Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: Igor on 14 Jun 2010 13:04 On Jun 13, 10:53 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] Winn has been beating his head against the wall here in sci.physics.relativity for years now. He's clueless, but harmless.
From: Androcles on 14 Jun 2010 13:28 "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message news:b015d522-ce1a-4352-9379-53429841411a(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > [snip nonsense that follows] Mission accomplished.
From: eric gisse on 14 Jun 2010 22:20 blackhead wrote: [...] > Thanks for the advice. I know what he's like, but I also think his > replies do usefully question people's understanding of relativity, > including mine, or whether we're merely regurgitating what we've read > from a book, which we are sometimes, if not most. I also think the > threads are useful for other people to get new information from. > >> - Show quoted text - Androcles doesn't understand algebra or calculus. Arguing with him has no point.
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 05:13 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. > > > HafeleKeating 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/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation > > 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
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 05:15
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? The Galilean transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same. |