Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 13:41 On Jul 3, 7:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Well, I don't see why. Why don't you just say why you think this is true.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 13:45 On Jul 3, 7:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Well, considering how honest I believe scientists to be, I am not going to chase all around trying to look up things they want to keep secret. Let them just say what they claim to have proven if they do not want to show the proof.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 13:47 On Jul 3, 7:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I am not confused at all. When the experiment was run in reality, one of the two clocks showed less time when the experiment was over.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 13:48 On Jul 2, 9:52 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Well, suit yourself. If you can't prove something, you can't prove it.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 13:51
On Jul 3, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 7:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Sure. Tell me where you live, so that I can file with the authorities > > that have you in their jurisdiction. > > Glad to be of help, since you've asked. > > > PD > > Somewhere in the Phoenix area, Robert? I'm thinking Maricopa? > Have you ever walked across the fields in your back yard when you've > seen the authorities coming, or do you just hide under the trailer? > > PD There is one group of people I enjoy talking with more than scientists. That is lawyers. |