Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2010 00:53 On Jul 6, 7:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Be my guest. I don't think you would get anywhere with it, but who knows what might happen in a socialistic government like we now have?
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2010 00:56 On Jul 7, 5:06 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "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: n...(a)netfront.net --- Why wouldn't the time be correct? It is the molecules that compose the clock that slow down to keep the speed of light at c in the moving frame of reference.
From: rbwinn on 12 Jul 2010 00:59 On Jul 7, 5:18 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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'. > > SoGalileantransforms do not apply to any sorts of clocks .. ie to > all processes. Absolutely moving clocks (and processes) run slow > according to your theory. > > Correct? Incorrect. Processes at atomic and sub-atomic level are what slow down. That is why all clocks in a moving system will show less time than a clock at rest.
From: Inertial on 12 Jul 2010 01:07 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:e9c001fb-d6a6-427f-8555-a51ca935d1eb(a)k14g2000pro.googlegroups.com... On Jul 7, 5:18 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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'. > >> SoGalileantransforms do not apply to any sorts of clocks .. ie to >> all processes. Absolutely moving clocks (and processes) run slow >> according to your theory. >> >> Correct? > >Incorrect. Then make up your mind > Processes at atomic and sub-atomic level are what slow > down. So all clocks and processes run slow .. and so Galilean transforms do not apply to what such clocks and processes show (ie to the readings on clocks) Thanks for agreeing with what you jsut said was incorrect > That is why all clocks in a moving system will show less time > than a clock at rest. So you are saying that Galilean transforms do not apply to what moving clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks).
From: Inertial on 12 Jul 2010 01:10
"rbwinn" wrote in message news:3466e4f4-d655-4959-b499-315061eb04bf(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > >On Jul 7, 5:06 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "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: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > Why wouldn't the time be correct? Because you said the clock is slow. If it is slow, it is, by definition, no correct. That is your claim .. not mine. You say the clocks runs slow .. so the time shown on the clock is not correct, yes? > It is the molecules that compose > the clock that slow down to keep the speed of light at c in the moving > frame of reference. So clocks that move will not show the correct time .. they will show a slowed time n', instead of the correct time t'. Yes? |