(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.

Okay jerk - prove that. State clearly and in NO uncertain terms WHAT
referance I misquoted and HOW it was a misquote and WHY its irrelevent
- unless you're going to cower out again as usual?

You need to learn what a definition is. I've told you that for years
and either you're playing dumb or you are dumb

Mr. Pmb - waite's relativity teacher

Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/28/2003 12:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"WaiteDavid137" wrote

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

Are you gonna prove your definition is correct

I already mathematically prove that my/everyone elses definition is correct. Go
back and read the whole thing.

Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/28/2003 12:49 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"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.

A Lorentz transformation is that subset of
transformations which are orthogonal and leave the Minkowski metric
unchanged.

Which is why what I wrote is indeed the Lorentz transformation in spherical
coordinates.

"WaiteDavid137" wrote [****]

And the moron is back to repeat **** siince he can't back up his claim

I knew you were a coward - a dumb one too

Mr. - Pmb - waite's relativity teacher

"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/28/2003 12:49 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"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.

A Lorentz transformation is that subset of
transformations which are orthogonal and leave the Minkowski metric
unchanged.

Which is why what I wrote is indeed the Lorentz transformation in
spherical
coordinates.

Wrong. You have no clue what you're talking about - again. A Lorentz
transformation ONLY maps Lorentz coordinates to Lorentz coordinates and
spherical coordinates ARE NOT Lorentz coordinate idiot.

One CAN map from spherical to Cartesian in S and THEN ***Lorentz
transform*** to Cartesian in S to Cartesian in S' and THEN map to
spherical.

Stop being a pest and go learn what an orthogonal transformation is - you're
wasting everyone's time with this childish nonsense of your - refusing to
learn just proves you're a crackpot.



Mr. - Pmb - waite's relativity teacher

(Bilge) wrote in message ...

Hi

Pmb:
[...]
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." That term has a very specific
meaning.

Lorentz transforms are transforms which preserve inertial frames.

Let S have coordinates X = (t,x,y,z) and S' have coordinates X' =
(t',x',y',z'). These coordinates are often refered to as "Lorentz
Coordinates" or "Minkowski Coordinates." Let n = Minkowski metric =
diag(1,-1,-1,-1). The correct, precise, definition of a Lorentz
transformation is as follows

Definition: A transformation L from X to X', i.e. X' = LX, is a
transformation for which n'LL = n.

Thats obviously incorrect. The rotation:

[ cos(A) -sin(A) ]
X' = [ ] X
[ sin(A) cos(A) ]

Doesn't satisfy the relation you've written, since LL = L^2 != 1.
Multiply it out. You also might try actually writing the equations
out instead of trying to use notational shortcuts that only let you
shoot yourself in the foot.

Such transformations include rotations, reflections and boosts.

Unfortunately, your definition only gives reflections, since the
operator LLX only equals X for L = +/- 1.

This definition is found in most decent texts on relativity and
tensor analysis.
Sources -
From Thorne and Blanchard's new text --
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/p...p01/0201.2.pdf - page 28

Which doesn't agree with you. What they have written is:

q_uv L^u_a L^v_b = g_ab

L^u_a and L^v_b are inverses of each other. That is not what you have
written. In particular, rotations are orthogonal transformations and
an orthogonal transformation is defined by a matrix for which the
transpose is equal to the inverse. Also, note the example they give at
the top of the next page (29).

Furthermore, the relations given don't _define_ lorentz transforms.
What your reference says is that a transform which satisfies those
relations is a lorentz transform. But, that's strictly because the
transforms were derived in order to preserve the scalar product
under the assumption of the minkowski metric. To wit, your reference
defines the transforms by first defining X and X' as inertial frames.
In order to find a transform between them, the transformation has to
preserve inertial frames.


(I was worried about, bilge, started checking the obituaries)

So far the only substance I have in Pmb's OP is the legalese
difference between

s^2 = g_uv x^u x^v

and

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.

The first requires uniform velocity and a constant metric,
to be firmly the requirement of the Lorentz Transform.

The second (ds^2) goes beyond simplistic LT and into
the realm of accelerations and variable g_uv's in a manner
consistent with both SR and GR, and LT.

So I agree with Pete that there is not a specific name
(I know of) for the second transform that renders the
invariant ds^2.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

PMB The Earth goes around the sun at 20 mps ,and is foreshortened by 3
inches. Earth being 8,000 miles in diameter that is so tiny. Best to
keep in mind 20 mps is not very fast as compared to "C" Bert

Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/28/2003 1:42 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"WaiteDavid137" wrote in message
...
Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: "Pmb"
Date: 9/28/2003 12:49 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


"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.

A Lorentz transformation is that subset of
transformations which are orthogonal and leave the Minkowski metric
unchanged.

Which is why what I wrote is indeed the Lorentz transformation in
spherical
coordinates.

A Lorentz
transformation ONLY maps Lorentz coordinates to Lorentz coordinates

Its rather silly that you are so insistant on renaming Cartesian coordinates
Lorentz coordinates, but no that is not the definition of Lorentz
transformation. The definition is that which preserves the invariance that I
discussed.

Subject: Definition of "Lorentz Transformation"
From: (Ken S. Tucker)
Date: 9/28/2003 2:06 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(Bilge) wrote in message
e-al.net...

Hi

Pmb:
[...]
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." That term has a very specific
meaning.

Lorentz transforms are transforms which preserve inertial frames.

Let S have coordinates X = (t,x,y,z) and S' have coordinates X' =
(t',x',y',z'). These coordinates are often refered to as "Lorentz
Coordinates" or "Minkowski Coordinates." Let n = Minkowski metric =
diag(1,-1,-1,-1). The correct, precise, definition of a Lorentz
transformation is as follows

Definition: A transformation L from X to X', i.e. X' = LX, is a
transformation for which n'LL = n.

Thats obviously incorrect. The rotation:

[ cos(A) -sin(A) ]
X' = [ ] X
[ sin(A) cos(A) ]

Doesn't satisfy the relation you've written, since LL = L^2 != 1.
Multiply it out. You also might try actually writing the equations
out instead of trying to use notational shortcuts that only let you
shoot yourself in the foot.

Such transformations include rotations, reflections and boosts.

Unfortunately, your definition only gives reflections, since the
operator LLX only equals X for L = +/- 1.

This definition is found in most decent texts on relativity and
tensor analysis.
Sources -
From Thorne and Blanchard's new text --
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/p...p01/0201.2.pdf - page
28

Which doesn't agree with you. What they have written is:

q_uv L^u_a L^v_b = g_ab

L^u_a and L^v_b are inverses of each other. That is not what you have
written. In particular, rotations are orthogonal transformations and
an orthogonal transformation is defined by a matrix for which the
transpose is equal to the inverse. Also, note the example they give at
the top of the next page (29).

Furthermore, the relations given don't _define_ lorentz transforms.
What your reference says is that a transform which satisfies those
relations is a lorentz transform. But, that's strictly because the
transforms were derived in order to preserve the scalar product
under the assumption of the minkowski metric. To wit, your reference
defines the transforms by first defining X and X' as inertial frames.
In order to find a transform between them, the transformation has to
preserve inertial frames.


(I was worried about, bilge, started checking the obituaries)

So far the only substance I have in Pmb's OP is the legalese
difference between

s^2 = g_uv x^u x^v

and

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.

The first requires uniform velocity and a constant metric,
to be firmly the requirement of the Lorentz Transform.

The second (ds^2) goes beyond simplistic LT and into
the realm of accelerations and variable g_uv's in a manner
consistent with both SR and GR, and LT.

So I agree with Pete that there is not a specific name
(I know of) for the second transform that renders the
invariant ds^2.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker



No, the first is wrong. The second isn't directly relavent. The next is what
Lorentz transformations preserve the invariance of
ds^2 = eta_mu_nudx^mudx^nu
The Lorentz transformations I gave in spherical coordinates do so where eta and
dx are expressed in terms of those spherical coordinates. Special relativity is
usually best done, but need not be done in Cartesian coordinates.

"WaiteDavid137" wrote [nonsense]

More proof and less unsubstantiated parroting waite

Pmb