Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 4 Jul 2010 15:22 On Jul 3, 7:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Actually, I'm more curious what happens when authorities come to where you live. Since you go to church, it's obvious that you can get to the library in Maricopa. There's actually a very good university in Phoenix, too. So you really don't have a good excuse not to go there to get some answers you keep asking for here. PD
From: PD on 4 Jul 2010 15:24 On Jul 3, 7:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Oh, but they are! You were the one, I believe, that said that the Galilean transformations don't say anything about clock measurements. That's where you are wrong. The clock measurements are what turn the equations into physics, into the Galilean transformations. > You scientists do it your > way and I will do it mine. You always have, Robert. Unfortunately, the algebraic diddling you do doesn't have anything to do with physics. That's the problem, you see. PD
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 09:40 On Jul 4, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 7:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Oh, I'm happy to talk with you, Robert. I just won't spoonfeed you > facts you can find yourself just as easily as anyone else can. I'll > talk about what those facts are and where you can find them and how > stupid and lazy you are to not go and look them up. > > PD Well, as I said, if you do not want to talk about your "facts", don't talk about them. It does not matter to me.
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 09:53 On Jul 3, 11:33 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > [...] With regard to > > motion, there is always some force which causes the motion. > > What you wrote there is aristotelician (ancient greece, you know) > physics, known to be wrong since Galileo and Newton. Wonderful that you would comment on this, YBM. So let's take Einstein's example of the train and railroad track. In his day they would boil water in the engine of the train to make steam, which ran a steam engine, the force of which was transferred mechanically to the wheels of the engine, causing them to turn. Today it is done by an internal combustion diesel engine. So now we have the engine of the train running, and the engineer puts the train in gear and applies the force of the train engine to the wheels. What is going to happen, YBM? Is the train going to continue to stand still at the station? Is the train going to stand still, but the station and railroad track will move away in accordance with the turning of the wheels of the train? Are the station and railroad track going to stand still and the train begin to move down the track? We can examine this modern example from the ideas of Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton. And Einstein. Then we can decide whether the force of the train engine had anything to do with what takes place. What do you say, YBM? This might be a great step forward for science.
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 10:10
On Jul 4, 5:09 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:31 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' is > > slower than a clock in S which shows t. According to theGalilean > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. Time on > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used. We call time on the > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'. > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean > > transformation equations because we know that it shows light to be > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'. Therefore, if > > |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then > > > cn'=ct-vt > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > > We can now calculate orbits of satellites and planets without > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their length > > contraction. For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit around the > > sun is 29.8 km/sec. While a second of time takes place on earth, a > > longer time is taking place on the sun. > > > n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c) > > 1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000) > > t(sun)=1.0001 sec. > > > Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to verify that > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for gravitation, we > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury. > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c) > > n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87 km/sec/ > > 300,000km/sec) > > n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec > > > So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on a clock on > > Mercury. The question now is where would this put the perihelion of > > Mercury using Newton's equations? > > OK .. so RBWINN is now (finally) claiming there is an absolute frame, > S, in which the center of mass of the universe is at rest. > > He is also claiming that clocks in motion relative to that absolute > frame the will run slow. > > Q1: Does EVERYTHING in motion relative to that frame run slow, or only > some clocks? > > Q2: Are clock on earth all running slow then? > > Q3: If time is the same everywhere (as RBWINN agreed is the case due > to t'=t) then why not just set all clocks to show the time t? Then > there is no slow clocks and Gallilean transforms apply. Q1 Everything in motion relative to that frame runs slower. Q2 Clocks on earth run slower than time on the sun. Time on the sun is slower than time at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Time at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is slower than time at the center of gravity of the universe unless the center of the Milky Way galaxy is the center of gravity of the universe. Q3 Time is not the same everywhere. The equation t'=t applies to only two frames of reference, for which the Galilean transformation equations describe the motion of S' relative to S. If we are talking about Einstein's example of the train and railroad track, S is the railroad track and S' is the train. If we are talking about the earth and a satellite in orbit, S is the earth, and S' is the satellite. If we are talking about the earth and the sun, S is the sun, and S' is the earth. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t n'=t(1-v/c) n' is time on a clock in S', and t is time on a clock in S. A clock in S' is always slower than a clock in S because S' is moving relative to S. |