Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 26 Jun 2010 20:42 rbwinn wrote: > On 26 June, 07:31, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, PD. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
From: eric gisse on 26 Jun 2010 20:46 rbwinn 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. Did I stutter? Is English a second language for you? Are you a bit slow in the head? Unless the answer to one of those is 'yes', the meaning of what I said is abundantly clear. > 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. Wow, a whole one year of college. No wonder you begrudge scientists in general and 'college graduates' specifically. Like I said, you have no training in physics. The most you learned in that 1 year was first semester calculus and most likely it was algebra for the non- science folks. > In particular, with regard to this discussion, the math that > applies is algebra. The Lorentz equations are algebra. The Galilean > transformation equations are algebra. Algebra is not arbitrary. Perhaps you should find a hobby that doesn't require post graduate education to understand it?
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 23:44 On Jun 26, 11:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Well, just the ones available on the computer. Do scientists have a program like net nanny or something that gets rid of Newton and Galileo the way net nanny gets rid of pornography?
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 23:56 On Jun 23, 5:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:738fc32c-1436-4e11-b4cb-d04470f3c12f(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > On 23 June, 09:25, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 23, 9:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >news:a209036c-78a9-413e-8216-0bfe54ef4884(a)q29g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > >> > > On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "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, I was just measuring time with the marks. The marks are ten > >> > >> meters apart on both S and S'. > > >> > > No, they're not. That is a claim that is inconsistent with real > >> > > *measurement*, Robert. > > >> > No .. he's ok on that one, as he is referring to two DIFFERENT sets of > >> > marks. > > >> > The marks at rest in S are 10m apart in S > > >> > The marks at rest in S' are 10m apart in S' > > >> > If that is what he is saying, that's fine > > >> No he's not fine. Because he then says the marks will line up as they > >> pass each other. And they will not. > > >> > If he says the BOTH sets of marks are 10m apart in BOTH frames, then he > >> > is > >> > wrong > > >> > >> Now scientists claim to have two > >> > >> separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'. An > >> > >> observer > >> > >> in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S. An > >> > >> observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on > >> > >> S'. An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same > >> > >> distance apart. > > >> > > No, Robert. Reality is set by what is *measured*. And *measurement* > >> > > says that the marks in S and S' are not the same distance apart. > > >> > >> So we have a difference between reality and science. > >> > >> Continuing on with reality, t'=t. Hey, what do you know? > >> > >> That is the equation for time coordinates in theGalilean > >> > >> transformation equations.- Hide quoted text - > > >> > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > So, PD, prove what you say. But this frame of reference clock is > > handy even in the false mathematics used by scientists. > > Prove the math is false > > > If an > > observer in S measures time by the marks the same way an observer in > > S' measures time by the marks, they both get the same answer > > They both get the same answer in their own frames (ie looking at hte marks > that are at rest in their frame) where there is no contraction > > > even with > > the length contraction. t'=t. > > Wrong. We KNOW from experiment that t' <> t Well,your experiment does not change the Galilean transformation equations. Those equations say t'=t. That means that t' is time on a clock in S because t is time on a clock in S. So if you scientists have another clock that runs slower than t'=t, I am going to call it something other than t'. That is what the axioms of algebra require me to do. You scientists want to believe in a length contraction, go ahead and believe in a length contraction. I don't believe in it.
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 23:59
On Jun 26, 12:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 1:26 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 June, 07:31, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, PD. > > Yes, I certainly am, Robert. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's a > common perception about what you claim. > You are certainly welcome to your own opinion, too, Robert. But an > opinion is different than claiming to KNOW something, especially if > it's a claim about knowing something you don't know anything about. > > PD Well, I know there is not a length contraction, if that is what you are talking about. |