Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: YBM on 2 Jul 2010 05:11 rbwinn a �crit : > On Jun 29, 5:00 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn a �crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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? No Robert, that *you* are unable to understand how and why the Lorentz equations lead to a length contraction.
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 09:53 On Jul 1, 10:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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'. I don't think that's quite what they said, Robert. I think they said things more carefully than what you heard or comprehended. This may be part of your problem.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 14:08 On Jul 1, 10:21 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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) > > > TheGalileantransformation 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? S is a frame of reference at rest, S' is a frame of reference moving with a velocity of v relative to S. That is what the equations say.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 14:09 On Jul 1, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > > 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. > > Do you demand Intel explain to you how the semiconductor technology of their > integrated circuits work? When they don't, do you sniff about how you are > unconvinced because 'that does not prove anything to me' on a newsgroup for > 15 years? > > Or is it just about relativity? It is just about relativity. I use the equations scientists threw away in 1887. You are very offended by that.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 14:11
On Jul 2, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 10:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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'. > > I don't think that's quite what they said, Robert. I think they said > things more carefully than what you heard or comprehended. This may be > part of your problem. You don't think that scientists said there was a slower clock in S'. What do you claim they said? |