Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 20:41 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > 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. According to theGalilean >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. Time >> > > > on >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if >> > > > the >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used. We call time on >> > > >the >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'. >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows light to be >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'. Therefore, if >> > > > |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then >> >> > > > cn'=ct-vt >> > > > n'=t(1-v/c) >> >> > > > We can now calculate orbits of satellites and planets >> > > > without >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their length >> > > > contraction. For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit around >> > > > the >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec. While a second of time takes place on earth, a >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun. >> >> > > > n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c) >> > > > 1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000) >> > > > t(sun)=1.0001 sec. >> >> > > > Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to verify that >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for gravitation, we >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury. >> >> > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c) >> > > > n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87 km/sec/ >> > > > 300,000km/sec) >> > > > n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec >> >> > > > So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on a clock >> > > > on >> > > > Mercury. The question now is where would this put the perihelion >> > > > of >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations? >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find that >> > > you've >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've put out >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have learned >> > > something. >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is moving >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring time (as >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as denoted >> > > by >> > > the quantity t'). >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and runs >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B is >> > > measuring time but A is not. >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not measuring >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time. >> >> > > PD >> >> > 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.- Hide quoted text - >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert. It >> really does help to know what the terms mean. > > So how did you "measure" time, PD? With an hourglass, with the sun, > with the moon, with a waterclock? You must have done it some way. We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'. It is implied (in physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly working 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its own location in its own rest frame. so if a duration dt of time at a location has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of exactly dt as well. This is very very simple and basic stuff.
From: rbwinn on 21 Jun 2010 20:58 On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > 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. According to theGalilean > >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. Time > >> > > > on > >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if > >> > > > the > >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used. We call time on > >> > > >the > >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'. > >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean > >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows light to be > >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'. Therefore, if > >> > > > |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then > > >> > > > cn'=ct-vt > >> > > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > >> > > > We can now calculate orbits of satellites and planets > >> > > > without > >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their length > >> > > > contraction. For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit around > >> > > > the > >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec. While a second of time takes place on earth, a > >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun. > > >> > > > n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c) > >> > > > 1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000) > >> > > > t(sun)=1.0001 sec. > > >> > > > Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to verify that > >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for gravitation, we > >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury. > > >> > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c) > >> > > > n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87 km/sec/ > >> > > > 300,000km/sec) > >> > > > n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec > > >> > > > So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on a clock > >> > > > on > >> > > > Mercury. The question now is where would this put the perihelion > >> > > > of > >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations? > > >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find that > >> > > you've > >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've put out > >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have learned > >> > > something. > > >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is moving > >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring time (as > >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as denoted > >> > > by > >> > > the quantity t'). > > >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and runs > >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B is > >> > > measuring time but A is not. > > >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not measuring > >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time. > > >> > > PD > > >> > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert. It > >> really does help to know what the terms mean. > > > So how did you "measure" time, PD? With an hourglass, with the sun, > > with the moon, with a waterclock? You must have done it some way. > > We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'. It is implied (in > physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly working > 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its own > location in its own rest frame. so if a duration dt of time at a location > has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of exactly > dt as well. > > This is very very simple and basic stuff. Uh huh. So what about the marks on S and S'? They are not a clock any more? That did not last long.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 21:11 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:88390667-78fc-43b3-a480-43b63b45f6b2(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > 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. According to >> >> > > > theGalilean >> >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. >> >> > > > Time >> >> > > > on >> >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if >> >> > > > the >> >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used. We call time on >> >> > > >the >> >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'. >> >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean >> >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows light to >> >> > > > be >> >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'. Therefore, if >> >> > > > |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then >> >> >> > > > cn'=ct-vt >> >> > > > n'=t(1-v/c) >> >> >> > > > We can now calculate orbits of satellites and planets >> >> > > > without >> >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their length >> >> > > > contraction. For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit >> >> > > > around >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec. While a second of time takes place on >> >> > > > earth, a >> >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun. >> >> >> > > > n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c) >> >> > > > 1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000) >> >> > > > t(sun)=1.0001 sec. >> >> >> > > > Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to verify >> >> > > > that >> >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for gravitation, >> >> > > > we >> >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury. >> >> >> > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c) >> >> > > > n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87 >> >> > > > km/sec/ >> >> > > > 300,000km/sec) >> >> > > > n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec >> >> >> > > > So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on a >> >> > > > clock >> >> > > > on >> >> > > > Mercury. The question now is where would this put the >> >> > > > perihelion >> >> > > > of >> >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations? >> >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find that >> >> > > you've >> >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've put >> >> > > out >> >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have >> >> > > learned >> >> > > something. >> >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is moving >> >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring time (as >> >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as >> >> > > denoted >> >> > > by >> >> > > the quantity t'). >> >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and runs >> >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B is >> >> > > measuring time but A is not. >> >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not measuring >> >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time. >> >> >> > > PD >> >> >> > 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.- Hide quoted >> >> > text - >> >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert. It >> >> really does help to know what the terms mean. >> >> > So how did you "measure" time, PD? With an hourglass, with the sun, >> > with the moon, with a waterclock? You must have done it some way. >> >> We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'. It is implied (in >> physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly >> working >> 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its own >> location in its own rest frame. so if a duration dt of time at a >> location >> has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of >> exactly >> dt as well. >> >> This is very very simple and basic stuff. > > Uh huh. So what about the marks on S and S'? They are not a clock > any more? That did not last long. I said nothing about those marks. You havea great deal of trouble reading and understanding .. that explains a lot. However .. on the subject of such marks .. marks alone are not a clock (they are a ruler) .. you would also need something moving past those marks at a known rate, from that you can calculate the time. If you have correctly measured distances between the marks (ie measured from a mutually-at-rest observer .. ie the marks are not moving wrt the observer) and have correctly measured the speed of the moving object, then clock will work and be correct. This does NOT change the fact the galilean transforms are proven incorrect by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same time when those clocks are in relative motion.
From: eric gisse on 21 Jun 2010 22:01 Inertial wrote: [...] He does not even understand the symbols he's been posting for the better part of 15 years. C'mon.
From: GogoJF on 21 Jun 2010 22:34
On Jun 21, 9:01 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > [...] > > He does not even understand the symbols he's been posting for the better > part of 15 years. C'mon. Eric, I love your logic. Thank god we can move froward. Look forward to future conversations. |