Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 14:37 On Jul 2, 1:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: > > > > > > 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. You have the very same access to the documentation that I do, Robert. The only difference between you and me is that I've put in the effort to remove my rear from my chair to go look at it. You, on the other hand, are asking others to save you the effort of removing your rear from your chair, and to just feed it to you where you are sitting. Forgive me for not being sympathetic to your laziness, Robert. PD
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 14:39 On Jul 1, 8:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(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- Robert, I hope you read this post and have learned something from it. I would hate for you to continue being confused on the same small matter for another decade or so.
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 15:55 rbwinn wrote: > 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. Nor do you have to worry about any of the other things scientists worry about because you are a welder and those things don't concern you.
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 15:58 rbwinn wrote: > 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. I'm no more 'offended' at you being stupid than I am 'offended' at the people around here who put up the 'obama = hitler' signs. Ridiculous stupidity that makes noise but accomplishes nothing does not offend me. That you've been doing this for 15 years and have convinced literally _not one person_ that you are right is evidence enough.
From: cully when on 2 Jul 2010 17:56
eric gisse wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > >> 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. > > I'm no more 'offended' at you being stupid than I am 'offended' at the > people around here who put up the 'obama = hitler' signs. > > Ridiculous stupidity that makes noise but accomplishes nothing does not > offend me. That you've been doing this for 15 years and have convinced > literally _not one person_ that you are right is evidence enough. > Oh, I don't know. I have actually met stupid people and there are times I have done rather stupid things. Bobby has convince me he would have to climb several rungs of the ladder to reach the stupid level. |