Galilean relativity

[rbwinn]

?"rotchm"  wrote in message
news:be93af77-b522-4668-b735-

Yup, just as described by Poincare. Either you use SR algebra to
readily get what a clock predicts or you use Gal.Trans.eqs + Convert
(~LEt) to get what a clock predicts. Both approaches will give the
same result(s).

Of course, RB doesn't use Lorentz Transforms.  He uses
n' = t(1-v/c)
and if we define variable n, where n = t, as the time showing on a clock at
rest in S, we get
n' = n(1-v/c)
That equations doesn't give us the same speed of light in all frames
The means that a clock travelling in one direction, at a given speed, ticks
differently to a clock moving at the *same* speed in the opposite direction.
If you define the +x direction meaning to your right, then according to RB
you can change the ticking rate of a moving clock by simply turning around.
It is utter nonsense, as has been pointed out to him multiple times over
many years

Well, here is the thing, Inertial.  We have a thing out here in the
world called reality.

...and in reality, theGalileantransformations are not a good model
for reality. Why does a welder keep babbling about this stuff?
[...]

So, Eric, if you have two frames of reference, S and S', with a fast
clock in S and a slow clock in S', how do both clocks get the same
speed for one frame of reference relative to the other?

They don't. Please learn some physics.

           t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
           t=(t'+vx'/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
I guess maybe you did not know about these two equations.

What's your point? Velocity is not an absolute. Different reference
frames will disagree on the velocity of an object in another frame.
Is there a particular reason you are unable to work out x/t (or dx/dt
if you actually know calculus) to answer your own question? One would
think you'd understand the trivial aspects of the theory since you've
been arguing about it since 1994 or so.

Eric Gisse
     Well, I have a high school education which includes a little
calculus.  I am talking to people with college degrees and Phd's in
physics [...]

Ah, so you are doing it because you get attention from people much
smarter than you. Back to ignoring you, persistent idiot.

Actually I do it because you are using the wrong equations.

[rbwinn]

[...]

Thank you for sharing, Eric.

You just can't shut the fuck up, can you bobby? Its' a compulsion,
isn't it?

I think you are talking about yourself, Eric. I am just a welder with
a high school education posting Galileo's equations for relativity in
sci.physics.relativity. So what is your position, Eric? These
equations are not allowed to be discussed in this newsgroup? Why
would that be?
Since you have such superior knowledge, why don't you just run
along and pretend to be the great scientist you say you are?

[rbwinn]

.> at t = 0

----------B----------
----------o----------
at a later time
-------------B-------

.> ----------o----------

B has moved relative to S (but not in S')

the
light emitted at t'=t=0 is expanding from B with a radius of cn',
where n' is time on a clock in S'.

That is what we are trying to determine.  We know that it travelled at c
in
frame S, centred around o.
You say it expands equally on left at right by cn' relative to point B in
frame S'.
I say it doesn't.
So we need to determine who is correct by analysing what happens as
follows
Some time after the light was emitted from o, we have the light in the
two
directions at [ and ] respectively
-------------B-------
[---------o---------]
The distance from [ to B is greater than the distance from B to ]
So it is NOT expanding from B at the same speeds with a single radius ..
its

.> travelling faster in one direction than the other.

So you contention the it is cn' around point B is incorrect

.>

Thanks for proving yourself wrong again.

Well, if you do not want to believe

This isn't a matter of belief.  You are PROVEN to be wrong .. again

in relativity of time,

I don't "believe" in it .. its not a religion.  Its fact.

then go
ahead and use the absolute time scientists used back in the time of
Isaac Newton,

That is what YOU are doing, you hypocritical lying moron.  Gees.

or say that lengths contract the way scientists of today
claim.

That's what it appears to do

 What the equation says is that light is traveling at c in all
directions.

That's what I said, you moron .. in the frame S where it is emitted .. But
not in frame S' where we are measuring it .. we just proved that !!

   So you do not like the idea that light is not expanding
according to your control freak concept of time.

No .. I just proved it is not expanding according to YOUR control freak
concept of time.  Gees.. you are such a hypocrite.

The equation
          x'^2 + y'^2 +z'^2 = c^2n'^2
is saying that either c or n' is a variable,

And it doesn't apply to the scenario we just looked at, where the light is
moving at c in both directions in frame S

which gives the equation
a different meaning than you had in your absolute time
interpretation.

I don't have an absolute time interpretation .. that is what YOU have by
claimingGalileantransforms are correct.

 Here is the situation ...

blah blah blah .. you're just spouting gibberish now.
YOU STILL CANNOT DISPUTE THAT i HAVE PROVED YOU WRONG *SEVERAL TIMES*
ALREADY.  You're just not man enough to admit that you are wrong.  But we
all know you're a lying piece of moron shit.

Well, I have listened to enough of your insults and profanity. There
is no point in discussing this further. You are typical of anything
in science today. In order to prove something to yourself, all you
have to do is call someone else a dirty name. Here, I can prove
something to myself, too. Find someone else to be the object of your
modern science.

[rbwinn]

?"rbwinn"  wrote in message

  If transitions of a cesium 133 molecule slow down,

Why would it slow down?  How does the physics of the atoms in S' change
because someone else (S) is moving relative to it?  That's nonsense.

you
should not be calling 9,192,631,770 transitions a second.

That's what I told YOU .. you fucking moron.

S' was defined to be the frame of reference in motion, not S.

Doesn't matter ... If S' is in motion relative to S, then S is in motion
relative to S'.   That's how motion works.  Every frame is in motion
relative to other frames.
The names "S" and "S'" are just arbitrary labels we put on an arbitrary pair
of frames.  You can simply swap which frame you label as S and your
equations fail.  You can assume a different direction for +x and your
equations fail.  Clocks don't know what label you've given to their frames
and adjust their ticking rates accordingly.
Your nonsense is completely refuted.  You're too stupid to know, or too
dishonest to admit, that you['re beaten.

Well, I would enjoy discussing this further. Unfortunately there is
nothing to discuss it with. Come back when you have learned how to
carry on a conversation.

[rbwinn]

?"rbwinn"  wrote in message

  If transitions of a cesium 133 molecule slow down,

Why would it slow down?  How does the physics of the atoms in S' change
because someone else (S) is moving relative to it?  That's nonsense.

you
should not be calling 9,192,631,770 transitions a second.

That's what I told YOU .. you fucking moron.

S' was defined to be the frame of reference in motion, not S.

Doesn't matter ... If S' is in motion relative to S, then S is in motion
relative to S'.   That's how motion works.  Every frame is in motion
relative to other frames.
The names "S" and "S'" are just arbitrary labels we put on an arbitrary pair
of frames.  You can simply swap which frame you label as S and your
equations fail.  You can assume a different direction for +x and your
equations fail.  Clocks don't know what label you've given to their frames
and adjust their ticking rates accordingly.
Your nonsense is completely refuted.  You're too stupid to know, or too
dishonest to admit, that you['re beaten.

I did not know there was a contest. In any event, I find it easier to
say that from S, light appears to have gone a distance of x, while
from S', it appears to have gone a shorter distance. So why does that
seem more unreasonable to you than saying that solid objects contract
in length in the direction of their motion?

[rbwinn]

Well, that is correct, Inertial.  It was very observant of you.  If S'
is moving in the +x direction, the way Einstein always set it up, the
light is going in the +x,+y direction at an angle larger than 45
degrees.

and at a speed other than c, givenGalileantransforms.  If light (or
anything else) moves at the same speed in all directions in S, then that
same light will not be moving at the same speed in all directions relative
to S' .. even if you cheat and use a slowed down clock.  Its trivial to
prove, and we've done that.  But that contradicts our observations of light
that DOES move a c in all directions in all inertial frames .. ie in both S
and S'.  SoGalileantransforms, though self consistent and simple .. almost
easy enough for YOU to use .. , do not give the results we see in our world.
So they are refuted.

Well, no, Inertial, what you forgot is that the light satisfies these
two equations:

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2 t^2

(x')^2 + (y')^2 + (z')^2 = c^2(n')^2

So it does not matter what direction light is going, it is traveling
at c according to clocks in S and S'. So if you want to transform
coordinates, you just use these equations:

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

t tells you the amount of time it takes for light to go from the
origin of S to (x,y,z), and n' tells you the time it takes for light
to go from the origin of S' to (x',y',z'). Light is traveling at c in
both frames of reference in any direction.

[rbwinn]

Well, no, YBM, there is no length contraction in my mathematics.  It
works very well.

Except it doesn't give the results we find in reality .. for a start it is
not self-consistent.  Its all just a fantasy in your mind.

Well, I think the elliptical train wheels are the fantasy.