Re: change +c to -c and the Lorentz equations still work

From: Robert B. Winn (rbwinn3_at_juno.com)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: 27 Sep 2004 20:36:01 -0700

ande452@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<413FD86F.3ACB@attglobal.net>...
> Robert B. Winn wrote:
> >
> > "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<YPF%c.3039$Rh.30743594@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> > > "Robert B. Winn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a17e5e0e.0409080630.68924569@posting.google.com...
> > > | Machine,
> > > | There is a reason why they still work. It has to do with the
> > > | term
> > > | (t-vx/c^2) in the equation for t'. You need to decide if x is going
> > > | to be ct or -ct. All you have here is a shortcut. If x is -ct, then
> > > | your equation says
> > > | (t-v(-ct)/c^2), which is t+vct/c^2. This is a different process than
> > > | the one you are using for a photon going in the +x direction where
> > > | x=ct, and ,as you might notice, a longer time.
> > > | The original expression is (t-vt/c) in which c is the velocity
> > > | of light, not the speed. Scientists changed it to (t-vx/c^2) so that
> > > | they did not have to think about it, and they could just say c=speed
> > > | of light.
> > >
> > > Not so. It was set up by Einstein when he said:
> > > "IF (note the 'if') we place x' = x-vt...." and the minus sign has been
> > > there ever since.
> > > No scientists were involved, relativity is not science, it is religion.
> > > No relativist is a scientist, no matter what title he claims for himself.
> > > Androcles
> > >
> > Well, I am not arguing with the equation. It is fine for what it
> > says. What I am saying is that if you are using the Lorentz equations
> > to describe light, then if light is going in the -x direction, the
> > velocity of the light is -c, as the equation shows if it is reduced
> > down. When we were in first year algebra, we were taught to put
> > equations in their simplest form. Scientists could not reduce this
> > equation further because it was describing velocity not speed as they
> > have been saying. You cannot take Einstein's two little equations
> > x=ct and x'=ct' and use them to reduce the Lorentz
> > equations because for a photon going in the -x direction, x=-ct and
> > x'=-ct'.
>
> They describe two different objects. One is going in the +x
> direction, the other in the -x direction. The Lorentz transformations
> don't have to turn one into the other.
>
> You don't understand what you're posting about.
>
> John Anderson

I am posting about two frames of reference and two photons. What are
you posting about?
The Lorentz equations do have to turn one into the other. The Lorentz
equations are using velocity of light the same as I am using.
Robert B. Winn

Relevant Pages

  • Re: time dilation
    ... Robert B. Winn ... and poor Galileo finally said that the sun was in orbit around the ... Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations reads .23 second. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... Robert B. Winn ... want to play the role of the debunker of the relativity "scientists", ... I can derive the Lorentz equations a lot easier from the Galilean ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Lorentz equations and velocity of light
    ... You (Robert Winn) have been posting the same misconceptions since at least ... > If the Lorentz equations are true, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: galilean transformation equations
    ... Robert B. Winn ... rather than posting the same thing on a discussion group. ... the Galilean transformations is also quite independent of science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: change +c to -c and the Lorentz equations still work
    ... > Robert B. Winn wrote: ... What I am saying is that if you are using the Lorentz equations ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)