Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: whoever on 23 Jun 2010 00:36 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:af6283d7-12a6-418b-9863-4e68e773fcd0(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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. Then you are deluded. > 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. Nothing wrong with that .. its called a pair of rulers > Well, > OK, show the mathematics that you do not understand. I do understand it. You don't > t'=t. But it doesn't .. because experiment shows that time for a moving object is measured as slower > You have failed to show any proof whatsoever that this equation > applies to anything other than the marks on S and S'. It doesn't apply to marks. It applies to time. And it is proven wrong. > It means that > the marks on S are the same distance apart as the marks on S'. The marks in S are 10m apart in S and the marks in S' are 10m apart in S'. That does not mean that an S observer would measure the moving marks in S' as being 10m apart, or vice versa. Galilean transforms say they would, Lorentz transforms say they do not. Galilean transforms also say that differently moving clocks will by measured as ticking at the same rate, Lorentz transforms say they do not. Experiment confirms the Lorentz prediction. Galillean transforms are refuted. > 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. Nope. That is what Galilean transforms say, and very close to what Lorentz transforms predict at low speeds. > This is true when S' is moving at 1 m. /yr. and it is true when S' > is moving at .99999c. Nope. Its not true in either. The difference though is whether you can measure the difference accurately enough to tell. > You have no mathematics that shows otherwise Wrong. Lorentz transforms predict what we see experimentally perfectly. They give constant speed of light and they give time dilation as we observe. Galilean transforms do not. > 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. There is a length contraction and a time dilation. > Sorry, t'=t means there is no length > contraction. Wrong. It means that the time (and so rates of clocks) is the same .. it doesn't say anything about lengths. > All you have is a slow clock in S'. No .. the clocks in S' is just as correct as the one in S Your score is getting worse .. a big fat ZERO score on that one. Try posting some more lies and nonsense .. I'm sure you will. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: eric gisse on 23 Jun 2010 02:16 whoever wrote: [...] Its' always fun when people try to teach rbwinn. Knowledge just washes over him like a wave on a outcropping of rocks on the beach. The same rocks that were there 15 years ago are still there now, just as on here.
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 09:49 On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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'. No, they're not. That is a claim that is inconsistent with real *measurement*, Robert. > 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. No, Robert. Reality is set by what is *measured*. And *measurement* says that the marks in S and S' are not 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 09:59 On Jun 22, 7:38 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Well, here's the thing, Robert. The measurements are very straightforward. You measure distances with sticks with marks on them or with surveying instruments. You measure time with clocks. If you make those measurements, you find that they do exactly what Einstein says you'll see. Now, some people will look at what they see with their own eyes, and they'll say, "OK, I guess that shows I was wrong." Other people will regard the results with suspicion and say, "You've tricked me somehow. I don't know how you did it, but this can't be right. I don't trust you or any of your kind, and I'm sick and tired of people like you trying to pull the wool over my eyes." I think it's pretty clear what kind of person you are, Robert. > 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, Of course they can, and they've explained it tens of thousands of people to their satisfaction. Perhaps you meant to say that you've not had length contraction explained to you to your satisfaction. This doesn't surprise me, Robert, as you are not satisfied with just about everything. > 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. I think you confuse, Robert, scientists screaming blasphemy with scientists quietly chuckling and remarking that you're an idiot. I think you've puffed yourself up a little too much, thinking that you've had any gadfly influence at all. Even a street clown will attract a crowd, Robert; this doesn't mean that the street clown is anything other than a clown. > Now here is something interesting. The Galilean transformation > equations do not show a length contraction. Of course they don't, Robert. That's one reason they're wrong. They disagree with what's actually measured.
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 10:01
On Jun 22, 10:34 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Oh, it COULD be, Robert. Except it isn't so in reality. Measurement shows this. > 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'.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |