Re: Principle of equivalence

On Apr 18, 10:14�pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, in the first place, Bryan, there is no way to know for certain
what the Lorentz equations say with regard to where a clock thrown
from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown
from the frame of reference.

"In the first place" you posted wrong or nonsensical statements on
what the Lorentz transform predicts. In the second place, I did the
math you challenged me to do, and showed the result for which you
asked. We're not in the first place anymore, nor the second. Now you
are changing the question because the theory you do not like turned
out to work in the first place, contrary to your reporting.

So if I say that a clock is thrown from
the moving frame of reference in the opposite direction to the motion
of the frame of reference at half the velocity of the frame of
reference, then does that clock hit in S at x=0?

What a mess. I assume you mean it is thrown from the train such
that in our frame of reference S its velocity is v/2, or in S'
its velocity is -v/2.

No, I do not think so.

Did anyone say it would in that case? If so, who?

�So how do you figure out where it hits in S using the Lorentz
equations?

The Lorentz transform expresses the S'coordinates of an event
as functions of the the S coordinates. In this case, we have
all the quantities relative to S, and you ask for "where it
hits in S". What's to transform?

If you want see the key bit of math showing that the Lorentz
transform supports the principle of equivalence, take the
transform's equations and solve them for x and t. The
transform expresses of x' and t' in terms of x and t; by
solving for x and t, you express them in terms of x' and t',
thus producing the inverse Lorentz transform.

--
--Bryan

Well, that's nice, Bryan, but you still have to do it with a distance
contraction. Actually, I was curious as to whether it could be done,
but I am not really sure you did anything. I was hoping you would
try to do it with the velocity equations. Anyway, the Lorentz
equations do not really interest me because they have a distance
contraction. I use the Galilean transformation equations, which
definitely show that the principle of equivalence is true and keep
distances in reality. What surprises me is the number of people who
have been physicists for 17 years who have Phd's, etc., who have never
heard of the principle of equivalence. Some of these people seem to
agree with Aristotle that two lead weights of different masses dropped
at the same time will hit the ground at different times. As a matter
of fact that seems to be what you believe because as seen from S, when
the S clock hits the floor, the S' clock is still in the air and reads
t'=(t-vx/c^2)gamma, and as seen from S', when the S' clock hits the
floor, the S clock is still in the air and reads, t=(t'+vtx'/
c^2)gamma.
Actually, your mathematics seem to confirm that the Lorentz
equation say the same thing the Galilean transformation equations say
with regard to this using n' as time for a cesium clock in S'.

w=x/t=x'/n'=(x-vt)/(t-vt/c)=x-vtgamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma = x'Lorentz/
t'Lorentz

Consequently, it seems unlikely to me that any scientist will ever
become convinced that all things in existence are not explained by the
Lorentz equations and their distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... what the Lorentz equations say with regard to where a clock thrown ... from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown ... from the frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does God need to prove He exists?
    ... substituted the Lorentz equations, which require a distance ... reference using a common measurement of time. ... does not denote time on a clock in the moving frame of reference ... because experiment shows that a clock in the moving frame of reference ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: time intervals
    ... time intervals, and that this is taught in physics textbooks, which I ... the same clock which is moving in S'. ... this with the Lorentz equations and your previous explanation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Three alternatives to explain the MMX null result
    ... substance of the Lorentz contraction theory is ... y?=y [perpendicular arm unaffected] ... to learn how a clock works so he would then understand what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Basis for magnetic monopoles
    ... >> in which the geometrical distribution of light and darkness is ... Perhaps an actual reference would be better. ... It is Lorentz' 1904 paper, ... {snip the rest} ...
    (sci.physics)