Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, May 7, 2015.
Who the frig is Minkowsky?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Like I said, and like any self respecting scientist [as Einstein was] he saw as far as he did, because he did stand on the shoulders of giants.
And again, I'm not taking anything away from Einstein.
That era was full of giants.
Firstly, do you have any reference of him saying that, and secondly, he was of the next generation to Einstein, Bohr, Hilbert and the many others.
You have me at a disadvantage here...
Where did Minkowski say that space or time were absolute?
He did say the at the Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians the following....
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
And Einstein himself great credit to Minkowski for the geometrical view of spacetime.
This is an integral part of the crank rant of danshawen. These kind of things fascinate me. LOL. Such as not being able to spell the dead guys name. LOL.
Nice post. Thanks for writing it down.
That about wraps it up then. What you propose is that physics and math remain stuck in the nineteenth century. For ever and ever. If you both don't mind, or even if you do, I believe I will skip that class as well.
I'm fairly certain that Gell-Mann's quote is not to be found in 'The Quark and the Jaguar' if you are still googling for it.
This was fun, and I'm pleased you both enjoyed it. But we have done this before.
The reference you asked for:
"If I have seen further than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarfs."
Just as I posted ISN'T IT?
So, you had no trouble finding the Minkowski quote but couldn't find that one? Are you using Bing or something?
Paddoboy: here's a handy tip. You should only ask for references if you actually doubt what someone is saying. Most of my posts are interpretive. I have read, applied, and understood what it is that I have read. I am not a google scholar. I read. I analyze. I am what an authority looked like before google search engines existed. My memory may not be perfect, but it's more perfect than yours will be if the Google or Bing search engine ever go away.
I cannot claim to have learned from the best in all of the subjects I studied, but a select few stood out.
And I have done geometrical proofs. LOTS of them. I did them all correctly. I never trisected an angle with a compass and a straight edge, nor will I ever.
Minkowski (and if I have misspelled the name, so what??? Probably got it confused with KORNOWSKY or something) never did a mathematical proof relating to treating the spacetime of SRT as though it were Euclidean. That's because, it is impossible. Like trying to trisect an acute angle with a compass and a straight edge. If he ever said he did, he was a mathematical fraud for that reason alone. If you want your math to square with reality, you need to observe how reality works BEFORE crafting mathematics or geometry to represent how things actually are. Neither Euclid nor Minkowski, nor even Hilbert did this, and it shows.
Your 1906 Minkowski quote:
And from the same article:
"Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities."
Which is hard to do if you aren't hell bent on treating spacetime as though it were a solid mass, or infinitely rigid, or possessed of an absolute origin based upon absolute space and absolute time, just like nineteenth century physics imagined the aether of Newton's physics.
If Minkowski and his math were really of the same status as Einstein, Wheeler's Pole and Barn Paradox would have to be rewritten something like this:
A garage that is exactly large enough to accommodate a Model T Ford when at rest is in the path of the Antique car traveling toward it at relativistic speed. The garage has front and rear doors exactly large enough to admit the automobile and for it to exit. Describe the necessary shape the garage would need to be (parallelogram) and the hyperbolic angle at which it would need to be rotated about its center in order for the relativistic Model T to exactly fit inside of the 50% Lorentz contracted / rotated AND distorted garage. Be certain to account for any simultaneity effects which might mean the edges of the distorted front and rear doors line up with the front and rear bumpers of the Model T at different times, and a different description of events from the point of view of someone in the frame of the garage vs. someone in the car.
Is this really an improvement? Are these 'real' effects or are they not? Is the rotated Model T traveling in a straight line? Then how the heck does a rotated parallelogram fit inside of a rectangular garage that is square with the direction of motion of this distorted vehicle? So much for the geometry lesson. The paradox remains one, if you believe Minkowski. The garage doors, which ARE NOT length contracted, get smashed.
This is exactly why most of Minkowski's ideas, like light cones, are useless, just like square pegs that don't fit into round holes, in terms of actual geometry, at rest, in a theoretical Euclidean space, unless the diagonal of the square peg is less than the diameter of the round hole. And that isn't the definition of an actual "fit" or even "congruent", is it? That's how I think of Minkowski's whole life, because everything he did was a distortion of Einstein's ideas.
Less google, more noodle please. You wanted peer review? You're getting some. How's that working out for you?
The biggest problem of SR/GR is not the theory itself but the problem is ignorant are advocating it........their light is infinitely red shifted........Both Paddoboy and Brucep are not worth engaging in. They won't budge, because they have no ability to comprehend or think aloud.
I think both paddoboy and brucep are redeemable, Rajesh. They can still benefit from this discussion. I have occasionally benefitted from their criticism also.
The ignorant have done everything they could to troll SRT since 1905. There isn't much criticism I haven't seen. New stuff is always coming out on Metapedia.
Please, no one here should give that source as a reference.
I understand that I am in the extreme minority both in the physics and mathematics community in railing against Minkowski's apparently simpler geometrical formulations of SRT. I read Hilbert's rhapsodic eulogy of his friend. I understand (in part because of discussions on sciforums) that Einstein's later GRT depended heavily on some of Minkowski's earlier work. And that influence is evident as well.
Nonetheless, I find his mathematics clumsy and unable to go forward to explain physical things like quantum entanglement and dozens of other wrinkles his formulation never attempted to sort out. Until the dimension of time is sorted out for what it physically is, and how it fits into 21st century ideas about emergent space vs. higher dimensions, I propose we table this discussion.
Getting back to the subject of this thread and what to do about "delusional" posters such as myself or someone like Lubos Motl (fired from Harvard for his online rants against books by Woit, Smolin), how would you determine the fate of a posting similar to this about Minkowski, paddoboy? You realize, Einstein detractors have been epidemic for at least 110 years, I assume?
Bans on certain discusssions, such as perpetual motion machines, are already in place here, and I agree with this policy. Does this one really belong in that banned category or not?
So you think I can become an intellectually dishonest crank like you and Rajesh? We redeem scientific illiteracy and you'll think we're cool. You're pretty much clueless on anything that has to do with modern physics. You're pretty much delusional with respect to your place in the pecking order.
Almost certainly. You do redeem scientific illiteracy, whether you realize it or not, and you (both) have my thanks. Pecking order does not concern me in the least.
Except both paddo boy and brucep have views aligned with the accepted models and theories. And they are accepted simply because they make the most sense, and far more sense than the looney brigade that like to pretend they can think for themselves, without realising they exclude the simple ingredients of logic and common sense.
And dear friends, that says it all!
Heed a lesson danshawen, and also Donald Duck.
By being in the vast extreme minority, common sense says that in most cases, you are just as obviously wrong.
And I doubt either of you are capable of offerring any evidence to support your alternative propositions...plenty of talk, hand waving, playing the victim card, but absolutely no substance.
This is why our real indispensible members such as Grumpy, Aquious id, and others have grown tired of the cranks such as yourselves.
But as I have said numerous times, by ranting, raving and claiming to be the "virtue of truth" on forums such as this, does not affect the scientific establishment and the cosmological sciences one iota.
The establishment proceeds as per normal, via proper peer review and the scientific method.
In other words, both of you are pissing into the wind.
Thanks for relaying that paddoboy.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're an illiterate fool. Babble on.
You are not in particular pissing me off...neither is Donald Duck.
I see you both as having problems.
Get over yourself.
See, the problem in engaging these two adult kids........They will come to personal attack....The only argument these two kids will propagate is that it is mainstream acceptable model, so this must be right. Thats ok, we all understand that, but do these kids understand what is the mainstream model ? No, they don't, so much of ignorance and on top of that pretention in this Brucep kid. Paddoboy, despite ugly outbursts I have soft corner for because he is not expected to think beyond certain point due to his admitted handicap.........
Your hypocrisy along with your stupidity and lying, knows no bounds.
If you have anything new, get it properly peer reviewed...But we all know different don't we?
Peter Higgs original manuscript was initially rejected by a peer reviewed scientific journal. That's a fact. I can provide references if you wish.
It is also a fact that brucep is exceptionally literate in mainstream cosmology.
But unless you are Kim Jong-un, one should never expect that everyone you meet will have read everything that you have, or rejected reading everything you have, or that any situation adverse to this means that everyone but yourself is ILLITERATE.
Because if you do, you're going to have a tough life outside of your book club.
We use space-time (x,y,z,t), but this has a conceptual problem, that can be fixed by using time-space (r, t1,t2,t3). Space-time has a conceptual problem, in that it is not consistent with the theory/observation of the universe expanding in all directions, simultaneously. The universe expanding in all directions assumption, assumes there is no fixed origin in space, since the origin constantly changes; there is no fixed center. Space-time assume a relative origin that another theory says does not exist. One is assuming time as a function of a position that is never at steady state; oops!
My theory of time-space defines space in terms of a radius=r, that is a function of time. Time can be 0-D, 1-D, 2-D and 3-D. The 0-D time is the time origin, or a point in time. This point fixes the center of the radius, since time is stopped. This is not reference dependent. The 1-D time is a time line connected to all phenomena with one unit of time, such as velocity=r/t. The 2-D time is connected to acceleration d/t/t=A; two units of time. While 3-D time is an acceleration of an acceleration, which is the accelerated expansion of the universe in spite of the acceleration of gravity; d/t/t/t; three units of time.
This is more useful for defining the state of point in a universe, that is expanding in all directions, at the same time, while being subject to motion and force, since it allows an origin that is stopped in time.
Separate names with a comma.