Re: transformation equations

On Sep 17, 1:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 17, 11:12 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 17, 12:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 17, 10:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 17, 11:34 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 16, 5:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 16, 7:06 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 15, 7:37 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 14, 10:43 pm, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 14, 8:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is a physics newsgroup.
Robert B. Winn

This means you have no business posting here :-)

Well, obviously, Dono, you have not read the charter of the
newsgroup. This newsgroup is for anyone who wants to post about
relativity. That is what the charter specifically says. There is not
any stipulation that the person who posts be a scientist or that
whatever is posted be what is being taught by schools at the present
time.

Agreed, but it should be about relativity. Note that just using the
word relativity does not make the discussion about relativity.

If I entered into a discussion group about Atheism vs. Christianity
and I said something to the effect of, "Add 2 tablespoons of salt and
a dash of dill weed to the pot containing Christianity, simmering
until reduced by a 1/3, and then pour on top of the atheism laid in a
platter fat-side up," then I would be posting something that is off-
topic, even though I've used both the words "atheism" and
"Christianity". I suppose the first thing I would have to do is at
least get an understanding of what the words "atheism" and
"Christianity" meant before making an on-topic post. This does not
mean that I have to agree with atheists or agree with Christians at
any point, but it does mean that I at least have to understand what
they're talking about.

Same thing applies to making on-topic posts about relativity. Whether
you agree with it or not, you'd better have some understanding of what
relativity means. So far, you haven't demonstrated either any
understanding or any desire in acquiring any understanding of what
relativity means.

PD

In other words, you have not seen me show any tendency to embrace the
teachings of scientists concerning relativity of simultaneity and
length contraction.

No, it goes further than that. I've not seen you show any tendency to
even *understand* what relativity means. Understanding does not entail
embracing.

PD-

What exactly is it that you do not believe I understand?

What I just said. You do not understand what relativity means. And in
fact, you do not understand how equations are chosen on the basis of
whether they match what experiments show -- you instead like to spend
your time choosing equations first and then seeing if you can get the
measurements to fit the equations. You also do not understand what the
principle of relativity means regarding the laws of physics, or in
fact what the laws of physics are that the principle of relativity
refers to. You also do not understand how this principle of relativity
*selects by force* the transformation equations to use between
inertial reference frames -- it appears you think this is still a free
choice. You also do not understand that science is not about opinion
or what you choose to believe, and that in fact science relies on
metrics that are completely independent on what you choose to believe.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, here is the mathematics, PD. Just go ahead and show where it is
wrong.

And around the Monopoly board we go.
As I just got through telling you, the rightness or wrongness of what
you propose is not determined by mathematics. I've just told you what
you do not understand about how rightness or wrongness is determined
in science. It is NOT done by looking at the mathematics, despite your
worrying that worn bone to death.

YBM set the problem up this way: Light is emitted at x=-a and
x=a simultaneously in frame of reference A at a time of t=0. The
light from both emissions reaches the origin of S at a time of a/c,
ringing a bell. Frame of reference B is moving relative to frame of
reference A such that the origin of B is at the origin of A at t=0.
Acording to the Galilean transformation equations, light from -a
reaches the origin of A as seen from B in a time of t'=t=a/c, and
light from a reaches B in a time of t'=t=a/c. In other words, by this
measurement of the light, a common measurement of time is used in both
frames of reference, such as, the rotation of the earth, which was
what Galileo would have used. That means that one frame of reference
is a preferred frame of reference which is stationary, and one frame
of reference is non-preferred, meaning that it is moving relative to
the other.
But according to scientists of today, either frame of reference
can be the preferred frame of reference. OK, so B is the preferred
frame of reference. If the flashes of light are simultaneous in B,
then they reach the origin of B simultaneously, ringing a bell in B.
The transformation equations for this are:

x=x'-v't'
y=y'
z=z'
t=t'

In this case, the Galilean transformation equations show that from A,
the light reaches the origin of B at a time of t=t'=a/c from both
directions. I see no problem with any of this. It certainly agrees
with the results of the Michelsom-Morley experiment.
So why don't you just explain your objections concerning the
Galilean transformation equations instead of trying to change the
subject to money? Are you worried about the economy?
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, you never talk about science.  Go ahead and talk some about
science if you are so opposed to mathematics.

I'm happy to. It will help if you will learn the meaning of relativity
so that we can have a meaningful discussion. If you don't know what it
means, then there is no point in my talking what would be a foreign
language to you.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
    ... Morley may have been in the same frame of reference as the apparatus, ... the Lorentz equations, which always show a length contraction in the ... which I have done with Einstein's special theory of relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simultaneity of Relativity
    ... the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference do ... What we do know, is in relativity, there is no preferred frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... > underpinnings of the Special Theory of Relativity. ... > Principle of Relativity. ... > specific frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... > underpinnings of the Special Theory of Relativity. ... > Principle of Relativity. ... > specific frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... word relativity does not make the discussion about relativity. ... inertial reference frames -- it appears you think this is still a free ... x=a simultaneously in frame of reference A at a time of t=0. ... Acording to the Galilean transformation equations, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)