Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 10:46 On Jul 5, 4:04 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Well, it may be worth another shot. Perhaps the neighbors think so too. Perhaps you've swaddled yourself in a touch too much Smug. PD
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 10:48 On Jul 5, 5:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. And yet you get to church. Or is it an internet church? Your circumstances about having a car available to you don't have much to do with your profound laziness and people's general apathy about responding to your whims. PD
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 10:51 On Jul 5, 8:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. And as you can see, I'm not talking much about the facts that are available for you to look up. Exactly as I said I'm doing, I'm pointing out that your statements are not only incorrect but foolishly so, and I'm pointing out in a minimal way the facts that show that and telling you where you can look up those facts to verify them for yourself. I think that is sufficient attention to be paid to you. PD
From: PD on 6 Jul 2010 10:58 On Jul 5, 9:13 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes, it is. And so you see, the railroad tracks, which are connected to the moving earth, are also moving. Don't you think so too?
From: rbwinn on 7 Jul 2010 19:24
On Jul 6, 7:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 8:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > And as you can see, I'm not talking much about the facts that are > available for you to look up. Exactly as I said I'm doing, I'm > pointing out that your statements are not only incorrect but foolishly > so, and I'm pointing out in a minimal way the facts that show that and > telling you where you can look up those facts to verify them for > yourself. I think that is sufficient attention to be paid to you. > > PD Right. I have already looked up the facts. So scientists want to use the wrong equations. I see no reason why they cannot. |