"Nth Complexity" wrote in message ...
Russell Blackadarwrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

[snip]

Well, it's easy to prove that the combination is not L,
and that Lx Ly is not the same as Ly Lx.

Even his example of two successive L's in the same spatial
direction is wrong, and for the same reason. Yes it yields
a Lorentz transformation (as does *any* composition of boosts)
but it's not the transformation for v1 + v2.[/quote:02411abd1d]

You are completely missing the point. The point is not whether
the product of boosts Lx Ly = Ly Lx, the point is that there is no
boost equal to that product Lx Ly.

If that is your point then you should have said it like that.
But in stead you said:
"Note that the product of Lx and Ly is not the same as L."
If the product Lx Ly is not the same as Ly Lx, then neither
one of them can be the same as L, by symmetry.

Now that you know that there is no boost for Lx Ly, you
suddenly claim that *that* was your point.

Gee, you are a dishonest person.
And stupid.

Dirk Vdm

"Nth Complexity" wrote:
the point is that there is no boost equal to that product Lx Ly.

Well known, as I said before. The set of all boosts does not form a
group. So what? The set of all boosts plus rotations does form the group
SO(1,3), aka the homogeneous Lorentz group. The product Lx Ly is a
member of this group, as are Lx and Ly of course.

I repeat: perhaps you should learn some group theory and look this up in
a textbook.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| "Nth Complexity" wrote:
| the point is that there is no boost equal to that product Lx Ly.
|
| Well known, as I said before. The set of all boosts does not form a
| group. So what? The set of all boosts plus rotations does form the group
| SO(1,3), aka the homogeneous Lorentz group. The product Lx Ly is a
| member of this group, as are Lx and Ly of course.
|
| I repeat: perhaps you should learn some group theory and look this up in
| a textbook.

Perhaps you should learn some math theory and the meaning of independence,
Roberts.
Time is NOT a vector.
Androcles


| Tom Roberts

Androcles wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| "Nth Complexity" wrote:
| the point is that there is no boost equal to that product Lx Ly.
|
| Well known, as I said before. The set of all boosts does not form a
| group. So what? The set of all boosts plus rotations does form the group
| SO(1,3), aka the homogeneous Lorentz group. The product Lx Ly is a
| member of this group, as are Lx and Ly of course.
|
| I repeat: perhaps you should learn some group theory and look this up in
| a textbook.

Perhaps you should learn some math theory and the meaning of independence,
Roberts.

Perhaps you should tell us what "independence" has to do with the
fact that the set of all boosts plus rotations form a group?


Time is NOT a vector.

No one claimed that it is (in the usual mathematical sense).


Bye,
Bjoern