Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 10:11 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a209036c-78a9-413e-8216-0bfe54ef4884(a)q29g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > 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. No .. he's ok on that one, as he is referring to two DIFFERENT sets of marks. The marks at rest in S are 10m apart in S The marks at rest in S' are 10m apart in S' If that is what he is saying, that's fine If he says the BOTH sets of marks are 10m apart in BOTH frames, then he is wrong >> 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 12:25 On Jun 23, 9:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a209036c-78a9-413e-8216-0bfe54ef4884(a)q29g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > No .. he's ok on that one, as he is referring to two DIFFERENT sets of > marks. > > The marks at rest in S are 10m apart in S > > The marks at rest in S' are 10m apart in S' > > If that is what he is saying, that's fine No he's not fine. Because he then says the marks will line up as they pass each other. And they will not. > > If he says the BOTH sets of marks are 10m apart in BOTH frames, then he is > wrong > > > > >> 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: rbwinn on 23 Jun 2010 20:11 On 21 June, 18:11, "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, the Galilean transformation equations I use are not proven incorrect. They account for the difference in rate of time between a clock in S and A clock in S'.
From: rbwinn on 23 Jun 2010 20:12 On 22 June, 17:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 theGalilean > > transformation equations. > > Wrong > > 2 right .. 4 wrong. Fail. Try agian No need. That did the job.
From: rbwinn on 23 Jun 2010 20:14
On 23 June, 06:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 theGalilean > > transformation equations.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Well, you have made an assertion. Go ahead and prove what you said. |