Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 10:49 On Jul 2, 10:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 1:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 2, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 1, 10:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 11:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 26 June, 07:31, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 26, 8:26 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > On 25 June, 18:06, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > [...] > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I know a psychologist who was trying to drill through a board with > > > > > > > > >> > > > an electric drill, and he was having great difficulty. He said to > > > > > > > > >> > > > himself, This drill bit is obviously very dull, so he applied more > > > > > > > > >> > > > pressure, and after a long difficult time he was able to get the > > > > > > > > >> > > > hole drilled completely through the board, although it was more > > > > > > > > >> > > > burned than drilled. > > > > > > > > >> > > > Then he discovered that he had drilled completely through a > > > > > > > > >> > > > board with the drill running in reverse. > > > > > > > > > >> > > Compare and contrast with Robert B. Winn, the welder by trade, who > > > > > > > > >> > > has spent 15 years discussing concepts he does not understand. > > > > > > > > > >> > > Observe as he struggles mightily with the basic question of 'what is > > > > > > > > >> > > t'?'. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > College graduates are certainly interesting people.. > > > > > > > > > >> > > As opposed to people like Robert B. Winn who are proud of not knowing > > > > > > > > >> > > things. > > > > > > > > > >> > 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. > > > > > > > > > You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.. > > > > > > > > Well, that seems a little unfair. So facts can only be used by > > > > > > > scientists? > > > > > > > Facts are open to independent confirmation, Robert. You claim to know > > > > > > things but without the benefit of facts that are open to independent > > > > > > confirmation. That's a little boneheaded, don't you think so too? > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > Well, I just use facts reported by scientists. They said they had a > > > > > slower clock in S'. > > > > > I don't think that's quite what they said, Robert. I think they said > > > > things more carefully than what you heard or comprehended. This may be > > > > part of your problem. > > > > You don't think that scientists said there was a slower clock in S'. > > > What do you claim they said? > > > The scientists that I've talked with, Bobby, would tell you that the > > clocks are identical and both run at equal rates in their own rest > > frames. They will also tell you that if you pick two events, then the > > interval of time measured on the clock for which those two events > > occur in the same place, will be greater than the interval of time > > measured on the clock for which those two events do not occur in the > > same place. The first case is the reference frame S, the second case > > is the reference frame S'. You see, that is a much different statement > > than the BS you just spouted. > > > Now, I don't know the names of the scientists you talked to, but I'm > > presuming you do. What were their names, Bobby? > > > PD > > Well, you were one of them. All I know is you call yourself PD. But I was not one of the ones that told you there was a slower clock in S'. So that statement must not have come from scientists, or perhaps you can identify the scientists who did tell you that. > So > how does your description of events differ from mine? > There is more time on the clock that is not moving. The clock in S' > is slower. No, it's not slower. I just told you they run at equal rates in their own rest frames. What I told you is what the two clocks will measure about a particular pair of events that happen to be at the same location in S. If you took the same two clocks and measured the interval between a pair of events that happened to be at the same location in S', you would find that it is the clock in S' that does what I told you above, not the clock in S. In fact, you can be observing both pairs of events at the same time, just to be sure that the clocks have not changed in any way for the two cases. So you see, it has nothing to do with the clocks running fast or slow. And so you see, this is MUCH different than what you were saying, even though you now appear to be quite confused about the whole thing. > This is something I have noticed about scientists. Even > when they say something that is identical to what I say, they do it in > a contentious manner, as though they are saying it in a better > manner. No, sorry, it does not matter whether you say that S has a > greater interval of time or that a clock in S is faster than a clock > in S'. You are nit-picking in an effort to pretend that you said > something different than what I said. But it IS different, Robert, if you will look again.
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 10:53 On Jul 2, 10:01 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 11:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Well, it does not matter how lazy I am if I have the right equations > to describe relativity. Your equations are still going to give the > wrong answers. No, Robert, my equations give the RIGHT answers, as demonstrated by the documented measurements available to you in the library. Your being lazy and unwilling to look up those documented measurements that show that your claim is empty, does not change the fact that your claim is empty. You can make crazy, unsubstantiated assertions all day if you wish, Robert. You can also keep sitting on your thumb (if it makes you feel good) and idly whine that people should take the trouble to prove you wrong, if your assertions are wrong. I think that's a waste of time, since the documented measurements are just as easy for you to look up as they are for anyone else. PD
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 10:57 On Jun 28, 11:05 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 12:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:26 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 June, 07:29, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 7:00 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 25 June, 08:50, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 24 June, 07:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > They agree within the precision of the measurements you make. That's > > > > > > > > because theGalileantransformation are an excellent *approximation* > > > > > > > > to the real thing, especially at the low speeds that welders like to > > > > > > > > work with. As I told you before, Robert, feel free to use theGalilean > > > > > > > > transforms if they work for you and your needs. Physicists, on the > > > > > > > > other hand, sometimes work in domains where theGalileantransforms > > > > > > > > don't work well at all, because they don't always agree with > > > > > > > > measurments. It's in those cases that they're more careful, where > > > > > > > > you're happy to be simple and sloppy. > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > Well, I have noticed that with regard to people who subscribe to > > > > > > > disciplines. In any event, you may have noticed that I only apply the > > > > > > >Galileantransformation equations to two frames of reference at a > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > And depending on the precision of your measurements of x, y, z, t, x', > > > > > > y', z', t', and how big v is, those transformations will provide you > > > > > > sufficient accuracy to work well enough. After all, 1.002 inches +/- > > > > > > 0.003 inches and 1.004 inches +/- 0.002 inches are EQUAL to the > > > > > > precision of those numbers. > > > > > > > But in other cases, you will find that those transformations do not > > > > > > work well at all, and there is no way the equality can be believed. > > > > > > > > When I say t'=t, I am not talking about all clocks in the > > > > > > > universe, just to the two references to time that are measuring these > > > > > > > equations: > > > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > > > > > y'=y > > > > > > > z'=z > > > > > > > t'=t > > > > > > > > Consequently, if I say that t' is time on a clock in S, the equations > > > > > > > are satisfied, regardless of what a clock running at a different rate > > > > > > > may say. > > > > > > > Well, you can say that all you want, Bobby, but then you aren't using > > > > > > theGalileantransformations, because theGalileantransformations are > > > > > > more than algebraic equations. In theGalileantransformations, the > > > > > > variables actually have a specific meaning, otherwise they are no > > > > > > longer theGalileantransformations. (This is what marks the > > > > > > difference between physics and algebra. In algebra, you can say the > > > > > > variables stand for anything you want them to stand for. In physics, > > > > > > you cannot.) > > > > > > > > As a scientist, you may not like this, but if so, prove it > > > > > > > wrong. Just complaining about an equation does not prove anything. > > > > > > > I'm not complaining about anything, Bobby. I'm just making a simple > > > > > > statement that the variables in the transformation mean something > > > > > > specific in physics, and that those transformations turn out not to > > > > > > work so well in a variety of circumstances, and so I'm not inclined to > > > > > > use something that does not work well. I would not use a hammer to > > > > > > drive a deck screw, either, even if there were nothing wrong with the > > > > > > hammer. > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > I know a psychologist who was trying to drill through a board with an > > > > > electric drill, and he was having great difficulty. He said to > > > > > himself, This drill bit is obviously very dull, so he applied more > > > > > pressure, and after a long difficult time he was able to get the hole > > > > > drilled completely through the board, although it was more burned than > > > > > drilled. > > > > > Then he discovered that he had drilled completely through a > > > > > board with the drill running in reverse. > > > > > College graduates are certainly interesting people. > > > > > So are welders attempting to useGalileantransformations where they > > > > do not work at all well. > > > > > So you see, some welders seem to have the same foibles and goofball > > > > tactics that you've sometimes observed with college graduates. This > > > > should caution you about being prejudicial about classes of people, > > > > no? > > > > > PD > > > > TheGalileantransformation equations seem to me to work just fine. > > > What problem were you having with them? > > > I've already told you, Robert. They may work just fine with the > > measurements you wish to do, at the precision with which you measure > > them. > > Physicists often use them too as a handy approximation. But they also > > have to deal with many situations where they do not work at all well. > > > On the other hand, you seem to be ok just as long as they appear to be > > legitimate algebraic equations and just as long as they fit your > > preconceived notions about the world. You don't seem to worry much at > > all about whether measurements play a role in their usage or not. This > > is where what you do with them becomes barely discernible from > > whittling a stick with a pocket knife. > > > PD > > So if my equations show the same time on a clock as the Lorentz > equations to six digits at 30 miles /sec, the measurements show the > Lorentz equations to be correct but my equations wrong. Well, so go > ahead and show why, PD. Actually, measurements to six digit precision would not do the trick at 30 miles/second. You'd need a measurement to eight digit precision to see that the Lorentz equations are correct at 30 miles/second. You should be able to do some simple algebra to see that this is the case. Calculate 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for v=30miles/second, Robert, and you'll see why. PD
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 11:11 On Jul 3, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "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? > >TheGalileantransformation equations show that from either frame of > >reference, the clock in S is running at a faster rate, t, > > Don't lie, Robert. > > Galileantransforms 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' inGalileantransforms. 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? Clocks tick at whatever rates they tick. That rate depends on their construction and their velocity. With regard to ticking, there is always some mechanism by which the clock ticks. With regard to motion, there is always some force which causes the motion. Scientists of today admit that the earth is orbiting the sun, but the Lorentz equations require a frame of reference of the earth in which the sun is orbiting the earth. The Galilean transformation equations fit reality. There is a frame of reference at rest and a frame of reference in motion. They do not ignore the fact that there is a reason why one frame of reference is moving relative to the other. If motion causes a time dilation, then the Galilean transformation equations show that that time dilation stays with the moving frame of reference. It does not transpose the way the Lorentz equations do. So if a clock in frame of reference S ticks at the rate of one tick per second, a clock in S' will tick at a slower rate. If viewed from S', an observer will see a clock in S' tick slower than a clock in S, contrary to what scientists believe. So if t is one tick per second, t'=t, meaning that t' is one tick per second of a clock in S. The clock in S' is ticking slower, so t' will be less than one tick of a clock in S'. I know this is very difficult for scientists to understand. It is called reality.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 11:15
On Jul 3, 1:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "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. TheGalileantransformation 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. The clock in S' is ticking slower than the clock in S as observed from either frame of reference. A clock at rest in S' is moving with a velocity of v relative to an observer in S. The time on the clock would be n'=t(1-v/c) where t is time on a clock at rest in S. |