Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362877 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-02 20:32 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-05 20:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Bell's spaceship paradox... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 20:32 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-03 11:27 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 08:32 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 09:44 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 10:23 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:07 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 12:13 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-03 19:45 +0000
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:47 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-03 19:52 +0000
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:58 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-03 22:03 +0000
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 16:52 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:59 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 17:05 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-04 09:55 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 10:04 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-04 12:50 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 13:48 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 12:44 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 13:55 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-05 15:09 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:51 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-04 16:22 -0400
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 21:59 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 05:49 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:04 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:30 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:41 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 04:16 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-04 12:11 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 12:45 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-04 13:14 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-05 10:30 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 15:47 +0000
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 09:48 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 09:30 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:50 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 12:05 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 12:14 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 12:36 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 14:11 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 09:35 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:04 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 18:07 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:35 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-05 06:12 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-04 11:34 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-03 14:51 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-04 11:11 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 11:14 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... mabel <wugi@scarlet.be> - 2015-09-04 20:52 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 11:14 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-04 12:53 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 22:52 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 09:42 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 15:07 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 15:33 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 09:08 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 12:52 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-11 22:45 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:16 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-12 12:10 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 13:55 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:13 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 09:19 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:01 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 09:12 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-03 12:47 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 11:51 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:41 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 13:00 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-03 21:48 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-07 18:30 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-07 12:50 -0500
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 12:55 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-12 17:17 +0200
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 17:49 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 19:09 -0700
Re: Bell's spaceship paradox... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 20:53 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 13:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mscp11$3s4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363065 |
On 9/4/2015 12:50 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/4/15 9/4/15 - 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/4/2015 9:55 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> >>> The actual situation is QUITE different. >>> >>> Among physicists, there is essentially 100% agreement on the validity of >>> SR within its domain. There are literally >10,000 physicists who use SR >>> in their daily work. Moreover, the thousands of modern particle >>> accelerators simply would not work if SR was seriously incorrect; of >>> course they do work. So to think that SR is "merely due to indoctrinated >>> idiots" is HOPELESSLY IGNORANT. >>> >>> As you say, the group of people who disbelieve SR is quite small >>> (compared to the physics community as a whole). Moreover, it consists of >>> idiots, fools, and people who simply do not understand the real issues, >>> such as alsor@interia.pl (and a host of other people around here). >>> >>> Like Newtonian mechanics (which is now known to be only an approximation >>> to a better theory), SR will never "disappear"; it will ALWAYS be useful >>> within its domain of applicability. >>> >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> >> But you have to admire the tenacity of the left-behinds, who stand on >> their >> slowly shrinking island and yell over the waves: "You'll see! One day >> we will >> rule again!" > > I see no reason to admire fools and idiots, or people who revel in their > ignorance claiming it to be a virtue. > > > Tom Roberts > It is called Courage in One's Foolish Convictions, aka the God-Given Right to Persist in Stupidity. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df55f28f-de3c-481f-bca9-a506bcff4ff4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363065 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/3/15, 5:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > The thing is, special relativity is 110 years old. That's 4.5 generations > > of humans. Most religions are thousands of years old. <shrug> > > You would have thought that if it were false, the indoctrinated idiots > > would have died off a long time ago, alone and with their delusions. These indoctrinated idiots have since then deified another indoctrinated idiot, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, to be the god of relativity. Since then, that stupid god of relativity, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, has whispered into the ears of these indoctrinated idiots self-contradictory laws of physics. <shrug> > Among physicists, there is essentially 100% agreement on the validity of > SR within its domain. There are literally >10,000 physicists who use SR > in their daily work. There are an infinite numbers of antitheses to SR that have always supported any experiments that have thrown at them. It is utterly ludicrous for someone to claim one particular valid thesis out of them just because their stupid god, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, had whispered into their years. <shrug> > I see no reason to admire fools and idiots, or people who revel in their > ignorance claiming it to be a virtue. Indeed, Koobee Wublee sees no reason to admire these indoctrinated fools and idiots that their stupid god, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, has been whispering into their ears. <shrug> ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NOISE IS COHERENCY ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS REALITY ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** CONJECTURE IS THEORY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING ** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION ** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fa46d1c-8a8f-4da1-881b-614563a1aa96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363079 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 12:44:25 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2015, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 9/3/15, 5:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > The thing is, special relativity is 110 years old. That's 4.5 generations > > > of humans. > > Most religions are thousands of years old. <shrug> > > > > > You would have thought that if it were false, the indoctrinated idiots > > > would have died off a long time ago, alone and with their delusions. > > These indoctrinated idiots have since then deified another indoctrinated idiot, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, to be the god of relativity. You will not get anywhere by repeating the same words. It's obvious to the reader that you have nothing to say, you simply feel compelled to cut and paste the magic phrase "Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar". I'm not sure what planet you live on but on my planet saying things don't make them true. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 15:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msepic$rp7$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #363096 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:6fa46d1c-8a8f-4da1-881b-614563a1aa96@googlegroups.com... |I'm not sure what planet you live on but on my planet saying things |don't make them true. Saying things is exactly what make them true. What alternative do you have? Except saying it's not true?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <498e29f9-6ca0-4436-9873-c951865d9a91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363129 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 6:09:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6fa46d1c-8a8f-4da1-881b-614563a1aa96@googlegroups.com... > > |I'm not sure what planet you live on but on my planet saying things > |don't make them true. > > > Saying things is exactly what make them true. I shall leave it at that. > What alternative do you have? Except saying it's > not true? Ditto. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 16:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qavjual2blmb8f5r385iqvb13sstmbqopl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363065 |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:50:29 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/4/15 9/4/15 - 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 9/4/2015 9:55 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> The actual situation is QUITE different.
>>>
>>> Among physicists, there is essentially 100% agreement on the validity of
>>> SR within its domain. There are literally >10,000 physicists who use SR
>>> in their daily work. Moreover, the thousands of modern particle
>>> accelerators simply would not work if SR was seriously incorrect; of
>>> course they do work. So to think that SR is "merely due to indoctrinated
>>> idiots" is HOPELESSLY IGNORANT.
>>>
>>> As you say, the group of people who disbelieve SR is quite small
>>> (compared to the physics community as a whole). Moreover, it consists of
>>> idiots, fools, and people who simply do not understand the real issues,
>>> such as alsor@interia.pl (and a host of other people around here).
>>>
>>> Like Newtonian mechanics (which is now known to be only an approximation
>>> to a better theory), SR will never "disappear"; it will ALWAYS be useful
>>> within its domain of applicability.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>>
>>
>> But you have to admire the tenacity of the left-behinds, who stand on their
>> slowly shrinking island and yell over the waves: "You'll see! One day we will
>> rule again!"
>
>I see no reason to admire fools and idiots, or people who revel in their
>ignorance claiming it to be a virtue.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
Maybe bodkin admires stupidity. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 21:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26506f61-1eb2-4658-aefb-a759fcddb73c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363065 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:50:31 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/4/15 9/4/15 - 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 9/4/2015 9:55 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> The actual situation is QUITE different.
> >>
> >> Among physicists, there is essentially 100% agreement on the validity of
> >> SR within its domain. There are literally >10,000 physicists who use SR
> >> in their daily work. Moreover, the thousands of modern particle
> >> accelerators simply would not work if SR was seriously incorrect; of
> >> course they do work. So to think that SR is "merely due to indoctrinated
> >> idiots" is HOPELESSLY IGNORANT.
> >>
> >> As you say, the group of people who disbelieve SR is quite small
> >> (compared to the physics community as a whole). Moreover, it consists of
> >> idiots, fools, and people who simply do not understand the real issues,
> >> such as alsor@interia.pl (and a host of other people around here).
> >>
> >> Like Newtonian mechanics (which is now known to be only an approximation
> >> to a better theory), SR will never "disappear"; it will ALWAYS be useful
> >> within its domain of applicability.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> >
> > But you have to admire the tenacity of the left-behinds, who stand on their
> > slowly shrinking island and yell over the waves: "You'll see! One day we will
> > rule again!"
>
> I see no reason to admire fools and idiots, or people who revel in their
> ignorance claiming it to be a virtue.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Well, if you would be willing to discuss some equations, what I would point out is that the velocity transformation for the Lorentz equations is
u' = (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)
u=dx/dt
u'=dx'/dt'
Now if we take the Galilean transformation equations and use them in the mathematically correct manner, we get the exact same equation for the same two measurements of time, the time of a clock in S and the time of a clock in S'.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
t is the time of a clock in S. Notice the two little horizontal lines between t' and t. They are called an equal sign. If t is the time of a clock in S, then t' is also the time of a clock in S. These equations do not say anything about a slower clock in S'. So since scientists have told us that the transitions of a cesium atom slow down in S', we have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations to show this.
x' = x - (v2)(t2)'
y' = y
z' = z
(t2)'= (t2)
You will notice that the coordinates for this set of Galilean transformation equations are S(x,y,z,(t2)) and S'(x',y',z',(t2)'). (t2)' is the time of the slower clock in S'. Once again, notice the two little horizontal lines between (t2)' and (t2) which are called an equal sign. If (t2)' is the time of the slower clock in S', then (t2) is also the time of the slower clock in S'. t and t' are in the other set of Galilean transformation equations. Now if the speed of light is measured to be c=300,000 km/sec according to the time of the clock in S, then x=ct, or light travels a distance of x in a time of t. If this speed of light is measured to be c=300,000 km/sec in S' according to the time of the slower clock in S', then x'=c(t2)'.
x'=x-vt
c(t2)' = ct -vt
(t2)' = (t-vt/c) = (t-vx/c^2) if x=ct
So now we transform velocities using the times of the clock in S and the clock in S'.
u=dx/dt
u' = dx'/d(t2)'
x' = x - vt
dx' = dx - vdt
(t2)' = (t - vx/c^2)
d(t2)' = (dt - v dx/c^2)
dx'/d(t2)' = (dx-vdt)/(dt-v dx /c^2)
= dt(dx/dt-v)/dt(1 - v dx/dt /c^2)
= (dx/dt-v)/(1 - v dx/dt /c^2)
= (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)
OK, I will repeat the results of this for the scientists once again. For the Lorentz equations where t is the time of a clock in S and t' is the time of a clock in S',
dx'/dt'= (u-v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
For the Galilean transformation equations where t is the time of a clock in S and (t2)' is the time of a clock in S',
dx'/d(t2)' = (u-v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
Once again it seems that scientists do not want to discuss equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <261c2afe-b427-4c49-b230-46983aa75488@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363330 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:59:43 AM UTC-4, Robert Winn wrote: > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > t is the time of a clock in S. Notice the two little horizontal > lines between t' and t. They are called an equal sign. If t > is the time of a clock in S, then t' is also the time of a clock > in S. Say, you bring a clock from x=0 to x = D at speed v. What value will *it* indicate on arrival at D ? Does you eqs give the correct value? > These equations do not say anything about a slower clock > in S'. But the LT's do! So they are more useful, no? > So since scientists have told us that the transitions of a cesium > atom slow down in S', Well, the LT's (SR) also tell us this. > we have to use another set of Galilean > transformation equations to show this. Your aproach/eqs seem to be overkill to the unique use of the LT's
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9346f390-4018-4217-b955-951f38b37c32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363343 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 5:49:17 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:59:43 AM UTC-4, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> >
> > t is the time of a clock in S. Notice the two little horizontal
> > lines between t' and t. They are called an equal sign. If t
> > is the time of a clock in S, then t' is also the time of a clock
> > in S.
>
> Say, you bring a clock from x=0 to x = D at speed v. What value will *it* indicate on arrival at D ? Does you eqs give the correct value?
>
Yes, the Galilean transformation equations give the correct value. It does not matter what the value is. Suppose that the clock slows down as Einstein predicted in Special Relativity. Then the time of the clock is shown by a set of Galilean transformation equations
x'= x - (v2)(t2)'
y'=y
z'=z
(t2)' = (t2)
(t2)' is the time of the clock that moved from x=0 to x=D at speed v. In the above set of Galilean transformation equations, the speed is shown as (v2) because a slower clock results in a slower speed between frame of reference S and frame of reference S'. Speed v appears in the original set of Galilean transformation equations
x'=x-vt
t'=t
where t is time as shown by a clock in S. t' is also time as shown by a clock in S because the Galilean transformation equations can only show one measurement of time in one set of equations.
> > These equations do not say anything about a slower clock
> > in S'.
>
> But the LT's do! So they are more useful, no?
Scientists seem to think so. The difference between the Lorentz equations and the Galilean transformation equations is that the Lorentz equations claim that if a clock in S' is slower than a clock in S, the times of both clocks still result in a speed of v between the frames of reference of the clocks. Scientists will not discuss this at all. But suppose Hafele and Keating had used the time of their clock on an airplane to calculate the speed of the airplane. Would they get the same speed for the airplane if the clock on the airplane was slower than a clock on the ground? The Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, as experiment shows. A slower clock results in a faster speed for the airplane. A faster clock results in a slower speed for the airplane. Experiment plainly shows this to be true.
>
> > So since scientists have told us that the transitions of a cesium
> > atom slow down in S',
>
> Well, the LT's (SR) also tell us this.
Yes, that is true. That is the reason why scientists ran the experiments in the first place. As soon as they confirmed that a clock in S' was slower than a clock in S, they accepted it as proof that SR and the Lorentz equations were true. The Galilean transformation equations had long since been discarded. The never once considered using the Galilean transformation equations multiple times for different clock rates with different variables for time instead of just once with Newton's absolute time interpretation. Nobody did for more than a hundred years until I did it.
>
> > we have to use another set of Galilean
> > transformation equations to show this.
>
> Your aproach/eqs seem to be overkill to the unique use of the LT's
Well, perhaps the Galilean transformation equations seem too difficult for scientists, but that does not change the fact that they are the correct equations. The Lorentz equations give correct answers to some problems because of the velocity transformations. If u=dx/dt and u'=dx'/dt' in the Lorentz equations, then
u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)
If u=dx/dt and u'=dx'/d(t2)' as I have shown in the Galilean transformation equaions, then
u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)
The only difference between the two sets of equations is that x' in the Galilean transformation equations is not the same distance as x' in the Lorentz equations, and t' in the Lorentz equations is not the same amount of time as (t2)' in the Galilean transformation equations. But u and v are the same in both sets of equations, so the equations are really identical in result. If scientists are too lazy to realize that they are using a horse, that is, something that seems easy to them but is not exactly done with correct mathematics, then let scientists do what they do. Their best efforts to destroy the universe will all fail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ace67307-b980-40bd-80cf-76176e0cde73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363365 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:04:16 PM UTC-4, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 5:49:17 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > Say, you bring a clock from x=0 to x = D at speed v. What value > > will *it* indicate on arrival at D ? Does you eqs give the correct value? > > > Yes, the Galilean transformation equations give the correct value. Prove it. > Suppose that the clock slows down as Einstein predicted in > Special Relativity. Irrelevant. This is not about E's SR, but *your* model, your eqs. <mumbojumbo snipped> So, no answer to my question? Here it is again: Say, you bring a clock from x=0 to x = D at speed v. What value will *it* indicate on arrival at D ? Express your answer as a function T_val = F(D,v) > > But the LT's do! So they are more useful, no? > Scientists seem to think so. Well, they are useful since they directly predict the value(s) on clocks (and energies, frequencies etc...) > The difference between the Lorentz equations and the Galilean > transformation equations is that the Lorentz equations claim > that if a clock in S' is slower than a clock in S, But the LT's dont predict that; SR doesnt say that. > the times of both clocks still result in a speed of v between the > frames of reference of the clocks. Not sure what you are geting to with that. Yes, "v" is defined via time, or clocks. "v = dx/dt". In practice, "v" also has operational procedures/definition. > But suppose Hafele and Keating had used the time of their > clock on an airplane to calculate the speed of the airplane. How would they do that? They would need a distance. Their distance is always zero wrt themselves. Its <>0 wrt the ground. Its <>0 wrt the sun. "speed" is defined wrt a given frame; its defined via "x and t" of that frame, not of a mixture of frames. > Would they get the same speed for the airplane if the clock on > the airplane was slower than a clock on the ground? The plane observers measure the speed of the "traveling ground". Ground observers measure the speed of the plane. Experimentally, these give the same value and is what SR predicts too. So plane observers just say "our plane has speed v" when technically it should be understood as "the ground has speed v". > The Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations, Then continue to use them to your liking. > The never once considered using the Galilean transformation > equations... with Newton's absolute time interpretation. > Nobody did for more than a hundred years until I did it. It was done many times throughout history. And note that your derivations also use the constancy of speed of light postulate. Basically, you are combining two models together, using twice as many equations, all to get no answers (you havent answered my question, remember?). Your approach is not very useful it seems. > The Lorentz equations give correct answers to some problems because > of the velocity transformations. The velo.trans come from the LT's which come from the relativity principle. Its not something extra added to SR. In your approach, you add so many extra "things" to get no answers; hardly useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 02:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89e012d2-bcfb-417c-bb52-03fd8eb16c3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363367 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:30:08 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:04:16 PM UTC-4, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 5:49:17 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > Say, you bring a clock from x=0 to x = D at speed v. What value
> > > will *it* indicate on arrival at D ? Does you eqs give the correct value?
> > >
> > Yes, the Galilean transformation equations give the correct value.
>
> Prove it.
>
>
> > Suppose that the clock slows down as Einstein predicted in
> > Special Relativity.
>
> Irrelevant. This is not about E's SR, but *your* model, your eqs.
>
> <mumbojumbo snipped>
>
> So, no answer to my question? Here it is again: Say, you bring a
> clock from x=0 to x = D at speed v. What value will *it* indicate
> on arrival at D ?
>
> Express your answer as a function T_val = F(D,v)
>
>
> > > But the LT's do! So they are more useful, no?
> > Scientists seem to think so.
>
> Well, they are useful since they directly predict the value(s) on clocks (and energies, frequencies etc...)
>
> > The difference between the Lorentz equations and the Galilean
> > transformation equations is that the Lorentz equations claim
> > that if a clock in S' is slower than a clock in S,
>
> But the LT's dont predict that; SR doesnt say that.
>
> > the times of both clocks still result in a speed of v between the
> > frames of reference of the clocks.
>
> Not sure what you are geting to with that. Yes, "v" is defined via time, or clocks. "v = dx/dt". In practice, "v" also has operational procedures/definition.
>
> > But suppose Hafele and Keating had used the time of their
> > clock on an airplane to calculate the speed of the airplane.
>
> How would they do that? They would need a distance. Their distance is always zero wrt themselves. Its <>0 wrt the ground. Its <>0 wrt the sun. "speed" is defined wrt a given frame; its defined via "x and t" of that frame, not of a mixture of frames.
>
> > Would they get the same speed for the airplane if the clock on
> > the airplane was slower than a clock on the ground?
>
> The plane observers measure the speed of the "traveling ground". Ground observers measure the speed of the plane. Experimentally, these give the same value and is what SR predicts too. So plane observers just say "our plane has speed v" when technically it should be understood as "the ground has speed v".
>
>
> > The Galilean transformation equations are the correct equations,
>
> Then continue to use them to your liking.
>
>
> > The never once considered using the Galilean transformation
> > equations... with Newton's absolute time interpretation.
> > Nobody did for more than a hundred years until I did it.
>
> It was done many times throughout history. And note that your derivations also use the constancy of speed of light postulate. Basically, you are combining two models together, using twice as many equations, all to get no answers (you havent answered my question, remember?). Your approach is not very useful it seems.
>
> > The Lorentz equations give correct answers to some problems because
> > of the velocity transformations.
>
> The velo.trans come from the LT's which come from the relativity principle. Its not something extra added to SR. In your approach, you add so many extra "things" to get no answers; hardly useful.
It was answered in the equations I posted. The Galilean transformation equations show reality. If you have a clock with some other rate of time, you use a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for velocity and time. That is the correct way to do it. If a clock in S shows light traveling at c, and a slower clock in S' shows light traveling at c, Then x=ct and x'=c(t2)'. What I showed with the velocity transforms was that
dx'/dt' in the Lorentz equations = dx'/d(t2)' in the Galilean transformation equations.
But since you say that is wrong, go ahead and prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 04:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b0e6ba0-040a-4452-9196-4964c34151b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363546 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 5:41:26 AM UTC-4, Robert Winn wrote: > > The velo.trans come from the LT's which come from the relativity principle. Its not something extra added to SR. In your approach, you add so many extra "things" to get no answers; hardly useful. > But since you say that is wrong, go ahead and prove it. Dont lie; I didnt say it was wrong. I said that "In your approach, you add so many extra "things" to get no answers; hardly useful." E.g. If you bring a clock from here to over there, at a speed v, a distance away of D, what value will the moved clock indicate on arrival over there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4c889e0-154f-444d-8b14-6a9cfd62836e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363053 |
W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 16:55:10 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > Among physicists, there is essentially 100% agreement on the validity of SR > within its domain. There are literally >10,000 physicists who use SR in their > daily work. They simply use, obey to the convention, nothing more. They don't care about the relativistic improvisations at all! The situation is drastically opposite: they just want keep their actual status. That position is called as a conformism... nothing more, nothing new under the sun. > Moreover, the thousands of modern particle accelerators simply would not work if SR was seriously incorrect; of course they do work. So to think that SR is "merely due to indoctrinated idiots" is HOPELESSLY IGNORANT. The SR model works good under the strict local conditions... so, you are naive only, because you don't know even about the your naive theory. That position is a naked, blind idiot state! You are just smart like the idiotic inquisitors, which tried to destroy the Galileo's moons... insitu. > Like Newtonian mechanics (which is now known to be only > an approximation to a better theory), SR will never "disappear"; > it will ALWAYS be useful within its domain of applicability. The relativity improvisation is widely known as an naive approx. of the general, ie. the strict, strong, rationale, real classical theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e90d92c-a062-48b1-96f7-3495459010d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363076 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 12:11:45 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 16:55:10 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > > > Among physicists, there is essentially 100% agreement on the validity of SR > > within its domain. There are literally >10,000 physicists who use SR in their > > daily work. > > They simply use, obey to the convention, nothing more. Ah, Alice in Wonderland, wishful thinking. It goes something like this: "I failed at becoming a genius physicist. So I'm going to declare all physicists something that I can present at a level lower than myself. How about "stupid"? Well, this one has already been taken by Maciej, so let me try another one: "they obey to the convention, nothing more". Prefect. > They don't care about the relativistic improvisations at all! > The situation is drastically opposite: > they just want keep their actual status. > > That position is called as a conformism... > nothing more, nothing new under the sun. No, it's called your ignorance of the actual issues involved. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 13:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e7fd3be-149c-459c-94bc-30f29d566ae6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363080 |
W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 21:45:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > Ah, Alice in Wonderland, wishful thinking. Indeed... the QM's 'logics' promoters usually use the Alice and the stupid, but the very voiced, Bells. :) It's very impressive composition... for naked babes. :) > It goes something like this: > "I failed at becoming a genius physicist. So I'm going to declare all > physicists something that I can present at a level lower than myself. > How about "stupid"? Well, this one has already been taken by Maciej, > so let me try another one: "they obey to the convention, nothing more". The geniuses are possible in your mainstream improvised pseudoscience only. Any other never exist at all. > No, it's called your ignorance of the actual issues involved. Said a bull to the Aristotle... :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 10:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8ZudndN8-fgGl3bInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363076 |
On 9/4/15 9/4/15 2:11 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 16:55:10 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 >> Among physicists, there is essentially 100% agreement on the validity of SR >> within its domain. There are literally >10,000 physicists who use SR in their >> daily work. > > They simply use, obey to the convention, nothing more. You OBVIOUSLY do not know any physicists. We check our work in as many ways as possible, and if SR did not provide accurate answers it would have been abandoned long ago. And in some situations is HAS been abandoned -- those which are outside its domain of applicability. > They don't care about the relativistic improvisations at all! > The situation is drastically opposite: > they just want keep their actual status. Again, you don't have a clue about how physicists ACTUALLY behave. Accurate answers are more important than "status", because one could not achieve any "status" at all without accurate answers. > [... more nonsense demonstrating his complete ignorance] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 15:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msf2rc$trl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363142 |
Il giorno Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:30:35 -0500 *_Tom Roberts_* ha scritto: >> They simply use, obey to the convention, nothing more. > > You OBVIOUSLY do not know any physicists. We check our work in as many > ways as possible, and if SR did not provide accurate answers it would > have been abandoned long ago. > > And in some situations is HAS been abandoned -- those which are outside > its domain of applicability. As when those phenomenon can be explained by means of something else apart from SR. > Again, you don't have a clue about how physicists ACTUALLY behave. > Accurate answers are more important than "status", because one could not > achieve any "status" at all without accurate answers. This is not accurate, to the number of decimals necessary. The most of the achievable status are achieved by answers shown to be interpreted wrong later on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdde5f54-8a12-4554-84f6-a26bd6e47dd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363146 |
W dniu sobota, 5 września 2015 17:47:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Lleyton H. Bellucci napisał: > Il giorno Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:30:35 -0500 *_Tom Roberts_* ha scritto: > > >> They simply use, obey to the convention, nothing more. > > > > You OBVIOUSLY do not know any physicists. We check our work in as many > > ways as possible, and if SR did not provide accurate answers it would > > have been abandoned long ago. > > > > And in some situations is HAS been abandoned -- those which are > outside > > its domain of applicability. > > As when those phenomenon can be explained by means of something else apart > from SR. The SR nothing explains, therefore everything is explained beyond this model; typical examples: - the twins paradox, which is resolved clasically... but still wrong - the Bells rocket paradox - a general time paradox - in a rotational motion, ect. - the stellar aberration, which depends on motion of the observer only, never any relative speeds! - the light speed variability - every waves phenomena ect. the list is inffinitely long!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7681f5ad-f1f3-4988-8b38-e63bbc075b0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363142 |
W dniu sobota, 5 września 2015 17:30:37 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > You OBVIOUSLY do not know any physicists. The great claims needs the very great data, unfortunately. > We check our work in as many ways as possible, > and if SR did not provide accurate answers it would have been > abandoned long ago. What sort is the 'we'? Such collective confession is a specialty of: religion, mysticism, and of pseudoscience. I one, alone, a single classical being, can to destroy your the collective naive beliefs... in 5 seconds! > And in some situations is HAS been abandoned -- those which are > outside its domain of applicability. Abandonment of the applied convention is impossible for any conventionalist. :) Do you can't believe in that? Look at yourself... HAHA! at this place I just use your string: [... more nonsense demonstrating his complete ignorance]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f772e5ed-99cd-4329-986b-e94df5bff857@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363158 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 9:30:40 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 5 września 2015 17:30:37 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > > > You OBVIOUSLY do not know any physicists. > > The great claims needs the very great data, unfortunately. > > > We check our work in as many ways as possible, > > and if SR did not provide accurate answers it would have been > > abandoned long ago. > > What sort is the 'we'? > > Such collective confession is a specialty of: > religion, mysticism, and of pseudoscience. > > I one, alone, a single classical being, > can to destroy your the collective naive beliefs... in 5 seconds! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Priceless. When this newsgroup was created, it was done so in order to divert the crank traffic from sci.physics. But we didn't know there would be so MANY of the deranged idiots out there. They did clog sci.physics somewhat, mostly with the unending threads on the twin paradox, but it seems the new forum attracted many more weirdos. For a student of human mental pathology it's very interesting. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web