Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Odd Bodkin Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Newton and Galilean Relativity Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:50:43 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 191 Message-ID: References: <15a8ee06-6a06-47ea-9473-41608f13fe6a@googlegroups.com> <5725f99d-27f1-43e9-a585-20e5570c2154@googlegroups.com> <3c689272-32d9-4745-a80b-231d18102bed@googlegroups.com> <58b0c925-a79e-43d9-b79f-f21e09ef422b@googlegroups.com> <57dcf3bf-defa-456e-b481-d9fdfb1da305@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: Y4tkc8rkxoLUL5Pc+bg6+w.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.3 (iPhone/iPod Touch) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Cancel-Lock: sha1:yuBWEROoyt8ZvF4SkIlbZLO6pnw= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:479183 wrote: > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 5:09:12 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> If scientists misinterpret the meaning of the equations, it does not make >>> the equations wrong, it makes the scientists wrong. >> >> No, in this case, you are wrong, Robert. The meaning and the clear >> definitions of the variables of the Galilean transformations were around >> long before you were born. It’s like what you’re saying is, “The sun at >> high noon is a brilliant purple. And if scientists have gotten the meaning >> of ‘purple’ wrong all these years, this doesn’t make my first statement >> wrong, it makes scientists wrong.” Now if you want to try to change the >> meaning of the word ‘purple’ or the meaning of the variables in the >> Galilean transformations, I suppose you can spend your remaining days on >> boondoggles like that, but I rather doubt anyone will care. > > > First of all, you are making some incorrect assumptions. I have never in > my life said that the sun is purple. I’m sorry that the concept of simile has eluded you. For reference, the phrase “It’s like...” if often a tip that a simile is about to be expressed. If it helps, let’s practice. It’s like you saying that you have discovered that infectious diseases are caused by evil humours. You are aware that scientists say that this idea is wrong. Scientists say that infectious diseases are caused mostly by bacteria and viruses, but you don’t think this is a good idea given that scientists have created MRSA, biological weapons, and vaccine-induced autism. It’s like you saying you can make the idea of evil humours correct just by redefining what evil humours mean. Evil humours were correct for thousands of years before microscopes and Petri dishes were invented. > In grade school I learned that the sun is a star of the kind that is > called a yellow dwarf. I have always said the sun is yellow. > And if you want >> to tell yourself that centuries from now, young scientists will happen to >> dig up old backup disks that were written over many times and manage to >> reconstruct conversations on a long-dead forum called Usenet and come to >> the realization that the meaning of the word ‘purple’ and the meaning of >> the variables in the Galilean transforms have been all wrong because some >> unlicensed, odd-job welder thought so, then you go right on ahead and tell >> yourself that. And you go on ahead and tell yourself that Trump is creating >> a whole lot of jobs and making the economy great while the stock markets >> tank and workers walk out of closed automobile plants. > > > It is not going to matter whether workers walk out of closed automobile > plants. Next month the economy is going to undergo a dramatic change > that will transform monetary value. I think Trump supporters were saying that two years ago, and then again a year ago. It didn’t happen and so people are saying it will happen but just next year, wait and see. Meanwhile the army that was sent to the border to stop the caravan and then shipped home again before they actually arrived, contributing to the largest national debt this country has ever seen, and the workers who are leaving closed plants, probably won’t have the time or patience to wait for the economic turnaround you swear is just around the corner. > Whether or not the automobile industry participates will be irrelevant. > It could be that a whole bunch of rich people will be driving around in > older cars, but I doubt it. Automobile executives are expecting an > economic failure, but the economy will surge after the first of the year, > and the best laid plans of Democratic Party operatives will come to > nought. Trump will be riding high once again. Sorry to have to be the > one to tell you this. Remember, I did not vote for Trump. I am just > making this prediction on the basis of indicators that the automobile > industry executives have ignored. >>> Here are the equations: >>> >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> y'=y >>> z'=z >>> t'=t >>> >>> Scientists seem to have some comprehension of the variables until they >>> come to the equation t'=t. Then they seem to insist what you repeat over >>> and over, that the only meaning that can be attached to this equation is >>> that t is the time of a clock at rest in S, and t' is the time of a clock >>> at rest in S'. The equation was true before clocks were even invented. >> >> Robert, just look at this previous sentence and ask yourself again how that >> can possibly make any sense, especially given what you say in the next >> sentence about standards of measurement of time. Before clocks were even >> invented. Honestly, Robert, they way some people talk seems like they’re >> just filling air with noise for its own sake. >> >>> What it means is that the same standard for time is being used in both >>> frames of reference. To briefly explain what this means and why it is >>> significant, we can take one measurement of time, the day, which is the >>> original standard of time on earth, signifying one rotation of the earth, >>> and apply its full definition, one rotation of any planet, and see why a >>> common measurement of time must be used in both frames of reference. So >>> let us use two planets as frames of reference. Earth rotates once every >>> 24 earth hours. Mars rotates once every 24.39 hours earth hours. If a >>> day is one rotation of a planet, then a Martian day is not the same as an >>> earth day. You cannot say that an earth day is t, and a Martian day is >>> t'. That is incorrect physics. I know how much it grieves you to apply >>> algebra to physics, but t'=t does not mean a Martian day is the same >>> amount of time as an earth day. >>> In like manner, a second of a slower clock is not the same amount of >>> time as a second of a faster clock, even if you call them both "ideal" >>> clocks. The time of the slower clock will result in faster velocities >>> than the time of the faster clock. So if t is the time of a clock in S, >>> then t' cannot be the time of a clock in S' if Einstein is right about >>> the clock having a slower rate than the clock in S. In order to show >>> this with correct algebra, you have to use a second set of Galilean >>> transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity >>> than were used in the first set. >>> >>> >>> x = x' - v'n' >>> y = y' >>> z = z' >>> n = n' >>> >>> >>> So now in this set of Galilean transformation equations, n' is the time >>> of the slower clock in S', and v' is the velocity of S relative to S' >>> according to the time of the slower clock in S'. >>> I am sorry about all of the algebra equations. I know how much you hate >>> algebra. However, in pursuing science, algebra is often used. >>>> >>>> Likewise if you wrote down F=ma, but changed the definition of m to stand >>>> for message or mutton, it wouldn’t be Newton’s second law equation anymore. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>> y'=y >>>>> z'=z >>>>> t'=t >>>>> >>>>> If t'=t, then t' cannot be the time of the clock in S' if the time of >>>>> that clock is a slower time than t. So the equations are saying that the >>>>> time of a clock in S is being used as the reference for time in both >>>>> frames of reference, regardless of what any clock in S' might say. >>>>> But, says Odd Bodkin, the clock in S' is an ideal clock. It has the >>>>> same rate as the clock in S if v=0. It is wonderful that the clock in S' >>>>> is an ideal clock, but once S' moves relative to S, according to >>>>> Einstein, the clocks no longer read the same. So it takes another set of >>>>> Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and >>>>> velocity to show the time of the clock in S'. >>>>> >>>>> x = x' - v'n' >>>>> y = y' >>>>> z = z' >>>>> n = n' >>>>> >>>>> So then we see that if the clock in S' has a different time than the >>>>> clock in S, its time is shown by n'. The only time n' would equal t' >>>>> would be if v=0. I know how much this upsets Odd Bodkin, but that is >>>>> just the way algebra is. It follows certain axioms. Odd Bodkin says >>>>> that algebra should not be used to represent physics, but Galileo and >>>>> Newton used to use algebra. I think that it is still OK to use algebra >>>>> unless you are in college or something, and then you might be punished >>>>> for using it. Anyway, then suppose that you want to use algebra to >>>>> represent the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The way >>>>> Einstein did it was to say x=ct. x'=ct'. With two sets of Galilean >>>>> transformation equations, the equations would be x=ct, x'=cn'. So we >>>>> substitute these values into the Galilean transformation equations, and we get >>>>> >>>>> x'=x-vt >>>>> cn' = ct - vt >>>>> n' = t-vt/c = t - vct/c^2 = t-vx/c^2, where x=ct >>>>> >>>>> So since you say you can prove these equations wrong, go ahead and show your proof. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables