Just asking for some opinions, as some good inputs are always
valuable...

I'm working on a theory, where I use another representation of
relativity. I stay in line with all known scientific facts, and please
just see my theory as a transformation of relativity only. -It's just
another way of thinking, and not at all an attempt to invalidate known
scientific facts.

But I just have the viewpoint, that the same things can be said in
different ways. I do know the usual 4-vector representation very well,
but I just have another idea for another representation:

Simply using "Proper Time" on the axis, which is usually considered as
the "Time Axis". That's different, unusual and it will "probably look
very wrong" for most people, at least at a first glance. But honestly,
I think, that I can get something useful out of it. And it's the same
with the momentum-energy vectors: I simply use m (mass) instead of E
(energy) on the main axis, and of course, I also know that this is
very unsual, I know that.

To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).

Have you "pro's" seen something simiar earlier, and if so, then what
was the outcome? -Could it be used for something, and if not, then why
not?

B Rgds,
Peter C

On Feb 3, 8:58*am, Peter Christensen wrote:
Just asking for some opinions, as some good inputs are always
valuable...

I'm working on a theory, where I use another representation of
relativity. I stay in line with all known scientific facts, and please
just see my theory as a transformation of relativity only. -It's just
another way of thinking, and not at all an attempt to invalidate known
scientific facts.

But I just have the viewpoint, that the same things can be said in
different ways. I do know the usual 4-vector representation very well,
but I just have another idea for another representation:

Simply using "Proper Time" on the axis, which is usually considered as
the "Time Axis". That's different, unusual and it will "probably look
very wrong" for most people, at least at a first glance. But honestly,
I think, that I can get something useful out of it. And it's the same
with the momentum-energy vectors: I simply use m (mass) instead of E
(energy) on the main axis, and of course, I also know that this is
very unsual, I know that.

To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).

Have you "pro's" seen something simiar earlier, and if so, then what
was the outcome? -Could it be used for something, and if not, then why
not?

B Rgds,
Peter C

Mr. Roberts says anything:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ce2f23fefd13b?

Pentcho Valev

"Peter Christensen" wrote in message
...
| Just asking for some opinions, as some good inputs are always
| valuable...
|
| I'm working on a theory, where I use another representation of
| relativity. I stay in line with all known scientific facts, and please
| just see my theory as a transformation of relativity only. -It's just
| another way of thinking, and not at all an attempt to invalidate known
| scientific facts.
|
| But I just have the viewpoint, that the same things can be said in
| different ways. I do know the usual 4-vector representation very well,
| but I just have another idea for another representation:
|
| Simply using "Proper Time" on the axis, which is usually considered as
| the "Time Axis". That's different, unusual and it will "probably look
| very wrong" for most people, at least at a first glance. But honestly,
| I think, that I can get something useful out of it. And it's the same
| with the momentum-energy vectors: I simply use m (mass) instead of E
| (energy) on the main axis, and of course, I also know that this is
| very unsual, I know that.
|
| To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
| time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
| with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).
|
| Have you "pro's" seen something simiar earlier, and if so, then what
| was the outcome? -Could it be used for something, and if not, then why
| not?
|
| B Rgds,
| Peter C

You will never truly understand relativity until you understand lies.
The third postulate (which isn't a postulate because the cretins
say so but is nevertheless a postulate) is: the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
from B to A'
Here it is, look,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Einstein adds 4 to 12, divides by 2 to get 8 and then says that equals 12.
This is known as "LYING", but if you do it with algebra some cretins
will be taken in by it. Then they'll squirm and squeal to hide their
embarrassment because they've been caught in the lie or because
they are trolls.

Here it is, look, done in algebra:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"Peter Christensen" wrote in message
...
| Just asking for some opinions, as some good inputs are always
| valuable...
|
| I'm working on a theory, where I use another representation of
| relativity. I stay in line with all known scientific facts, and please
| just see my theory as a transformation of relativity only. -It's just
| another way of thinking, and not at all an attempt to invalidate known
| scientific facts.
|
| But I just have the viewpoint, that the same things can be said in
| different ways. I do know the usual 4-vector representation very well,
| but I just have another idea for another representation:
|
| Simply using "Proper Time" on the axis, which is usually considered as
| the "Time Axis". That's different, unusual and it will "probably look
| very wrong" for most people, at least at a first glance. But honestly,
| I think, that I can get something useful out of it. And it's the same
| with the momentum-energy vectors: I simply use m (mass) instead of E
| (energy) on the main axis, and of course, I also know that this is
| very unsual, I know that.
|
| To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
| time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
| with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).
|
| Have you "pro's" seen something simiar earlier, and if so, then what
| was the outcome? -Could it be used for something, and if not, then why
| not?
|
| B Rgds,
| Peter C

You will never truly understand relativity until you understand lies.

If you want ot learn about lying .. just follow androcles .. and then henri
... peas of a pod

The third postulate (which isn't a postulate because the cretins
say so but is nevertheless a postulate)

It is indeed not a postulate .. its a defintiino of what synchrnoisation
means

is: the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
from B to A'
Here it is, look,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

That. ofcourse, is unrelated to what einstein says.. ie it is lies from
androcles. The points A and B need to be at rest.

Einstein adds 4 to 12, divides by 2 to get 8 and then says that equals 12.
This is known as "LYING", but if you do it with algebra some cretins
will be taken in by it. Then they'll squirm and squeal to hide their
embarrassment because they've been caught in the lie or because
they are trolls.

Here it is, look, done in algebra:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

Again .. Androcles points to this equation and never says what he thinks is
wrong with it .. because there *IS* nothing wrong with it.

"Peter Christensen" wrote in message
...
Just asking for some opinions, as some good inputs are always
valuable...

I'm working on a theory, where I use another representation of
relativity. I stay in line with all known scientific facts, and please
just see my theory as a transformation of relativity only. -It's just
another way of thinking, and not at all an attempt to invalidate known
scientific facts.

But I just have the viewpoint, that the same things can be said in
different ways. I do know the usual 4-vector representation very well,
but I just have another idea for another representation:

Simply using "Proper Time" on the axis, which is usually considered as
the "Time Axis". That's different, unusual and it will "probably look
very wrong" for most people, at least at a first glance. But honestly,
I think, that I can get something useful out of it. And it's the same
with the momentum-energy vectors: I simply use m (mass) instead of E
(energy) on the main axis, and of course, I also know that this is
very unsual, I know that.

To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).

Have you "pro's" seen something simiar earlier, and if so, then what
was the outcome? -Could it be used for something, and if not, then why
not?

Have you read this book?

Relativity Visualized
by Lewis Carroll Epstein
Paperback (April 1985)
Insight Press; ISBN: 093521805X

It uses a similar
--
Martin Hogbin

idea.

Peter Christensen wrote:
To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).

Make sure they are indeed vectors. Arbitrary collections of four
quantities, even with an obvious relationship, need not be the
components of vectors.

That is, one must be able to find a basis, and if one changes the basis
and the components accordingly, the vector itself should remain unchanged.

For your choice, m*c never changes for an object when you use a basis
related to inertial frame A or B; but p_x, p_y, and p_z can all change
with a change in basis from A to B. The vector itself cannot possibly
depend on which basis one projects it upon, so I don't see how your
4-tuples can possibly be the components of a vector.

Moreover, using proper time as a component, it cannot possibly be
invariant. That completely undermines the entire mathematical structure.
Ditto for mass.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peter Christensen wrote:
| To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
| time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
| with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).
|
| Make sure they are indeed vectors. Arbitrary collections of four
| quantities, even with an obvious relationship, need not be the
| components of vectors.

Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse.
Arbitrary collections of four quantities, even with an obvious
relationship, need not be the components of vectors. scumbag cretin

On 3 Feb., 18:42, "Androcles" wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

...| Peter Christensen wrote:

| To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
| time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
| with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).
|
| Make sure they are indeed vectors. Arbitrary collections of four
| quantities, even with an obvious relationship, need not be the
| components of vectors.

Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse.
Arbitrary collections of four quantities, even with an obvious
relationship, need not be the components of vectors. scumbag cretin

Come on Andro, why always this negative mood?

PC :-)

"Peter Christensen" wrote in message
...
| On 3 Feb., 18:42, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
|
| ...| Peter Christensen
wrote:
|
| | To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
| | time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual
representation
| | with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).
| |
| | Make sure they are indeed vectors. Arbitrary collections of four
| | quantities, even with an obvious relationship, need not be the
| | components of vectors.
|
| Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse.
| Arbitrary collections of four quantities, even with an obvious
| relationship, need not be the components of vectors. scumbag cretin
|
| Come on Andro, why always this negative mood?

You don't know it, but I've been Roberts' nemesis for 9 years,
he's an arrogant pompous lying tord without the balls for an
honest discussion.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton


["tj Frazir"]
If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.

["CWatters"]
Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
hammer.
Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?

[Androcles]
Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit to
the speed of sound in a material body.
Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.

[1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.



|
| PC :-)

Androcles wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peter Christensen wrote:
| To be very short: I'm trying with vectors like this: (c*"proper
| time",x,y,z) and (m*c,p_x,p_y,p_z) instead of the usual representation
| with (c*t,x,y,z) and (E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z).
|
| Make sure they are indeed vectors. Arbitrary collections of four
| quantities, even with an obvious relationship, need not be the
| components of vectors.

Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse.

Of course not, but that (sort of) was his point; aside from the fact
that time might have an inverse (despite your claim).

Arbitrary collections of four quantities, even with an obvious
relationship, need not be the components of vectors. scumbag cretin

That was his point! So why call him a "scumbag cretin" for agreeing
with you?

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!