Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 18:48 On Jul 5, 1:43 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > > > > > 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. > > 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... Well, I know that you scientists want to pretend you are sitting on a cloud when it comes to frames of reference. I say that whether you are on the train or on the ground, the train is what is moving, not the train station and railroad track if you are talking about two frames of reference, S and S'. So if you want to talk about the frame of reference of S', you also need to talk about reality. If scientists can prove that a clock on a moving train is slower than a clock on the ground, then they also have to recognize that an engineer on the train using that slower clock to calculate his speed is going to get a higher speed than an observer on the ground using an identical clock.
From: rbwinn on 5 Jul 2010 18:50 On Jul 4, 12:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 7:20 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > All I'm pointing out to you, Robert, is that whether a person does > something or not is not an indication of whether they are capable of > it. > > PD What I have available to me is what it on the internet. I do not drive a car.
From: whoever on 5 Jul 2010 19:15 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:b7c4ad9b-65d4-484b-9bb5-f32201ca5146(a)n20g2000prc.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 4, 5:09 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> 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. So, like in LET, everyone will be of the opinions that their own clocks are correct .. because not only are the clocks slowed, but all processes (including our biological ones) are slowed .. so the clock LOOKS to us like its ticking correctly 8even though we are moving realtivt to your absolute frame). Is that correct? > 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. I take it this is due to earth having greater motion than the sun relative to the universes centre of massm etc. > 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. So lets say S is the centre-of-mass-of-universe frame. S' is the frame of some moving observer.(eg that of a spaceship travelling thru the universe at an absolute speed v) Q4: So what do t' and t represent for you .. is it time in those frames? the time on clocks in those frame? what? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 10:42 On Jul 5, 4:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I don't know that that's true, Robert. It seems pretty clear that YOU can't figure it out. You don't even listen to corrections that are provided to you. PD
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 10:44
On Jul 5, 4:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Not at all. Just because someone doesn't respond to you in the fashion you're fishing for doesn't mean they are forbidden by anyone from doing so. It must may mean that people don't like to accommodate your laziness as a general rule. PD |