From: eric gisse on
rbwinn wrote:

> On Jun 16, 1:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>> > On Jun 16, 1:37 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> > On Jun 15, 8:43 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>
>> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> > Well, every morning I see the sun rise and say, It is a new day.
>> >> >> > The fact that I do this does not diminish my mental capacity.
>> >> >> > When the sun comes up, it actually is a new day where I am.
>> >> >> > Posting the Galilean transformation equations is a similar
>> >> >> > process. There is really no harm in repeating anything that is
>> >> >> > true.
>>
>> >> >> So you are autistic.
>>
>> >> > I have been called a lot of things, but you are the first to call me
>> >> > autistic.
>>
>> >> If you were not autistic, or a sociopath, you would take a moment to
>> >> consider why people keep calling you names.
>>
>> >> The answer is not 'because I'm right'.
>>
>> > If people keep calling me names, it would appear that they are the
>> > sociopaths, not me.
>>
>> Thanks for playing.
>
> You think this is a game, Eric?

You don't?
From: rbwinn on
On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b8fb8d9d-a202-4cb7-973a-9bd8640e9aa1(a)s6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 6:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d4c02153-8d91-46ae-b074-cb6cba68b01c(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On Jun 15, 2:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:27b77bb9-8131-4364-a5d1-e6873a7e2dac(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Jun 13, 7:50 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Jun 13, 10:12 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
> >> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> > > >news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > > > | x'=x-vt
> >> >> > > > | y'=y
> >> >> > > > | z'=z
> >> >> > > > | t'=t
> >> >> > > > |
> >> >> > > > | Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S'
> >> >> > > > is
> >> >> > > > | slower than a clock in S which shows t.
>
> >> >> > > > Liar.
>
> >> >> > > Hafele Keating experiment.
>
> >> >> >http://www.search.com/reference/Problematic_physics_experiments
>
> >> >> > GPS including Sagnac and Pound Rebka have some credibility.
>
> >> >> > Attempts to show that real clock mechanisms can mimic
> >> >> > the Einstein Synchronisation procedure are always
> >> >> > entertaining so don't let me discourage you. ;-)
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w...
>
> >> >> > Sue...
>
> >> >> > > You're the liar.
>
> >> >> Well, since you are so entertained, you might want to show what you
> >> >> find so entertaining.  The Galilean transformation equations are the
> >> >> correct equations because they are the only transformation equations
> >> >> that do not have a length contraction.  This is difficult to explain
> >> >> to people who have been taught that a length contraction is necessary.
> >> >> Robert B. Winn
> >> >> =============================================
> >> >> Produce the evidence to show that "a clock in moving frame of
> >> >> reference
> >> >> S' is slower than a clock in S which shows t" as you claim,  Winn, and
> >> >> we'll be entertained.
>
> >> > Well, the experiment I remember best concerning this was where they
> >> > put a clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard rocket in 1958 and said that
> >> > it slowed down exactly as predicted by Einstein's equations.  I just
> >> > go by what scientists say they have done and what the results were.
>
> >> Gad you agree that Einstein equations (ie Lorentz transforms) are
> >> experimentally shown to be valid.  That same experiment REFUTES Galilean
> >> transforms.  They don't work (except approximately at v << c)
>
> > The Lorentz equations agree with my mathematics at 30 miles per
> > second, the speed of the planet Mercury to six decimal places.
>
> Irrelevant
>
> >  The
> > Lorentz equations agreed with the Galilean transformation equations
> > and absolute time to two decimal places at the same speed.
>
> Irrelevant
>
> >  I use the
> > Galilean transformation equations with a slower clock in S' shown as a
> > slower clock, not as time for time coordinates.  The time coordinates
> > in the Galilean transformation equations are t' and t.
>
> Yes they are .. or any other set of symbols you chose to use .. which ones
> you use is just a matter of convention .. as long as you are consistent and
> don't claim a change in letter as anything more than what it is.
>
> Galilean transforms say that time does not vary with motion.  Correctly
> ticking clocks will always show the same time for all observers, regardless
> of motion.  So a correctly ticking clock put in an aircraft will show the
> same time as a stay-at-home clock when the travelling clock returns.
>
> What do YOU say that is different?  If it IS different, then you are no
> longer using Galilean transforms .. so be honest enough to say that.  If it
> is NOT different, you are proven wrong experimentally.

Where do the Galilean transformation equations say that a clock does
not get slower if it is moved? t'=t just says that time used to
transform coordinates in S' has to be taken from a clock in S if a
clock in S' says something different.
From: rbwinn on
On Jun 16, 4:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f4054bb3-804d-4a06-bee8-c274e0b90d18(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 7:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:b8fb8d9d-a202-4cb7-973a-9bd8640e9aa1(a)s6g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On Jun 15, 6:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:d4c02153-8d91-46ae-b074-cb6cba68b01c(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 15, 2:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:27b77bb9-8131-4364-a5d1-e6873a7e2dac(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups..com...
> >> >> >> On Jun 13, 7:50 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 10:12 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> > > >news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> > > > | x'=x-vt
> >> >> >> > > > | y'=y
> >> >> >> > > > | z'=z
> >> >> >> > > > | t'=t
> >> >> >> > > > |
> >> >> >> > > > | Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference
> >> >> >> > > > S'
> >> >> >> > > > is
> >> >> >> > > > | slower than a clock in S which shows t.
>
> >> >> >> > > > Liar.
>
> >> >> >> > > Hafele Keating experiment.
>
> >> >> >> >http://www.search.com/reference/Problematic_physics_experiments
>
> >> >> >> > GPS including Sagnac and Pound Rebka have some credibility.
>
> >> >> >> > Attempts to show that real clock mechanisms can mimic
> >> >> >> > the Einstein Synchronisation procedure are always
> >> >> >> > entertaining so don't let me discourage you. ;-)
>
> >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_timehttp://en.wikipedia..org/w...
>
> >> >> >> > Sue...
>
> >> >> >> > > You're the liar.
>
> >> >> >> Well, since you are so entertained, you might want to show what you
> >> >> >> find so entertaining.  The Galilean transformation equations are
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> correct equations because they are the only transformation
> >> >> >> equations
> >> >> >> that do not have a length contraction.  This is difficult to
> >> >> >> explain
> >> >> >> to people who have been taught that a length contraction is
> >> >> >> necessary.
> >> >> >> Robert B. Winn
> >> >> >> =============================================
> >> >> >> Produce the evidence to show that "a clock in moving frame of
> >> >> >> reference
> >> >> >> S' is slower than a clock in S which shows t" as you claim,  Winn,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> we'll be entertained.
>
> >> >> > Well, the experiment I remember best concerning this was where they
> >> >> > put a clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard rocket in 1958 and said
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > it slowed down exactly as predicted by Einstein's equations.  I just
> >> >> > go by what scientists say they have done and what the results were.
>
> >> >> Gad you agree that Einstein equations (ie Lorentz transforms) are
> >> >> experimentally shown to be valid.  That same experiment REFUTES
> >> >> Galilean
> >> >> transforms.  They don't work (except approximately at v << c)
>
> >> > The Lorentz equations agree with my mathematics at 30 miles per
> >> > second, the speed of the planet Mercury to six decimal places.
>
> >> Irrelevant
>
> >> >  The
> >> > Lorentz equations agreed with the Galilean transformation equations
> >> > and absolute time to two decimal places at the same speed.
>
> >> Irrelevant
>
> >> >  I use the
> >> > Galilean transformation equations with a slower clock in S' shown as a
> >> > slower clock, not as time for time coordinates.  The time coordinates
> >> > in the Galilean transformation equations are t' and t.
>
> >> Yes they are .. or any other set of symbols you chose to use .. which
> >> ones
> >> you use is just a matter of convention .. as long as you are consistent
> >> and
> >> don't claim a change in letter as anything more than what it is.
>
> >> Galilean transforms say that time does not vary with motion.  Correctly
> >> ticking clocks will always show the same time for all observers,
> >> regardless
> >> of motion.  So a correctly ticking clock put in an aircraft will show the
> >> same time as a stay-at-home clock when the travelling clock returns.
>
> >> What do YOU say that is different?  If it IS different, then you are no
> >> longer using Galilean transforms .. so be honest enough to say that.  If
> >> it
> >> is NOT different, you are proven wrong experimentally.
>
> > The Galilean transformation equations say that t'=t.  t is time on a
> > clock in S.
>
> And t' is time on a clock at rest in S'
>
> > If there is a clock running at some other rate which
> > shows some other time than t, then that clock does not show t'.
>
> Irrelevant.  We are talking about CORRECT clocks only.

OK, a correct clock in S will show t'=t. A correct clock in S' will
show n'.
From: rbwinn on
On Jun 16, 5:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:02c5f8f9-4bd6-40f3-b54b-f9a12f7e5036(a)j12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:063e7006-c295-4d91-a567-9a4a813beb0c(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On Jun 15, 6:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:6d5da435-3595-497f-b480-2586e3daaa16(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 15, 3:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:ef70417f-5f09-4f25-9cf3-bbb9760e5548(a)q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 7:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> >                                   x'=x-vt
> >> >> >> >> >                                   y'=y
> >> >> >> >> >                                   z'=z
> >> >> >> >> >                                   t'=t
>
> >> >> >> >> Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is.
>
> >> >> >> >> >      Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of
> >> >> >> >> > reference
> >> >> >> >> > S'
> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t
>
> >> >> >> >> As measured be S.  Hence refuting Galilean transforms
>
> >> >> >> >> >  According to the Galilean
> >> >> >> >> > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'.
>
> >> >> >> >> No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t.  And
> >> >> >> >> so
> >> >> >> >> Galilean
> >> >> >> >> transforms are wrong
>
> >> >> >> >> >  Time on
> >> >> >> >> > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable
> >> >> >> >> > if
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > Galilean transformation equations are to be used.
>
> >> >> >> >> They can't.  Because then you are no longer using Galilean
> >> >> >> >> transforms
>
> >> >> >> >> [snip nonsense that follows]
>
> >> >> >> > Why are you no longer using the Galilean transformation
> >> >> >> > equations?
>
> >> >> >> YOU aren't.  No me.  Its your nonsense, not mine.
>
> >> >> >> > The Galilean transformation equations treat all slower clocks the
> >> >> >> > same.
>
> >> >> >> There are NO slower clocks in Galilean transforms .. time is the
> >> >> >> same
> >> >> >> everywhere.
>
> >> >> >> Learn some physics .. or how to understand maths.  Or both.
>
> >> >> > I bought a clock that lost ten minutes per day
>
> >> >> Irrelevant.  Transforms are not about faulty clocks.  They are about
> >> >> what
> >> >> the time REALLY IS at the location.  Ie what a CORRECTLY working clock
> >> >> would
> >> >> show
>
> >> >> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> > A correctly working clock in S' is slower than a correctly working
> >> > clock in S.
>
> >> So t' <> t.
>
> >> A correctly working clock is one that shows the correct time.  So a
> >> correctly working clock at rest in S shows time t.  a correctly working
> >> clock at rest in S' shows time t'.  If it doesn't, it is not working
> >> correctly . .by definition.
>
> >> >  Consequently, you cannot use time from a correctly
> >> > working clock in S' as time coordinates for the Galilean
> >> > transformation equations.
>
> >> Of course you can .. by the definition of what a correctly working clock
> >> IS.
>
> >> What you CANNOT use is the Galilean Transforms for time.
>
> >> Please. . be honest about what you are doing.  If you are using Galilean
> >> transforms for what you meaasure, then you are proven wrong by
> >> experiment.
> >> If you are not, then do not dishonestly claim that you are, and instead
> >> talk
> >> about the transform you ARE using.
>
> > The transform I am using is the Galilean transform.
>
> >                              x'=x-vt
> >                              y'=y
> >                              z'=z
> >                              t'=t
>
> Liar
>
> >      All the transform requires is that t' be the time shown by a
> > clock in S.  If you can prove otherwise, prove it.
>
> WRONG .. It says a correct clockin S' show t'.  You say it doesn't  So you
> are not using Galilean Transforms.

The Galilean transformation equations say that a correct clock in S
shows t'.
From: rbwinn on
On Jun 16, 5:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:55dce4d8-29e1-4de5-b979-c97cb74b3b2c(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 7:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:adbb8478-79f8-4a0e-bfd1-8cb5fcceed94(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 15, 7:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:4466492f-0a28-4aec-9a1b-05cce138c867(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 15, 3:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:ff4c8b77-ca8b-45a1-9d04-4e614e476447(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups..com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 5:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>news:8b250e8c-7689-460d-83b3-e25bfb5c83e1(a)11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 7:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >> >>news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >                                   x'=x-vt
> >> >> >> >> >> >                                   y'=y
> >> >> >> >> >> >                                   z'=z
> >> >> >> >> >> >                                   t'=t
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is..
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >      Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of
> >> >> >> >> >> > reference
> >> >> >> >> >> > S'
> >> >> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t
>
> >> >> >> >> >> As measured be S.  Hence refuting Galilean transforms
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >  According to the Galilean
> >> >> >> >> >> > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show
> >> >> >> >> >> > t'.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t.
> >> >> >> >> >> And
> >> >> >> >> >> so
> >> >> >> >> >> Galilean
> >> >> >> >> >> transforms are wrong
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >  Time on
> >> >> >> >> >> > the slower clock has to be represented by some other
> >> >> >> >> >> > variable
> >> >> >> >> >> > if
> >> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> >> > Galilean transformation equations are to be used.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> They can't.  Because then you are no longer using Galilean
> >> >> >> >> >> transforms
>
> >> >> >> >> >> [snip nonsense that follows]
>
> >> >> >> >> > What do you mean I am no longer using the Galilean
> >> >> >> >> > transformation
> >> >> >> >> > equations?
>
> >> >> >> >> >                           x'=x-vt
> >> >> >> >> >                           y'=y
> >> >> >> >> >                           z'=z
> >> >> >> >> >                           t'=t
>
> >> >> >> >> Because you said you are not using t' = t .. you are using
> >> >> >> >> something
> >> >> >> >> else.
> >> >> >> >> So it is no longer a Galilean transform.  You can't throw away
> >> >> >> >> your
> >> >> >> >> cake
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> eat it too.
>
> >> >> >> >> >  Which one of the equations is not a Galilean transformation
> >> >> >> >> > equation?
>
> >> >> >> > I am using t'=t.  t is time on a clock in S.  t'=t is what is
> >> >> >> > known
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > algebra as an identity.  t' is time on a clock in S.  Time on a
> >> >> >> > clock
> >> >> >> > in S' is not t'.
>
> >> >> >> Yes it is .. if you are using Galilean Transforms.  It is is
> >> >> >> something
> >> >> >> OTHER
> >> >> >> than t', then you are NO LONGER using Galilean Transforms.  Simple.
>
> >> >> >> > It has to be shown by some other variable.
>
> >> >> >> So you are no longer using t' for the time.  And so you are no
> >> >> >> longer
> >> >> >> using
> >> >> >> Galilean Transforms.  As I said.  You have made up some DIFFERENT
> >> >> >> transform
> >> >> >> instead that treats time differently.
>
> >> >> >> That's fine if you want to do that ... but do not LIE by claiming
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> using Galilean transforms.  A bit of honesty goes a long way.  A
> >> >> >> bit
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> physics goes even further.  Start with the honesty.
>
> >> >> > Here are the Galilean transformation equations.  Honest.
>
> >> >> >                            x'=x-vt
> >> >> >                            y'=y
> >> >> >                            z'=z
> >> >> >                            t'=t
>
> >> >> Yes.. I know what they are..  And they are the ones you go on to NOT
> >> >> use.
>
> >> >> >     Notice the equation that says t'=t.  That kind of equation is
> >> >> > called an identity in algebra.  What it means is that the time in S'
> >> >> > for transforming coordinates is t', and that t' is the time that is
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > a clock in S because t'=t.
>
> >> >> Yes .. so according to the transforms, all correctly working clocks
> >> >> tick
> >> >> at
> >> >> the same rate regardless of motion.  But we know that they DO tick at
> >> >> different rates due to motion.  so Galilean Transforms do not apply.
>
> >> >> >  You might want to try practicing with
> >> >> > coordinates in S and S' using t'=t.  I am sure you will find that
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > coordinates do transform.  So the Galilean transformation equations
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > not transform coordinates in any way to a clock in S' that
> >> >> > scientists
> >> >> > say they have found to be slower than a clock in S.
>
> >> >> That's right .. Galilean transforms do not work in reality.
>
> >> >> >  You cannot use
> >> >> > the time on that clock as t' because t'=t, the time on the faster
> >> >> > clock in S.
>
> >> >> Then you are no longer using Galilean transforsm .. you are using some
> >> >> OTHER
> >> >> transform that does not have the time in one frame the same as the
> >> >> time
> >> >> in
> >> >> another.
>
> >> >> >      But the slower clock in S' shows light to be traveling at
> >> >> > c=300,000 km/sec.  Surely it must be t'.  Not according to the
> >> >> > Galilean transformation equations.
>
> >> >> Wrong .. According to the Galillean transforms it WILL be t'.
> >> >> Experiment
> >> >> shows that it not the case.
>
> >> >> >  t'=t, the time on a clock in S.
> >> >> > But the fact that time on a clock in S' shows light to be traveling
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > c gives us a way to solve for time on that clock from the Galilean
> >> >> > transformation equations
>
> >> >> No .. it doesn't
>
> >> >> >                             cn'=ct-vt
>
> >> >> > where n' is time on the slower clock in S'.
>
> >> >> >                               n'=t(1-v/c)
>
> >> >> So you have used a DIFFERENT equation for the time in S' to what
> >> >> Galillean
> >> >> transforms use.
>
> >> >> So .. as i said .. you are NO LONGER using Galilean transforms
>
> >> >> >      As you seem to recognize, n' cannot be used with the Galilean
> >> >> > transformation equations.
>
> >> >> If you are claiming n' is the time in S'. then that is just a change
> >> >> of
> >> >> letter to use.  You are REALYL showing (using conventional notation)
>
> >> >> t' = t ( 1 - v/c)
>
> >> >> Which is NOT the same as
>
> >> >> t' = t
>
> >> >> So you are NOT using Galilean transforms
>
> >> >> >  In order to transform coordinates, you have
> >> >> > to convert n' to t' and use the Galilean transformation equation,
> >> >> > t'=t
> >> >> > for time coordinates in S and S'.
> >> >> >       Since you claim so vehemently that you have found an error in
> >> >> > this reasoning, go ahead and show the error you think you have
> >> >> > found.
>
> >> >> I have
>
> >> > Well, no, I am sorry, but you have not.
>
> >> Yes .. I have
>
> >> > Here is what you are
> >> > claiming.  You are saying that t' cannot equal t in S' because a clock
> >> > shows some other time in that frame of reference.
>
> >> A correct cloak .. Yes.  That is a fact by definition of what a correct
> >> clock is.
>
> >> >  As a matter of
> >> > fact, there is no clock in S' that shows t'=t.
>
> >> So Galilean transforms are wrong.  Or you are talking about clocks that
> >> are
> >> wrong.
>
> > The clocks are fine.  There just do not happen to be any that show t'..
>
> >> >  So the Galilean
> >> > transformation equations regard all clocks the same in S'.
>
> >> Irrelevant
>
> >> >  Whatever
> >> > they say has to be converted to t' before transforming coordinates
> >> > with the Galilean transformation equations.
>
> >> No .. they SHOW t'.  That is what a correct clock does.  Just as a clock
> >> at
> >> rest in S shows the time t.  Nothing needs converting.
>
> > See this equation?
> >                          t'=t
>
> >  That kind of equation is what is known in algebra as an identity.
> > It means that time on a clock in S is t'.
>
> >> >  Whenever the time of a
> >> > clock running at any speed has been converted to t', then it can be
> >> > used in the Galilean transformation equations.
>
> >> A correct clock IS showing t'
> > Maybe according to Androcles.  Scientists say otherwise.  The say a
> > clock in S' is slower than a clock in S.
>
> >> > That is what I do.  Sorry if it offends you.
>
> >> Only your arrogance and lies offend me
>
> >> >  You shouldn't really be
> >> > getting so offended by correct use of the Galilean transformation
> >> > equations.
>
> >> You aren't doing that.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> I have.

Well, no, you have not proven anything except that you do not like the
Galilean transformation equations.