Re: On the light-like interval
- From: "Phil" <cms_pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Apr 2007 22:59:00 -0700
On Apr 6, 11:51 pm, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:47 pm, "Phil" <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 6, 11:37 pm, karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:04 pm, "Phil" <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil wrote:
Recently I came to the realization that the light-light interval is an
interval whose end points describe the same point in space-time.
This is simply not true. When I look at it, Vega and my eyeball are NOT
the "same point in space-time". Not even close! They are two distinct
points separated by a null interval, that's all.
Tom Roberts
It occurred to me that my inertial frame displaces in spacetime which
would explain why I can stake two distinct coordinate measurements to
the same point and describe sufficiently why the events are not
separated in the space-time object, (null interval). So you are
saying that it doesn't follow that a null interval means zero
separation in spacetime of the events. Since a null interval doesn't
describe the distance between two events associated with the relative
motion of light, why wouldn't it also follow that an interval does not
always describe the spacetime distance between two events?
If an interval doesn't give the space-time distance between two
events, what is a better description or definition of the interval
then? Its not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely trying to
resolve this.
Imbecile, light-like interval means (cdt)^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)=0
That's precisely the interval to which I was refering. So maybe you
care to explain how the interval between the events of any light-like
interval are distinguishable in position in spacetime, given, that the
interval is zero. And if they are distinguishable please show me how
any of them and any infinite sum of the them is always zero. Instead
of resorting to name calling, or falsely presenting my thoughts, why
don't you just clarify the actual questions with legitimate answers?
Imbecile, light-like interval means (cdt)^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)=0
It does NOT mean dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=0.
You can have (cdt)^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)=0 WITHOUT implying
dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=0. It is THAT simple.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are joking, right?
I beg to differ. You can't have (cdt)^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)=0 WITHOUT
(cdt)^2 = (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)
NEITHER has to equal zero.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: On the light-like interval
- From: Phil
- Re: On the light-like interval
- From: karandash2000
- Re: On the light-like interval
- References:
- On the light-like interval
- From: Phil
- Re: On the light-like interval
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: On the light-like interval
- From: Phil
- Re: On the light-like interval
- From: karandash2000
- Re: On the light-like interval
- From: Phil
- Re: On the light-like interval
- From: karandash2000
- On the light-like interval
- Prev by Date: Re: On the light-like interval
- Next by Date: Re: On the light-like interval
- Previous by thread: Re: On the light-like interval
- Next by thread: Re: On the light-like interval
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
