Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408751 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800
Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-10 11:52 -0800
Re: Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-10 21:08 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:24 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:39 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:44 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:21 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:07 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:41 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:18 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 15:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 18:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 23:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 05:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 06:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 09:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:43 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 21:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 07:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 08:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 10:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 17:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 17:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:42 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 15:19 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:53 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:30 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:32 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:26 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:59 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-15 20:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 00:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 05:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 16:32 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 08:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 12:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 21:18 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:55 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 06:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:24 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 18:10 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 04:44 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 22:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 04:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 10:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 15:47 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 16:53 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 18:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:50 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:17 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:19 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-17 21:01 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 00:35 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:09 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:13 +0100
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:03 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:47 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:46 -0600
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 12:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 12:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800 |
| Subject | velocity and time |
| Message-ID | <f19d35cd-0ac1-441c-8846-f870fb2c1acf@googlegroups.com> |
While scientists of today speak endlessly of "speed of light", a better understanding of light can be reached by studying what scientists of the nineteenth century called "velocity of light" and designated by the symbol w in their equations. To show the difference between the two concepts, we consider a photon traveling relative to two frames of reference, S and S', with S; moving with a velocity of v relative to S. As with any other velocity, light would have a direction relative to these two frames of reference. If S' is moving in a positive direction relative to S along the x-axis, which is how Einstein described S' and S in his descriptions of relativity, then the origin of S' is moving such that the magnitude of x increases in the coordinates of the origin of S' relative to S. This would mean that S' has a positive velocity relative to S. If S' is moving in the opposite direction relative to S, then it has a negative velocity.
The same is true with regard to velocity of light. A photon directed in the +x direction relative to S and S' has a velocity of +c, whereas, a photon directed in the -x direction has a velocity of -c.
When scientists adopted the Lorentz equations as an explanation of relativity, they immediately saw the advantage of a set of equations in which there was no need to think about velocity of light.
x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
c is always squared, so it does not matter whether it is positive or negative velocity. (-c)(-c) is c^2. So all we have to do now is say speed of light.
But the velocity of the light is still seen in the variable x in the equation for time. If x is positive, then t' is less than t, if x is negative then t is the lesser time.
Without commenting further on the Lorentz equations, we will go to the equations scientists threw away, the Galilean transformations, the equations used to describe relativity before 1887.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
In 1905 Einstein announces that he has discovered a slower clock in S', the moving frame of reference. Now if Einstein had announced this to earlier scientists such as Newton or Galileo, I am sure they would have done what people working in common labor jobs do every day, convert the time of the slower clock to the time of the clock being used as a standard of time, and figured the relativity according to the Galilean transformation equations. So using another set of Galilean transformation equations, we represent the time of the slower clock with different variables for time.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
If t in the first set of equations shows the time of a clock in S, and n' in the second set of equations shows the time of a clock in S', then we can see that from either frame of reference, the distances remain the same. The only differences are the rates of the clocks and the velocities obtained from the times of the clocks. The second set of equations says that S is moving with a velocity of v' relative to S'. If n' and t were the same time, as Isaac Newton stipulated in his absolute time description of relativity, then we would get
vt = -v'n'
v'= -v
We can see that if n' is the time of a slower clock, as Einstein says he has discovered, then v' will be a faster velocity than v; if n' is from a faster clock than the clock that shows t, then v' will be a slower velocity.
So, with this in mind, we will work the problem Einstein said he was solving when he substituted the Lorentz equations and said he had discovered a slower clock in S'. The relationship that he was investigating was the constancy of speed of light that Michelson and Morley had said they had discovered with regard to measurements of that speed from S and S'. The speed was c=186,000 miles per second as measured from either frame of reference. So that is the common relationship between the clocks in S and S'. They both show light to be traveling at c. But with regard to these equations, we have to use w, the velocity of light, because light can go either direction relative to the x axis, and if it is going in the +x direction, its velocity is c; if it is going in the -x direction, its velocity is -c.
Considering individual photons, we would say that relative to the x axis, their positions would be x=ct if going in the +x direction, and -c if going in the -x direction. So the position of a photon is given by
x=wt
x'=wn'
with regard to the clocks in these two frames of reference.
Then we calculate n' in terms of t.
x'=x-vt
wn' = wt -vt
n' = t- vt/w
By the same token, we would get
x = x' - v'n'
wt = wn' - v'n'
t = n' - v'n'/w
These two sets of Galilean transformation equations can be condensed down to a single set of equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'= t-vt/w
Inverse
x = x' - v't'
y = y'
z = z'
t = t' - v't'/w
What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth.
Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. I think that I have the most useful and practical approach to relativity, unless you consider the excitement of events like Hiroshima, Fukishima, and Chernobyl to be more practical than what I do.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 11:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam |
| Message-ID | <6963073b-8885-4fa4-9ff4-39bfbdf5cdd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408751 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:30:41 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote: >snip imbecilities< Cretin. Reported as spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:21 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam |
| Message-ID | <4db94362-f2f6-4b68-8801-4e50cedcdf47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408753 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:30:41 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote: > >snip imbecilities< > > Cretin. Reported as spam. Thank you for sharing, Dono.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 21:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7l6k5$ke9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408751 |
Mr Winn there is something that you could check with the Lorentz Transformation equations which are not true with yours. Consider *any* kind of light propagation equations in S (not only x=ct or x=-ct), for instance: x=0 y=ct z=0 or x=L - ct y=0 z=0 (etc.) LT equations give everything to express x',y',z' in term of t' and give a speed of c. Your equations do not satisfy this property, even if you decide to call the time of eventsin S' at n' instead of t'. End of Story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8311f91-165d-4cff-9f21-2dccac81e9b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408754 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:08:41 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Mr Winn there is something that you could check with the Lorentz > Transformation equations which are not true with yours. > > Consider *any* kind of light propagation equations in S (not > only x=ct or x=-ct), for instance: > > x=0 > y=ct > z=0 > > or > > x=L - ct > y=0 > z=0 > > (etc.) > > LT equations give everything to express x',y',z' in term of t' and > give a speed of c. > > Your equations do not satisfy this property, even if you decide to > call the time of eventsin S' at n' instead of t'. > > End of Story. Well, I think you are mistaken. What you seem to be neglecting is that the Galilean transformation equations just show two clocks, one in motion relative to the other which is slower than the stationary clock. So if the clock in S says t, then the clock in S' says n'. If you go to S' and consider the times from that frame of reference, the clock in S still says t, and the clock in S' still says n'. The times do not flip the way scientists say happens with the Lorentz equations. A slower clock is still slower, a faster clock is still faster, etc. I know this is difficult for a scientist to understand, and I have never seen a scientist who could understand it, so progress is very slow in these conversations in sci.physics.relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 14:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7l6vp$l5h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408751 |
On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > To show the difference between the two concepts, [velocity and speed] The difference between velocity and speed is simple. Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude of the vector velocity. Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of that signed number. In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of coordinate system chosen. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6af61bd-2b55-4293-a7b7-3b0f7265f0e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408756 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > To show the difference between the two concepts, > [velocity and speed] > > The difference between velocity and speed is simple. > Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude > of the vector velocity. > > Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a > direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. > Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. > What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you > want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are > one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the > projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the > vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is > needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of > that signed number. > > In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify > an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of > coordinate system chosen. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean transformation equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7qja6$1ace$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408760 |
On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> To show the difference between the two concepts, >> [velocity and speed] >> >> The difference between velocity and speed is simple. >> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude >> of the vector velocity. >> >> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a >> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. >> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. >> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you >> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are >> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the >> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the >> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is >> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of >> that signed number. >> >> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify >> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of >> coordinate system chosen. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean > transformation equations. > Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a cantaloupe. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dca06bd0-54b7-462a-8b7b-891bde2fa8d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408962 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> To show the difference between the two concepts, > >> [velocity and speed] > >> > >> The difference between velocity and speed is simple. > >> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude > >> of the vector velocity. > >> > >> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a > >> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. > >> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. > >> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you > >> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are > >> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the > >> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the > >> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is > >> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of > >> that signed number. > >> > >> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify > >> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of > >> coordinate system chosen. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean > > transformation equations. > > > > Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are > not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You > might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a > cantaloupe. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Thank you for sharing. It is very enlightening to know that you do not think that the Galilean transformation equations are not a coordinate system. I always thought they were a coordinate system because that was the way Einstein described them. So what do you think they are?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7sc2f$5l1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408987 |
On 2/12/2017 6:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> To show the difference between the two concepts, >>>> [velocity and speed] >>>> >>>> The difference between velocity and speed is simple. >>>> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude >>>> of the vector velocity. >>>> >>>> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a >>>> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. >>>> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. >>>> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you >>>> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are >>>> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the >>>> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the >>>> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is >>>> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of >>>> that signed number. >>>> >>>> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify >>>> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of >>>> coordinate system chosen. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean >>> transformation equations. >>> >> >> Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are >> not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You >> might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a >> cantaloupe. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Thank you for sharing. It is very enlightening to know that you do not think that the > Galilean transformation equations are not a coordinate system. I always thought they were > a coordinate system because that was the way Einstein described them. So what do you think they are? > They're equations to transform BETWEEN coordinate systems, Robert. They are not coordinate systems. Would you care to quote what you think Einstein said about it? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ed6a78b-68c7-4e64-91a7-88cd41731115@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409021 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:24:33 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/12/2017 6:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>>>> To show the difference between the two concepts,
> >>>> [velocity and speed]
> >>>>
> >>>> The difference between velocity and speed is simple.
> >>>> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude
> >>>> of the vector velocity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a
> >>>> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles.
> >>>> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector.
> >>>> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you
> >>>> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are
> >>>> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the
> >>>> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the
> >>>> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is
> >>>> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of
> >>>> that signed number.
> >>>>
> >>>> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify
> >>>> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of
> >>>> coordinate system chosen.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean
> >>> transformation equations.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are
> >> not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You
> >> might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a
> >> cantaloupe.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Thank you for sharing. It is very enlightening to know that you do not think that the
> > Galilean transformation equations are not a coordinate system. I always thought they were
> > a coordinate system because that was the way Einstein described them. So what do you think they are?
> >
>
> They're equations to transform BETWEEN coordinate systems, Robert. They
> are not coordinate systems.
>
> Would you care to quote what you think Einstein said about it?
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Yes, I would care to quote.
"An event, wherever it may have taken place, would be fixed in space with respect to space by the three perpendiculars x,y,z on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard to time by a time-valeu t. Relative to K', the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time by corresponding values x',y',z',t', which, of course, are not identical with x,y,z,t. IOt has already been set forth in detail how these magnitudes are to be regarded as results of physical measurements.
.......(Explanation of Lorentz equations)........
"If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as our basis the tacit assumptions of the older mechanics as to the absolute character of times and lengths, then instead of the above we should have obtained the following equations:
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
This system of equations is often termed the "Galilei transformation"."
A. Einstein
So what exactly do you think coordinate systems are? Einstein says that x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' are coordinates. Are you saying that you disagree with Einstein?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 09:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7sifo$j2m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409030 |
On 2/13/2017 8:45 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:24:33 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/12/2017 6:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> To show the difference between the two concepts, >>>>>> [velocity and speed] >>>>>> >>>>>> The difference between velocity and speed is simple. >>>>>> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude >>>>>> of the vector velocity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a >>>>>> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. >>>>>> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. >>>>>> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you >>>>>> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are >>>>>> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the >>>>>> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the >>>>>> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is >>>>>> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of >>>>>> that signed number. >>>>>> >>>>>> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify >>>>>> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of >>>>>> coordinate system chosen. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean >>>>> transformation equations. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are >>>> not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You >>>> might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a >>>> cantaloupe. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Thank you for sharing. It is very enlightening to know that you do not think that the >>> Galilean transformation equations are not a coordinate system. I always thought they were >>> a coordinate system because that was the way Einstein described them. So what do you think they are? >>> >> >> They're equations to transform BETWEEN coordinate systems, Robert. They >> are not coordinate systems. >> >> Would you care to quote what you think Einstein said about it? >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Yes, I would care to quote. > "An event, wherever it may have taken place, would be fixed in space with respect to space by > the three perpendiculars x,y,z on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard to time by a time-valeu t. > Relative to K', the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time by corresponding > values x',y',z',t', which, of course, are not identical with x,y,z,t. IOt has already been > set forth in detail how these magnitudes are to be regarded as results of physical measurements. Right. So you see, there are two coordinate systems here: the one with coordinates x,y,z, and t, and then the other one with coordinates x', y', z' and t'. Up until this point there is no mention of anything Galilean at all. The Galilean transform equations express HOW TO TRANSFORM between the two coordinate systems. The Galilean transform equations are not a coordinate system themselves. Coordinate systems, by the way, are not represented as equations. I certainly thought you could read and comprehend better than what you have just exhibited. > > .......(Explanation of Lorentz equations)........ > > "If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as our basis the tacit > assumptions of the older mechanics as to the absolute character of times and lengths, > then instead of the above we should have obtained the following equations: > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > This system of equations is often termed the "Galilei transformation"." > > A. Einstein > > So what exactly do you think coordinate systems are? Einstein says that x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' > are coordinates. Are you saying that you disagree with Einstein? > Not at all. It seems that you cannot tell the difference between a coordinate system and a transformation between coordinate systems. All you see is algebra with x, and y, and z, and t and other coordinates and you say "Hey, those must be coordinate systems because they have the symbols for coordinates in them." So it appears that you understand even less of the basics than I thought. You are more like Seto, just engaging to make noise but not having any real idea of what you're talking about. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab41065c-6d1f-4e04-a947-6bbb38efc873@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409040 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:14:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/13/2017 8:45 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:24:33 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/12/2017 6:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> To show the difference between the two concepts, > >>>>>> [velocity and speed] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The difference between velocity and speed is simple. > >>>>>> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude > >>>>>> of the vector velocity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a > >>>>>> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. > >>>>>> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. > >>>>>> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you > >>>>>> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are > >>>>>> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the > >>>>>> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the > >>>>>> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is > >>>>>> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of > >>>>>> that signed number. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify > >>>>>> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of > >>>>>> coordinate system chosen. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean > >>>>> transformation equations. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are > >>>> not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You > >>>> might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a > >>>> cantaloupe. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> Thank you for sharing. It is very enlightening to know that you do not think that the > >>> Galilean transformation equations are not a coordinate system. I always thought they were > >>> a coordinate system because that was the way Einstein described them. So what do you think they are? > >>> > >> > >> They're equations to transform BETWEEN coordinate systems, Robert. They > >> are not coordinate systems. > >> > >> Would you care to quote what you think Einstein said about it? > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Yes, I would care to quote. > > "An event, wherever it may have taken place, would be fixed in space with respect to space by > > the three perpendiculars x,y,z on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard to time by a time-valeu t. > > Relative to K', the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time by corresponding > > values x',y',z',t', which, of course, are not identical with x,y,z,t. IOt has already been > > set forth in detail how these magnitudes are to be regarded as results of physical measurements. > > Right. So you see, there are two coordinate systems here: the one with > coordinates x,y,z, and t, and then the other one with coordinates x', > y', z' and t'. Up until this point there is no mention of anything > Galilean at all. > > The Galilean transform equations express HOW TO TRANSFORM between the > two coordinate systems. The Galilean transform equations are not a > coordinate system themselves. Coordinate systems, by the way, are not > represented as equations. > > I certainly thought you could read and comprehend better than what you > have just exhibited. > > > > > .......(Explanation of Lorentz equations)........ > > > > "If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as our basis the tacit > > assumptions of the older mechanics as to the absolute character of times and lengths, > > then instead of the above we should have obtained the following equations: > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > > This system of equations is often termed the "Galilei transformation"." > > > > A. Einstein > > > > So what exactly do you think coordinate systems are? Einstein says that x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' > > are coordinates. Are you saying that you disagree with Einstein? > > > > Not at all. It seems that you cannot tell the difference between a > coordinate system and a transformation between coordinate systems. > > All you see is algebra with x, and y, and z, and t and other coordinates > and you say "Hey, those must be coordinate systems because they have the > symbols for coordinates in them." > > So it appears that you understand even less of the basics than I > thought. You are more like Seto, just engaging to make noise but not > having any real idea of what you're talking about. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, I am sorry you do not like coordinates. Einstein seemed a lot less prejudiced against coordinates. He said x,y,z, t were coordinates and x',y',z',t' were coordinates. So I just go ahead and use coordinates, however much you may disapprove. You never use coordinates. I have noticed that. All you do is post comments from time to time about your disapproval of my use of coordinates in the world you want to be coordinateless. So we are talking about two different things. You are talking about coordinateless philosophy, and I am talking about mathematics and physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 08:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o81p7i$1uf3$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409062 |
On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:14:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/13/2017 8:45 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:24:33 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/12/2017 6:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>>>> To show the difference between the two concepts, >>>>>>>> [velocity and speed] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The difference between velocity and speed is simple. >>>>>>>> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude >>>>>>>> of the vector velocity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a >>>>>>>> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. >>>>>>>> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. >>>>>>>> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you >>>>>>>> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are >>>>>>>> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the >>>>>>>> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the >>>>>>>> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is >>>>>>>> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of >>>>>>>> that signed number. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify >>>>>>>> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of >>>>>>>> coordinate system chosen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean >>>>>>> transformation equations. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are >>>>>> not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You >>>>>> might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a >>>>>> cantaloupe. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for sharing. It is very enlightening to know that you do not think that the >>>>> Galilean transformation equations are not a coordinate system. I always thought they were >>>>> a coordinate system because that was the way Einstein described them. So what do you think they are? >>>>> >>>> >>>> They're equations to transform BETWEEN coordinate systems, Robert. They >>>> are not coordinate systems. >>>> >>>> Would you care to quote what you think Einstein said about it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Yes, I would care to quote. >>> "An event, wherever it may have taken place, would be fixed in space with respect to space by >>> the three perpendiculars x,y,z on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard to time by a time-valeu t. >>> Relative to K', the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time by corresponding >>> values x',y',z',t', which, of course, are not identical with x,y,z,t. IOt has already been >>> set forth in detail how these magnitudes are to be regarded as results of physical measurements. >> >> Right. So you see, there are two coordinate systems here: the one with >> coordinates x,y,z, and t, and then the other one with coordinates x', >> y', z' and t'. Up until this point there is no mention of anything >> Galilean at all. >> >> The Galilean transform equations express HOW TO TRANSFORM between the >> two coordinate systems. The Galilean transform equations are not a >> coordinate system themselves. Coordinate systems, by the way, are not >> represented as equations. >> >> I certainly thought you could read and comprehend better than what you >> have just exhibited. >> >>> >>> .......(Explanation of Lorentz equations)........ >>> >>> "If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as our basis the tacit >>> assumptions of the older mechanics as to the absolute character of times and lengths, >>> then instead of the above we should have obtained the following equations: >>> >>> x'=x-vt >>> y'=y >>> z'=z >>> t'=t >>> >>> This system of equations is often termed the "Galilei transformation"." >>> >>> A. Einstein >>> >>> So what exactly do you think coordinate systems are? Einstein says that x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' >>> are coordinates. Are you saying that you disagree with Einstein? >>> >> >> Not at all. It seems that you cannot tell the difference between a >> coordinate system and a transformation between coordinate systems. >> >> All you see is algebra with x, and y, and z, and t and other coordinates >> and you say "Hey, those must be coordinate systems because they have the >> symbols for coordinates in them." >> >> So it appears that you understand even less of the basics than I >> thought. You are more like Seto, just engaging to make noise but not >> having any real idea of what you're talking about. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, I am sorry you do not like coordinates. Einstein seemed a lot less prejudiced against > coordinates. He said x,y,z, t were coordinates and x',y',z',t' were coordinates. So I just > go ahead and use coordinates, however much you may disapprove. > You never use coordinates. I have noticed that. All you do is post comments from time to > time about your disapproval of my use of coordinates in the world you want to be coordinateless. > So we are talking about two different things. You are talking about coordinateless philosophy, > and I am talking about mathematics and physics. > Well, Robert, there are two conclusions one could draw from the conversation above. One possibility is that you just enjoy pulling people's chains, by claiming they said things they did not say, or by switching the context of the conversation to something else when you find the first topic has run aground. The second possibility is that because of either mental instability or general stupidity, you are actually incapable of understanding what someone explains to you in written words, and instead perceive something other than what they actually said. Either way, Robert, you quickly become a waste of time. Either way, Robert, your perception that you are talking about mathematics and physics is erroneous because that's not what you're doing at all. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd763edf-2211-40cc-8af3-53e7ed63021a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409040 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:14:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/13/2017 8:45 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:24:33 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/12/2017 6:37 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/10/2017 2:36 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:14:52 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 2/10/2017 1:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>>>> To show the difference between the two concepts, > >>>>>> [velocity and speed] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The difference between velocity and speed is simple. > >>>>>> Velocity is a vector and speed is a scalar, in fact the scalar magnitude > >>>>>> of the vector velocity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Vectors have magnitude and direction, and in 3D space specifying a > >>>>>> direction requires two numbers, such as azimuth and elevation angles. > >>>>>> Thus in general in 3D space it requires 3 numbers to specify the vector. > >>>>>> What those numbers represent depends on the coordinate system (or if you > >>>>>> want, the basis vectors chosen). Magnitude, elevation and azimuth are > >>>>>> one possibility. Another set involves x, y, z coordinates, which are the > >>>>>> projections of the vector onto an orthonormal basis vector set. If the > >>>>>> vector is constrained to one dimension, then only one signed number is > >>>>>> needed to specify the vector, and the speed is the absolute value of > >>>>>> that signed number. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In spacetime, by the way, there are four coordinates needed to specify > >>>>>> an event. Again, what those four numbers are depend on the type of > >>>>>> coordinate system chosen. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I am aware of that. The coordinate system I have chosen is the Galilean > >>>>> transformation equations. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Robert, you may or may not be aware that transformation equations are > >>>> not coordinate systems, and so the last sentence above is gibberish. You > >>>> might as well have said that the last car you remember driving was a > >>>> cantaloupe. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> Thank you for sharing. It is very enlightening to know that you do not think that the > >>> Galilean transformation equations are not a coordinate system. I always thought they were > >>> a coordinate system because that was the way Einstein described them. So what do you think they are? > >>> > >> > >> They're equations to transform BETWEEN coordinate systems, Robert. They > >> are not coordinate systems. > >> > >> Would you care to quote what you think Einstein said about it? > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Yes, I would care to quote. > > "An event, wherever it may have taken place, would be fixed in space with respect to space by > > the three perpendiculars x,y,z on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard to time by a time-valeu t. > > Relative to K', the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time by corresponding > > values x',y',z',t', which, of course, are not identical with x,y,z,t. IOt has already been > > set forth in detail how these magnitudes are to be regarded as results of physical measurements. > > Right. So you see, there are two coordinate systems here: the one with > coordinates x,y,z, and t, and then the other one with coordinates x', > y', z' and t'. Up until this point there is no mention of anything > Galilean at all. > > The Galilean transform equations express HOW TO TRANSFORM between the > two coordinate systems. The Galilean transform equations are not a > coordinate system themselves. Coordinate systems, by the way, are not > represented as equations. > > I certainly thought you could read and comprehend better than what you > have just exhibited. > > > > > .......(Explanation of Lorentz equations)........ > > > > "If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as our basis the tacit > > assumptions of the older mechanics as to the absolute character of times and lengths, > > then instead of the above we should have obtained the following equations: > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > > This system of equations is often termed the "Galilei transformation"." > > > > A. Einstein > > > > So what exactly do you think coordinate systems are? Einstein says that x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' > > are coordinates. Are you saying that you disagree with Einstein? > > > > Not at all. It seems that you cannot tell the difference between a > coordinate system and a transformation between coordinate systems. > > All you see is algebra with x, and y, and z, and t and other coordinates > and you say "Hey, those must be coordinate systems because they have the > symbols for coordinates in them." > > So it appears that you understand even less of the basics than I > thought. You are more like Seto, just engaging to make noise but not > having any real idea of what you're talking about. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, in a coordinateless world, you would be able to enforce your idea that people should not be allowed to use coordinates, but Rene Descartes invented Cartesian coordinates, so there is not much you can do about it. Einstein said he was using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. Maybe if Einstein was still alive, you could correct him and tell him he was not allowed to use two sets of Cartesian coordinates. But Einstein died a long time ago. There is nothing you can do about it now. So since Einstein used two sets of Cartesian coordinates, I have been using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. Sorry it bothers you so much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7uu1d$iut$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409066 |
On 2/13/2017 10:21 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > Well, in a coordinateless world, you would be able to enforce your idea that people should not > be allowed to use coordinates, but Rene Descartes invented Cartesian coordinates, so there is > not much you can do about it. Einstein said he was using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. > Maybe if Einstein was still alive, you could correct him and tell him he was not allowed to > use two sets of Cartesian coordinates. > But Einstein died a long time ago. There is nothing you can do about it now. So since Einstein > used two sets of Cartesian coordinates, I have been using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. > Sorry it bothers you so much. > Well, Robert, the only person here who has said anything about a coordinateless word and not being allowed to use coordinates is you. Somehow you imagined that I said something about either one. So did you just make that up to yank someone's chain, or did you have a serious break with reality just then? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <287d9228-a836-44d8-af38-862a1178ac1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409179 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:43:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/13/2017 10:21 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, in a coordinateless world, you would be able to enforce your idea that people should not
> > be allowed to use coordinates, but Rene Descartes invented Cartesian coordinates, so there is
> > not much you can do about it. Einstein said he was using two sets of Cartesian coordinates.
> > Maybe if Einstein was still alive, you could correct him and tell him he was not allowed to
> > use two sets of Cartesian coordinates.
> > But Einstein died a long time ago. There is nothing you can do about it now. So since Einstein
> > used two sets of Cartesian coordinates, I have been using two sets of Cartesian coordinates.
> > Sorry it bothers you so much.
> >
>
> Well, Robert, the only person here who has said anything about a
> coordinateless word and not being allowed to use coordinates is you.
> Somehow you imagined that I said something about either one.
>
> So did you just make that up to yank someone's chain, or did you have a
> serious break with reality just then?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
I did not make anything up. You came to me with these complaints about the fact that I was using coordinates. I explained the coordinates to you. No, only scientists are competent to use coordinates. Well, let's go through it again. Here are the equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x,y, and z are coordinates for space in S, t is the coordinate for time. v is the velocity of S' relative to S according to the time of a clock that shows t.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of a clock in S'. Einstein says the clock in S' is slower than a clock in S. x', y', and z' are coordinate of space in S'; n' is a time coordinate in S'. So now instead of typing some psychological scientific philosophy, you are going to show what you find wrong with these equations, right?
No, you do not even understand what the equations mean. You are going to type some more psychology.
Understand that I never get tired of conversing with scientists because they keep me continually reminded about how stupid scientists are. So then when some educated person says to me, Scientists have determined this or that thing, I know how much I should believe them.
But I digress. We were discussing coordinates. What was it you wanted to say about coordinates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 11:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7vei8$1o4s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409191 |
On 2/14/2017 8:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:43:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/13/2017 10:21 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >> >>> >>> Well, in a coordinateless world, you would be able to enforce your idea that people should not >>> be allowed to use coordinates, but Rene Descartes invented Cartesian coordinates, so there is >>> not much you can do about it. Einstein said he was using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. >>> Maybe if Einstein was still alive, you could correct him and tell him he was not allowed to >>> use two sets of Cartesian coordinates. >>> But Einstein died a long time ago. There is nothing you can do about it now. So since Einstein >>> used two sets of Cartesian coordinates, I have been using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. >>> Sorry it bothers you so much. >>> >> >> Well, Robert, the only person here who has said anything about a >> coordinateless word and not being allowed to use coordinates is you. >> Somehow you imagined that I said something about either one. >> >> So did you just make that up to yank someone's chain, or did you have a >> serious break with reality just then? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I did not make anything up. You came to me with these complaints about the fact that I was using coordinates. No I didn't. I came to you with the complaint that you were calling the Galilean transform equations coordinate systems, when they are not. That has NOTHING to do with you using coordinates and saying that's not a good thing. It's about you making a MISTAKE, and your response to having that pointed out to you is that you made up something I did not say. It's the way your mind works. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 13:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecb5f884-0d4b-4f6d-8026-52bd39e229bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409222 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/14/2017 8:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:43:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/13/2017 10:21 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Well, in a coordinateless world, you would be able to enforce your idea that people should not > >>> be allowed to use coordinates, but Rene Descartes invented Cartesian coordinates, so there is > >>> not much you can do about it. Einstein said he was using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. > >>> Maybe if Einstein was still alive, you could correct him and tell him he was not allowed to > >>> use two sets of Cartesian coordinates. > >>> But Einstein died a long time ago. There is nothing you can do about it now. So since Einstein > >>> used two sets of Cartesian coordinates, I have been using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. > >>> Sorry it bothers you so much. > >>> > >> > >> Well, Robert, the only person here who has said anything about a > >> coordinateless word and not being allowed to use coordinates is you. > >> Somehow you imagined that I said something about either one. > >> > >> So did you just make that up to yank someone's chain, or did you have a > >> serious break with reality just then? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > I did not make anything up. You came to me with these complaints about the fact that I was using coordinates. > > No I didn't. I came to you with the complaint that you were calling the > Galilean transform equations coordinate systems, when they are not. That > has NOTHING to do with you using coordinates and saying that's not a > good thing. It's about you making a MISTAKE, and your response to having > that pointed out to you is that you made up something I did not say. > > It's the way your mind works. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The only variable in the Galilean transformation equations that is not a coordinate is v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 15:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7vtkc$p3n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409273 |
On 2/14/2017 3:32 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/14/2017 8:44 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:43:28 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/13/2017 10:21 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, in a coordinateless world, you would be able to enforce your idea that people should not >>>>> be allowed to use coordinates, but Rene Descartes invented Cartesian coordinates, so there is >>>>> not much you can do about it. Einstein said he was using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. >>>>> Maybe if Einstein was still alive, you could correct him and tell him he was not allowed to >>>>> use two sets of Cartesian coordinates. >>>>> But Einstein died a long time ago. There is nothing you can do about it now. So since Einstein >>>>> used two sets of Cartesian coordinates, I have been using two sets of Cartesian coordinates. >>>>> Sorry it bothers you so much. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, Robert, the only person here who has said anything about a >>>> coordinateless word and not being allowed to use coordinates is you. >>>> Somehow you imagined that I said something about either one. >>>> >>>> So did you just make that up to yank someone's chain, or did you have a >>>> serious break with reality just then? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> I did not make anything up. You came to me with these complaints about the fact that I was using coordinates. >> >> No I didn't. I came to you with the complaint that you were calling the >> Galilean transform equations coordinate systems, when they are not. That >> has NOTHING to do with you using coordinates and saying that's not a >> good thing. It's about you making a MISTAKE, and your response to having >> that pointed out to you is that you made up something I did not say. >> >> It's the way your mind works. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > The only variable in the Galilean transformation equations that is not a coordinate is v. > That STILL does not make Galilean transformation equations coordinate systems. Coordinate systems are not represented by equations, Robert. If you can't tell what a coordinate system is, then don't use the term. It simply is foolish to look at something that has coordinates in it and conclude that what you're looking at must be a coordinate system. You were mentioning earlier that you consider scientists to be spectacularly stupid. And yet you do something like this, and then stick to your guns about it. Don't you think you've condemned the speck in another's eye while ignoring the beam in your own? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web