Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 21:36 On Jun 15, 2:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:27b77bb9-8131-4364-a5d1-e6873a7e2dac(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 13, 7:50 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 10:12 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > > > > On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > | 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. > > > > > Liar. > > > > Hafele Keating experiment. > > >http://www.search.com/reference/Problematic_physics_experiments > > > GPS including Sagnac and Pound Rebka have some credibility. > > > Attempts to show that real clock mechanisms can mimic > > the Einstein Synchronisation procedure are always > > entertaining so don't let me discourage you. ;-) > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w... > > > Sue... > > > > You're the liar. > > Well, since you are so entertained, you might want to show what you > find so entertaining. The Galilean transformation equations are the > correct equations because they are the only transformation equations > that do not have a length contraction. This is difficult to explain > to people who have been taught that a length contraction is necessary. > Robert B. Winn > ============================================= > Produce the evidence to show that "a clock in moving frame of reference > S' is slower than a clock in S which shows t" as you claim, Winn, and > we'll be entertained. Well, the experiment I remember best concerning this was where they put a clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard rocket in 1958 and said that it slowed down exactly as predicted by Einstein's equations. I just go by what scientists say they have done and what the results were.
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 21:43 On Jun 15, 3:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ef70417f-5f09-4f25-9cf3-bbb9760e5548(a)q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 7:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > x'=x-vt > >> > y'=y > >> > z'=z > >> > t'=t > > >> Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is. > > >> > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' is > >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t > > >> As measured be S. Hence refuting Galilean transforms > > >> > According to the Galilean > >> > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. > > >> No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t. And so > >> Galilean > >> transforms are wrong > > >> > Time on > >> > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the > >> > Galilean transformation equations are to be used. > > >> They can't. Because then you are no longer using Galilean transforms > > >> [snip nonsense that follows] > > > Why are you no longer using the Galilean transformation equations? > > YOU aren't. No me. Its your nonsense, not mine. > > > The Galilean transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same. > > There are NO slower clocks in Galilean transforms .. time is the same > everywhere. > > Learn some physics .. or how to understand maths. Or both. I bought a clock that lost ten minutes per day a couple of months ago in Walgreen's Drug Store. Using the Galilean transformation equations and that clock, I can do whatever can be done with a clock that keeps accurate time. First you have to convert Walgreen's drug store clock time to standard time. It is no different with the slower clock scientists say they have discovered in S' caused by motion. You have to convert the time of that clock to t'=t in order to use the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same. Sorry, that is just the way it is. You claim to have some mathematics and physics that disproves this. Let's see your math and physics.
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 21:55 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d4c02153-8d91-46ae-b074-cb6cba68b01c(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 15, 2:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:27b77bb9-8131-4364-a5d1-e6873a7e2dac(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 13, 7:50 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 10:12 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: >> >> > > On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > > >news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> > > > | 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. >> >> > > > Liar. >> >> > > Hafele Keating experiment. >> >> >http://www.search.com/reference/Problematic_physics_experiments >> >> > GPS including Sagnac and Pound Rebka have some credibility. >> >> > Attempts to show that real clock mechanisms can mimic >> > the Einstein Synchronisation procedure are always >> > entertaining so don't let me discourage you. ;-) >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w... >> >> > Sue... >> >> > > You're the liar. >> >> Well, since you are so entertained, you might want to show what you >> find so entertaining. The Galilean transformation equations are the >> correct equations because they are the only transformation equations >> that do not have a length contraction. This is difficult to explain >> to people who have been taught that a length contraction is necessary. >> Robert B. Winn >> ============================================= >> Produce the evidence to show that "a clock in moving frame of reference >> S' is slower than a clock in S which shows t" as you claim, Winn, and >> we'll be entertained. > > > > Well, the experiment I remember best concerning this was where they > put a clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard rocket in 1958 and said that > it slowed down exactly as predicted by Einstein's equations. I just > go by what scientists say they have done and what the results were. Gad you agree that Einstein equations (ie Lorentz transforms) are experimentally shown to be valid. That same experiment REFUTES Galilean transforms. They don't work (except approximately at v << c)
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 21:56 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6d5da435-3595-497f-b480-2586e3daaa16(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 15, 3:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ef70417f-5f09-4f25-9cf3-bbb9760e5548(a)q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 7:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > x'=x-vt >> >> > y'=y >> >> > z'=z >> >> > t'=t >> >> >> Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is. >> >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' >> >> > is >> >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t >> >> >> As measured be S. Hence refuting Galilean transforms >> >> >> > According to the Galilean >> >> > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. >> >> >> No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t. And so >> >> Galilean >> >> transforms are wrong >> >> >> > Time on >> >> > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the >> >> > Galilean transformation equations are to be used. >> >> >> They can't. Because then you are no longer using Galilean transforms >> >> >> [snip nonsense that follows] >> >> > Why are you no longer using the Galilean transformation equations? >> >> YOU aren't. No me. Its your nonsense, not mine. >> >> > The Galilean transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same. >> >> There are NO slower clocks in Galilean transforms .. time is the same >> everywhere. >> >> Learn some physics .. or how to understand maths. Or both. > > I bought a clock that lost ten minutes per day Irrelevant. Transforms are not about faulty clocks. They are about what the time REALLY IS at the location. Ie what a CORRECTLY working clock would show [snip irrelevance]
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 21:59
On Jun 15, 3:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ff4c8b77-ca8b-45a1-9d04-4e614e476447(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 5:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:8b250e8c-7689-460d-83b3-e25bfb5c83e1(a)11g2000prw.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 13, 7:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > x'=x-vt > >> >> > y'=y > >> >> > z'=z > >> >> > t'=t > > >> >> Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is. > > >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' > >> >> > is > >> >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t > > >> >> As measured be S. Hence refuting Galilean transforms > > >> >> > According to the Galilean > >> >> > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. > > >> >> No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t. And so > >> >> Galilean > >> >> transforms are wrong > > >> >> > Time on > >> >> > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the > >> >> > Galilean transformation equations are to be used. > > >> >> They can't. Because then you are no longer using Galilean transforms > > >> >> [snip nonsense that follows] > > >> > What do you mean I am no longer using the Galilean transformation > >> > equations? > > >> > x'=x-vt > >> > y'=y > >> > z'=z > >> > t'=t > > >> Because you said you are not using t' = t .. you are using something > >> else. > >> So it is no longer a Galilean transform. You can't throw away your cake > >> and > >> eat it too. > > >> > Which one of the equations is not a Galilean transformation equation? > > > I am using t'=t. t is time on a clock in S. t'=t is what is known in > > algebra as an identity. t' is time on a clock in S. Time on a clock > > in S' is not t'. > > Yes it is .. if you are using Galilean Transforms. It is is something OTHER > than t', then you are NO LONGER using Galilean Transforms. Simple. > > > It has to be shown by some other variable. > > So you are no longer using t' for the time. And so you are no longer using > Galilean Transforms. As I said. You have made up some DIFFERENT transform > instead that treats time differently. > > That's fine if you want to do that ... but do not LIE by claiming you are > using Galilean transforms. A bit of honesty goes a long way. A bit of > physics goes even further. Start with the honesty. Here are the Galilean transformation equations. Honest. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t Notice the equation that says t'=t. That kind of equation is called an identity in algebra. What it means is that the time in S' for transforming coordinates is t', and that t' is the time that is on a clock in S because t'=t. You might want to try practicing with coordinates in S and S' using t'=t. I am sure you will find that the coordinates do transform. So the Galilean transformation equations do not transform coordinates in any way to a clock in S' that scientists say they have found to be slower than a clock in S. You cannot use the time on that clock as t' because t'=t, the time on the faster clock in S. But the slower clock in S' shows light to be traveling at c=300,000 km/sec. Surely it must be t'. Not according to the Galilean transformation equations. t'=t, the time on a clock in S. But the fact that time on a clock in S' shows light to be traveling at c gives us a way to solve for time on that clock from the Galilean transformation equations cn'=ct-vt where n' is time on the slower clock in S'. n'=t(1-v/c) As you seem to recognize, n' cannot be used with the Galilean transformation equations. In order to transform coordinates, you have to convert n' to t' and use the Galilean transformation equation, t'=t for time coordinates in S and S'. Since you claim so vehemently that you have found an error in this reasoning, go ahead and show the error you think you have found. |