Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 19 Jun 2010 01:59 rbwinn wrote: [...] Guess you couldn't respond to what I wrote. > I did not try to be missed. I just stopped posting to > sci.physics.relativity because there was nothing further to discuss at > that time. Scientists Define "scientist", bobby. I think your rendition would be give much insight. > had all said that they were committed to > promotion of the Lorentz equations and a length contraction, so what > was there further to talk about? Since you've been repeating the same thing for more than a decade, I would argue that there's nothing to talk about because you do not listen. I like how you do not even consider why scientists accept length contraction, or that there's more to science than that. > I am not concerned about getting money back. Attempting to > publish a book was a scientific experiment. It went the way I > expected it to go. Now I am going to attempt it again using a more > visible self-publishing company. I find it rather odd that you are so concerned about what scientists think and do. Why is that, bobby? You are a welder. When you publish your book and it is ignored or at best ridiculed like you yourself on here, what then?
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 03:40 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > 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. Then go learn some physics until you agree. > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is > slower. Yes > 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 .. they would probably have come up with something other than Galilean transforms. Are you not clever enough for that? [snip irrelevance] Nothing left to comment on
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 03:42 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b32a301e-9d09-4a36-abfb-c56cb1793fba(a)g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 9:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0e598f70-20d2-4b74-a35f-49051d91c33d(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> So a correct clock in S' will show the time in S' which it t'. And t' = >> t' >> according to Galilean transforms. So there is no slowing of moving >> correct >> clocks (or rather, of measuring a single correct clock from two different >> frames of reference .. which is what a Galilean transform tells you) > > Sorry, inertial, the equation is t'=t. Yes it is. Typo on my part. So you agree that Galilean transforms give you t' = t for any pair of frames of reference .. so time is the same everywhere and regardless of motion. That is what t' = t means. And as we know from experiment that that is NOT the case, Galilean transforms are refuted. Wrong. Need replacing.
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 03:44 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e692b290-3639-4d9c-84d1-2033a670aae9(a)k13g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 16, 10:36 pm, "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 >> >> They are theGalileantransforms. >> >> However, this and your subsequent posts you seen to have no idea what >> such a >> transform means >> >> It means we have two observer frames of reference. S and S', where S' is >> moving at v relative to S in the x-direction. >> >> For any event at a location (x,y,z,t) in the S frame, that same event has >> coordinates (x' = x-vt, y' = y, z' = z, t' = t). >> >> If the events are the ticking of a correctly working clock .. then both >> frames will observer the clock ticks to happen at the same times, so the >> clock ticking rate is the same in both frames, and the clock will show >> the >> correct time in both frames (which is the same). >> >> It also means that if you have two correctly working clocks .. one moving >> in >> S and at rest in S' and the other moving in S' and at rest in S .. both >> clocks will show the same time at all times. >> >> SoGalileantransforms mean that ALL correctly working clocks will show the >> same time readings at the same time regardless of their motion or that of >> their observers, and so must tick at the same rate as well. >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' is >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t. >> >> This means thatGalileantransforms do not apply, as clocks show the same >> time regardless of movement of clock or observer. >> >> [snip rest as it is nonsense] > > If t'=t, then a clock in S ticks at the same time in both frames of > reference. A clock in S' ticks at the same time in both frames of > reference. And both are the same rates, according to Gallielan transforms > The problem you have is that a clock in S' does not tick > at the same time a clock in S ticks. And do you cannot use Galilean transforms > Your statement about the clocks is incorrect. WRONG > A clock that does not > move relative to S will be faster than a clock that moves relative to > S. Not according to Galilean transforms .. all clocks tick at the same rate. Experiment shows that Galilean transforms are incorrect in that prediction. You have two choices. 1) disagree with experimental evidence and say Galilean transforms are correct 2) disagree with Galilean transform and say experimental evidence is correct. Choice 2 is the only correct choice. Why do you not understand this?
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2010 10:27
On Jun 18, 10:59 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > Guess you couldn't respond to what I wrote. > > > I did not try to be missed. I just stopped posting to > > sci.physics.relativity because there was nothing further to discuss at > > that time. Scientists > > Define "scientist", bobby. > > I think your rendition would be give much insight. > > > had all said that they were committed to > > promotion of the Lorentz equations and a length contraction, so what > > was there further to talk about? > > Since you've been repeating the same thing for more than a decade, I would > argue that there's nothing to talk about because you do not listen. > > I like how you do not even consider why scientists accept length > contraction, or that there's more to science than that. > > > I am not concerned about getting money back. Attempting to > > publish a book was a scientific experiment. It went the way I > > expected it to go. Now I am going to attempt it again using a more > > visible self-publishing company. > > I find it rather odd that you are so concerned about what scientists think > and do. Why is that, bobby? You are a welder. > > When you publish your book and it is ignored or at best ridiculed like you > yourself on here, what then? Well, there is little in this world right now that does not have the type of behavior that you represent. So I would not expect that a book showing mistakes in Einstein's theory would sell many copies. However, I am looking forward to the future. Once this technocracy has failed and scientists are no longer seen as leaders of mankind, there will be people who will be trying to determine what went wrong. The existence of a few books which do not promote technocracy written during this modern Dark Ages will be of great benefit to those future people. |