Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 23:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <574c7dff-167b-48a3-a28f-ef396c6e5a2c@googlegroups.com> <066720b3-2d3d-4cbc-9537-189497dc6a2a@googlegroups.com> <6aba9465-cc11-43e7-9a94-1f6924af9609@googlegroups.com> <9c14f4d6-f66d-4487-9149-6951fd2aac80@googlegroups.com> <655ed31b-b262-4b7f-90dc-c4d2b1c57189@googlegroups.com> <4d53879e-788f-40c9-b793-1247c95e95fb@googlegroups.com> <8c77a0e4-834f-4326-8401-b094622fe90a@googlegroups.com> <3f9187d4-6e64-40aa-845e-ed26a571045f@googlegroups.com> <9a55fef4-8310-4029-b31e-98366d543cf1@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1534721785 6287 192.74.137.71 (19 Aug 2018 23:36:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 23:36:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:468396 Robert Winn writes: >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:21:49 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Robert Winn writes: >> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 1:17:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Robert Winn writes: >> >> >OK, so here is the situation. We have a car traveling at 60 miles per >> >> >hour on a highway. In the car is a clock that is slower than a clock on >> >> >the ground by the side of the highway. >> >> And there you go with broken clocks again! The only thing that you can >> >> prove by using a broken clock is that the broken clock will produce the >> >> wrong answer! >> >You cannot prove that the clock is broken by the information I gave. >> WTF??? You just said the clock ran slow! >> Remember, ideal (non-broken) clocks ALWAYS keep perfect proper time. That >> is, any observer riding along with the clock (for example, his wristwatch) >> will ALWAYS see it working perfectly. >> Your "clock slower than the one by the side of the highway" is your >> mysterious Winn transform. You don't (won't) state exactly how it runs >> slow, but let's say for example it runs at 99% of the rate of a proper >> clock, meaning it will lose 1 minute for every 100 minutes. If you let >> me know what the Winn Transform really is, I will use that instead. >> So we have 3 transforms now. >> 1) Galilean transform from S to S'. >> t'=t >> 2) Winn transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'. >> n'=0.99*t' >> 3) Galilean transform from S' to S. >> n=n' >> Combine them all and you just get: >> n=0.99*t >> Which proves...broken clocks are broken. That's it. No proof the Lorentz >> transform is wrong, or the Galilean transform is correct (since you also >> use the Winn Transform).. >There is no Winn Transform. OK, it doesn't matter what you call the "n=0.99*t" transform. Do you have a name for this transform? >I just use two different sets of Galilean transformation equations, one >for the time of each clock. Plus the nameless transform "n=0.99*t". A total of 3 transforms. >t is the time of a clock in S. n' is the time of a clock in S'. You have two clocks in S'. n' and t'. The nameless transform relates them since you state the n' clock is broken and runs slow. I am using n'=0.99*t' as an example of the nameless transform where the broken n' clock runs slow. > The equations do not specify how the times differ. That's what the unnamed transform has to define. >So since you seem to be saying the equations could not apply to the clock >Einstein was describing, let's say that the clock in S' shows a time of >n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That looks somewhat like the time portion of the Lorentz transform. So in reality you do have two transforms, the nameless one to go from the good clock in S to a broken clock in S', then the Galilean transform to go from the broken n' to n. But at least we have a (partial) definition for the nameless transform. >That does not change any of the variables for space. There is still >no length contraction. Can you show the x, y, z portions of your nameless transform? You just show time, plus confuse things by calling it n'. Anyway, we have 2 transforms now. 1) Unnamed transform from proper time in S' to broken clock n'. n' = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). 2) Galilean transform from S' to S. n=n' Combine them and you just get: n = (t - v(ct)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Note that you use the Galilean transform just once, not twice.