Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 17 Jun 2010 00:09 On Jun 16, 5:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:42a4cf8f-6e54-4dd9-88d5-6351aeecb6f8(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2:45 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > >> On Jun 15, 11:20 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > 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'. It has to be shown by some other variable. > > >> Here you show that you still do *not* know what a Galilean > >> transformation is. The symbol t' in the Galilean transformation refers > >> to clock time in S'. You can show clock time by some other variable, > >> but then you do not have a Galilean transformation anymore. > > >> Harald > > > The Galilean transformation equations I use just say t'=t. t is time > > on a clock in S. That means according to the Galilean transformation > > equation t' is time on a clock in S. > > Yes .. so correct clocks all run at same rate. We know experimentally they > do not. So cannot use Galillean transforms > > > If you have another clock > > somewhere that shows some other time, you cannot use that time in the > > Galilean transformation equations until you convert it to t'. > > Then it is NOT a correct clock, and so irrelevant. WE do not base physics > on whether we have a good battery in our little bed-side clock. YOU are > claiming that all correct clocks in S' do NOT show time t', but instead show > some other time that you have called n' (which is your attempt to obscure > what you are doing). That means you are NOT using Gallilean transforms for > time in S'. I absolutely am using the Galilean transformation equations for time in S'. t'=t is shown by a clock in S. There is no other way to interpret the Galilean transformation equations. Since you have shown no proof that t' has to be the time on a clock in S', the Galilean transformation equations are valid in this application.
From: rbwinn on 17 Jun 2010 00:11 On Jun 16, 5:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2b2d79e3-ad4e-4786-8a75-9ad65827df01(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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? > > Do you mean you are really serious about the nonsense you post? You need > some counselling and education. I am dead serious. t'=t is the equation for time coordinates in the Galilean transformation equations.
From: Inertial on 17 Jun 2010 00:14 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:82a4c860-e51e-41d1-aea0-d844384bc64a(a)b15g2000prn.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. > > Where do the Galilean transformation equations say that a clock does > not get slower if it is moved? t' = t. Movement does not change the time. > 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. No .. it says nothing of the sort. It says the time in S is always the same as the time in S'. So a clock will show the same time whether it moves or not Clearly your problem is that you do not understan what a transforms is.
From: Inertial on 17 Jun 2010 00:16 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6d76fa38-2a95-4f7d-a6a3-930742ebfe01(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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. Wrong. A correct clock in S shows t A correct clock in S' show t' And t = t' (ie they show the same time) > A correct clock in S' will > show n'. Wrong. There is no n'. A correct clock in S' has to show the TIME in S' which it t' If you say a correct clock shows some other time you are NOT USING GALILEAN TRANSFORMS. Try to understand and be honest. .I know its hard for you
From: Inertial on 17 Jun 2010 00:17
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cd80a2c1-36c2-4699-9cae-ba3d0ec8a676(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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'. A correct clock seen in S shows t. The same correct clock seen in S' shows t' which is the same as t. A moving observer (or clock) does not change its time |