So let me get this straight, Reimann figures out curvature geometry but it relies on vectors being invariant. This is pretty stupid because anyone at the time knows that you can change a vector arbitrarily. So while the tensor is good at finding the curves of surfaces it’s not useful in physics where vectors are variant. THEN it turns out that because of the Lorentz transformation and the constant speed of light all vectors ARE invariant, and only the compnenets change so suddenly the Reimann tensor is the key to understanding all of general relativity. That feels too fucking convenient. Like our universe conspired to make this mathematical model the basis of everything gravitational.
>>17030627Vectors aren’t invariant. Magnitudes of vectors are.
>>17030628So let me get this straight, Reimann figures out curvature geometry but it relies on magnitude of vectors being invariant. This is pretty stupid because anyone at the time knows that you can change a vector arbitrarily. So while the tensor is good at finding the curves of surfaces it’s not useful in physics where magnitude of vectors are variant. THEN it turns out that because of the Lorentz transformation and the constant speed of light all the magnitude of vectors ARE invariant, and only the components change so suddenly the Reimann tensor is the key to understanding all of general relativity. That feels too fucking convenient. Like our universe conspired to make this mathematical model the basis of everything gravitational.
>>17031043based shitpost
Yes.. You are welcome
>>17030627I recommend Lorentzian aether for you
>>17030627>but it relies on vectors being invariantUhh sweaty vectors are contravariant
>>17031853>Lorentzian aetherAway with your placeholder nonsense. That is a dead god that will never resurrect. Physics gets so much easier once you accept that it doesn't make any fucking sense.
>>17031935No. It feels too convenient because the speed of light is constant.
>>17031880The seethe as expected. SR is much harder to understand then the lorentzian aether.
>>17032239There's no need to seethe. There is no room in the Maxwell equations for the Aether and the speed of light is derived directly from the Maxwell Equations.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1C-hQOB_mIThe speed of the wave emerges directly from the field. The equations offer no relative measurement from a perspective moving with respect to a medium.It doesn't matter if SR is harder to understand. SR might be impossible to understand. That doesn't matter. The Maxwell equations and Lorentz transformation tell us what we need to know about it to make accurate predictions and there's no wiggle room for the Aether.
>>17032247And for the record I DO think that SR is impossible to understand. There is no way for any theory or idea to reconcile the speed of light. The universe bent itself over backwards to assure that nothing got ahead of itself. That's the only way I can ever think about it.
>>17032247>There is no room in the Maxwell equations for the AetherMaxwell's original equations actually included terms for a mechanical aether.But most importantly a lorentzian aether has fully included them. Its equivalent to sr.>>17032247>The equations offer no relative measurement from a perspective moving with respect to a medium.Yes, that does not disprove it.
>>17032251>There is no way for any theory or idea to reconcile the speed of light.Lorentzian aether has fully included this, i recommend you to read about it.
>>17032247Btw the video is interesting
>>17032256>>17032254>>17032252Your position is at best unfalsifiable.
>>17032268Unfalsiable compared to SR yes, but lorentzian aether came first. So SR is the one who actually needs to falsify lorentzian aether, or its just a new theory with no new predictions (GR gives new predictions).
>>17032406An unfalsifiable theory is indifferentiable from magic.
>>17032554SRT is kind of magic kek good point.>im unfalsiable to lorentzian aether but I claim that light moves faster in one direction for the guy who is flying in that direction. While for some guy standing still light moves slower in that direction>yes both things are true
>>17032646I don't say light moves faster or slower in special relativity. It's constant. That's Lorentz, that's Maxwell, that's how it is. If Buddy Guy and Jimi Hendrix were playing guitar together what are you going to add by jumping in, not even knowing how to tune, let alone the tune. That would be even less egregious than inserting an entire mathematical object Where between Lorentz and Maxwell there is no room for accommodation.
>>17032648>I don't say light moves faster or slower in special relativity. It's constant.Yes, for every observer. By definition. But that means that the observer moving with 0.5c in one directiong doesnt agree with the standing observer where light moves faster. Imagine coordinates resting to the resting guy. In relativity they wont agree which marks light reaches how fast. Its not an objectve theory with one objective truth.
>>17032859>But that means that the observer moving with 0.5c in one directiong doesnt agree with the standing observer where light moves faster.No. They do agree. Light speed is constant. Time and distance are the variables.
>>17032862Mass and energy are also variable.
>>17032862No you retard. Thats lorentzian aether you describe. Assume a onedimensional scale and light starting at 0. There light is objectively at -100 and at +100 on the resting scale at the same time (if its resting to the aether), and everyone agrees.In relativity a fast moving person sees the light on the side he moves to already at 150 while its only at -50. While the resting observe sees it still at 100 and -100 at the same time. Thats why relativity is not an objective theory, and the observers cant agree to which sides it moves faster .
This is what the observers see. Time and space are variables relative to the constant speed of light. I've been discussing this under the assumption that you were just wrong. I think I have to accept that you're not even wrong.
>>17032873This is just a reinterpretation from the lorentzian aether THAT CAME BEFORE SR. According to your retarded standards (fuck pauli, he mindfucked you all) relativity is not even wrong. Relativity is the later theory with no new predictions.What i described here >>17032872 is a very precise difference that touches the lost menaing of simultaneity in relativity.
>>17032876Stop wasting time.
>>17032873>Time and space are variables relative to the constant speed of light.Btw i thought physics just make models and not philosophical claims?????
>>17032877I stay correct, lorentz explained all effects before 1905 and sr is a reinterpretation likely by reverse engeneering postulates. According this retarded pauli standard its sr thats "not even wrong".
