Re: transformation equations
- From: rbwinn <rbwinn3@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 4, 10:17�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:48�am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[a bunch of mangled stuff. Let's see if there is any way to unmangle
it. Let's just point out the knots for a start]
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �x'=x-vt
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � y'=y
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � z'=z
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � t'=t
� � � These are the Galilean transformation equations, which
scientists threw away in 1905 as a description of relativity,
replacing them with these more famous equations, with their length
contraction.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � �x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � �y'=y
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � z'=z
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
� � � According to Dr. Albert Einstein, these more famous equations
with their length contraction are the correct equations to describe
transmission of light because they show light to be traveling at
c=186,000 miles per second in all frames of reference.
Two comments:
- These equations are not a description of the transmission of light
in any way. Maxwell's equations describe the transmission of light,
not the Lorentz transformation equations. The Lorentz transformation
tells you the relationship between the coordinates of events in two
different inertial reference frames, and makes no statement whatsoever
about the transmission of light.
Well, I am just going by what Dr. Albert Einstein said. He said he
was going to describe transmission of light. Then he said, Here are
the Galilean transformation equations, which scientists thought
describe transmission of light. They were wrong, and we have to throw
these equations away. Here are the Lorentz equations. They
successfully describe transmission of light.
- It is not a *result* of these equations that the speed of light is c
in all reference frames. These equations are the *consequence* of the
assumption that the speed of light is c in all reference frames. One
does not derive a postulate from its conclusions.
Well, actually, the Lorentz equations were derived by H.A. Lorentz to
describe electromagnetic fields. When scientists could not describe
the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment with the Galilean
transformation equations, H.A. Lorentz proposed that his equations
could describe the results of the experiment if the length of the arm
of the interferometer was contracted in the direction of motion. That
was called the Lorentz Ether theory.
� The Galilean
transformation equations were thrown away by science because
scientists said that they could not show light to be traveling at c in
all frames of reference, which scientists said that they had proven
was happening.
This is also incorrect. What is true is that, while many laws of
mechanics are invariant under the Galilean transformation, the laws of
electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations) are not invariant under the
Galilean transformation. Since it is generally regarded as a given (a
postulate, in fact, as explicitly stated by Galilei, Newton, and again
by Einstein) that *all* laws of physics should remain invariant in all
inertial reference frames, the Galilean transformation is dismissed as
being the transformation that applies between inertial reference
frames, in that it does not satisfy the requirement regarding the laws
of physics. Of course, Galilei would never have known of the failure
of this transformation, because he was not aware of the laws of
electrodynamics. His transformation worked fine for the subset of
physical laws he was aware of, but it does not work for all laws of
physics as it must.
Well, I do not know all laws of physics. All I was considering was
what Einstein said he was doing, trying to explain transmission of
light. But not knowing all laws of physics, it appears to me that
what you are talking about is also explained by the fact that a clock
in the moving frame of reference is running slower than a clock in the
frame of reference at rest.
� � � � Einstein used these two little equations to show that light
was traveling at the same speed in two frames of reference.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � x=ct
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � x'=ct'
� � � �He said that he extracted these two equations from the Lorentz
equations, the famous equations with the length contraction.
Again, you have inverted what is assumed and what is concluded. He did
not conclude these statements from the Lorentz equations, he derived
the Lorentz equations from these statements plus the invariance of
Maxwell's equations in all reference frames.
Well, so what? I don't care what he thought of first.
� � � �But the same thing can be done with the Galilean transformation
equations if velocity of light is used instead of speed of light.
Since t'=t in the Galilean transformation equations, we use n' for
time on a clock in S', the frame of reference in motion.
The above transformations, as well as the laws of physics, rely on a
common physical standard for time in all reference frames, which you
abandon here. When you do this, the laws of physics do not retain
their invariance between reference frames, as you are using a
different definition of time in each frame. This chucks the postulate
of the principle of relativity, generally regarded as a bad idea in
science.
t'=t is a common standard for time. Now you scientists claim that you
have a clock that is slower in the frame of reference that is moving.
That does not change t'=t. You measured the speed of light using the
slower clock and got c. That does not change the common standard for
time, t'=t.
Well, I am sorry you scientists feel that explaining something without
� � � � � � � � � � � �w= velocity of light
� � � � � � � � � � � �x=wt
� � � � � � � � � � � �x'=wn'
� � � �These values for x and x' substitute directly into the Galilean
transformation equations.
� � � � � � � � � � � wn'=wt-vt
� � � � � � � � � � � � �n'=t(1-v/w)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � t'=t=x'/(w-v) = x/w
� � � �This makes time a little more relative than scientists want to
admit it is, but I thank a few centuries of time might result in a few
scientists becoming convinced that there is no length contraction.
Obviously, we are not moving as quickly as Galileo did in overcoming
scientific devotion to the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, but I think
the false information associated with this field of study can be
overcome in a matter of centuries instead of millenia.
Robert B. Winn
Since all of this has been explained to Bobby at least a half dozen
times in recent memory, it becomes apparent that he either has lost
several mental capacities that would be required for protracted
thinking, or that he likes to ignore responses and repeat what he said
earlier. Either way, there is no good prognosis for making any
progress via discussion on this topic with Bobby, despite his
professed desire to do so.
This is not to say that Bobby is useless for discussion on any topic.
He has many colorful ideas on things that matter to him, such as
whether scientists are worth the money that comes their way, and
whether his psychiatrists and by extension anyone with extended
schooling should be considered in any way smart people. The only
problem is that he finds it irritating to be caught in lies about the
subject and tries to divert it back to the topic where no progress can
be made.
a length contraction is a lack of progress. I think you believe that
if you cannot describe something that is incomprehensible, you are not
making progress.
Robert B. Winn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: transformation equations
- From: PD
- Re: transformation equations
- From: Sue...
- Re: transformation equations
- From: YBM
- Re: transformation equations
- References:
- transformation equations
- From: rbwinn
- Re: transformation equations
- From: PD
- transformation equations
- Prev by Date: Re: Why relativists don't understand Einstein's 1905 mathematics.
- Next by Date: Re: transformation equations
- Previous by thread: Re: transformation equations
- Next by thread: Re: transformation equations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
