## Search the FAQ Archives

3 - A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M
N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z # Invariant Galilean Transformations On All LawsSection - 13. But Isn't (x'-x.c')=(x-x.c) Almost the Definition of a Linear Transform?

( Single Page )
[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index | Forum ]

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?
```
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