Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 14 Jul 2010 10:02 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:3f7f0218-66b3-4d14-b4e6-f01c82f796ba(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >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: [snip] >> >> > 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. No .. they do not. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t That's the Galilean transforms above. .They say nothing about what some clock would read. Except that a correct clock will show the same time in both frames > n'=t(1-v/c) That is not part of the galilean transforms. That is your additional equation for clock slowing. Lets call it (for want of a better name) the 'rbwinn clock slowing equation'. > t is time on a clock in S. n' is time on a clock in S'. So you are saying that Galilean transforms (in particular t' = t) do not apply to what moving clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). You are saying a moving clock obeys n' = t(1-v/c) = n(1-v/c) where n=t is what a clock in S would read, and n' is what a clock in S' would read.
From: YBM on 14 Jul 2010 10:08 Inertial a �crit : > "rbwinn" wrote in message > news:3f7f0218-66b3-4d14-b4e6-f01c82f796ba(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > >> 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: > [snip] >>> >> > 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. > > No .. they do not. > >> >> x'=x-vt >> y'=y >> z'=z >> t'=t > > That's the Galilean transforms above. .They say nothing about what some > clock would read. Except that a correct clock will show the same time > in both frames > >> n'=t(1-v/c) > > That is not part of the galilean transforms. That is your additional > equation for clock slowing. Lets call it (for want of a better name) > the 'rbwinn clock slowing equation'. > >> t is time on a clock in S. n' is time on a clock in S'. > > So you are saying that Galilean transforms (in particular t' = t) do not > apply to what moving clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). You > are saying a moving clock obeys n' = t(1-v/c) = n(1-v/c) where n=t is > what a clock in S would read, and n' is what a clock in S' would read. Right, that is what Robert says even if he is too dishonest to admit it. Moreover you could check that this formula for n' is not compatible with the invariance of light speed (just look at a light ray with an equation of motion such as x=-ct in S).
From: PD on 14 Jul 2010 10:56 On Jul 14, 4:17 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? My job, Robert. And I'm not a welder. Nor am I a compulsive liar. It's probably not a good idea to project your own situation onto others. PD
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2010 21:57 On Jul 14, 7:08 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > Inertial a écrit : > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > >news:3f7f0218-66b3-4d14-b4e6-f01c82f796ba(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > >> 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: > > [snip] > >>> >> > 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). > > >> TheGalileantransformation equations predict that a clock in S' will > >> be slower than a clock in S. > > > No .. they do not. > > >> x'=x-vt > >> y'=y > >> z'=z > >> t'=t > > > That's theGalileantransforms above. .They say nothing about what some > > clock would read. Except that a correct clock will show the same time > > in both frames > > >> n'=t(1-v/c) > > > That is not part of thegalileantransforms. That is your additional > > equation for clock slowing. Lets call it (for want of a better name) > > the 'rbwinn clock slowing equation'. > > >> t is time on a clock in S. n' is time on a clock in S'. > > > So you are saying thatGalileantransforms (in particular t' = t) do not > > apply to what moving clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). You > > are saying a moving clock obeys n' = t(1-v/c) = n(1-v/c) where n=t is > > what a clock in S would read, and n' is what a clock in S' would read. > > Right, that is what Robert says even if he is too dishonest to admit it. > > Moreover you could check that this formula for n' is not compatible with > the invariance of light speed (just look at a light ray with an > equation of motion such as x=-ct in S). If the light has a negative velocity in S, it has a negative velocity in S'.
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2010 22:04
On Jul 4, 5:09 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:31 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' is > > slower than a clock in S which shows t. According to theGalilean > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. Time on > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used. We call time on the > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'. > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean > > transformation equations because we know that it shows light to be > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'. Therefore, if > > |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then > > > cn'=ct-vt > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > > We can now calculate orbits of satellites and planets without > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their length > > contraction. For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit around the > > sun is 29.8 km/sec. While a second of time takes place on earth, a > > longer time is taking place on the sun. > > > n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c) > > 1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000) > > t(sun)=1.0001 sec. > > > Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to verify that > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for gravitation, we > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury. > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c) > > n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87 km/sec/ > > 300,000km/sec) > > n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec > > > So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on a clock on > > Mercury. The question now is where would this put the perihelion of > > Mercury using Newton's equations? > > OK .. so RBWINN is now (finally) claiming there is an absolute frame, > S, in which the center of mass of the universe is at rest. > > He is also claiming that clocks in motion relative to that absolute > frame the will run slow. > > 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. Why is this supposed to be so complicated? There are two frames of reference in the Galilean transformation equations, S and S'. S' is moving with a velocity of v relative to S. If you are talking about a train and a railroad track, the train is S', and the track is S. If you are talking about a planet and a satellite, the satellite is S' and the planet is S. If you are talking about the sun and a planet, the planet is S' and the sun is S. If you are talking about the Milky Way galaxy and a star, the center of gravity of the Milky Way galaxy is S and the star is S'. The Galilean transformation equations can only represent two frames of reference at a time. |