Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 21:19 On 27 June, 17:07, 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? Well, the Lorentz equations give the times of the Lorentz equations, and the length contraction moves things where the times of the Lorentz equations say they would be. That does not prove anything to me except that the Lorentz equation times are too great.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 21:20 On 27 June, 18:01, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a crit : > > > > > > > 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. > > No. They accept experiments results and theorical predictions and the > way they match. > > By the way most of them don't have issues with their penis as you have, > and don't panic about length contraction with respect to a women walking > by. You seemed to be trying to say something, YBM. Were you asking me to send you a Bible?
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 23:16 On Jun 30, 12:13 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? The Lorentz equations give too large a value for time in S', consequently, it has to be compensated for by a length contraction. So what is supposed to be getting observed?
From: rbwinn on 30 Jun 2010 23:18 On Jun 28, 7:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Well, so you do not want to discuss relativity. What else is new?
From: artful on 30 Jun 2010 23:39
On Jul 1, 1:18 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 7:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Well, so you do not want to discuss relativity. Again .. you lie. And you didn't even have to go to college to learn your dishonesty. Does being so dishonest sit well with you, Winn? You don't seem the least bit bothered by it. > What else is new? You understanding anything about it *would* be new .. but there is little sign of that ever happening after so many years. |