Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 17:56 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. OK, you tell me where the Galilean transformation equations do not match experimental results. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t So we use the rotation of the earth to measure time. For you scientists, the earth rotates on its axis. The earth rotates the same number of degrees in S' as it does in S. That means t'=t. Now we have a clock in S that agrees with the rotation of the earth. It shows the earth rotates every 24 hours. So time on that clock is t. Then we have a clock in S' that shows less time for a rotation of the earth. Show where the Galilean transformation equations were disproven.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 17:59 On Jul 23, 6:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Sure. A line is a 1D object, and we're going to ask which point ON > THIS LINE is the center. If the line has two endpoints, then there is > a point on this line which is the center of the line. It sits halfway > between the endpoints. > > You can even curve the line, and there will still be a point ON the > line which is midway between the two endpoints, which you can find by > simultaneously crawling along the line from the endpoints at the same > speed. > > But a circle is a 1D object without endpoints, and there is no point > on the circle that is the center of the circle. > > Likewise, if you take a sheet of paper, you can find a point ON the > sheet of paper that is the center of the sheet of paper. > > But if you take the surface of a ball or the surface of a donut (a > torus), there is no point ON the surface that is the center of that > surface. > > Likewise, if you take a 3D box, like a room, you can find the center > of the room. But it's certainly possible to imagine a curved 3D space > that has no center in that 3D space. (Now, I say it's possible to > imagine it, but I expect that you will find this is not easy for you. > You may be able to visualize the circle and the donut, but go into > complete vapor lock in the 3D case. Your mind may tell you it's ok > with 1D and 2D, but 3D is somehow just "different". But that's just > you, Robert, and your bone-filled cranium.) > > PD Well, you seem to have proven something to yourself. I don't really see the reason for it.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 18:11 On Jul 22, 8:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > news:3feb59f8-1922-4317-84df-66610b7a6536(a)m17g2000prl.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 > [snip] > >> > cn'=ct-vt > >> > n'=t(1-v/c) > [snip] > >> 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. > > >Q1 All clocks run slow compared to a clock at the center of gravity > >of the universe because all clocks are moving compared to that clock. > >However, the center of gravity of the universe is also probably > >moving. > > Relative to what? Where/what is the frame where clocks run fastest? > > >Q2 Clocks on earth that are operating correctly are running at the > >correct speed for clocks on earth. That is slower than the same > >clocks would be running if they were at the center of gravity of the > >universe. > > >Q3 t'=t is not defining absolute time. > > Wrong. That is EXACTLY what it defines. It says time is the same > regardless of velocity or position. > > > The proof of this is seen by > >applying theGalileantransformation equations to two different > >clocks. If S and S' are the frames of reference of Jupiter and one of > >its moons, then t is time on a clock on Jupiter. > > And theGalileantransforms say t' = t > > > If S and S' are > >frames of reference representing Mars and one of its moons, then t is > > time on a clock on Mars. A clock on Mars is slower than a clock on > >Jupiter because Mars has a faster velocity relative to the sun. > >Consequently, t'=t is not representing absolute time, but relative > >time, according to the rate of time t represents. > > No matter WHAT pair of inertial frames you choose, Galileantransforms say > that the time is the same for both. That is precisely what t' = t MEANS. > > So you cannot deny that AND claim to useGalileantransforms. That's just > self-contradictory. > > What YOU DO add is an additional equation that relates the time shown on > clocks to velocity. That will mean that faster moving objects will tick > slower. And you've said that that movement must be measured relative to the > centre-of-mass of the universe. And that the time shown on a clock, moving > at v relative to that centre of mass frame, is given by t(1-v/c) .. where we > assume v is the speed (so always a +ve value) of the clock relative to that > centre of mass frame. > > Is that correct? You had better define what time is if you are going to make rules. First you claim that the rotation of the earth cannot be used to measure time in S'. It looks to me like it can. An astronaut can look out of the window of his satellite as see the earth rotate on its axis. So what are you saying, that one rotation of the earth to an observer on the ground is not the same as one rotation of the earth seen by an astronaut in a satellite? Go ahead and prove it is not the same. Here is what I get mathematically. 1 rotation seen from S'= one rotation seen from S. t'=t. So you were going to disprove the Galilean transformation equations. Go ahead and disprove them.
From: whoever on 25 Jul 2010 08:53 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:d0f1330f-c6a5-4bd9-8f3a-b5f6a773d01f(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > >On Jul 22, 8:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" wrote in message >> >> news:3feb59f8-1922-4317-84df-66610b7a6536(a)m17g2000prl.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 > [snip] > >> > cn'=ct-vt > >> > n'=t(1-v/c) > [snip] > >> 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. > > >Q1 All clocks run slow compared to a clock at the center of gravity > >of the universe because all clocks are moving compared to that clock. > >However, the center of gravity of the universe is also probably > >moving. > > Relative to what? Where/what is the frame where clocks run fastest? > > >Q2 Clocks on earth that are operating correctly are running at the > >correct speed for clocks on earth. That is slower than the same > >clocks would be running if they were at the center of gravity of the > >universe. > > >Q3 t'=t is not defining absolute time. > > Wrong. That is EXACTLY what it defines. It says time is the same > regardless of velocity or position. > > > The proof of this is seen by > >applying theGalileantransformation equations to two different > >clocks. If S and S' are the frames of reference of Jupiter and one of > >its moons, then t is time on a clock on Jupiter. > > And theGalileantransforms say t' = t > > > If S and S' are > >frames of reference representing Mars and one of its moons, then t is > > time on a clock on Mars. A clock on Mars is slower than a clock on > >Jupiter because Mars has a faster velocity relative to the sun. > >Consequently, t'=t is not representing absolute time, but relative > >time, according to the rate of time t represents. > >> No matter WHAT pair of inertial frames you choose, Galileantransforms >> say >> that the time is the same for both. That is precisely what t' = t MEANS. >> >> So you cannot deny that AND claim to useGalileantransforms. That's just >> self-contradictory. >> >> What YOU DO add is an additional equation that relates the time shown on >> clocks to velocity. That will mean that faster moving objects will tick >> slower. And you've said that that movement must be measured relative to >> the >> centre-of-mass of the universe. And that the time shown on a clock, >> moving >> at v relative to that centre of mass frame, is given by t(1-v/c) .. where >> we >> assume v is the speed (so always a +ve value) of the clock relative to >> that >> centre of mass frame. >> >> Is that correct? > >You had better define what time is if you are going to make rules. I'm not making any rules .. I just asked you a question > First you claim that the rotation of the earth cannot be used to > measure time in S'. Its not at rest in S' .. so not if you are thinking there are 24 hours in a day for all observers. Your own example shows that there isn't. You can use it to measure time in S' (nissile frame) if you use the appropriate time per rotation of the earth. > It looks to me like it can. As long as you don't claim it takes 24 hours in that frame .. because we know from the experiment you quote that it doesn't > An astronaut can >look out of the window of his satellite as see the earth rotate on its >axis. Of course. > So what are you saying, that one rotation of the earth to an >observer on the ground is not the same as one rotation of the earth >seen by an astronaut in a satellite? Its the same rotation .. but it takes different time. We know because less time elapses for the astronaut than someone on earth. You own example shows hat. Really .. its not that hard. Anyway ... that was a nice little try at a diversion from the question .. now .. let see if you're honest enough to answer .. here it is again: You add an additional equation that relates the time shown on clocks to velocity. That will mean that faster moving objects will tick slower. And you've said that that movement must be measured relative to the centre-of-mass of the universe. And that the time shown on a clock, moving at v relative to that centre of mass frame, is given by t(1-v/c) .. where we assume v is the speed (so always a +ve value) of the clock relative to that centre of mass frame. Is that correct? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: rbwinn on 25 Jul 2010 15:45
On Jul 23, 10:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 10:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 6:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Galileo absolutely did say that the earth was rotating. In fact he > > > > > > made reference to it at his trial. > > > > > > Citation, Robert? Or were you there? > > > > > There are accounts of Galileo's trial, PD. Look it up for yourself. > > > > I have. This is why I asked you to back up your statements that he > > > wrote that the Earth rotates and that he used it as the basis for time > > > in theGalileantransformations, or that he ever wrote equations at > > > all. > > > > As you can look up for yourself, Galileo explicitly denied that he > > > ever taught that the Earth moved at his own trial, and there was never > > > any evidence brought out at the trial that contradicted that denial. > > > There is an anecdote that on his deathbed he muttered "Eppur si > > > muove," but this too is unsupported by any documentation, and in any > > > event would have happened long after both his trial and his writings. > > > > Again, I'd like to point out to you that it is rather foolish to make > > > claims about something you know very little about, especially around > > > people who are actually willing to do some reading and research. You > > > seem to enjoy doing foolish things, though, and I would guess that is > > > common for fools to do. > > > Actually, he is reputed to have said that phrase at his trial, > > Who has attested to that, Robert? He is reputed by whom to have said > that? > > > but > > since you do not believe the mathematics Galileo used, it does not > > surprise me that you would try to prove that Galileo did not believe > > the mathematics he used. > > What mathematics do you think he used, Robert? > > > > > However, there is nothing in Galileo's life to indicate that he was a > > dishonest person trying to deceive the world the way scientists of > > today are. Galileo is said to have used absolute time. |