Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- From: PD <thedraperfamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 28, 10:12 am, Jenny <yuan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That definition is made *specifically* to avoid having imaginarySo, like Dennis, you are a afraid of complex numbers.
lengths for real rods.
I see these as fudges.
Why do both signatures give results which have to be "doctored"?
There is a better way, which actually leads to new physics.
You hate complex numbers, so we won't use them.
I'm not afraid of complex numbers. They perform a valuable function -
they tell us something.
The minus sign was introduced into SR *specifically* to AVOID
imaginary values.
So when we eliminate the imaginary values, we don't hear what they're
SHOUTING at us.
Why AVOID the imaginary results, why not investigate what they mean?
What happens if we leave them in?
Not much. It's already understood that ds doesn't correspond to a
measurable quantity in a consistent way for all spacetime intervals.
It does correspond to elapsed clock time on a real worldline for a
particular signature choice.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- From: Jenny
- Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- References:
- Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- From: Jenny
- Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- From: Jenny
- Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- Prev by Date: Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- Next by Date: Re: The origin of gravity
- Previous by thread: Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- Next by thread: Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|