Relativity

[Cypress]

Of course any change in the relativistic metric space is going to be invariant.

I think it is almost impossible to mentally visualize, because a spacetime metric involves a four dimensional vector, and our brains are really only evolved to think in three dimensions. That's why the invariance of a spacetime vector between two inertial reference frames can really only be understood mathmatically.

ds[SUP]2[/SUP]=(c dt)[SUP]2[/SUP] - (dx[SUP]2[/SUP] + dy[sup]2[/sup] + dz[sup]2[/sup])

 

[Cypress]

And you will bitch about me to your buddy Doc Dutch (AKA Dutch Uncle) later on.

Again, your inability to see your own hypocrisy is astounding.

You'd be hard pressed to find examples of me bitching and whining. If you weren't relentlessly following me around on my threads and waving your arms to attract my attention, you wouldn't even be on my radar.


But you seem to have finally found your soulmate in the Darwin-denier, certifiably crazy IBDumbass.

You can go on dates with him to gossip about how much you resent me.

 

[Cypress]

Darwin's theory of evolution, while brilliant, is not science.

You obviously fantasize about being omnipotent and having the power to declare people's pasts.

It doesn't require omniscience. Your writing alone is evidence you have never set foot in a college level biology or physics class.

You get some of the words and names right. But you don't understand the concepts and can't see the integrated framework. That's a giveaway for someone who frantically googles the Internet for tidbits of details. But the only way you can see the forest through the trees and put it all together is to actually enroll yourself in a curriculum of college science education.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You'd be hard pressed to find examples of me bitching and whining.

Well, there's THIS POST


IN FACT you OFTEN bitch about people to your buddy Doc. You do it quite a lot actually.

If you weren't relentlessly following me around on my threads and waving your arms to attract my attention, you wouldn't even be on my radar.

And you wouldn't know who I was if you knew your shit better and didn't have to have someone explain to you what things like freezing point depression is.

But you seem to have finally found your soulmate in the Darwin-denier, certifiably crazy IBDumbass.

I'm not a creationist.

You can go on dates with him to gossip about how much you resent me.

^^^^That's the stuff!

I shudder to think how much time is wasted here by the gossip girls indulging their petty grievances.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

That's why the invariance of a spacetime vector between two inertial reference frames can really only be understood mathmatically.

ds[SUP]2[/SUP]=(c dt)[SUP]2[/SUP] - (dx[SUP]2[/SUP] + dy[sup]2[/sup] + dz[sup]2[/sup])

Look who's googling landed them on Quora!

Gosh you look super-duper smart using vectors and stuff! Bonus points if you can derive vector distances from Pythagoras.

 

[Cypress]

Look who's googling landed them on Quora!

Gosh you look super-duper smart using vectors and stuff! Bonus points if you can derive vector distances from Pythagoras.

Wrong , it's from a Case Western University website, and I provided the link in my response to your Darwin denying boyfriend IBDumbass in my response to him-->
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?206611-Relativity&p=5761211#post5761211

This actually sounds like a Tell that you use Quora without citation

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Wrong , it's from a Case Western University website, and I provided the link in my response to your Darwin denying boyfriend IBDumbass in my response to him-->
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?206611-Relativity&p=5761211#post5761211

This actually sounds like a Tell that you use Quora without citation

LOL. Sure. So your googling wound you up on CWR. LOL.

And it's not like you actually understand how vector distances are calculated.

 

[Cypress]

LOL. Sure.

And it's not like you actually understand how vector distances are calculated.

I accept your tacit confession that I openly and transparently cited a university webpage hyperlink as the source of the spacetime interval equation, and that I did not surreptitiously use a Quora source without citation like you do.

Vectors are first semester introductory physics. That's how I know you don't have any college science background. Things that sound exotic to you are covered in introductory science classes.

Now, a four dimensional vector is pretty far out there in terms of basic introductory physics.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I accept your tacit confession that I openly and transparently cited a university webpage hyperlink as the source of the spacetime interval equation, and that I did not surreptitiously use a Quora source without citation like you do.

I will gladly admit you found someone's stuff somewhere on line about vectors that you don't understand and that you posted it so people would think you are smart.

 

[Cypress]

I will gladly admit you found someone's stuff somewhere on line about vectors that you don't understand and that you posted it so people would think you are smart.

I didn't invent the space time interval equation, naturally am going to provide a source for it.

I accept your confession that seething in resentment, you just assumed I surreptitiously copied a Quora source without citation, like you do.


Newtonian mechanics are basically the first topics covered in introductory college physics. You can't do Newtonian mechanics without understanding and using vectors. At least in two dimensions.

The only reason you thought vectors were so exotic is because you have no college science background.

 

[IBDaMann]

This is called style.

Sure. My sermon would generally address the reasons that adopting the "style" of teenage girls gossiping at the mall detract from any credibility that you might wish to establish.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I didn't invent the space time interval equation, naturally am going to provide a source for it.

I accept your confession that seething in resentment, you just assumed I surreptitiously copied a Quora source without citation, like you do.


Newtonian mechanics are basically the first topics covered in introductory college physics. You can't do Newtonian mechanics without understanding and using vectors. At least in two dimensions.

The only reason you thought vectors were so exotic is because you have no college science background.

Actually no...because I also do text analytics. There's a concept in text analysis which is the analogue of a giant multi-dimensional vector. Every term in a document is part of a "document term matrix" which represents each document in a "vector form" which is made up of hundreds and thousands upon thousands of "dimensions" (per the words). The measurement of "text similarity" by looking at clustering of texts in vector form. The measurement is the exact same as if you were measuring a 15,000 dimension vector's distance from another 15,000 dimension vector.

Fun thing about it is, it is EXACTLY like doing a 2-dimensional vector distance...you only need understand the relationship back to Pythagoras.

There's nothing exotic about vector distances. And there really isn't anything exotic about multidimensional vectors >3 dimensions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I accept your tacit confession that I openly and transparently cited a university webpage hyperlink as the source of the spacetime interval equation, and that I did not surreptitiously use a Quora source without citation like you do.

Vectors are first semester introductory physics. That's how I know you don't have any college science background. Things that sound exotic to you are covered in introductory science classes.

Now, a four dimensional vector is pretty far out there in terms of basic introductory physics.

Ask Perry if he's still a virgin if you want to see him really upset.

 

[Cypress]

Actually no...because I also do text analytics. There's a concept in text analysis which is the analogue of a giant multi-dimensional vector. Every term in a document is part of a "document term matrix" which represents each document in a "vector form" which is made up of hundreds and thousands upon thousands of "dimensions" (per the words). The measurement of "text similarity" by looking at clustering of texts in vector form. The measurement is the exact same as if you were measuring a 15,000 dimension vector's distance from another 15,000 dimension vector.

Fun thing about it is, it is EXACTLY like doing a 2-dimensional vector distance...you only need understand the relationship back to Pythagoras.

There's nothing exotic about vector distances. And there really isn't anything exotic about multidimensional vectors >3 dimensions.

I don't give a shit about text analytics.

You obviously lied about having a Geochem PhD or having any substantial college science background. Liars are posting in bad faith.


The only reason I posted the spacetime interval equation and link is because your boyfriend IBDumbass was hollering at me that my OP about the spacetime interval was nonsense and gibberish.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't give a shit about text analytics.

You obviously lied about having a Geochem PhD or having any substantial college science background. Liars are posting in bad faith.


The only reason I posted the spacetime interval equation and link is because your boyfriend IBDumbass was hollering at me that my OP about the spacetime interval was nonsense and gibberish.

Now he's claiming to be a high school virgin. It's explains everything.

Yeah, I'm in junior high school so making fun of my "virginity" hits real close to home.

 

[IBDaMann]

It doesn't require omniscience.

You believe you are omniscient. You are not. This state of affairs causes you to write really stupid things in your desperation to be perceived as the omniscient person you delude yourself to be.

Your writing alone is evidence you have never set foot in a college level biology or physics class.

You believe that grammatically correct English is conclusive evidence of never having taken any physics or biology courses at any university? You really aren't the sharpest tack in the box.

You get some of the words and names right.

I occasionally get some details confused as well. What I don't do is scramble to Wikipedia to find out how I am to frame the narrative and what position I am to hold. I'll leave that to you. You are the JPP poster who lives and dies by that sword, determined to fool everyone that this is somehow not the case.

But you don't understand the concepts and can't see the integrated framework.

It takes a seriously desperate individual who has deluded himself into believing that he is omniscient to declare what others do not understand and cannot see based solely on noticing disagreement with what was hurriedly scavenged out of Wikipedia. You never ask any questions of me concerning new information that would, unfortunately, require learning and cognitive effort on your part. You never ask me to explain any of the things that disagree with your instructions from Wikipedia. You simply notice the independent thinking on my part, you panic, and declare that I never studied any of the things that I studied.

You are the only poster on JPP who doesn't see this, specifically because you have deluded yourself into believing that your Wikipedia-worship bestows omniscience on you. You could have taken notes on everything I have taught you, and asked follow-up questions, but not once did you ever do so.

That's a giveaway for someone who frantically googles the Internet for tidbits of details.

The giveaway is grammatically correct English?

But the only way you can see the forest through the trees and put it all together is to actually enroll yourself in a curriculum of college science education.

In what would I enroll? What do I not know? Please be specific.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You believe you are omniscient.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

You're fucking moron, Sybil.

 

[IBDaMann]

The only reason I posted the spacetime interval equation ...

... was to pivot from having to explain your assertion that inertial reference frames could be combined. Remember, you refuse to answer any questions posed to you, which is the true mark of a 5-minute Wikipedia Ranger. I admit that you do like to mix it up periodically with other distractions, but the objective always remains the same, i.e. don't answer any questions because you don't have any knowledge of the material, and you need to buy enough time for the questions to be forgotten.

 

[IBDaMann]

Vectors are first semester introductory physics.

Too funny. Vectors are math, not physics. Why did you think they were physics?

Introductory physics usually includes statics, basic dynamics (force, work, power), gravity, sound, electricity, thermodynamics, magnetism and electromagnetic radiation. Vectors and trigonometry are the common mathematics involved.

This is how I know you don't have any college science background. Things that sound exotic to you are whatever confusing material caught your eye in the wiki at which you were glancing.

Now, a four dimensional vector is pretty far out there in terms of basic introductory physics.

Nope. The most basic physics can involve multi-dimensional vectors and large numerical values. The math is just the math (although you think it's physics).

 

[Into the Night]

Scientific illiteracy.

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection isn't science. It is not even a valid nonscientific theory, since it creates a paradox. This 'theory' fails the internal consistency check. It is irrational. It is not a valid theory at all.
The Theory of Evolution, however, is a theory, but not a scientific one. It is not falsifiable.

There are lot of nonscientific theories claiming to be 'science' over history, including:
The Theory of the Big Bang.
The Theory of Abiogenesis.
The Theory of Creation.
The Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of the Continuum.

NONE of these theories are theories of science, for NONE of them are falsifiable. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Spoken like someone who never set foot in a university level science class!

Science is not a class nor a university.

The geocentric modified Ptolomaic system of epicycles was perfectly adequate for predicting planetary motions.

No, it wasn't. This theory was falsified by Galileo.

But scientists care about getting things right. We live in a heliocentric system, no a geocentric system.

It is not possible to prove any theory TRUE. There is no 'getting things right'.
We do not live in a heliocentric system either.
* planets do not orbit the Sun. The Sun and the planets orbit each other around a point called the barycenter. This conforms with Newton's law of motion as well as Kepler's laws of orbital speed and trajectory.
* moons do not orbit the Sun at all. They and their planets orbit each other around the barycenter (the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is approximately 60 miles from the center of Earth), producing TWO high and TWO low tides daily.
* the Sun isn't stationary. It orbits the galactic center. It has an orbital period of about 2.5 million years (assuming the Sun lasts that long!).
* the Galaxy isn't stationary. It is moving with respect to other galaxies.

There is no absolute 'stationary'. See Einstein's laws.

This thread has nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

There is no 'interpretation' of any theory of Science. The theory simply exists, or it does not. Done.

More importantly, Einstein's relativity was a theoretical framework based on classical physics principles of determinism,

Dead wrong. The Theory of Relativity states quite the opposite. There is no absolute zero speed. There is no absolute stationary. You are confusing Newton with Einstein.

and even Bohr knew that.

Bohr used Einstein's Theory of Emission Constancy (and Planck's laws) to develop his model of the atom, which now has been falsified. It is a good enough model for many cases though, which is why you still see it used in various training manuals. The Bohr model was falsified by Heisenberg. Quantum mechanics came out of Einstein's work, along with Planck's work, Heisenberg, and of course Schrodinger.

It only sounds like gibberish to you because you've never set foot in a college physics class,

Science is not a physics class or a college. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

and relativity is not something you can acquire a basic working knowledge of by frantically googling Wikipedia for ten minutes.

No, but it is something you can quickly gain experience with by riding in a car.

Spacetime interval: In spacetime we can define an event as something marked by the 4 coordinates x, y, z, and t.

ds[SUP]2[/SUP]=(c dt)[SUP]2[/SUP] - (dx[SUP]2[/SUP] + dy[sup]2[/sup] + dz[sup]2[/sup])

Random equation. It does not describe the spacetime diagram.

This metric has the advantage of being invariant under a Lorentz transformation

The Lorentz transformation is the correct equation for the spacetime diagram.

-- that is, observers in different inertial frames will all measure the same interval ds.

No such thing as an 'inertial frame'. The spacetime diagram describes how different reference frames relate to each other. No frame has 'inertia'. No frame is mass. See Newtons' Law of Motion.

The spacetime interval can be positive, negative, or zero

WRONG. There is no 'interval'.