creeky belly
Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006

Quote  Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?
Whether you believe me or not, I have spent years developing computerized models that deal with the nonlinear equations inherent in realworld sixdegree of freedom situations. This not only included force, acceleration, velocity and position vectors in both absolute and relative frames. I also had to deal with moments of inertial and quaternians with matrix transfer functions.
When I said "I work with plenty of people with PhDs" I meant it. You can feel sorry for them now, because I have been the interface between them and turning their concepts into reality.
I am good at understanding things well enough to explain it to management and programmers. 
It's quite evident from your statements about orbits that you don't have the first clue about vector calculus or Newtonian dynamics. I've been trying to focus on the science, you turn around and focus on people. I don't care what you've done in the past, I don't care about Roger Penrose. If you spout nonsense about physics, I'm going to call you on it. Quote  Creeky Belly, you have been reasonably supportive of me, especially in the emails. I sense that you are earnestly looking for a better understanding yourself. Let me ask you some probing questions.
Do you view the universe as a threedimensional Euclidean Geometry that clicks by framebyframe as the time passes?
I suspect that is how most people think of the universe.
If you do too, how does that correspond with the concept of curved spacetime, gravity wells, Black holes, etc?
Do you accept that time is one of four complex dimensions?
I am presuming you understand the Euclidean arc segment of…
dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
...right?
Presuming you don’t have a problem with complex numbers then dt could (and would) have a SQRT(1) factor. Coming up with the arc length segment of the four dimensional space results in…
dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2)
So far so good?
Penrose calls this ”spacelike”, but that is just his convention. Another convention he uses is to flip the complex dimensions to the perpendicular orientation. Resulting in a “timelike” arc length segment of…
ds = SQRT(dx^2  dy^2  dz^2 + dt^2)
or
ds = SQRT(dt^2  dx^2  dy^2  dz^2)
Which is the equation I used to solve the Twin Paradox.
Final question, do you understand and accept truly four dimensional spacetime, or are you really thinking a 3+1 modification of Euclidean Geometry because you don’t want to let go of familiar concepts? 
I understand Minkowskian geometry, moreover I know when it's applicable. When you gave your example of the traveling twin, I showed that the solution came from both accelerating to +0.8c and 0.8c, you can show that the traveling twin enters a noninertial reference frame and thus the conflict is resolved. The fact that you're still arguing about physics from special relativity is telling, you need general relativity at least to have any knowledge of gravity.
Here's the catch with Minkowskian geometry: spacelike separated events are not causally connected in the classical relativistic picture. If you want to argue that they are, you can perform some experiments to test this. The fact that you can flip signs around doesn't mean anything unless there's a physical effect that we can measure.
Look, I've been reasonably supportive to the point where I'm genuinely interested in the physics research you present. However, when you say things that are demonstrably false, and chide people for holding on to outdated scientific dogma, I get a little annoyed. You complain that we're arguing from authority (I'm not, I'm arguing from the principles of physics), then you turn around and do exactly that. Man up and show me you know what you're talking about.
