Dear paddoboy I dont understand the equation do you mind if I ask tg to explain it simply to me. His hint at formal education and dedication to simplicity should enable him to explain it to a layman.
It was from my link.....I'm sure bruce would do a better job though! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes from your most informative link... I thank you for posting same. I thought it may present a welcome opportunity for tg to showcase his sckills.
Who stops you from explaining ?? Why not do a favor to this forum and do something constructive like explaining a topic which may be useful to many instead of trolling in almost all the threads...
There is an inherent dishonesty in your post...Act like a student (and you must as you do not possess the required knowledge of science and maths to participate in such forums), I will be more than happy to assist you; but if you are here to find out about my skills, then as I told you lets discuss about anatomy of Kangaroos, or why not lets discuss about the betrayal of your avatar's 'open pepper and salt beard' persona by the skewed(ness) in the eyes.....You are not what you are trying to project yourself as...
Find out about your skills??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You have none other than a BS in bullshit. And your continued derision of a newbie, just because he happens to align generally with mainstream, actually reflects on your well known intellectual dishonesty and worse. You are a total fraud my friend, and your peers, most of them, recognise that fact.
Contd....... In 1919, Eddington experiment had all the ingradients of massive marketing hype......A new theory called GR, Sun Eclipse, Bad weather, Intercontinetal observations, Heavy Instruments to be carried to field....what a media hype and it catapulted Einstein and GR..... But even after 100 years, the Newtonian is indispensable. Why ? Packaging ?
So did you understand my claim in GL thread even after around 850+ posts ? You are solely driven by a desire to oppose me? I have praised you couple of times for your efforts and enthusiasm, why not pay back atleast partially ?! And let me handle this guy Xels.1947, he may be newbie here, but he is not.
Your claim is fabricated bullshit as you have been told many times and shown many times withing that 850 posts. It doesn't exist. If it did, you would not be here. I'm driven by a desire to oppose those questioning science without a degree and without evidence...I'm driven by a desire to expose cranks and those with religious and other agendas for what they truly are. And I give praise where its due: You show some honesty and integrity and you'll get some praise: Irrespective though, you praise yourself sufficiently to satisfy your own ego I'm sure. You do what you like my friend...I and others will certainly be here to expose you for what you are and the intellectual dishonesty you infest this forum with. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I thought I was acting like a student. You jump to conclusions again re others honesty I am at a loss as to why you react the way you do. I am polite to you but you insult my appearance and wish to talk about kangaroos. All of which I will overlook if you help me out with that equation, thats what I am interested in working out. Your comment that you will sort me out is intriguing I hope that means you are going to help me understand the equation. If you want to simply insult me I say that is unfortunate because you can not as I dont take offence. I am here to learn. Forget any reference I have made to your qualifications it seems to upset you which I really do not want to do.
Wow is the avatar you? We could be brothers. My hairs considerably whiter than yours and I just did my yearly beard trim [lol]. My beard's whiter to. Other than that we look like old, somewhat, disheveled twins. Looking good Xelasnave. I could be brucep1946.
This equation should have been \(ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2\) and is simply the Minkowski metric of special relativity.
Yes bruce its me. When I started with an astronomy forum years ago I decided not to hide behind a cartoon avatar. I am upfrunt and dinkum and have no problem being me. I would like the photo to be a happier me. Seems to upset tg for some reason.
Thank you very much Schmelzer. I wonder if you could show how the equation is used if that is the correct way to put it.
A pity your take and fairy tale on history does not change a thing, isn't it? I mean, other than your precious ego, who are you impressing? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If that's the case, my hair is considerably less then both of you! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Our divine friend needs to confront the truth: He prefers though to hide the truth, by raising incidentals and red herrings whenever possible.
It is used in the same way as one uses the corresponding Euclidean formula to compute lengths. The Euclidean metric is \(dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2\). The length of a curve is \(l = \int dl = \int \sqrt{dl^2} = \int \sqrt{ dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2} = \int \sqrt{(\frac{dx}{dt})^2+(\frac{dy}{dt})^2+(\frac{dy}{dt})^2}\, dt\) if you have some parametrized curve x(t),y(t),z(t). Similarly one can use the Minkowski metric to compute the proper time of a clock moving along a trajectory x(s),y(s),z(s),t(s) with some parameter s (which does not have to be time). Once we want to compute a time, we have to divide it by c, and to use the other sign is also better, because we are interested here in a time-like path, thus, let's use \(d\tau^2 = dt^2 - c^{-2}(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)\). Then, the clock time shown by the travelling clock is computed by \(\tau = \int d\tau = \int \sqrt{d\tau^2} = \int \sqrt{ dt^2 - c^{-2}(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)} = \int \sqrt{(\frac{dt}{ds})^2 - c^{-2}((\frac{dx}{ds})^2+(\frac{dy}{ds})^2+(\frac{dy}{ds})^2))} \, ds\) And if you use simply t as the parameter, and denote the derivatives like a velocity, this reduces to \(d\tau = \int \sqrt{1 - c^{-2}(v_x(t)^2+v_y(t)^2+v_z(t)^2)}dt = \int\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}dt\)
