correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: rbwinn on 30 Jul 2010 03:31 On Jul 28, 7:24 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > news:182b3796-6b19-43ee-8934-ef83055bf00a(a)q21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > >I am not the one saying that a slower clock gives the same velocity as > >a faster clock. > > You're the one not answering the simple question (because you're an ignorant > troll): What is the relationship between what a clocks at rest in one frame > reads compared to that of a clock at rest in some other frame? We know it is > not t' = t. > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- whoever, I thought I told you once. There is no clock in the moving frame of reference that shows t'. A clock in S shows t' because t'=t in the Galilean transformation equations. The time on a clock going at any other rate has to be converted to t' before it can be used in the Galilean transformation equations.
From: Inertial on 30 Jul 2010 08:22 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:a820572c-f6f2-4fa7-9f7b-a32585e401fb(a)v32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 28, 7:24 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" wrote in message >> >> news:182b3796-6b19-43ee-8934-ef83055bf00a(a)q21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >I am not the one saying that a slower clock gives the same velocity as >> >a faster clock. >> >> You're the one not answering the simple question (because you're an >> ignorant >> troll): What is the relationship between what a clocks at rest in one >> frame >> reads compared to that of a clock at rest in some other frame? We know it >> is >> not t' = t. >> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > >whoever, > > I thought I told you once. There is no clock in the moving frame >of reference that shows t'. A clock in S shows t' because t'=t in the >Galilean transformation equations. The time on a clock going at any >other rate has to be converted to t' before it can be used in the >Galilean transformation equations. Still avoiding the simple questions eh. What is the relationship between what a clocks at rest in one frame reads compared to that of a clock at rest in some other frame? We know it is not t' = t.
From: YBM on 30 Jul 2010 08:24 rbwinn a �crit : > Well, I have decided to use the Galilean transformation equations, > and scientists can do whatever they decide to do. This is pointless given that you don't consider any real experiments but the fake ones you made up in your ill mind.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jul 2010 09:55 On Jul 30, 5:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > news:a820572c-f6f2-4fa7-9f7b-a32585e401fb(a)v32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >On Jul 28, 7:24 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >>news:182b3796-6b19-43ee-8934-ef83055bf00a(a)q21g2000prm.googlegroups.com.... > > >> >I am not the one saying that a slower clock gives the same velocity as > >> >a faster clock. > > >> You're the one not answering the simple question (because you're an > >> ignorant > >> troll): What is the relationship between what a clocks at rest in one > >> frame > >> reads compared to that of a clock at rest in some other frame? We know it > >> is > >> not t' = t. > > >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > >whoever, > > > I thought I told you once. There is no clock in the moving frame > >of reference that shows t'. A clock in S shows t' because t'=t in the > >Galilean transformation equations. The time on a clock going at any > >other rate has to be converted to t' before it can be used in the > >Galilean transformation equations. > > Still avoiding the simple questions eh. What is the relationship between > what a clocks at rest in one frame reads compared to that of a clock at rest > in some other frame? We know it is not t' = t. Well, here are the equations. t is the time on a clock in S, a frame of reference at rest. n' is time on a clock in motion. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t Scientists show no consistency in the information they disseminate. One scientist will claim that a moving clock is slower, the next will claim that a moving clock is faster. What they are saying is that n' is not t' because t'=t, the time on a clock in S. So in order to use the time on the moving clock, its time has to be converted to the time shown by t'=t. Then it can be used in the Galilean transformation equations. So from the information scientists have given, we can say n'=F(t) Once it is determined what the relationship of n' is to t, then n' can be converted to t', and the problem can be solved.
From: rbwinn on 30 Jul 2010 15:32
On Jul 30, 5:24 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > Well, I have decided to use the Galilean transformation equations, > > and scientists can do whatever they decide to do. > > This is pointless given that you don't consider any real experiments but > the fake ones you made up in your ill mind. Well, tell me about a real experiment, YBM. The only ones I know about are done by scientists, which makes them suspect. |