On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 13:23:26 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 12:12:26 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/8/21 9:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >> That the transformation also makes for a group operation can be
> > >> considered a happy coincidence,
> > >
> > > Not at all! It is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that the set of coordinate
> > > transforms form a group (with composition as the group operation). That
> > > is part and parcel of what it means to be a coordinate transformation.
> > >
> > > The basic group for coordinate transformations is the diffeomorphism
> > > group. But one can select subgroups of it by imposing various criteria
> > > on the coordinates of interest. For inertial frames, in physics, the
> > > relevant subgroup is SO(3,1), the Lorentz group.
> >
> > OK.
>
> For flat space, not just for inertial frames...

For flat space-time...

Julio

On 9/26/21 6:25 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 13:23:26 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 12:12:26 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/8/21 9:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> That the transformation also makes for a group operation can be
>>>>> considered a happy coincidence,
>>>>
>>>> Not at all! It is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that the set of coordinate
>>>> transforms form a group (with composition as the group operation). That
>>>> is part and parcel of what it means to be a coordinate transformation.
>>>>
>>>> The basic group for coordinate transformations is the diffeomorphism
>>>> group. But one can select subgroups of it by imposing various criteria
>>>> on the coordinates of interest. For inertial frames, in physics, the
>>>> relevant subgroup is SO(3,1), the Lorentz group.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>
>> For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
>
> For flat space-time...

No. In flat spacetime, no element of the Lorentz group can connect any
non-inertial coordinates to an inertial frame -- they only connect
inertial frames to other inertial frames.

You certainly can apply a Lorentz transform to one set of non-inertial
coordinates to obtain a second set of non-inertial coordinates, but that
won't form a group -- you cannot cover the set of all non-inertial
coordinates that way. For instance, no Lorentz transform will generate
spherical or cylindrical coordinates from Cartesian coordinates (etc.).

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 14:53:17 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> No. In flat spacetime, no element of the Lorentz group can connect any
> non-inertial coordinates to an inertial frame -- they only connect
> inertial frames to other inertial frames.

While, on the other hand, in the real world - the clocks of GPS
keep indicaating t'=t, just like all seerious clocks always did.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 4:25:11 AM UTC-7, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 13:23:26 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 12:12:26 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 9/8/21 9:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >> That the transformation also makes for a group operation can be
> > > >> considered a happy coincidence,
> > > >
> > > > Not at all! It is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that the set of coordinate
> > > > transforms form a group (with composition as the group operation). That
> > > > is part and parcel of what it means to be a coordinate transformation.
> > > >
> > > > The basic group for coordinate transformations is the diffeomorphism
> > > > group. But one can select subgroups of it by imposing various criteria
> > > > on the coordinates of interest. For inertial frames, in physics, the
> > > > relevant subgroup is SO(3,1), the Lorentz group.
> > >
> > > OK.
> >
> > For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
> For flat space-time...
>
> Julio

Both inertial and momental....

It is usual continuous deformations.

The flat space time that according to Einstein is curving.

Here though anyone would note "what's then the momental
frame is not the inertial frame, those inertial frames", is of
course under charge and inertia what basically in the terms
of the one and the other the charge static and the thermo
for inertia or the kinetic, usually also the Einstein's mass-energy
equivalence, classically defining classical inertia.

Then, this "charge static" or for "torque is static", is that the
potential moment of waves is crests. (Though overpressure.)

I.e. the both the "Lorentz group frames".

(Or as many there are, multipole moment.)

Frames is the most usual establishment of geometry,
particularly Euclidean.

On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 22:28:39 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 4:25:11 AM UTC-7, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 13:23:26 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 12:12:26 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 9/8/21 9:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > >> That the transformation also makes for a group operation can be
> > > > >> considered a happy coincidence,
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all! It is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that the set of coordinate
> > > > > transforms form a group (with composition as the group operation). That
> > > > > is part and parcel of what it means to be a coordinate transformation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The basic group for coordinate transformations is the diffeomorphism
> > > > > group. But one can select subgroups of it by imposing various criteria
> > > > > on the coordinates of interest. For inertial frames, in physics, the
> > > > > relevant subgroup is SO(3,1), the Lorentz group.
> > > >
> > > > OK.
> > >
> > > For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
> > For flat space-time...
> >
> > Julio
> Both inertial and momental....
>
> It is usual continuous deformations.
>
> The flat space time that according to Einstein is curving.
>
> Here though anyone would note "what's then the momental
> frame is not the inertial frame, those inertial frames", is of
> course under charge and inertia what basically in the terms
> of the one and the other the charge static and the thermo
> for inertia or the kinetic, usually also the Einstein's mass-energy
> equivalence, classically defining classical inertia.
>
> Then, this "charge static" or for "torque is static", is that the
> potential moment of waves is crests. (Though overpressure.)
>
> I.e. the both the "Lorentz group frames".
>
> (Or as many there are, multipole moment.)
>
> Frames is the most usual establishment of geometry,
> particularly Euclidean.

In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of
GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

GPS cannot be used to detect a time difference since the electrons of the GPS circuit are propagating at 10^6 m/s yet the velocity of light is 10^8 m/s.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 2:15:24 PM UTC-7, carl eto wrote:
> GPS cannot be used to detect a time difference since the electrons of the GPS circuit are propagating at 10^6 m/s yet the velocity of light is 10^8 m/s.

The "holes", the electron "holes" in the circuit.

Which move at c if not "propagate".

Electron holes and the NPN junction combine to make gates, it's so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility

On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 14:53:17 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/26/21 6:25 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 13:23:26 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 12:12:26 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/8/21 9:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>> That the transformation also makes for a group operation can be
> >>>>> considered a happy coincidence,
> >>>>
> >>>> Not at all! It is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED that the set of coordinate
> >>>> transforms form a group (with composition as the group operation). That
> >>>> is part and parcel of what it means to be a coordinate transformation.
> >>>>
> >>>> The basic group for coordinate transformations is the diffeomorphism
> >>>> group. But one can select subgroups of it by imposing various criteria
> >>>> on the coordinates of interest. For inertial frames, in physics, the
> >>>> relevant subgroup is SO(3,1), the Lorentz group.
> >>>
> >>> OK.
> >>
> >> For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
> >
> > For flat space-time...
>
> No. In flat spacetime, no element of the Lorentz group can connect any
> non-inertial coordinates to an inertial frame -- they only connect
> inertial frames to other inertial frames.
>
> You certainly can apply a Lorentz transform to one set of non-inertial
> coordinates to obtain a second set of non-inertial coordinates, but that
> won't form a group -- you cannot cover the set of all non-inertial
> coordinates that way. For instance, no Lorentz transform will generate
> spherical or cylindrical coordinates from Cartesian coordinates (etc.).

I am still not sure if you are retarded, a fucking agent of the enemy, or both...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group>

*Plonk*

Julio

Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>> > For flat space-time...
>>
>> No. In flat spacetime, no element of the Lorentz group can connect any
>> non-inertial coordinates to an inertial frame -- they only connect
>> inertial frames to other inertial frames.
>> You certainly can apply a Lorentz transform to one set of non-inertial
>> coordinates to obtain a second set of non-inertial coordinates, but
>> that won't form a group -- you cannot cover the set of all non-inertial
>> coordinates that way. For instance, no Lorentz transform will generate
>> spherical or cylindrical coordinates from Cartesian coordinates (etc.).
>
> I am still not sure if you are retarded, a fucking agent of the enemy,
> or both...

you dont undrestand mathematics, physics and everything, you fucking
stoopid.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>> > For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
>> For flat space-time... Julio
>
> Both inertial and momental....

you both stupid like hell, what the fuck is "momental"??

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:37:15 AM UTC-7, Kye Fox wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> >> > For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
> >> For flat space-time... Julio
> >
> > Both inertial and momental....
> you both stupid like hell, what the fuck is "momental"??

Hmm..., try "momentary", maybe Google will help you.

How is it that I am getting the last word in these things?

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:37:15 AM UTC-7, Kye Fox wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> >> > For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
>> >> For flat space-time... Julio
>> >
>> > Both inertial and momental....
>> you both stupid like hell, what the fuck is "momental"??
>
> Hmm..., try "momentary", maybe Google will help you.

not physics. Next.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 11:01:38 AM UTC-7, Kye Fox wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:37:15 AM UTC-7, Kye Fox wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > For flat space, not just for inertial frames...
> >> >> For flat space-time... Julio
> >> >
> >> > Both inertial and momental....
> >> you both stupid like hell, what the fuck is "momental"??
> >
> > Hmm..., try "momentary", maybe Google will help you.
> not physics. Next.

It's "momental" in case you asked.