Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:17 On Jul 3, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Between which two events, Robert? You see, this matters. > > PD For crying out loud. Between the launching of the Vanguard rocket and the end of its flight.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:20 On Jul 3, 1:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:48 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Declining to jump when you say "jump" does not imply that the person > you commanded cannot jump, Robert. It just means that someone has told > you "no". I don't care what you do. You are just a typical scientist to me.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:26 On Jul 3, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > I guessed that much. On the very end of a road bordering some fields, > I'm thinking. > Do your neighbors know you too? Have they filed reports with the > authorities about you in recent years? > > PD No, not on the very end of a road. Next to a block wall of a sub- division. Are you concerned about the safety of my neighbors? Why don't you go to a magistrate where you live and file a petition for the institutionalization of a person you believe to be insane? That is what is done here in the United States for the situation you describe. If you do not do it, then we can all say you are just blowing smoke, which is exactly what you are doing.
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:27 On Jul 3, 1:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:51 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > And do you walk across the field when you see lawyers coming, or do > you just hide under your trailer when you see lawyers coming? > What happens when the authorities and lawyers come at the same time? > > PD There are a couple of lawyers who go to church where I do. Do they count?
From: rbwinn on 3 Jul 2010 20:28
On Jul 3, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:56 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 theGalileantransformation equations. > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > Which equation do you see changed? > > That's the problem, Robert. You think theGalileantransformation is > just a list of equations. > That's not correct. > There is also the meaning of the variables in those equations that is > important. > Without the correct meaning of the variables, then those are just > algebraic equations, and you're no longer talking about physics. > > PD > > > > > The only thing that changed was the rate of the clock in S'. > > Sorry to disappoint you. So rates of clocks are no longer physics. You scientists do it your way and I will do it mine. |