Re: Galilean transformation equations

On Feb 9, 9:35�am, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :





On Feb 8, 8:20 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :

On Feb 8, 2:28 pm, zviki_m <mera...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:39 am, zviki_m <mera...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:15 am, zviki_m <mera...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:30 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Feb 6, 8:22 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Feb 6, 5:26 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Feb 6, 5:07 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Feb 6, 4:41 am, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Feb 5, 10:56 am, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
On Feb 4, 11:51 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
So now all we need is your explanation of how it works.
Already given, refer to Google Groups Archives.
Well, if you are afraid to post it, we can only surmise that you are
aware it is ridiculous. Another scientist has decided to hide.
You've seen the whole proof before, and refused to consider it. You
could have a chance to get the point if you would write it down by
yourself. Here is the main steps :
1. Given S and S' two galilean frames of reference, S' moving relative
to S at speed v>0 in the "+x" direction. What are, according to SR, the
coordinates (x',y',z',t') of an event in S' if the event's coordinates
in S are (x,y,z,t) ?
2a. What are the coordinates of the origine of S' in S ?
2b. Does it match with the hypothesys that S' is moving relative do S at
velocity (v,0,0) ?
3a. What are the coordinates of the origin of S in S ?
3b. Apply Lorentz Transformation Equations (cf. 1.) in order to
find the coordinates of the origin of S in S' at time t'
3c. From 3b. determine the velocity (vector) of the origin of S
in S'
4. Compute the magnitude of the velocity of the origin of S' in S
(cf. 2b) and the magnitude of the velocity of the origin of S in S'
(cf 3c). Are they equal?
[snip unrelated confused rant]
So, Robert 'chicken' Winn, are you afraid to show how incompetent you
are in basic math by failing to apply LTE to a simple problem, or are
you afraid to realize how absurd you are for years?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why would I apply the Lorentz equations?
Because you assert thatn LTE implies something (non symmetrical relative
speeds), something they don't. The only way to check is to apply them.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I did not say the Lorentz equations implied anything. I said
experimental evidence shows one clock slower than another clock. The
clocks are what show two different speeds.
Didn't you say that LTE implies that a moving clock shows a slower rate?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[snip stupid rant]
Please answer my question.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Please answer your question? The Lorentz equations are a set of
equations that were derived by H.A. Lorentz to describe
electromagnetic fields.
Not at all, but it really doesn't matter much that you add one more
blunder to your career.
They do not apply to solid objects.
Relativity of solid objects is described by these equations:
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
They are called the Galilean transformation equations.
They do not apply to solid objects, they apply - or not - to
events. But you really don't know what all this stuff (events,
coordinates, lengths, etc) are about, do you?
The good news for all readers is that you've explicitely dismissed
everything you pretend to know about what SR (and LTE) says or not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, your mind is very active in imagining that there is some kind of
length contraction in the knowledge that I have. x is a coordinate, y
is a coordinate, z is a coordinate. A train is a solid object. A
coordinate can be used to denote a point on a solid object. Now you
want the solid object to expand and contract according to where your
mind imagines coordinates to be. There was a guy from Israel who was
claiming the same kind of ability to bend steel with his mind.
Actually he was distracting his audience and doing the bending with
his hands. Consequently, we see the same thing here in this
newsgroup. PD has not posted anything about relativity for more than
a year trying to distract me with psychology. I stopped posting
anything about the Lorentz equations because scientists always
consider anything about those equations to be a mistake, since they
are aware of the scam they are perpetrating.
So I talk about the Galilean transformation equations. It is as
I suspected. There is no scientist in existence at the present time
who will discuss the Galilean transformation equations because they
are all aware that the Galilean transformation equations prove them
wrong.
You want to talk about coordinates, events and lengths?
Here are some equations that describe coordinates, events, and
lengths.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Did you just decide not to talk about coordinates, events, and
lengths?
Well, I have seen this happen before. If you change your mind,
come on back, and we can discuss coordinates, events and lengths.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
stick with x'=x-vt aho cares?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wonderful. Then I take it you are done posting your nonsense.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
who cares ? stick with your nonsense and think you understand
relativity.if you use your galiliean eqs. with x'^2+y'^2+z'^2=c^2t'^2
you get x^2 -2xvt + v^2t^2 + y^2 +z^2 =c^2t^2.just math very
accurate.....silly man /antisemitic?/whatever- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You seem to have forgotten the Galilean transformation equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Experiment shows that a clock in S' is slower than a clock in S.
Consequently, time on a clock in S' cannot be t' because t'=t. You
will have to use some other variable than t' for time on the clock in
S'.
x'^2 + y'^2 +z'^2 = c^2 n'^2
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2 t^2
x^2 -x'^2 = c^2t^2 - c^2n'^2
x'=cn'
x-vt = cn'
ct-vt = cn'
n'=t(1-v/c)
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
hey i thought you dont believe in experiments.surely not the ones that
shows time dialation.
you are dishonest and fool.the whole point of the argument is that t
is not equal t' .this is just math nothing to do with what scientists
tell you.how come you listen to them anyway.you dont trust them you
say it again and again.you cant get a spherical wavefront in the '
frame using GT.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So what is this?
x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 = c^2 n'^2
Let's take x=0,y=ct,z=0 as the equation of motion of a light ray..

Is x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2*t^2 ?

(check by yourself, it is)

Then take the GTE : x'=x-vt, y'=y, z'=z, and Robert's sillyness:

n'=t(1-v/c)
Is x'^2+y'^2+z'^2 = c^2 n'^2 ?

(check by yourself, it's not)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is incorrect, YBM. �n'=t(1-v/c) only works for one x and x'.

This is what I've shown to you several times, and the only times
you admit it. Anyway it express how meaningless n' is, it cannot
be used to label any event (i.e. know WHEN it takes place) but only
a ridiculous subset of them. n' is not only meaningless, it's
useless.

So let's recap what you admit now :

It is false that for ANY (x,y,z) so that x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2 t^2, taking GTE
and n' definition from Robert 'hypocrite' Winn we get
x'^2+y'^2+z'^2=c^2 n'^2.

So why did YOU pretend that x'^2+y'^2+z'^2=c^2 n'^2, if you knew it
wasn't true? Hypocrisy or ignorance?

Conclusion: in Robert 'stupid' Winn's theory a spherical light front in
S is not spherical in S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 = c^2n'^2 is an equation that says that there
is a sphere expanding from the origin of S' with a radius of cn'. As
I pointed out before, if the time is t in S, and the time is n'=t(1-v/
c) in S', there is only one point where the two spheres intersect on
their surfaces. That is on the x axis and x' axis at x and x' in the
direction of motion of S'. Only one point satisfies the equations.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... I did not say the Lorentz equations implied anything. ... experimental evidence shows one clock slower than another clock. ... They are called the Galilean transformation equations. ... won't even work for horizontal light rays in the -x direction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... I did not say the Lorentz equations implied anything. ... experimental evidence shows one clock slower than another clock. ... They are called the Galilean transformation equations. ... won't even work for horizontal light rays in the -x direction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... I did not say the Lorentz equations implied anything. ... experimental evidence shows one clock slower than another clock. ... They are called the Galilean transformation equations. ... won't even work for horizontal light rays in the -x direction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... I did not say the Lorentz equations implied anything. ... experimental evidence shows one clock slower than another clock. ... They are called the Galilean transformation equations. ... won't even work for horizontal light rays in the -x direction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... So, Robert 'chicken' Winn, are you afraid to show how incompetent you ... experimental evidence shows one clock slower than another clock. ... Relativity of solid objects is described by these equations: ... They are called the Galilean transformation equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)