Time to kick Iran

[Matteo Martini]

So, this being Poincare, where is one American mathematician in Engineering books?

well..
Microprocessors: Gordon Moore
Lasers: Arthur Leonard Schawlow
Information theory: Claude Elwood Shannon
Informatics: James Gosling
Aviation: Wright brothers

just to name a few..

 

[Ziggurat]

A note on the topology of space–time in special relativity

Did you stumble upon this by just typing "topology" and "special relativity"? Why, I think you did.

I looked at that paper. Let me quote from it a bit (bolding mine):

It is the accepted point of view that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is above all a theory of time. In some sense, the theory ‘unifies’ space and time into a single entity, a four-dimensional space–time, and a physical event is catalogued by a point (x0, x) in this space–time. The new notion of time, though quite different from the preceding Newtonian time, still has the reversible, symmetric property of the latter. More precisely, time in relativity is assumed to be modelled by the Euclidean real line, and as such is reversible and symmetric in the sense that the Euclidean real line is a Lie group under addition. Within its topological and algebraic structure, there is no natural way to define a flow of time in the four-dimensional space–time of special relativity.

What does that mean: It means the topology of special relativity isn't special. Now let me quote some more:

The main technical result we present in this paper is a topological structure for the space–time of special relativity that allows for asymmetric time evolutions. Further, this topological structure is introduced in a manner completely consistent with the tenets of special relativity—in particular, without contradicting any of the experimental tests confirming special relativity. However, the new topology provides a better framework for the time-asymmetric quantum theories, such as those developed in [1–5], in that it endows the structure of a topological semigroup on the set of space–time translations and consequently leads to a Poincar´e semigroup for relativistic symmetries (and asymmetries).

Note that the topology they propose is new. It is not part of the existing theory of special relativity. Furthermore, the "Poincare semigroup" you allude to is for symmetries of the "set of space-time translations", not for the space itself. And since that is perhaps not explicit enough for you, let me quote once again from your source:

The space–time of special relativity is assumed to be a four-dimensional manifold M. It has the topology of R4, the four-dimensional Euclidean space.

There you have it: your own source confirms that the topology of special relativity is not what makes it different.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But you're clueless, and you don't know physics (which is why you always fall back on "engineering").

Of course, engineering is the practical application of physics to do something useful, rather than delve into fascinating esoterica, so let's not be shy about showing a little love to the engineers, eh?

"I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech
And a hell of an engineer"

Without engineers, Igor Sikorksy's vision of helicopters as a practical flying machine would still be on a scrap of paper. (Yes, helicopters are parctical flying machines, comments in my sig considered! )


It took a few EE's to get all these nifty computers into the state they are in, eh? EE's who make, via their contribution, this whole conversation possible.



DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, engineering is the practical application of physics to do something useful, rather than delve into fascinating esoterica, so let's not be shy about showing a little love to the engineers, eh?

Oh engineers in general are great folk. And I'd much rather the guy who designed the brakes in my car understood mundane facts like the durability of various steel alloys than the finer points of quantum chromodynamics. Engineering can also be far more unforgiving of mistakes than most of physics, so comparisons regarding difficulty between the fields aren't merely about how fancy the math gets either. My point really isn't to belittle engineering, I'm really just trying to lay the smackdown on Ion for his arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Ion]

I was pointing out that sometimes left-wing policies do not seem to work



Sarkozy is not a socialist
Merkel is not a socialist
Berlusconi is ( was ) not a socialist
Aznar was not..
..

By American standards, Sarkozy is a Socialist.

His Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, was registered until recently in France in the Socialist party.

 

[Ion]

Please, reply to me about " Le Galois "..

I did.

You brown nose U.S..

 

[dudalb]

God,Ion,are you trying to alienate everybody on this Board?

 

[Ion]

You just quoted a passage from a book.
Irrelevant..



Ceaucescu was not elected by Romanians, but many ROmanians supported him.
They were all idiots?

I don't know how quoting passages from books is irrelevant.

It's relevant.

Regarding the Romanians who supported Ceausescu, yes, they were idiot crooks.

I didn't.
But I was a kid, who wasn't fooled.

 

[dudalb]

IN short, Ion's a perfect nobody who can only hide this fact (from himself) through name-dropping and insults but has absolutely nothing to contribute to anything, if his participation in this forum is any example ...

I guess his former colleagues in France must be pretty relieved to know he's

far away ...

Yeah,but it tough for us in California.
BTW I notice that Ion hates the US but he is still here raking in the bucks.
Can you say..hypocrite?

 

[Ion]

And, Poincare` s mathematics, is based on Algebra, developed about 500+ years ago, not in France..

Algebra was developed by...gasp...the ancestors of Iraqis ( the ancestors of the same Iraqis that Bush Shocks and Awes now into graveyards), the Mesopotamians.

 

[Ion]

well..
Microprocessors: Gordon Moore
Lasers: Arthur Leonard Schawlow
Information theory: Claude Elwood Shannon
Informatics: James Gosling
Aviation: Wright brothers

just to name a few..

...and the one American mathematician in Engineering books is?

 

[Ion]

I think you show too much of lawyer education instead of a mathematics education:

Did you stumble upon this by just typing "topology" and "special relativity"? Why, I think you did.

I looked at that paper. Let me quote from it a bit (bolding mine):



What does that mean: It means the topology of special relativity isn't special. Now let me quote some more:



Note that the topology they propose is new. It is not part of the existing theory of special relativity. Furthermore, the "Poincare semigroup" you allude to is for symmetries of the "set of space-time translations", not for the space itself. And since that is perhaps not explicit enough for you, let me quote once again from your source:



There you have it: your own source confirms that the topology of special relativity is not what makes it different.

To your ignorant "...Furthermore, the "Poincare semigroup" you allude to is for symmetries of the "set of space-time translations", not for the space itself...", I posted this:

...

Contraction of time, widening of space, that's using topology's Banach.

Invented by Poincare.
...

But again, you don't know the Lagrange polynomials approximating trigonometric function when you confuse finite and infinite, Riemann that you confuse with Reimann and topology, etc..

...My point really isn't to belittle engineering, I'm really just trying to lay the smackdown on Ion for his arrogance and ignorance.

But you need a profound education first.

Not Wikipedia, lawyering, Americanese...

 

[Ion]

...
It took a few EE's to get all these nifty computers into the state they are in, eh? EE's who make, via their contribution, this whole conversation possible.



DR

See that your incorrect WMD's instead of the correct WMDs wasn't a typo?

Here you type the incorrect EE's instead of the correct EEs.

Like if -according to you- the plural of car is car's.

I am an Electrical Engineer, registered as a Professional Engineer in the Electrical Engineering branch.

 

[Ziggurat]

...and the one American mathematician in Engineering books is?

Although Matteo didn't really distinguish who was and who wasn't a mathematician, there's one in that very list that he gave: Claude Shannon. He appears in plenty of engineering books. I'm looking at one on my shelf right now: Horowitz & Hill's classic "The Art of Electronics".

 

[Ziggurat]

But you need a profound education first.

Not Wikipedia, lawyering, Americanese...

That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who just took the first google hit with the words he was searching for, and tried to use it to back up his point without having a clue about what it actually meant. Let me take yet another quote from your source:

In fact, what is at the heart of all experimentally observable predictions of special relativity is this metric structure, and not the topological structure of M, which is Euclidean.

The metric of a manifold is a property of its geometry, not it's topology.

 

[Ion]

Although Matteo didn't really distinguish who was and who wasn't a mathematician,...

None of Matteo's are American mathematicians in Engineering books.

 

[Ion]

That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who just took the first google hit with the words he was searching for,...

Really?

Do I need to remind you of your Reimann (not Riemann, but your home made Reimann)?

What about you confusing finite and infinite in Lagrange polynomials?

Man, get a real education...

...
The metric of a manifold is a property of its geometry, not it's topology.

Says who?

You.

You know squat.

It's topology.

Topology uses geometry (like different fields intermingle) but it remains topology.

You don't know what topology is.

But for the illiterate you are it is spelled topology in that article.

 

[Ziggurat]

None of Matteo's are American mathematicians in Engineering books.

Claude Shannon is an American. He's a mathematician. He appears in "The Art of Electronics" by Horowitz and Hill. And that's an engineering book. Ergo, you're a liar.

 

[Ion]

Claude Shannon is an American. He's a mathematician. He appears in "The Art of Electronics" by Horowitz and Hill. And that's an engineering book. Ergo, you're a liar.

Prove it.

I read about him.

He is not a mathematician, unless mathematics to you is 0+0=0, 0+1=1, 1+1=0.

He reminds me of Political Science in U.S., an oxymoron.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?

Do I need to remind you of your Reimann (not Riemann, but your home made Reimann)?

God, you're a sanctimonious twat. Yeah, I misspelled a name. Big friggin deal (oh no, I don't think "friggin" is a proper word either!). How pathetic do you have to be when that's the only criticism you can actually back up? I see you've been reduced to trying to attack Darth on the same basis too. How pathetic.

What about finite and infinite in Lagrange polynomials?

Indeed, what about them?

It's topology.

Topology uses geometry (like different fields intermingle) but it remains topology.

And yet, there's a reason the two terms are different. Two manifolds can have the same topology but different intrinsic geometries, and they can also have the same intrinsic geometry but different topologies. As your own source indicated, topology is not what separates special relativity from Newtonian physics. The topology of a manifold does not determine the metric of that manifold, and it's the metric which differentiates special relativity from Newtonian physics. How pathetic do you have to be to have your very own source directly contradict you? You still haven't addressed those explicit statements by your own source.