|
Top Document: Invariant Galilean Transformations On All Laws Previous Document: 12. But Isn't (x'-x.c')=(x-x.c) a Tautology? Next Document: 15. But The Transform Won't Work On Wave Equations? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
Now, how on earth can we relate a tautology to a basic
definition in math?
From the top, bottom, middle, and other books in the stack
we get this definition:
--------------------------------------------------------------
A linear transformation, A, on the space is a method of corr-
esponding to each vector of the space another vector of the
space such that for any vectors U and V, and any scalars
a and b,
A(aU+bV) = aAU + bAV.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let points on the sphere satisfy the vector X={x,y,z,1},
and the circle center satisfy C={x.c,y.c,z.c,1}. Let a=1,
and b=-1.
Let A= ( 1 0 0 -ut )
( 0 1 0 -vt )
( 0 0 1 -wt )
( 0 0 0 1 )
A(aX+bC) = aAX + bAC.
aX+bC = (x-x.c, y-y.c, z-z.c, 0 ).
The left hand side:
A( x - x.c , y - y.c, z - z.c, 0 )
= ( x-x.c , y-y.c, z-z.c, 0 ).
The right hand side:
aAX= ( x-ut, y-vt, z-wt, 1 ).
bAC= (-x.c+ut, -y.c+vt, -z.c+wt, -1 ).
and
aAX+bAC = ( x-x.c, y-y.c, z-z.c, 0 ).
Need it be said?
Sure: QED. On the galilean transform the
definition of a linear transform,
A(aU+bV)=aAU + bAV,
is completely satisfied.
The generalized form transforms exactly and
non-redundantly - with ONE TRANSFORM, not a
transform and reverse transform - and non-
tautologically, just as the very definition
of a linear transform says it should.
And does so with absolute invariance, with this
galilean transformation.
------------------------------
Subject: 14. But The Transform Won't Work On Time Dependent Equations?
The main crackpot that has asserted such a thing was referring
to equations such as in Subject 4, above. The Light Sphere
equation; for which we have shown repeatedly elsewhere that the
numerical calculations are identical for any primed values as
for the unprimed values.
The presence - before transformation - of a velocity term
seems to confuse the crackpots. It turns out there is ex-
treme historical reason for this, as you will see in the
subject on Maxwell's equations.
User Contributions:Top Document: Invariant Galilean Transformations On All Laws Previous Document: 12. But Isn't (x'-x.c')=(x-x.c) a Tautology? Next Document: 15. But The Transform Won't Work On Wave Equations? Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: Thnktank@concentric.net (Eleaticus)
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:12 PM
|

Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: