>>12060310

I will admit I messed up on equation 20, a very stupid one at that. You must pardon me-I was pretty sure something looked off and looked for the quickest way of explaining that and failed.

Now, will you be able to do the same, that is admit your very clear mistakes? No, you won't. Of course you won't. You didn't with the tensors.

I still stand that this is gibberish.

I don't know what physics book you are looking at. After all, dv/dt is some vector that should, in rotation, be in different direction then v. And yet, we have v dtheta/dt, which would mean exactly that. Please let me know what page and source you are using from whatever standard physics book.

Also, as to Minkowski space, yes you do. The future light cone consists of all time-like events t>0, past t<0. You decompose it based on t>t_0 and t<t_0 in general-this doesn't define past and future since space-like events don't preserve casuality.

"You are wrong again. I don't do what you say."

Then you can define whatever nonsense you want but it won't work because, you know, these objects have meaning?

Your hypersurface is a manifold, right? You are identifying this with a function. How is this being identified-where is the topology, where is the locally euclidean property?

Cauchy's theorem or formula? Neither fits the bill here. Can you point specifically in whatever source you found this specific equation? If it is a derivation of yours, you should clearly outline what is going on, especially considering you are using 'points at infinity'.

The first sentence I identify as gibberish, an honorable mention goes to 'chronos' and 'chiros' because what in the hell but this is just definition so let's continue... yes certainly the part about 'gelfand triple' and yet referring this to parts of space-time and the icing on top, the dirac-delta on 12D and identifying this with the hypersurface of simultaneity, all completely different unrelated things? This is the first absolute piece of gibberish.