- #1

- 3,193

- 16

**Please HELLLP!**

This is driving me NUTS!

Can someone please explain to me what's going on here, because for the life of me this makes no sense! It appears, at least to me, that this 'proof' has a lot of flaws in it.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6634/gooddx7.jpg [Broken]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5336/good2sz6.jpg [Broken]

Notice, on the next page the author says explicitly:

"It should be reiterated that

**r**is a vector whose components are fixed in the relative frame [tex]x_1'x_2'x_3'[/tex]."

HUHHHHHHH? But in this very derivation, we had xi and xf being two

**different**points on the transformation coordinate system!

How can that be a vector with

**"fixed components"**in the relative frame?!

[/frustration!]

:grumpy:

I have been trying to understand this for a

**week**now. Its actually kinda sad...

Last edited by a moderator: