[ Usenet FAQs | Search | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]
Single Page
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?
-
Search the FAQ Archives
Single Page
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?
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