Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:46 On 23 June, 19:40, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3de79bbe-3e03-4adf-a4f9-e425dfa8754e(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > Wrong. A correct clock at rest in S shows time t .. by DEFINTION A correct > clock at rest in S' shows time t' .. by DEFINITION. > > So a correct clock at rest in in S cannot by slower then t and a correct > clock at rest in S' cannot by slower than t'. > > HOWEVER, what we find is that a correct clock at rest in S, that shows t', > runs slower than t. So we lets use T' as the clock time shown on a correct > clock in S' > > T' = t ... which says the clock shows the correct time in S'.. s it is a > correct clock > T' <> t .. which is what we observer, the clock runs slow > so t' <> t .. thereforeGalileantransforms wrong By definition, you say. Well, I just use the terms as they appear in the equations. The equations only require that t'=t, and the conditions of that are met if t'= time on a clock at rest in S. Scientists may have placed other constraints on the equations, but they have no explanation for those constraints or any reasons given why they are in effect, so it seems to me the best thing to do is to follow the math. If t'= time on a clock in S, then obviously, t' cannot be used to denote time on a slower clock. Sorry if this is not what you have been doing. If you object to the variable n', then the best thing for you to do would be to prove that n'=t', since that is what you appear to be trying to say.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:48 On 24 June, 07:19, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 7:39 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 23 June, 07:01, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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, there is the difference between science and reality. Reality is > > more than a flim-flam. > > It actually exists. > > Measurement reveals what exists, Robert, not your head. You rely too > much on your head and are too suspicious of measurements. This is how > you lose touch with reality. > > PD I was not the one who lost touch with reality. I am not the one who believes in a length contraction.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:47 On 23 June, 18:22, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 Thank you for your comments, Inertial.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:49 On 23 June, 18:23, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(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 useGalileantransforms. 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? Any frames that are not S and S'.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:51
On 23 June, 17:49, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > On 23 June, 06:59, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... > >> 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. I just use t'=t in two frames of > > reference, not to explain the entire universe. > > If you were dealing with a particle accelerator such as the one > at CERN in Geneva or the Tevatron at Chicagon you would have > noticed that t=t' does not work. > > Given that you are NOT, no surprise you didn't notice anything. > In the way to you loosy job to the mental hospital you can use > t=t', this is good enough. Thank you for your comments, YBM. |