Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX

On Nov 11, 7:08�pm, xxein <xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 10, 9:56�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 10, 6:23 pm,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 9, 8:51 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 6, 6:31 pm,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 12, 6:28 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

When Michelson and Morley conducted their famous experiment, they
expected to prove the existence of ether. We will use a set of
Cartesian coordinates S to represent the frame of reference of the
imaginary ether and a set of Cartesian coordinates S' to represent the
frame of reference of the interferometer, which the experimenters
thought would be traveling through S with a velocity of v. So in a
more modern context we can say that S represents the frame of
reference of the Milky Way galaxy, and S' represents the
interferometer, which is moving with a velocity of v relative to S.
Light is directed down the arm of the interferometer where it is
reflected by a mirror at the end of the arm and returned to the point
where it was split in the interferometer, which we will call the
origin of S' . So we can say that light is emitted at the origins of
S and S' when they coincide. In S the light proceeds from x1=0 to
x2, where it is reflected by the mirror. In S' the light travels a
shorter distance x' to the mirror, If x2-x1=x, then

x'=x-vt
t'=t

A cesium clock in S' will not show t' because t' is defined to be
t'=t. We know from the results of the experiment that light in S' is
traveling at c=186,000 miles per second as measured from S', therefore
a cesium clock in S' will have a slower rate than t'=t. t'=t refers to
events in one frame of reference. If we are referring to an event at
the origin of S and an event at another point in S, then t'=t.. For
instance, if light is emitted at the origin of S and travels to the
mirror, then the time it takes to travel from the origin of S to the
mirror is t'=t as seen from either frame of reference.
When talking about two cesium clocks, one in each frame of reference,
which show light to be traveling at c relative to either frame of
reference, we have a different situation. The cesium clock in S' is
not measuring the speed of light from the origin of S to the mirror.
It is measuring the speed of light from the point where light was
emitted in S', which was the origin of S', to the mirror.
Consequently, the time it takes for the light to reach the mirror
is less in S' than in S. If n' is the time it takes for light to
reach the mirror in S, then we calculate n' by

w= velocity of light
x=wt
x'=wn'

x'=x-vt
wn'=wt-vt
n=t(1-v/w)

Since the light going to the mirror has a velocity of c in both
frames of reference, n'=t(1-v/c).
To compare times on cesium clocks in each frame of reference
with regard to the arm of the interferometer, instead of shortening
the arm by means of a length contraction the way Lorentz and Einstein
did in their interpretations, we leave distances the same in both
frames of reference. We will compare the time it takes for the light
to go from the point where it was emitted in S, the origin of S, to
the mirror, and back to the origin of S', with the time it takes for
the light to go from the point where it was emitted in S', the origin
of S', to the mirror, and back to the origin of S'.
We already have the times for the light going to the mirror.
t1=(x2-x1)/c=x2/c
n'=t1(1-v/c)
When the light is reflected by the mirror, its velocity is
changed from +c to -c relative to S and S'. In S' the light will
travel the same distance it traveled on the way to the mirror, x'.
However, the velocity of the light is negative, so the distance from
the mirror to the origin of S' is (-c)n'.

-cn'= -ct2-vt2

where t2 is the time it takes for the light to go from the mirror to
the origin of S' as shown by a cesium clock in S.

cn'=ct2+vt2
cn'=t2(c+v)
t2=ct1(1-v/c)/(c+v)
t2=t1(c-v)/(c+v)

So for the light to go from the origin of S to the mirror and back to
the origin of S' takes t1+t2. For the light to go from the origin of
S' to the mirror and back to the origin of S' takes 2 n'.

t1+t2=t1+t1(c-v)/(c+v)
2n'=2t1(1-v/c)

So the Galilean transformation equations account for the difference in
times on cesium clocks in different frames of reference without a
length contraction.
Robert B. Winn

xxein: You have it exactly opposite. Trust me.

All the local clocks beat the same with the same general velocity of S
(xor S').

But the lightpaths are different within the moving framework of the
interferometer.

To make them appear the same, physical length contraction is the only
possible factor.

Same math formula --- same effect.

Why do people think that the mathematical farts out of their ass
replace a physically based logic?

Another way of looking at this is to consider why we are discussing
this. Nobody knows the essence of the physics they are talking
about. Do you? If the label of "physicist" implies a genuine
physical knowledge, how come there are such diverse thoughts expressed
as a/the theory? And they all try to describe the same core process.
What do you think is wrong here?

Do you (or anybody reading this) think you (or they) belong to such a
major league?

I'm not in favor of shutting down speculation because we clearly don't
understand the physic (and we probably never will), but to constantly
pick rotten apples and still declare them perfectly ripe is a belief
syndrome wrought of a math. The math came in accordance with the
rotten apple to make it seemingly ripe.

We have to keep guessing, but we must do so by using a baser logic.
We can't build it upon a subjective measurement. Einstein already
tried that. It had a relevant and workable physics, but not the
physic, itself. Neither does any other current/pop theory.

We have to shitcan subjective measurement and work with the whole
cosmology from the top down. It is probably greater than that but
that will fill our plate sufficiently for now.

This is not a trickle down process. We allowed and provided for the
bus that will run us over (physically or economically). Although we
have some local control (our physics), the physic is beyond. It is
both + iterative and - iterative. We are in a + area and a - area at
the same time. Universal expansion and a gravity. We don't really
know why that is.

We can see all sorts of behavior in our local thought of the
universe. We see supernovas and BH's. How about quasars? I haven't
seen a single theory that can encompass all 3. Have you?

This is where we have to think anew. This is what will distinguish a
physicist from a sheepskin acceptor.

Yes, we rely on measurements, but we have to know what they
represent. Is it local or global. Is it just subjective measurement
or does it represent the objective behavior of the physic? The physic
can certainly provide for a local and subjective measurement. Who, in
their right mind, would suggest the reverse?

You are certainly wrong in your analyzation of MM. Try again with
some physical logic attached.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, that is certainly a lot of words to say that you have nothing to
say. If you think I am wrong in my analyzation of the Michelson-
Morley experiment, prove it.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Actually, philosophically and physically you have to prove I
am wrong. How does that grab you?

A math salad can only describe it's own reflections. Z=3. Oh! That
explains the universe, huh? A Z?

Get off the math. It's the same as we should live with this belief or
another. The math is only applied to a belief and how we choose to
express that belief.

If you think math is some sort of physical entity, you are sadly
mistaken.

Math is useful but it only describes what we measure in a subjective
mode. Some math supersedes this when we consider a cosmology. Other
math can be totally misleading in the more subjective mode of
relativity or Q theories.

So which math do you wish to profess? A belief or a physical
continuity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, well I just describe a cosmology with the Galilean transformation
equations. �Sorry that upsets you.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: �Sorry, but the cosmos doesn't quite work that way, either..

There is a dynamic function at work here. �Nothing is completely
inertial, even though on the lesser scales, we can find something
cloaked as close in some notion of a physics.

Can you find something in this universe that is not moving non-
inertially? �Try your house that is rotating and revolving as the
Earth does. �How about the silverware in a kitchen drawer? �No atomic
activity within? �It all maintains a shape to a great extent but there
is a tidal function caused by gravity that will distort shape. �Even
the shape of a fork. �We know it is true but are unable to detect such
a small change.

The Galilean does not address a time dilation nor length contraction.
Lorentz did not address a gravity but at least he superseded Galileo.
Einstein canned them both with a math to include a gravity and forgot
to include a physical logic. �He simply told us of his math framework
to describe a greater activity and called it a relativity theory.

Why was that insufficient to address what a quantum theory tries to
explain? �How about the simple existence and behavior of the cosmos
that seems to be wanting or needing a dark mass or energy to comply?

Einstein merely gave us a sophisticated bus schedule that neither
maintains the bus nor can describe it outside of its local route.
Still, it's nothing to sneeze at though. �I can give him his credit
but I cannot give him the physic.

It seems that the "real" physicists understand this or else they
wouldn't have been questioning it or proposing alternate solutions and
theories.

The Galilean works fine for crossword and jigsaw puzzles but cannot
approach the needed physical explanation for this universe or beyond.
Up the ladder, no theory provides anything near what we are able to
see and measure. �Closer, maybe. �But only if we choose the correct
logic. �Once we find a correct logic, we can apply a math to it. �It
doesn't work in reverse.

Enjoy your visit to Oz, but sooner or later you will return to
Kansas. �The book says so.

More psychology. Can you explain what is going on with YBM's problem?
x=900,000km
t=1sec
v=.8c

YBM says that the Lorentz equations show that t' is -2.4sec. With the
Galilean transformation equations I get that t' is 1 sec, and a clock
co-moving with the frame of reference in motion shows .2 sec.,
regardless of where it is in the moving frame of reference. Could you
tell us all what -2.4sec means?
Robert B. Winn
.