Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2010 05:09 On Jun 30, 8:39 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Thank you for sharing, artful.
From: artful on 1 Jul 2010 08:59 On Jul 1, 7:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Thank you for sharing, whoever. What gives us correct clocks slowing >> > is experimental results. >> >> Which is what I keep telling you. >> >> As a correct clock is (by definition of what correct means) one that >> shows the time in its own (rest) frame, that refutesGalilean >> transforms. >> >> So thanks for refuting the transforms that you claim are correct. So >> some other transform applies that makes moving correct clocks measure >> as slower. >> >> OR ... that the clocks in experiments are NOT correct, and >> thegalileantransforms may still hold for time but some OTHER transform >> applies for clocks. >> >> So, which is it .. you have a choice of two explanations for what we >> see in experiments: >> >> 1)Galileantransforms are refuted and moving correct clocks are >> measure as slower because some other transform applied >> >> 2)Galileantransforms hold, but moving clocks are not longer correct >> (they run slower) and so there is some other relationship between >> movement and the rate of clocks >> >> > When something is moved, the movement at >> > atomic level slows to keep speed of light at a constant rate as timed >> > by atomic time in that frame of reference. >> >> So .. you are taking option 2 now (which contradicts what you said >> above) that moving clocks go slow, and so are no longer correct. >> Hence, when talking about what clocks show, we do not see (on clocks) >> that T' = T (where T and T' are the times shown on a clock) .. and T' >> <> t' >> >> So in what frame of reference are the clocks ticking at the 'correct' >> rate, and not slowed by motion? What is the relationship between the >> time shown on some clock moving in that frame, and the actual time in >> that frame? > > There is a clock in frame of reference S that is not moving. What frame ?? Where is it? Please point to something that we know of that is at rest in this frame. > That > clock shows t. t'=t. That's what I just told you .. no need to say it back to me. > This equation is what is called an identity in > algebra. Boring .. did all that years ago > It means that the clock in S also shows t'. Blah blah > There is a clock in S' that is moving relative to S. That clock does > not show t' because it is slower than the clock in S. The times shown > on both clocks are actual times. Now .. how about answering the question.: So in what frame of reference are the clocks ticking at the 'correct' rate, and not slowed by motion? What is the relationship between the time shown on some clock moving in that frame, and the actual time in that frame?
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 09:54 On Jun 30, 8:17 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, Robert, this is not how it works at all. To make a *measurement*, you do not need any kind of transformation, Galilean or Lorentz. If you did not know this, then this may be one small part of your problem. To make a measurement of length, you use some kind of a ruler. To make a measurement of duration, you use some kind of a clock. There are no transformations needed to make that measurement. What the transformation predicts is what you will find when you make the measurements of some length between two points, in two different reference frames. Again, you do not need the transformation to make that measurement, you just use the ruler. But if the transformation is correct, it will tell you the relationship between the two measurements you just made. A similar thing is true when making measurements of the duration between two events, using clocks, in two different reference frames. What you learn from these pairs of *measurements* with rulers or clocks, is that the Lorentz transformation gets the relationship between the measurements right, and the Galilean gets the relationship wrong. I hope this clears up the confusion for you, because it sure looks like you thought the transformations were involved in the measurements, and they're not. PD
From: PD on 1 Jul 2010 09:57 On Jun 30, 10:18 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. What else is new? Oh, I'm happy to discuss it, Bobby. Part of that discussion will be telling you where you can find documentation on the actual measurements. Since the actual measurements are essential for determining truth in science, then actually looking at that documentation is essential for determining the truth. You see, just *discussing* things here is not sufficient. This is what a lot of people have been telling you over and over again.
From: Jeff Whittaker on 1 Jul 2010 12:27
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 06:54:27 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 30, 8:17�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > >No, Robert, this is not how it works at all. To make a *measurement*, >you do not need any kind of transformation, Galilean or Lorentz. If >you did not know this, then this may be one small part of your >problem. To make a measurement of length, you use some kind of a >ruler. To make a measurement of duration, you use some kind of a >clock. There are no transformations needed to make that measurement. > >What the transformation predicts is what you will find when you make >the measurements of some length between two points, in two different >reference frames. Again, you do not need the transformation to make >that measurement, you just use the ruler. But if the transformation is >correct, it will tell you the relationship between the two >measurements you just made. > >A similar thing is true when making measurements of the duration >between two events, using clocks, in two different reference frames. > >What you learn from these pairs of *measurements* with rulers or >clocks, is that the Lorentz transformation gets the relationship >between the measurements right, and the Galilean gets the relationship >wrong. > >I hope this clears up the confusion for you, because it sure looks >like you thought the transformations were involved in the >measurements, and they're not. > >PD This is probably the clearest I've seen this explained. However, I'm sure Bobby will find some way to completely misunderstand. |