Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 25 Jul 2010 18:49 On Jul 26, 5:51 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:19 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 9:43 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 10:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "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? > > > > They will show a time that keeps light at a speed of 300,000 km/sec in > > > S'. > > > You didn't answer the question > > > So clocks that move will not show the correct time .. they will show a > > slowed time n', instead of the correct time t'. Yes? > > n' is correct time for a moving clock. A clock showing 'Correct time' means (by defintion) the clock shows the actual time in S' .. which is what t' means (also by definition) .. the time in S'. > t' is correct time for the > Galilean transformation equations. So either 1) Galilean transforms are correct and so the correct time n' is the same as the correct time t' that Galilean transforms predict. ie n' = t' and every correct clock in S; shows t' or 2) Galilean transform are incorrect and the correct time n' is not the same as the time t' that Galilean transform predict. ie n' <> t' and no correct clock in S; shows t' Which is it? Lets see what your answer already is ... > There is no clock in S' that shows > t'. OK .. so your answer then is 2) Galilean transforms are incorrect. Thanks for clearing up your position.
From: artful on 25 Jul 2010 18:51 On Jul 26, 5:54 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:18 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 9:41 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 4:02 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > >news:7d43cfe8-cbfa-4621-95ef-1995720826b8(a)a14g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >On Jul 17, 5:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> 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. > > > > > No .. Its where YOUR 'theory' falls apart. > > > > > Your theory says that for any two frames (S and S') that the clock in S' > > > > ticks slower. > > > > > How do you explain that and resolve YOUR theory with reality? And please > > > > answer the question: > > > > > 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? > > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > > Suppose that clock A is in frame of reference S, and clock B is in > > > frame of reference S' and is slower than clock A. > > > And if you suppose that clock A is in frame of reference S', and clock > > B is > > in frame of reference S, then clock A is slower than clock B > > > So if you name the frame that clock A is in as S you get B as slower, > > and if > > you label it as S', then A is slower > > > So it all depends on whether you label the rest frame of a clock as S > > or S' > > .. ie it depends on an arbitrary assigning of a label. > > > That's not physics .. that's nonsense. > > > Try again > > No, the Galilean transformation equations show a slow clock in the > moving frame and a fast clock in the frame of reference at rest. If > you invert the frames, the clock in S' is still slower. So there is a special frame which you call S where clocks are the fastest, and in all other frames clocks are slower. And so the relationship between what clocks show is NOT the Galilean transforms. Correct?
From: artful on 25 Jul 2010 18:52 On Jul 26, 6:00 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 8:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "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 thegalileantransforms 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 whatgalileantrasnforsm 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 beGalileantransforms, because they have the time the same absolute everywhere > > (as you just admitted above). > > How does time itself differ from what a clock says? You tell me .. you are the one claiming Galilean transforms apply to time (ie time is the same in all frames because t' = t for any pair of frames) but we know real clocks do not show this. How does time itself differ from what a clock says?
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 12:00 On Jul 24, 4:56 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. In the x'=x-vt and in the t'=t. x', x, v, t, t' are all MEASURED quantities. They come about by using MEASURING instruments. When you put the MEASURED values of x, v, t in the first equation, you find that it does not match the MEASURED value of x'. Likewise, the MEASURED value of t does not match the MEASURED value of t'. So that's where the Galilean transformation equations do not match experimental results. It's really quite simple, Robert. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > So we use the rotation of the earth to measure time. Well, no, actually we don't, because that is a horribly unreliable and imprecise way to specify time. That's why we don't use it. > For you > scientists, the earth rotates on its axis. The earth rotates the same > number of degrees in S' as it does in S. Yes, but in S it takes one amount of time, and in S' it takes another amount of time. According to time standards. And those standards are not tied to the rotation of the Earth. It's really very simple. > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 12:04
On Jul 24, 4:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You asked me a question, and I answered it, Robert. I really don't care if it didn't prove anything to you. It couldn't be proven to you that the sky is blue if it was a scientist that told you it was so. You'd go on your whole life believing it was not blue. So recapping: - It's pretty plain that not everything has a center at all. - So it's simply not true that "everything has a center of gravity" and the universe is the sole exception. - The universe is one of many things that does not have a center, and hence do not have a center of gravity. - Your statement that the fastest clock would be at the center of gravity of the universe is gibberish. I think that's pretty plain now. Don't you? PD |