Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 10:04 On Jun 28, 10:43 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, you don't have direct evidence that there is no length contraction. You may have evidence that you cannot measure length contraction with the instruments you choose, under the circumstances that are useful to you. If you chose different circumstances or more precise instruments, however, you'd find that the evidence for length contraction is clear.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 05:19 On Jun 28, 10:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > It sounds like perhaps you are proposing something similar to LET > > In LET, reality isGalilean. Space doesn't contract and time doesn't slow > down. TheGalileantransforms apply. > > However, in that simple 3D galillean universe, what happens is clocks (and > all processes) run slower and rulers (and all matter and fields) contract > due to absolute motion. > > They do so in such a way that the MEASUREMENTS made with such clocks and > rulers are no longer related byGalileantransforms, but by Lorentz > transforms. > > It seems you are proposing the instead, we just have clock running slow so > that the relation ship between what we MEASURE clocks (and processes) to do > is related by > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t(1-v/c) > > Only you are using n for the measured time, there is no need for that. If > you are talking about what is measured, you can just use x,y,z,t. In my first post many years ago, I proposed the very equations you posted. However, they are incorrect. In the Galilean transformation equations, t'=t. t(1-v/c) is just a slower clock as far as the Galilean transformation equations are concerned.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 05:20 On Jun 28, 11:46 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > [...] > > Bobby does not understand the meaning of the variables he is discussing. > There is no point of a higher level discussion than that. Thank you for sharing, Eric.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 05:21 On Jun 27, 5:07 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On 26 June, 22:42, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn 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? > > >> Since you have no understanding of why scientists accept length > >> contraction, I don't see how it is all that unfair. > > > I understand why they accept length contraction. They want to use the > > Lorentz equations. > > Why don't you mention the part about length contraction explaining > observation? What observation would that be, eric?
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 05:23
On Jun 29, 7:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:43 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > No, you don't have direct evidence that there is no length > contraction. > You may have evidence that you cannot measure length contraction with > the instruments you choose, under the circumstances that are useful to > you. If you chose different circumstances or more precise instruments, > however, you'd find that the evidence for length contraction is clear. The only evidence is that if the time of the Lorentz equations is used, a length contraction will put something where the equations say it would be. I just use the times predicted by the Galilean transformation equations, and there is no need for a length contraction. |