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.

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.
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.

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.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Is your answer yes or no?


Also, you failed to address this:

And you still have not answered my question:
So, where is this imaginary?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

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.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

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.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

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.

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

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

X=d/dR + Del=d/cdt + Del is usually called D’Alembertian.
Maybe this paper is usefull
http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott...s/diraceqn.pdf
And this
http://home.pcisys.net/%7Ebestwork.1/index.html
http://docs.google.com/Present?docid...&skipauth=true