Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2010 16:19 On Jun 19, 12:42 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 > >> >> >> >> >> >Galileantransformation 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 > >> >Galileantransformation equations. > > >> So a correct clock in S' will show the time in S' which it t'. And t' = > >> t' > >> according toGalileantransforms. 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 aGalileantransform tells you) > > > Sorry, inertial, the equation is t'=t. > > Yes it is. Typo on my part. So you agree thatGalileantransforms 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,Galileantransforms are refuted. > Wrong. Need replacing. No, t'=t only refers to two frames of reference, S and S'.
From: eric gisse on 19 Jun 2010 17:30 rbwinn wrote: > 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. See bobby? Not a moment's thought from you. >> >> > 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. My behavior represents me and not much else, bobby. Just like I don't believe your behavior represents the collective group of welders out there. > So I would not expect that a > book showing mistakes in Einstein's theory would sell many copies. Not at all true, had you in fact found mistakes in anything other than your understanding of the subject. Amateurs think they find mistakes all the time. > However, I am looking forward to the future. Once this technocracy > has failed and scientists are no longer seen as leaders of mankind, Scientists aren't seen as the leaders of mankind now. How delusional are you? > 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. Bobby, I ask this again: why are you, a welder, so abundantly concerned with relativity?
From: rbwinn on 19 Jun 2010 17:49 On Jun 19, 2:30 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > 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. > > See bobby? Not a moment's thought from you. > > > > >> > 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. > > My behavior represents me and not much else, bobby. Just like I don't > believe your behavior represents the collective group of welders out there. > > > So I would not expect that a > > book showing mistakes in Einstein's theory would sell many copies. > > Not at all true, had you in fact found mistakes in anything other than your > understanding of the subject. Amateurs think they find mistakes all the > time. > > > However, I am looking forward to the future. Once this technocracy > > has failed and scientists are no longer seen as leaders of mankind, > > Scientists aren't seen as the leaders of mankind now. How delusional are > you? > > > 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. > > Bobby, I ask this again: why are you, a welder, so abundantly concerned with > relativity? I figured out relativity using the Galilean transformation equations.
From: eric gisse on 19 Jun 2010 21:25 rbwinn wrote: [...] >> Bobby, I ask this again: why are you, a welder, so abundantly concerned >> with relativity? > > I figured out relativity using the Galilean transformation equations. Two things come to mind: 1) That's not relativity 2) You didn't answer my question
From: Inertial on 20 Jun 2010 05:05
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9fa7f53a-cbf2-4cd0-ac45-69c6821cc47e(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 9:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7c0e24b6-8c14-472a-bbfc-e8d4408b6d8c(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 >> >> >> thanGalilean >> >> >> transforms. Are you not clever enough for that? >> >> >> >> [snip irrelevance] >> >> >> >> Nothing left to comment on >> >> >> > Anything else would have a length contraction. >> >> >> No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length >> >> contraction. >> >> You could also write transforms with length contraction and still with >> >> t' >> >> = >> >> t. >> >> >> > Sorry. >> >> >> No .. you're not >> >> >> > TheGalilean >> >> > transformation equations are the only transformation equations that >> >> > do >> >> > not have a length contraction. >> >> >> No, they aren't the only ones. But regardless, they are proven to be >> >> WRONG >> >> by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t >> >> ofGalilean >> >> transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the same >> >> rate >> >> and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or those >> >> reading them) are moving. That is what t' = t means. So you cannot >> >> havea >> >> valid transform with t' = t in it. You need to CHANGE theGalilean >> >> transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent >> >> with >> >> know experimental evidence. Your denial of those facts is your >> >> problem. >> >> Claiming otherwise is a lie. >> >> > I don't use clocks. >> >> Liar .. you explicitly talked about clocks >> >> > I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative >> > to S. >> >> Then that is your clock >> >> > For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute >> > relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and every >> > minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S. >> >> Then that is your clock >> >> > Or I can >> > put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will line >> > up with a single mark on S'. >> >> Then that is your clock >> >> > That is what I mean by t'=t. >> >> It doesn't matter what YOU mean .. it matters what it means in terms of >> theGalileantransforms (which you claim to be using). It means time is >> the >> same, and ticking rates the same, regardless of position or velocity. >> And >> as we know that is NOT the case, we know thatGalileantransforms are >> wrong. >> >> > We are >> > going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists. >> >> No .. they show you to be wrong. Here's a tip: either get used to being >> wrong, or learn physics. > > Well, I did learn the physics of this. Unlikely > Now you have said that my > marks on S' and S constitute a clock, two clocks, to be exact, one > showing t and one showing t'. If you have something going at a known velocity in a given frame, then you can use the distance it travels in that frame as a clock .. yes. > If you see nothing wrong with these two clocks, then perhaps we > might proceed. > Now you have some sort of device in S' which repeats itself at > some rate which is not synchronized with t and t'. So its not a clock .. just some arbitrary thing > You want to call > the rate of that device t'. Why? That makes no sense .. t' is the time in S' .. not a ticking rate. > You cannot do that because the variable > t' is already taken to denote the rate of advance of the marks on S > relative to a single mark on S'. No ... t' is the time in S'. It doesn't mean it is the marks on S' .. those marks (along with some moving object) let you calculate the time. > There is an axiom of algebra which > forbids the use of the same variable to show rates which differ from > each other, even if they are said to be measuring the same thing. These ones aren't. Anf if theyu differ, then its not the same thing > If > you are going to call the rate of the device in S' by the variable t', You don't. > then you first have to convert that rate of measurement so that it > agrees with the marks on S and S', which you agreed were clocks. We > know one thing about the rate of the device in S'. It shows the speed > of light to be 300,000 km/sec as counted by the device. Just as do the clock we have in S and S' already. Inventing some new device that does NOT keep correct time isn't going to be useful for working out a correct speed. > That means > that during a second counted by the device, light proceeds 300,000 > km. No .. during one second of time t' it proceeds that far. You said this other device is not correct (not synched with the correct time in S') So you cannot use it to calculate the speed. > We can show how this relates to t'=t by the fact that light in S > proceeds 300,000 km/sec of time measured by t in that frame of > reference. And 300,000 km/sec in S' using distance travelled and time t' > In other words using the correct equations for Einstein's > analysis of the situation, > > x'=x-vt > cn'=ct-vt > > where n' is time as counted by the device in S'. n' isn't time .. its some other ticking rate that doesn't show correct time. So it doesn't give you a speed of c. Try again |