10. But Isn't (x'-x.c')=(x-x.c) Actually Two Transformations?

One crackpot puts the (x'-x.c')=(x-vt - x.c+vt) relationship
like this:

      (x-vt+vt - x.c).

See, he says, that is transforming x (with x-vt - x.c) and then
reversing the transform (x-vt+vt - x.c).

That's just another crackpot form of the idiocy that
x.c' <> x.c-vt. You'll have noticed the implication
is that there is no transform vt term relating to x.c.

Top Document: Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws
Previous Document: 9. But Doesn't x.c'=x.c?
Next Document: 11. But Doesn't (x'-x.c+vt) Prove The Transformation Time Dependent?

Single Page

[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]

Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer:
Thnktank@concentric.net (Eleaticus)

Last Update October 22 2009 @ 05:33 AM