Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:34 On Jun 30, 4:23 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Bobby, what you choose to USE in equations and what you think of the results is in no way observational evidence of any kind. Observational evidence is what you can *measure*. You do not have any *measurements* or observational evidence that there is no length contraction. There is indeed observational evidence that there is length contraction, even if you've never made those measurements yourself. PD
From: eric gisse on 30 Jun 2010 15:13 rbwinn wrote: [...] >> Why don't you mention the part about length contraction explaining >> observation? > > What observation would that be, eric? Why can't you answer the question yourself, bobby?
From: eric gisse on 30 Jun 2010 15:14 PD wrote: [...] > So let's see. So far, and in just the past day, you've made a > dishonest statement about college graduates learning to be dishonest > in college [...] I must have missed that course, or perhaps unknowingly tested out of it.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 21:07 On 30 June, 12:14, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > [...] > > > So let's see. So far, and in just the past day, you've made a > > dishonest statement about college graduates learning to be dishonest > > in college [...] > > I must have missed that course, or perhaps unknowingly tested out of it. I would have thought you were at the head of the class in that one, eric.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 21:17
On 30 June, 09:34, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 4:23 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 theGalilean > > transformation equations, and there is no need for a length > > contraction. > > Bobby, what you choose to USE in equations and what you think of the > results is in no way observational evidence of any kind. Observational > evidence is what you can *measure*. > > You do not have any *measurements* or observational evidence that > there is no length contraction. > > There is indeed observational evidence that there is length > contraction, even if you've never made those measurements yourself. > > PD Well, the problem I have with that is that you have a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the Lorentz equations are not the correct equations and give a time that is too great, which is what my equations show, then a length contraction is required to get things where they are proven to be. That does not prove a length contraction is needed, just that it will adjust for the time in the Lorentz equations being too great. |