"David McAnally" wrote in message
...

The transformation law for the differential operators under the Galilean
transformation is given by:

d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,

Tell us how there can be a d/dt' when there is no t'? When the
Newton-theoretical lack of a time transform is honored when treating
Newton-theoretical transforms, which are the subject matter in discussion?

eleaticus

"David McAnally" wrote in message
...

d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,

Of course not. We are discussing Newton-theoretical transformations, in
which there is absolute time, and no time transformation.

Let's start with an equation that does not correct the first of your corrupt
strawman impositions against Newton-theoretic transforms. Let's use the form
in x,y,z that even average middle-schoolers would know is wrong when using
their yardsticks to measure something. Let's start with

P = 2x + 2y (for perimeter of a rectangle) instead of P = 2(X1-X0) +
2(Y1-Y0).

Well, I'm changing directions, so instead of 'instead of' read 'or'.

I ask you, why on earth would ANYONE care how this equation (or ANY
geometrical or other physical equation) changes with respect to any of
x',y,z',t'?

eleaticus

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


eleaticus wrote:

"David McAnally" wrote in message
...


Eleaticus has explicitly demonstrated what many would have suspected for
ages: that he is completely ignorant of multivariable calculus. He has
no
familiarity with, or concept of, the Chain Rule in multivariable
calculus.
Take, for example, his much beloved Galilean Transformation:

t' = t,


Mind if I call you Golem? (sp? From Lord of the Rings).

You have become increasingly corrupt.

t=t.

Do you have the slightest concept of a co-ordinate transformation?

You have one frame of reference in which the co-ordinates are written
unprimed and another frame of reference in which the co-ordinates are
written with primes. What makes the galilean transform what it is, is
the assumption that time is the same in every inertial frame of
reference and that velocities add.

He says there is a time transform under Newton, I say there isn't. You agree
with me and insult me for it?

Yes, yes, you want to say that time is a coordinate even though there are
actually only three coordinate transformation equations and time is an
absolute under the Newton-theoretical basis of discussion.

Funny that you don't insist on a velocity transform even though a velocity
seen from one inertial frame differs from the viewpoint of any second frame.

Gee, you insist on a time transform even though time is absolute in the
theoretical viewpoint under discussion and apparently insist on not having a
velocity transform even though velocity is clearly non-absolute wrt any
coordinate system in question.

Could it be ... that Lorentz-Einstein can't handle it?

eleaticus


Bob Kolker

eleaticus wrote:


Tell us how there can be a d/dt' when there is no t'?

d/dt' is an -operator- which can be applied to functions. You really do
not understand the mathematics at all, do you?

Bob Kolker

eleaticus wrote:


He says there is a time transform under Newton, I say there isn't. You agree
with me and insult me for it?

It is the -identity- transform, stupid.

Bob Kolker

In article ,
eleaticus wrote:

"David McAnally" wrote in message
...

The transformation law for the differential operators under the Galilean
transformation is given by:

d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,

Tell us how there can be a d/dt' when there is no t'? When the
Newton-theoretical lack of a time transform is honored when treating
Newton-theoretical transforms, which are the subject matter in discussion?

eleaticus

In general, a transform has x'(x,y,z,t), y'(x,y,z,t), z'(x,y,z,t),
t'(x,y,z,t). That is, each new coordinate is a function of all of the old
coordinates. In a typical Newtonian transformation we have t'=t, but
that's a special case.

In the most prosaic Newtonian time transformation, we simply add an offset
to put t'=0 somewhere convenient, t'=t-t0. Or we could scale the
coordinate to go to a different time standard with a different rate of
ticking, t'=kt.

Less prosaically, stick with a universal time and transform to a frame
rotating with angular velocity w relative to the stationary frame. Then
we have, for a vector V,

dV/dt' = dV/dt + w cross V

See Goldstein, chapter 4.

--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959

Uncle Al writes:

David McAnally wrote:

Uncle Al writes:

Eleaticus wrote:
[snip lies]

Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws
(c) Eleaticus/Oren C. Webster

[snip 1300 lines of trolled garbage]

Eleaticus has explicitly demonstrated what many would have suspected for
ages: that he is completely ignorant of multivariable calculus. He has no
familiarity with, or concept of, the Chain Rule in multivariable calculus.
Take, for example, his much beloved Galilean Transformation:

t' = t,

x' = x - vt,

y' = y,

z' = z.

His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate variable
presumably springs from an unwillingness to acknowledge that space and
time are best described as a four-dimensional manifold, with four
coordinates, instead of a time evolution of a three-dimensional manifold,
and that the change of coordinate system should be a change of four
coordinates, and not a time-dependent change of three coordinates. This
is particularly vital when it comes to fields over space and time
(electric and magnetic fields for example).
[snip erudition]

With your permission, I will also ram your exposition down his
stooopid face every time he trolls his crap.

Certainly. It is irritating when an individual such as Eleaticus, who has
never learnt multivariable calculus, and who obviously knows nothing about
it, presumes to lecture people who actually do know about the subject.

David

-----

eleaticus wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate variable
presumably springs from an unwillingness to acknowledge that space and
time are best described as a four-dimensional manifold, with four
coordinates, instead of a time evolution of a three-dimensional
manifold,
and that the change of coordinate system should be a change of four
coordinates, and not a time-dependent change of three coordinates. This
is particularly vital when it comes to fields over space and time
(electric and magnetic fields for example).
[snip erudition]

With your permission, I will also ram your exposition down his
stooopid face every time he trolls his crap.

He starts off with the refusal to play by the Newtonian rules, which are
that there is absolute time, not a time transform, and you prove yourself an
absolute - not just relative - asshole by 'ramming' his intellectually
indefensible crap up my asshole?
[snip]

Newton was empirically wrong, you empirical idiot. Hey stooopid -
tell us the GPS system does not work.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

Newton was empirically wrong, you empirical idiot. Hey stooopid -
tell us the GPS system does not work.

To quote myself:

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

eleaticus

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


eleaticus wrote:


Tell us how there can be a d/dt' when there is no t'?

d/dt' is an -operator- which can be applied to functions. You really do
not understand the mathematics at all, do you?

Someone who thinks there is a non-trivial df/dt' 0 when there is no t'
understands mathematics?

You can apply it to P(rofit) = S(ales price) - C(osts) but it is idiocy to
do so.

It is pure idiocy to screw with a differential operator wrt a non-existing
variable, a variable that doesn't even exist in the Newtonian-theoretical
transformations under discussion.

F=x^2.

Show us df/dt'; there is no t'.

Sure, df/dt' = 0, but what about all those other (in this case) nonsensical
d/d@ operators, like d/dv, d/dy, d/dz, d/da, d/db, ... ,d/dw?

And show us how d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx.

It is pure idiocy to screw with a differential operator wrt a non-existing
variable.

Tell us how there can be a d/dt' when there is no t'?

dF/dt' = dF/dt + vdF/dx?

I think not. It is pure idiocy to screw with a differential operator wrt a
non-existing variable.

dF/dt' = 0 + 2vx, but there is no t' and F does not change with a change in
the non-exisiting t'.

Yet, you say/imply that the non-existence of the variable does not militate
against the use of an operator wrt the variable.

Tell us how there can be a d/dt' when there is no t'?

eleaticus


Bob Kolker