Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2010 20:38 On 22 June, 13:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Well, scientists studying relativity seem to have about a million ways to adjust results to get whatever answer they are trying to get. With regard to time, I have to say they have been flim-flamming the public since Einstein gave them a way to do it in 1905. You probably claim there have been great advances in science. I don't really see it. To start their present flim-flam, they got millions of dollars from the U.S government to construct a bomb during World War II, which they ran up to 2 billion dollars by the end of the war. For that kind of money, they were happy to take one kind of radioactive substance, put it into a cannon and shoot it into another kind of radioactive substance. Scientists all over the world had speculated that this could be done even before the war started. So by doing this, they created the greatest man made explosion witnessed up to that time, and it was all done by believing in a length contraction. So that proves to scientists that there is a length contraction, especially when they can get trillions of more dollars from governments by saying there is a length contraction. Scientists of today cannot explain the length contraction, but their faith in it is absolute because it is the source of all good things, (money), in their lives. All I have to do to provoke an outcry is to post in sci.physics relativity that there is no length contraction, and scientists will start screaming, Blasphemy, blasphemy. Now here is something interesting. The Galilean transformation equations do not show a length contraction.
From: Androcles on 22 Jun 2010 20:53 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e430c702-c02c-4b28-ba75-14d58df5ee75(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On 22 June, 13:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Well, scientists studying relativity ============================================= Bwahahahahahahahahaha! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron Etymology: Late Greek oxymoron, from neuter of oxymoros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + moros foolish Date: 1657 : a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
From: Inertial on 22 Jun 2010 21:18 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e430c702-c02c-4b28-ba75-14d58df5ee75(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 22 June, 13:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Well, scientists studying relativity seem to have about a million ways > to adjust results to get whatever answer they are trying to get. Wrong > With > regard to time, I have to say they have been flim-flamming the public > since Einstein gave them a way to do it in 1905. Wrong > You probably claim there have been great advances in science. I > don't really see it. That you don't see something is not a surprise [snip irrelevant nonsense] > Scientists of today cannot explain the length contraction, Wrong > but > their faith in it is absolute because it is the source of all good > things, (money), in their lives. Wrong > All I have to do to provoke an outcry is to post in sci.physics > relativity that there is no length contraction, and scientists will > start screaming, Blasphemy, blasphemy. No .. they'll just tell you that your logic is wrong. What you claim to be the case is refuted by experimental evidence. It is simply wrong > Now here is something interesting. The Galilean transformation > equations do not show a length contraction. More to the point, they do NOT show time dilation .. and we observe that happening. So they are wrong. You are flogging a dead horse. . and have been for years
From: eric gisse on 22 Jun 2010 22:49 rbwinn wrote: > 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 Those 4 symbols would be the ones you do not understand. You are especially stuck on the '=' symbol.
From: rbwinn on 22 Jun 2010 23:34
On Jun 22, 6:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e430c702-c02c-4b28-ba75-14d58df5ee75(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 22 June, 13:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Well, scientists studying relativity seem to have about a million ways > > to adjust results to get whatever answer they are trying to get. > > Wrong > > > With > > regard to time, I have to say they have been flim-flamming the public > > since Einstein gave them a way to do it in 1905. > > Wrong > > > You probably claim there have been great advances in science. I > > don't really see it. > > That you don't see something is not a surprise > > [snip irrelevant nonsense] > > > Scientists of today cannot explain the length contraction, > > Wrong > > > but > > their faith in it is absolute because it is the source of all good > > things, (money), in their lives. > > Wrong > > > All I have to do to provoke an outcry is to post in sci.physics > > relativity that there is no length contraction, and scientists will > > start screaming, Blasphemy, blasphemy. > > No .. they'll just tell you that your logic is wrong. What you claim to be > the case is refuted by experimental evidence. It is simply wrong > > > Now here is something interesting. TheGalileantransformation > > equations do not show a length contraction. > > More to the point, they do NOT show time dilation .. and we observe that > happening. So they are wrong. > > You are flogging a dead horse. . and have been for years Well, I do not flog horses. I don't need to. Generally, I walk wherever I go. One thing is obvious to me, scientists are perpetrating a flim-flam. So I give them an example, easy to understand, marks every ten meters on S and marks every ten meters on S', and they pretend they do not understand how that could be. Well, OK, show the mathematics that you do not understand. t'=t. You have failed to show any proof whatsoever that this equation applies to anything other than the marks on S and S'. It means that the marks on S are the same distance apart as the marks on S'. When S' moves relative to S, the marks line up with each other the entire lengths of S and S' every time the moving frame of reference moves 10 m. This is true when S' is moving at 1 m. /yr. and it is true when S' is moving at .99999c. You have no mathematics that shows otherwise because you have a time dilation that shows too much time on a clock in S', and consequently you have to compensate by saying there is a length contraction. Sorry, t'=t means there is no length contraction. All you have is a slow clock in S'. |