[ Usenet FAQs | Search | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]
Single Page
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?
-
Search the FAQ Archives
Single Page
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?
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 | Search | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]
Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer:
Thnktank@concentric.net (Eleaticus)
Last Update July 24 2008 @ 00:15 AM