Jump to content
Science Forums

Minkowski SpaceTime diagrams re assigned


Recommended Posts

Due to the fact that there has never been a single coherent explanation ever put forward by either Minkowski or anyone else, that justifies the concept and execution of the SpaceTime diagram, I submit that the whole concept be placed in the "Silly Claims" category.  (the "utter nonsense" category)

Unless there is some rational explanation that exists in some obscure location, but such information is not apparent in Stanford, Yale, Oxford or any other institution of higher learning.

Can anyone suggest such a document?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

X = ct, this is 100% correct, BUT ONLY FOR LIGHT.  or only when x and ct are both zero. So you cant just plug x = ct into equations replacing x if that x is not referring to light. X distance is

Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam.   Here is the intro.  

Posted Images

16 hours ago, marcospolo said:

Due to the fact that there has never been a single coherent explanation ever put forward by either Minkowski or anyone else, that justifies the concept and execution of the SpaceTime diagram, I submit that the whole concept be placed in the "Silly Claims" category.  (the "utter nonsense" category)

Unless there is some rational explanation that exists in some obscure location, but such information is not apparent in Stanford, Yale, Oxford or any other institution of higher learning.

Can anyone suggest such a document?

google 'minkowski spacetime diagrams', there are many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know exactly WHAT they are. 

I asked for a RATIONAL explanation as to the concept behnd these "diagrams". How they are supposed to work, and WHY they are designed the way they are.

My criticism is that they are irrational nonsense. There is no theory behind them, and they just fail totally to represent anything in Physics or Mathematics.

Simply put they do not show what its claimed they show. In fact, they distort actual Physics to support a wrong hypothesis.

So, Im asking for a scholarly document that explains the Minkowski SpaceTime Diagram.

There does not seem to be one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

It simply takes the math out of the process, it is used to illustrate time dilation. It's a simplification of relativity's effects on space.

Okay so the reason for putting a proof into diagram form is that a lot of theoretical math can be cross-checked more quickly if it corresponds correctly with the diagram which takes the meat and potatoes out of the equations. It's easier to cross-check a diagram than a proof and just as effective in some work.

Ok, I also know that. But you misunderstand what Im saying.

I'm pointing out that the Minkowski SpaceTime Diagram is nonsense. There is no rational, sensible logical representation of anything Physical or Mathematical in the diagram.

You draw a line, then call it a "world line", but this is as sensible as calling the same line "a circle".  I proclaim that line is now a circle, because I said so, and its also a representation of a naked chick on the beach just because. No reason is needed, I just say it is so there!

Just because Minkowski re labled lines in his GRAPH, does not make them change what they are. (the 45 deg vector is nothing other than the vector representing the VELOCITY of Light.  The other vector is ONLY one thing, its a vector representing the VELOCITY of the second observer, its NOT EVER, and can never be, anyone's new X axis relabled his "worldline".

There are a dozen reasons why the spacetime diagram is moronic drivel, and end up being a error producing abortion of a simple graph plotting time over distance.

On his diagram he has Distance on one axis, and a Time scale as the second axis. This can ONLY MAKE ONE THING POSSIBLE, its a GRAPH showing VELOCITY vectors.

There is no rationality in relabeling the vector that is a vector of VELOCITY, and calling it a "Worldline" ( a new distance axis) of the second observer.

So, I ask somebody to point me to a scientific Physics paper, that explains the Minkowski in a rational, scientific manner, that does not just make unsupported and nonsensical claims as if they are settled science.

Next, ALL self styled "Physicists" that lecture on this topic, end up changing the vertical Time scalar axis, "the ct axis".

So now what does this mean?  Well we already have a Distance axis, called the x axis, and so this newly relabled "ct" axis has now become ANOTHER DISTANCE AXIS.

c*t=Distance

So what our original velocity graph ends up morphing into is now a simple MAP, with distances on both axies!

Any line in the graphing area is no longer a velocity vector, it can only represent a actual road map showing the path taken and current location. This map can also show the local MacDonalds, and the Bus stop. It cant show velocities because it only has distances on both axies.

Further, the notion of representing the moving observers frame of reference as a acute angle between two axies, instead of the conventional axies at 90 degrees, can not be supported by any form of Math or Geometry. There is no substance behind this abortion of Geometry by doing this.

I submit that you attempt to draw a more useful Minkowski diagram, if you still believe in SpaceTime, and place the Graph or diagram according to more useful layout.

Like this:  Have the stationary observer use the normal 90 degree axies.

Then scale the x axis and T axis units so that the speed of Light is practically lying along the X axis. Almost horizontal. This gives a more realistic representation of Light velocity, AND gives the very useful added advantage of allowing us to utilize almost all of the graphing area. (instead of only the top section, above the 45 deg vector of light.)

So now we have more sensible scales on Time and DIstance, make sure you NEVER EVER substitute ct in place of TIME for the Vertical scales.

OK, the setup is done, so now attempt to use this new improved Minkowski spacetime diagram to demonstrate Time Dilation.

Go ahead, Ill wait here for your reply.

Ive got more criticisms of the Minkowski diagram and its use, this is just the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

It is simply for reference. Specifically, it is an expression of the doppler effect. Analogous to how an incoming train will sound different than an outgoing train. Something used to compare your work with

[Quote]You draw a line, then call it a "world line", but this is as sensible as calling the same line "a circle".  I proclaim that line is now a circle, because I said so, and its also a representation of a naked chick on the beach just because. No reason is needed, I just say it is so there![/quote]

Put simply, your y access is time, space is x, and lights doppler shift is the 45 degree angles in all four quadrants which you can retrofit into your equations using dy/dx•(x^2)=2x.

IMG-20210106-172136551.jpg

Basic algebra; 
The graph function basically yields an x, I don't even have to graph it (-4,8√2)(-4,-8√2)(-2,4)(-2,-4)(2,4)(2,-4)(4,8√2)(4,-8√2)

[Quote]

 

Just because Minkowski re labled lines in his GRAPH, does not make them change what they are. (the 45 deg vector is nothing other than the vector representing the VELOCITY of Light.  The other vector is ONLY one thing, its a vector representing the VELOCITY of the second observer, its NOT EVER, and can never be, anyone's new X axis relabled his "worldline".

There are a dozen reasons why the spacetime diagram is moronic drivel, and end up being a error producing abortion of a simple graph plotting time over distance.

On his diagram he has Distance on one axis, and a Time scale as the second axis. This can ONLY MAKE ONE THING POSSIBLE, its a GRAPH showing VELOCITY vectors.

There is no rationality in relabeling the vector that is a vector of VELOCITY, and calling it a "Worldline" ( a new distance axis) of the second observer.[/quote]

First of all vectors would only come into play in high dimensional physics. Second of all, this has nothing do with velocity. You have completely misread the diagram and therefore have utterly failed and paid the price in full for your lack of analytics. 

[Quote]

So now what does this mean?  Well we already have a Distance axis, called the x axis, and so this newly relabled "ct" axis has now become ANOTHER DISTANCE AXIS.

c*t=Distance[/quote]

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦

Ct is time, x is distance.

As you said before contradicting yourself like a lotus flower, Ct is the time dimension, not velocity. This is about trajectory not velocity. Do you understand now my sad misguided compatriot? This is one of your many shortcomings in your research "method" if it can even be called that. 

[Quote]

So what our original velocity graph ends up morphing into is now a simple MAP, with distances on both axies!

Any line in the graphing area is no longer a velocity vector, it can only represent a actual road map showing the path taken and current location. This map can also show the local MacDonalds, and the Bus stop. It cant show velocities because it only has distances on both axies.

Further, the notion of representing the moving observers frame of reference as a acute angle between two axies, instead of the conventional axies at 90 degrees, can not be supported by any form of Math or Geometry. There is no substance behind this abortion of Geometry by doing this.

I submit that you attempt to draw a more useful Minkowski diagram, if you still believe in SpaceTime, and place the Graph or diagram according to more useful layout.[/quote]

Wow you just went back to your pre-contradicted analysis, at least it beats that velocity nonsense. 

As far as MSTDs usefulness, there are many ways to apply it, depends on the derivation and what you're trying to calculate/measure/proof. Depends on the physics, depends on the maths, etc.

[quote]

Like this:  Have the stationary observer use the normal 90 degree axies.

Then scale the x axis and T axis units so that the speed of Light is practically lying along the X axis. Almost horizontal. This gives a more realistic representation of Light velocity, AND gives the very useful added advantage of allowing us to utilize almost all of the graphing area. (instead of only the top section, above the 45 deg vector of light.)

So now we have more sensible scales on Time and DIstance, make sure you NEVER EVER substitute ct in place of TIME for the Vertical scales.

OK, the setup is done, so now attempt to use this new improved Minkowski spacetime diagram to demonstrate Time Dilation.

Go ahead, Ill wait here for your reply.

Ive got more criticisms of the Minkowski diagram and its use, this is just the beginning.[/quite]

Look, if you accept the Minkowsky diagram then leave.

No one is keeping you here. I have plenty of others things to do than indulge your pitifully mistaken attempt to deny the universal and infallible truth that is  the Minkowsky spacetime diagram.

You really cant be as dense as you are making out.

A graph with Time and Distance on the axies can only ever be a velocity graph, so any vector is just the velocity. Period. nothing else it can be.

You cant just dump Time onto a graph as if its a LOCATION or a DIRECTION.  You can SAY "SpaceTime" , but there is no graphical way of presenting this on a 2D graph.

The minute you try to split up your SpaceTime stuff, into separate Time and Distance axies, you have gone back to the classical meanings of Time and Direction being non compatible.  You cant plot Time in SpaceTime, as according to Einstein, there is no such thing as Time.  Its ALL part of Spacetime. So you must have "Spacetime Units" on both the horizontal axis and the Vertical axis. And there is no such animal as a SpaceTime Unit.

And when you delete the Time axis units and replace the seconds with a Distance, (ct) you have destroyed the original Velocity Graph. Its now a positional Map with only

distance scales.

If as you claim the Minkowski graph is really a "Trajectory plot", then its NOT about SpaceTime at all!  Trajectories are the exclusive domain of a 3D universe, in this case plotted as a 2D trajectory only. No Spacetime anywhere. Time, is NOT a part of a trajectory plot. Time IS part of a Velocity plot, but the vector (inertial velocity) is never the trajectory!

So what is it supposed to be? a velocity plot or a trajectory plot? Pick a side and stick with it.

Hint, its a VELOCITY plot, and NEVER a trajectory plot. Because you always have the moving frame going at an angle to the 45 degree of the Light vector.

But if you claim these are TRAJECTORIES, then there's absolutely nothing stopping me from moving along the EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY AS the light, but just moving slower!

However, this can't be done of the Minkowski plot, so this PROVES that its still an ORDINARY VELOCITY PLOT, and has NOTHING to do with Trajectory or with mythical SpaceTime.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Until you understand the physics syntax or maths integration the diagram might as well be Chinese.

And until you understand that its just an abortion of both Physics and Math, then rationality is lost on you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

You're confused, d/t doesn't work both ways, t/d is not velocity. You can put time over distance in the MSTD.

Stop bringing vectors into a vector has to with comparing quanta. Vector calculus only comes into play when you're relating different local systems in D4+, you can even stack to 20 in entangled systems, you can stack to any dimension but it doesn't normally have anything to do with what we're talking about.

ct is a Velocity multiplied by a Time. Distance = vt.

We are NOT doing any math with a Plot.( Its all graphical )  YOU DREW the VECTOR and said it was representing the VELOCITY of Light.

We are NOT doing vector calculus.

We are looking at lines on a graph.

And the graph is showing a relationship between Time and Distance, which is VELOCITY.

ANY line, or vector or curve (non inertial velocity) you draw on the graph, is exclusively a line showing the VELOCITY.

If you wish to plot Spacetime (whatever that is) you better have the units in SpaceTime units, which are strangely missing from Physics.

All we do have is units for Time and other units for Distance, which according to Einstein do not exist. There is ONLY SPACETIME.

This is of course nonsense unless you have discovered spacetime units and how to measure them, or scale them on a 2D plot.

The Minkowski attempt fails miserably.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

You are taking a particular application when you use the form ct, this application doesn't even do that:

_bPckMgO3zwaGQ0ivVxBWuO2tSuwMQXYEOwRRrDD

Just stick to the doppler effect at your current level. You don't have to involve velocity in the most basic principle of the st diagram, because, again you will probably, at your level, end up confusing t/d for velocity if you do that. In fact you already did and continue bro do so. Just listen for a change instead of spouting word salad and confusing a rather simple concept.

Show me one place where i used t/d.

This is not even a law of Physics. its v=dt, or d=v/t or t=v/d.

And that screen shot is from Khan academy lesson, and is about Newtonian Physics.

Sal has not introduced the full mess of Minkowski yet, not until a later lesson. Its crap too. Here he misrepresents even Newton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

"The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect), when taking into account effects described by the special theory of relativity."

Why are you on about doppler?  I thought we were discussing Minkowski diagrams?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Motion doesn't equal velocity. Again, it depends on the specifics of the work you're doing. Velocity can be involved, but you read so much into the fact that time is always in motion - except you didn't even look that far into it you just saw the ct and made word salad - that you missed the whole concept of a light cone.

Your problem is comprehension, that not a problem with MSTD. You're not even applying it to anything 

Sorry, but motion is exclusively about a physical object changing positions relative to other objects.

Time can not come into it. You cant MOVE a body THROUGH Time.

No one is constantly moving through Time while they sit still.

Physical Processes continue around us, and IN us, and we call this change, "Time".  Time is just changes in motion, position, changes in chemical processes, changes in biological processes, and we compare these changes, and call that Time, its a concept. Distance is NOT a concept. Motion is not a concept. Time is a concept, its just man comparing changes in motion.

 Time is not a PLACE or location comparable to distance dimensions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

🤦🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦🤦‍♀️V is not dt it's d/t

Secondly time is in motion in the example I used which is why I got rid of it. The y axis is going from past to future or vice versa which is why it's in seconds in that diagram, hence it's moving but you're not really getting anywhere with your supposed issue with MSTD

Opps, I got that wrong. I meant d=vt.   so ct is just a distance, same as the x distance axis. There is nothing spacetimish about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheProdigalProdigy said:

And yet,

"A Minkowski spacetime diagram is a geometric representation of motions in spacetime. The vertical axis is usually plotted as the time axis."

 

SO STOP TURNING IT INTO A DISTANCE! by pretending its ct!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

It can be ct, depends on what you're using it for. You're using the word distance, it's just a word. Axioms hold little weight in physics.

Time can NEVER be expressed as ct

the original Time axis of the Minkowski diagram is now WRONG the second you replace the Time scale with a distance scale.

But If its really a Distance, the JUST USE DISTANCE UNITS same as on the X axis.  Don't complicate it by using ct when meters would be perfect.

What the deception?  I know, its to enable to fraud to occur.

Alternatively if ct is cool, then use ct on the x axis too.  ( because the way you have scaled this plot, the vertical and horizontal axies are 1:1, and any other ratio will end up giving an error) 

Ah, but then your time dilation math gets all screwed up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Whereas mathematics hold a hell of a lot of weight.

 

In fact, mathematics can be forced to support practically any wacky theory, its like a tub of jello. Maths on its own is fine, but the problems arise when you invent rubbish equations that are not representing reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

Time does have different velocities, because it can be slowed down or dilated. The diagram you quoted was showing proper time

no, it cant YET, the purpose of the minkowsk diagram here is leading up to trying to explain the hypothesis that time can change.

and if time does change, then this diagram is no good, as the time and distances here are all unchanging. they are not able to shrink or dilate at all in the diagram.

Minkowski is trying to prove that time and distance shrink, but he relies on the non shrinking of both in his proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

If we were comparing how the same doppler shift is percieved when seen by both a stationary observer (y=t) with a relativistic observer (y=ct), then you could use the term vector.

 

Im not concerned with the use of this diagram for relativistic doppler theory, we still have not heard a decent explanation as to how its supposed to actually mean something rational.

Sal from Khan and most other examples of minkowski are not interested in doppler either.

Lets just stick with using the diagram to illustrate time dilation and length contraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

It's not a theory it's a natural phenomenon and I just did give you an example of using it to express time dilation.

APPARENT Doppler of Light is a observable, but its not necessarily due to what you claim it is.

There ARE other hypothesizes. And you have no way to verify that its got to do with Special relativity or General relativity.

You ASSUME it is, according to your interpretation of observations. But others come to different conclusions, and neither can be verified.

That's why we say that its not possible to PROVE a theory is true, by experiment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...