Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2010 23:14 On Jun 28, 7:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 11:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> 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? > > Facts are open to independent confirmation, Robert. You claim to know > things but without the benefit of facts that are open to independent > confirmation. That's a little boneheaded, don't you think so too? > > PD Well, I just use facts reported by scientists. They said they had a slower clock in S'.
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2010 23:16 On Jul 1, 6:15 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > 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? > > You tell me, bobby. You're the one who has been arguing about this subject > for the past 15 years. > > Let's see what - if anything - you've learned. Here is what I learned. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t n'=t(1-v/c) The Galilean transformation equations work just fine.
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2010 23:19 On Jul 1, 6:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > 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. > > So is that why you quit university, bobby? > > Or was it for a more prosaic reason, like being stupid? You got that right. I went to Vietnam.
From: rbwinn on 1 Jul 2010 23:20 On Jun 29, 5:00 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 5:08 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >>> On 26 June, 22:48, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> rbwinn wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>> Well, I know there is not a length contraction, if that is what you > >>>>> are talking about. > >>>> Since you 'know' about as much about length contraction as you do quantum > >>>> tunneling, do you also 'know' that does not exist as well? > >>> I have no idea what you call quantum tunneling. The Europeans dug a > >>> tunnel under the English channel. Is it something like that? > >> You have no idea what length contraction is either, yet you retain a strong > >> opinion on it. Why is that? > > > I know what length contraction is. It is shown in the equations that > > you are using. > > You know nothing at all : two years ago I asked you to show how Lorentz > Transformations lead to length contraction, and you failed. I failed? So what are you claiming now, YBM? That the Lorentz equations do not have a length contraction?
From: artful on 2 Jul 2010 01:21
On Jul 2, 1:16 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 6:15 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > 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? > > > You tell me, bobby. You're the one who has been arguing about this subject > > for the past 15 years. > > > Let's see what - if anything - you've learned. > > Here is what I learned. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > The Galilean transformation equations work just fine. The above is NOT the Gallilean transforms .. its the Gallilean transforms PLUS your formula for slow running clock readings. Now .. what frame in reality is the rest frame (where v = 0) which (according to you) is the only frame where clocks show the correct time? And don't say "S" .. that is just a label we're using for whatever frame it is .. what in reality is that frame .. Surely its not for an observer at rest on the earth's surface .. so where? |