Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:12 On Jun 26, 10:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > > > 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. Well, if you look at what we were just talking about, it's a bit of an idiotic thing to claim to know something for which you do not have direct evidence. Don't you think so, Robert? Why would you be so insistent on doing something idiotic? PD
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:14 On Jun 26, 11:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Well, that seems a little unfair. So facts can only be used by > scientists? Facts are open to independent confirmation, Robert. You claim to know things but without the benefit of facts that are open to independent confirmation. That's a little boneheaded, don't you think so too? PD
From: PD on 28 Jun 2010 10:17 On Jun 26, 4:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 12:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:26 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 June, 07:29, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 useGalileantransformations 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 > > > > TheGalileantransformation equations seem to me to work just fine. > > > What problem were you having with them? > > > I've already told you, Robert. They may work just fine with the > > measurements you wish to do, at the precision with which you measure > > them. > > Physicists often use them too as a handy approximation. But they also > > have to deal with many situations where they do not work at all well. > > > On the other hand, you seem to be ok just as long as they appear to be > > legitimate algebraic equations and just as long as they fit your > > preconceived notions about the world. You don't seem to worry much at > > all about whether measurements play a role in their usage or not. This > > is where what you do with them becomes barely discernible from > > whittling a stick with a pocket knife. > > > PD > > I don't worry at all. So you want to talk about measurements, just > choose the ones you want to talk about. The ones that are documented in the library, Robert. Those are the ones. I don't really care to talk about them with you much at all, especially since you aren't interested in looking at them. You seem to think that measurements aren't to be believed. That's fine for you, Robert, but it does make what you say completely irrelevant to science. And because of that, we won't really be *discussing* anything. Instead, you will likely continue to make foolish statements, and I will continue to comment on how foolish they are and why. PD
From: rbwinn on 28 Jun 2010 23:42 On Jun 27, 5:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On 26 June, 22:48, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > > >> [...] > > >> > Well, I know there is not a length contraction, if that is what you > >> > are talking about. > > >> Since you 'know' about as much about length contraction as you do quantum > >> tunneling, do you also 'know' that does not exist as well? > > > I have no idea what you call quantum tunneling. The Europeans dug a > > tunnel under the English channel. Is it something like that? > > You have no idea what length contraction is either, yet you retain a strong > opinion on it. Why is that? I know what length contraction is. It is shown in the equations that you are using.
From: rbwinn on 28 Jun 2010 23:43
On Jun 28, 7:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 10:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > 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. > > Well, if you look at what we were just talking about, it's a bit of an > idiotic thing to claim to know something for which you do not have > direct evidence. Don't you think so, Robert? Why would you be so > insistent on doing something idiotic? > > PD Well, I do have direct evidence. |