Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 14:13 On Jul 1, 6:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > >> 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. > > Like a boulder on the beach, the rbwinn just sits there and lets the tides > of knowledge slap him over and over without moving. > > What a peaceful existence that must be ... Yes, very peaceful. I don't have to worry about a length contraction.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 14:14 On Jul 1, 6:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Uh huh. So since you have looked at the documentation, just tell me where it disagrees with my equations.
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 14:17 rbwinn 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. Except those aren't the Galilean transformation equations, bobby. How many times does this need to be explained to you? It rather much seems you haven't learned a whole lot in the past 15 years.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 14:20 On Jun 28, 10:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > It sounds like perhaps you are proposing something similar to LET > > In LET, reality isGalilean. Space doesn't contract and time doesn't slow > down. TheGalileantransforms apply. > > However, in that simple 3D galillean universe, what happens is clocks (and > all processes) run slower and rulers (and all matter and fields) contract > due to absolute motion. > > They do so in such a way that the MEASUREMENTS made with such clocks and > rulers are no longer related byGalileantransforms, but by Lorentz > transforms. > > It seems you are proposing the instead, we just have clock running slow so > that the relation ship between what we MEASURE clocks (and processes) to do > is related by > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t(1-v/c) > > Only you are using n for the measured time, there is no need for that. If > you are talking about what is measured, you can just use x,y,z,t. Those equations do not work. They require a different reference for time in S' than in S. The Galilean transformation equations require t' to equal t.
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 14:34
On Jul 2, 1:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? The scientists that I've talked with, Bobby, would tell you that the clocks are identical and both run at equal rates in their own rest frames. They will also tell you that if you pick two events, then the interval of time measured on the clock for which those two events occur in the same place, will be greater than the interval of time measured on the clock for which those two events do not occur in the same place. The first case is the reference frame S, the second case is the reference frame S'. You see, that is a much different statement than the BS you just spouted. Now, I don't know the names of the scientists you talked to, but I'm presuming you do. What were their names, Bobby? PD |