Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 21:22 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2fb26069-eec4-4bcf-bac0-e9e378746f63(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On 23 June, 07:01, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 - > > Well, there is the difference between science and reality. Reality is > more than a flim-flam. > It actually exists. And you are totally ignoring it .. you're a liar and a charlatan
From: Inertial on 23 Jun 2010 21:23 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:47bedc16-9823-469d-8c63-87bddcf10145(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 23 June, 06:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. TheGalileantransformation >> > 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. > > They agree when I use them. You don't use them .. you use a different transform. You LIE when you say you use Galilean transforms. Basically you are nothing but a liar and a fraud > I just use t'=t in two frames of > reference, not to explain the entire universe. So which frames does it NOT explain?
From: rbwinn on 23 Jun 2010 22:17 On 23 June, 17:34, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9130d384-3f1b-4690-86a8-f4931c9e47a6(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 23 June, 07:11, "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 > > >> 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 theGalilean > >> >> transformation equations.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > I say they remain the same distance apart whether S' is moving at 1 m/ > > yr relative to S or it is moving at .99999c. > > Then you are wrong. That then would not give you a different in clock rates > that we know happens. We are not talking about clock rates. We are talking about movement of S' relative to S.
From: rbwinn on 23 Jun 2010 22:19 On 23 June, 17:33, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:819687c3-593e-45a4-a705-0005da870e4e(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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, theGalileantransformation equations I use are not proven > > incorrect. > > Yes .. they are. > > > They account for the difference in rate of time between a > > clock in S and A clock in S'. > > No .. they don't. If they DO then they are NOTGalileantransforms. How > about a bit of honesty from you here .. and admit you are using a different > transform togalilean. Well, show the difference between these equations and the Galilean transformation equations. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t
From: rbwinn on 23 Jun 2010 22:24
On 23 June, 18:21, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bdf2fac8-9ead-4341-b213-bcaba14a5541(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > On 22 June, 21:36, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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. > > >> Galileantransforms say they would, Lorentz transforms say they do not. > > >> Galileantransforms 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 whatGalileantransforms 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.Galileantransforms 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: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > Well, anyone who is as committed to believing a fairy tale as you are > > should be allowed to believe it. > > Liar > > > Here is the way I work the > > problem. > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=Z > > t'=t > > > The last equation shows how time coordinates are transformed in > > theGalileantransformation equations. > > There is no change in time due to motion or position .. so all correctly > working clocks will alwyas show the same tiem > > This is REFUTED by experiment > > > The marks on S' align with the > > marks on S the entire lengths of S and S'. That means that when one > > mark in S aligns with a mark in S', they all do. This happens > > whenever the marks pass one another, whatever the velocity of S' > > relative to S. If a clock in S shows t, it also shows t' because > > t'=t in theGalileantransformation equations. > > Yeup .. and we know that correctly working clocks are affected by relative > motion .. So the above is REFUTED > > > Scientists tell us that a clock in S' is slower than a clock in > > S. Time on that clock cannot be t' because t' is already defined to > > be t, the time on a clock in S. So we call time on the slower clock > > in S' by n'. > > WRONG it is CORRECT clocks that work differently. Not malfunctioning ones > > [snip nonsense from rbwinn lies] If time on correct clocks is slower than t, then it is slower than t' because t'=t. |