Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 25 Jun 2010 19:25 On 25 June, 04:15, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a crit : > > > > > > > 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. > > You do have issues with length contraction because you have a very small > penis, don't you? I know how to do arithmetic. That does not mean I have issues.
From: rbwinn on 25 Jun 2010 19:42 On 25 June, 08:42, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:48 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > It's not a matter of belief, Robert. It's a matter of *measurement*. > > Now you may *choose* to say, "To hell with measurements if > measurements suggest I should believe in something I don't want to > believe." This is the approach that is taken by many creationists, who > choose what to believe first and then sift through the measurements to > select the ones that support what they want to believe. That's fine if > you want to act like a creationist, Robert. To a scientist, though, > that is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. > > PD I just follow the math, PD.
From: rbwinn on 25 Jun 2010 19:45 On 25 June, 06:12, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5d6195d8-8d38-47ac-b25c-db08b06efe8d(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > On 24 June, 21:15, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > > I am not so stupid I believe in a length contraction. > > You are way too stupid to even undersatnd what it means > > > t'=t applies to > > the velocity of S' relative to S, > > Nope .. it doesn't apply to that at all > > > and that is all it applies to. > > Wrong > > > If > > you have a slower clock, that clock is not showing t'. > > And its not a correct clock then ... DERRRR. But we know that CORRECT > clocks tick at different rates when measured by relatively moving > observers.. hence refuting t'=t All that shows is that there is not a clock in S' that shows t'. t'=t. t is time on a clock in S. Well, if you have a clock running at some other rate, you need to use some other variable for time on that clock.
From: rbwinn on 25 Jun 2010 20:00 On 25 June, 08:50, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 June, 07:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > >Galileantransformation equations to two frames of reference at a > > time. > > And depending on the precision of your measurements of x, y, z, t, x', > y', z', t', and how big v is, those transformations will provide you > sufficient accuracy to work well enough. After all, 1.002 inches +/- > 0.003 inches and 1.004 inches +/- 0.002 inches are EQUAL to the > precision of those numbers. > > But in other cases, you will find that those transformations do not > work well at all, and there is no way the equality can be believed. > > > 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. > > Well, you can say that all you want, Bobby, but then you aren't using > theGalileantransformations, because theGalileantransformations are > more than algebraic equations. In theGalileantransformations, the > variables actually have a specific meaning, otherwise they are no > longer theGalileantransformations. (This is what marks the > difference between physics and algebra. In algebra, you can say the > variables stand for anything you want them to stand for. In physics, > you cannot.) > > > As a scientist, you may not like this, but if so, prove it > > wrong. Just complaining about an equation does not prove anything. > > I'm not complaining about anything, Bobby. I'm just making a simple > statement that the variables in the transformation mean something > specific in physics, and that those transformations turn out not to > work so well in a variety of circumstances, and so I'm not inclined to > use something that does not work well. I would not use a hammer to > drive a deck screw, either, even if there were nothing wrong with the > hammer. > > PD I know a psychologist who was trying to drill through a board with an electric drill, and he was having great difficulty. He said to himself, This drill bit is obviously very dull, so he applied more pressure, and after a long difficult time he was able to get the hole drilled completely through the board, although it was more burned than drilled. Then he discovered that he had drilled completely through a board with the drill running in reverse. College graduates are certainly interesting people.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 21:06
rbwinn wrote: [...] > I know a psychologist who was trying to drill through a board with an > electric drill, and he was having great difficulty. He said to > himself, This drill bit is obviously very dull, so he applied more > pressure, and after a long difficult time he was able to get the hole > drilled completely through the board, although it was more burned than > drilled. > Then he discovered that he had drilled completely through a > board with the drill running in reverse. Compare and contrast with Robert B. Winn, the welder by trade, who has spent 15 years discussing concepts he does not understand. Observe as he struggles mightily with the basic question of 'what is t'?'. > College graduates are certainly interesting people. As opposed to people like Robert B. Winn who are proud of not knowing things. |