Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 19:52 On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "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? There are reasons why things happen, including motion. Now, I know you scientists are all impressed by having a train stand still and the railroad track moving. The problem with it is that it is not reality. The train is still what is moving. The reason for this is that the train cannot move the earth. When the wheels of the train are turned by the engine, the train moves, not the earth. This is just a scientific fact. That means the clock on the train is slower than the clock by the side of the railroad track. A clock in a satellite is slower than a clock on earth. A clock on Mercury is slower than time on the sun. If you cannot understand this, just keep asking about it. I can explain reality to you as many times as is necessary.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:00 On Jul 3, 3:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "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? The clocks all run the same if none of them are moving. If two clocks are moving relative to each other, then both are moving relative to the center of gravity of the universe, and the center of gravity of the universe is S. The two moving clocks are S'1 and S'2.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:11 On Jul 3, 3:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "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 theGalilean > >transformation equations > > ThenGalileantransforms 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 toGalileantransforms (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? Well, you may be able to confuse yourself, but it does not confuse me. I said S was a frame of reference at rest, and S' was a frame of reference in motion relative to S with a velocity of v. You want to flip frames of reference? The clock in S' is still slower than the clock in S. If you calculate speed using the slower clock, you will get a faster speed. This is called reality. I know it is difficult for scientists to understand.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:13 On Jul 3, 1:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? I have done it before. I suspect you are using the wrong equation. Does your answer show more time in S or in S'?
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:15
On Jul 3, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Well, if you do not want to talk to me, go talk to someone else. |