12. But Isn't (x'-x.c')=(x-x.c) a Tautology?

My dictionary relates 'tautology' to needless repetition.

That's another form of the x.c' <> x.c-vt idiocy.

The repetition involved is the vt transformation term.
Apply the -vt term to the x term, and it is needless
repetition to apply it anywhere again? The 'again' is
to the x.c term.  The x.c' = x.c crackpot idiocy.

The repetition of the vt terms is required by the presence
of two x values to be transformed.

Be sure to note the next section.

Top Document: Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws
Previous Document: 11. But Doesn't (x'-x.c+vt) Prove The Transformation Time Dependent?
Next Document: 13. But Isn't (x'-x.c')=(x-x.c) Almost the Definition of a Linear Transform?

Single Page

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

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

Last Update July 25 2008 @ 00:13 AM