Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:59 On 24 June, 07:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 7:43 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. I just use t'=t in two frames of > > reference, not to explain the entire universe.- Hide quoted text - > > They agree within the precision of the measurements you make. That's > because theGalileantransformation are an excellent *approximation* > to the real thing, especially at the low speeds that welders like to > work with. As I told you before, Robert, feel free to use theGalilean > transforms if they work for you and your needs. Physicists, on the > other hand, sometimes work in domains where theGalileantransforms > don't work well at all, because they don't always agree with > measurments. It's in those cases that they're more careful, where > you're happy to be simple and sloppy. > > PD Well, I have noticed that with regard to people who subscribe to disciplines. In any event, you may have noticed that I only apply the Galilean transformation equations to two frames of reference at a time. When I say t'=t, I am not talking about all clocks in the universe, just to the two references to time that are measuring these equations: x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t Consequently, if I say that t' is time on a clock in S, the equations are satisfied, regardless of what a clock running at a different rate may say. As a scientist, you may not like this, but if so, prove it wrong. Just complaining about an equation does not prove anything.
From: artful on 25 Jun 2010 00:15 On Jun 25, 1:49 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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'. Then label those frames S and S' and it does. My god but you're stupid
From: artful on 25 Jun 2010 00:15 On Jun 25, 1:38 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 June, 19:37, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:2b2812e0-ce59-41c7-bd7b-c9faaecd4eab(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com.... > > > > 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 theGalilean > > > transformation equations. > > > > x'=x-vt > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'=t > > > They are not the ones you use. You post them .. but you don't use them. > > You use your own equaition instead and then try to cheat by using a > > different letter for time (n instead of t). > > It is called algebra. I know what algebra is [snip bullshit from rbwinn] Nothing left
From: artful on 25 Jun 2010 00:18 On Jun 25, 1:46 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes. > Well, I just use the terms as they appear in > the equations. They don't > The equations only require that t'=t, And so correct clocks will always agree. But they don't > and the > conditions of that are met if t'= time on a clock at rest in S. And so correct clocks will always agree. But they don't. > Scientists may have placed other constraints on the equations, Nope [snip bullshit from rbwinn]
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 00:32
artful wrote: [...] > > Then label those frames S and S' and it does. My god but you're > stupid Bobby is exploring the true depths of stupidity. No rush - he's been doing it for more than a decade. He'll be here tomorrow. |