## Cartesian coordinate transformations

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

### Cartesian coordinate transformations

I found a big typo in my final proof. I assume that this post will be "locked", and none will be able to comment. I did not want the final proof to be riddled with typos, and to represent the results of our conversations, on the Pressures" thread.
Hopefully, this post will not be deleted, though I do not know what powers you have xkcd to delete a math premise, on your own, likely you do.

"mathematically given cannot be changed by changing the given, mathematically*

example; let A = 4. Do some math. Therefore saying that A = 3, would be mathematically incorrect.

mathematically given
by the Galilean Coordinate transformation equations, S (x,y,z) = S' (x',y',z') at t = t' = 0,

therefore S (1,2,3) = S' (1,2,3') at t = t' = 0,

x' = x -vt OR x = x' + vt, [ Galilean transformation and corresponding Galilean inversion transformation equations ]

S' (x',y',z') = S (x,y,z) - vt OR S (x,y,z) = S' (x',y',z') + vt

To be invariant transformations, then the Galilean must also be invariant in three dimensions. What if vt = (1,1,1)?

let vt to S' = +(1,1,1). [ keeping S stationary ] then S (1,2,3) = S' (1,2,3) + (1,1,1) = S' (2,3,4) OR
let vt to S = -(1,1,1). [ keeping S' stationary ] then S' (1,2,3) = S (1,2,3) - (1,1,1) = S (0,1,2)

S (1,2,3) = S' (1,2,3') at t = t' = 0 AND* S (1,2,3) = S' (1,2,3') at t > 0

therefore, S' (1,2,3) = S(1,2,3) = S' (2,3,4) OR S (1,2,3) = S' (1,2,3) = S' (0,1,2)

+vt to S does not equal -vt to S' transformation results
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

steve waterman

Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

### Re: Cartesian coordinate transformations

steve waterman wrote:
mathematically given
by the Galilean Coordinate transformation equations, S (x,y,z) = S' (x',y',z') at t = t' = 0,

therefore S (1,2,3) = S' (1,2,3') at t = t' = 0,

What if vt = (1,1,1)?

If vt = (1,1,1), then t =/= 0, and neither of the equalities in the first quote are applicable to the situation.
No, even in theory, you cannot build a rocket more massive than the visible universe.
Meteoric

Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:43 am UTC

### Re: Cartesian coordinate transformations

Meteoric wrote:If vt = (1,1,1), then t =/= 0, and neither of the equalities in the first quote are applicable to the situation.
Welp, there you have it.

In the future, there will be a global network of billions of adding machines.... One of the primary uses of this network will be to transport moving pictures of lesbian sex by pretending they are made out of numbers.
Spoiler:
gmss1 gmss2

gmalivuk
Archduke Vendredi of Skellington the Third, Esquire

Posts: 19444
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here, There, Everywhere (near Boston, anyway)