Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 7 Jul 2010 19:59 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. n'=t(1-v/c) The clock in S' is slower as observed from either frame of reference.
From: whoever on 7 Jul 2010 20:06 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:ac4b310d-cef8-43aa-a588-73ead74ae6af(a)y12g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > Can you answer that honestly? I doubt it. Prove me wrong. > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > The clock in S' is slower as observed from either frame of >reference. So if we use n and n' for the time shown on clocks at rest in S and S respectively we have in frames S n = t ie the clock shows the correct time in S and in frame S' n' = t(1-v/c) = n(1-v/c) ie the clock runs slow in S' So clocks that move will not show the 'correct' time (similar to LET where clocks the move slow down and do not show the correct time) Correct? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: rbwinn on 7 Jul 2010 20:08 On Jul 5, 4:15 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "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? That is correct, but unbeknown to an observer in S', his clock gives a faster speed for S' relative to S than a clock in S. The clock in S' is 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. > > 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 theGalileantransformation > > 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? t is time on a clock in S. t'=t t' is time on a clock in S also, by definition. A clock in S' is running slower. There is no clock in S' that shows t'. > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---
From: artful on 7 Jul 2010 20:18 On Jul 8, 10:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 4:15 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "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? > > That is correct, but unbeknown to an observer in S', his clock gives a > faster speed for S' relative to S than a clock in S. The clock in S' > is 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. > > > 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 theGalileantransformation > > > 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? > > t is time on a clock in S. t'=t t' is time on a clock in S also, by > definition. A clock in S' is running slower. There is no clock in S' > that shows t'. So Galilean transforms do not apply to any sorts of clocks .. ie to all processes. Absolutely moving clocks (and processes) run slow according to your theory. Correct?
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2010 00:52
On Jul 6, 7:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Well, I don't see how it means anything for someone who has never worked a day in their life to tell me that I am lazy. |