Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:25 On Jun 25, 6:42 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I've already told you, Robert, that algebra can prove or disprove nothing about the physical nature of the universe. One needs to attach the math to *measurements* to test whether what you're doing with the math has any connection to reality or not. "Just following the math" is a pointless exercise in physics. PD
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:26 On Jun 26, 8:13 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 June, 18:08, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > [...] > > > > I just follow the math, PD. > > > Why that math? You have no training in the subject, so your choice of 'the > > math' is rather arbitrary. > > What do you mean I have no training in the subject. I started out in > a two room school in Montana learning 1+1=2. Then I continued on > through high school. Then I took one year of college. I was taught > mathematics during all of that schooling. > In particular, with regard to this discussion, the math that > applies is algebra. The Lorentz equations are algebra. The Galilean > transformation equations are algebra. The last two sentences are wrong, Robert. Both the Lorentz and Galilean transformations are equations that refer to *measurements*. The algebra is secondary. > Algebra is not arbitrary.
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:29 On Jun 25, 7:00 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So are welders attempting to use Galilean transformations where they do not work at all well. So you see, some welders seem to have the same foibles and goofball tactics that you've sometimes observed with college graduates. This should caution you about being prejudicial about classes of people, no? PD
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:31 On Jun 26, 8:26 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 June, 18:06, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > I know there is no length contraction. Well, Robert, you claim to KNOW something but without the benefit of direct observation in cases where the length contraction is advertised to be easily measurable. Thus you are claiming to KNOW something you really don't know anything about. This would be like claiming to KNOW all about somebody without ever having met them. It would be ... idiotic. > That means that t' is time on > a clock in S. Nothing to struggle with there that I can see.
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 14:01
On 25 June, 08:36, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:35 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you have made an assertion. Go ahead and prove what you said. > > > > Proof does not come in the form of an argument on newsgroups, Robert. > > > Not in science. > > > In science, the proof is in documented experiments, which are > > > published and available to you if you will stick out your thumb by the > > > side of the road and hitch a ride to a library. > > > > You've requested that this information be served up on a silver > > > platter directly to you at your convenience. I'm sorry, Robert, but > > > you're not entitled to that. You have to seek it out like everyone > > > else does. > > > > PD > > > Libraries are full of nonsense. If you cannot talk to people and get > > some kind of reply, it is proof that they have nothing to offer. > > That's not so, Bobby. It's just an indicator that most people aren't > willing to cater to your whims and won't indulge your profound > laziness. > > I think you'll find, Bobby, that people switch from giving you > information to chiding you about your laziness, when you take the > approach you've taken. Now, you can tell yourself all day that people > don't have anything to offer if they don't give it to you when you > whine for it, but that's just deluding yourself to excuse your > laziness. I really don't have much sympathy for what you tell yourself > to excuse your shortcomings. > > PD I don't need any information. I already found the mistake scientists have been making. |