> > > > Just once show that there has been any time that I have asserted t'=t in
> > > > the context of Galilean transforms.
> > >
> > > Um, you -have- to. The Galilean Transformations implicitly assume that
> > > your time is my time. You yourself used to argue this implicit assumption by
> > > insisting on "absolute simultaneity", whatever that is.
> >
> > No. You assume that t=t.
> >
> > Asserting t'=t adds another variable to some analyses, and addition that
> > creates a mileading and erroneous result.
>
> You can get away with saying t=t in the Galilean Transformations because
> of the assumption that my clock is your clock is everybody's clock,

That's corrupt idiocy. The Galilean transforms as used to represent
Newtonian space and time MUST include t=t, rather than t'=t, because
Newtonian theory says there is only one time for every observer and object
in the universe.

> Now, when I go from my frame to yours, I still need to prime your time to
> make it clear whose frame I'm talking about.

That's corrupt idiocy. Time is the same in the Newton context in question
regardless of frame.

Further, what happened to x', y', z'? Have they become invisible?

eleaticus