Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 3 Jul 2010 16:47 On Jul 3, 3:35 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Which scientists, Robert? Please be specific. Otherwise it sounds like you're just having voices in your head. > 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. Are you sure about that, Robert? Who were the experimenters? > 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: Inertial on 3 Jul 2010 18:15 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:36938ec0-fc81-4396-81d1-77df4b55314c(a)x2g2000prk.googlegroups.com... On Jul 3, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> 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? Lets watch Robert avoid answering the question again .. how many times is it now? > Clocks tick at whatever rates they tick. BAHAHA ... Not correctly working clocks .. which is what we were talking about .. by definition there is only one POSSIBLE rate at which they can tick when at rest .. that is, they must show the actual time in that frame (ie if they are at rest in S, they show time t, if they are at rest in S' they show t'). That means they MUST show the same time all the time. [snip waffle] > If motion causes a time dilation, then the Galilean >transformation equations Then Galilean transforms DO NOT APPLY .. because they do NOT show any time dilation. You've already admitted this, and have added your own 4th equation for how much moving clocks get slowed (ie so they no longer show the correct time) > show that that time dilation stays with the > moving frame of reference. No .. it shows there is NO time dilation. The time in one frame is always the same as another frame according to Galilean transforms (t;' = t). You've already admitted that and have said that it is clocks running slow (ie not showing the correct time) > It does not transpose the way the Lorentz > equations do. It does not even APPLY. > 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. And contrary to your equations ... if S' is moving relative to S, then S is moving relative to S', so each should measure the other as slower, according to what you've been saying. How does that work? So .. if you have two frame moving relative to each other, and each with clocks at rest in them .. which clocks run slow and which run fast? And why will they do that .. why doesn't the people in those frames simply set the clocks to the correct rate .. why do they let their clocks run slow (or fast) > 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'. So an observer at rest in S' will see his clock is slower than a correct clock at rest in S (it is not showing t' = t) and so will fix it to make it correct, and the clocks will be ticking at the same rate and both be correct. Your position is refuted. > I know this is very difficult for scientists to >understand. It is called reality.* No .. its called self-ciontradiction. As expected,. you've STILL avoided answering the question I asked .. and you've now made your theory self contradictory, and your claims about galillean transforms self contradictoy Lets ask again .. see if you can answer 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? And a further question If you have two frames moving relative to each other, and each with a clock at rest in them .. which clock runs slow and which runs fast? And why will they do that .. why don't the people at rest in those frames simply set the clocks to the correct rate .. why do they let their clocks run slow or fast?
From: Inertial on 3 Jul 2010 18:17 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:c34cba53-2a43-453f-936b-7088df7d2bef(a)j7g2000prj.googlegroups.com... 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. You've still not answered .. just calling it 'S' doesn't say what the frame is. Are you at rest in this frame S now? Am I? Is anything? Lets ask again .. see if you can answer 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? And a further question If you have two frames moving relative to each other, and each with a clock at rest in them .. which clock runs slow and which runs fast? And why will they do that .. why don't the people at rest in those frames simply set the clocks to the correct rate .. why do they let their clocks run slow or fast?
From: Inertial on 3 Jul 2010 18:18 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:e4232bef-2649-4dae-912e-a520f4eaac02(a)x2g2000prk.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 3, 12:56 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> [snip obfuscation and diversion] >> >> 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? > >Well, I can understand your concern. [snip more obfuscation and diversion[ You've still not answered .. just calling it 'S' doesn't say what the frame is. Are you at rest in this frame S now? Am I? Is anything? Lets ask again .. see if you can answer 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? And a further question If you have two frames moving relative to each other, and each with a clock at rest in them .. which clock runs slow and which runs fast? And why will they do that .. why don't the people at rest in those frames simply set the clocks to the correct rate .. why do they let their clocks run slow or fast?
From: Inertial on 3 Jul 2010 18:22
"rbwinn" wrote in message news:7351c0c6-57cc-4dd6-8617-9ae2c704f482(a)i16g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >Oh, you have some questions? When are you going to ask your questions? Stop diverting and obfuscating and LYING .. and answer my questions. |