rbwinn

Well, it is the same without the length contraction. ct2'=ct - vt t2' = (t-vt/c), or (t-vx/c^2) if x=ct So it is the same thing as the Lorentz equation without the length contraction. Scientists can be proven wrong in their ideas about the Lorentz equations by a consideration of events concerning a ray of light directed in the -x direction. Light is emitted at (0,0) in K and (0,0) in K' with K' moving at v in the +x direction, in other words, when the origins coincide. After one second, the light has gone to -1 light sec in K and to (-1-v)gamma light sec in K'. One second has elapsed in K and t'=(1 -v(-1)/c^2)gamma sec in K'. x' is a longer distance than x and t' is a longer time than t for these two events. The clock in K' has to be faster than the clock in K in order for light to be traveling at c in both frames of reference for this light ray. So, obviously, the Lorentz equations are not saying what scientists have represented them as saying for more than 100 years.

In the first place, I am not a scientist. I do not have unlimited funds available to me for "research". Secondly, if scientists are so super-intelligent, why are they attempting to use speed of light in the negative direction as a proof that the Galilean transformation equations are incorrect? Even the Lorentz equations use velocity of light. That is why the equations remain in an unreduced form after Einstein introduced the equation x=ct. If x=ct, why say t'=(t-vx/c^2)gamma? The reason is that if light is directed in the -x direction, the velocity of the light is -186,000 miles per second, not +186,000 miles per second. So the Galilean transformation equations show light going in the -x direction at c in both frames of reference the same as the Lorentz equations. -ct2'=-ct-vt The problem scientists have is that this shows the same thing the Lorentz equations show. In order for this to happen, it takes a faster clock in K' and a slower clock in K. Experiment shows that the clock in K' is slower.

So tell me what progress scientists have made. I think they just set themselves up as some kind of super-intelligences who do nothing useful any more and are required to be supported by the slavery of the people.

Baloney. The speed of light is still c in the -x direction. There is a problem with it, which is that in order for light to be going at c in both frames of reference in that direction, the clock in K' has to be faster than the clock in K. The Lorentz equations have exactly the same problem.

OK, since scientists cannot work the math, I will do it. You claim I cannot do what you do. So we will take the fastest observable speed I know about, the speed of the planet Mercury, and say that is the velocity of K' relative to K. The speed of the planet Mercury is 30 miles /sec. So you say you want to know how much a second in K is compared to a second in K'. x'=x-vt x=ct x'=ct2' ct2'=ct-vt t2'=t(1-v/c) t2'= 1sec(1-30/186,000)= 1 sec(1-.00016) =.999839 sec. x=x'+v'(t2') 1 light sec= .999839 light sec + v'(.999839 sec) .000161 light sec=v'(.999839 sec) v'=.000161 light sec/sec=30 mi/sec v' is actually slightly faster than v, but at this speed not enough to notice. So there is how much difference there is in time betweein a clock in K and a clock in K' according to the Galilean transformation equations. I do not say this is more than an estimate. These equations have some of the same inherent problems that the Lorentz equations have with regard to the speed of light being equal in both frames of reference.

I did not ignore that request. I pointed out that reality shows that if a second is longer in K' than in K, an observer in K' will get a faster speed between frames of reference than an observer in K. I have pointed this out at least ten times. Run the experiment. You can prove using an old slow propeller airplane that a moving cesium clock is slower than a cesium clock at rest. Now do the arithmetic. If this experiment was done on a plane going from New York to San Francisco, then you divide the number of miles between New York and San Francisco by the time each clock says it took to make the trip, and, by some strange chance, the time of the slower clock says that the plane made the trip faster than the faster clock indicates. This experiment agrees with my equations, not yours. That is just the way it is. If you do not want to discuss this, it is your choice to not discuss it, not mine. x',y',z' and t' are coordinates in K'. Einstein defined them that way. I defined them that way. Did you have any other questions about coordinates? Here is the problem I think you are having. The two little parrallel lines between t and t' have a meaning. They are not just there to separate the two variables. Think of the algebraic expression t'=t as a sentence with meaning. The algebraic expression says something about t' and t. Let's see if there are any scientists who can guess what the expression means. OK, now if there are any such scientists, let's move on to the next step. If t' is the same time as t, then, obviously, it cannot be the time on a slower clock. So the slower clock in K' is not showing t' in the Galilean transformation equations. That does not mean the Galilean transformation equations are wrong. It means that you cannot use two different rates of time in the Galilean transformation equations. It is no different from saying that earth rotates in 24 hours, and Mars rotates in 24.6 hours, so day on Mars is the same as a day on earth because they are both one rotation of a planet. You cannot do it because you are saying two different rates of time are the same thing.

I have already stated what I find wrong with modern science. Using two different lengths of time for a second and calling them equal is the same as saying that one rotation of the planet Mars and one rotation of the planet Neptune are equal because they are both days. No scientist has answered this or attempted to explain why slow transitions of a moving cesium isotope atom are considered to be the same as faster transitions of a cesium isotope atom at rest. So until science is willing to address this problem, I will just assume that we are going to have centuries more of the same. This kind of attitude permeates every aspect of human thought today. People who have been to school are considered to be more intelligent than people who work for a living. So let's just leave it at that. Science of today will just continue to be a show with no answers.

You can define time however you want to, but it still remains a rate which can be measured an infinite number of ways. You can measure time by rotations of the earth. You can measure time by rotations of the planet Jupiter. You can measure time by transitions of a cesium isotope atom. You can measure time by ticks of a clock. You can measure time by the orbit of the planet Mars. It is not difficult to see your mistake. You define a second as a certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope atom and then say that the transitions slow down compared to the transitions of another cesium isotope atom which scientists define to be at rest. Then you set a second counted by slower transitions equal to a second counted by faster transitions in equations and wonder why distances are distorted. I told you what x,y,z, and t were. They are coordinates in K. If you do not know what a coordinate is, study up on it. If you want to keep pretending that you do not understand how coordinates work, I am just going to have to conclude that you really do not know. I think I have explained enough times that t'=t, t2'=t2, etc. so that anyone who had any intelligence at all could understand what is meant by the two little horizontal lines between the two variables. I think I have said that t'=t represents the time of a clock in K enough times so that anyone who is not pretending to be stupid could grasp what that means. So here is what I will say about it. If you want to discuss the equations I posted, let's discuss them. If you want to discuss wave theory that dates by to James Clerk Maxwell and his work using the Galilean transformation equations and absolute time adapted to the Lorentz equations by means of a length contraction, I am not really interested in it any more than I would be interested in discussing equations for epicycles in Ptolemaic astronomy. I will tell you how I regard modern scientists. You are a bunch of parrots who can recite dogma, but you cannot think. You are like Muslim extremists who were taught how to explode a suicide bomb. You are very accomplished at what you were taught. You can do what you were taught. But you cannot even discuss anything else. So go ahead and do what you were taught. I see no reason to try to stop you. I have stated enough times what you are doing wrong. If you want to discuss it, let's discuss it. if not, then there is no reason for me to waste my time with you. I have given the equations. If you want to discuss them, let's discuss them. If not, there is no reason I can see to discuss epicycles.

Well, it is not really as difficult as you are trying to make it. If the coordinates in K are (x,y,z,t) and the coordinates in K' are (x',y',z',t'), all you do is provide the coordinates for the event. Suppose that the event takes place at (5 light sec,0,0,1 sec) in K. K' is traveling at ,25 light sec/sec relative to K. Then according to the Galilean transformation equations x'=(5 light sec-.25 light sec/sec(1 sec))=4.75 light sec y'=0 z'=0 t'= 4 sec t' is not shown by a clock in K'. It is shown by a clock in K. The clock in K' is irrelevant to these equations. But you want to know what a clock in K' would read. Well, that depends on what is being used as the standard for time in K'. It could be related to t in K. For example, scientists say t2' would equal (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and figure the value for t2' from the Lorentz equations. It does not matter how t2' relates to t. The Galilean transformation equations work for any standard of time. For instance if the clock in K' was faster than the one in K and was twice as fast, we would just compute the value of t2' from t2'=2t. Scientists claim they can determine what t2' would be at the coordinates given if t= 1 sec from General Relativity or the Lorentz equations. That is fine with me. I don't care what a clock in K' reads when a clock in K reads 1 sec. It reads something. Let scientists determine it by experiment. My own estimate would be about .75 sec using Galilean transformation equations to estimate the time. Maybe it is more. Maybe it is less. Let scientists determine it by experiment, and then they cannot complain about it. But since we do not have any scientists, we will just use .75 sec for purposes of showing how the equations work. So using the Galilean transformation equations as seen by an observer in K' using a clock in K', x=x'+v'(t2') 5 light sec=4.75 light sec + v'(.75sec) v'=.33333 light sec/sec 0=y' 0=z' t2=.75 sec So the observer in K' sees K' traveling with a speed of .333333 light sec/sec instead of the .25 light sec/sec seen by an observer in K, and his clock is slower, which is what reality would also indicate. As I said before, in order to find fault with these equations, you are going to have to do more than take times from the second set of equations and try to get them to work in the first equations. The standard of time in the first equations is faster than the standard of time in the second set of equations. Now I understand that scientists have all kinds of shortcuts which require this kind of improper mathematics dating back to the time when James Clerk Maxwell and other scientists were deriving equations using the Galilean equations and absolute time, which had the speed the same measured from either frame of reference, but whenever you do it with these equations, I am just going to say, There are two different speeds. You cannot do it.

Well, General Relativity is based on the same false premise that Special Relativity was, that two clocks with different rates would show the same velocity. Working from reality, I explained relativity to show that an abserver with a slower clock will see a faster speed. For instance, we put two passengers on a train, one with a slow clock and one with a faster clock and tell them, Use your clock and the mile markers by the track to determine the speed of the train. According to scientists, they could get the same speed, because if the faster clock showed proper time, then it shows the same time as a clock in the frame of reference of the track, and a clock in the frame of reference of the track shows the same speed for the train as the slower clock the other passenger has. Reality would indicate that the passenger with the slower clock would get a faster speed for the train.

Well, to me that is like saying that if Copernican astronomy does not agree with the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy, then it must be wrong. So what is the viable explanation of General Relativity? As far as I can tell it is based on a length contraction that only exists in the minds of scientists. They found a way to explain any experimental results no matter what they may be. But there is one experiment General Relativity cannot explain. Explain how an astronaut with a clock in his satellite gets the same speed for the satellite as a scientist on the ground with a clock that shows a different rate of time.

From K the time coordinates are t and t'. This is shown by the equation t'=t. What it means is that if t is the time in K, then t' is the same time in K'. The slower clock in K' is completely ignored because it does not show t'. A clock in K shows the time coordinates for both frames of reference. But time is not absolute as scientists claim it has to be in the Galilean transformation equations. Anything that shows a rate of time can be used in the Galilean transformation equations. If we wanted to use the period of rotation for one of Jupiter's moons as time in the Galilean transformation equations, we could use that reference for time. We want to use the time of the clock in K', which is a slower time than the time we used in K. We are not going to use t' for the time of this clock because t' was used for time in K' in our first set of equations and was defined to be t'=t, the time on a clock in K. So we say that time on a clock in K' is t2', and t2, the time coordinate in K is t2=t2', the time of a clock in K'. If there is another clock in another frame of reference that has a different rate of time than the rates of time in K and K', then we use a different set of Galilean transformation equations to show the time of that clock. This proves that time is not absolute in the Galilean transformation equations and that they can be used to show any rate of time.

Well, it is fairly simple. If you have a length of time you call a second in K and a different length of time you call a second in K', if you use them in the same transformation equation you are going to have a length contraction in one frame of reference or the other. The Lorentz equations say the time coordinate in one frame of reference is a smaller value than the time coordinate in the other frame of reference. That is why they have a length contraction. The Galilean transformation equations say t'=t, or from the other frame of reference, t2=t2'. The time coordinates in either frame of reference are the same in any set of Galilean transformation equations. That is why they do not have a length contraction.

Well, you can say it is inconsistent. You can say anything whatsoever. What you need to do is prove what you say. I do exactly what Einstein did except I am not using two different rates of time in the same equation. x=ct x'=c(t2') x'=x-vt c(t2')=ct-vt t2'=(t-vx/c^2) c=x/t = x'/t2' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma So go ahead and show the inconsistency. I have no need for the length contraction introduced by gamma.

What we need to do is go back to Einstein's description of how he was going to solve this with the Lorentz equations. There are a few mathematical problems with what he did, but if it is good enough for mathematicians and scientists, for the present time it is good enough for me. "Aided by the following illustration, we can readily see that, in accordance with the Lorentz transformation, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied both for the reference-body K and for the reference-body K'. A light signal is sent along the positive x axis, and this light stimulus advances according to the equation x=ct. , i.e., with the velocity c. According to the equations of the Lorentz transformation, this simple relation between x and t involves a relation between x' and t'. In point of fact, if we substitute for x the value ct in the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz equations, we obtain x'=(c-v)t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), t'=(1-v/c)t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), from which, by division, the expression x'=ct' immediately folows If referred to the system K', the propagation of light takes place according to this equation" (A. Einstein) So let's apply the same logic to the Galilean transformation equations as I used them. x=ct x'=c(t2') x'=x-vt c(t2')=ct-vt t2'=t-vt/c=(t-vct/c^2) =(t-vx/c^2) So if we take the speed of light to be the same in both frames of reference, the values for x' and t2' are (x-vt) and (t-vx/c^2), which are nothing more than x' and t' in the Lorentz equations without the length contraction introduced by 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Notice that the resolution of the speed of light being the same in both frames of reference comes from the Galilean transformation part of the Lorentz equations, not from the length contraction. That is why I say that anything you can do with the Lorentz equations, I can do with the Galilean transformation equations without the inconvenience of a length contraction. Well, I hope we have put Special Relativity to rest. General Relativity is a different kind of problem. What I see wrong with it immediately is the same thing that made Special Relativity wrong. The speed of K' relative to K measured by an observer in K is the same as the speed of the speed of K relative to K' measured by an observer in K'. However, if we run the experiment, the transitions of the cesium isotope atoms in K' are slower, meaning that in reality, the observer in K' would see a faster speed between the two frames of reference. I don't know a lot about General Relativity. I know it is based on a length contraction. If so, I would compare it to Ptolemaic astronomy, which gave very accurate answers for positions of the sun, planets, and stars using a solar system in which the sun orbited the earth , and the planets went around the earth in epicycles. Some scientists were still using Ptolemaic astronomy long after Copernicus decided the planets were orbiting the sun. I would expect that there will still be scientists using General Relativity centuries from now, but it does not interest me because I can see it is wrong without even learning more about it.

Well, if you won't accept the example I gave, you are not going to accept anything else either, but, as I said, if you want to believe your car gets shorter when you step on the accellerator, you are certainly free to believe that. Here is the problem with your mathematics. Scientists say that a second is a certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope atom, but that if a cesium isotope atom is put in motion, the rate of its transitions slows down. If you set a second in K' equal to a second in K, then you are introducing a length contraction because a second in K' is longer than a second in K. It is no different from saying that one rotation of a planet is a day, and a day on one planet is the same as a day on another. Then you say there has to be a length contraction because Jupiter rotates every ten hours, and earth rotates every 24 hours. In any event, if you are as good at mathematics as you claim to be, you should be able to see that every prediction of General Relativity you cite is also predicted by the Galilean transformation equations as I use them. The only difference is that instead of there being a length contraction, 186,000 mi/sec is not the fastest speed in the universe. The real problem is that I am talking about relativity, and scientists want to talk about wave mechanics, which was put together by James Clerk Maxwell and others using the Galilean transformation equations and absolute time. Scientists were unable to adapt Maxwell's equations without keeping velocity the same in both frames of reference the way it is with absolute time, which is done in both Special and General Relativity. I am sure Newton and Maxwell could have done the mathematics to account for different rates of time, but scientists of today cannot, so we are left with endless conversations about experiments. So I'll tell you what. You find an experiment that the Galilean transformation equations as I have used them cannot describe.

Well, that is fairly easy to do because the Lorentz equations predict that a slower clock in K' will show the same speed between frames of reference as a faster clock in K. This is accomplished by means of a length contraction in the frame of reference in motion. What reality shows is that if a clock in K' is slower, then an observer in K' will believe the speed of K relative to K' is faster than an observer in K would believe the speed of K' relative to K to be. But aside from that, if t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) gives a correct representation of the time in K as compared to the time in K', then the correct representation of relativity would be to use the Galilean transformation equations for each rate of time as I have done. All I get from scientists is that this cannot be true because there is no length contraction. So if you want to believe that your car gets shorter every time you step on the accellerator, then it seems to me that you are free to do that. I don't really think it does.

What has to be answered is whether or not intelligence exists. So we consider the idea being presented here, that people who do not believe in God are more intelligent than people who do. This would presume that not all humans are equally intelligent. Then the most intelligent human would be one who says God does not exist. But if that is all it takes to be one of the most intelligent people, why doesn't it work better than it does? Evidently, just saying you don't believe in God does not elevate you to any great degree or hold out any great reward. Or we could look at intelligence from a religious standpoint. The person who denies the existence of God is regarded as lacking intelligence. Then there are varying degrees of intelligence until the intelligence of God is reached, which is the highest degree of intelligence and cannot be surpassed. So we have two different definitions of intelligence, one being that the ability to be like God is intelligence and the other being that the ability to oppose belief in God is intelligence. But the problem with basing a definition of intelligence on the ability to oppose belief in God is that belief in God has to exist before intelligence can exist, so what good does it do to say God does not exist? It is a self-defeating premise.

In 1905 Albert Einstein changed perception of relativity by his idea of time dilation, which scientists subsequently claim to have proven by experiment. To quote Einstein, describing two frames of reference, K and K', "An event, wherever it may have taken place, would be fixed in space with respect to K by the three perpendiculars x,y, and z and with regard to time by a time value t. Relative to K', the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time by corresponding values of x',y',z',t'." Einstein then substitutes the Lorentz equations in place of the Galilean transformation equations, which had been used with Isaac Newton's interpretation of absolute time before the Michelson-Morley experiment to describe relativity. The problem is, however popular the idea may have become with scientists, it is mathematically incorrect. The correct way to describe relativity is with the Galilean transformation equations, but not with the absolute time interpretation that was formerly used. If a cesium isotope atom in K' has slower transitions than a cesium isotope atom in K, then a second in K' is not the same amount of time as a second in K. You cannot use them as equal amounts of time in equations for relativity. It is like using the rotation of Jupiter and the rotation of the earth as equal amounts of time because one rotation of Jupiter is called a day and one rotation of earth is called a day. The mathematically correct way to describe the different times in K and K' is by using the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each frame of reference. For frame of reference K we have x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t What the last equation t'=t means is that t is the time on a clock in K, and t' isequal to t, which means it is also the time on a clock in K. The slower clock in K' is completely ignored in computing relativity from K. Now we use the Galilean transformation equations to compute relativity from K'. the variable t' has already been used in our equations for K and was defined to be the time of a clock in K. We cannot use it again is our equations for K' We have to use a different variable t2' for time of the slower clock in K'. x=x'+v'(t2') y=y' z=z' t2=t2' The last equation shows that the time of the slower clock in K' is being used for time in both frames of reference. This time the faster clock in K is being completely ignored. Posting these equations in the newsgroup, sci.physics.relativity resulted only in obscenities, profanity and insults. I am posting them in other forums with the hope that some more rational discussion of them might take place.