Galilean transformation equations and relativity.

[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.

[uncool]

Well, it is the same without the length contraction.

Which isn't the same, period. The length contraction is an integral part of the Lorentz equation that can't simply be disregarded because you don't like it.

ct2'=ct - vt

t2' = (t-vt/c), or (t-vx/c^2) if x=ct

This isn't even close to the Lorentz equations; it's missing a factor of gamma, and the Lorentz equations do not include that condition.

So it is the same thing as the Lorentz equation without the length contraction.

Scientists can be proven wrong in their ideas

You keep being vague. Which "ideas" are you referring to?

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,

After one second in which frame?

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.

Or, alternatively, you have misunderstood the equations. Which is more likely?

 

You are setting up your own strawman of relativity by removing length contraction and then demanding that your strawman make sense. You've managed to knock down your misunderstood version of relativity, but as yet you have not addressed what relativity actually says.

=Uncool-

[Klaynos]

You do know that the frame in which you do the measurement matters. So anything you say about K' wrt K must also be true for K wrt K'. From some of what you've said during this thread it looks a little like you're assuming some absolute, correct frame of reference.

 

You're also aware that it hasn't just been 100 years of people sat around saying how great the equations are but am ever ongoing process of testing, refining and constantly trying to experimentally show the equations to be wrong. So far every test has agreed with sr/gr. You would need to show experimental evidence to indicate your formulation is more accurate than the existing one.

 

Your refusal to show predictions against observations and existing theory is a little bit of a show stopper for me. It strikes of someone convinced they are correct without wanting to put in the work to show it.

[swansont]

I think the problem is simply this: You can't assume there is no length contraction in order to show there is no length contraction.

[rbwinn]

Well, I am not the one who assumed there was no length contraction. Galileo and Isaac Newton had that idea. I just happen to agree with their thinking. James Clerk Maxwell did all of his calculations assuming there was no length contraction. So there really is no law that mandates belief in a length contraction yet, although scientists will probably eventually try to pass one as they attempt to turn present scientific beliefs into dogma. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. That seems to be the primary complaint modern scientists have against the Galilean transformation equations.

Frames of reference do not confuse me the way they do some people. I just am able to see that some frames of reference are more meaningful than others. The frame of reference of the earth is more meaningful than the frame of reference of a fly buzzing around in the air above the earth.

Any theory of relativity says where physical objects are with respect to time, whether they are moving or standing still. That is what relativity means. I don't think it is very likely that I have misunderstood the equations. It is not the length contraction part of the Lorentz equations that keeps light traveling at c in both frames of reference. It is the part I showed you comes from the Galilean transformation equations and does the same thing in those equations without a length contraction. What you are saying is that since the Galilean transformation equations had the interpretation given to it by Isaac Newton, ether theory with absolute time, when scientists discarded those equations, no one is allowed to use them again or to have any other interpretation of how the Galilean transformation equations work.

[Sensei]

Any theory of relativity says where physical objects are with respect to time, whether they are moving or standing still. That is what relativity means. I don't think it is very likely that I have misunderstood the equations.

 

Nothing is at rest, just appears to be.

You think you're at rest sitting on chair, just because your whole environment is moving together with you.

When you're driving car, you're at rest relative to car, but at move relative to Earth.

For observer at Sun, you're moving ~30 km/s together with whole Earth..

For observer outside of Milky Way you're moving ~220 km/s together with Sun orbiting galaxy center.

 

The frame of reference of the earth is more meaningful than the frame of reference of a fly buzzing around in the air above the earth.

 

 

So you're giving priorities to observers..

Why do you think your observation is more important than somebody else observation?

[rbwinn]

Well, if I am using the correct equations, and scientists are not , then my observations are more important. It is like a scientist comparing observations of scientists to observations of of people like me who are not highly educated. So my suggestion is to wait a while and see whose observations are better.

[uncool]

Well, I am not the one who assumed there was no length contraction. Galileo and Isaac Newton had that idea. I just happen to agree with their thinking.

Why?

James Clerk Maxwell did all of his calculations assuming there was no length contraction.

Really? Would you mind pointing out where he made that assumption? Or do you mean that Maxwell did all of his calculations as if there were an absolute frame (called that of the ether)?

So there really is no law that mandates belief in a length contraction yet, although scientists will probably eventually try to pass one as they attempt to turn present scientific beliefs into dogma.

There is, however, evidence of length contraction and the full Lorentz transformation, as has been shown in multiple experiments that have been named in this thread. You can feel free to believe otherwise, but there will be no reason to take you seriously.

The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. That seems to be the primary complaint modern scientists have against the Galilean transformation equations.

"Seems" according to what? The primary complaint is that they contradict the evidence that the speed of light is invariant and isotropic. The fact of length contraction falls out of that premise.

Frames of reference do not confuse me the way they do some people. I just am able to see that some frames of reference are more meaningful than others. The frame of reference of the earth is more meaningful than the frame of reference of a fly buzzing around in the air above the earth.

Any theory of relativity says where physical objects are with respect to time, whether they are moving or standing still. That is what relativity means. I don't think it is very likely that I have misunderstood the equations. It is not the length contraction part of the Lorentz equations that keeps light traveling at c in both frames of reference.

Then yes, you have misunderstood the equations. In order for light to travel at c relative to all frames, you need both length and time dilation.

It is the part I showed you comes from the Galilean transformation equations and does the same thing in those equations without a length contraction. What you are saying is that since the Galilean transformation equations had the interpretation given to it by Isaac Newton, ether theory with absolute time, when scientists discarded those equations, no one is allowed to use them again or to have any other interpretation of how the Galilean transformation equations work.

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying has nothing to do with absolute time. What I am saying is that in order for the speed of light in one direction to be invariant, the speed of light in another direction cannot be invariant under your group of transformations, whereas the speed of light in all directions remains the same under the Lorentz transformations.

Well, if I am using the correct equations, and scientists are not , then my observations are more important. It is like a scientist comparing observations of scientists to observations of of people like me who are not highly educated. So my suggestion is to wait a while and see whose observations are better.

There is no need to wait. Make your predictions. Scientists have already made predictions and observations for relativity - they have been doing so for more than a century already.

 

rbwinn, before you go on, I'd like to ask you to do something in the future. When responding to someone, please use the quote button to quote precisely what you are referring to. While it may be clear to you what you mean and to whom you are responding, it's not clear to everyone else. The quote button makes it obvious - you can see in my posts precisely what I'm responding to where, etc.

=Uncool-

Edited October 16, 2013 by uncool

[Bignose]

Well, if I am using the correct equations, and scientists are not ,

Oh Gee. If only there was a way to tell this. Hmmmm. This is a puzzler.

 

Oh! I know!

 

Why don't you compare the predictions from your equations with the predictions from GR and compare them to measured results? Then we'll have an abundance of evidence with ones are 'correct'!

 

The good news is that two of those are already done and in the literature (I sure hope I don't need to repeat the sources yet again).

 

So, once again I ask you, what is stopping you? If you are so confident in your equations, you should be supremely confident in your predictions. And even more than that, if your predictions are correct, you'll get yourself a bunch of attention. Not just attention, but probably grant money and resources to help develop your idea further. That's pretty much what you said you were looking for in your first post.

 

So, what really is stopping you? If you need time to do it, that's understandable. But this abject reluctance to try to show us just how good your idea is completely baffles me. I don't get why you aren't leaping at the chances to show your idea is correct. You should be asking us for references to as many experiments as possible so you can show us just how freaking better your predictions are than GR's predictions.

[swansont]

Well, I am not the one who assumed there was no length contraction. Galileo and Isaac Newton had that idea. I just happen to agree with their thinking.

Galileo and Newton aren't posting, you are. Your arguments assume there is no length contraction. You can't use that assumption to prove there is no length contraction. That's a circular argument.

 

 

James Clerk Maxwell did all of his calculations assuming there was no length contraction. So there really is no law that mandates belief in a length contraction yet, although scientists will probably eventually try to pass one as they attempt to turn present scientific beliefs into dogma. The Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction. That seems to be the primary complaint modern scientists have against the Galilean transformation equations.

No, he did not assume it wasn't true, because he had no need to make that assumption. Maxwell wasn't deriving equations of kinematics. It's equally true that Maxwell didn't assume evolution was correct, either. It has no impact on the topic.

 

What Einstein did was apply the truths of Maxwell's equations to motion (The paper was entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", but in German, of course). One of the concepts was the invariance of c. When you take that to be correct, length contraction and time dilation follow.

 

Galilean transformations don't have length contraction, but they also don't have time dilation. Time dilation has been observed, which is how we know that the Galilean transforms are incorrect.

[rbwinn]

Look, I don't have time to follow all of the little rules scientists can make up. I have to go weld things, etc. I am not all excited about talking to scientists. I have talked to enough of them on the internet to know what to expect.

Now I will post the equations again and say what they mean.

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t'=t means that the time of a clock in K is being used for time coordinates in both frames of reference. A slower clock in K' is just a slower clock as far as these equations are concerned. A slower clock in K' does not show t' because t'=t, the time of a clock in K.

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2'

 

This time the time of the slower clock in K' is being used for time coordinates in both frames of reference. So now go ahead and explain how the Galilean transformation equations do not show that a clock in K' is slower than a clock in K.

[ajb]

I am not all excited about talking to scientists.

Okay, that is a strange thing to say here, but anyway...

 

A slower clock in K' is just a slower clock as far as these equations are concerned. A slower clock in K' does not show t' because t'=t, the time of a clock in K.

A simple question if you don't mind. If I bring both these clocks into a common frame will they then tick at the same rate?

 

I am having a difficult time with your notion of a slower clock.

[swansont]

Look, I don't have time to follow all of the little rules scientists can make up. I have to go weld things, etc. I am not all excited about talking to scientists. I have talked to enough of them on the internet to know what to expect.

Now I will post the equations again and say what they mean.

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t'=t means that the time of a clock in K is being used for time coordinates in both frames of reference. A slower clock in K' is just a slower clock as far as these equations are concerned. A slower clock in K' does not show t' because t'=t, the time of a clock in K.

 

 

No. What the equation means is that the time coordinate in K is the same as in K'. IOW, both observers will agree on the time. Their clocks do not tick at different rates.

 

All of the "little rules scientists make up" involve doing the math properly and knowing what all the variables actually represent. If you don't want to learn any science or talk with scientists, what are you doing on a science discussion board?

[rbwinn]

AJB If you have two cesium clocks in the same frame of reference, they will both show the same rate of time. If you have one in K and one in K', a frame of reference moving relative to K, the one that is moving will show less time. That has nothing to do with the equations I gave. The Galilean transformation equations work with any rate of time. For instance, an observer in K could be using the Galilean transformation equations using units of time based on the rotation of Jupiter, and an observer in K' could be using the Galilean transformation equations using units of time based on the rotation of Neptune. Jupiter rotates faster than Neptune, just as a cesium isotope atom at rest oscillates faster than a cesium isotope atom in motion.

[uncool]

Look, I don't have time to follow all of the little rules scientists can make up. I have to go weld things, etc. I am not all excited about talking to scientists. I have talked to enough of them on the internet to know what to expect.

Polite requests for evidence, for explanations, and for politeness? A willingness to explain why a Galilean transformation can't match up to a Lorentz transformation? Scientists entertaining your notion for pages on end after repeated accusations of dogma, fraud, and the like? Because that's what you've gotten here.

Now I will post the equations again and say what they mean.

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t'=t means that the time of a clock in K is being used for time coordinates in both frames of reference. A slower clock in K' is just a slower clock as far as these equations are concerned. A slower clock in K' does not show t' because t'=t, the time of a clock in K.

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2'

 

This time the time of the slower clock in K' is being used for time coordinates in both frames of reference. So now go ahead and explain how the Galilean transformation equations do not show that a clock in K' is slower than a clock in K.

And as has been shown using your own equations, the speed of light is not isotropic relative to all frames under your transformations. Which contradicts the evidence, indicating that your idea contradicts reality and therefore that special relativity is a better choice for theory than yours.

=Uncool-

[rbwinn]

swansont

 

No, we are assuming that the observer in K' is not a scientist and can therefore follow simple instructions. The instructions would be, Your clock is slow. You have to use the time of a clock in K in the Galilean transformation equations as we are using them.

What I am doing in a science discussion forum is trying to explain to a scientist that scientific time involves different rates of time, and different rates of time cannot be used in the same set of Galilean transformation equations. You have to use a different set of Galilean transformation equations for each different rate of time. To reiterate once again, in K, the frame of reference at rest,

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

We are using the time on a clock in K for time coordinates in both frames of reference. Now we use the Galilean transformation equations again with time of a slower clock in K' for time coordinates in both frames of reference.

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2"

 

x in the second set of equations is the same as x in the first set of equations. x' in the second set of equations is the same as x' in the first set of equations. vt is the same distance as v'(t2'). That means that if t2' is less time than t, an observer in K' would believe his speed to be faster as computed from the slower clock in K' than an observer in K would believe the speed of K' to be computing the speed of K' with a clock in K. If we run this experiment in reality, we find what I say to be true. An observer in K' using a clock in K' will find the speed between frames of reference to be faster than and observer in K using a clock in K will find the speed between frames of reference to be.

This is not really difficult. I would put it at about sixth grade level.

So, once again, explain again why the Galilean transformation equations cannot account for a slower clock in K'.

[uncool]

swansont

 

No, we are assuming that the observer in K' is not a scientist and can therefore follow simple instructions.

Please stop trying to annoy people here.

The instructions would be, Your clock is slow. You have to use the time of a clock in K in the Galilean transformation equations as we are using them.

What I am doing in a science discussion forum is trying to explain to a scientist that scientific time involves different rates of time, and different rates of time cannot be used in the same set of Galilean transformation equations. You have to use a different set of Galilean transformation equations for each different rate of time. To reiterate once again, in K, the frame of reference at rest,

This statement assumes a distinguished frame K. That's not how any kind of relativity works - Galilean or special. Galilean relativity is named after Galileo because of his discovery that the laws of physics are the same with respect to every inertial frame - you are saying that there is a unique frame "at rest", which can be distinguished by time passing most quickly - that is, that if you have a bunch of caesium clocks moving at different velocities, the one that "ticks" fastest will be the one that is at rest with respect to this frame.

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

We are using the time on a clock in K for time coordinates in both frames of reference. Now we use the Galilean transformation equations again with time of a slower clock in K' for time coordinates in both frames of reference.

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2"

 

x in the second set of equations is the same as x in the first set of equations. x' in the second set of equations is the same as x' in the first set of equations. vt is the same distance as v'(t2'). That means that if t2' is less time than t, an observer in K' would believe his speed to be faster as computed from the slower clock in K' than an observer in K would believe the speed of K' to be computing the speed of K' with a clock in K. If we run this experiment in reality, we find what I say to be true. An observer in K' using a clock in K' will find the speed between frames of reference to be faster than and observer in K using a clock in K will find the speed between frames of reference to be.

This is not really difficult. I would put it at about sixth grade level.

So, once again, explain again why the Galilean transformation equations cannot account for a slower clock in K'.

That's not what people have been saying. You continue to set up strawmen for yourself. What people have been saying is that they can't account for experimental evidence that has been presented and explained within this thread.

 

I am going to ask again for two things: first, please stop with the insults and condescension. Second, please try to quote what you are responding to. See the "quote" button on the bottom right? Please use it. It's really not difficult, and makes conversations much easier to keep track of.

=Uncool-

Edited October 16, 2013 by uncool

[rbwinn]

uncool

 

You ignore every answer I post and repeat the same unproven dogma over and over again. We will start with your statement that the Galilean transformation equations cannot show the speed of light to be isotropic. I have posted the proof that they can several times. The response of scientists to this is to repeat that the Galilean transformation equations cannot show the speed of light to be isotropic. So here is the proof once again.

 

x=ct

x'=ct2'

 

t is time on a clock in K. t2' is time on a clock in K'. The clock in K' is slower than the clock in K. Scientists say they have shown this by experiment.

 

x'=x-vt

 

This is the equation for distances on the x axis in the Galilean transformation equations. Now we substitute the values for x and x' into the equation from the Galilean transformation equations.

 

c(t2') = ct - vt

t2'=(t-vt/c)

 

t2' is less time than t, just as scientists have said they confirmed by experiment. The equations x=t and x'=c(t2') show that clocks in K and K' have the speed of light the same in both frames of reference.

OK, now that I have shown this to you, what I expect will happen is that you will tell me once again that the Galilean transformation equations cannot show that speed of light is c in both frames of reference. I have tried to converse with scientists before. I know what they say.

Now if I understand your objection, you are saying that if there is a third frame of reference going at some other speed relative to K, then the speed of light will not be isotropic to that frame of reference. Then the speed of light between the two moving frames of reference will not be isotropic, etc. You are wrong, but there is no reason to try to explain it to you when you cannot even understand the sixth grade level of mathematics required to account for only two frames of reference.

I can see what your problem is. Scientists were using equations for relativity with Newton's absolute time and ether theory interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations which adapted right over into the Lorentz equations because the speed of one frame of reference relative to the other was kept the same as measured from either frame of reference. Since that does not agree with reality, as I have already shown numerous times, scientists are going to remain in la la land probably forever.

That does not mean people who are not scientists are not allowed to discuss relativity, and there was no such rule given in this discussion group.

[Bignose]

Look, I don't have time to follow all of the little rules scientists can make up.

LOL. This is a new one to me anyway.

 

This really reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles

 

"Rules?!? We don't need no stinking rules?!?"

 

Yeah, cause those rules haven't gotten us anywhere to date. It's not like there isn't a huge record of the successes and failures of the predictions made by science. And it isn't like anything useful has come out of following those rules.

 

We really ought to go back to no rules. Back when a person could just say the moon was made of green cheese, and we would decide whether they were right or not based on how many of the 3 popes agreed with them. My snake handler and my barber agree, so I really think you're on the right track here. Science anarchy! Att-i-ca! Att-i-ca!

You ignore every answer I post and repeat the same unproven dogma over and over again.

Now you're just being deliberately ignorant. Read the ****ing papers. There is evidence. It isn't dogma.

 

You know what IS dogma? Asking us to believe you WITHOUT providing evidence that your predictions are any good.

[rbwinn]

uncool

 

If you cannot remember what you said, go back and review it. I can remember what you said. So far you have said you were insulted because I said that uneducated people i work with every day can follow instructions better than scientists can. That is just a fact. I have not seen a scientist yet who can follow the most simple instructions. Here, put these values for x and x' into the Galilean transformation equation. It cannot be done. OK, I will do it for you. c(t2')=ct-vt It cannot be done. Explain why it cannot be done. It cannot be done.

Why can't it be done? Because if it is done, it accounts for the experimental evidence that a clock in K' is slower than a clock in K, which scientists continue to say that the Galilean transformation equations cannot account for. So they repeat over and over, It cannot be done.

I know how scientists converse. I have talked to scientists before. So I just avoid the endless conversations about irrelevancies and try to keep the conversation about what I want to discuss, the fact that the Galilean transformation equations can account for the slower clock in K' and light traveling at c in both frames of reference according to clocks in those frames of reference and the answer given by scientists, It cannot be done.

It can be done because I did it. The fact that scientists are too helpless to put values for x and x' into the Galilean transformation equations does not mean it cannot be done. It means scientists refuse to do it.

Bignose

 

I have to go to work and do welding. I don't sit at a computer all day the way you do. So when I give a response, it cannot take me hours of contemplation the way your answers do. I just have to answer the irrelevancies scientists post the best I can.

I posted the equations. No comment. I showed that t2' in the Galilean transformation equations as I used them is a slower rate of time than t. No comment. It cannot be done. Here, I will show you what the Lorentz equations are again.

 

 

c=x/t=x'/t2'=(x-vt)/(t-vct/c)=(x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)=(x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma=x'(Lorentz equations)/t'(Lorentz equations)

 

The Lorentz equation are what I have been showing you with a length contraction. It cannot be done.

Well, if you do not want to talk about it, you do not want to talk about it. If you don't, then go find some of these nice scientists to talk with and you won't need to be all offended when I do not believe what you say.

[uncool]

uncool

 

You ignore every answer I post and repeat the same unproven dogma over and over again.

Blatantly false. I have directly responded to your answers; I have shown the work behind my answers. So I have neither ignored your answers nor repeated dogma.

We will start with your statement that the Galilean transformation equations cannot show the speed of light to be isotropic. I have posted the proof that they can several times.

Do you know what isotropic means? Because you are showing that the speed of light in one direction can remain the same, which is not the same as the speed of light in all directions remaining the same. What I have shown is that in order for the speed of light in one direction to remain the same, the speed of light in the opposite direction must change under these transformations.

The response of scientists to this is to repeat that the Galilean transformation equations cannot show the speed of light to be isotropic.

The response of scientists is to ask you to identify the mistake in the demonstration that the Galilean transformations cannot show that.

So here is the proof once again.

 

x=ct

x'=ct2'

 

t is time on a clock in K. t2' is time on a clock in K'. The clock in K' is slower than the clock in K. Scientists say they have shown this by experiment.

 

x'=x-vt

 

This is the equation for distances on the x axis in the Galilean transformation equations. Now we substitute the values for x and x' into the equation from the Galilean transformation equations.

 

c(t2') = ct - vt

t2'=(t-vt/c)

 

t2' is less time than t, just as scientists have said they confirmed by experiment. The equations x=t and x'=c(t2') show that clocks in K and K' have the speed of light the same in both frames of reference.

They show that the speed of light for one light beam is the same. That's not what isotropic means. Isotropy is uniformity in all directions. You have dealt with only one direction.

OK, now that I have shown this to you, what I expect will happen is that you will tell me once again that the Galilean transformation equations cannot show that speed of light is c in both frames of reference. I have tried to converse with scientists before. I know what they say.

What I will tell you is that you have dealt with only one direction, and pointed out that light going in the other direction will not be moving at the speed of light under the same transformation.

Now if I understand your objection, you are saying that if there is a third frame of reference

At this point alone, you don't understand my objection. I have been using the same two frames as you - K and K' - this entire time.

 

Please learn what isotropic means, and then deal with what I have written.

uncool

 

If you cannot remember what you said, go back and review it.

That's not why I asked you to use the quote button. In fact, I remember what I said quite well when I asked you to use the quote button - I asked you to use the quote button so that we can determine which part of what I said you are responding to.

I can remember what you said. So far you have said you were insulted because I said that uneducated people i work with every day can follow instructions better than scientists can.

No, you said that scientists cannot follow simple instructions.

That is just a fact. I have not seen a scientist yet who can follow the most simple instructions.

I'm not surprised, since you don't seem to have seen any scientists ever.

Here, put these values for x and x' into the Galilean transformation equation. It cannot be done.

No one has said this. You are making a strawman again.

OK, I will do it for you. c(t2')=ct-vt It cannot be done.

No one has said this. You are making a strawman again. This is one reason for quoting - so you can actually point out what you are referring to, rather than lying about what other people here have said.

Explain why it cannot be done. It cannot be done.

Why can't it be done? Because if it is done, it accounts for the experimental evidence that a clock in K' is slower than a clock in K, which scientists continue to say that the Galilean transformation equations cannot account for. So they repeat over and over, It cannot be done.

I know how scientists converse. I have talked to scientists before. So I just avoid the endless conversations about irrelevancies and try to keep the conversation about what I want to discuss, the fact that the Galilean transformation equations can account for the slower clock in K' and light traveling at c in both frames of reference according to clocks in those frames of reference and the answer given by scientists, It cannot be done.

It can be done because I did it. The fact that scientists are too helpless to put values for x and x' into the Galilean transformation equations does not mean it cannot be done. It means scientists refuse to do it.

It cannot be done such that all light moves at the same speed, as I have already shown you.

 

As it happens, I have asked you to follow simple instructions. Show me where I made a mistake or misunderstood what you meant in the post where I demonstrated that light going in the opposite direction will not stay at the speed of light under your expansion of the Galilean transformation. That's a simple instruction, and you have yet to follow it.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

rbwinn, if you want to make up your own rules about how to do the math and science, that's your business I guess. All I can tell you is that you are doing it wrong. Having said that, any claims you make about how relativity is wrong is ludicrous. If you apply the math incorrectly, the odds are excellent you will get the wrong answer. Getting the wrong answer, therefore, is indicative of nothing regarding the validity of the theory.

 

Meanwhile, GPS still works.

[rbwinn]

uncool

 

I have posted this a couple of times also. A light beam directed in the -x direction has the coordinates on the x axis of

x= -ct, x'= -ct2'. The first equation is its x coordinate according to a clock in K. The second equation is its x' coordinate according to a clock in K'.

 

x'=x-vt

-c(t2') = -ct-vt

 

The light has a velocity of -186,000 mi/sec in both frames of reference. This is exactly what the Lorentz equations show even to the fact that light directed in this direction requires a slower clock in K and a faster clock in K' in order for this to happen.

swansont

 

Well, why wouldn't GPS work? I have already shown that The Galilean transformation equations as I use them give the same prediction for a slower clock in K' than in K. Secondly, GPS is adjusted continually. I already told you that I do not have a government borrowing trillions of dollars every year on national credit and giving me some of it for "research". What I do is send a small donation every year to the Bureau of the Public Debt and tell them to apply it toward payment of the debt. That way I can tell who is keeping things real, scientists or me.

You have made some fairly definite statements. You say I am using mathematics incorrectly. You say I am getting incorrect answers. Now all you need to do is show where I am using mathematics incorrectly and which answers I am getting are incorrect.

As soon as you do that , we will be making some headway in this conversation.

[Strange]

Well, why wouldn't GPS work? I have already shown that The Galilean transformation equations as I use them give the same prediction for a slower clock in K' than in K.

 

As far as I can tell from your rambling presentation, you have never explained why one clock should be running slower than another.

 

Secondly, GPS is adjusted continually.

But not because GR doesn't work or is inaccurate. Just for all the normal and well-understood reasons of engineering tolerance, drift, temperature effects, etc.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Strange

[Klaynos]

The clock in K is running slow from the point of view of K'.

 

You still haven't donebthe simple model -experiment comparison that has been requested.

 

The corrections on gps due to sr and gr are bassed on very precise predictiins not just a vague "the clock will be slow".

 

!

Moderator Note

rbwinn, drop the insults, and review our general rules and speculation board rules before continuing to post.

 

Do not respond to this modnote, use the report post feature if you have a complaint.