Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 22:10 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4466492f-0a28-4aec-9a1b-05cce138c867(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 15, 3:57 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ff4c8b77-ca8b-45a1-9d04-4e614e476447(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 5:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:8b250e8c-7689-460d-83b3-e25bfb5c83e1(a)11g2000prw.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 7:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > x'=x-vt >> >> >> > y'=y >> >> >> > z'=z >> >> >> > t'=t >> >> >> >> Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is. >> >> >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference >> >> >> > S' >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t >> >> >> >> As measured be S. Hence refuting Galilean transforms >> >> >> >> > According to the Galilean >> >> >> > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. >> >> >> >> No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t. And so >> >> >> Galilean >> >> >> transforms are wrong >> >> >> >> > Time on >> >> >> > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > Galilean transformation equations are to be used. >> >> >> >> They can't. Because then you are no longer using Galilean >> >> >> transforms >> >> >> >> [snip nonsense that follows] >> >> >> > What do you mean I am no longer using the Galilean transformation >> >> > equations? >> >> >> > x'=x-vt >> >> > y'=y >> >> > z'=z >> >> > t'=t >> >> >> Because you said you are not using t' = t .. you are using something >> >> else. >> >> So it is no longer a Galilean transform. You can't throw away your >> >> cake >> >> and >> >> eat it too. >> >> >> > Which one of the equations is not a Galilean transformation >> >> > equation? >> >> > I am using t'=t. t is time on a clock in S. t'=t is what is known in >> > algebra as an identity. t' is time on a clock in S. Time on a clock >> > in S' is not t'. >> >> Yes it is .. if you are using Galilean Transforms. It is is something >> OTHER >> than t', then you are NO LONGER using Galilean Transforms. Simple. >> >> > It has to be shown by some other variable. >> >> So you are no longer using t' for the time. And so you are no longer >> using >> Galilean Transforms. As I said. You have made up some DIFFERENT >> transform >> instead that treats time differently. >> >> That's fine if you want to do that ... but do not LIE by claiming you are >> using Galilean transforms. A bit of honesty goes a long way. A bit of >> physics goes even further. Start with the honesty. > > > Here are the Galilean transformation equations. Honest. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t Yes.. I know what they are.. And they are the ones you go on to NOT use. > Notice the equation that says t'=t. That kind of equation is > called an identity in algebra. What it means is that the time in S' > for transforming coordinates is t', and that t' is the time that is on > a clock in S because t'=t. Yes .. so according to the transforms, all correctly working clocks tick at the same rate regardless of motion. But we know that they DO tick at different rates due to motion. so Galilean Transforms do not apply. > You might want to try practicing with > coordinates in S and S' using t'=t. I am sure you will find that the > coordinates do transform. So the Galilean transformation equations do > not transform coordinates in any way to a clock in S' that scientists > say they have found to be slower than a clock in S. That's right .. Galilean transforms do not work in reality. > You cannot use > the time on that clock as t' because t'=t, the time on the faster > clock in S. Then you are no longer using Galilean transforsm .. you are using some OTHER transform that does not have the time in one frame the same as the time in another. > But the slower clock in S' shows light to be traveling at > c=300,000 km/sec. Surely it must be t'. Not according to the > Galilean transformation equations. Wrong .. According to the Galillean transforms it WILL be t'. Experiment shows that it not the case. > t'=t, the time on a clock in S. > But the fact that time on a clock in S' shows light to be traveling at > c gives us a way to solve for time on that clock from the Galilean > transformation equations No .. it doesn't > cn'=ct-vt > > where n' is time on the slower clock in S'. > > n'=t(1-v/c) So you have used a DIFFERENT equation for the time in S' to what Galillean transforms use. So .. as i said .. you are NO LONGER using Galilean transforms > As you seem to recognize, n' cannot be used with the Galilean > transformation equations. If you are claiming n' is the time in S'. then that is just a change of letter to use. You are REALYL showing (using conventional notation) t' = t ( 1 - v/c) Which is NOT the same as t' = t So you are NOT using Galilean transforms > In order to transform coordinates, you have > to convert n' to t' and use the Galilean transformation equation, t'=t > for time coordinates in S and S'. > Since you claim so vehemently that you have found an error in > this reasoning, go ahead and show the error you think you have found. I have
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 22:32 On Jun 15, 6:22 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > > I am using t'=t. t is time on a clock in S. t'=t is what is known in > > algebra as an identity. t' is time on a clock in S. Time on a clock > > in S' is not t'. It has to be shown by some other variable. > > 15 years and you still don't understand the very equations you've been > repeating that whole time. > > Nice. > > Are you autistic? Why do you ask, Eric? Do you think I am autistic?
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 22:40 On Jun 15, 6:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d4c02153-8d91-46ae-b074-cb6cba68b01c(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 2:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:27b77bb9-8131-4364-a5d1-e6873a7e2dac(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Jun 13, 7:50 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >> > On Jun 13, 10:12 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > > >> > > On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > > >news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > >> > > > | 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. > > >> > > > Liar. > > >> > > Hafele Keating experiment. > > >> >http://www.search.com/reference/Problematic_physics_experiments > > >> > GPS including Sagnac and Pound Rebka have some credibility. > > >> > Attempts to show that real clock mechanisms can mimic > >> > the Einstein Synchronisation procedure are always > >> > entertaining so don't let me discourage you. ;-) > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w.... > > >> > Sue... > > >> > > You're the liar. > > >> Well, since you are so entertained, you might want to show what you > >> find so entertaining. The Galilean transformation equations are the > >> correct equations because they are the only transformation equations > >> that do not have a length contraction. This is difficult to explain > >> to people who have been taught that a length contraction is necessary. > >> Robert B. Winn > >> ============================================= > >> Produce the evidence to show that "a clock in moving frame of reference > >> S' is slower than a clock in S which shows t" as you claim, Winn, and > >> we'll be entertained. > > > Well, the experiment I remember best concerning this was where they > > put a clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard rocket in 1958 and said that > > it slowed down exactly as predicted by Einstein's equations. I just > > go by what scientists say they have done and what the results were. > > Gad you agree that Einstein equations (ie Lorentz transforms) are > experimentally shown to be valid. That same experiment REFUTES Galilean > transforms. They don't work (except approximately at v << c) The Lorentz equations agree with my mathematics at 30 miles per second, the speed of the planet Mercury to six decimal places. The Lorentz equations agreed with the Galilean transformation equations and absolute time to two decimal places at the same speed. I use the Galilean transformation equations with a slower clock in S' shown as a slower clock, not as time for time coordinates. The time coordinates in the Galilean transformation equations are t' and t.
From: rbwinn on 15 Jun 2010 22:42 On Jun 15, 6:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6d5da435-3595-497f-b480-2586e3daaa16(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 3:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:ef70417f-5f09-4f25-9cf3-bbb9760e5548(a)q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 13, 7:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > x'=x-vt > >> >> > y'=y > >> >> > z'=z > >> >> > t'=t > > >> >> Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is. > > >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' > >> >> > is > >> >> > slower than a clock in S which shows t > > >> >> As measured be S. Hence refuting Galilean transforms > > >> >> > According to the Galilean > >> >> > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. > > >> >> No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t. And so > >> >> Galilean > >> >> transforms are wrong > > >> >> > Time on > >> >> > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the > >> >> > Galilean transformation equations are to be used. > > >> >> They can't. Because then you are no longer using Galilean transforms > > >> >> [snip nonsense that follows] > > >> > Why are you no longer using the Galilean transformation equations? > > >> YOU aren't. No me. Its your nonsense, not mine. > > >> > The Galilean transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same. > > >> There are NO slower clocks in Galilean transforms .. time is the same > >> everywhere. > > >> Learn some physics .. or how to understand maths. Or both. > > > I bought a clock that lost ten minutes per day > > Irrelevant. Transforms are not about faulty clocks. They are about what > the time REALLY IS at the location. Ie what a CORRECTLY working clock would > show > > [snip irrelevance] A correctly working clock in S' is slower than a correctly working clock in S. Consequently, you cannot use time from a correctly working clock in S' as time coordinates for the Galilean transformation equations.
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 22:48
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b8fb8d9d-a202-4cb7-973a-9bd8640e9aa1(a)s6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 15, 6:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d4c02153-8d91-46ae-b074-cb6cba68b01c(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 15, 2:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:27b77bb9-8131-4364-a5d1-e6873a7e2dac(a)r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> On Jun 13, 7:50 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 10:12 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: >> >> >> > > On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > > >news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > > | 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. >> >> >> > > > Liar. >> >> >> > > Hafele Keating experiment. >> >> >> >http://www.search.com/reference/Problematic_physics_experiments >> >> >> > GPS including Sagnac and Pound Rebka have some credibility. >> >> >> > Attempts to show that real clock mechanisms can mimic >> >> > the Einstein Synchronisation procedure are always >> >> > entertaining so don't let me discourage you. ;-) >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_timehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w... >> >> >> > Sue... >> >> >> > > You're the liar. >> >> >> Well, since you are so entertained, you might want to show what you >> >> find so entertaining. The Galilean transformation equations are the >> >> correct equations because they are the only transformation equations >> >> that do not have a length contraction. This is difficult to explain >> >> to people who have been taught that a length contraction is necessary. >> >> Robert B. Winn >> >> ============================================= >> >> Produce the evidence to show that "a clock in moving frame of >> >> reference >> >> S' is slower than a clock in S which shows t" as you claim, Winn, and >> >> we'll be entertained. >> >> > Well, the experiment I remember best concerning this was where they >> > put a clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard rocket in 1958 and said that >> > it slowed down exactly as predicted by Einstein's equations. I just >> > go by what scientists say they have done and what the results were. >> >> Gad you agree that Einstein equations (ie Lorentz transforms) are >> experimentally shown to be valid. That same experiment REFUTES Galilean >> transforms. They don't work (except approximately at v << c) > > The Lorentz equations agree with my mathematics at 30 miles per > second, the speed of the planet Mercury to six decimal places. Irrelevant > The > Lorentz equations agreed with the Galilean transformation equations > and absolute time to two decimal places at the same speed. Irrelevant > I use the > Galilean transformation equations with a slower clock in S' shown as a > slower clock, not as time for time coordinates. The time coordinates > in the Galilean transformation equations are t' and t. Yes they are .. or any other set of symbols you chose to use .. which ones you use is just a matter of convention .. as long as you are consistent and don't claim a change in letter as anything more than what it is. Galilean transforms say that time does not vary with motion. Correctly ticking clocks will always show the same time for all observers, regardless of motion. So a correctly ticking clock put in an aircraft will show the same time as a stay-at-home clock when the travelling clock returns. What do YOU say that is different? If it IS different, then you are no longer using Galilean transforms .. so be honest enough to say that. If it is NOT different, you are proven wrong experimentally. |