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).

But, above all, I think that you can't give TIME substance and claim that flows non-linearly with motion, just because one equation
tells you so. And THIS is my biggest rejection in relativity, not the constancy of c.

Lorentz, about his 1904 paper on relativity, clearly stated by 1907: "For me, the expression of the transform of time was just
a mathematical artifact, for which I found NO REAL VALUE". Of course, with a career fading, he switched to support Einstein,
the rising star. And his change paid well, because it helped to maintain Lorentz in the public eye past 1920, as Einstein's PR man.