About Ancle assAls' response to: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:56:47 -0600

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41C45D46.A807CDE3@hate.spam.net...
> The transformation law for the differential operators under the
> Galilean transformation is given by:
>
> d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,
> d/dx' = d/dx,
> d/dy' = d/dy,
> d/dz' = d/dz.
>
> This shows the necessity of introducing a new variable t', since
> partial differentiation with respect to t' (constant x', y', z') is a
> different operation to partial differentiation with respect to t
> (constant x, y, z). The above transformation law is determined by the
> Chain Rule:

Actually, I am soOOO surprized you miss the necessity of introducing a new
variable v' since partial differentiation wrt v' is a different operation to
partial differentiation with respect to v.

Hey, violating the rules of logic by asserting t'=t when there is no t' in
the newtonian theoretic material you have such a problem with is one thing,
but how about justifying the idiocy of not imposing the actual, factual,
not-so-satisfactual (to SR) v'=-v transform?

Not to mention, justifying not differentiating wrt v in terms that don;t
also apply to t.

eleaticus

Relevant Pages