🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 3, 7:04 pm, Angelo <patri...@libero.it> wrote:
> Sue... ha scritto (wrote):
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 4:02 pm, Angelo <patri...@libero.it> wrote:
> > > Dear Uncle Al, perhaps you remember our (sporadic, ok)
> > > exchanges here in Usenet, mainly on (very interesting)
> > > chemistry topics, which I regret for not having continued.
>
> > > However, I'm here now to ask some enlightening on what
> > > you said below.
>
> > > Uncle Al ha scritto (wrote):
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
> > > > inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
> > > > automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
> > > > arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
> > > > equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.
>
> > > I think I understand your English, but not enough math & physics
> > > involved above. Could you please clarify (in whichever manner you
> > > like, if possible) such contradictions, maybe pointing me out some
> > > relevant examples?
>
> > I don't normally screw up what Uncle Al can
> > better screw up all by himself but the business
> > of exploring the chiral anti gravity properties of
> > stockings worn inside out surely makes immense
> > demands on his time.  ;-)
>
> Not sure to perfectly understand the above (my fault,
> of course), but I think to have caught the overall
> meaning. BTW, it seems to me, and (if so) appreciate,
> that you are luring about 'screwing' and 'wearing inside out'
> in connection with 'chirality' ;-) , OTHO cannot comment
> on 'gravity', too poor physics knowledge on my side.
> And last but not least, no pun intended for Uncle Al.
>

That is actually my fault. Your English is far better
than my Italian. I should have found a better time
to return a bit of Uncle Al's caustic humour.

>
>
> > I think this might be the sort of expression he
> > was referring to:
>
> > <<... the four-dimensional space-time continuum
> > of the theory of relativity, in its most essential
> > formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship
> > to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean
> > geometrical space.  In order to give due prominence
> > to this relationship, however, we must replace
> > the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary
> > magnitude
>
> >      sqrt(-1)
>
> > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions,
> > the natural laws satisfying the demands of the
> > (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical
> > forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly
> > the same role as the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number
http://www.uncwil.edu/courses/mat111hb/Izs/complex/complex.html
>
> OK, it appears to me that you've clarified more
> the physical side (thanks) than the mathematical
> one, in particular the connection with number theory,
> theory of real numbers, and arithmetic.

If you say we are one hour from Milan and
I say we are 100 km from Milan. Could we
both be correct in a Ferrari moving 100 km/hr
relative to Milan ?

Without any physical considerations, wouldn't
our whole system of maths and geometry show
a serious flaw if those temporal and spatial
statements were not equivalent?

The use of complex numbers simply gives us
a way to reorient the coordinate system
if it simplifies some particular problem.
Because we know nature pays no attention
to the grid lines on our papers.

Sue...

>
> > Sue...
>
> Thanks again,
> Angelo