Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 23:13 On Jul 2, 7:59 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > 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. > > So even though you know you have spent 15 years having convinced nobody of > your cause, you still think you are right? Guess that 1 year of college sure > does trump the 4 of undergraduate study and 4-6 of PhD study of a normal > physicist. I guess so. Well, I would compare it to training given to a suicide bomber. I would know a lot less about explosives than well-trained suicide bombers, but I am probably going to live longer than any of them.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 23:17 On Jul 2, 5:45 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 aGalilean > > transformation equations? > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > Ok, so you know that your n' addition is not a part of theGalilean > transformation equations. Please stop implying that it is. I have never said it was part of the Galilean transformation equations. It is time on a slower clock. It applies to the Galilean transformation equations the same way time on any other slower clock applies to the Galilean transformation equations. I bought an alarm clock at Walgreen's drug store last year that lost ten minutes every day. Are you saying that the Galilean transformation equations cannot describe what that clock does?
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 00:21 On Jul 1, 6:54 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,Galileanor 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 theGalileangets 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 Well, the transformations are involved in the measurements. You cannot transform coordinates unless the same measurements are being used. If you use kilometers in one frame of reference, you cannot use miles in the other. Miles have to be converted to kilometers or vice versa. The same is true with time. If time is taken from a clock running at one rate, it cannot be equated with time taken from a clock running at some other rate.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 00:22 On Jul 2, 11:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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,Galileanor 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 theGalileangets 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. I am not confused at all. A clock in S' is slower than a clock in S.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jul 2010 00:51
rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 2, 12:55 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > That is correct. Scientists invented nuclear weapons. Nuclear > weapons are their problem. Thus the rbwinn acknowledges the validity of my point by changing the subject to something completely asinine, thus ending the conversation. |