"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
...
Alas there is more misinformation being passed around. This time
regarding
the precise definition of "Lorentz Transformation." The
misinformation
is
that, for example, a transformation from frame S which has spherical
spatial
coordinates (t,r,theta,phi) to another frame S' moving relative to S
and
having coordinates (t',r',theta',phi') is a Lorentz transformation.
That
is
incorrect. While there most certainly exists transformations as
suich
and
which leave the spacetime interval ds^2 invariant they are not
refered
to as
"Lorentz Transformations."

What are they referred to as?

They don't have a name.

I would have thought that calling them 'the Lorentz
transformations in spherical polar coordinates' would
make everyone happy.

I could only guess as to why they were named and defined that way. However
I'm going strictly on facts - i.e. what I see defined throughout the
relativity literature. When it comes to "Lorentz Transformation" and
"Lorentz Group" that's what I find - at least in the more mathematical
treatments.

Pmb

Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: (Gauge)
Date: 9/28/03 4:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/27/2003 2:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
.. .

While there most certainly exists transformations as suich
and
which leave the spacetime interval ds^2 invariant they are not refered
to as
"Lorentz Transformations."

What are they referred to as?

They don't have a name.

Pmb



Yes they do. They are Lorentz.

No contect here. More unsubstantiated boguis claims

No, I mathematically proved it. Your claim is unsubstantiated as you have done
nothing but misquote irrelevent references.

"Pmb" wrote in message ...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

I would have thought that calling them 'the Lorentz
transformations in spherical polar coordinates' would
make everyone happy.

I could only guess as to why they were named and defined that way. However
I'm going strictly on facts - i.e. what I see defined throughout the
relativity literature. When it comes to "Lorentz Transformation" and
"Lorentz Group" that's what I find - at least in the more mathematical
treatments.

I am having some difficulty understanding your point.
Is it simply a matter of nomenclature? Are you merely
saying that you have never seen the transformations
of SR expressed in terms spherical polar coordinates
described as the 'Lorentz transformations'?

Martin Hogbin

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

I would have thought that calling them 'the Lorentz
transformations in spherical polar coordinates' would
make everyone happy.

I could only guess as to why they were named and defined that way.
However
I'm going strictly on facts - i.e. what I see defined throughout the
relativity literature. When it comes to "Lorentz Transformation" and
"Lorentz Group" that's what I find - at least in the more mathematical
treatments.

I am having some difficulty understanding your point.
Is it simply a matter of nomenclature?

I'm sorry but I don't understand where the difficulty lies. The first thing
I posted in this thread was the following
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alas there is more misinformation being passed around. This time regarding
the precise definition of "Lorentz Transformation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

That means that this is a question - *only* - on what the term means - i.e.
on nomenclature.

Are you merely
saying that you have never seen the transformations
of SR expressed in terms spherical polar coordinates
described as the 'Lorentz transformations'?

Sure. I guess you can say that. I guess you could also say that I've never
seen and electron refer to as a "blue duck" either. One is standard
terminology - the other isn't. And there's good reason for it. A
transformation takes the coordinates as expressed in one coordinate system
and expresses them in terms of components in another coordinate system. The
point remains the same point.

Are you familiar with orthogonal transformations? If not see -
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/orthog_trans.htm - I use this as an
example in what follows.

For example: In Euclidean geometry a rotation of one set of Cartesian axes
into another set is an orthogonal transfromation. A point in 3-space remains
the same point - it's just labeled differently. The Euclidan metric g =
diag(1,1,1) remains unchanged. So an orthogonal transfromation relables
points. However not all coordinate transformtions are orthogonal
transformations. Changing from Cartesian to Cartesian is orthogonal but
chaning from Cartesian to spherical is not an orthogonal transfromation. But
it's just as legitimate a transformation as any other transformation. I
simply isn't an orthogonal transformation.

The Lorentz transformation is an orthogonal coordinate transformation in
spacetime in Lorentzian goemetry. However this does not mean that no other
coordinate transformations in spacetime

The details are in --
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/p...p01/0201.2.pdf
See page 27

With this in mind - The misinformation being passed around here has the
following Eucledian analogy. It's similar to claiming that a transformation
from one set of spherical coordinates to another set of spherical
coordinates is an orthogonal transformation. Is it a transformation? Yes.
Absolutley! Without question. Does it retain the Euclidean distance dL? Yes.
But it is NOT an orthogonal transformation. An orthogonal transformation
does not change the Euclidian metric g = diag(1,1,1). It is meaningless to
even ask if such a spherical to sphercial transformation keeps g =
diag(1,1,1) unchanged since it doesn't even start with it. However an
orthogonal transformation has the property that it does not change g.

Think of Lorentz transformations as being orthogonal transformations in
spacetime.

There is more on this in the University of California - Berkely notes --
http://d0lbln.lbl.gov/110bf03/110bf03-110bs97-rel.pdf
See the part called "Spacetime intervals."

I hopes this clarifys my point. If not then I'll be more than happy to
clarify further.

Pmb

"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: (Gauge)
Date: 9/28/03 4:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/27/2003 2:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
.. .

While there most certainly exists transformations as suich
and
which leave the spacetime interval ds^2 invariant they are not
refered
to as
"Lorentz Transformations."

What are they referred to as?

They don't have a name.

Pmb



Yes they do. They are Lorentz.

No contect here. More unsubstantiated boguis claims

No, I mathematically proved it. Your claim is unsubstantiated as you have
done
nothing but misquote irrelevent references.

No content here - that parrot has returned and is unable to prove that his
incorrect claims of the DEFINITION of "Lorentz Transformation" is correct
and everyone elses is wrong - but gee! What else is new waite? More
unsubstantiated claims from you again?

Geeze! Once more you post/reason like a child. Grow up waite. This is the
real world. I already told you that you can transform from spherical
coordinates in S to spherical coordinates in S' where S is moving relative
to S. The point that you've been unable to grasp is that this transformation
IS NOT A LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

When are you going to learn????

Now either prove that this notion that you have of what a Lorentz
transformation is or simply - **** off. No more repeating this bogus
nonsense you try to pass off as a proof

Mr. Pmb - waite's relativity teacher

"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: (Gauge)
Date: 9/28/03 4:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/27/2003 2:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
.. .

While there most certainly exists transformations as suich
and
which leave the spacetime interval ds^2 invariant they are not
refered
to as
"Lorentz Transformations."

What are they referred to as?

They don't have a name.

Pmb



Yes they do. They are Lorentz.

No contect here. More unsubstantiated boguis claims

No, I mathematically proved it. Your claim is unsubstantiated as you have
done
nothing but misquote irrelevent references.

waite is full of **** once again - does the kid every learn????

Mr. Pmb - waite's relativity teacher

Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/28/2003 12:21 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: (Gauge)
Date: 9/28/03 4:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(WaiteDavid137) wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/27/2003 2:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
.. .

While there most certainly exists transformations as suich
and
which leave the spacetime interval ds^2 invariant they are not
refered
to as
"Lorentz Transformations."

What are they referred to as?

They don't have a name.

Pmb



Yes they do. They are Lorentz.

No contect here. More unsubstantiated boguis claims

No, I mathematically proved it. Your claim is unsubstantiated as you have
done
nothing but misquote irrelevent references.

Now either prove that this notion that you have of what a Lorentz
transformation is or simply - **** off.

I already mathematically proved it. Go back and read it.

Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Martin Hogbin"
Date: 9/28/2003 5:11 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

I would have thought that calling them 'the Lorentz
transformations in spherical polar coordinates' would
make everyone happy.

I'm going strictly on facts - i.e. what I see defined throughout the
relativity literature.

Are you merely
saying that you have never seen the transformations
of SR expressed in terms spherical polar coordinates
described as the 'Lorentz transformations'?


He must only see selectively because I posted them here already.

"WaiteDavid137" wrote

I already mathematically proved it. Go back and read it.

Geeze your dumb

Do you have a reading comprehension problem waite? Do you not understand
English? Do you need glassezs? Exactly why are you unable to post an
intelligent response? Why do you find it impossible to response to
criticisms and corrections to this crap you post? Is you understanding of
physics that weak that you're too scared to respond?

Put your glasses on and pay attention now. You wrote
----------------------------------------------------------
ct' = gamma[ct - beta*r*cos(theta)sin(phi)]
r'cos(theta')sin(phi') = gamma[rcos(theta)sin(phi) - beta*ct]
r'sin(theta')sin(phi') = rsin(theta)sin(phi)
r'cos(theta') = rcos(theta)
----------------------------------------------------------

First off that's not quite a transformation. It's a relationship between the
two. A transformation is of the form X' = X'(X) and this crap you posted
does not have that form. And I already explained to you that your poor
edcuation has failed to inform you that a Lorentz transformation IS NOT
defined as a relationship between coordinates in one frame of referance to
that in another frame moving relative to the
first. Simply writing down such a relation only shows that you weren't
paying attention. Do you at least understand the words that you're reading
or do you need someone to help you with the big words?

I VERY clearly and EXPLICITLY told you that a transformation from frame S
which has spherical spatial coordinates (t,r,theta,phi) to another frame S'
moving relative to S and having coordinates (t',r',theta',phi') is a NOT a
Lorentz transformation.

Now if you want to act like and adult and play with the big boys then back
up your claim that any transformation from one frame to another is a Lorentz
transformation.

you won't be able to because you don't know what the hell you're talking
about - AGAIN

So? What's it gonna be waite? Are you gonna prove your definition is correct
and everyone elses is wrong? Or don't you have the balls for it?

Mr. Pmb - waite's relativity teacher

"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Martin Hogbin"
Date: 9/28/2003 5:11 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

I would have thought that calling them 'the Lorentz
transformations in spherical polar coordinates' would
make everyone happy.

I'm going strictly on facts - i.e. what I see defined throughout the
relativity literature.

Are you merely
saying that you have never seen the transformations
of SR expressed in terms spherical polar coordinates
described as the 'Lorentz transformations'?


He must only see selectively because I posted them here already.

Nope. That's a transformation from one set of coordinates to another. It's
not a Lorentz transformation. A Lorentz transformation is that subset of
transformations which are orthogonal and leave the Minkowski metric
unchanged.

Wanna learn or you wanna repeat yourself again?

Mr. Pmb - waite's relativity teacher