Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 20:43 On Jul 2, 2:56 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. I do know how to spell convinced, though.
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 20:43 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. The Galilean transformation equations > give a true representation of relativity. Ok, and why do you believe they are a 'true representation of reality' when observation says they are not? Do you have conflicting observations, or is that just your personal opinion?
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 20:45 rbwinn wrote: > 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 Ok, so you know that your n' addition is not a part of the Galilean transformation equations. Please stop implying that it is.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 20:45 On Jul 2, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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?" Well, PD, show the conviction of your accusations. Go to a magistrate where you live and file a petition for the institutionalization of a person believed to be insane. Otherwise, you are just another person who multiplies words.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 21:11
On Jul 1, 5:59 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 7:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > Thank you for sharing, whoever. What gives us correct clocks slowing > >> > is experimental results. > > >> Which is what I keep telling you. > > >> As a correct clock is (by definition of what correct means) one that > >> shows the time in its own (rest) frame, that refutesGalilean > >> transforms. > > >> So thanks for refuting the transforms that you claim are correct. So > >> some other transform applies that makes moving correct clocks measure > >> as slower. > > >> OR ... that the clocks in experiments are NOT correct, and > >> thegalileantransforms may still hold for time but some OTHER transform > >> applies for clocks. > > >> So, which is it .. you have a choice of two explanations for what we > >> see in experiments: > > >> 1)Galileantransforms are refuted and moving correct clocks are > >> measure as slower because some other transform applied > > >> 2)Galileantransforms hold, but moving clocks are not longer correct > >> (they run slower) and so there is some other relationship between > >> movement and the rate of clocks > > >> > When something is moved, the movement at > >> > atomic level slows to keep speed of light at a constant rate as timed > >> > by atomic time in that frame of reference. > > >> So .. you are taking option 2 now (which contradicts what you said > >> above) that moving clocks go slow, and so are no longer correct. > >> Hence, when talking about what clocks show, we do not see (on clocks) > >> that T' = T (where T and T' are the times shown on a clock) .. and T' > >> <> t' > > >> So in what frame of reference are the clocks ticking at the 'correct' > >> rate, and not slowed by motion? What is the relationship between the > >> time shown on some clock moving in that frame, and the actual time in > >> that frame? > > > There is a clock in frame of reference S that is not moving. > > What frame ?? Where is it? Please point to something that we know of > that > is at rest in this frame. > > > That > > clock shows t. t'=t. > > That's what I just told you .. no need to say it back to me. > > > This equation is what is called an identity in > > algebra. > > Boring .. did all that years ago > > > It means that the clock in S also shows t'. > > Blah blah > > > There is a clock in S' that is moving relative to S. That clock does > > not show t' because it is slower than the clock in S. The times shown > > on both clocks are actual times. > > Now .. how about answering the question.: > > So in what frame of reference are the clocks ticking at the 'correct' > rate, and not slowed by motion? What is the relationship between the > time shown on some clock moving in that frame, and the actual time in > that frame? The Galilean transformation equations show that from either frame of reference, the clock in S is running at a faster rate, t, and the clock in S' is running at a slower rate, n'. t'=t. I know this is very difficult for scientists to understand. |