Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 14:02 On 25 June, 08:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:38 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. At one time it was a very respected form of > > mathematics. Back in the day when algebra was in use, a mathematician > > who did not believe an algebraic term could use mathematics to > > disprove the offending term by using algebra. Today using algebra to > > disprove algebra is called circular reasoning.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Algebra is not physics, Robert. One cannot use algebra to determine, > prove, or disprove the truth of a physical statement. > > PD Well, I have all of these books by Isaac Newton and Galileo that I need to get rid of, right?
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 14:13 On 26 June, 06:48, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > clock, the atoms and molecules that compose the clock slow down. > > Who said you had to change its motion? You don't need to. You can build it > and set it in its own frame. > > > In > > order to make a clock like the one you propose, you would have to > > construct it in such a way as to run faster according to its > > velocity. > > Wrong. You just make it show the correct time in its own frame .. it is AT > REST in that frame. Gallilean transforms tell us it would then be showing > the correct time in EVERY frame. Experiments show that that doesn't happen > in reality. > > > Ordinary clocks are going to run slower according to their > > velocities. > > Why would all clocks run slower? Time is the same everywhere (according to > yourGalileantransforms). > > > The first experiment I saw with regard to this phenomenon was in > > 1958 when they put a cesium clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard > > rocket. > > And that refutesGalileantransforms. Time is the same everywhere? Well, no, Inertial. Time never was the same everywhere. Mars does not rotate at the same rate the earth rotates. You could describe the solar system using time based on a day on Mars or on a day on earth. Or you could say that a solar day is the most important measurement of time. But scientists chose to measure time by transitions of a cesium isotope molecule. The problem they have is that if a cesium isotope molecule is moved, its transitions slow down. So we can use the Galilean transformation equations this way: x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t A cesium isotope molecule that is not moving shows t'. A clock which has time based on the transitions of a cesium isotope molecule will slow down if it is moved. Once the clock is moved it no longer show t'. It shows a slower time, n'.
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 14:18 On Jun 26, 1:01 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Then don't ask for proof of assertions, and don't whine that people that don't give you a reply that suits you don't have anything to offer.
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 14:19 On Jun 26, 1:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 June, 08:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 10:38 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. At one time it was a very respected form of > > > mathematics. Back in the day when algebra was in use, a mathematician > > > who did not believe an algebraic term could use mathematics to > > > disprove the offending term by using algebra. Today using algebra to > > > disprove algebra is called circular reasoning.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Algebra is not physics, Robert. One cannot use algebra to determine, > > prove, or disprove the truth of a physical statement. > > > PD > > Well, I have all of these books by Isaac Newton and Galileo that I > need to get rid of, right? Not at all. They don't prove things with algebra, either. They use measurements. But which books by Newton and Galileo do you have? This way I can't point this out to you in some detail. PD
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 14:24
On 26 June, 07:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. TheGalilean > > transformation equations are algebra. > > The last two sentences are wrong, Robert. Both the Lorentz andGalileantransformations are equations that refer to *measurements*. > The algebra is secondary. > > > > > Algebra is not arbitrary. What do you think algebra is? |