Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 12:06 On Jul 25, 2:49 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 10:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:44 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 17, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 9:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 9:13 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 6:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:c34cba53-2a43-453f-936b-7088df7d2bef(a)j7g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:7a91960b-b849-4b8f-b358-0aceb2d1b712(a)i9g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Jun 28, 10:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It sounds like perhaps you are proposing something similar to LET > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In LET, reality isGalilean. Space doesn't contract and time doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> slow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> down. TheGalileantransforms apply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> However, in that simple 3D galillean universe, what happens is clocks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> all processes) run slower and rulers (and all matter and fields) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contract > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> due to absolute motion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They do so in such a way that the MEASUREMENTS made with such clocks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rulers are no longer related byGalileantransforms, but by Lorentz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> transforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It seems you are proposing the instead, we just have clock running slow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that the relation ship between what we MEASURE clocks (and processes) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is related by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> x'=x-vt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> y'=y > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> z'=z > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> t'=t(1-v/c) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Only you are using n for the measured time, there is no need for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you are talking about what is measured, you can just use x,y,z,t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Those equations do not work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know your equations are wrong. Glad to hear you admit it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They require a different reference for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time in S' than in S. TheGalileantransformation equations require > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t' to equal t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And so your equation using t(1-v/c) for time in S' is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So .. given that the definition of a correct clock is one that shows the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> time in the frame in which it is at rest ..... what is the formula for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> time shown on a correct clock at rest in S' as observed by an observer at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rest in frame S ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Can you answer that honestly? I doubt it. Prove me wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The clock in S' is ticking slower than the clock in S as observed from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >either frame of reference. A clock at rest in S' is moving with a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >velocity of v relative to an observer in S. The time on the clock > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >would be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >where t is time on a clock at rest in S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've still not answered .. just calling it 'S' doesn't say what the frame > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is. Are you at rest in this frame S now? Am I? Is anything? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets ask again .. see if you can answer this time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in what frame of reference are the clocks ticking at the 'correct' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rate, and not slowed by motion? What is the relationship between the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time shown on some clock moving in that frame, and the actual time in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that frame? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a further question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have two frames moving relative to each other, and each with a clock > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at rest in them .. which clock runs slow and which runs fast? And why will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they do that .. why don't the people at rest in those frames simply set the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clocks to the correct rate .. why do they let their clocks run slow or fast? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are reasons why things happen, including motion. Now, I know > > > > > > > > > > > > > you scientists are all impressed by having a train stand still and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > railroad track moving. The problem with it is that it is not > > > > > > > > > > > > > reality. The train is still what is moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Earth is not moving, Robert? Then why do the locations of the > > > > > > > > > > > > other planets move in the night sky? > > > > > > > > > > > > The earth is moving relative to the sun, PD. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. And so you see, the railroad tracks, which are connected > > > > > > > > > > to the moving earth, are also moving. Don't you think so too? > > > > > > > > > > So what? S represents the railroad track, and S' represents the > > > > > > > > > train. A clock on the train is slower than a clock on the ground by > > > > > > > > > the railroad track. > > > > > > > > > As measured from somone on the ground by the railroad track.. > > > > > > > > > By the way, a clock on the ground by the railroad track is slower than > > > > > > > > a clock on the train, as measured by someone on the train. > > > > > > > Did this come as a surprise to you? > > > > > > > > > > So all we have to do is put a clock on the ground > > > > > > > > > by the railroad track. What is supposed to be so difficult about that? > > > > > > > > > It's not at all difficult. Why do you suppose it is difficult? > > > > > > > > What do you think the size of the slowing-down effect is for a typical > > > > > > > > train speed, Robert? > > > > > > > > You took a year of college classes. Surely you can do arithmetic. > > > > > > > > There would be a difference after about ten decimal places, I believe. > > > > > > > What speed are you using for the train, Robert? > > > > > > > Let's suppose for an instant that you've done the calculation > > > > > > correctly (or at all). > > > > > > So what do you suppose would be involved in measuring a time > > > > > > difference in the tenth decimal place? > > > > > > I am not going to try to measure it. I did not bother to calculate > > > > > it. I am just guessing what it would be. If you want to be more > > > > > accurate than that, go ahead and do the math. > > > > > Ah, good. So you often state you believe things you just guess at? > > > > > PD > > > > I can tell from the equation that one time would be greater than the > > > other. That is all that is necessary for the purposes of this > > > discussion. It does not really matter that it takes ten decimals for > > > the difference in time to show itself. > > > Ah, so then when you said you believed it would be in the tenth > > decimal place, you were just chucking out a made-up number, even > > though it really doesn't matter? > > > I can understand why no one would want to hire you as a welder, > > Robert. When somebody asks you about a metric for the quality of your > > work, you just chuck out a number because it sounds good, and it's > > only after you're off the job that they found out you were just making > > stuff up. > > Well, you don't understand welding. The stuff I make has to be > installed on the job site by a certain time. They are more concerned > about installation than inspecting. Now if you are making structural > steel for California, then it is different, but that is not what I am > making. Of course you're not making structural steel for California. No one would let you do it because you make up stuff that would be important to get right.
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 15:39 On Jul 25, 2:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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, you are certainly welcome to your own opinion. If you don't > like the Galilean transformation equations, why don't you just use the > Lorentz equations? > It seems that you believe the Lorentz equations must be enforced. Equations don't have to be enforced, Robert. You either use ones that match measurement if you want the right answer, or you use ones that don't match measurement if you don't care if the answer is right or not. Scientists prefer getting the right answer, usually. You are certainly free to use Galilean transformations until your arteries harden. No one is stopping you. You don't really care about getting the right answer anyway. It's more important to you that you not do something that scientists do. PD
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 15:40
On Jul 25, 2:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Said by whom, Robert? You keep saying all these things that Galileo is supposed to have done, but most of it looks to be stuff you just make up. Kind of like how many decimal places you'd need to measure a difference in rates. You make that up too. |