Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 18 Jun 2010 02:39 rbwinn wrote: [...] So Robert, why exactly did you start posting this stuff again? What was the thought process?
From: rbwinn on 18 Jun 2010 08:25 On Jun 17, 10:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:03606340-adca-4532-939f-5eacc53a1daa(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 9:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 > > > Sorry, your idea > > Not mine.. what Glaillean transforms say > > > does not match up with experimental data. > > That's what I told you. > > > Scientists > > report that a clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. > > And so prove that Galilean Transforms are wrong. Thanks for refuting > yourself The Galilean transformation equations predict that a clock in S' will be slower than a clock in S. In order for a clock to be showing the speed of light to be c in two different frames of reference, one moving relative to the other, less time has to have transpired in the moving frame of reference according to a clock moving with that frame of reference. That is just what mathematics shows. Sorry.
From: rbwinn on 18 Jun 2010 08:31 On Jun 17, 11:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > So Robert, why exactly did you start posting this stuff again? > > What was the thought process? Well, I wrote a book about scientists and their concept of relativity as opposed to reality, and paid a self-publishing company to publish the book, but they just took the money and did not publish it, using behavior they had no doubt learned from scientists. So then I started discussing relativity with scientists in a science forum in Amazon.com because I thought maybe Amazon would be a better company to get to publish the book, and then I decided to post again in sci.physics.relativity to see what was being discussed here. As I suspected, nothing is being discussed here.
From: rbwinn on 18 Jun 2010 08:53 On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > > >> [...] > > >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of > >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way imaginable. > >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t. > > >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols devoid of physical > >> meaning? > > > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an identity in > > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S. > > No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S and t' is the > time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two times are always > the same. > > Do you disagree ? Certainly, I disagree. Experiment shows that a clock in S' is slower. If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do you think they would have continued to claim that the two times were always the same? No, we know from history that both Isaac Newton and Galileo were intelligent men who could adapt to changes in scientific concepts proven by experiment. I gave the problem years ago that scientists refuse to discuss. An astronaut is in orbit around the earth. The clock in his satellite is slower than an identical clock on earth. A scientist on earth observes one orbit of the satellite and computes its speed by dividing the length of an orbit by the time shown on a clock on earth for an orbit. Now the astronaut computes his speed using the altimeter and clock in his satellite. The altimeter gives the same altitude for his satellite that a scientist on the ground observes. But the clock is slower. What do scientists in sci.physics.relativity say the speed that the astronaut will compute will be? Why, of course, he will get the same speed the scientist on the ground will get because the Lorentz equations or General Relativity show the same absolute velocity computed from the satellite or from the ground. So let's look at the mathematics again. Clock on the ground faster than the clock in the satellite. Altitude of the satellite the same seen from the ground or from the satellite. Reality would indicate that the astronaut would get a faster speed than the scientist on the ground. No, say scientists in sci.physics.relativity. The equations of Einstein relativity say that the absolute velocity is the same calculated from the satellite or from the ground, so that is the way it is. How does it happen? That is not going to be discussed. Scientists in sci.physics.relativity do not discuss anything that was not discussed in class at school. And Muslim jihadist suicide bombers do not discuss anything that was not taught in jihadist training. People who have been to school are very disciplined.
From: rbwinn on 18 Jun 2010 09:07
On Jun 16, 5:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? This is dead serious, eric. |