"Androcles" wrote in message
o.uk...
With your terribly incoherent notation this is partially equivalent:

Its perfectly coherent .. you're just too ignorant to understand it. Big
difference

t' = t
y' = x - vt (vector x, y', v)

Yes .. if y' is a vector in 3d space in the frame of reference one is
transforming to.

| But you say that
| http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Galilea...formation.html
| is a Galilean transform, while
| t' = t
| x' = x - vt (vector x, x', v)
| is not.
Uh huh.

Then you obviously understand neither

| Does that summarize your "of course" adequately?
Of course I knew you'd be wrong.

No .. it is you who is wrong .. obviously to anyone who understands maths
and physcis

I still know it and you are still wrong.

This is just *too* funny. You are so damned ignorant you cannot see it

[snip more hilarity]
See:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img53.gif

So?

Can't go sideways and up in SR. shrug

And why do you think that .. this should be amusing

Einstein went to a lot of trouble to teach you know that,
specifically and deliberately stating:
/eta = y,
/zeta = z.

Yes.. just like in Galilean transforms. And that is a problem for you ..
still question .. it involves physics and maths, so *of course* it is a
problem for you.

This is just so funny !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!