Re: Special Relativity fails a simple algebraic test

"Albertito" <albertito1992@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ab546e0-4373-4300-972a-525bf49c3cf5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 24 ene, 18:24, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 24, 9:14 am, 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?.

Nope.

There is no four dimensional cross product.

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

Ohhhhhhhh, what a pity! :-( .It would be wonderful there
were one. Uhmmm, could we construct one? :-)

There would have to be different laws of physics for it than every other
inertial frame .. how to you intened to change the laws of physics?


.

Relevant Pages