Re: Galilean transformation equations

rbwinn a écrit :
On Feb 15, 12:59�pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :

n'=sqrt( (x-vt)^2+y^2+z^2 )/c
go ahead and show the time and place the light ray starts, the place
it travels to, and the speed it is traveling, since you say it is not
traveling at c. I am very interested to see your mathematics.
Every of these information are in my original post, quoted above.- Hide quoted text -

Here it is again, for the record:

By applying what you suggested:
> x' = x-vt
> y' = y
> z' = z
> n' = sqrt[(x'^2+y'^2+z'^2)/c^2]

For (x,y,z)=(ct,1,0), this gives:

x'=t*(c-v)
y'=1
z'=0
n'=sqrt( t^2*(c-v)^2 + 1 )/c

What do you think about the speed of light ray in S' according
to these formulas?

At time t=0 in S, x'=0,y'=1,z'=0,n'=1/c
At time t>0 in S, x'=t*(c-v),y'=1,z'=0,n'=sqrt( t^2*(c-v)^2 + 1 )/c

(distance in S')/(time elapsed in S') =
t*(c-v)*c / [ sqrt( t^2*(c-v)^2 + 1) - 1 ]

It's not c! It's not even a constant!

For (x,y,z)=(1,ct,0), this gives:

x'=1-vt
y'=ct
z'=0
n'=sqrt( (1-vt)^2 + c^2*t^2 )/c

What do you think about the speed of light ray in S' according
to these formulas?

At time t=0 in S, x'=1,y'=0,z'=0,n'=1/c
At time t>0 in S, x'=1-vt,y'=ct,z'=0,n'=sqrt( (1-vt)^2 + c^2*t^2 )/c

(distance in S')/(time elapsed in S') =
c* sqrt( v^2*t^2 + c^2*t^2 ) / [ sqrt( (1-vt)^2 + c2*t^2 ) - 1 ]

It's not c! It's not even a constant!

Why don't you check, then try with LTE, Robert? Afraid of something?

Well, bully, for you, YBM. �You have created a puzzle that I am
supposed to solve. �I am not interested in it.
You're ridiculous. You've proposed a so-called "general" formula
for n' after I've shown you that the first two so-called "specific"
ones didn't work. Then I gave you TWO examples of light rays which
does not propagates at c in S' with this new formula.

x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2 =c^2n'^2
That is the equation. Soplve for n'. Too diffricult for you? OK,
talk about psychology.

Read again all the part of my post you've snipped, you'll see that not
only I solved it, apply it to specific light rays and shows that it
doesn't give a speed c for them.

Suddenly when it comes on basic facts of math and physics, you're
desperate about talking about psychology? How strange!

I know you hypocrite tactic, Robert: you end up with a different
formula for n' for any specific example, then deny having a different
one.

Well, no there is one equation from which n' is derived.

x'&2 + y'^2 + z'^1 = c^2n'^2

So my question is perfectly honest, what is the full and complete
transformation you propose which should apply for every event ?

x'=....x-vt
y'=....y
z'=....z

n'=....sqrt[(x'^2+y'^2+z'^2)/c^2]

So: n'=sqrt( (x-vt)^2 + y^2 + z^2 )/c, right? Fine, this is what
I used above.

Despite the fact that I've shown you that there are light rays
propagating at c in S and not in S' with this formula, anyone
with a clue won't physics would note that this equation is not
linear, and that it means it cannot be true. But such points are,
unfortunately, far beyond your abilities, it needs a clue about
physics and a bit of geometry.

t'=t

If you cannot explain
your idea, then go talk to someone else about it. �You said there was
a light beam that originated at some point and ended at some other
point that was not traveling at c. �
Above, even in you post, you'll find for each of these light rays:

1. Their equations of motion in S
2. What applying the last version of your "transformation" gives
� � for x',y',z',t
3. What are start and end points considered in S' for both light rays,
� � what are the values of n' for these events.
4. What speed it gives for these light rays
5. The obvious fact that these speeds are not c
The speed of light between two points is the distance between the
two points divided by the time it takes light to travel that
distance.

We agree on that. This is the way I've computed speed of two specific
light rays in S'. Unfortunately for you - no surprise - it doesn't give
c.

Now you claim that you have light going between two points
at some speed other than c. Let's see the math.

With you formulas it's why it leads to. Sorry for that, just high school
algebra. I'v shown you the math, you refused to read.

Given your history on this group, it's not surprise you refuse to
even considering this. Oh, I forgot: at first you tried (which
shows that you perfectly understand then what I was talking about),
but you goofed on (y_0-y_t)=(1-1)=0, so you end up by predending
not to know what it was about... Your tactic is crystal clear:
when proven wrong, you ignore what is in front of your eyes.

Well, the way to prove that would be by putting something before my
eyes. Psychology does not impress me at all.

All you've snipped in my post is not psychology, it basic physics
applied to your crazy formulas. And a bit of high school algebra.
The one you refuse to read. How strange?

What delight me is that it took me two days to make you propose
two new formulas for t' (both wrong) while you were stick on the
same one (n'=t(1-v/c), wrong too) for more than ten years!

No, I was stuck on t'=(1-v/c). Two years ago I realized that t' has
to equal t. That was when I started using another variable for time
on a clock in S'.

The name of variables doesn't matter. Everyone on Earth would use t'
in order to check, for instance, that light speed of any light ray
in S' is c or not. You decide to use n', just another name, with
a nonsensical formula. The point is not the name of the variable, the
point is that the formula doesn't work.

Let's forget the name of variables, we're talking about how a clock
in S' would tag an event as a fonction of its coordinates in S. So
far we've got five - not three as I said! - proposals from you:

t(1-v/c)
t(1+v/c)
sqrt[( ct-vt)/c]
sqrt[(-vt)^2/c^2 + t^2/c]
sqrt( (x-vt)^2 + y^2 + z^2 )/c

Given that all these formulas give very different results for a large
part of the set of event coordinates (x,y,z,t), one could imagine that
you don't really understand what you're talking about.

They are all wrong, anyway.

It proves one thing: you can evolve! Ok, you've evolved from falacy to
wrongness, it took more than ten years and you still don't get the
point. But this is better than nothing.

Who knows if in twenty years you won't get the point of SR?

The point of SR is a length contraction that all scientists bow down
in humble reverence to worship.

We could talk about this if you knew what is meant by length contraction
in SR. Unfortunaly you don't. It seems to me that you're just chocked by
the name. Is there some part of you which is sadly contracted?

Something that should make you think twice about this (as if you were
able to think once...) is:
- Invariance of c => LTE => lenght contraction (whatever it means with
LTE, what you don't know anything about)
- Experiment at high velocity, like particles accelerators confirms
length contraction (as meant in SR, what you don't know anything
about)

Who says that scientists are not religious.

The one who refuse to look at four lines of basic algebra when it proves
his silly misconception as wrong?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... it travels to, and the speed it is traveling, since you say it is not ... � to these formulas? ... apply it to specific light rays and shows that it ... The obvious fact that these speeds are not c ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... won't obtain constancy of speed for all light rays. ... satisfying constancy of light speed is the set of Lorentz Transformation ... is always light rays which does not propagates at c in S'. ... The obvious fact that these speeds are not c ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... it travels to, and the speed it is traveling, since you say it is not ... Above, even in you post, you'll find for each of these light rays: ... � � for x',y',z',t ... The obvious fact that these speeds are not c ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... I consider two light rays on the line (does it ... you "theory", using n', the speeds of both light rays simultaneously? ... don't lie and write that I've proven Robert Winn' ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
    ... the wave traveling at c-v takes longer to cover the distance than the ... both a stationary and moving observer is a whole different animal. ... are used to things having different speeds depending on whether we are ... Minkowski space explains it nicely ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)