| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Genuine spacetime and redefinition of action as the... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Albertito... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In the following thread I defined a **genuine**
spacetime, s,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f78fe77f2ac7f543?hl=en
s = s_0 + r_0*t + v_0*t^2/2 + a_0*t^3/6
where, s_0, r_0, v_0 and a_0 are constants
and t is just time, regarded as an evolution
parameter
We can now provide the general definition of action,
S, as the following line integral,
S = \int_C {F ds}
where
C is the spacetime interval traversed by the particle,
F is force vector, and
s is **genuine** spacetime
Therefore, an action is like total work done by a force
along a **genuine** spacetime interval.
PS: Clever readers can see the important implications
the above definitions have for the progress of physics,
if we can avoid and discard the nonsensical definition
of spacetime given by Minkowski and Einstein, among others.
Regards |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Albertito... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 12:17 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Albertito wrote:
In the following thread I defined a **genuine**
spacetime, s,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f78fe77f2ac...
s = s_0 + r_0*t + v_0*t^2/2 + a_0*t^3/6
Really, that's a spacetime?
[/quote]
Really, that's a spacetime.
[quote]It looks rather much like you integrated F = ma
= 0 three times.
[/quote]
No, I've integrated from (F/m = a) <> 0
where the case is acceleration is constant.
Sure, if you integrate three times wrt time
from a constant acceleration you attain a
**genuine** spacetime. If you integrate four
times wrt time from a constant jerk you attain
a spacetime, too.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Jerk.html
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/VisualizingJerkChangeOfAcceleration/
[quote]
where, s_0, r_0, v_0 and a_0 are constants
and t is just time, regarded as an evolution
parameter
We can now provide the general definition of action,
S, as the following line integral,
S = \int_C {F ds}
An action is the integral of a system's Lagrangian over the entire manifold.
Can you get anything right?
[/quote]
Yes, I can get all right. What in the redefinition of action
I've provided you do not understand?
[quote]
where
C is the spacetime interval traversed by the particle,
F is force vector, and
s is **genuine** spacetime
No, s is the path traversed in a line integral. Jeeze.
[/quote]
Do not change elements of my definition of action, please.
s is **genuine** spacetime as defined in my OP.
[quote]
Therefore, an action is like total work done by a force
along a **genuine** spacetime interval.
Do you think repeated emphasis of something that is silly will make it less
so?
[/quote]
You are not a good understanding person.
"a word to the wise is sufficient"
[quote]
PS: Clever readers can see the important implications
the above definitions have for the progress of physics,
It has no positive implications for the progress of physics.
[/quote]
It has no implications yet, as far as there
still is a nonsensical definition of spacetime,
called Minkowski spacetime, but it will have
implications once that nonsensical spacetime
has been discarded and replaced by the correct
one.
[quote]
if we can avoid and discard the nonsensical definition
of spacetime given by Minkowski and Einstein, among others.
Except you have no understanding of Minkowski space, which is why you think
you can integrate a differential equation three times and call it a
**genuine** spacetime.
[/quote]
I already understand Minkowski spacetime, it gives
rises to twin paradox, thus it is nonsensical.
Three times are needed from a constant acceleration
to arrive to spacetime, four times from a constant jerk
...... Oh wait, did I say jerk? Obviously, you are not a
clever reader, but a constant jerk :-D
[quote]
Regards[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dirk Van de moortel... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Albertito <albertito1992 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
7eaac58f-3f64-4238-a8d1-d46a96ec4b57 at (no spam) k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
We were expecting a new thread by Luttgens first,
followed by one of Sepalla's.
Please take a number.
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Albertito wrote:
[quote]In the following thread I defined a **genuine**
spacetime, s,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f78fe77f2ac7f543?hl=en
s = s_0 + r_0*t + v_0*t^2/2 + a_0*t^3/6
[/quote]
Really, that's a spacetime? It looks rather much like you integrated F = ma
= 0 three times.
[quote]
where, s_0, r_0, v_0 and a_0 are constants
and t is just time, regarded as an evolution
parameter
We can now provide the general definition of action,
S, as the following line integral,
S = \int_C {F ds}
[/quote]
An action is the integral of a system's Lagrangian over the entire manifold.
Can you get anything right?
[quote]
where
C is the spacetime interval traversed by the particle,
F is force vector, and
s is **genuine** spacetime
[/quote]
No, s is the path traversed in a line integral. Jeeze.
[quote]
Therefore, an action is like total work done by a force
along a **genuine** spacetime interval.
[/quote]
Do you think repeated emphasis of something that is silly will make it less
so?
[quote]
PS: Clever readers can see the important implications
the above definitions have for the progress of physics,
[/quote]
It has no positive implications for the progress of physics.
[quote]if we can avoid and discard the nonsensical definition
of spacetime given by Minkowski and Einstein, among others.
[/quote]
Except you have no understanding of Minkowski space, which is why you think
you can integrate a differential equation three times and call it a
**genuine** spacetime.
[quote]
Regards[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Albertito wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:18:20 -0800:
[quote]In the following thread I defined a **genuine** spacetime, s,
[/quote]
You did not.
[quote]http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f78fe77f2ac7f543?hl=en
s = s_0 + r_0*t + v_0*t^2/2 + a_0*t^3/6
where, s_0, r_0, v_0 and a_0 are constants and t is just time, regarded
as an evolution parameter
We can now provide the general definition of action, S, as the following
line integral,
S = \int_C {F ds}
[/quote]
:_-D
[quote]where
C is the spacetime interval traversed by the particle, F is force
vector, and
s is **genuine** spacetime
Therefore, an action is like total work done by a force along a
**genuine** spacetime interval.
PS: Clever readers can see the important implications the above
definitions have for the progress of physics,
[/quote]
Agree, any clever reader can see the important implications that
the above nonsense have for the progress of physics and can ignore
it :-D
[quote]if we can avoid and
discard the nonsensical definition of spacetime given by Minkowski and
Einstein, among others.
[/quote]
Apart from being an ignorant of the physics and the math you are also of
the history. How unsurprising! :_-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Albertito wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 12:17 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Albertito wrote:
In the following thread I defined a **genuine**
spacetime, s,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f78fe77f2ac...
s = s_0 + r_0*t + v_0*t^2/2 + a_0*t^3/6
Really, that's a spacetime?
Really, that's a spacetime.
[/quote]
By what standard? Because it looks a lot like you are redefining words to
mean something different than what is meant when professionals use the term.
[quote]
It looks rather much like you integrated F = ma
= 0 three times.
No, I've integrated from (F/m = a) <> 0
where the case is acceleration is constant.
[/quote]
I love it when that works.
[quote]Sure, if you integrate three times wrt time
from a constant acceleration you attain a
**genuine** spacetime.
[/quote]
No, all you *obtain* is a solution to a differential equation.
[quote]If you integrate four
times wrt time from a constant jerk you attain
a spacetime, too.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Jerk.html
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/VisualizingJerkChangeOfAcceleration/
[/quote]
No, you don't. Look up the meaning of the word 'spacetime' before redefining
it to mean 'a solution to a differential equation'.
[quote]
where, s_0, r_0, v_0 and a_0 are constants
and t is just time, regarded as an evolution
parameter
We can now provide the general definition of action,
S, as the following line integral,
S = \int_C {F ds}
An action is the integral of a system's Lagrangian over the entire
manifold. Can you get anything right?
Yes, I can get all right. What in the redefinition of action
I've provided you do not understand?
[/quote]
The part where you start redefining well established terminology in an
attempt to make yourself feel important.
[quote]
where
C is the spacetime interval traversed by the particle,
F is force vector, and
s is **genuine** spacetime
No, s is the path traversed in a line integral. Jeeze.
Do not change elements of my definition of action, please.
[/quote]
You don't know what a line integral is, do you? Looks like you never made it
to multivariable calculus.
[quote]s is **genuine** spacetime as defined in my OP.
[/quote]
It is a genuine solution to a differential equation. That's it.
[quote]
Therefore, an action is like total work done by a force
along a **genuine** spacetime interval.
Do you think repeated emphasis of something that is silly will make it
less so?
You are not a good understanding person.
"a word to the wise is sufficient"
PS: Clever readers can see the important implications
the above definitions have for the progress of physics,
It has no positive implications for the progress of physics.
It has no implications yet, as far as there
still is a nonsensical definition of spacetime,
called Minkowski spacetime, but it will have
implications once that nonsensical spacetime
has been discarded and replaced by the correct
one.
[/quote]
How is SO(3,1) nonsensical to you? Emphasis on "to you", because the
majority of practicing physicists and mathematicians don't seem to have any
trouble with the construct.
[quote]
if we can avoid and discard the nonsensical definition
of spacetime given by Minkowski and Einstein, among others.
Except you have no understanding of Minkowski space, which is why you
think you can integrate a differential equation three times and call it a
**genuine** spacetime.
I already understand Minkowski spacetime, it gives
rises to twin paradox, thus it is nonsensical.
[/quote]
Oh, so you don't understand the many published resolutions to the twins
paradox? Imagine that.
[quote]Three times are needed from a constant acceleration
to arrive to spacetime, four times from a constant jerk
..... Oh wait, did I say jerk? Obviously, you are not a
clever reader, but a constant jerk 
[/quote]
Well at least it is clear where your little line of thinking is coming from.
You must have read the spot in whatever high school physics or calculus book
you have which describes the half dozen named derivatives of position as a
function of time.
[quote]
Regards[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:18 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]In the following thread I defined a **genuine**
spacetime, s,http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f78fe77f2ac...
s = s_0 + r_0*t + v_0*t^2/2 + a_0*t^3/6
where, s_0, r_0, v_0 and a_0 are constants
and t is just time, regarded as an evolution
parameter
We can now provide the general definition of action,
S, as the following line integral,
S = \int_C {F ds}
where
C is the spacetime interval traversed by the particle,
F is force vector, and
s is **genuine** spacetime
Therefore, an action is like total work done by a force
along a **genuine** spacetime interval.
PS: Clever readers can see the important implications
the above definitions have for the progress of physics,
if we can avoid and discard the nonsensical definition
of spacetime given by Minkowski and Einstein, among others.
Regards
[/quote]
Albertito's strategy:
1. Take a simple formula from classical mechanics.
2. Do a calculus operation on it for n orders or a perturbative
expansion on it to n orders, where n is a number pulled from a hat.
3. Give the result a name that is already in use for a wholly
different quantity.
4. Declare the result interesting and worth someone's wasting time
looking at it. While at it, declare that the previous definitions for
those quantities are nonsensical.
5. Throw a snit when ignored.
Why? Because it's easy and it produces lots of variations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Albertito... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 11:18 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]In the following thread I defined a **genuine**
spacetime, s,http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f78fe77f2ac...
s = s_0 + r_0*t + v_0*t^2/2 + a_0*t^3/6
where, s_0, r_0, v_0 and a_0 are constants
and t is just time, regarded as an evolution
parameter
We can now provide the general definition of action,
S, as the following line integral,
S = \int_C {F ds}
where
C is the spacetime interval traversed by the particle,
F is force vector, and
s is **genuine** spacetime
Therefore, an action is like total work done by a force
along a **genuine** spacetime interval.
PS: Clever readers can see the important implications
the above definitions have for the progress of physics,
if we can avoid and discard the nonsensical definition
of spacetime given by Minkowski and Einstein, among others.
Regards
[/quote]
The mathematical relation between a Minkowski world
line, s_m, and **genuine** spacetime interval, s, is
s_m = \int_a^b {\sqrt {1 + s'^2} dt}
where s' = ds/dt
IOW, s_m is the Minkowski world line, and
**genuine** spacetime, s, is the **area**
below it.
For this to make any sense, you have to rotate a
Minkowski spacetime diagram in such a way that
time is represented in the horizontal axis and
space in the vertical one. Once it is done, you
can see how the world line is a **function** of
time. And that's a very important remark, since
time is irreversible. That's the reason why
deterministic theories, as SR, can't be correct.
What happens if the world line would not behave
as a function of time? In those cases you may
have the nonsensical phenomenon of a particle
being located in two different places simultaneously. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Albertito... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 11:26 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]Albertito wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:11:00 -0800:
(...)
And that's a very important
remark, since time is irreversible. That's the reason why deterministic
theories, as SR, can't be correct.
SR is a reversible theory, therefore it applies to reversible
phenomena. Once again your criticism of SR is scary
[/quote]
I can't see your point. Maybe, because you are pointless
as usual Of course, SR is a reversible theory, so?
If SR applies to reversible phenomena then SR is a theory
of impossibilities since reversible phenomema are physically
impossible because time is and must be irreversible.
What seems to be scary is your ignorance
given that you always are bragging about your
"exquisite" education and how ignorant are the
rest of mortals.
[quote]
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:48 am, Albertito <albertito1... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 11:26 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Albertito wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:11:00 -0800:
(...)
And that's a very important
remark, since time is irreversible. That's the reason why deterministic
theories, as SR, can't be correct.
SR is a reversible theory, therefore it applies to reversible
phenomena. Once again your criticism of SR is scary :-D
I can't see your point. Maybe, because you are pointless
as usual Of course, SR is a reversible theory, so?
If SR applies to reversible phenomena then SR is a theory
of impossibilities since reversible phenomema are physically
impossible because time is and must be irreversible.
[/quote]
Reversible phenomena are physically impossible....
More richness from the fertile rectum of Albertito.
[quote]
What seems to be scary is your ignorance
given that you always are bragging about your
"exquisite" education and how ignorant are the
rest of mortals.
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Albertito wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:48:32 -0800:
[quote]On Nov 6, 11:26 am, "Juan R." GonzĂĄlez-Ălvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Albertito wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:11:00 -0800:
(...)
And that's a very important
remark, since time is irreversible. That's the reason why
deterministic theories, as SR, can't be correct.
SR is a reversible theory, therefore it applies to reversible
phenomena. Once again your criticism of SR is scary :-D
I can't see your point.
[/quote]
How could? you are blind to physics and more.
[quote]Maybe, because you are pointless as usual Of
course, SR is a reversible theory, so? If SR applies to reversible
phenomena then SR is a theory of impossibilities since reversible
phenomema are physically impossible because time is and must be
irreversible.
[/quote]
See? more nonsense... :-D
[quote]What seems to be scary is your ignorance given that you always are
bragging about your "exquisite" education and how ignorant are the rest
of mortals.
[/quote]
Take a tour to your own messages Albertito. :_-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:15 pm
|
|