transformation equations

[Jeckyl]

[...]
The Michaelson-Morely experiment.

You're falling into rb's trap

You see .. because rb has (at least) two sets of equations that he uses
individually and never together (because he "knows" they do not work
together), he can "explain" this by picking the appropriate set of equations
and completly ignoring the rest.

Ie he will say that x = wt, x' = wt' gives the MMX results (ie the the speed
of light is the same in all frames of reference). Then rb claims victory.

Taken individually, one cannot disprove the Galillean transforms (they
"work") and cannot disprove the constant speed of light (that "works").

The problem is that rb says they are BOTH correct and will not accept that
these two theories/equations are incompatible and inconsistent. He can't
have hs cake and eat it too.

Whenever that its pointed out he invokes the magic phrases that have been
used against HIM (validly) before: "frame swapping" and "ether theory". He
thinks that if he uses those incnatations, our valid proofs will disappear.

[rbwinn]

[...]

Considered and determined to be wrong? ?Then it should be an easy
matter for you to just produce the proof that it is wrong. ?Why don't
you do that?

Jeckyl has already proven it with the multiple contradictions and flat-
out stupid predictions of your 'theory'.

Well, I have not seen Jeckyl do anything except jump from one frame of
reference to another making statements about ether theory.

Hogwash.
Ether theory - which you know nothing about - is not being used here.
Furthermore, Galilean transformations ARE equations relating one frame
of reference to another. Don't blame him for _your_ misunderstandings.

Finally - ignore the MMX. Galilean relativity flat out fails at high
speeds as verified in particle accelerators and muon decay in the
upper atmosphere.

Well, I don't really think so. �Give a problem that cannot be solved
by my equations.

Yes, that is the problem - you aren't really thinking.
The Michaelson-Morely experiment.
Compton scattering.
Muon decay in the upper atmosphere.
Why pion beams can exist.
As well as pretty much everything here:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

You are wrong, and there is nothing you can do about it except cry
about it on USENET for another 10 years.

Well, I am not going to cry on USENET. �I already stated that I think
it will probably be hundreds of years before any college graduate
decides to rebel against atheistic dogma. �Right now they are like
Nazi Party members. �They will try to enforce what their leaders tell
them to enforce.

Given that you have never even opened a textbook on physics, much less
taken and passed any physics courses, it does not surprise me you say
shit like that.
Plus Godwin's law...

Well, nsince you have studk your neck way out and actually made some
statements in this post, we will just take them one by one starting
with this one: Your equations cannot explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment.

Well, let's see.
x=wt
x'=wt'
No, you are wrong, those equations agree with the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
Well, let's see how they match up with the Galillean transformation
equations.
x'=x-vt
If we say that wt'=x-vt, we are saying that it takes a photon a
time of t' to go from the origin of S' to x'. Sure enough, that
agrees with the Michelson-Morley experiment. x - vt is a distance
that a photon would travel from the origin of S'. The equation
indicates that with regard to t'=t, the photon in S' has already
passed this x' or has not reached it yet, depending on v. Well, this
all seems to agree with the Michelson-Morley experiment, not to
mention the equation L'=L.
What is it that you find wrong with the mathematics?
Robert B. Winn

[rbwinn]

Post by Jeckyl

[...]
The Michaelson-Morely experiment.

You're falling into rb's trap
You see .. because rb has (at least) two sets ofequationsthat he uses
individually and never together (because he "knows" they do not work
together), he can "explain" this by picking the appropriate set ofequations
and completly ignoring the rest.
Ie he will say that x = wt, x' = wt' gives the MMX results (ie the the speed
of light is the same in all frames of reference). Then rb claims victory.
Taken individually, one cannot disprove the Galillean transforms (they
"work") and cannot disprove the constant speed of light (that "works").
The problem is that rb says they are BOTH correct and will not accept that
these two theories/equationsare incompatible and inconsistent. He can't
have hs cake and eat it too.
Whenever that its pointed out he invokes the magic phrases that have been
used against HIM (validly) before: "frame swapping" and "ether theory". He
thinks that if he uses those incnatations, our valid proofs will disappear.

Well, what I notice is that you are completely horrified whenever I
use the equation x'=wt' to determine how much time it takes for a
photon to go from the origin of S' to the coordinate x'=x-vt. Now why
is that? What it looks like to me is that, depending on velocities
for v and w, the photon in S' has either passed that x' or has not
reached it yet. This all agrees completely with two marks on the
railroad track the length of the train apart. An observer on the
train would see two flashes of lightning simultaneously the same as an
observer on the ground. So what is your assessment of x'=x-vt? Do
you think that a photon from the origin of S' emitted at t'=0 would
reach the coordinate x' at some other time than is shown by x'=wt'?
Why don't you give your calculation for when a photon from the origin
of S' would reach that coordinate?
Robert B. Winn