Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 3 Jul 2010 00:52 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 2, 5:43 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. TheGalileantransformation 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? > > Well, you are the one claiming they give conflicting observations. Go > ahead and prove what you say. Why bobby, the proof has been given to you repeatedly over the past 15 years! Furthermore, the proof is just as accessible to you as it is to me. Why should I do so again when you didn't listen the previous thousand times?
From: Inertial on 3 Jul 2010 03:53 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:88c60cde-b353-40df-a1e9-baf67dd701d4(a)y21g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 1, 5:59 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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, Don't lie, Robert. Galilean transforms show NOTHING of the sort. Gallilean transforms say correct cloaks all run at the same rate, no matter how fast they are travelling relative to some observer (or vice versa) YOUR additional equations are about how clocks are slowed by being in motion. > and the > clock in S' is running at a slower rate, n'. There is no n' in Galilean transforms. That is your addition > t'=t. I know this is > very difficult for scientists to understand. Only because you lie and refuse to answer question So .. lets see if you are actually honest enough this time 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?
From: Inertial on 3 Jul 2010 04:01 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:7a91960b-b849-4b8f-b358-0aceb2d1b712(a)i9g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >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. I know your equations are wrong. Glad to hear you admit it > They require a different reference for > time in S' than in S. The Galilean transformation equations require > t' to equal t. And so your equation using t(1-v/c) for time in S' is wrong. So .. given that the definition of a correct clock is one that shows the time in the frame in which it is at rest .... what is the formula for the time shown on a correct clock at rest in S' as observed by an observer at rest in frame S ?? Can you answer that honestly? I doubt it. Prove me wrong.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 10:18 On Jul 2, 5:43 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. TheGalileantransformation 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? The Galilean transformation equations account for the slower clock in S' and put physical objects where they actually are. There is really no better way to do it than that.
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 10:19
On Jul 2, 7:34 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes, you do, Robert. This is obvious to both mathematicians and to physicists. Now, you may think that you understand how mathematics relates to physics BETTER THAN mathematicians or physicists do. But that would be the hallmark of an egomaniacal loon. And I'm not sure you want to perpetuate that. PD |