From: eric gisse on 16 Jun 2010 20:29 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 16 Jun 2010 23:55 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 17 Jun 2010 00:02 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 17 Jun 2010 00:03 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 17 Jun 2010 00:04
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. |