Re: Special Relativity fails a simple algebraic test

On Jan 24, 1:14 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 ene, 17:57, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 24, 7:52 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 24 ene, 16:31, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 24, 7:02 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 24 ene, 15:29, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 24, 10:25 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 24 ene, 14:17, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1f4e6459-472a-44bc-99c2-f7065a5b4027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

So by "not unique" you mean "unique, but not Galilean."

Is that supposed to be news? I agree, SR velocity
composition is not Galilean.

Gee.... what *is* the matter with this kid???

Dirk Vdm

So, you want to know what's the 'matter with this kid'.
It happens that I'm not a kid, I'm already 16.

Ah. Dirk's hypothesis was correct.

Bad news: 16 is a kid.

It happens
that I'm trying to think for myself, not like you, believer,

Your "independent thought" involves using things
other than logical deduction. Yes, it's true
that we shy away from illogic. And it's true that
I am a "believer" that the rules of logical
deduction are valid.

that only can think by means of the sacred gods of physics.
That's the reason why I may do a lot of mistakes. I can learn
from my mistakes. Can you learn from the mistakes sacred
gods of physics may do?. No, that's impossible, if a sacred god
makes a mistake, you still believe him, you still think there is no
mistake at all. That's the matter with you, believer!!!!!!!!!!!.

The usual uneducated nonsense. But in your favor is
the fact that you sound like a kid and you are
a kid. I'm not sure what to say about the
70-year-olds who also sound like they've never
had an education.

- Randy

If Under SR, the norm of a 'sum' vector looks like this
|a*b| = sqrt((|a|^2 + |b|^2 + 2|a||b| cos(alpha)) -
(|a|b| sin(alpha))^2/c^2 ) /(1 + |a|b| cos(alpha)/c^2),

I wonder how it would look a 'dot product' in SR,
for instance, or even the norm of a 'cross product'. Can you help,
dear Randy?. I can't figure it out, yet :-(

The dot product is g_uv a^u b^v and the cross product is a 3
dimensional construct - the closet four dimensional analog would be
the wedge product a^u /\ b^v.

Stop whining about relativity until you have had a university
education in physics.

Thanks Eric for your valuable information.
This is my last question, I promise not to ask anymore.
What would be the physical meanings of both dot product
and cross product?.

...and you think you can "disprove" relativity while being able to ask
questions like this?

I can answer your questions, but I won't. Find the answers for
yourself.

OK, I see. you are suggesting that 'relativistic cross product'
would be the velocity of a privileged observer, aren' you?.

Nobody has said such a thing. Or suggested it.

As a preferred frame of reference (privileged observer) is
forbidden in SR, that would be a flagrant contratidiction.
I can't believe it, that would disprove SR :-o

There you go. Misunderstand something completely
and then claim once again you'd disproved SR.
Nice to know you're consistent.

- Randy
.

Relevant Pages