Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation

From: Tom Roberts (tjroberts_at_lucent.com)
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:28:51 -0600

jem wrote:
> The issue isn't whether there are spacetimes that don't admit Inertial
> frames, but whether there are spacetimes that admit Inertial frames
> based on one definition but not the other, because unless that's the
> case, your comments in the previous post (that my definition is somehow
> less general than the common definition) are unwarranted.

The only spacetimes that admit global inertial frames are flat. That is,
they are at most topological variations on Minkowski spacetime. In
Minkowski spacetime the two definitions are equivalent (as I discussed
previously). Topological variations generally prevent the existence of a
global frame (e.g. "SR on a cylinder" -- a single coordinate system or
frame can almost but not quite cover the manifold).

SR, of course, is only concerned with Minkowski spacetime.

Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
    ... > The issue isn't whether there are spacetimes that don't admit Inertial ... > frames, but whether there are spacetimes that admit Inertial frames ... they are at most topological variations on Minkowski spacetime. ... Minkowski spacetime the two definitions are equivalent (as I discussed ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
    ... >> The issue isn't whether there are spacetimes that don't admit Inertial ... >> frames, but whether there are spacetimes that admit Inertial frames ... > they are at most topological variations on Minkowski spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
    ... >> The issue isn't whether there are spacetimes that don't admit Inertial ... >> frames, but whether there are spacetimes that admit Inertial frames ... > they are at most topological variations on Minkowski spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics)