Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 12:21 On Jul 18, 9:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > The fastest clock would be at the center of gravity of the universe. > > > What center of gravity of the universe? > > > > all other clocks are slower than that clock. t'=t applies to only two > > > frames of reference at a time. For instance, if you are talking about > > > the earth and the moon, time on a clock on the moon would be n' and > > > time on the earth would be t. If you are talking about the earth and > > > the sun, time on a clock on earth would be n', and time on the sun > > > would be t. > > So you are saying that the universe does not have a center of > gravity. Why would everything else have a center of gravity, but not > the universe? Not everything else does, Robert. There are a lot of things that do, but not everything. Your "argument" is a little like saying that mammals are defined by giving live birth to their young. You might be thinking in your head, "Dolphins do, bats do, humans do, tigers do, horses do. Why would it be the case that all these mammals give live birth to their young and yet mammals aren't definable by giving live birth to their young." This is the difference between taking a poll of things you are familiar with, and taking a poll of everything there is. There are lots of examples of similar phenomena. Not everything that is 2D has a center in that 2D space. Not everything that is 1D has a center that is in that 1D space. Likewise, not everything that is 3D has a center in that 3D space. PD
From: rbwinn on 22 Jul 2010 22:56 On Jul 18, 9:20 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 12:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > Clocks on earth are slower than a clock at the center of the > > universe. t'=t only applies to two frames of reference at a time. > > How do you know which pair of the infinite number of inertial > reference > frames that exist that the gallilean transforms apply to at a given > time? > > What transform applies to the REST of the inertial reference frames in > the > universe? t can refer to time on a clock anywhere in the universe. If a clock on Mercury is slower than a clock on earth because Mercury has a faster velocity than earth has, then t'=t referring to a clock on Mercury cannot be the same as t'=t for a clock on earth. I know this is a difficult concept for scientists to grasp because Galileo and Newton described all time as being absolute, not knowing that velocity affected clocks. The difference between scientists like Galileo and Newton and scientists of today is that they were capable of incorporating new evidence into science. Newton and Galileo were both capable of imagining clocks at different rates, even though they used a theory that had absolute time. The reason they used absolute time was because they had never seen an experiment disproving it,
From: rbwinn on 22 Jul 2010 22:58 On Jul 19, 9:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 6:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > The fastest clock would be at the center of gravity of the universe.. > > > > What center of gravity of the universe? > > > > > all other clocks are slower than that clock. t'=t applies to only two > > > > frames of reference at a time. For instance, if you are talking about > > > > the earth and the moon, time on a clock on the moon would be n' and > > > > time on the earth would be t. If you are talking about the earth and > > > > the sun, time on a clock on earth would be n', and time on the sun > > > > would be t. > > > So you are saying that the universe does not have a center of > > gravity. Why would everything else have a center of gravity, but not > > the universe? > > Not everything else does, Robert. There are a lot of things that do, > but not everything. > Your "argument" is a little like saying that mammals are defined by > giving live birth to their young. You might be thinking in your head, > "Dolphins do, bats do, humans do, tigers do, horses do. Why would it > be the case that all these mammals give live birth to their young and > yet mammals aren't definable by giving live birth to their young." > This is the difference between taking a poll of things you are > familiar with, and taking a poll of everything there is. > > There are lots of examples of similar phenomena. Not everything that > is 2D has a center in that 2D space. Not everything that is 1D has a > center that is in that 1D space. Likewise, not everything that is 3D > has a center in that 3D space. > > PD Well, since you hypothesize this, go ahead and show some examples of things that do not have a center.
From: rbwinn on 22 Jul 2010 23:02 On Jul 19, 9:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:28 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 5:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > >news:f67fd82f-41a0-4534-be1b-e939bd623bbb(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > > > 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. > > > > >The fastest clock would be at the center of gravity of the universe. > > > >all other clocks are slower than that clock. t'=t applies to only two > > > >frames of reference at a time. > > > > And not to clocks, it appears .. or else they would not run slow > > > > > For instance, if you are talking about > > > >the earth and the moon, time on a clock on the moon would be n' and > > > >time on the earth would be t. > > > > And vice versa, of course. . which means clocks run both faster than each > > > other and slow than each other. A contradiction > > > > > If you are talking about the earth and > > > >the sun, time on a clock on earth would be n', and time on the sun > > > >would be t. > > > > And vice versa, of course. . which means clocks run both faster than each > > > other and slow than each other. A contradiction > > > > So .. if you have two clocks, A and B, where A moves at v relative to B, and > > > so B at -v relative to A, which is faster? > > > Well, here is where reality disagrees with science. In reality, if > > you have one clock slower than the other, it is slower than the other > > from both frames of reference, > > Not always, Robert. No. That's what MEASUREMENTS say -- not always. > > > which is what theGalilean > > transformation equations show. > > Equations don't show anything. They claim something, but that claim > needs to be put to experimental test. And in this case, Robert, theGalileantransformations don't match experimental measurement. In > science, measurements always trump equations. You didn't know that? > > > > > Scientists are saying, we are > > confused, so all people are required to be confused. Well, people who have faith in fairy tales do not like to be told they are wrong. When as much time and effort has been spent propagating an idea like length contraction, scientists make take centuries to get over the false teaching they have created. That is certainly understandable.
From: Inertial on 22 Jul 2010 23:06
"rbwinn" wrote in message news:f721290c-8041-4e66-a964-9c40ba146c5f(a)z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 18, 9:20 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 19, 12:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Clocks on earth are slower than a clock at the center of the >> > universe. t'=t only applies to two frames of reference at a time. >> >> How do you know which pair of the infinite number of inertial >> reference >> frames that exist that the gallilean transforms apply to at a given >> time? >> >> What transform applies to the REST of the inertial reference frames in >> the >> universe? > > t can refer to time on a clock anywhere in the universe. No .. because you just said the time shown on the clock depends on its velocity in some frame S. Try and be consistent with what you say > If a clock > on Mercury is slower than a clock on earth because Mercury has a >faster velocity than earth has, then t'=t referring to a clock on >Mercury cannot be the same as t'=t for a clock on earth. So time is not the same everywhere. That means the galilean transforms are wrong > I know this >is a difficult concept for scientists to grasp because Galileo and > Newton described all time as being absolute, not knowing that velocity >affected clocks. Thats what galilean trasnforsm say. And it is what YOU said earlier. You simply claimed that clocks run slow, NOT that time itself runs slow [snip nonsense] So .. you've changed your story now. You NOW claim that time runs slows for objects the move faster. Question now is .. movement relative to what? What is the frame where clocks run fastest? And what is the relationship between time and velocity. It can't be Galilean transforms, because they have the time the same absolute everywhere (as you just admitted above). |