# Thread: Quaternion Physics and Redshift Revealed

1. Originally Posted by Fortis
So it would take a different value on 4th July? How is that different to "flowing time"?

But that is not time, that is space. I can talk about distances in terms of light seconds, and in essence that is what we do if we use the convention where we set c=1. That still doesn't mean that in a particular inertial frame we can just replace spatial derivatives by time derivatives. Do you really believe that for a function f, you can write

df/dR = (1/c)df/dt ?

The left hand side is the rate of change of f with respect to a spatial displacement, whereas the righthand side is a rate of change with respect to time.
Nope. Check your units both sides are per distance. It is a bad convention to set c=1. This is confusion. Thats why we have units to fight confusion.

Light years is a distance, why not light 500 seconds is a distance. Physicists have confused the terminology. I read there are "light miles" meaning the time it takes light to travel a mile. We use a distance measure to denote time and time measure to denote distance.

Let me bring up another point that is confusing folks. Displacement denotes a vector quantity, where "direction" is involved. Direction is the distinction between vectors and reals quantities. Another confusion is the velocity of light as opposed to the speed of light. This distinction could explain the M&M experiment. Light is a real number and ct is a real number, not a vector or displacement. Now real numbers don't have directions like vectors so light has the same "speed" in all directions. I wouldn't argue the point but I was not surprised that the M&M Experiment "failed", M&M looked for vector compounding from a real number and didn't find it. Real numbers don't compound like vectors. Thus light is constant in all directions and the M&M Experiment failed. To this day physicists are talking about the velocity of light as if light was a vector velocity. Light is a real number time is a real number ct is a real number, a distance not a displacement. reals and vectors are different. Like in complex numbers reals are different from imaginaries.

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by yawyaw
Nope. Check your units both sides are per distance. It is a bad convention to set c=1. This is confusion. Thats why we have units to fight confusion.
I have seen arguments against setting c=1. The fact is that as long as you are careful with your units, it doesn't really matter, and saves us from having to write down all of those "c"s.
Light years is a distance, why not light 500 seconds is a distance. Physicists have confused the terminology. I read there are "light miles" meaning the time it takes light to travel a mile. We use a distance measure to denote time and time measure to denote distance.
No problem in using lightseconds as a distance, but remember that this variable falls under the x, y, z category, not the t category. You don't just magically transform the distance between two points into a time just by writing it as ct.

3. Originally Posted by yawyaw
(snip)
Another confusion is the velocity of light as opposed to the speed of light. This distinction could explain the M&M experiment. Light is a real number and ct is a real number, not a vector or displacement. Now real numbers don't have directions like vectors so light has the same "speed" in all directions. I wouldn't argue the point but I was not surprised that the M&M Experiment "failed", M&M looked for vector compounding from a real number and didn't find it. Real numbers don't compound like vectors. Thus light is constant in all directions and the M&M Experiment failed. To this day physicists are talking about the velocity of light as if light was a vector velocity. Light is a real number time is a real number ct is a real number, a distance not a displacement. reals and vectors are different. Like in complex numbers reals are different from imaginaries.
It is also possible that all of science is confused and also has problems with the velocity of space as opposed to the speed of space.

In the Virgo super-cluster the light being received from the M87 galaxy jet gives an apparent speed of four times the speed of light.

It may be inconceivable to the scientific community that they do not see what they know ... but you have to ask how could they justify not knowing what they see.

It is a clear case of the universe does not agree with the mathematics so science adjusts reality again. I am afraid the human species is a lost cause.

I appreciate your attempts to bring some sense of order to the community yawyaw I really do but I don't fancy the chance that humans as a species have any hope whatsoever of understanding you.
Last edited by Michael Noonan; 2008-May-05 at 09:13 PM. Reason: added words to line one for meaning

4. Originally Posted by papageno
But you said: "It appears that for Relativity Theory, the 4-vector is a QUATERNION... "
So I asked whether - according to you - the formulation of Relativity in terms of quaternions is equivalent to the formulation in terms of four-vectors.
Originally Posted by yawyaw
See my new ATM post on Quaternion Relativity!
Is your answer yes or no?

Also, you failed to address this:
Originally Posted by papageno
Of course, you are utterly wrong when you finish the sentence with "and not the Minkowski 4-vector elsewhere", since the "Einstein" space-time interval you quoted is at the basis of the definition of Minkowskian vector-space.

And you still have not answered my question:
Originally Posted by papageno
No, you claimed that there is an imaginary in this space-time interval: I = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2.
So, where is it? I see only squares of real numbers.
So, where is this imaginary?

5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by papageno
So, where is this imaginary?
We know that spacetime is non-Euclidean and a lot of confusion would be prevented if we gave up trying to force it into a Euclidean framework. Bring forth the holy metric of Antioch...

6. Originally Posted by Fortis
We know that spacetime is non-Euclidean and a lot of confusion would be prevented if we gave up trying to force it into a Euclidean framework. Bring forth the holy metric of Antioch...
I have vague memories from my first year Linear Algebra course about a parameter used to characterize metric spaces (vector spaces + metric). The two examples they gave was Euclidean 4D space and Minkowskian 4D space: the fact that this parameter was different for the two spaces, meant that they were not equivalent.

7. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by papageno
I have vague memories from my first year Linear Algebra course about a parameter used to characterize metric spaces (vector spaces + metric). The two examples they gave was Euclidean 4D space and Minkowskian 4D space: the fact that this parameter was different for the two spaces, meant that they were not equivalent.
You may be thinking of the signature of the metric.

8. Originally Posted by Fortis
You may be thinking of the signature of the metric.
Ah yes. What I remembered was the index of inertia, which was computed as (number of positive - number of negative signs) in the signature.

9. Originally Posted by Fortis
You can start off with the solution to the field equations for a static, spherically symetric, distribution of mass. You can then derive the equation describing null-geodesics (i.e. the world-lines of photons with zero rest mass) in this spacetime. When you integrate the differential equation that you have just derived, you end off with a deflection, for a photon grazing the Sun, of 1.75''.

I recommend that you do a bit of background reading on GR, (Shutz, or Misner Thorne and Wheeler.)

As to being able to make a case for o.44'', that is not what is observed experimentally, and hence it is wrong.
Einstein's 1.7 arcsecond deflection angle is a mis-intepretation of an observation and wrong theory. Einstein's Theory of space curvature causing the 1.7' deflection is incorrect. The 1.7' deflection is the result of the earth's gravitational deflection y=1/2 gt^2 on a light particle.

To explain, the light passing the limb of the sun has no velocity normal to the tangential velocity. The gravitational pull of the earth causes a deflection of y= 1/2 gt^2= 1/2 9.88 (R/c)^2, where R=150Gm, the distance to the earth. The Tangent =y/R=1/2 9.88 R/c^2 =1/2 9.88 (500)/c= 8.23E-6 or the angle of 1.7' ! This is not due to curvature of space, this is due to earth's gravity deflecting the light towards earth after it passed the limb of the sun. This is not a redshift deflection, it is plain old Newtonian deflection. It seems physicists ignored the effect of the earth's gravitational pull on the particle and attributed the deflection to "Einstein's curved space".

The light from the distant star skimmed the rim of the sun and was deflected by the earth's gravitational attraction. This 1.7' is a big thing in Relativity Theory. Maybe Relativity Theory needs a review.

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by yawyaw
Einstein's 1.7 arcsecond deflection angle is a mis-intepretation of an observation and wrong theory. Einstein's Theory of space curvature causing the 1.7' deflection is incorrect. The 1.7' deflection is the result of the earth's gravitational deflection y=1/2 gt^2 on a light particle.

To explain, the light passing the limb of the sun has no velocity normal to the tangential velocity. The gravitational pull of the earth causes a deflection of y= 1/2 gt^2= 1/2 9.88 (R/c)^2, where R=150Gm, the distance to the earth. The Tangent =y/R=1/2 9.88 R/c^2 =1/2 9.88 (500)/c= 8.23E-6 or the angle of 1.7' ! This is not due to curvature of space, this is due to earth's gravity deflecting the light towards earth after it passed the limb of the sun. This is not a redshift deflection, it is plain old Newtonian deflection. It seems physicists ignored the effect of the earth's gravitational pull on the particle and attributed the deflection to "Einstein's curved space".

The light from the distant star skimmed the rim of the sun and was deflected by the earth's gravitational attraction. This 1.7' is a big thing in Relativity Theory. Maybe Relativity Theory needs a review.
I'll carry on with this in the new thread that you started. I'll just comment that if it is just an effect due to the Earth, then it should be observed for pretty much all stars, not just those visible just above the limb of the Sun.

11. Instead of opening more threads, you should conclude this and answer my questions.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•