### Good try, Minkowski

If you dont know about Minkowski Diagrams, click HERE, and do a little study.

Or for an easy intorduction, click HERE. but ignore the Math, just get an idea about how the Minkowski Diagram is supposed to work.

Scientists seem to get a kick out of “discovering” principals and theories that are directly opposed to common sense, rationality and logic. It’s as if the more wacky the hypothesis, the more likely they are to embrace it. Do they hand out Nobel Prizes for Wacky? Seems like that is the case. Someone came up with the saying, “What makes you think that the universe should be the way you imagine, i.e. rational? From then on, wacky and “counter-intuitive” are practicaly essential characteristics of any new scientific theory.

The advantage of this stupidity is that it provides the perfect excuse to any questions raised. Namely, that the questioner simply has not understood the complexity , or "genius" of the theory. This is just weak argument, similar to Religious quacks who claim exactly the same thing about their wacky beliefs. If you want to study Physics, then first you need to switch your analytical and critical brain to idle, while they fill you head with irrational dogma. It really is that bad.

This effect is demonstrated perfectly in the work of Minkowski. He came up with those weird diagrams that try to explain spacetime, Lorentz transformations and SR.

However although Physicists label a Minkowski diagram as “spacetime diagram”, the actual diagram consists of nothing more exotic than a simple graph, which plots the time elapsed and the distance travelled. It's a simple Graph, but one that has been butchered beyond recognition. I begin to get suspicious when people make up special names for things that we already know about. A Minkowski Diagram is not a “spacetime diagram”, it’s just a plot of locations in the x direction and time. So the plot will show only speed. Nothing else. Just speed. Changes in position over time, that’s SPEED.

This is the standard Minkowski Spacetime Diagram.

The angle of the green line "T1" on this graph will only indicate the rate of change of the speed. In this case, the closer to vertical the vector, the slower the speed. Vertical is not moving, 45% is light speed.  Actually, everything man has that moves even up to the speed of a rocket, would be almost a vertical line. You could not descern the difference between a race car line and a rocket line.The way that Minkowski insists we draw his Graph, means that exactly half of graph area is totally useless. We can't enter any data in the pink area as it would mean faster than light speed. And the remainder of the graph is useless to us unless we have rockets that can go a decent proportion of light speed.

You have to wonder why its so important to have half the graph area unavailable, when simply changing the scales of the time and distance axis would fix this problem. Truth is that this misleading trick of Minkowski will only work as he intends if we draw it his way, illogical as it is. Just accept it and move on quickly to the Math, as no questions.

There is no reason to claim that this graph is somehow showing one dimension of space and another dimension of space called time. That concept itself is just an idea that remains just a fanciful idea, and not a very good one at that. Maybe good to use such an idea in a Doctor Who episode, otherwise it’s useless. At any rate, "spacetime" or not, the graph is still indistinguishable from a regular time~distance graph showing speed.

To illustrate that the “spacetime diagram”, has been misused, let’s compare the use of Minkowski plot with a plot showing the amount of money I have in the bank over time. It's a time and money graph instead of a time and distance graph. But you can't tell by looking at it, unless I Label the vertical axis with the Dollar sign.

So looking at the graph of money I have, the time axis is in month units and the other axis shows dollars by thousands. I have entered into the graph the data showing how much money I had in the bank each month. Now for February, we see 10000, and for March we see 30000 dollars. Draw a line between the two...this is the rate of change of our money. It shows how quickly I used or saved money which can be seen by the steepness of the vector.

We can estimate that halfway through February we had 20000 dollars. The pale blue line itself means nothing. Its the ANGLE that shows the rate of change in our money. And helps us GUESS what may have been the ballance in the bank during the times when I had no data to enter.

Check the literature on SR and Minkowski Diagrams, soon you will see where they do irrational things like trying to use Pythagoras Theorem on a PLOT as if it was Geometry!

We can't make any measurement along on of the blue lines, and relae that to any value. The line with the length of 5 means nothing at all. Yet Relativists and Minkowski think that you will not notice that this is exactly what they do. In other similar graphs, Relativists think they are working with Geometry and swap between that and graphical information at will.

Minkowski would say that I put 50,000 dollars into the bank between March and July!

Now we are going to apply the Minkowski treatment to another money /time graph. There are a few things to do for the conversion. Get rid of the obvious differences between Time and Money, (time and distance ) by re labeling the axies. Now the axies are just numbers. Good, no one will notice the butchering we are about to do. Now scale the axies so that we can have light speed at a 45deg angle, a slope of 1.  This is a critical part of the trick. Light speed can't be exceeded, and I can't earn more that 10000 in a month.

Now we only have a 45 degree slice of useable graph area to enter data, why do this Minkowski?  Anyway, we push on with the butchering. I enter the point when I had 70000 in the bank, in Feburary, opps, I mean in "x=2" , then draw in the green line back to the origin 0,0.  Good. Now if I speak really fast, students may not notice that I am misleading them, so I  say " the green line is the "World Line" for money, it's the actual increase of cash I gained. I call it "Moneytime" Helps to have a lot of "alternative labels" for stuff the students already know.  Maybe they won't realise that the the "world line "is just a graph line representing  the rate I deposited cash into the bank.

Next we just need to place increments along the line that is representing  the rate of deposit, er, I mean the "world Line"  of money, and mirror it about the 45 deg magic "maximum earnings " vector. That lower green line can be the new "World Line" for time.

Now lets see what the butchered Graph is capable of doing to rationality.

Sally, who does not use the bank, is stationary. Bill  has money, he has his moving "frame of reference" showing up as the green arow. By the time March comes around, Sally thinks Bill has 50000 in the bank. But Relativist Bill, knows better. He has used his advanced University skills to apply the Minkowski Principal and states emphatically that he has exactly 4.4 somethings at 1.8 something elses.  ( we lost track of the units with all the label changes.)

This might be funny, but this is exactly what is taught at Universities today by straight faced Professors.

This and other really stupid mistakes are repeated by all physics professors as they  teach Einstein’s theories.  with the Minkowski Diagram, they MEASURE a direction vector as if it was the actual PATH or trajectory that the light takes! Then that say that this shows that the light went further so the time had to decrease for them!

To simply show that Physics has gotten this all wrong, just take a look at the Minkowski diagram showing only the light vector at the 45 degree angle. (they insist on 45deg. more about this angle later!) So reading off the time scale, we see light has taken one light year, and off the distance scale, it has travelled 3e10 meters. (1 light year distance)

But because Einstein physicists use this same type of diagram to measure along the speed vectors, let us follow their example and do that for the light vector. If they can measure along the the "world line" of Bill, then  I can measure along Light 's own "world line." Which logically must be ityself. We can take measurements directly from it. You now get a different distance travelled for light because you are measuring across the diagonal…. So light is going further than light actually can, in the same time!  For example, measure the 4 different distances Light goes for the three different "observers". Sally has the distance or A-A, Light it self has the distance B -A, and Bill measures B-C and D-C.  Now because Einstein claimed that Physics MUST be equally valid in all inertial reference frames, then the most important Constant of Light speed MUST be measured equally by any Observer. This is the crux of Special Relativity. Yet thanks to the blunders of Minkowski, we see that light has 4 different distances in the same time, depending on who is looking.  I don't buy it. This shows that Physicists use the Graph incorrectly and end up with errors. Minkowski Diagrams are deeply flawed and can not be used to support anything. Dump them.

Have a close look at spacetime diagram lectures from books and videos and they will always measure along some speed vector in order to prove that time is not time, and distance is not distance.

Let’s explain exactly why Minkowski diagrams are a huge error of rationality and are one of the main reasons why physics has made so many incorrect conclusions over the last 100 years.

Points plotted on this Graph are NOT “events”. Once again, the Relativists are attempting to confuse the student by applying the incorrect terms. Any point entered on to the graph paper between the two axis lines can only be representative of a measurement of distance at a certain time. That’s it. It’s not any “event”. If we keep using the wrong words all the way through the explanation, it becomes easy to make some nonsensical conclusion at the end. We don’t want this do we? This has to do with the CONCEPT “spacetime”, which apparently only consists of a matrix like mesh of data points. That’s maybe OK for a Mathematician, but it’s no use to a Physicist.

Time cannot be mashed up in with the three dimensions of Cartesian coordinates which are simply man’s measuring tool to relate or compare where things are. "Time "is nothing other than man’s way to count with regularity in order to describe the motion of objects. (the sun, a swing of a pendulum, or the decay of radium.) time is not an object, or the absence of objects (like space ) that we can “travel through”. Time travel makes good science fiction, but that’s all. There is only “now”. Everything before now, is just a memory, and although we can judge what will most likely happen in the future, (the path of a ball can be predicted) it is not some “event” that we can travel to. There is only the “now”.

The 45 degree line you trace for the light is NOT the PATH the light travelled! It cannot represent any trajectory! The line representing light is just the rate of change and the velocity of light, and because light speed is a constant, the plot shows a straight line. Likewise any similar line of some spaceship is NOT the PATH the spaceship actually travelled! All other lines related to some space ship or whatever, are actually just indicating the speed, it is irrational and an obvious error to re label speed vectors as “world lines” and they can’t become some new ‘axis of time” or “axis of distance” for the moving spaceship.

You can never identify a point somewhere in the graph, and say that this is the location of the spaceship and then call that point an “event”. No! At any moment in time, past, present and future, the location of the ship must be somewhere along the distance axis, never moving off the axis by one millimeter. Likewise, any point in the graph is not the “location of time in space”, (even though this is an irrational concept)

All of “time” only exists on this graph somewhere along the time axis itself. The points you place on the graph are only there so you can generate your speed vector, which is just a measurement, and the vector is ONLY used to find how far you have travelled, at a given time. Or vice versa. That, my friends is a graph, and what is plotted on this graph by Minkowski is just distance compared with time, it’s a speed GRAPH.

To try to use the speed graph for any other purpose is to step away from rational thought.

Draw a "space-time diagram" yourself. The real name for what you have just drawn is a GRAPH of "time and Distance". ("space-time diagram" is mumbo-jumbo designed to confuse you, and make you think you are looking at some magical new idea)

To try to use the speed graph for any other purpose is to step away from rational thought. Now lets look at a real space and tie graph.

The vertical axis is TIME, in years. (not light years, as a “light year” is a distance) and the distance axis is in the distance of light years) This is a PLOT on a GRAPH. It CANNOT be used to calculate GEOMETRY. You can never use the vectors on a plot to do any trigonometry, as the lines are not geometric You never measure the length of any vectors in a plot. You can only trace horizontally or vertically to see the corresponding values. It is impossible to apply trigonometry to vectors on a GRAPH. The vectors are not geometric constructions. There are other basic and impossible errors Minkowski does with his plot in order to justify Einstein's hypothesis.

Notice that Bill's "frame of Reference" make a nice graph with vertical and horizontal  axies? Its not some distorted abortion like Minkowski wanted.

This proves that SR cannot be correct because Minkowski Spacetim Diagrams incorrectly measure distances along the velocity vectors, then compare them with the actual distances from the distance axis. Minkowski spacetime diagrams must never be used in any way to demonstrate any scientific principals because they are deeply flawed and will only give incorrect answers.

You would be incorrect to claim that a Minkowski diagram is not a graph of time and distance, and is in fact some graphical representation of the imaginary object “spacetime”. The diagram is IDENTICAL in every aspect to a time and distance graph, plotting SPEED. There is no justifiable excuse to use this graph in an irrational manner and come up with illogical conclusions.

"Spacetime” has most definitely never been demonstrated and remains only a fanciful and irrational concept. The “fabric” of spacetime is even more ridiculous. “Spacetime” is just an impossible idea. It’s not science.

You cannot take the places between planets where there are no other objects, (i.e. SPACE) and merge that with the conceptual measuring system we call TIME, then claim that this new stuff is a physical object. No wonder there is such confusion when our professors are repeating such nonsense.

It’s an embarrassment that Scientists are actually discussing "What is Time ?", and why it goes only one way, and other such drivel. Time is only man’s way of knowing when to come back to the cave for dinner. He noticed that every time the sun moved over the horizon, he got hungry and it began to get dark. This is man counting time in increments of sunsets. The apparent motion of the sun. These days we still relate our most accurate time counting machines to the same sun. We just split up the gap between dinners into tiny pieces to help us compare who’s car is faster. Well, that’s it for time. There is nothing else to know about time. It’s certainly no mystery and has no magical properties. Apart from the history and art of clock making, it not worthy of a 2 hour documentary on PBS featuring top Physicists, who clearly don’t have any idea what they are rambling on about.

As an exercise, follow along with one of the online tutorials about the Minkowski Diagram.  But stop every time the Professor make some unsupported demand.

Here they are in order:

1. Lets scale the time and distance axies so that the increments are the same length...

Hey, Prof, lets NOT do that, see what happens..

2. Lets call the time scale "Meters" or Kilometers instead of a Time value, so that it will be easier to do the Math tricks later....

Hey Prof. lets NOT do that, see if the math still works out.

3.  Lets  make sure that Light speed is at 45deg.

Hey Prof. Lets make the light line practically horizontal, where it should be. I'm sure you won't mind.

4.  lets use Bill's speed line as if it was the path he took through magical "Spacetime" Re-label it his "World Line"

Hey Prof. Lets just leave his speed line alone, and not call it anything different.... it's just a line showing his rate of change of velocity. It does not warrant a new Label.

5. Lets Measure along Bill's "World Line" pretending that this is possible.

Hey Prof. Now you are just kidding, right?

6. Lets find the distance Bill thinks he has travelled by drawing a line PARALLEL to Bills Time World Line, ...

But Prof. When I examine my regular Graph, I always trace across with a line that is PERPENDICULAR to the Time axis, SO what is the reason that now I can only go PARALLEL? Who said Parallel is correct and Perpendicular is not?

AND Prof.  Why is this graph scaled so that all speeds that Man could ever achieve are going to be almost all vertical, from running speed  through to the speed of a rocket, and yet there is so much waste space? I can't detect the difference between the speed of a bicycle and a car on this graph, its all too chrunched up, like one solid black line. Why won't you let me fix that? Oh, so it wont work?  Why?

##### Author

Mark Ross
Derby
Tasmania  Australia

##### Contact

Email: zeccano(swap for "@")yandex.com