"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...

[snip Kooky Wobbly and Dork Van de local village idiot]


| | More entertainment:
| |
| | [Androcles]
| | | You wouldn't know a Galilean transform if it bit you in the
arse,
| Poe,
| |
| | [Misguided Blind Poe]
| | | It looks like this:
| | |
| | | x' = x - vt
| | | (where x, x' and v are 3-vectors in general)
| | | t' = t
| | |
| | [Androcles]
| | You don't even know what a transformation is or what it does,
| | you cretin. It looks like this:
| | http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Galilea...formation.html
| |
| | except that Weisstein has omitted velocities u and w in the
| | y and z directions.
| |
| | Of course cretins like Einstein and Poe can't handle moving
| | sideways and up simultaneously.
| |
| | Yup. Your continued repetition of these things is
| | endlessly entertaining. Gets me every time.
| |
| | Your homework assignment:
| | Place u, the velocity in the y-direction, in the matrix shown by
| | Weisstein.
| |
| | In general:
| |
| | [t'] = [ 1 0 0 0][t]
| | [x'] = [-v 1 0 0][x]
| | [y'] = [-u 0 1 0][y]
| | [z'] = [-w 0 0 1][z]
| |
| | which of course is equivalent to
| | t' = t
| | x' = x - vt
| | y' = y - ut
| | z' = z - wt
| |
| | or, using vector x to stand for (x,y,z),
| | vector y' to stand for (x',y',z'), and
| | vector v to stand for (v,u,w) is equivalent
| | to
| |
| | t' = t
| | x' = x - vt
| |
| | But you knew that, right?
| |
| Of course.
|
| So let's see if we can summarize.
|
| You agree that "of course"
|
| t' = t
| x' = x - vt (vector x, x', v)
|
| is equivalent to the general Galilean transform.

quote:
vector y' to stand for (x',y',z') -- Blind Poe.
unquote.

With your terribly incoherent notation this is partially equivalent:
t' = t
y' = x - vt (vector x, y', v)



| 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.


| Does that summarize your "of course" adequately?

Of course I knew you'd be wrong. I still know it and you are
still wrong. You scored 25% on your homework, the pass mark
for this particular assignment is 75%.
You lost marks for incoherent notation.

If you had stopped at

| | t' = t
| | x' = x - vt
| | y' = y - ut
| | z' = z - wt
you would have passed.

Retake Galilean transformations again, you must learn the
basics before you can understand SR.

Next assignment:

See:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img53.gif

Can't go sideways and up in SR. shrug
Einstein went to a lot of trouble to teach you know that,
specifically and deliberately stating:
/eta = y,
/zeta = z.

Prove Einstein was right, Poor Poe.

"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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!