Re: Galilean transformation equations

On Feb 15, 6:59�pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :

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?

The equation for n' says that light emitted at the origin of S'
travels to (x,y,z) in a time of n'. The light is traveling at a speed
of c.

� 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 ]

You are trying to make an event out of n'. The two points in S' that
the equations describe are the origin of S' and (x',y',z'). n' is the
time it takes a photon to go from the origin of S' to (x,y,z).
Regardless of what scientists claim to be doing with the Lorentz
equations, n' is not an event. It is just a time as measured by a
clock in S' for light to travel a distance of x' where x'=x-vt.



� 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?
It is just gibberrish. n' is not time on a clock at the coordinates
(x,y,z). It is the time it takes for light to travel from the origin
of S' to (x,y,z).

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.

It refers to a specific light ray, and the speed of the light is c.

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

How strange? You don't understand the equation for a sphere and you
think it is strange? Really, YBM, the equation for a sphere is not
that difficult. If you want me to, I can explain it to you.

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.

You used it where you should have been using t'.

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.

Well, you did not work the problem correctly. You have to transform
the coordinates using the Galilean transformation equations.

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.

No, I read it. You did it wrong.

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?

You are a little bit melodramatic, YBM. Why not just try to work the
problem correctly?

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.

Well, the thing to do would be to prove it does not work then. n' is
not a coordinate the way you claim t' in the Lorentz equations is.
t'=t would be a time coordinate.

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.
You seem to be doing a lot of research for something you say you do
not believe.

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?

Not my brain. I can still think.

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?- Hide quoted text -


You have not showed any algebra yet. Just psychology so far.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Galilean transformation equations
    ... it travels to, and the speed it is traveling, since you say it is not ... apply it to specific light rays and shows that it ... � � for x',y',z',t ... The obvious fact that these speeds are not c ...
    (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)
  • 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)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... > case of a particle beam. ... RHIC collides two beams of gold ions head-on when they're traveling at ... nearly the speed of light (what Einstein called relativistic speeds). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)