Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 13 Jun 2010 09:31 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 the Galilean transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. Time on the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the Galilean transformation 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 the Galilean 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?
From: Androcles on 13 Jun 2010 09:46 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... | 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. Liar.
From: blackhead on 13 Jun 2010 10:12 On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > | 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. > > Liar. HafeleKeating experiment. You're the liar.
From: Sue... on 13 Jun 2010 10:50 On Jun 13, 10:12 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > On 13 June, 14:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > | 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. > > > Liar. > > HafeleKeating experiment. http://www.search.com/reference/Problematic_physics_experiments GPS including Sagnac and Pound Rebka have some credibility. Attempts to show that real clock mechanisms can mimic the Einstein Synchronisation procedure are always entertaining so don't let me discourage you. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation Sue... > > You're the liar.
From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 10:53
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:702e22b2-1bc0-4a16-9f46-3e571612e517(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t Amazing .. you appear to know what a Galilean transform is. > Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference S' is > slower than a clock in S which shows t As measured be S. Hence refuting Galilean transforms > According to the Galilean > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'. No .. according to Galilean transforms it DOSE show t' = t. And so Galilean transforms are wrong > Time on > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if the > Galilean transformation equations are to be used. They can't. Because then you are no longer using Galilean transforms [snip nonsense that follows] |