Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 10:13 On Jul 4, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 6:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 Earth is not moving, Robert? Then why do the locations of the > other planets move in the night sky? > > The earth is moving relative to the sun, PD.
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 10:18 On Jul 3, 11:39 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a crit : > > > > > > > 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) > > Such a clock won't account for a light with equation of motion x=-ct in > S to have a speed c in S' too. > > x=-ct => > x' = x - vt = -ct-vt = -(c+v)t > = -[(c+v)/(1-v/c)]*n' = -[ c*(c+v)/(c-v) ]*n' NOT EQUAL TO -cn' > > So your equation failed at conserving light speed between frames. The clock in S' is the clock that shows light to be traveling at 300,000 km/sec relative to S'. That clock is slower than the clock which shows t. x=ct applies only to frame of reference S. Since t'=t, t' is time on the clock in S, not the clock in S'. A different variable has to be used for the clock in S'. x'=cn' n' is time on the clock in S'. It shows light to be traveling at c in S'.
From: YBM on 5 Jul 2010 16:41 rbwinn a �crit : > On Jul 3, 11:39 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn a crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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) >> Such a clock won't account for a light with equation of motion x=-ct in >> S to have a speed c in S' too. >> >> x=-ct => >> x' = x - vt = -ct-vt = -(c+v)t >> = -[(c+v)/(1-v/c)]*n' = -[ c*(c+v)/(c-v) ]*n' NOT EQUAL TO -cn' >> >> So your equation failed at conserving light speed between frames. > > The clock in S' is the clock that shows light to be traveling at > 300,000 km/sec relative to S'. As I've just demonstrated above, it just doesn't work. It can work for one kind of specific light rays, but NOT for all of them. We've been through this two or three years ago, Robert, try not to be a dishonest piece of dirt for once in your life.
From: YBM on 5 Jul 2010 16:43 rbwinn a �crit : > On Jul 3, 11:33 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn a �crit : >> >>> [...] 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. You really know NOTHING at all of physics from 17th century until now, Robert ? You know the physics that made possible trains, steam engines, and welding devices ? This is no surprise anyway...
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 16:59
On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 11:39 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >> rbwinn a crit : > > >>> 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) > >> Such a clock won't account for a light with equation of motion x=-ct in > >> S to have a speed c in S' too. > > >> x=-ct => > >> x' = x - vt = -ct-vt = -(c+v)t > >> = -[(c+v)/(1-v/c)]*n' = -[ c*(c+v)/(c-v) ]*n' NOT EQUAL TO -cn' > > >> So your equation failed at conserving light speed between frames. > > > The clock in S' is the clock that shows light to be traveling at > > 300,000 km/sec relative to S'. > > As I've just demonstrated above, it just doesn't work. It can work for > one kind of specific light rays, but NOT for all of them. > > We've been through this two or three years ago, Robert, try not to be > a dishonest piece of dirt for once in your life. I don't see the problem, YBM. |