Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423433 > unrolled thread

Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn

Started by	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
First post	2017-06-25 08:30 -0700
Last post	2017-06-26 03:49 -0700
Articles	15 on this page of 255 — 20 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Page 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]

#424619

From	"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date	2017-07-12 09:09 -0700
Message-ID	<547bd970-28c0-4fce-a446-0618ac7d90fe@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424171

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 4:06:57 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> 
> As I said, I am not a scientist.  

Of course not, you are just a sad sack cretin.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424173

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-07-07 05:02 -0700
Message-ID	<f4c4f505-beff-4408-901d-ae6258d8559c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424165

W dniu piątek, 7 lipca 2017 12:34:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Upech Bezradne napisał:
> Robert Winn wrote:
> 
> > No, I am not a scientist.  I can tell that the earth rotates. 
> 
> No you can't.

Yes, I can.

> You may safely assume that the Universe with all in it 
> rotates, and the earth being fixed. Same equations.

I may safely assume it, but I won't assume it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424043

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-05 12:29 -0700
Message-ID	<4dea472a-f44a-4608-abb4-631d3c72a699@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424020

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 9:44:18 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 8:31 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
> > if you are going to define a second as a certain number of transitions of a
> > cesium atom, then you still come up with the fact that one cesium atom has
> > slower transitions than another cesium atom.
> 
> Nope. BY DEFINITION any free Cs133 atom has a hyperfine transition frequency of 
> 9,192,631,770 Hz -- that is what these words MEAN.
> 
> > I think Galileo had a better definition of a second than scientists of today
> > have.
> 
> You are wrong. Flat-out wrong.
> 
> Tom Roberts

No, I am not flat out wrong.  I am using the Galilean transformation equations.  Galileo was the scientist who first used the rotation of the earth to define time.  So I am doing the same thing Galileo did, I am using the rotation of the earth to measure time.  I know how wrong that must seem to you, but I am doing it.  Why?  As strange as it may seem, all scientists used to do what I am doing.  There was a time when scientists did not even know about hyperfine transitions of free Cs133 atoms.  But they did know the earth was rotating on its axis.  Galileo was one of those scientists.  So we are going to call Galileo's definition of a second a Galilean second.  Now we compare your definition of a second to a Galilean second.  
Well, we have some experiments that show the difference.  Hafele and Keating transported cesium clocks, (there are your hyperfine transitions of Cs133 atoms), in airplanes.  If they flew them around the earth one way, the hyperfine transitions were slower than the hyperfine transitions of Cs133 atoms in an identical clock on the ground.  If they flew them around the earth the other way, the hyperfine transitions were faster than the hyperfine transitions of Cs133 atoms in an identical clock on the ground.  So we will say that the hyperfine transitions of the clock on the ground agree with a Galilean second.  If you want to use the seconds counted by hyperfine transitions of Cs133 atoms in the airplane, you need to convert them to Galilean seconds, otherwise you are going to end up with a length contraction of some kind.  That is all I am going to say about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424652

From	Laverne Chandler <uunvvnh@ewdnrawe.ee>
Date	2017-07-12 22:19 +0000
Message-ID	<ok6798$1sof$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#424020

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Nope. BY DEFINITION any free Cs133 atom has a hyperfine transition
> frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz -- that is what these words MEAN.

Hmmm, having that Frequency defined based on its own standard of a 
second?? This is so funny indeed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423867

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2017-07-03 18:30 +0200
Message-ID	<3945758.Wku2Vz74k6@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#423564

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/27/17 6/27/17   7:52 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>> On Monday, 26 June 2017 05:19:57 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
>>> No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was
>>> wrong
>>> about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to
>>> run slow.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Consider two identical clocks A and B in front of me, on a table.
>> They are identical in the sense that after one year the two clocks still
>> show the same time/reading.
>> Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back,
>> from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55.
>> That means there is a constant time difference between the two clocks.
>> Clock B runs behind.
> 
> OK. That is some incredibly powerful "tool", far beyond what is possible
> today.

Why?  The Hafele–Keating experiment of 1971 already showed a difference
in *nanoseconds* as a combination of special-relativistic and general-
relativistic time dilation.

> But gedankens can invoke such "tools".

The proper term is “gedanken(-)experiment” or “thought experiment”.

„Gedanken“ means just “thought” (n.) in German.  Trust me, I am German.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423907

From	Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2017-07-03 18:33 -0500
Message-ID	<scidnVvAFPOvScfEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#423867

On 7/3/17 7/3/17   11:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/27/17 6/27/17   7:52 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>> Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back,
>>> from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55.
>>
>> OK. That is some incredibly powerful "tool", far beyond what is possible
>> today.
> 
> Why?  The Hafele–Keating experiment of 1971 already showed a difference
> in *nanoseconds* as a combination of special-relativistic and general-
> relativistic time dilation.

To get the result mentioned requires a spaceship BILLIONS of times more powerful 
than we have today -- that is indeed "incredibly powerful".

	I ignore having the airplanes circle the globe for billions of years.

>> But gedankens can invoke such "tools".
> 
> The proper term is “gedanken(-)experiment” or “thought experiment”.
> „Gedanken“ means just “thought” (n.) in German.  Trust me, I am German.

This is ENGLISH, not German. We often take verbal shortcuts, and this is a 
common one.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423921

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2017-07-04 11:49 +0200
Message-ID	<34071827.J2Yia2DhmK@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#423907

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 7/3/17 7/3/17   11:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 6/27/17 6/27/17   7:52 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>>> Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back,
>>>> from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55.
>>> OK. That is some incredibly powerful "tool", far beyond what is possible
>>> today.
>> Why?  The Hafele–Keating experiment of 1971 already showed a difference
>> in *nanoseconds* as a combination of special-relativistic and general-
>> relativistic time dilation.
> 
> To get the result mentioned requires a spaceship BILLIONS of times more
> powerful than we have today -- that is indeed "incredibly powerful".

You are forgetting interplanetary and interstellar probes.

The figures above give a Lorentz factor of

  γ = 12∕11.55 ≈ 1.039.

For v in c:

  γ = 1∕√(1 – v²)
  v = √(1 – 1∕γ²)

So you can have that γ at v ≈ 0.271 c.

The Juno spacecraft approached Jupiter in 2016 at v_max = 209'000 km∕h 
≈ 0.00019365249 c₀.

The Helios 2 spacecraft approached Sol in 1976 at v_max = 252'792 km∕h 
≈ 0.00023422871 c₀.

Breakthrough Starshot aims at v_max = 0.2 c₀.

So “a spaceship BILLIONS of times more powerful than we have today” is,
at best, an exaggeration.
 
> I ignore having the airplanes circle the globe for billions of years.

Tough luck.  Consider satellites then.
 
>>> But gedankens can invoke such "tools".
>> The proper term is “gedanken(-)experiment” or “thought experiment”.
>> „Gedanken“ means just “thought” (n.) in German.  Trust me, I am German.
> 
> This is ENGLISH, not German.

Still, it is a German word that you are using.  So I would ask for more 
respect when using it.

> We often take verbal shortcuts,

Possible.

> and this is a common one.

Cite evidence.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423576

From	ldzwinn@gmail.com
Date	2017-06-28 05:42 -0700
Message-ID	<109f9a27-3d95-41ce-8c4b-156c28f9bef1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423531

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 5:52:06 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Monday, 26 June 2017 05:19:57 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you 
> > > > > think Einstein came to have a slower clock?
> > > > 
> > > > He probably bought it at Walgreens, like YOU did.
> > > 
> > > No, I think you are wrong about that.
> > 
> > You are the one in error, mon ami.  And Einstein was wrong about moving
> > clocks running slow.  Didn't you get the memos?  They've been 
> > floating around here for quite some time.
> 
> Somewhere along the line I'am missing something. 
> Can some one give me a link to the memos mentioned?
> 
> > > Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.
> > 
> > No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was wrong
> > about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to run
> > slow.
> > 
> 
> Consider two identical clocks A and B in front of me, on a table.
> They are identical in the sense that after one year the two clocks still 
> show the same time/reading.
> Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back, 
> from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55. 
> That means there is a constant time difference between the two clocks. 
> Clock B runs behind. 
> That means during the time that clock B travelled (away and back) 
> clock B did run slower than clock A. 
> To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.
>   
> Nicolaas Vroom

The equations that describe what you describe are the equations that scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations.

                          x'=x-vt
                          y'=y
                          z'=z
                          t'=t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423583

From	Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2017-06-28 11:02 -0500
Message-ID	<AZOdnaKhUuu2Ts7EnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#423576

On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 7:42 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
> The equations that describe what you describe are the equations that scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations.
> 
>                            x'=x-vt
>                            y'=y
>                            z'=z
>                            t'=t

Scientists did not "throw them away", it's just that we now recognize they are 
only an approximation to a MUCH better theory that uses Lorentz transforms 
between (locally) inertial frames.

And that recognition did not happen in 1887, more like the decade or two after 
1905 -- it was a process, not a single event; it started with Einstein's 1905 
paper. Note the key point of that paper is not his postulates, it is his 
approach: recognizing the importance of symmetries in physics.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423591

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-06-28 23:03 -0700
Message-ID	<6099ca13-e9f6-4279-b1d7-320d33209874@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423583

W dniu środa, 28 czerwca 2017 18:03:00 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 7:42 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
> > The equations that describe what you describe are the equations that scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations.
> > 
> >                            x'=x-vt
> >                            y'=y
> >                            z'=z
> >                            t'=t
> 
> Scientists did not "throw them away", 

Yes, they did.

it's just that we now recognize they are 
> only an approximation to a MUCH better theory 

Unfortunately, the practice fuck even the MOST
best theories sometimes, like it did with your 
Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423733

From	ldzwinn@gmail.com
Date	2017-06-30 22:57 -0700
Message-ID	<595e1287-6ad7-4787-a7d5-8ef435650e46@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423583

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:03:00 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 7:42 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
> > The equations that describe what you describe are the equations that scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations.
> > 
> >                            x'=x-vt
> >                            y'=y
> >                            z'=z
> >                            t'=t
> 
> Scientists did not "throw them away", it's just that we now recognize they are 
> only an approximation to a MUCH better theory that uses Lorentz transforms 
> between (locally) inertial frames.
> 
> And that recognition did not happen in 1887, more like the decade or two after 
> 1905 -- it was a process, not a single event; it started with Einstein's 1905 
> paper. Note the key point of that paper is not his postulates, it is his 
> approach: recognizing the importance of symmetries in physics.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Lorentz came up with his equations before 1905.  His interpretation of his equations was different from Einstein's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424021

From	Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2017-07-05 11:51 -0500
Message-ID	<bPidnf6_F6GUhMDEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#423733

On 7/1/17 7/1/17 - 12:57 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:03:00 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 7:42 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The equations that describe what you describe are the equations that
>>> scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations.
>>> 
>>> x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t
>> 
>> Scientists did not "throw them away", it's just that we now recognize they
>> are only an approximation to a MUCH better theory that uses Lorentz
>> transforms between (locally) inertial frames.
>> 
>> And that recognition did not happen in 1887, more like the decade or two
>> after 1905 -- it was a process, not a single event; it started with
>> Einstein's 1905 paper. Note the key point of that paper is not his
>> postulates, it is his approach: recognizing the importance of symmetries in
>> physics.
>> 
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> Lorentz came up with his equations before 1905.  His interpretation of his
> equations was different from Einstein's.

Yes. But Lorentz's interpretation involves a completely unobservable aether that 
is an "unmoved mover" [#] -- such fictions are quite difficult for people to 
swallow, especially when there is an alternative (Einstein's) that does not 
involve such nonsense. Moreover, Lorentz's approach does not include Lorentz 
symmetry, which (after Einstein) has become a founding principle of all modern 
physics. So Lorentz's approach is just a historical footnote, ignored by 
mainstream physics (it is basically known only to kooks and people interested in 
the details of the history).

	[#] C.f. Aristotle.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424044

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-05 12:32 -0700
Message-ID	<6318cec7-a28b-484f-b64a-f5c706cd92e8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424021

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 9:51:29 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/1/17 7/1/17 - 12:57 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:03:00 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 7:42 AM, ldzwinn@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> The equations that describe what you describe are the equations that
> >>> scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations.
> >>> 
> >>> x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t
> >> 
> >> Scientists did not "throw them away", it's just that we now recognize they
> >> are only an approximation to a MUCH better theory that uses Lorentz
> >> transforms between (locally) inertial frames.
> >> 
> >> And that recognition did not happen in 1887, more like the decade or two
> >> after 1905 -- it was a process, not a single event; it started with
> >> Einstein's 1905 paper. Note the key point of that paper is not his
> >> postulates, it is his approach: recognizing the importance of symmetries in
> >> physics.
> >> 
> >> Tom Roberts
> > 
> > Lorentz came up with his equations before 1905.  His interpretation of his
> > equations was different from Einstein's.
> 
> Yes. But Lorentz's interpretation involves a completely unobservable aether that 
> is an "unmoved mover" [#] -- such fictions are quite difficult for people to 
> swallow, especially when there is an alternative (Einstein's) that does not 
> involve such nonsense. Moreover, Lorentz's approach does not include Lorentz 
> symmetry, which (after Einstein) has become a founding principle of all modern 
> physics. So Lorentz's approach is just a historical footnote, ignored by 
> mainstream physics (it is basically known only to kooks and people interested in 
> the details of the history).
> 
> 	[#] C.f. Aristotle.
> 
> Tom Roberts

I am not saying that you do not have an extremely accurate approximation of times and distances for some of the things scientists do, but I am saying you have an approximation, not exact equations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424654

From	Laverne Chandler <unvnh@ednawe.ee>
Date	2017-07-12 22:32 +0000
Message-ID	<ok681n$1sof$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#424021

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Yes. But Lorentz's interpretation involves a completely unobservable
> aether that is an "unmoved mover" [#] -- such fictions are quite
> difficult for people to swallow, especially when there is an alternative
> (Einstein's) that does not involve such nonsense. Moreover, Lorentz's

So Lorentz came before Einstein. The same did Einstein, if not mistaken. 
His interpretation was in need of Aether.

> approach does not include Lorentz symmetry, which (after Einstein) has
> become a founding principle of all modern physics. So Lorentz's approach
> is just a historical footnote, ignored by mainstream physics (it is
> basically known only to kooks and people interested in the details of
> the history).

Unfair. But Einstein is much better looking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423472

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-06-26 03:49 -0700
Message-ID	<173cae59-5a85-47e9-b54d-3e74c1b288e6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423435

W dniu niedziela, 25 czerwca 2017 17:56:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> Only Windy Winn fawns over his slower clock.  Normal people use accurate
> clocks.

Accurate enough to indicate t'=t, ignoring mad
prophecies of your idiot guru.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]

csiph-web

Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn

Contents

#424619

#424173

#424043

#424652

#423867

#423907

#423921

#423576

#423583

#423591

#423733

#424021

#424044

#424654

#423472