Re: Space-time interval (2)

Le 12/08/2024 à 19:35, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

The notion of space-time interval should be abandoned because it is complex and leads to nothing, except final errors.

This is your typical mantra : you read a few popular science stuff,
too quickly and nothing more, then you fail to understand the point
and put up some fancy idea out of your *ss and as you are a stuffed
shirt pompous imbecile you will brag about it for years.
Could you consider once to actually take time to *read* papers,
articles, courses, whatever and *think* instead of acting like
a wanker with your very small pee-pee?

What is the space-time interval?
A metric, measured in meters.

Meters, furlong, inches, it doesn't matter.
It is a number associated to a pair of events with dimension
of a length.

It is mostly an abstract thing that is not very useful.

"abstract" means "Richard Lengrand does not understand". For the
rest of us abstraction is a virtue of intelligence.

So we set ds²=dl²-c²t².
Why and for WHAT?
For nothing.
For fun.

No, because an invariant scalar quantity is what allow to do
geometry on top of coordinates systems.

Hachel notation is much more practical, because it does not need the notion of complexes to establish a perfect Pythagoreanism.

"pythagoreanism" is a meaningless word.
There is no need for complex numbers when it comes to space-time
interval. But even if it would, what the problem? You do have issues
with basic math, including complex numbers, this is none of our
business.

[snip nonsensical wanking]

Finally, what is ds²? It is just -c².Tr²

No! ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dl^2. For some kind of pairs of event
it could be equal to c^2 dt^2 but not for all. I tried (in vain)
to explain this to you on f.s.p.

Let's pose Tr²=-ds².c² and everything becomes much simpler and much more practical.

It is not simpler, it is not practical. And it is FALSE.

Simplicity is disconcerting.
 In general, we don't like it too much.

No we don't like contradictions and fallacies. You do.