Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 2 Jul 2010 18:09 On Jul 2, 4:56 pm, cully when <cullyw...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Robert isn't stupid, but he is a tad sociopathic, possibly a bit - pathic in other areas, too. He has a certain quiet tone that comes across even through typing. I imagine him saying things like, "Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?"
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 20:34 On Jun 26, 12:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 1:24 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 June, 07:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 8:13 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 25 June, 18:08, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > I just follow the math, PD. > > > > > > Why that math? You have no training in the subject, so your choice of 'the > > > > > math' is rather arbitrary. > > > > > What do you mean I have no training in the subject. I started out in > > > > a two room school in Montana learning 1+1=2. Then I continued on > > > > through high school. Then I took one year of college. I was taught > > > > mathematics during all of that schooling. > > > > In particular, with regard to this discussion, the math that > > > > applies is algebra. The Lorentz equations are algebra. TheGalilean > > > > transformation equations are algebra. > > > > The last two sentences are wrong, Robert. Both the Lorentz andGalileantransformations are equations that refer to *measurements*. > > > The algebra is secondary. > > > > > Algebra is not arbitrary. > > > What do you think algebra is? > > Algebra is a branch of mathematics, Robert. Mathematics is a tool. > There are mathematical structures that have something to do with the > real world, and there are mathematical structures that do not. In > physics, one tries to develop a model that consistent matches > measurements. The model *uses* mathematics as a tool to help quantify > the predictions about those measurements, but the model is not > mathematics, and mathematics does not serve sufficiently as a model. > > You have a deep-seated confusion between physics and mathematics, > Robert. They are different subject areas. > > PD No, I do not have a confusion about how mathematics relates to physics.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 20:40 On Jul 2, 11:17 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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) > > > TheGalileantransformation equations work just fine. > > Except those aren't theGalileantransformation 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.. Which one of these equations are you saying is not a Galilean transformation equations? x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 20:41 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. The Galilean transformation equations give a true representation of relativity.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 20:42
On Jul 2, 12:58 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> 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. I would not expect any other result , considering what is popular today. |