Re: Galilean transformation equations

On Feb 8, 7:12�am, zviki_m <mera...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 7, 7:37�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 7, 9:14 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 6, 5:41 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 6, 6:34 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 6, 5:33 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 5, 6:49 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 5, 7:01 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 5, 6:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 4, 8:42 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 4, 6:20 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 4, 5:44 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Well, it is similar to scientists when they are asked about two
different clocks running at different rates which scientists say show
the same velocity. They disappear for a while.
Robert B. Winn

I know you take the fact that, after a while, scientists start
ignoring you as some kind of victory on your part.

You have an interesting way of viewing your own influence.

PD

If I had any influence other than the ability to make scientists run,
PD, there would be a scientist somewhere capable of talking something
other than garbage.
Robert B. Winn

I don't even think you have the ability to make scientists run, Bobby.
I think you do have the ability to bore scientists until they walk
away. I imagine that, from your perspective, those two are
indistinguishable.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you personally have not said a word about relativity for more
than a year. How do two clocks running at different rates show the
same velocity, PD?

They show the same *relative* velocity, Robert. Why would you think
they don't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think they do not because the two clocks show that something travels
a certain distance in two different times.

That's in error, Bobby, because there is no "certain distance" that is
common between the two frames, just as there is no "certain time" that
is common between the two frames. Different distances, different
times, same relative velocities.

This is what I meant when I said that 1.00/3.00 = 1.01/3.03. Those
ratios are the same, even though the numerators are different AND the
denominators are different.

Is this really that hard for you? It appears that it is taking an
*extraordinarily* long time for you to grasp this, even for a welder.

I can grasp it perfectly.

c= x/t =x'/n' =(x-vt)/(t-v/c)=(x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)

= [(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]/[(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

= x'Lorentz/t'Lorentz

Well, there do seem to be a few problems in the above. First of all,
we were talking about the relative velocity between the earth and the
satellite, which is not c, is it? Secondly, the Lorentz transformation
has no n' in it, so something must be wrong in the above, isn't that
so. Third, you may notice that the second line in your equation, which
is a function of x, t, v, is supposed to algebraically reduce to x/t,
which is what you claim in your first line -- but it doesn't seem so
straightforward that this equality is correct, does it?

I know everything there is to know about how the Lorentz equations
relate to relativity.

Well, given the problems above, it appears you don't know as much as
you think you know.

What happened to your vow to never talk about anything but psychology,
PD?

The relative velocity between the earth and the sattelite is v as seen
from the earth and v' as seen from the sattelite.

Second, what the Lorentz equations mean with regard to electromagnetic
fields has nothing to do with what you are trying to claim they mean
with regard to physical objects.
n' is used with the Galilean transformation equations. �The fact that
t' in the Lorentz equations is nearly the same as n' does not mean it
is the correct answer. �It will give you scientists a close
approximation if you want a close approximation, since you are not
interested in correct answers.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you dont realy know anything about special relativity.silly man.your
answers are not even wrong !!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know more about Einstein's ideas than you do. Did you want to
discuss something?
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: time dilation
    ... Robert B. Winn ... scientists will be dependent on public revenues. ... exceptions like Galileo and Newton. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... the same velocity. ... Robert B. Winn ... I think you do have the ability to bore scientists until they walk ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... the same velocity. ... Robert B. Winn ... I think you do have the ability to bore scientists until they walk ... How do two clocks running at different rates show the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... Robert B. Winn ... scientists will be dependent on public revenues. ... scientists are in charge of putting out forest fires, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: velocity of light.
    ... > velocity c ... >> Robert B. Winn ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)