Discussion: Lorentz invariance of certain zero angles
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
prometheus said:
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.
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:
OK, cool
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:
Thanks.
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.
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:
Can you please post another response to the debate thread or edit your previous response to answer that question?
Thanks
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.Pete said:
Can you please post another response to the debate thread or edit your previous response to answer that question?
Thanks
Last edited:
sure
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
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.
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:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Actually I was thinking of this thread:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111130
He had you in check-mate by post #5.
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?
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.
You can tell, can't you? Having teeth pulled is no fun for anyone.