Re: Rotations - why are they not vectors
- From: "Terry Padden" <TPadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:23:47 GMT
"William Elliot" <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.58.0607152245480.22224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Terry Padden wrote:
Now consider simple (= 1-D) rotations of a spherical object about anyYou mean 3D rotations?
given
fixed axis.
NO, you fool. The axis is fixed. Only 1-D rotations are allowed (so far)
Could someone point out to me in what way such 1-D rotations do NOT meetIn 3D, rotations are represented as a vector in the direction of the axis
the
axiomatic criteria for a Vector Space.
of rotation with magnitude of angular displacement.
PLEASE GO AWAY and keep this irrelevant 3-D nonsense to yourself
If 1-D rotations are axiomatically vectors, why cannot they beBecause the cross product doesn't?
axiomatically
compounded into multi-dimensional vector spaces ?
You are showing gross stupidity by this irrelevance. I am asking about
AXIOMS - not mechanics. Please stop embarrassing yourself in public.
NB I am aware that 2-D rotations do-not-commute,
Planar 2D rotations around a point are basically scalars.
That's your own little secret. Keep it that way. Now please go away and
think about axioms for a few years.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rotations - why are they not vectors
- From: William Elliot
- Re: Rotations - why are they not vectors
- References:
- Rotations - why are they not vectors
- From: Terry Padden
- Re: Rotations - why are they not vectors
- From: William Elliot
- Rotations - why are they not vectors
- Prev by Date: Re: Rotations - why are they not vectors
- Next by Date: Re: JSH: Factoring and residues
- Previous by thread: Re: Rotations - why are they not vectors
- Next by thread: Re: Rotations - why are they not vectors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|