Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Here Is Where Your Shift Symmetry Assumption Comes In

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on April 19, 2001 12:35:31 UTC

Page 12 of 16 of your book

"Since the origin can be of no consequence, it must be possible to write F as an explicit function of the set of arguments [(xi-xj),(ti-tj)] or Xi-Xj where Xk refers to the (x,t) coordinates of the kth element."

In the same paragraph you go on to state that F=0 using the famous "it can be shown" proof.
(eq. 1.22)

You also introduce rotational symmetry in the same paragraph.

Notice that the words space or time do not appear. At this point in the development it's just mathematics with symmetry assumptions.

I think the assumptions are correct, but nevertheless they are assumptions that pervade the remainder of your development

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins