Re: Galilean transformation equations

On Feb 1, 6:01 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:09 am, zviki_m <mera...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 1, 3:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 1, 2:31 am, zviki_m <mera...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 1, 7:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 31, 6:58 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn a crit :

On Jan 31, 6:15 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Gisse a crit :

On Jan 31, 6:38 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 8:58 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:31 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:41 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:32 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 6:29 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:43 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I like studying the math, not approximations based on experiments
by people trying to get more money from the government.
Ah, well there you go. See? You aren't interested in science at all.
And yet you post to a science newsgroup, when you're really interested
in math. That makes so much sense.
You do not seem to have much respect for math. I always found math to
be fairly interesting.
Robert B. Winn
I have a lot of respect for Apple products. I just don't discuss them
on a physics discussion group. You'll note that others don't either.
It's a little odd that someone would want to discuss mathematics on a
physics discussion group, don't you think?
Well, I don't think so. In fact, you are the first person I have
encountered who seems to want to exclude mathematics from physics. So
what do you think of Isaac Newton?
He was considered to be a great mathematician and physicist.
Do you reject his ideas because he used mathematics in them?
Robert B. Winn
Describe your mathematical maturity, bobby.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Robert B. Winn
Describe your mathematical maturity, bobby.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
You seem a little upset by my mathematical maturity, Eric.
Robert B. Winn
Yeah that's what I thought - you have none. The welder that 'loves
math' doesn't know anything more powerful than middle school algebra.
Not even. He's been proven wrong at this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Been proven worng? When do you think that happened, YBM?

Several times during these last ten years. But if you want me
to more specific: do you remember when, a few months ago, you
tried to apply LTs to a simple case and were wrong (what
a elementary dimensional analysis would have shown)? Do
you want me to post a link to the thread?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Lorentz equations do not give a correct description of
relativity. If I tried to apply them to a simple case, the answer
would have to be wrong. The Lorentz equations have a length
contraction. I thought I told you this before. Well, now you know..
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

length contraction is just an effect of measuring something that is in
motion.nothing physicaly happens to a moving body.any physicist will
tell you this.you are worng as usual rbwelder- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The equations plainly show that something moving contracts in length.
Any physicist will say whatever it takes to reassure the person who
points this out. Whatever psychology scientists may use, the
equations do not change. They always say that anything that moves
contracts in length in the direction of motion.
What this means mathematically is that the equations are wrong,
however useful they may have been to scientists in causing explosions,
core meltdowns, and radioactive waste.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

only psychology can explain your strange posts,your unwillingness to
accept that nature is much more interesting than your classical
viewpint.as i told before velocity is always relative.there is no
absolute velocity.so when you get contraction in a frame moving
relative to you,you should understand that this implies a contraction
in your frame relative to the observer in the other frame.so the
contraction is an outcome of measuring.i cant wait for your future
posts about quantum mechanics or general relativity...can you explain
nuclear power/explosion radiactivity,laser,thermonuclear
energy,gps,semiconductors or superconductors using classical physics?
you just pick on special relativty because of the simple math involved
in the subject.but even what special relativity says you dont
understand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you say is nonsense.  Scientists have put together a bunch of
gobbledegook to explain to themselves why all of these things you
mention happen.  Scientists have always done this.  Scientists
understand some things, do not understand other things.  That is
obvious from the mathematics.
All I have to do to put scientists into a dither is mention something
that scientists obviously do not understand.  Scientists in the 1950's
put a cesium clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and launched
the missile.  This experiment was specifically to determine the effect
of velocity on the clock.  When they recovered the clock, it showed
less time than an identical clock kept on the ground.  Scientists
claimed that the experiment proved both Special Relativity and General
Relativity.   I say it did not prove the Lorentz equations.  I do not
know anything about tensors, but from what has been said, General
Relativity has the same problem the Lorentz equations have.
    The problem is that you have a different time on the clock in the
moving frame of reference.  That being the case, you do not have a
length contraction with v'=-v as the Lorentz equations show.  You have
clocks which show the missile going faster if measured from the clock
on the missile than if measured by the clock on the ground.  Your
equations are wrong.
    You say they are not wrong because you can impress everyone in the
world except me with them by using them to make muclear explosions,
core meltdowns, and radioactive waste, all paid for by the taxpayers.
I say you do not know what you are doing because you have not stopped
to think about what any of it means.
     The Greeks thought that saying the circumference of a circle was
3 times the radius was entirely accurate.  If someone had said to them
that it was really 3.14 times the radius, they would not have believed
it because they were taught in school that it was 3 to 1.  Scientists
of today are the same way with regard to relativity.  They know what
they were taught in school, and that is the extent of their
knowledge.  They refuse to discuss anything that was not discussed in
school.
     You have the same problem that the Greeks had.  The Vanguard
missile in the Etvos experiment was in a low, high speed circular
orbit around earth.  If you claim that both clocks are showing the
same speed for the missile, which is exactly what you are doing, then
the distance of the orbit is less from the frame of reference of the
missile, the value of pi changes, or both, which is what scientists
claim.
    Then scientist YBM provides information that GPS sattelite clocks
show more time than identical clocks on the ground, proving that
General Relativity is true, but Special Relativity is not.  From what
has been said to me, scientists still have the same difficulty.
According to them, the clock in the sattelite shows the sattelite
going at the same speed as a clock on earth.  If so, then your General
Relativity equations are wrong, however accurate the answers they give
may be.  They are an approximation of reality, not reality.
     pi= 3 was accurate enough for the Greeks.  The Lorentz equations
are accurate enough for you.  What you need to understand is that you
are not going to impress me by waving your hands.  There is more to
mathematics than hand waving, whatever scientists may think.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you get your "info" from other cranks like you.lot of nonsense .waste
of time.even galileo understood that the laws of nature are
mathematical but you should confirm any theory with experiments to
make sure that ones theory describes nature.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock, ... For example, simultaneity of two ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the ... Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... Whatever psychology scientists may use, ... in the subject.but even what special relativity says you dont ... of velocity on the clock. ...   I say it did not prove the Lorentz equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock, ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the ... Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of ... Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... by mortal men and could only be dealt with using sophisticated mathematics. ... Dr. Einstein's principle contribution was not Special Relativity but rather ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dear Spaceshit....
    ...    of changed clock and rulers are as real as real can be. ... The clock is simply goofing up Sam. ... Relativity is great for predicting how much they goof up, ... and we know that a comet is coming at you at 500,000 miles per hour. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast