- #1

- 92

- 3

## Summary:

- x=ct, x1=ct1

On the Yale University Prof Shankar Youtube vid 'Lorentz Transformation' Prof Shankar writes up on the board that x = ct and then x prime = c t prime.

It is the basis of all that follows. But i don't understand.

at x = 0, t = 0 and x prime = 0 and t prime = 0. He's got that written up, too, and it all makes sense.

So when the event happens and is instantaneously known to have happened by all concerned at time 't' then that will also be time ' t prime' won't it?

't prime' is always the same as 't' is it not? In this scenario where the event is imagined to be immediately known as it happens at both x and x prime.

So it makes sense that distance x = speed of light time t but x prime cannot be the same surely? x prime is ct minus ut surely?

where am I wrong?

It is the basis of all that follows. But i don't understand.

at x = 0, t = 0 and x prime = 0 and t prime = 0. He's got that written up, too, and it all makes sense.

So when the event happens and is instantaneously known to have happened by all concerned at time 't' then that will also be time ' t prime' won't it?

't prime' is always the same as 't' is it not? In this scenario where the event is imagined to be immediately known as it happens at both x and x prime.

So it makes sense that distance x = speed of light time t but x prime cannot be the same surely? x prime is ct minus ut surely?

where am I wrong?