Vectors & Scalars: Understanding Directional Properties

[DavidW]

Originally posted by ahrkron
DavidW,

Stick to the physics, please. Name calling contributes nothing to the issue. If anything, it hurts your credibility.

Tell that to pmb. He is the one first called me names. If he can do it, I can do it.

 

[DavidW]

Originally posted by pmb
davidw wrote


This was not your point of view when you called me a layman in response to me explaining what a tensor of rank zero was - you're claim then was that I was confused. You never even hinted that you understood the scalar = tensor of rank zero until I proved it to you. And even after that you keep trying to correct me.

You are lying. You are not educated enough to teach me any physics. You only have a bachelor of arts degree. I was the one who proved that a general scalar is NOT a tensor of rank zero. You are STILL confusing "Lorentz scalar" ie an invariant with the more general term.

 

[pmb]

davidw wrote [flames]

The moderator has requested that you to stick to the physics - Please do so.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by DavidW
I am making sense. You just aren't paying attention to what it is I am saying.

No, I get your drift. I just think you're wrong.

I am saying that I disagree with using the general term scalar to specifically mean Lorentz scalar without further qualification. I disagree with doing such a silly thing no matter what theory is the context.

That's fine. It still doesn't take away from the fact that a scalar is a rank 0 tensor by definition in so many textbooks, whether or not we are talking about "Lorentz scalars"[/color].

Not every author is so lazy as to let just scalar mean invariant as you claim. Several still write out the full name and call it a Lorentz scalar. Those who don't are lazy no matter what field is being referred to.

I am not saying that a scalar is the same as a "Lorentz scalar". A scalar is a rank 0 tensor in whatever vector space you are talking about. Once again, if you are talking about Euclidean 3-space then a "scalar" (aka a "Euclidean scalar") is anything that is invariant under rotations and parity. If you are talking about Minkowski 4-space, then a "scalar" (aka a "Lorentz scalar") is anything that is invariant under the full Lorentz group. It is not a simple matter of laziness, as many authors who equate "scalar" with "invariant" give special attention to the issue.

pmb is lying, and I'll say it once again since you like repetition so much that, saying scalar to mean just Lorentz scalar is lazy and you can't make me do it no matter who else has done so.

Actually, I don't like repitition, and I wish you would open your mind so that I could stop repeating myself. For the ump-teenth time: When I say "scalar", I do not necessarily mean "Lorentz scalar", but I do mean "invariant".

Lorentz scalar = rank 0 tensor

Now you're being the lazy one. This is wrong, as written. It should be:

Lorentz scalar=rank 0 tensor under the full Lorentz group

Scalar in general = an single element, has magnitude, but not direction

As I've explained repeatedly, this definition is not used above the high school level because it is not useful. When you study some more advanced physics, you will see that.

Tell that to pmb. He is the one first called me names. If he can do it, I can do it.

PMB has not called you a name in this thread, not even once. If he did it at another message board, then that is not our concern. But you have repeatedly insulted him in this thread, and that is our concern. Keep it up, and I'll see your membership at PF canceled by the end of the week.

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by Tom
PMB has not called you a name in this thread, not even once. If he did it at another message board, then that is not our concern. But you have repeatedly insulted him in this thread, and that is our concern. Keep it up, and I'll see your membership at PF canceled by the end of the week. [/B]

Actually I encountered this person several years ago. Someone at another forum asked what a tensor was. I told then using a scalar as an example in that it was a tensor of rank zero. I.e. I wrote

"A scalar is a tensor. It is a number which is independant of the coordinate system. [...] A scalar is said to be a tensor of rank zero."

The funny part is that his own text states
"of "Essential Relativity," Wolfgang Rindler. From page 65

".. scalar invariant (often shortened to just "scalar" or "invariant"), i.e. a real number independent of the coordinate system.. "

Pete

 

[DavidW]

Originally posted by Tom
Keep it up, and I'll see your membership at PF canceled by the end of the week.

Threats do not constitute valid arguements, and your threat backfired. If you tell me the link to cancel my registration, I will leave. You will loose a physicist and kept a crank. But that's ok because you are not open to hear the whole story behind the physics or the truth about pmb yet and that is not my fault. Eventually pmb will flame everyone who dissagrees with his kooky physics viewpoints at this site just as he does everywhere. If you don't believe me then either ask the others in any of the other physics boards at which he posts or read the posts he makes there for yourself. Here I leave you with a few google physics groups links to the kinds of "conversations" you will look forward to him eventually having with people here as well.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+pmb++jerk&meta=


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...q=+pmb++ass&meta=group=sci.physics.relativity

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+pmb++sparky&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

 

[pmb]

Originally posted by DavidW
Eventually pmb will flame everyone who dissagrees with his kooky physics viewpoints at this site just as he does everywhere.

Please do not start trouble here. I've never flamed anyone who hasn't spent a great deal of energy flaming me to the breaking point. It's just never happened. And here people don't flame others when they disagree - I've never started anything anywhere and I never will. Your obssesive nature is not welcome here. You want to discuss physics? Then that's fine. But do so without flaming and lying.

 

[quantumdude]

David W has elected not to receive Private Messages, so regrettably I have to address this in the open forum.

Originally posted by DavidW
Threats

No, it's called a "warning". Perhaps you are unaware, but at PF moderators are called "Mentors". That's what I am, and so is ahrkron. Between the 2 of us, you have been given 2 warnings in this thread alone.

do not constitute valid arguements,

I know that, and I didn't intend for it to be an argument. I intended for it to be corrective action against your unacceptable conduct.

and your threat backfired.

So does that mean you intend to keep insulting pmb in spite of my warning?

If you tell me the link to cancel my registration, I will leave.

Don't worry. We'll cancel it for you if the situation does not improve.

You will loose a physicist and kept a crank.

You are obviously not a physicist. You don't even understand the simple explanations I've given you as to why you are mistaken.

But that's ok because you are not open to hear the whole story behind the physics or the truth about pmb yet and that is not my fault.

Who do you think you are, the Internet Messiah? You think we all need you to tell us about physics and about PMB? First of all, I learned what I've been telling you from grad school, not this website or any of its members. Second, I don't give a rat's ass about hearing your version of the truth about PMB. Frankly, I think you need to get a life.

Eventually pmb will flame everyone who dissagrees with his kooky physics viewpoints at this site just as he does everywhere. If you don't believe me then either ask the others in any of the other physics boards at which he posts or read the posts he makes there for yourself. Here I leave you with a few google physics groups links to the kinds of "conversations" you will look forward to him eventually having with people here as well.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+pmb++jerk&meta=


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...q=+pmb++ass&meta=group=sci.physics.relativity

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+pmb++sparky&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I already told you that anything he has said at other message boards is no concern of mine. I am a moderator at Physics Forums, not anywhere else. If PMB or anyone else becomes a problem here, we will deal with it, just as I am dealing with you.

This is your third and final warning: Cut the crap, or we will cut it for you. If you come back with so much as one more sentence fragment of your nonsense, my recommendation goes into the Administrator for your dismissal.

 

[DavidW]

Too late, I just reported you recomending your dismissal for threatening me and asked for a link for where I could cancel my own memebership due to your cranky responces in the face of physics facts and the truth. You are not a physicist. I am, but you lost me. Guess your stuck with pmb and yourself (prabably you are pmb under a second name) who merely speculates what actual physics is about.

 

[chroot]

To whom did you report the moderator? The moderator? :D

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by DavidW
Too late, I just reported you recomending your dismissal for threatening me

David, I am a moderator here. One of my duties is to issue warnings. I did not threaten you, I just did my job, and the Administrator has told me he will back me up on it.

Seriously, what did you hope to accomplish with this? I got this position because the Administrator recognized me as one of the more knowledgeable members. You, on the other hand, are just some raving looney who walked in off the street. Surely you knew this was a losing battle?

and asked for a link for where I could cancel my own memebership

Like I said, we'll handle it for you ASAP. You'll be able to tell your changed status by your new title, "Cracker".

due to your cranky responces in the face of physics facts and the truth.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

As I pointed out, we were talking about matters of definition here. There is no inherent "truth" or "factuality" in definitions. I only tried to explain to you what the standard convention is and that it differs from what you hold to. You need to study more physics, simple as that.

Seriously David, you blew it at this message board over nothing.

You are not a physicist.

Not yet, but I am working on my thesis.

I am, but you lost me.

You flatter yourself too much. Your profile says that you have an MS in physics and teach at the college level. I hate to burst your bubble, but an MS does not a physicist make. Hell, I am more advanced in my education than you, and I won't call myself a physicist until I finish my PhD.

Guess your stuck with pmb and yourself (prabably you are pmb under a second name)

Hear that ladies? He's got all that, and psychosis too. What a catch! LOL

who merely speculates what actual physics is about.

Some speculation is OK, but I prefer the "study and research" approach. Give it a shot sometime, it will really help you out.

 

[On Radioactive Waves]

LMAO! Its always funny to see physics arguments get s personal. Davidw, you shouldn't hold a grudge like that. It just looks like you have issues with PMB, not like you are trying to discuss the issue here. And oh yeah, that quite curtious of you to cancel your own membership to a place you don't like, instead of just leaving. Ha ha ha ha ha.