« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Four-vector in Relativity

  • 67 Replies
  • 10497 Views
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2010, 04:35:34 PM »
You don't seem to know what an ad hominem is.

Saying what is essentially "they're both moving the same rate through time" is idiotic and missing the point of the concept presented.  They're not moving the same speed through SPACE.  Their spacial relations are what is being dealt with.
Logged
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2010, 04:37:04 PM »
Also, this...
Quote from:
I said what I meant and I mean what I say.
...contradicts this:
Quote from:
When I said speed I meant magnitude.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2010, 04:37:58 PM »
Quote from: Ellipsis on April 28, 2010, 04:37:04 PM
Also, this...
Quote from:
I said what I meant and I mean what I say.
...contradicts this:
Quote from:
When I said speed I meant magnitude.
Not in the slightest.  Speed through milowski  space is the magnitude of the 4-vector.

edit: milowski
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 09:09:04 AM by John Davis »
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2010, 04:39:38 PM »
"When I said A, I meant B."
Then why didn't you say B?
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2010, 04:40:19 PM »
Quote from: Ellipsis on April 28, 2010, 04:35:34 PM
You don't seem to know what an ad hominem is.

Saying what is essentially "they're both moving the same rate through time" is idiotic and missing the point of the concept presented.  They're not moving the same speed through SPACE.  Their spacial relations are what is being dealt with.
An ad hominem is when you claim I am wrong because I am apparently lying.  Which is your supposed argument.   Regardless of whether or not I'm lying (I'm not), the argument should be addressed, not me.
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2010, 04:42:20 PM »
Quote from: Ellipsis on April 28, 2010, 04:39:38 PM
"When I said A, I meant B."
Then why didn't you say B?
Because A covers it fine in context.  They are both synonyms in context.


Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:22:24 PM
  Do you really think its a coincidence that I claimed it went in straight lines at c and that it really does? 
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2010, 04:44:34 PM »
If my argument is that you are lying, demonstrating your dishonesty is not an ad hominem.

"Because A covers it fine in context.  They are both synonyms in context."
No, speed has a definition very distinct from magnitude, especially in this context.  You said speed, referring to distance over time, when you're claiming you meant magnitude.  This claim is a lie and I've exposed it multiple times.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2010, 04:50:47 PM »
Quote from: Ellipsis on April 28, 2010, 04:44:34 PM
If my argument is that you are lying, demonstrating your dishonesty is not an ad hominem.

"Because A covers it fine in context.  They are both synonyms in context."
No, speed has a definition very distinct from magnitude, especially in this context.  You said speed, referring to distance over time, when you're claiming you meant magnitude.  This claim is a lie and I've exposed it multiple times.
I did not say speed referring to distance over time.  I said speed referring to the magnitude of the vector, which in this case is the 4-vector and obviously c.

Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:42:20 PM
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:22:24 PM
 Do you really think its a coincidence that I claimed it went in straight lines at c and that it really does?  
Also,
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:10:15 PM

Also, gravity is not a fundamental force within Einstein's relativity as Jack correctly points out again.   Do you still claim it is?  Or were you referring to something else.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 05:06:24 PM by John Davis »
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2010, 05:59:46 PM »
Quote from: Ellipsis on April 28, 2010, 04:44:34 PM
You said speed, referring to distance over time, when you're claiming you meant magnitude.  This claim is a lie and I've exposed it multiple times.
He showed what he meant:

Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 03:02:39 PM
|(γc,γv)|=c

Take an object.  Use its for.

v = (0,0,0)

Take its 4-vector:
(γc,γv)

Its speed (magnitude) (as shown above) is the speed of light.
Logged
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2010, 11:11:25 PM »
Quote from: john davis
I said speed referring to the magnitude of the vector...

No you didn't.  You said the ball moves at the speed of light.  Period.  Through the fourth dimension, sure, but you said speed, not magnitude.  When you referred to the motion of the ball's "speed," you were talking about the ratio expressed by the spacial distance it covers over a length of time, and the fourth dimension is not a spacial one.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2010, 11:59:57 PM »
I said exactly what I meant and I was right.  I'm sorry you didn't see it until you made a fool of yourself.
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2010, 12:07:03 AM »
I refer you to the last post in the second page, which begs to differ.  I'm pretty sure you read it already, but am curious as to why you're avoiding a directed response.  Playing make believe that I don't understand is a silly game of dodging my point.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 12:08:44 AM by Ellipsis »
Logged
?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #42 on: April 29, 2010, 08:15:09 AM »
Maybe this thread will make more sense if I beat myself around the head a little bit. A four vector is a vector with four elements. In relativity it can be Lorentz transformed. Ta da. How did that not manage to take three pages of verbal diahorrea?
A massless particle will always travel at the speed of light anything else is explicitly forbidden from doing so, regardless how how straight it may be travelling.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2010, 09:53:33 AM »

Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:22:24 PM
 Do you really think its a coincidence that I claimed it went in straight lines at c and that it really does?  

Also,
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:10:15 PM

Also, gravity is not a fundamental force within Einstein's relativity as Jack correctly points out again.   Do you still claim it is?  Or were you referring to something else.

[/quote]
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 09:55:04 AM by John Davis »
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2010, 11:03:11 AM »
When you said "speed" you were referring to the spacial distance it covered over time.  The fourth dimension is not a spacial one.  It doesn't travel with the same speed of light.  It may have the same 4-vector magnitude, but you didn't say that.  You said speed.  That's where you're wrong.
Logged
*

SupahLovah

  • 5130
  • +0/-0
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2010, 11:14:18 AM »
Quote from: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 11:03:11 AM
When you said "speed" you were referring to the spacial distance it covered over time.  The fourth dimension is not a spacial one.  It doesn't travel with the same speed of light.  It may have the same 4-vector magnitude, but you didn't say that.  You said speed.  That's where you're wrong.
You seem to be mistaken. He's said again and again, he said speed referring to the 4-vector magnitude. Just because you THINK he meant distance over time doesn't make it so.
Logged
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2010, 11:20:27 AM »
Quote from: SupahLovah on April 29, 2010, 11:14:18 AM
You seem to be mistaken. He's said again and again, he said speed referring to the 4-vector magnitude. Just because you THINK he meant distance over time doesn't make it so.
He changed his terms later when pressed about it.  If he meant "4-vector magnitude," he shouldn't have said "speed."  If it's as simple as him having slipped up and used the wrong term, that's fine, but like all FE'ers he refuses to admit any mistake.  This is the problem with people who pretend that they're right no matter what: they seem to think they can't admit fault.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2010, 11:20:55 AM »
Quote from: Ellipsis on April 28, 2010, 03:09:34 PM
I'm not talking about the object's speed through time.  I'm talking about its speed OVER time.

If its such incorrect usage, why do you use it here?
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #48 on: April 29, 2010, 11:21:16 AM »
Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 09:53:33 AM

Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:22:24 PM
 Do you really think its a coincidence that I claimed it went in straight lines at c and that it really does?  

Also,
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:10:15 PM

Also, gravity is not a fundamental force within Einstein's relativity as Jack correctly points out again.   Do you still claim it is?  Or were you referring to something else.


I would like a response to this.
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #49 on: April 29, 2010, 11:23:01 AM »
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 02:09:30 PM
All objects with mass travel at the speed of light.  The magnitude of the 4-vector is always c.
How about objects without mass?
Logged
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #50 on: April 29, 2010, 11:28:22 AM »
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 04:10:15 PM

Also, gravity is not a fundamental force within Einstein's relativity as Jack correctly points out again.   Do you still claim it is?  Or were you referring to something else.


Gravity is a fundamental force.  Within relativity it can be treated as if it isn't because it can be mimicked by constant acceleration.

Within the part you quoted, I used speed wrongly.  See what I did there?  I admitted fault.  You don't seem to have that capacity.  You said the ball travels in a straight line with the same speed as light, which it doesn't.  It doesn't travel at hundreds of thousands of miles per second.  If you were speaking of its 4-vector magnitude instead of its speed through space, you should have made it clear.
Logged
*

SupahLovah

  • 5130
  • +0/-0
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2010, 11:37:40 AM »
your signature is dumb.
Logged
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2010, 11:57:05 AM »
I'm not required to "make it clear" and dumb it down for you.  However I did the very next post despite being accused of "running from the thread" due to company at my house.  I guess us flat earthers are supposed to jump and beg at your command.

I said it travels at the "speed of light".  It does.  I'll quote it for you:
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 01:42:24 PM
Of course, the ball does travel in a straight line until it stops in RE physics too.
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 02:09:30 PM
All objects with mass travel at the speed of light.  The magnitude of the 4-vector is always c.  Objects follow a straight line through space-time.
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 03:02:39 PM
No, you are still wrong.  I have company and have not been put on this earth to reply to you every chance I get.

Do you even know what a 4 vector is?

|(γc,γv)|=c

When I have more time I'll explain in more detail why you are wrong.

Edit: I have a second, thats all it takes.

Take an object.  Use its for.

v = (0,0,0)

Take its 4-vector:
(γc,γv)

Its speed (magnitude) (as shown above) is the speed of light.

Learn what you are talking about before you call BS.

Did I say travel through 3 dimensions?  I am clearly in the right here.  Note that you started firing your guns at the "stupid flat earther" well before I ever stated I was talking about speed.  I clearly said that it travels at the speed of light.  We can see from this it doesn't matter what I said, even though I will defend later saying "speed (magnitude)" as it is correct.

You are incorrect. When questioned rudely, I clarified even more going out of my way with company here.  You refuse to admit it because I'm a flat earther and you are a bigot.

From context one should have realized to have an invariant magnitude equal to the speed of light one is talking of milowski space especially since I mentioned it travelling in straight lines.  However, I was even so kind as to explain clearly despite your obvious hostility towards flat earthers, a serious prejudice you need to work on.  If a flat earther won't admit he's wrong he must obviously be lying or wrong, ignoring his argument or point all together.  I had my doubts at first but you have shown that you are nothing more than a bigot with the phrase "like all FE'ers he refuses to admit any mistake."

I've admitted fault several times when I'm wrong and have nothing against it.  You however will not admit you are wrong to me because I'm a flat earther.  I've met your type before and it disgusts me everytime.  I imagine you treat Christians similarly, or perhaps foreigners, though I have no evidence of this yet.  Maybe its just flat earthers.    

Again, you can look through my post history before you continue making allegations about me lying or about myself not admitting fault or incorrectness.  You will find that they are unfounded and clearly false.

You should be ashamed.  I'm done arguing with a bigot child.  You are no longer worth my time.  You can continue your little spat about semantics with someone who cares.

edit: milowski
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 09:09:54 AM by John Davis »
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2010, 12:10:45 PM »
Quote from:
Did I say travel through 3 dimensions?

Thread the original post took place in involved a moving ship and a ball thrown into the air.  The thread had to do with its motion through three-dimensional space.  The ball doesn't (and CAN'T) move with the same speed as light through three dimensions, which was the subject of the thread.  How foolish of me to have thought when you used phrases like "speed" and "straight line," you didn't actually mean "speed" or "straight line."  Glad we got that settled.

Edit:  Also, compass thread.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2010, 12:14:09 PM »
Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:57:05 AM
You should be ashamed.  I'm done arguing with a bigot child.  You are no longer worth my time.  You can continue your little spat about semantics with someone who cares.

Edit: also compass thread:
Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 11:57:05 AM
You should be ashamed.  I'm done arguing with a bigot child.  You are no longer worth my time.  You can continue your little spat about semantics with someone who cares.
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
?

Ellipsis

  • 467
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2010, 12:27:12 PM »
"I can't explain it, so I'm going to call you a bigot and run away so I don't have to."
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #56 on: April 29, 2010, 12:57:31 PM »
Quote from: Xerox on April 28, 2010, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 03:50:26 PM
I'll also take it that Eclipses (since he must use the same metric for judging himself as he does me) has run from the thread and conceded the point to me.  Balls travel at the speed of light in straight lines.

Well, I assume you mean Ellipses.  Just because he left the thread doesn't mean he is saying you're right.  Sometimes you just have to know when to stop arguing with idiots.
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
*

SupahLovah

  • 5130
  • +0/-0
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #57 on: April 29, 2010, 01:14:29 PM »
Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 12:57:31 PM
Quote from: Xerox on April 28, 2010, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: John Davis on April 28, 2010, 03:50:26 PM
I'll also take it that Eclipses (since he must use the same metric for judging himself as he does me) has run from the thread and conceded the point to me.  Balls travel at the speed of light in straight lines.

Well, I assume you mean Ellipses.  Just because he left the thread doesn't mean he is saying you're right.  Sometimes you just have to know when to stop arguing with idiots.
QFT.

Ellipses, ur dum and post dum things.
Logged
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"
?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2010, 02:50:27 PM »
There is far too much mention of balls travelling at the speed of light for anything in this thread to be correct.
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Four-vector in Relativity
« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2010, 04:05:00 PM »
Quote from: bowler on April 29, 2010, 02:50:27 PM
There is far too much mention of balls travelling at the speed of light for anything in this thread to be correct.
Why do you feel this way?
Logged
If you can't argue both ides, yu understaand neither
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »