Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 13:52 On Jul 3, 7:30 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 I live in Maricopa.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 13:56 On Jul 3, 7:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 10:17 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 theGalileantransformation > > equations. It is time on a slower clock. > > And that's where it stops being theGalileantransformation, because > t' in theGalileantransformation is the value of the time on the > clock in S'. If you say, no, now n' is the value of the time on the > clock in S', then you are no longer using theGalilean > transformations. You are using equations that look the same, but the > variables mean something completely different. In theGalilean > transformation, it is not just the equations but the meanings of the > variables that are important. This seems to have escaped you. > > > > > It applies to theGalilean > > transformation equations the same way time on any other slower clock > > applies to theGalileantransformation equations. > > I bought an alarm clock at Walgreen's drug store last year that lost > > ten minutes every day. Are you saying that theGalilean > > transformation equations cannot describe what that clock does? No, they are still the Galilean transformation equations. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t Which equation do you see changed? The only thing that changed was the rate of the clock in S'. Sorry to disappoint you.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 16:35 On Jul 3, 7:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 11:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > No, it's not, Robert. > You are under some misapprehension about this. > Wherever did you get this ridiculous notion? > Please be precise. You should not tell me "scientists told me this," > because I suspect you have voices in your head that are telling you > that they are scientists. I'd like specific names and references. If > you don't have those, then you can understand why, when you say > something as wrong as that, people think you just make it up. > > PD Scientists have been saying this for a long time. When I was in high school, they put a cesium clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard rocket and recovered it after the flight of the rocket. Then they compared the time of that clock to time on an identical clock kept on earth. The clock on earth showed more time. So, no, PD, are you trying to tell me that the clock from the Vanguard rocket nosecone showed less time because it was running faster than the other clock? Well, go ahead and explain your idea. This sounds very scientific.
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 16:38 On Jul 3, 12:41 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I just did. If you do the very simple arithmetic, which anyone with at least one year of college should do with one hand tied behind their back, you'd see why 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for v = 30 miles/second would require 8 digit precision. Surely you can do arithmetic. Do you have a calculator handy? What about the one that comes for free on your computer?
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 16:40
On Jul 3, 12:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. They certainly don't want to keep things secret. That's why they put them in libraries where they are just as easy for you to find as they are for anyone else. If you don't want to lift your pinky finger to do that, then no one needs to accommodate your laziness, do they? PD |