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

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 12/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 01:27:23 GMT

"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:W7%wd.970$e33.251@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "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
I think you are trying to teach an old dog new tricks.
Even a street whore wouldn't trick with him, and she was desperate.
Androcles.

 

Relevant Pages