Relativity or something [Split from "Pressures"]

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Monika » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:32 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:I wonder what Randall might say, if he were asked my current question. I do not ever anticipating finding that out...as quite likely, he is not reading/does not care about any/every thread in the Forum. He also seems to wish to not be contacted, which i can appreciate.

If he were to read a couple of threads in the forum I would certainly not advise him to read exactly this one. More precisely he should avoid it as much as possible.
But in case he gets really really bored and urgently needs a place to waste his time ... he would probably write to you exactly what has been written to you by many people in this thread. Your math is wrong. No, you did not find a "bug" in relativity. You are just really bad at math and/or don't understand even the most basic parts of the explanation for relativity that you read.
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Help please

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

I just replaced my Galilean proof on my site...
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/3picgalilean.html

I am finished with exploring this thread at xkcd.

Please do not write to me here, but though the email link at the bottom of page mentioned above,
well, if you have not already expressed it...for there is no reason for me to imagine that your experience will change, due to my new posting on my site.

Y'all feedback was appreciated, even though there was near total lack of agreement on most points, still this was helpful (to me). Thanks.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

I can't, for the life of me, figure out what he is asking, and I work with coordinate geometry all day long.

Steve - is English your second language?
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
not really Deadpool.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:10 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:I can't, for the life of me, figure out what he is asking, and I work with coordinate geometry all day long.

Steve - is English your second language?


Yes, Mathematics is my first language.

What coordinate geometry credentials do you have that consumes you all day long ?


Touche.

I'm a professional land surveyor, and doing coordinate transformation work is an integral part of my job.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
not really Deadpool.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:I can't, for the life of me, figure out what he is asking, and I work with coordinate geometry all day long.

Steve - is English your second language?


Yes, Mathematics is my first language.

What coordinate geometry credentials do you have that consumes you all day long ?


Touche.

I'm a professional land surveyor, and doing coordinate transformation work is an integral part of my job.


I shudder to use a physical example...but here goes....this is just for you, but only to help conceptualize something.

Take a red ruler and a blue ruler...and place one atop the other....um, coincident conceptually , if you will.

Move the top ruler 3 inches in reference to the bottom one...either direction will do.
Yes, i agree, the relationship/mapping between the red and blue rulers is 3 inches...no matter what value is chosen.

i am saying that each ruler is still intact...they each have there 2 inch demarcations and all other inch demarcation exactly where they have always been...

inch numbers in red = inch numbers in Blue...wrt...their own origin....agreed?
Last edited by steve waterman on Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:I can't, for the life of me, figure out what he is asking, and I work with coordinate geometry all day long.

Steve - is English your second language?


Yes, Mathematics is my first language.

What coordinate geometry credentials do you have that consumes you all day long ?


Touche.

I'm a professional land surveyor, and doing coordinate transformation work is an integral part of my job.


I shudder to use a physical example...but here goes....this is just for you, but only to help conceptualize something.

Take a red ruler and a blue ruler...and place one atop the other....um, coincident conceptually , if you will.

Move the top ruler 3 inches in reference to the bottom one...either direction will do.
Yes, i agree, the relationship between the red and blue rulers is 3 inches...no matter what value is chosen.

i am saying that each ruler is still intact...they each have there 2 inch demarcations and all other inch demarcation exactly where they have always been...

inch numbers in red = inch numbers in Blue...wrt...their own origin....agreed?


ok.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
not really Deadpool.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:54 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:I can't, for the life of me, figure out what he is asking, and I work with coordinate geometry all day long.

Steve - is English your second language?


Yes, Mathematics is my first language.

What coordinate geometry credentials do you have that consumes you all day long ?


Touche.

I'm a professional land surveyor, and doing coordinate transformation work is an integral part of my job.


I shudder to use a physical example...but here goes....this is just for you, but only to help conceptualize something.

Take a red ruler and a blue ruler...and place one atop the other....um, coincident conceptually , if you will.

Move the top ruler 3 inches in reference to the bottom one...either direction will do.
Yes, i agree, the relationship between the red and blue rulers is 3 inches...no matter what value is chosen.

i am saying that each ruler is still intact...they each have there 2 inch demarcations and all other inch demarcation exactly where they have always been...

inch numbers in red = inch numbers in Blue...wrt...their own origin....agreed?


ok.


Can you extrapolate this conceptualization to a purely mathematical now...x' in red = x in blue wrt...their own origin....agreed?
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:59 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:inch numbers in red = inch numbers in Blue...wrt...their own origin....agreed?


ok.


Can you extrapolate this conceptualization to a purely mathematical now...x' in red = x in blue wrt...their own origin....agreed?


Since they are the same, just call them both x. It will reduce your confusion.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
not really Deadpool.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25331
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:03 pm UTC

With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes, because we're talking about translations and rotations, and not scaling or other deformations. Yes, the point (call it x) three units to the right of the blue origin is the same distance from the blue origin as the point three units to the right of the red origin (call it x') is from the red origin, no matter how you shift and rotate the red and blue coordinates. But the blue origin, the red origin, the point x, and the point x' are all at different points in space.

And in relativity (Galilean or special or general), what we care about are actual objects and points in space. So in addition to talking about how points given by blue coordinates are related to the blue origin, and how points given in red coordinates are related to the red origin, what we *actually* want to know are how the blue coordinates of a specific point are related to the red coordinates of that same point.

Until you start talking about actual points and objects in space, separate from your arbitrary choices about coordinate systems, you're nowhere near equipped for talking about physics yet.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:inch numbers in red = inch numbers in Blue...wrt...their own origin....agreed?


ok.


Can you extrapolate this conceptualization to a purely mathematical now...x' in red = x in blue wrt...their own origin....agreed?


Since they are the same, just call them both x. It will reduce your confusion.


Dude, there is where your confusion is rooted.

I do not care, semantically, if two coincident systems have one set of points with two names, as you offer
or two sets of points with two names...although it should be obvious from the physical ruler example,
that we are talking about two sets of points with two names...um, because we um, move one of them rulers.,
as one set and the stationary ruler is the second unique set.

inch numbers in red = inch numbers in Blue...wrt...their own origin....agreed?

your response...ok

x' in red = x in blue wrt...their own origin....agreed?
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:23 pm UTC

if it matters that much to you, Steve, fine, x' = x.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
not really Deadpool.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes, because we're talking about translations and rotations, and not scaling or other deformations. Yes, the point (call it x) three units to the right of the blue origin is the same distance from the blue origin as the point three units to the right of the red origin (call it x') is from the red origin, no matter how you shift and rotate the red and blue coordinates. But the blue origin, the red origin, the point x, and the point x' are all at different points in space.

And in relativity (Galilean or special or general), what we care about are actual objects and points in space. So in addition to talking about how points given by blue coordinates are related to the blue origin, and how points given in red coordinates are related to the red origin, what we *actually* want to know are how the blue coordinates of a specific point are related to the red coordinates of that same point.

Until you start talking about actual points and objects in space, separate from your arbitrary choices about coordinate systems, you're nowhere near equipped for talking about physics yet.



gmalivukWith With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes


That is all that I have asking for all along. of course that is true.

The final piece to this hideous puzzle....my assertion...only if x' = x -d is true, could x' = x-vt possibly be true.

in the Galilean, ( as per their own given ), x is always in Red and x' is always in Blue.

therefore, this Galilean equation x' = x -vt actually states, or math-wise, x' = x -d

the coordinate values of x' in Blue = the coordinate values of x in Red - d

whereas...
according to you.....With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes

So, we are trying to agree upon just what the hell...x' - x vt itself means/is saying...
i will say...that x and x' are mathematical coordinates..and as such, have to be the "ruler" inches/coordinates.

The Galilean says the ruler in the moved system changes its ruler's coordinates...that is how x' = x-d functions.

Do you agree that the Galilean says that ALL coordinates one in the moved system change from what they were at coincidence ?
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:54 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:

gmalivukWith With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes


That is all that I have asking for all along. of course that is true.

The final piece to this hideous puzzle....my assertion...only if x' = x -d is true, could x' = x-vt possibly be true.

in the Galilean, ( as per their own given ), x is always in Red and x' is always in Blue.

therefore, this Galilean equation x' = x -vt actually states, or math-wise, x' = x -d

the coordinate values of x' in Blue = the coordinate values of x in Red - d

whereas...
according to you.....With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes

So, we are trying to agree upon just what the hell...x' - x vt itself means/is saying...
i will say...that x and x' are mathematical coordinates..and as such, have to be the "ruler" inches/coordinates.

The Galilean says the ruler in the moved system changes its ruler's coordinates...that is how x' = x-d functions.
Does you agree that the Galiean says that ALL coordinates one in moved system change ?


All of the coordinated DO change together (since you are moving the coordinate system itself), but the problem you are having is that x' = x - vt is the TRANSLATION between the two coordinate systems.

Let me repeat that: the function that you are having an issue with is the TRANSLATION between the two coordinate systems. The fact that x and x' were originally equal is largely immaterial.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
not really Deadpool.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:06 pm UTC

The things is, in addition to the two rulers, there should also be a penny sitting on the table. The penny does not move when we move one of the rulers. The whole point of these coordinate transformations is to relate the coordinates of the penny in one frame to its coordinates in the other. Hence my confusion as to why you [Mr. Waterman] seem so focused on identity of two separate points which are fixed in relation to the origin of the two axes.

Also, I remain confused as to why you seem to think that a coordinate frame can't have a velocity and have the conversation remain in the realm of pure math.

jpers36
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby jpers36 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:15 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:The final piece to this hideous puzzle....my assertion...only if x' = x -d is true, could x' = x-vt possibly be true.

in the Galilean, ( as per their own given ), x is always in Red and x' is always in Blue.

therefore, this Galilean equation x' = x -vt actually states, or math-wise, x' = x -d

the coordinate values of x' in Blue = the coordinate values of x in Red - d


This makes no sense, Steve. x is a numeric variable, and so is x'. You use them as numeric variables in the first and third sentences in my excerpt here. Having implicitly defined them as numeric variables, there's no way you can then use these terms to denote points, as you do in sentences two and four.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:

gmalivukWith With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes


That is all that I have asking for all along. of course that is true.

The final piece to this hideous puzzle....my assertion...only if x' = x -d is true, could x' = x-vt possibly be true.

in the Galilean, ( as per their own given ), x is always in Red and x' is always in Blue.

therefore, this Galilean equation x' = x -vt actually states, or math-wise, x' = x -d

the coordinate values of x' in Blue = the coordinate values of x in Red - d

whereas...
according to you.....With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes

So, we are trying to agree upon just what the hell...x' - x vt itself means/is saying...
i will say...that x and x' are mathematical coordinates..and as such, have to be the "ruler" inches/coordinates.

The Galilean says the ruler in the moved system changes its ruler's coordinates...that is how x' = x-d functions.
Does you agree that the Galiean says that ALL coordinates one in moved system change ?


All of the coordinated DO change together (since you are moving the coordinate system itself),


but the problem you are having is that x' = x - vt is the TRANSLATION between the two coordinate systems.
Again, you focus here. Again i say...not involved in MY proof.

Let me repeat that: the function that you are having an issue with is the TRANSLATION between the two coordinate systems.

The fact that x and x' were originally equal is largely immaterial.



gmalivuk Let me repeat that: the function that you are having an issue with is the TRANSLATION between the two coordinate systems.


No, No dude...I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT +/- RELATIONSHIP...you continue to FLOG this , and high-jack my presented logic.
That +/- RELATIONSHIP IS NOT INVOLVED/required/pertinent ito my proof .... this relationship has zero to do with why I am saying...i reiterate...my proof has zip to do with the =/- relationship. It deals with the fact the the ruler changes its spots. i am done again here,as you will not get this...this feeling is backed-up when you say...

gmalivuk The fact that x and x' were originally equal is largely immaterial.


Wow...no more splainin, I am outta here.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: meep meep meep meep meep meep meep

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:28 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:No, No dude...I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT +/- RELATIONSHIP...you continue to FLOG this , and high-jack my presented logic.
That +/- RELATIONSHIP IS NOT INVOLVED/required/pertinent ito my proof .... this relationship has zero to do with why I am saying...i reiterate...my proof has zip to do with the =/- relationship. It deals with the fact the the ruler changes its spots. i am done again here,as you will not get this...this feeling is backed-up when you say...


It's entirely pertinent, its the whole frelling gorram POINT to your so-called proof!

The Galilean is a TRANSFORMATION FUNCTION. It does NOTHING, absolutely nothing, except translate from one coordinate system to another. How in the names of all the gods and demons do you not understand this?!?

seriously, here is a wikipedia link that may elucidate it further.




gmalivuk The fact that x and x' were originally equal is largely immaterial.


Wow...no more splainin, I am outta here.


And incidentally, I was the one who said that.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
not really Deadpool.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25331
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:31 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:the coordinate values of x' in Blue = the coordinate values of x in Red - d of a specific other point which is not itself part of red or blue

whereas...
according to you.....With respect to their *own* origin, of course neither system changes
There's no "whereas" here, because those are not contradictory. With respect to their own origin, neither system changes, but any actual point in space must have *two* coordinates, one from the red system (the location of that point relative to the red origin) and one from the blue system (the location of that same point relative to the blue origin). If the red and blue origins are not the same, then the red and blue coordinates of a point in space will not (in general) be the same.

steve waterman wrote:Do you agree that the Galilean says that ALL coordinates one in the moved system change from what they were at coincidence ?
Well yeah. If you move the coordinate system, it means you moved all of its points. But "its points" means only "the points referred to by given coordinates in that system". It does not mean the underlying points in space.

steve waterman wrote:Wow...no more splainin, I am outta here.
You're right. It has become entirely pointless to continue trying to explain such a simple concept to you.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

jpers36
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby jpers36 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:37 pm UTC

Steve Waterman has been referenced on xkcd before. The Waterman Butterfly (http://xkcd.com/977/) is his creation.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:
steve waterman wrote:The final piece to this hideous puzzle....my assertion...only if x' = x -d is true, could x' = x-vt possibly be true.

in the Galilean, ( as per their own given ), x is always in Red and x' is always in Blue.

therefore, this Galilean equation x' = x -vt actually states, or math-wise, x' = x -d

the coordinate values of x' in Blue = the coordinate values of x in Red - d


This makes no sense, Steve. x is a numeric variable, and so is x'. You use them as numeric variables in the first and third sentences in my excerpt here. Having implicitly defined them as numeric variables, there's no way you can then use these terms to denote points, as you do in sentences two and four.


jpers - x is a numeric variable, and so is x'. You use them as numeric variables in the first and third sentences in my excerpt here. Having implicitly defined them as numeric variables




Yes

jpers - there's no way you can then use these terms to denote points, as you do in sentences two and four.


Good observation, Watson...I would like a chance to re-word my two poorly written statements, from above..please.

2. in the Galilean, ( as per their own given ), (x,y,z) coordinate locations are only in Red and (x' ,y',z') coordinate locations only always in Blue.

4. given any 3 numerical values as coordinates, ( ?,?,? )then the coordinates of (x' ,y',z') in Blue = the coordinate values of (x,y,z) in Red - d, wrt their own system.

agree/disagree?

or perhaps 2 or 4 in your own wording?

Note...I have only been highlighting the one rotten part of the equation x' = x-vt, while this is the Full Monty Galilean....as would appear at wiki.
(x,y,z) in Red = ( x'-d,y',z') in Blue


Since the moved ruler keeps its own inches, then in contradiction,
(x,y,z) in Red = ( x',y',z') in Blue
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

chenille
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:31 pm UTC

I probably shouldn't, but I'm going to give this one last stab, because I like the map.
steve waterman wrote:Note...I have only been highlighting the one rotten part of the equation x' = x-vt, while this is the Full Monty Galilean....as would appear at wiki.
(x,y,z) in Red = ( x'-d,y',z') in Blue

This is true for a fixed point on the table. They don't move when the ruler does.

steve waterman wrote:Since the moved ruler keeps its own inches, then in contradiction,
(x,y,z) in Red = ( x',y',z') in Blue

This is true for a fixed point on the ruler. Needless to say these do move when the ruler does.

Everything else has basically been trying to explain to you what parts of the math reflect the table (points in the underlying space) and what parts reflect the ruler (the coordinate values, which can slide anywhere on top of the table). But ultimately, the "contradiction" is that you're treating the table and the ruler as the same thing, and they're not. It doesn't get simpler than that.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

chenille wrote:I probably shouldn't, but I'm going to give this one last stab, because I like the map.
steve waterman wrote:Note...I have only been highlighting the one rotten part of the equation x' = x-vt, while this is the Full Monty Galilean....as would appear at wiki.
(x,y,z) in Red = ( x'-d,y',z') in Blue

This is true for a fixed point on the table. They don't move when the ruler does.

steve waterman wrote:Since the moved ruler keeps its own inches, then in contradiction,
(x,y,z) in Red = ( x',y',z') in Blue

This is true for a fixed point on the ruler. Needless to say these do move when the ruler does.

Everything else has basically been trying to explain to you what parts of the math reflect the table (points in the underlying space) and what parts reflect the ruler (the coordinate values, which can slide anywhere on top of the table). But ultimately, the "contradiction" is that you're treating the table and the ruler as the same thing, and they're not. It doesn't get simpler than that.


This is true for a fixed point on the table. They don't move when the ruler does
.



There NO SELECTED/named/quantified points in MY proof.


Everything else has basically been trying to explain to you what parts of the math reflect the table (points in the underlying space)


There is no space in my math only proof.

that you're treating the table and the ruler as the same thing,


This is no table..and no rulers either...which I only used to make a point.

This is nothing physical at all involved in my proof...it is only math...IMAGINED non-physical, Cartesian coordinate systems...
NOTHING ELSE...if you mention any others elements,...then you are not dealing with my,
let their vt = d, let their s = Red, let their s' = Blue, proof.

due to jpers last comment...i have fixed up my page posted earlier today ...
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/3picgalilean.html
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25331
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:03 pm UTC

If you're not talking about the table, then you're not talking about the same thing Galilean relativity talks about, so nothing in your account is capable of disproving anything in the Galilean one, because they're not accounts of the same thing.

It's like Galileo says, "If you drop this cannonball off this tower, it will accelerate relative to the tower," and you respond with an elaborate and completely irrelevant proof of the obvious and completely useless fact that no part of the cannonball accelerates relative to the cannonball's own frame.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

chenille
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:06 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:This is nothing physical at all involved in my proof...it is only math...IMAGINED non-physical, Cartesian coordinate systems...

I get it, the table and rulers you use are physical representations for mathematical abstractions. The thing is they're different abstractions: one represents a space (a mathematical space like a manifold) and the other represents numbers or triplets as functions on it. If the abstracted table isn't included in your set-up, then you're right, the Galilean transformations won't work, but because they only apply when there is an underlying space.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:If you're not talking about the table, then you're not talking about the same thing Galilean relativity talks about, so nothing in your account is capable of disproving anything in the Galilean one, because they're not accounts of the same thing.

It's like Galileo says, "If you drop this cannonball off this tower, it will accelerate relative to the tower," and you respond with an elaborate and completely irrelevant proof of the obvious and completely useless fact that no part of the cannonball accelerates relative to the cannonball's own frame.


I am talking about ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-d,y,z) in Red
you are still talking about ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-vt,y,z) in Red

i am ONLY out to mathematically prove that ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-d,y,z) in Red is wrong.

Anyone with an ounce of logic is aware that if ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-d,y,z) in Red is wrong, then
( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-vt,y,z) in Red, is also not mathematically viable...I will not debate this, it is obvious.

again, there are no rulers, tables, light, events, selected points, velocity, observers,time, physical thing...
just two cartesian coincident systems with no selected points, um, exactly as depicted.
This is math only...there is no physics, there is only a math challenge to ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-d,y,z) in Red....
and, there is no such physics equation.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

chenille
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby chenille » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:36 pm UTC

you are still talking about ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-vt,y,z) in Red

Wrong. He's talking about the same thing as you, x' = x-d, and pointing out that only applies to a fixed point in some underlying space. For instance Tokyo has a longitude of x = 139° E. I'm sure you can imagine that if the Russians took over and the line of zero longitude were changed from Greenwich to Moscow, which is currently 38° E, then Tokyo would have a new longitude of

x' = x - d = 139 - 38 = 101° E

Would you say that formula is in contradiction with the obvious principle that x' = x because the coordinate system keeps its own lines of longitude? No, because Tokyo is a point on the earth not a set of coordinates. Ignoring that difference does not mean the formula x' = x - d can't be used here, it means you are setting up the math wrong. If you want the formal version without any physical analogies, I explained it on p. 4, but with all the tables and rulers it seemed like you prefer concrete analogies.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:12 pm UTC

jpers36 wrote:Steve Waterman has been referenced on xkcd before. The Waterman Butterfly (http://xkcd.com/977/) is his creation.

Yep. That's what brought him here.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:35 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:in the Galilean, ( as per their own given ), x is always in Red and x' is always in Blue.

They say that x is the coordinates of some point in the Red coordinate system, and x' is the coordinates of that same point in the Blue coordinate system.

the coordinate values of x' in Blue = the coordinate values of x in Red - d

In the sense that the point at coordinates x' in Blue is the same point as that at coordinates x in Red, sure.

The numerical values of those coordinate will not (necessarily) be the same unless the two coordinate systems are identical, and nobody claims that they will. (Of course they might in some special cases be the same, like how the temperature -40C = -40F.)

They only claim that if you travel some distance (move at some velocity for some time), the same things will end up at different coordinates in your frame of reference than they were at before you moved. This is... so incredibly trivial I can barely believe we're actually arguing about it.

I am running down a street, headed due north, at 4m/s (v = 4m/s N). As the clock strikes noon, there is a reflector dot 20m due north of me (x = 20m N), or more generally, of the origin of the frame of reference centered on where I am at that moment; call the coordinates of that reference frame "red" if you like. I continue running for another 2s (t = 2s), thus traveling a distance of 8m in that time (d = 8m). The reflector dot is at that time 12m due north of me (x' = 12m N), or more generally, of the origin of the frame of reference centered on me at that moment; call the coordinates of that reference frame "blue" if you like.

To say what the location of the reflector dot in Blue coordinates is relative to its location in Red coordinates, we could say:

x' = x - vt

Plug in the values in our word problem:

12m N = 20m N - 4m/s N * 2s.

And simplify the right to check, starting with reducing it to your "mathematically purer" x' = x - d

12m N = 20m N - 8m N
12m N = (20-8)m N
12m N = 12m N

Hey look, it works out. This is my surprised face.

Nobody is saying that 20m N = 12m N. They're saying that anything that was 20m N of you will be 12m N of you if you move 8m N. If you really think anybody is claiming 20m N = 12m N, well... there's your problem.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:25 am UTC

chenille wrote:
you are still talking about ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-vt,y,z) in Red

Wrong. He's talking about the same thing as you, x' = x-d, and pointing out that only applies to a fixed point in some underlying space. For instance Tokyo has a longitude of x = 139° E. I'm sure you can imagine that if the Russians took over and the line of zero longitude were changed from Greenwich to Moscow, which is currently 38° E, then Tokyo would have a new longitude of

x' = x - d = 139 - 38 = 101° E

Would you say that formula is in contradiction with the obvious principle that x' = x because the coordinate system keeps its own lines of longitude? No, because Tokyo is a point on the earth not a set of coordinates. Ignoring that difference does not mean the formula x' = x - d can't be used here, it means you are setting up the math wrong. If you want the formal version without any physical analogies, I explained it on p. 4, but with all the tables and rulers it seemed like you prefer concrete analogies.


No physical anything in my proof.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:33 am UTC

chenille wrote:
you are still talking about ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-vt,y,z) in Red

Wrong. He's talking about the same thing as you, x' = x-d, and pointing out that only applies to a fixed point in some underlying space. For instance Tokyo has a longitude of x = 139° E. I'm sure you can imagine that if the Russians took over and the line of zero longitude were changed from Greenwich to Moscow, which is currently 38° E, then Tokyo would have a new longitude of

x' = x - d = 139 - 38 = 101° E

Would you say that formula is in contradiction with the obvious principle that x' = x because the coordinate system keeps its own lines of longitude? No, because Tokyo is a point on the earth not a set of coordinates. Ignoring that difference does not mean the formula x' = x - d can't be used here, it means you are setting up the math wrong. If you want the formal version without any physical analogies, I explained it on p. 4, but with all the tables and rulers it seemed like you prefer concrete analogies.


i knew I would really reget saying rulers to make a point.

No rulers...nothing physics, no temperature scales, no earth coordinates,,,
i will say for like the 2oth time...no physical examples allowed of any sort...they do not apply ...NO RULERS,
let me be clear., in Engkish..two coincident Cartesian systems...NOTHING ELSE.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

chenille
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby chenille » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:38 am UTC

steve, I addressed that above. A 3-D coordinate system is a map from a manifold S to R3. The table and earth are obviously analogies for S, just as your little stick rulers were analogies for the coordinates in R3; but with or without them, the transformations only apply when you are considering a fixed point in some underlying space S. If you won't acknowledge what I've said, well, so be it.
Last edited by chenille on Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:44 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:43 am UTC

Round and round we go.

talk to me about the new post here...
http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/3picgalilean.html
do you disagree with depiction 1,2 or 3 ?
and mention why, based upon some math objection...

Please do not talk to me about Physics or anything physical, it is getting really tedious to
keep saying...math only, no Physics and receive new physical examples back....
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:45 am UTC

chenille wrote:steve, I addressed that above. A 3-D coordinate system is a map from a manifold S to R3. The table and earth are obviously analogies for S, just as your little stick rulers were analogies for the coordinates in R3; but with or without them, the transformations only apply when you are considering a fixed point in some underlying space S. If you won't acknowledge what I've said, and would rather switch between insisting on diagrams and then complaining about them being physical, well, so be it.


No physical anything, allowed for x' = x -d.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:47 am UTC

chenille wrote:
you are still talking about ( x'y'z') in Blue = (x-vt,y,z) in Red

Wrong. He's talking about the same thing as you, x' = x-d, and pointing out that only applies to a fixed point in some underlying space. For instance Tokyo has a longitude of x = 139° E. I'm sure you can imagine that if the Russians took over and the line of zero longitude were changed from Greenwich to Moscow, which is currently 38° E, then Tokyo would have a new longitude of

x' = x - d = 139 - 38 = 101° E

Would you say that formula is in contradiction with the obvious principle that x' = x because the coordinate system keeps its own lines of longitude? No, because Tokyo is a point on the earth not a set of coordinates. Ignoring that difference does not mean the formula x' = x - d can't be used here, it means you are setting up the math wrong. If you want the formal version without any physical analogies, I explained it on p. 4, but with all the tables and rulers it seemed like you prefer concrete analogies.


No ...no physical anything...just math.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

chenille
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby chenille » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:48 am UTC

Your diagrams show rulers on a table. We can talk about that, or if you want to avoid anything physical, we can talk about functions BLUE and RED from S to R3, in which case you have yet to show any contradiction. But you can't switch back and forth every time someone points out what you're missing; you've been given good answers in terms of both.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:49 am UTC

chenille wrote:steve, I addressed that above. A 3-D coordinate system is a map from a manifold S to R3. The table and earth are obviously analogies for S, just as your little stick rulers were analogies for the coordinates in R3; but with or without them, the transformations only apply when you are considering a fixed point in some underlying space S. If you won't acknowledge what I've said, well, so be it.


No rulers...nothing physical...just the math...i think I might have mentioned this before. once or twice..
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:53 am UTC

chenille wrote:Your diagrams show rulers on a table. We can talk about that, or if you want to avoid anything physical, we can talk about functions BLUE and RED from S to R3, in which case you have yet to show any contradiction. But you can't switch back and forth every time someone points out what you're missing; you've been given good answers in terms of both.


The rulers are there purely as a visual reference...there are IMAGINED..NOT PHYSICAL...just to generate a mental image.

ARRG...we can talk about functions BLUE and RED
NO, NO, NO, No I have said a dozen times now...this challenge is not about these relationships...Yes, there is a +/- relationship between the moved systems.
This, IS NOT the relationship I am discussing. red coordinates in red = blue coordinates in blue...

why do i get everyone crazed to tell me about
red coordinate in the blue system
and blue coordinates in the system

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AT ALL...what is so damn hard about that!...why do i keep hearing about them...they are not part of my proof.
Last edited by steve waterman on Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:03 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

chenille
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby chenille » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:01 am UTC

The mental image people have been giving you is that one of your rulers slides past a point on the table. A point on the table is a visualization of some P in S, which I am taking to be some 3-D hyperplane. In your starting coordinate system we have BLUE(P) = (x(P), y(P), z(P)); we slide it three units over and get a new coordinate system RED(P) = (x'(P), y'(P), z'(P)). It's really easy to see x'(P) = x(P) + 3.

You are all upset because you want x'(P) = x(P), but you haven't given any mathematical reason why, and it's self-evidently false for when you consider the functions from S to R3. Your only explanation why has been your intuition based on the pictures, and when people have tried to explain where you're going wrong, you've told us to forget about them. Fine, they're forgotten.

Why then is defining RED(P) = BLUE(P) + (3,0,0) a contradiction? Without the picture, what part of these functions are you objecting to?

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:12 am UTC

chenille wrote:The mental image people have been giving you is that one of your rulers slides past a point on the table. A point on the table is a visualization of some P in S, which I am taking to be some 3-D hyperplane. In your starting coordinate system we have BLUE(P) = (x(P), y(P), z(P)); we slide it three units over and get a new coordinate system RED(P) = (x'(P), y'(P), z'(P)). It's really easy to see x'(P) = x(P) + 3.

You are all upset because you want x'(P) = x(P), but you haven't given any mathematical reason why, and it's self-evidently false for when you consider the functions from S to R3. Your only explanation why has been your intuition based on the pictures, and when people have tried to explain where you're going wrong, you've told us to forget about them. Fine, they're forgotten. Why then is defining RED(P) = BLUE(P) + (3,0,0) a contradiction?


Your only explanation why has been your intuition based on the pictures, and when people have tried to explain where you're going wrong, you've told us to forget about them.


No dude...forget about all the useless rhetoric now happening at xkcd forum...just talk to me about the 3 depictions...please.
No new examples...just what is there on the site.

i have substituted ...Red for S Blue for S' as the system names
there is NO point P, nor ANY selected points in either system...just coordinate points... what part of that is confusing for you.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 27 guests