Discussion: Lorentz invariance of certain zero angles

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by Pete, Nov 25, 2011.

  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    It's moot anyway, as far as this debate is concerned.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    I don't think so. The coordinate representation of a vector in a particular basis is dependent on the chosen basis, but the vector itself is not dependent on any coordinate system.

    As a simple example, consider a two-dimensional length vector attached to the origin in the (x,y) coordinate system. Obviously, it is represented as being composed of particular (x,y) coordinates - the coordinates of its "head" (the tail being fixed at (0,0)). Now consider a second coordinate system (x',y') that is rotated with respect to the first, and with co-located origins. The given vector obviously has a different coordinate representation in the new system, but the vector itself hasn't changed at all. To change the vector, we would have to change either its length or the direction it points in space. Going to a new coordinate system does neither of those things.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Yes that's true, but Tach was talking about the coordinate representation of a vector (at least that's how I read it.). I guess I should have been more careful...
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Hi Tach,
    If you agree, I'd like to change the tracking list to rename the current issue as Definition of rods T1 and T2, and add Definition of points A and B, so we can focus on rods and points separately.
     
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    OK, cool
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I can't edit the opening post any more.

    Moderators, Administrators, help!
    Is it possible to turn off the edit time limitation for one post?

    Otherwise, can someone please edit the opening post of [post=2863332]Debate: Lorentz invariance of certain zero angles[/post] to:
    • Change "1.2 - Definition of T1 and T2 (Active)" to "1.2 - Definition of rods T1 and T2 (Active)"
    • Add 1.3 - Definition of points A and B (Pending)

    Thanks.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Not that I'm aware of.

    Will do.
     
  11. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Thanks James.
    Is it reasonable to keep making such requests as the debate continues, or should I come up with some other way of tracking the issues?
     
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Hi Tach,
    We agreed to answer direct questions in the next post.
    To make this explicit, I think we should quote any direct questions and provide a direct answer as part of our response.
    In [post=2864752]post 21[/post], I asked:
    Your response was that you don't understand it's purpose, which doesn't answer the question asked.

    Can you please post another response to the debate thread or edit your previous response to answer that question?

    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Hi Tach,
    I don't quite agree after all - can I please amend my "Oh crap, wait" post to explain?
     
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    sure
     
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Thanks, done.
     
  16. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Christ guys, 36 posts in the debate thread and you're "almost" done with step 1 of 4?
     
  17. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    Pete is attempting the impossible, (to get Tach to see one of his own errors), therefore this could take awhile. Although you did hand Tach his arse in pretty short order in the matte wheel debate, so maybe it can be done after all. But I don't think he ever acknowledged that he was incorrect about his claims, he just changed his claims around a bit.
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Actually, it is the other way around, RJ handed his own arse to himself, I merely helped him along. Then , he threw a fit and threw the toys out of his pram. The same way you did it yourself, repeatedly.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
  19. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    It shows that RJ learned from his debate fiasco and he went on to study in earnest, so I agreed with his new scenario, he finally learned the correct physics of reflection (at least the bit with matte surfaces, he, like you, still doesn't get the bit with the specular ones). So, he gathered his toys and put them back in his pram. When will you manage to follow suit?
     
  21. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Uhh, Tach, you do realize that I successfully debated the topic as I understood it, right? Ignoring for a moment whether or not the goal posts were moved after the debate began, does it make sense to you that I would use \(f_0\)=\(f_{s'}\) in my proof unless I thought it bolstered my argument? Why the hell wouldn't I have simply used the argument that I laid out in the thread that Neddy Bate linked to...also written by me...and also completely devastating to your misconstrued beliefs?

    I mean, if we're going to arbitrarily change how a debate topic should be interpreted then from now on I'm just going to claim that you were debating that 2+2=5. Oh yeah, and that you "self-destructed" in the effort.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    this thread is for me and pete to discuss the debate, not for you two to whine about the debates you lost and not for you to do the trolling.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    You can tell, can't you? Having teeth pulled is no fun for anyone.
     

Share This Page