Re: Does God need to prove He exists?

On Aug 5, 7:48�am, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <30bd7575-0739-49cb-b64b-fb03d1cf6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
rbwinn says...

[snip]

These equations are in any high school physics text.

� � � � � � � � � x'=3Dx-vt
� � � � � � � � � y'=3Dy
� � � � � � � � � z'=3Dz
� � � � � � � � � t'=3Dt

� They are called the Galilean transformation equations and were used
to describe transmission of light until the Michelson-Morley
experiment proved that ether did not exist. �Then Einstein and Lorentz
substituted the Lorentz equations, which require a distance
contraction and are therefore obviously wrong.

But as so often, what you declare 'obvious' is not even true. No, they are not
"obviously wrong". They are, rather, obviously right, since they are required by
Maxwell's equations.

Since then, there has also been abundant experimental verification of the
"length contraction" and time dilation. You deny it in vain.

Well, there is something you are missing here, Matthew. Einstein was
discussing transmission of light, not electromagnetism. The Lorentz
equations are not wrong for electromagnetism, as far as I know. That
was what Lorentz was studying when he derived them.

What is this supposed to be?

x'=3Dx-vt. etc.

It was not in any physics book when I was in school.

In any event, you do not appear to understand what the Galilean
transformation equations mean. You seem to think that the universe is
controlled by scientists and their interpretation of time. The
Galilean transformation equations can be applied to any two frames of
reference using a common measurement of time.

t'=t

This time could be measured by degrees of rotation of the sun, degrees
of rotation of the earth, or seconds on a clock in the frame of
reference at rest. In all of these examples, t'=t. Since t' =t, it
does not denote time on a clock in the moving frame of reference
because experiment shows that a clock in the moving frame of reference
is slower than a clock in the frame of reference at rest. Experiment
also shows that a clock in the moving frame of reference measures the
speed of light to be 186,000 miles per second. So we call the time on
a clock in the moving frame of reference n'

w=velocity of light
x=wt
x'=wn'

wn'=wt-vt

n'=t(1-v/w)

So what is your experiment that shows there is a length
contraction?
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... what the Lorentz equations say with regard to where a clock thrown ... from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown ... from the frame of reference. ... what the Lorentz transform predicts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ABOUT THE GALILEI PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
    ... n', the time on a clock in the moving frame of reference, is equal to ... The game is over, Robert, lying on what others than ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... that a clock in a moving frame of reference is slower than a clock in ... a frame of reference at rest. ... There is no difference between a "moving frame of reference" and a ... show that it is slower. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... that a clock in a moving frame of reference is slower than a clock in ... a frame of reference at rest. ... There is no difference between a "moving frame of reference" and a ... slower clock in S' using the Galilean transformation equations, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... An event happen at coordinates as measured in a frame ... The time of your slower clock has to be converted to ... Why should a reference clock depand on a external specific ... In the moving frame of reference it travels a distance of x' according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast