Re: Galilean transformation equations

On Mar 7, 7:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:29 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 7, 5:43 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Well,YBM was trying to be dramatic. He was trying to claim that the
equations mean something different when he says them than when I say
them.

Well, in fact, if you have different connotations for what the
variables mean, then yes, of course they say something different.

Algebraic notation is shorthand.
If for example, I were to denote E to mean "England" and you were to
denote E to mean "Europe", and we were both to say, "Prince Charles is
heir to the throne of E," then of course the same statement said by
two different people would be right and wrong, respectively.

Not that there's much point in playing that game without defining what
the symbols mean, of course. Unless the point is only to play a game,
any game.

Thanks for sharing, Robert.

PD

You are welcome, PD. YBM's claim is that the Galilean transformation
equations can only be used with absolute time, and all clocks have to
read the same. I say that the Galilean transformation equations
indicate that there is a common measurement of time in S and S'. That
is what t'=t means.

That is indeed saying the same thing.
Note that Galilean transforms say that what is read on one clock is t
and what is read on another clock is t', and that those readings will
be the same. Note too that this is much different than saying what is
read on one clock is t and what is read on another clock is n', and
that t and n' will be different. Note as well that what is observed in
experiment, with clocks that are too precise for imprecision to be the
cause, is that what is read on one clock is different than what is
read on another clock. Finally, note that what is observed in
experiment is different than what the Galilean transforms say.

This seems rather straightforward to me, Bobby. Even a welder should
be able to figure it out.

For instance, if time in S and S' is measured by
the rotation of the earth, then t'=t. If time in S is measured by
transitions of a cesium isotope molecule, and time in S' is measured
by transitions of a cesium isotope molecule, then time in S' does not
equal time in S, and t'=t does not show transitions of a cesium
isotope molecule in S compared to transitions of a cesium isotope
molecule in S'. So I call time measured by transitions of a cesium
isotope molecule in S' by the variable n' and compare it to time
measured by transitions of a cesium isotope molecule in S. Scientists
say this is wrong because it was done by a welder, not by a
scientist. So I think scientists should do their research any way
they want to do it, and stop posting their irrelevancies in what I am
doing. If scientists are right, and I am wrong, then there is no
reason for them to be paying any attention to what I do.

Oh, I beg to differ, Bobby. There is another reason entirely to be
paying attention to what you do. Whether you intend it or not, you are
funny. And, as a clown, you draw a small and amused audience. As far
as treating what you do seriously, you are quite right -- no one
appears to be paying much attention to that. If you are asking people
to not pay attention to you unless they are willing to take you
seriously, well, I'm not sure that's something you can control.

PD-

Well, once again, PD, we are discussing what is shown by a clock as
compared to what time is.

Physics is about what can be measured.

 Try to imagine back into the past when
there were dinosaurs on earth.  How many clocks were there back then?
We do not have any evidence that dinosaurs had clocks.  So was it
possible for time to exist?

Yes, but that is of little value to physicists, as discussions about
this "time that cannot be measured" is nothing testable. However, if
the time during the era of dinosaurs can be related to something that
can be *measured* by physicists, then you may be onto something.

  Well, according to the Galilean transformation equations it was.

No, Bobby, the Galilean transformations do not have to do with time
independent of how it is measured. It is a claim specifically about
what will be measured, not this immeasurable "reality" you are
supposing.

Even dinosaurs were able to determine that the sun was in the sky
every day, and it was not in the sky at night, so every 24 hours was
one day, etc.  So imagine frames of reference S and S' back in the
time of the dinosaurs.  There are no clocks.  What are scientists
going to do?
    I know, they could tell time by the sun.  See, when the sun comes
up in the morning until the time it comes up the next day is 24 hours
whether you are in S or S'.  So t'=t.  Then we have these equations:

               x'=x-vt
               y'=y
               z'=z
               t'=t

  If that could have been done in the time of the dinosaurs, it could
still be done today, but today we also have scientists with clocks, a
very dangerous combination.  So suppose there is a scientist in S'
with a clock.  The clock of the scientist in S' will be slower than
the clock of a scientist in S.  The clock of the scientist in S will
agree with the sun, one day = 24 hours.  So if we are talking about
the clock of the scientist in S', we cannot say t'=t because the clock
of the scientist in S' is slower than t'=t.  What can we do?

We can do something very simple. We can say that, of course the time
for the scientist in S' won't be 24 hours, because that scientist is
in motion relative to the scientist in S. And it comes on the
instruction manual for clocks that clocks will only read 24 hours for
the day if they are at rest relative to the Earth. Disregarding the
instructions voids the warranty. For those clocks in S', there is a
very simple relation to tell you how to reconcile t and t'. And in
fact, this very simple formula has been in use for this purpose in a
number of applications for several decades now.

    Can we say that time on the clock in S' is n' or some other
variable?
   Not according to scientists.  They are using t', and everyone else
is required to do things the way scientists do them.  So we need to
wait until scientists explain why a slow clock and a faster clock have
the same time.
Robert B. Winn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... about the NIST standard for the SI second. ... you say that a clock in a satellite is ... when a most straightforward measurement shows that nature ... Scientists in Newton's time told him that he had left nothing to be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... indicate that there is a common measurement of time in S and S'. ... Note that Galilean transforms say that what is read on one clock is t ... So I think scientists should do their research any way ... We do not have any evidence that dinosaurs had clocks. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: velocity
    ... reference clock on Earth. ... where a single reference clock on Earth will not ... attaching "....difficult for scientists to understand" to every ... But the astronauts say they have a clock on board the space shuttle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)
    ... |>many recognized scientists holding high positions today. ... The ruler measures length; a clock ... kilogram as if that somehow defined the measurement of length or mass. ... ratio is always unity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... however useful they may have been to scientists in causing explosions, ... 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)
Quantcast