing that the physical world was Euclidean, composed of physical objects with a magnitude and orientation in 3d space with time a separate parameter.
> > > >
> > > > You saying that 4-vectors are rank-1 tensors I find to be similar to this quote from Zee's book:
> > > >
> > > > ---start quote---
> > > > A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor
> > > >
> > > > Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, 'What exactly is a tensor?' I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, "A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor."
> > > > ---end quote---
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > > I was interested in the derivation of 4-momentum, done by three or four university professors, and in particular HOW COME
> > > TIME component might have momentum.
> > >
> > > Every presentation, used in their classrooms, was different. One, in particular, made c=1, what makes the reading of the material PAINFUL.
> > > In a given time, the imbecile LOST THE COUNT about where c=1 should exist, giving a horrible equation where energy was equal
> > > to momentum. Poor students.
> > >
> > > But the worse, by far, was the development since the 4-velocity expression, because GAMMA FACTOR was used as calculated from
> > > the module of velocity, which is the speed v.
> > >
> > > But the cretin, even when motion on x,y,z axis was independent, applied the Gamma Factor for the speed v, instead of ONE GAMMA
> > > FACTOR per dimension, as v_x, v_y and v_z are completely different.Also, used this general Gamma Factor (which is INCORRECT)
> > > for the momentum of the time component of the spacetime interval.
> > >
> > > And the imbecile relativists THINK that the 4-SHIT is a serious advance over classic physics (all of it).
> > >
> > > Things like this make me puke.
> > I thought the same way when I started to learn about SR in trying to stick to a 3d Euclidean way of initially trying to understanding it via Einstein's 1905 paper. The MIT book Special Relativity by AP French does the same, defining a relativistic 3-force which, upon reflection, now seems pointless to me.
> >
> > So over the years I've changed my mind and can now see that the above is pointless time wasting: four-vectors should be taught from the start as quickly as possible, emphasizing the hyperbolic geometry of flat space-time. The problem I've come across is that various teachers have their unique ways of defining a 4-vector which I've found confusing. Minkowski first defined four-vectors in his famous 1908 lecture which can be found online here with a very useful historical commentary:
> > https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~b3tran/cgm/Minkowski_SpaceAndTime_1909.pdf
> >
> > But it's not easy reading for a beginner. I've found page 48 of Gravitation pretty easy to understand in comparison:
> > https://archive.org/details/GravitationMisnerThorneWheeler/page/n71/mode/1up
> >
> > Larry
> According to Tom Roberts, 4-vector math is essential to understand events and behaviors in particle physics. This implies to bring
> spacetime intervals to the quantum world, the world of things existing below 10E-10 meters, the average size of atoms.
>
> In this case Tom and, as I can foresee, you, accept that Minkowski mathematical theory is close to the developments about quantum
> gravity theories, on which SPACETIME is the essential building block.
>
> Maybe you both should join forums on that matter, as it's far from what SR means in THIS forum.
>
> Spacetime is the invention of a mathematician, after which legions of bored rookie physicists ran, because it was fashionable and trendy.
>
> But spacetime has NO SUBSTANCE by itself, it's a mathematical construct that has been carried so far away as to call it the fabric of the
> universe. Nothing more irrational, sterile and yet fertile ground for the generations of physicists and mathematicians that have created
> a mystic context, only available in its meaning for those who adhere to SR and GR under the language of tensors and differential geometry.
>
> It's just plastic, synthetic matter with no grounds on reality. Only in the library of mathematical developments of developments that
> were piled up since its inception, spacetime find its role, sadly unrelated to the reality of nature.
>
> For me, it's just some kind of snob under-world, with no value except for the vain, narcissists physicists that want to show off, like peacocks, trying to impress people: "Look how smart I am. Look mom, no hands!".

Can I ask what your professional career was/is?

I think I understand where you're coming from in that you'd rather people used Einstein's method in his 1905 paper of using the Lorentz transformations to transform space and time coordinates from one frame to another; when replying to your questions. It can be done, but I'm not sure if others will bother, since using 4-vectors will compute exactly the same results far more easily. This is why Einstein and others used it, and it's still used today.

Larry

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:09:21 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:59:33 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:50:55 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:54:07 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:10:18 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > > > > > >> coordinates.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And your problem with that is?
> > > > > > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > > > > > form a 4-vector.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > > > > > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > > > > > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > > > > > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > > > > > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > > I'd say a 4-vector is a geometrical object with a magnitude and orientation in Minkowski space-time: Hence all 4-vectors of some physical quantity can be assigned 4 numbers that allows us to compute its magnitude and orientation relative to other 4-vectors. This can be done in various ways with some more computationally efficient than others. This was a huge step from previously believing that the physical world was Euclidean, composed of physical objects with a magnitude and orientation in 3d space with time a separate parameter.
> > > > >
> > > > > You saying that 4-vectors are rank-1 tensors I find to be similar to this quote from Zee's book:
> > > > >
> > > > > ---start quote---
> > > > > A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor
> > > > >
> > > > > Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, 'What exactly is a tensor?' I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, "A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor."
> > > > > ---end quote---
> > > > >
> > > > > Larry
> > > > I was interested in the derivation of 4-momentum, done by three or four university professors, and in particular HOW COME
> > > > TIME component might have momentum.
> > > >
> > > > Every presentation, used in their classrooms, was different. One, in particular, made c=1, what makes the reading of the material PAINFUL.
> > > > In a given time, the imbecile LOST THE COUNT about where c=1 should exist, giving a horrible equation where energy was equal
> > > > to momentum. Poor students.
> > > >
> > > > But the worse, by far, was the development since the 4-velocity expression, because GAMMA FACTOR was used as calculated from
> > > > the module of velocity, which is the speed v.
> > > >
> > > > But the cretin, even when motion on x,y,z axis was independent, applied the Gamma Factor for the speed v, instead of ONE GAMMA
> > > > FACTOR per dimension, as v_x, v_y and v_z are completely different.Also, used this general Gamma Factor (which is INCORRECT)
> > > > for the momentum of the time component of the spacetime interval.
> > > >
> > > > And the imbecile relativists THINK that the 4-SHIT is a serious advance over classic physics (all of it).
> > > >
> > > > Things like this make me puke.
> > > I thought the same way when I started to learn about SR in trying to stick to a 3d Euclidean way of initially trying to understanding it via Einstein's 1905 paper. The MIT book Special Relativity by AP French does the same, defining a relativistic 3-force which, upon reflection, now seems pointless to me.
> > >
> > > So over the years I've changed my mind and can now see that the above is pointless time wasting: four-vectors should be taught from the start as quickly as possible, emphasizing the hyperbolic geometry of flat space-time. The problem I've come across is that various teachers have their unique ways of defining a 4-vector which I've found confusing. Minkowski first defined four-vectors in his famous 1908 lecture which can be found online here with a very useful historical commentary:
> > > https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~b3tran/cgm/Minkowski_SpaceAndTime_1909.pdf
> > >
> > > But it's not easy reading for a beginner. I've found page 48 of Gravitation pretty easy to understand in comparison:
> > > https://archive.org/details/GravitationMisnerThorneWheeler/page/n71/mode/1up
> > >
> > > Larry
> > According to Tom Roberts, 4-vector math is essential to understand events and behaviors in particle physics. This implies to bring
> > spacetime intervals to the quantum world, the world of things existing below 10E-10 meters, the average size of atoms.
> >
> > In this case Tom and, as I can foresee, you, accept that Minkowski mathematical theory is close to the developments about quantum
> > gravity theories, on which SPACETIME is the essential building block.
> >
> > Maybe you both should join forums on that matter, as it's far from what SR means in THIS forum.
> >
> > Spacetime is the invention of a mathematician, after which legions of bored rookie physicists ran, because it was fashionable and trendy.
> >
> > But spacetime has NO SUBSTANCE by itself, it's a mathematical construct that has been carried so far away as to call it the fabric of the
> > universe. Nothing more irrational, sterile and yet fertile ground for the generations of physicists and mathematicians that have created
> > a mystic context, only available in its meaning for those who adhere to SR and GR under the language of tensors and differential geometry.
> >
> > It's just plastic, synthetic matter with no grounds on reality. Only in the library of mathematical developments of developments that
> > were piled up since its inception, spacetime find its role, sadly unrelated to the reality of nature.
> >
> > For me, it's just some kind of snob under-world, with no value except for the vain, narcissists physicists that want to show off, like peacocks, trying to impress people: "Look how smart I am. Look mom, no hands!".
> Can I ask what your professional career was/is?
>
> I think I understand where you're coming from in that you'd rather people used Einstein's method in his 1905 paper of using the Lorentz transformations to transform space and time coordinates from one frame to another; when replying to your questions. It can be done, but I'm not sure if others will bother, since using 4-vectors will compute exactly the same results far more easily. This is why Einstein and others used it, and it's still used today.
>
> Larry

I'm a retired EE that regained interests in relativity 5 years ago, as a critic.

This shit made me drop a career in physics in 1972, wasting two years of college, when I decided to switch to electronics in 1973.

Couldn't accept the stupidity that relativity is, and how it was gaining momentum in the forced indoctrination of my teachers and
many researchers. After many, many conversations with physicists of that epoch, who very kindly accepted to chat with me with
the truth, I decided that the path that physics was following was WRONG and going to end in more confusion than one century ago.

The '70s was the golden decade of electronics, and I had the privilege to witness the birth and evolution of what we have today.

Never had a regret about my decision, as I started college at 15 and switched to engineering at 17.

I'm critical of the concept of deduction: Theory first, then let experimentalist prove it wrong or forced right.

Inductive research is the correct path for the evolution of scientific knowledge about nature: Facts first, then find a theory that match
reality. Our current state of civilization is due to inductive reasoning (Shockley, Planck), with very rare examples of deductive thinking (Tesla's brushless AC motor).

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:51:40 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:09:21 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:59:33 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:50:55 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:54:07 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-3, larry harson wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 5:10:18 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/15/23 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 5/15/2023 7:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > >> The four-vector concept was introduced to express spacetime
> > > > > > > >> coordinates.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And your problem with that is?
> > > > > > > The basic problem is that it is completely wrong: coordinates do NOT
> > > > > > > form a 4-vector.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hertz is just making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason 4-vectors are so ubiquitous in relativistic mechanics and
> > > > > > > dynamics is that they are rank-1 tensors, and are thus completely
> > > > > > > independent of coordinates. That is a HUGE advantage in conceptualizing
> > > > > > > various laws and equations. It also makes 4-vectors extremely useful for
> > > > > > > expressing Lorentz-invariant quantities and equations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > > > I'd say a 4-vector is a geometrical object with a magnitude and orientation in Minkowski space-time: Hence all 4-vectors of some physical quantity can be assigned 4 numbers that allows us to compute its magnitude and orientation relative to other 4-vectors. This can be done in various ways with some more computationally efficient than others. This was a huge step from previously believing that the physical world was Euclidean, composed of physical objects with a magnitude and orientation in 3d space with time a separate parameter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You saying that 4-vectors are rank-1 tensors I find to be similar to this quote from Zee's book:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---start quote---
> > > > > > A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, 'What exactly is a tensor?' I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, "A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor."
> > > > > > ---end quote---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Larry
> > > > > I was interested in the derivation of 4-momentum, done by three or four university professors, and in particular HOW COME
> > > > > TIME component might have momentum.
> > > > >
> > > > > Every presentation, used in their classrooms, was different. One, in particular, made c=1, what makes the reading of the material PAINFUL.
> > > > > In a given time, the imbecile LOST THE COUNT about where c=1 should exist, giving a horrible equation where energy was equal
> > > > > to momentum. Poor students.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the worse, by far, was the development since the 4-velocity expression, because GAMMA FACTOR was used as calculated from
> > > > > the module of velocity, which is the speed v.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the cretin, even when motion on x,y,z axis was independent, applied the Gamma Factor for the speed v, instead of ONE GAMMA
> > > > > FACTOR per dimension, as v_x, v_y and v_z are completely different.Also, used this general Gamma Factor (which is INCORRECT)
> > > > > for the momentum of the time component of the spacetime interval.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the imbecile relativists THINK that the 4-SHIT is a serious advance over classic physics (all of it).
> > > > >
> > > > > Things like this make me puke.
> > > > I thought the same way when I started to learn about SR in trying to stick to a 3d Euclidean way of initially trying to understanding it via Einstein's 1905 paper. The MIT book Special Relativity by AP French does the same, defining a relativistic 3-force which, upon reflection, now seems pointless to me.
> > > >
> > > > So over the years I've changed my mind and can now see that the above is pointless time wasting: four-vectors should be taught from the start as quickly as possible, emphasizing the hyperbolic geometry of flat space-time. The problem I've come across is that various teachers have their unique ways of defining a 4-vector which I've found confusing. Minkowski first defined four-vectors in his famous 1908 lecture which can be found online here with a very useful historical commentary:
> > > > https://mathweb.ucsd.edu/~b3tran/cgm/Minkowski_SpaceAndTime_1909.pdf
> > > >
> > > > But it's not easy reading for a beginner. I've found page 48 of Gravitation pretty easy to understand in comparison:
> > > > https://archive.org/details/GravitationMisnerThorneWheeler/page/n71/mode/1up
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > > According to Tom Roberts, 4-vector math is essential to understand events and behaviors in particle physics. This implies to bring
> > > spacetime intervals to the quantum world, the world of things existing below 10E-10 meters, the average size of atoms.
> > >
> > > In this case Tom and, as I can foresee, you, accept that Minkowski mathematical theory is close to the developments about quantum
> > > gravity theories, on which SPACETIME is the essential building block.
> > >
> > > Maybe you both should join forums on that matter, as it's far from what SR means in THIS forum.
> > >
> > > Spacetime is the invention of a mathematician, after which legions of bored rookie physicists ran, because it was fashionable and trendy.
> > >
> > > But spacetime has NO SUBSTANCE by itself, it's a mathematical construct that has been carried so far away as to call it the fabric of the
> > > universe. Nothing more irrational, sterile and yet fertile ground for the generations of physicists and mathematicians that have created
> > > a mystic context, only available in its meaning for those who adhere to SR and GR under the language of tensors and differential geometry.
> > >
> > > It's just plastic, synthetic matter with no grounds on reality. Only in the library of mathematical developments of developments that
> > > were piled up since its inception, spacetime find its role, sadly unrelated to the reality of nature.
> > >
> > > For me, it's just some kind of snob under-world, with no value except for the vain, narcissists physicists that want to show off, like peacocks, trying to impress people: "Look how smart I am. Look mom, no hands!".
> > Can I ask what your professional career was/is?
> >
> > I think I understand where you're coming from in that you'd rather people used Einstein's method in his 1905 paper of using the Lorentz transformations to transform space and time coordinates from one frame to another; when replying to your questions. It can be done, but I'm not sure if others will bother, since using 4-vectors will compute exactly the same results far more easily. This is why Einstein and others used it, and it's still used today.
> >
> > Larry
> I'm a retired EE that regained interests in relativity 5 years ago, as a critic.
>
> This shit made me drop a career in physics in 1972, wasting two years of college, when I decided to switch to electronics in 1973.
>
> Couldn't accept the stupidity that relativity is, and how it was gaining momentum in the forced indoctrination of my teachers and
> many researchers. After many, many conversations with physicists of that epoch, who very kindly accepted to chat with me with
> the truth, I decided that the path that physics was following was WRONG and going to end in more confusion than one century ago.
>
> The '70s was the golden decade of electronics, and I had the privilege to witness the birth and evolution of what we have today.
>
> Never had a regret about my decision, as I started college at 15 and switched to engineering at 17.
>
> I'm critical of the concept of deduction: Theory first, then let experimentalist prove it wrong or forced right.
>
> Inductive research is the correct path for the evolution of scientific knowledge about nature: Facts first, then find a theory that match
> reality. Our current state of civilization is due to inductive reasoning (Shockley, Planck), with very rare examples of deductive thinking (Tesla's brushless AC motor).
>

Einstein's statement in 1909, quote reported from Arnold Sommerfeld, who had become a convert relativist and was a great
friend and advisor to Einstein.

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

By 1911, Einstein had understood and adopted Minkowski's theory of spacetime and the geometrical representation of SR.
Alexander Pick, in Prague, introduced him to the complexities of absolute differential geometry, which had means to represent
curvatures in spacetime by using Levi-Civita approach. But Einstein stayed less than a year in Prague, where he had problems
with his "professorship" and with Pick himself, and fled to Zurich, stabbing Pick in the back.

In Zurich, he was "received" by his future partner, Marcel Grossman, to whom he asked help to further develop what Pick taught
him, but HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. "Help me, Marcel, or I'll go crazy", a famous petition to whom he promised fame and glory as
a co-author of a theory of relativity that included gravity. And Grossman believed him, creating the mathematical theory of GR in
the Entwurf I (1913) and Entwurf II (1914), published as Einstein-Grossman Entwurf for a General Theory of Relativity.

Conflicts between Einstein and Besso with Grossman (see "The lost 54 pages manuscript", found in 1954), plus the war drums
of WWI and the chance to get MORE ADVANCED HELP in Berlin, made him to move there in March 1914, letting behind Grossman,
who NEVER forgive this treason. Once in Berlin, Levi-Civita himself step in to further develop Grossman's Entwurf II, but the
vain and pretentious Einstein even argued with Levi-Civita about HIS mathematics. Einstein's arrogance and ego knew no limits.

One character of this play, NEVER MENTIONED, was Karl Schwarzschild (who was instrumental for him to get the position at Berlin).
Since the year 1900, with his published paper "On the probable curvature of the Universe", Schwarzschild developed the field of
Cosmology by extending Astronomy to the interpretation of the Universe as a whole.

He was on the track of curved space a decade or more before Einstein. It's not just chance that he developed his solution to GR
just one month after Einstein's presentation to the Prussian Academy of Science (Nov. 1915), where HE WAS PRESENT by having
got a license from his military duties. Kazharians don't like the figure of a half-jew in the development of GR, so historian have
ERASED any contribution of Schwarzschild to the GR itself, along with Hilbert (who was Schwarzschild's acquaintance, and very
close intellectually: a mathematician (Hilbert) and a first order astronomer and polymath (Schwarzschild)).

It will never been known what happened since Einsteins's stance at Hilbert's residence for two weeks (July 1915) and the events
of November 1915. It's forbidden.

But one thing has to be stated with clarity: Einstein DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND what he presented in Nov. 1915 as GR. It took the
patience of Hilbert, Schwarzschild and MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS (March 1916) until Hilbert managed to explain it fully to Einstein.
Then, Einstein started writing books and papers everywhere.

There is more to tell about those weirds months, late in 1915, but with this is enough.

Einstein STOLE EVERY CREDIT for something that he didn't do. Typical Einstein.

On May 22, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Inductive research is the correct path for the evolution of scientific knowledge about nature:
> Facts first, then find a theory that match reality.

Every science works that way. Reasoning in the opposite direction, we call religion.

> with very rare examples of deductive thinking (Tesla's brushless AC motor).

?

--
Rich