d: clash of the titans
DavidBowman
even though they don't change or have a frequency, which is is WAY
counterintuitive.
As I was rying to figure out how this could be, PMB broke in and said:
> David - I accidentally came across bilge's usual nonsense...
He advised me that Bilge is full of shit and a crank, and that photonic
self-intereference is actually the crazy idea that it appears to
obviously be.
So Bilge replied to PMB:
> ...and you decided that rather than reply to me, you'd reply through
some unwary bystander [david], and get him involved in your
ankle-biting safari.
In other words, Bilge is saying that no, PMB is the crank and is full
of shit.
This happens a lot in here, and I have two problems with it:
PROBLEM ONE:
I don't know who is graciously taking their extremely valuable time to
explain something magical and fascinating, and who is a crackpot full
of shit. In practical terms, this means I still don't know if photons
can interefere with themselves, or if the very idea is obviously as
nutty as it sounds.
In other fields, you can tell what's bullshit. But in QM, all the
things we *KNOW* to be true sound crazy, every single one of them.
Sometimes I can tell which one the crank is because it's often the one
that's angry. But that usually doesn't work because both of them hiss
and spit like alley cats.
Other times, I can tell because one of them includes some little phrase
like "relativity is bullshit and Einstien was deluded and misguided".
But even then it's confusing, because, for instance, genuine relativity
scientists talk that way about string theorists, and to me, ST is
obviously the GUT we've all been waiting for.
The bottom line is that I end up not knowing what the HELL to believe,
and I turn off the computer more confused than when I turned it on.
I don't know if there's a solution for us Jedi-in-training, except
maybe there ought to be a "master crank list" so we can know who to
believe and who is full of shit.
PROBLEM TWO (and this is just my problem so I probably shouldn't
include it):
To you guys, you're just guys. But to me, you're high priests in my
religion. And I'm both honored and humbled by even being allowed to
hear you discuss things -- wonderful things -- which I barely
understand.
Learning calculus was like God speaking to me. And what he said was:
"I don't want YOU to know calculus!" But you guys know things I can't,
and when I see you slice each other up with light sabers, it's very
distressing.
In fact, a few years ago I left this newsgroup because I couldn't stand
watching the people I admire most in the world be so vicious and mean
to each other. (But I came back recently because things like the null
cone and hyperbolic rotation are just SO DAMN INTERESTING ...and
there's noplace else, anywhere, that I can ask questions about them).
But like I say, that's just my problem. "If you can't stand the heat,
get out of the kitchen", I suppose.
Nick
You're a hero worshipper Dave. Sorry to say it.
And yes I am on a master list of cranks.
When I see you cowtow to undeserving people it makes me sick.
Intellectuals think they have what they don't. If your an intellectual
early inferiority has driven you to a massive compensation
of unnatural intellegence. Its not your nature. Its artificial.
Your high priests are the lowest common denominator.
Realize what has driven you to raise the intellect to your God.
Take a look at yourself.
Bill Hobba
"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103782355....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Bilge was explaining to me how photons can interfere wwith themselves,
> even though they don't change or have a frequency, which is is WAY
> counterintuitive.
>
> As I was rying to figure out how this could be, PMB broke in and said:
> > David - I accidentally came across bilge's usual nonsense...
>
> He advised me that Bilge is full of shit and a crank, and that photonic
> self-intereference is actually the crazy idea that it appears to
> obviously be.
>
> So Bilge replied to PMB:
> > ...and you decided that rather than reply to me, you'd reply through
> some unwary bystander [david], and get him involved in your
> ankle-biting safari.
>
> In other words, Bilge is saying that no, PMB is the crank and is full
> of shit.
>
> This happens a lot in here, and I have two problems with it:
>
> PROBLEM ONE:
> I don't know who is graciously taking their extremely valuable time to
> explain something magical and fascinating, and who is a crackpot full
> of shit. In practical terms, this means I still don't know if photons
> can interefere with themselves, or if the very idea is obviously as
> nutty as it sounds.
>
> In other fields, you can tell what's bullshit. But in QM, all the
> things we *KNOW* to be true sound crazy, every single one of them.
First get a book - QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Feynman.
That explains the basics. Probably a good idea to get the famous 3 volume
set the Feynman Lectures on Physics as well. You can trust Feynman without
question.
Second, and I know I will cop flack for saying this, but there are a number
of people who you can trust who post here. I will name 4 - Bilge, Tom
Roberts, Steve Carlip and Dirk Van de Moortel. There are others but if you
stick to those 4 for the start you can not go wrong - simply ignore the
rest - including me. As Tom Roberts says - do not take anyone's word for
it; think it through for yourself then post any questions.
>
> Sometimes I can tell which one the crank is because it's often the one
> that's angry. But that usually doesn't work because both of them hiss
> and spit like alley cats.
>
> Other times, I can tell because one of them includes some little phrase
> like "relativity is bullshit and Einstien was deluded and misguided".
> But even then it's confusing, because, for instance, genuine relativity
> scientists talk that way about string theorists, and to me, ST is
> obviously the GUT we've all been waiting for.
>
> The bottom line is that I end up not knowing what the HELL to believe,
> and I turn off the computer more confused than when I turned it on.
>
> I don't know if there's a solution for us Jedi-in-training, except
> maybe there ought to be a "master crank list" so we can know who to
> believe and who is full of shit.
>
>
> PROBLEM TWO (and this is just my problem so I probably shouldn't
> include it):
>
> To you guys, you're just guys. But to me, you're high priests in my
> religion. And I'm both honored and humbled by even being allowed to
> hear you discuss things -- wonderful things -- which I barely
> understand.
>
> Learning calculus was like God speaking to me.
IMHO learning calculus is God speaking to you.
> And what he said was:
> "I don't want YOU to know calculus!"
No - what he was saying is this is too important for it to fall in your
lap - you must apply yourself. But it is woth it - well worth it.
> But you guys know things I can't,
> and when I see you slice each other up with light sabers, it's very
> distressing.
Do not be distressed - stick to the four names I gave previously, get and
read the references I gave, and you will not go wrong.
Thanks
Bill
jahn
"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1103782355....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
absorbed by an atomic oscillator. This assumes nothing about the
propagation of light beyond a few atom diameters.
The so called "duality of light" is probably better considered a
dual interpretation of light.
The partical model gives statistically good quantitatative data
but the only the wave model can explain phenomena like
the VLTI interferometer where we see the emission of a
*single* atom take four different paths and interfere with
itself.
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/phot-26-00.html
Sue...
jahn
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:j0wyd.85812$K7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Indeed! Physics is all about knowing who to trust.
Not all that different from politics and religion actually.
Sue...
>
Androcles
"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103782355....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
cone and hyperbolic rotation are just SO DAMN INTERESTING ...and
there's noplace else, anywhere, that I can ask questions about them).
It is mathematics you are interested in, David, not physics.
Androcles.
Harry
"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103782355....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Sometimes I can tell which one the crank is because it's often the one
> that's angry.
Good observation!
> But that usually doesn't work because both of them hiss
> and spit like alley cats.
>
> Other times, I can tell because one of them includes some little phrase
> like "relativity is bullshit and Einstien was deluded and misguided".
> But even then it's confusing, because, for instance, genuine relativity
> scientists talk that way about string theorists, and to me, ST is
> obviously the GUT we've all been waiting for.
Indeed, and you seem to be unaware that some respected scientists who nobody
would call cranky (e.g. Heaviside) shared the above opinion about Einstein's
ideas.
> The bottom line is that I end up not knowing what the HELL to believe,
> and I turn off the computer more confused than when I turned it on.
But that's science! Scientists know pretty well how to advice setting up a
GPS system so that it works. What really happens outside of observation is
anyone's guess (and the cause of debates) and therefore called metaphysics.
> I don't know if there's a solution for us Jedi-in-training, except
> maybe there ought to be a "master crank list" so we can know who to
> believe and who is full of shit.
Then you will make yourself a slave to the "masters" who tell you what to
believe. That happens in religious sects and is not in line with scientific
practice (at least, it should not be so!).
The choice is easy though: you either believe what people tell you to
believe (religion for the dumb), or you have to do an effort and use your
intelligence (science).
A good test is of course to see in how far claims can be backed up with
references (but you will need to study those before concluding anything and
sometimes even you may have to read the refences that you find inside those
references - don't take anyone's word for it!). I learned a lot from
studying the references that I picked up in this group.
> PROBLEM TWO (and this is just my problem so I probably shouldn't
> include it):
>
> To you guys, you're just guys. But to me, you're high priests in my
> religion. And I'm both honored and humbled by even being allowed to
> hear you discuss things -- wonderful things -- which I barely
> understand.
>
> Learning calculus was like God speaking to me. And what he said was:
> "I don't want YOU to know calculus!" But you guys know things I can't,
> and when I see you slice each other up with light sabers, it's very
> distressing.
This is the most agressive lion cage I ever came across, and netiquette is
unheard of. Due to the bad influence, sometimes I also forget it.
> In fact, a few years ago I left this newsgroup because I couldn't stand
> watching the people I admire most in the world be so vicious and mean
> to each other.
I have the impression that the group has actually improved during the last
year, more people are starting to behave.
> (But I came back recently because things like the null
> cone and hyperbolic rotation are just SO DAMN INTERESTING ...and
> there's noplace else, anywhere, that I can ask questions about them).
>
> But like I say, that's just my problem. "If you can't stand the heat,
> get out of the kitchen", I suppose.
Right.
Harald
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103782355....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Bilge was explaining to me how photons can interfere wwith themselves,
> even though they don't change or have a frequency, which is is WAY
> counterintuitive.
>
> As I was rying to figure out how this could be, PMB broke in and said:
>> David - I accidentally came across bilge's usual nonsense...
>
> He advised me that Bilge is full of shit and a crank, and that photonic
> self-intereference is actually the crazy idea that it appears to
> obviously be.
>
> So Bilge replied to PMB:
>> ...and you decided that rather than reply to me, you'd reply through
> some unwary bystander [david], and get him involved in your
> ankle-biting safari.
>
> In other words, Bilge is saying that no, PMB is the crank and is full
> of shit.
>
> This happens a lot in here, and I have two problems with it:
>
> PROBLEM ONE:
> I don't know who is graciously taking their extremely valuable time to
> explain something magical and fascinating, and who is a crackpot full
> of shit. In practical terms, this means I still don't know if photons
> can interefere with themselves, or if the very idea is obviously as
> nutty as it sounds.
Bill Hobba's list is nearly complete. Franz Heymann is not always verbose,
but a good resource. And it is still best to let your heart guide you, and
not depend on *others* assumptions. Judge by their works.
> In other fields, you can tell what's bullshit. But in QM, all the
> things we *KNOW* to be true sound crazy, every single one of them.
That is because our "commom sense" excells at perceiving "long range
pattern". QM is not about what is happening "over there" or "back then".
It IS odd, but it is the foundation of this Universe. Somehow that
"discontinuity" makes the "continuous" we see possible and reliable.
> Sometimes I can tell which one the crank is because it's often the one
> that's angry. But that usually doesn't work because both of them hiss
> and spit like alley cats.
No. What you see are emotions, and "teachers" and cranks both have them.
I recently had an emotional bout with Uncle Al, in which he was slightly
mistaken. It is difficult to "keep your silence", to refrain from pouring
gasoline on the fire. But heaping insults only serves to move the
"student" further from the truth, and not all "teachers" have learned this.
Cranks, kooks and trolls are not "students".
> Other times, I can tell because one of them includes some little phrase
> like "relativity is bullshit and Einstien was deluded and misguided".
> But even then it's confusing, because, for instance, genuine relativity
> scientists talk that way about string theorists, and to me, ST is
> obviously the GUT we've all been waiting for.
>
> The bottom line is that I end up not knowing what the HELL to believe,
> and I turn off the computer more confused than when I turned it on.
Then you may be learning correctly. Science is WORK. People have to be
paid to do this stuff.
> I don't know if there's a solution for us Jedi-in-training, except
> maybe there ought to be a "master crank list" so we can know who to
> believe and who is full of shit.
Been done. At some point, the crank, kook, or troll will drop a line that
may provide a sea change against a fundamental belief. But it will be an
accident. It is "duffers" like you that will really change it.
> PROBLEM TWO (and this is just my problem so I probably shouldn't
> include it):
>
> To you guys, you're just guys. But to me, you're high priests in my
> religion. And I'm both honored and humbled by even being allowed to
> hear you discuss things -- wonderful things -- which I barely
> understand.
This isn't religion. This sh*t is testable, and no sin is involved.
Cranks, kooks, and trolls would have long ago gotten their comeuppance, if
this were a religion.
> Learning calculus was like God speaking to me. And what he said was:
> "I don't want YOU to know calculus!" But you guys know things I can't,
> and when I see you slice each other up with light sabers, it's very
> distressing.
Learning involves dealing with others who don't, won't, or can't learn.
Almost as much dealing as with those who do learn. The crucible here at
sci.physics.relativity has been reduced to the handfull of steady
"teachers" and the little "jewels" that time nor pressure nor fact can
effect... the cranks, kooks, and trolls.
> In fact, a few years ago I left this newsgroup because I couldn't stand
> watching the people I admire most in the world be so vicious and mean
> to each other. (But I came back recently because things like the null
> cone and hyperbolic rotation are just SO DAMN INTERESTING ...and
> there's noplace else, anywhere, that I can ask questions about them).
I don't like emotional outbursts either. Don't participate, or simply post
"I'll be back when the shouting is done".
> But like I say, that's just my problem. "If you can't stand the heat,
> get out of the kitchen", I suppose.
Better still: you get what you pay for. Here it is opinions, and they are
largely free. Even though a poster may have devoted his life to his
opinion, and the set of facts that he/seh uses to support this opinion,
doesn't mean it will be usefull to you.
sci.physics.research is moderated. It might be a little "quieter" there.
sci.physics.relativity is a lightning rod for the cranks, kooks, and
trolls.
David A. Smith
DavidBowman
comeuppance, if this were a religion.
If science was a religion, QM's founders would have been burned at the
stake in the 1920's.
> Don't participate, or simply post "I'll be back when the shouting is
done".
what I do is just abandon the thread and walk away with whatever I've
learned, leaving the two antagonists to spiral and spin off aimlessly,
like the SRBs of the shuttle Columbia.
> Better still: you get what you pay for
Hmm, I think that's the operant point. It's like complaining about the
content of an argument between two people you walk past in the street.
I also may be putting people on pedestals, then complaining when they
step off.
Nevertheless, I don't look up to rich people or football players or
Jee-zuss, like the stupid people do. Rather, I want to be like the
ones who understand things.
If you could attend an Einstein lecture or have a few drinks with
Feynman in that tittie bar he hung around all the time, wouldn't you
feel honored to be in the presence of someone like that who you could
ask important questions to which nobody else can answer?
=[ d
Bilge
>This happens a lot in here, and I have two problems with it:
>
>PROBLEM ONE:
>I don't know who is graciously taking their extremely valuable time to
>explain something magical and fascinating, and who is a crackpot full
>of shit. In practical terms, this means I still don't know if photons
>can interefere with themselves, or if the very idea is obviously as
>nutty as it sounds.
You can decide to believe whomever you wish. My advice is not to
get sucked in to pmb's scheme to place you in the middle of his
anklebiting. I'm not going to debate pmb through an intermediary.
>In other fields, you can tell what's bullshit. But in QM, all the
>things we *KNOW* to be true sound crazy, every single one of them.
In the bigger scheme of things, quantum mechanics makes more sense than
classical physics or if you prefer, classical physics looks a lot crazier
than quantum mechanics if you really try to picture _any_ classical
physics literally.
[...]
>I don't know if there's a solution for us Jedi-in-training, except
>maybe there ought to be a "master crank list" so we can know who to
>believe and who is full of shit.
There is a solution. Solving the problem is itself rather important
if you are planning to become a physicist, since you will have to
rely on other physicists to whatever extent you believe they are
competent unless you want to reinvent every branch of physics yourself.
All I can suggest is that there is no sure fire way to decide anything
beyond what someone can offer in the way of a calculation which is as
free of interpretaton as possible. Then, to whatever exent the calulation
is correct, you can decide the extent to which any interpretation is
reasonable.
>PROBLEM TWO (and this is just my problem so I probably shouldn't
>include it):
>
>To you guys, you're just guys. But to me, you're high priests in my
>religion. And I'm both honored and humbled by even being allowed to
>hear you discuss things -- wonderful things -- which I barely
>understand.
I'd suggest not thinking of anyone that way. All you're doing is
setting yourself up for disappointment.
>Learning calculus was like God speaking to me. And what he said was:
>"I don't want YOU to know calculus!" But you guys know things I can't,
>and when I see you slice each other up with light sabers, it's very
>distressing.
It would be more distressing if you relied on what you were told
without the benefit of knowing that one of two opinions was wrong.
There is a difference between different opinions on something about
which there is no general agreement and two conflicting statements,
at least one of which is wrong.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103817698.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Cranks, kooks, and trolls would have long ago gotten their
> comeuppance, if this were a religion.
>
> If science was a religion, QM's founders would have been burned at the
> stake in the 1920's.
>
>> Don't participate, or simply post "I'll be back when the shouting is
> done".
>
> what I do is just abandon the thread and walk away with whatever I've
> learned, leaving the two antagonists to spiral and spin off aimlessly,
> like the SRBs of the shuttle Columbia.
Perfectly valid. It is sometimes important to see if the underlying cause
of the disagreement is something you need to know... other than that...
>> Better still: you get what you pay for
>
> Hmm, I think that's the operant point. It's like complaining about the
> content of an argument between two people you walk past in the street.
>
> I also may be putting people on pedestals, then complaining when they
> step off.
No need to do this, really. Knowledge is something that makes you richer
by sharing. Putting someone on a pedestal simply makes two-way
communication more difficult. As does putting them down, for that matter.
> Nevertheless, I don't look up to rich people or football players or
> Jee-zuss, like the stupid people do. Rather, I want to be like the
> ones who understand things.
The smartest ones only know what they don't know, but work at finding out.
> If you could attend an Einstein lecture or have a few drinks with
> Feynman in that tittie bar he hung around all the time, wouldn't you
> feel honored to be in the presence of someone like that who you could
> ask important questions to which nobody else can answer?
"Are they real?"
No, I'd be happy to find the underlying thread of the life. The
performance of mathematical legerdemain is something I may always be blind
to. So I listen for the meaning, and "feel" the texture of the resulting
work. And I try to help...
David A. Smith
DavidBowman
Well, you're certainly doing a damn good job. This week, I've spent a
combined total of about an entire night learning about hyperbolic
geometry, which you turned me on to.
It turns out that spacetime IS hyperbolic geometry! I had been grossly
ignorant of something I thought I knew a lot about, and didn't even
know it.
=[ d
PS
Thanx!
David McAnally
The geometry of Special Relativity is commonly known as Minkowskian
geometry. The geometry which is commonly known as hyperbolic geometry
(and sometimes as Lobachewskian, or Lobachevskian, geometry) was the
geometry which was investigated by Bolyai and Lobachewsky, and is
inappropriate for Special Relativity.
So, if you have been learning about hyperbolic geometry from books, then
chances are that you have been learning about Lobachewskian geometry, and
while it is an interesting geometry to learn, it will not assist you in a
study of Special Relativity.
David
-----
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103840984....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> And I try to help...
>
> Well, you're certainly doing a damn good job. This week, I've spent a
> combined total of about an entire night learning about hyperbolic
> geometry, which you turned me on to.
Actually it was a different David. The only thing I contributed to was
pointing out the direction to shallow water.
> It turns out that spacetime IS hyperbolic geometry! I had been grossly
> ignorant of something I thought I knew a lot about, and didn't even
> know it.
Go man, go!
David A. Smith
David McAnally
>"DavidBowman" <dt04...@yahoo.com> writes:
In Euclidean geometry, distance measure is parabolic in nature and angle
measure is elliptic in nature.
In hyperbolic geometry (i.e. Lobachewskian geometry), distance measure is
hyperbolic in nature and angle measure is elliptic in nature.
In elliptic geometry (or Riemannian geometry), distance measure is
elliptic in nature and angle measure is elliptic in nature.
In Minkowskian geometry (the geometry appropriate for the study of Special
Relativity), distance measure is parabolic in nature and angle measure is
hyperbolic in nature (the magnitude of the angle is called the rapidity in
Special Relativity).
David
-----
Ken S. Tucker
I'm sorry, but what you posted is the the biggest piece of BS, I've
seen
in a Light-year. Your post is not impressive, how did what you posted
communicate understanding?
I know much about the subject and you're post confused me to crap.
Just solve U_i =0 and get over it.
Ken
DavidBowman
> The geometry which is commonly known as hyperbolic geometry is
inappropriate for Special Relativity.
AND KEN SAYS:
To McAnally
I'm sorry, but what you posted is the the biggest piece of BS, I've
seen in a Light-year.
See what I'm talking about?
I don't know whether or not to doubt the deep link I thought I saw
between SR and hyperbolic geometry.
=[ d
DavidBowman
Oops.
Wrong AGAIN, Albert!
=[ d
David McAnally
First of all, whose comment was the one which was loaded with invective?
Mine or Ken's?
Secondly, how come Ken gets a first name, and I don't? And my name was
misspelt by you. My surname is pronouced 'Mac an ally'.
If the hyperbolic geometry which you are learning features such theorems
as:
(1) For any line, m, and any point, P, not on that line, there is
more than one line through P that does not intersect with m;
(2) For any line, m, and any point, P, not on that line, there are
infinitely many lines through P that do not intersect with m;
(3) The angles of a triangle sum to less than 180 degrees (pi
radians);
(4) The area of a triangle is equal to a constant K multiplied
by the difference between 180 degrees (pi radians) and
the sum of the angles;
(5) The sine rule and cosine rule for triangles involve
hyperbolic functions of the sides, so that, with the usual
notation sides of lengths a, b, c, and angular measures
A, B, C, for the respective opposite angles:
sinh a/sin A = sinh b/sin B = sinh c/sin C,
cosh c = cosh a cosh b + sinh a sinh b cos C;
(6) For a right angle triangle, the hyperbolic cosine of the
hypotenuse is equal to the product of the hyperbolic
cosines of the other two sides;
then you have been learning Lobachewskian geometry, and it is
inappropriate to the study of Special Relativity.
If, on the hand, the geometry refers to rapidities, rather than angles,
and the laws deal with the hyperbolic functions of the rapidities (or
angles), then you have been learning Minkowskian geometry, and it is the
correct geometry to be studying for the study of Special Relativity.
Ken Seto has been a bit miffed at me since I was sceptical about his claim
that the frequency of a sound decreases as you get farther away from the
source. I have not read any of Ken Seto's postings since then.
Ken S. Tucker has been a bit miffed at me since I was sceptical at his
idea of imposing coordinates on a space of fractional dimension, and
his attempts to dictate the existence of fractional dimensional vector
spaces, and to dictate the existence of a basis (presumably of fractional
cardinality) for these vector spaces. I have not read any of Ken S.
Tucker's postings since then.
If it was another Ken, then tell me.
If it was one of these two, then you can understand why they may be
hostile. But look at what they wanted us to accept.
David
-----
Ken S. Tucker
My comment was addressed to Mr. McAnally, if the
hyperbolic model works for you that's fine, it's a
conventional PoV.
Mr. McAnally and I've been discussing this before,
and I should have clarified my interruption.
Ken S. Tucker
David McAnally
<snip>
Another difference is that
(1) in Lobachawskian geometry, the length of one side of a regular
triangle is less than the sum of the lengths of the other
two sides;
(2) in Minkowskian geometry, the length of the longest side of
a regular triangle is greater than the sum of the lengths of
the other two sides.
David
-----
David McAnally
<snip>
>Another difference is that
> (1) in Lobachawskian geometry, the length of one side of a regular
> triangle is less than the sum of the lengths of the other
> two sides;
> (2) in Minkowskian geometry, the length of the longest side of
> a regular triangle is greater than the sum of the lengths of
> the other two sides.
Quantitatively, if the lengths of the sides of the triangle in Minkowskian
geometry are a, b, c, with a being the longest, then
a^2 = b^2 + c^2 + 2 b c cosh A,
where A is the relative rapidity between the sides of lengths b and c (and
so can be treated as the "angle" opposite the longest side).
David
-----
David McAnally
Another theorem of Lobachewskian geometry is the theorem that if two
triangles have the same angles, then they are congruent, i.e. similar
triangles are congruent.
On the other hand, similar triangles in Minkowskian geometry (the geometry
appropriate to Special Relativity) need not be congruent (as is also the
case in Euclidean geometry).
It is the parabolic nature of the distance measure in Euclidean and
Minkowskian geometries which allows for the existence of pairs of similar
triangles which are not congruent. On the other hand, the distance
measure in Lobachewskian geometry is hyperbolic in nature, and that forces
similar triangles to be congruent.
David
-----
DavidBowman
systems? wolfram isn't really good with visualizations.
I'm also looking for a site with a picture of a hyperbola and a point
on it both before and after rotation. I think I can picture it, but I
want to be correct. this would help, though:
does rotating a hyperbola increase it's eccentricity?
-d
Ken S. Tucker
DavidBowman wrote:
...
> does rotating a hyperbola increase it's eccentricity?
>
> -d
If you rotate a circle would the eccentricity vary?
ken
DavidBowman
Oops.
sal
>
> Second, and I know I will cop flack for saying this, but there are a
> number of people who you can trust who post here. I will name 4 - Bilge,
> Tom Roberts, Steve Carlip and Dirk Van de Moortel.
Bill Hobba is a smart guy, and will rarely lead you astray when he talks
about physics.
However, he is no judge of people. I would disagree with his assessment
of at least half the "reliable" people on his short list.
In the end, you will have to form your own opinions of the people in the
group. NONE of the regular posters in this group are perfect and
error-free in all statements about physics, and many are very
trigger-happy with accusations of "stupidity" and "ignorance". Pay close
attention to which posters are willing to phrase an explanation in a way
that can be understood, which are willing to admit to a mistake when they
make one, and which are willing to allow for different approaches to the
field (there is more than one way to look at many things, relativity
included).
Hobba scores pretty high on the criteria I just mentioned, most of the
time. But one or two guys on his "reliable list" get zeros in some areas,
and may leave you feeling like a cretin when the only error committed
wasn't yours.
So, watch your back...
--
I can be contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
re...@asu.edu
Wouldn't this be a great world if the smarter people get the less
dogmatic they get, the more tollerant they get, the nicer they get, the
more open-minded they get, and the less self-righteous they get.
Patrick
jmfb...@aol.com
No, it wouldn't be a great world. If all that happened, then
everybody would be teaching science the way you want them to
and wouldn't say anything without your explicit approval. This
would stop education, which would stop trade, which would plunge
civilization into a Dark Ages.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
re...@asu.edu
Beyond the sheer bizareness of the logic you used to form your
conclusion, what specifically is supposed to be wrong with the way I
"teach science?"
Patrick
jmfb...@aol.com
You have been told repeated by scientists..you know, these people
who actually do the work.
re...@asu.edu
That isn't an answer. Though the fact that you do not know that your
reply isn't an answer is not surprising around here.
I'll give you an analogy: the cook probably doesn't care about the
nutritional value of the food he or she cooks up. If you want to know
nutrition, you have to specifically study nutrition, not cooking.
Patrick
jmfb...@aol.com
It isn't an answer that you want hear even though it's the
correct answer to your question.
> ...Though the fact that you do not know that your
>reply isn't an answer is not surprising around here.
And it's not surprising that you didn't accept it as an
answer.
>
>I'll give you an analogy: the cook probably doesn't care about the
>nutritional value of the food he or she cooks up. If you want to know
>nutrition, you have to specifically study nutrition, not cooking.
Your cook must have burned dinner because I see lots of smoke and
mirrors in this red herring.
Bilge
>Wouldn't this be a great world if the smarter people get the less
>dogmatic they get, the more tollerant they get, the nicer they get, the
>more open-minded they get, and the less self-righteous they get.
Yeah, but people such as yourself keep that from happening.
You are dogmatic, intolerant, closed-minded and self-righteous
about a field in which you have no expertise. If people such as
yourself left science up to scientists, then your wish might
come true.
re...@asu.edu
Patrick
Bilge
Read any of your posts. I'm not interested in having a debate over
things like what the meaning of ``is'', is.
re...@asu.edu
You again refuse to defend the invective you spew out at people.
Patrick