Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 09:32 On Jul 7, 6:24 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. It's pretty plain you're lying. You said you had no interest in looking up the facts where they are, which is where I suggested you go to find them. Now you say you've looked them up. One way or the other, Robert, you're lying and you have no problem with that. > So scientists want to use > the wrong equations. I see no reason why they cannot.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 09:38 On Jul 11, 11:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I don't know who this person is that has told you that you're lazy but has never worked a day in his life. I work six days a week, and I'm telling you you're lazy, too. PD
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 09:42 On Jul 11, 11:53 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Exactly. You may be living in the wrong country. Do you get along with the Baltierras?
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2010 05:17 On Jul 12, 6:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 11:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > I don't know who this person is that has told you that you're lazy but > has never worked a day in his life. I work six days a week, and I'm > telling you you're lazy, too. > > PD You work six days a week doing what?
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2010 05:24
On Jul 11, 10:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "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 soGalileantransforms 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 thatGalileantransforms do not apply to what moving > clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). The Galilean transformation equations predict that a clock in S' will be slower than a clock in S. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t n'=t(1-v/c) t is time on a clock in S. n' is time on a clock in S'. |