Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2010 14:59 On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 thegalileantransforms are proven incorrect > by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same time > when those clocks are in relative motion. Well, I was just measuring time with the marks. The marks are ten meters apart on both S and S'. Now scientists claim to have two separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'. An observer in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S. An observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on S'. An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same distance apart. So we have a difference between reality and science. Continuing on with reality, t'=t. Hey, what do you know? That is the equation for time coordinates in the Galilean transformation equations.
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2010 15:05 On Jun 21, 7:01 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. How about this one, Eric? t'=t
From: PD on 22 Jun 2010 16:59 On Jun 21, 7:24 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - It depends on what kind of precision I'm looking for, Robert. A wristwatch is fine for some things. A TDC is better for some other things. If you have a decent clock and you measure processes *at rest* relative to the clock, you'll find that there is a consistent result in most cases. If there are uncontrolled factors, this may affect the quality of your results. What is known, though, is if you measure the processes with a clock that is *moving* relative to the process, you may notice a shift in the duration of the process. The "may" depends on the sensitivity of your clock.
From: Inertial on 22 Jun 2010 20:19 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3b98fbac-dd22-4c48-9182-770d86c4f06c(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 thegalileantransforms are proven incorrect >> by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same >> time >> when those clocks are in relative motion. > > Well, I was just measuring time with the marks. The marks are ten > meters apart on both S and S'. Now scientists claim to have two > separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'. Wrong > An observer > in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S. Yes > An > observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on > S'. Yes > An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same > distance apart. Wrong. > So we have a difference between reality and science. Wrong > Continuing on with reality, t'=t. Hey, what do you know? > That is the equation for time coordinates in the Galilean > transformation equations. Wrong 2 right .. 4 wrong. Fail. Try agian
From: Inertial on 22 Jun 2010 20:20
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:75c2b375-27f7-49f4-a099-e6b0eabab582(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 7:01 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. > > How about this one, Eric? t'=t That's the one you don't understand. |