Page 12 of 16 of your book

"Since the origin can be of no consequence, it must be possible to write F as an explicit function of the set of arguments [(xi-xj),(ti-tj)] or Xi-Xj where Xk refers to the (x,t) coordinates of the kth element."

In the same paragraph you go on to state that F=0 using the famous "it can be shown" proof.
(eq. 1.22)

You also introduce rotational symmetry in the same paragraph.

Notice that the words space or time do not appear. At this point in the development it's just mathematics with symmetry assumptions.

I think the assumptions are correct, but nevertheless they are assumptions that pervade the remainder of your development

• I do not understand what I have assumed. - doctordick - April 19, 2001 - 17:32 UTC
  • Shift symmetry is still an assumption - yanniru - April 19, 2001 - 22:28 UTC
    • You misunderstand the issue here! - doctordick - April 25, 2001 - 20:19 UTC
      • Not totally undefined - yanniru - April 26, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
        • You are looking at the problem incorrectly. - doctordick - April 26, 2001 - 20:39 UTC
          • Your transformation is defined - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
            • Let me try again. - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
            • From another perspective! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
            • Or a third! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
              • Yes, I am defining my model as symmetric - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
                • Ignore the development!! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
                  • Classical physics is completely based on rationality, except per - yanniru - May 1, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
                • A second issue! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 15:02 UTC