Re: transformation equations

On Sep 10, 5:12�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:07�am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sep 9, 6:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:44 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:48 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 7, 7:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.
- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PD- Hide quoted text -

Well, there are obviously a large number of scientists you would
consider worthy of your conversation, so why don't you talk to those
people?

I've already answered this, Bobby, but like so many answers provided
to you, you ignore them and don't absorb them.
It is entirely worthwhile for me to point out places where you are
making egregiously incorrect statements, and it is also worthwhile for
me to distinguish science from what it is you talk about, which is not
science. It is entirely worthwhile for me to point out to readers that
talking about equations is not talking about relativity, or about
science, for that matter.
Now, if you don't want to talk with me, then don't reply. But then at
least admit that you are not here to discuss (which means listening to
and heeding comments received in discussion) relativity, despite your
claim to do so. Stop lying, Bobby.

Furthermore, this group is not segregated into scientists talking with
scientists and amateurs talking with amateurs, and it *certainly*
doesn't have a private room for people who only want to *pretend* to
talk about relativity. Either you want to talk about relativity, and
with everyone in the group, or you don't. If you don't, then you've
obviously spent a large amount of time in the wrong place.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You were the one complaining about having to talk to me. I don't mind
talking to scientists. I just don't expect much from it.

I'm certainly not complaining about talking with you. If I didn't find
you amusing, I just wouldn't do it. I've already told you why it's
worth my time to talk with you, and on what terms. You're the one that
keeps inviting me to stop talking with you and to talk with someone
else instead. This is another one of your lies. Do you find lying to
be an effective and rewarding past-time, Bobby?

Hey, I told you scientists the truth.

You've told very little except a string of lies, Bobby. You see
insults in the words of others and you do not see the physics
responses in the words of others. You see the truth in what you say,
and you do not see the lies after lies after lies in what you say. You
are mentally ill, Bobby.



�The Galilean transformation
equations say that a bell that rings at the origin of A in frame of
reference A will also ring at the origin of A in frame of reference
B. �Sorry, that is just what the mathematics shows. �You might want to
consider using some mathematics. �I know you said you did not like
math.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I thought your doctorate was in physics, not psychiatry, PD.
Are you trying to practice mdeicine without a license?
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: transformation equations
    ... scientists threw away in 1905 as a description of relativity, ... not the Lorentz transformation equations. ... different inertial reference frames, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... scientists threw away in 1905 as a description of relativity, ... not the Lorentz transformation equations. ... different inertial reference frames, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... not the Lorentz transformation equations. ... different inertial reference frames, ... the Galilean transformation equations, which scientists thought ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... not the Lorentz transformation equations. ... different inertial reference frames, ... the Galilean transformation equations, which scientists thought ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... scientists threw away in 1905 as a description of relativity, ... different inertial reference frames, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading