Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 17:04 On Jul 4, 12:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 7:26 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > I think I'd much rather go to the magistrate where you live, and > that's why I'm asking to be sure about where you live. When I go to > the magistrate, he or she may be interested in whether there are other > concerns about your sanity, and so that is the reason I asked about > your neighbors and whether they've ever seen you outside your trailer. > > PD I don't think the magistrate where I live wants to see me again. Last time I requested trial by jury.
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 17:06 On Jul 4, 12:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 So you are saying that scientists here are forbidden to speak about relativity with people who do not have college degrees.
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 17:08 On Jul 4, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 theGalileantransformations don't say anything about clock measurements. > That's where you are wrong. The clock measurements are what turn the > equations into physics, into theGalileantransformations. > > > 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 Well, maybe Newton and Galileo can figure it out after the resurrection. There is certainly nothing here that can.
From: YBM on 5 Jul 2010 18:02 rbwinn a �crit : > On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> 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. > > I don't see the problem, YBM. I've just shown how a specific light ray (not the one with equation of motion x=ct but the one with the equation of motion x=-ct) is propagating at speed c in S but in S' *according to your "slow clock"* n' formula. As I said, we've been through this a few years ago, and you escaped miserabily as you are now.
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 18:39
On Jul 5, 3:02 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > > > > > 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. > > I've just shown how a specific light ray (not the one with equation of > motion x=ct but the one with the equation of motion x=-ct) is > propagating at speed c in S but in S' *according to your "slow clock"* > n' formula. > > As I said, we've been through this a few years ago, and you escaped > miserabily as you are now. A light ray going that direction is irrelevant to the time on the clock. The time on the clock was determined by a light ray going in the direction of motion of S'. In order to transform coordinates, n', the time on the clock in S', has to be converted to t', the time in the Galilean transformation equations. So with regard to coordinates (x',y',z',t') for any (x,y,z,t) in S, clocks at all points in S' will read n'=t(1-v/c). |