Galilean transformation equations and relativity.

[rbwinn]

Strange

 

I have posted this at least ten times. If light is going at a speed of c in K, then x=ct. If light is going at a speed of c in K', then x'=ct2'.

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t' represents time coordinates in K' in the Galilean transformation equations and is defined to be the same as t in this transformation. t is time on a clock in K.

Since t' is already defined to be time on a clock in K, we cannot use it to represent time on a clock in K' because a clock in K' has a slower rate of time than a clock in K. So we use a different variable t2' to represent time on a clock in K'. Now we use the Galilean transformation equations to describe relativity as seen from K' using the slower clock in K' as our reference for time.

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2'

 

t2 is a time coordinate in K and is shown by the time on the slower clock in K', not by a clock in K. The time of the slower clock is being used in both frames of reference. Now we substitute in the values for x and x' when light is traveling at c in both frames of reference.

 

c(t2')=ct-vt

t2'=(t-vt/c)

The clock in K' is slower because t2' is less time than t.

I can post this as long as there are scientists saying that I have not shown the clock in K' would be slower.

[uncool]

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.

So for light going in the -x direction, the clock must be slower in K and faster in K'. But for light going in the +x direction, the clock must be faster in K and slower in K', as I will show.

 

+x:

x = ct, x' = ct2', x' = x - vt implies ct2' = (c - v) t, or t2' = (c - v)/c t.

-x:

x = -ct, x' = -ct2', x' = x - vt implies -ct2' = (-c - v) t, or t2' = (c + v)/c t.

 

So in K', we get that t2' = (c - v)/c t = (c + v)/c t. So the clock in K' must be both faster and slower than the clock in K in order for both light beams to keep the speed of light.

 

You keep only considering one light beam at a time. I'm asking you to consider both at the same time.

 

ETA: I have corrected a sign error that I made; I apologize for that. It doesn't affect the outcome, however (since it basically switched v and -v).

=Uncool-

Edited October 16, 2013 by uncool

[rbwinn]

Klaynos

 

My predictions are not vague either. I gave an equation to show the difference in time. If scientists are pressed on this, they bring in gravitation, temperature effects, drift, etc., as was done in one of the preceeding posts, and some will state that a GPS satellite has a faster time than a clock on earth. I have no idea whether a GPS satellite has a faster or slower time. The equations I have agree with the ones Einstein had for special relativity, which Einstein described as relativity without gravitation, to several decimal places, so I am not all that concerned that I am saying anything Einstein did not say with Special Relativity, other than that he had a length contraction and I do not.

If you say that I have not done the simple model experiment requested, then I have no idea what you are requesting. I showed that the Galilean transformation equations predict a slower time in the moving frame of reference. I showed that an observer using a clock in K' would get a faster speed between frames of reference than an observer in K using a clock in K, which agrees with experiment, while the scientific result of both observers getting the same speed does not agree with experiment. So, I do not know what else you want to know. Maybe if you were more specific, I could help you.

uncool

 

Yes, that is what the equations show. In order for light to be traveling at c in both frames of reference, there have to be both faster and slower clocks in K and K'. The Lorentz equations have this same problem.

So I have abandoned all scientific ideas concerning transmission of light and just describe relativity, which I do by using the Galilean transformation equations twice, showing two different rates of time.

[John Cuthber]

I have no idea whether a GPS satellite has a faster or slower time.

 

So what?

The people who built them knew. They had to build them specially to count at the "wrong " rate so they would stay in step with clocks based on the Earth.

And they could do that because GR works.

 

If the engineers who built the GPS had followed your ideas would they have built the clocks to run at the same rate as they do on Earth?

If they had done so the system would fail.

Edited October 16, 2013 by John Cuthber

[uncool]

uncool

 

Yes, that is what the equations show. In order for light to be traveling at c in both frames of reference, there have to be both faster and slower clocks in K and K'. The Lorentz equations have this same problem.

No, they don't, because with Lorentz equations you don't have to say that one clock is absolutely faster than another. You are assuming that there is an absolute standard of faster and slower clocks, which is almost exactly what Einstein was pointing out that you cannot do.

So I have abandoned all scientific ideas concerning transmission of light and just describe relativity, which I do by using the Galilean transformation equations twice, showing two different rates of time.

So you're saying that you've abandoned the idea that the speed of light can be invariant and isotropic? That is, that it must be the same in all directions in all frames? Because if you have, then that's an easy thing to test - and we have tested it. And the evidence points towards it being true.

=Uncool-

Edited October 16, 2013 by uncool

[rbwinn]

John Cuthber

 

No, if they used the equations I use, they would make them to be slower by about the same amount the Lorentz equations show for that velocity, the same to several decimal places. My difference in times would be t2'=(t-vt/c). The Lorentz equations difference would be t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). My difference in times is slightly slower than the Lorentz difference in times at that speed, but not enough to be considered consequential.

The scientists who built the system knew from experiment the rate of the clocks compared to rates of clocks on earth. All I know is the incorrect information scientists give out. But I do know this: It does not matter what the rates of the clocks are, slow or fast. The Galilean transformation equations can describe those rates perfectly using them once for each rate of time.

[John Cuthber]

" My difference in times is slightly slower than the Lorentz difference in times at that speed, but not enough to be considered consequential.

How much

"The scientists who built the system knew from experiment the rate of the clocks compared to rates of clocks on earth."

How exactly, do you think they sent clocks into space or do you think they calculated the values?

The point is that it doesn't matter.

If they sent clocks into space and those gave the results predicted by GR then they demonstrated that GR gives the right answer.

On the other hand, if the calculated the rate and then launched the clocks they validated GR anyway.

 

This

All I know is the incorrect information scientists give out. "

simply doesn't make sense.

 

" It does not matter what the rates of the clocks are, slow or fast. The Galilean transformation equations can describe those rates perfectly using them once for each rate of time. "

​Please show your working, rather than (as you have kept doing t) claiming it without any evidence.throughout this thread.

 

Show me the numbers.

Show me the numbers that work better than GR for this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

Show me the numbers that work better than GR for all of these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

 

Show me why your method gives the right answer and GR doesn't.

 

Or stop wasting everyone's time.

[rbwinn]

uncool

 

I have abandoned the idea that scientists can explain the speed of light. Whether you use my equation for t2' or the Lorentz equation for t', which is the same equation with a length contraction, a light beam directed in the -x direction takes a longer time in K' to get to a set of coordinates than it does in K. That means, taking two events associated with the light beam, time is slower in K than in K'. So the Lorentz equations may be showing light traveling at c in all frames of reference, but they are flipping frames of reference to do it, depending on the direction of the light ray. So I just go with experiment. A clock in K' shows less time than a clock in K.

My own theory is that light is energy that reacts with the elements in a frame of reference at a rate of c. So whether an interferometer is moving or standing still, it shows light to be traveling at c.

[John Cuthber]

" My own theory is that light is energy that..."

Fine.

Use that theory (Strictly, it's a hypothesis, but... whatever) to calculate the expected outcomes of the experiments I have cited.

Let us know if your theory gives better predictions than GR.

Or stop wasting everyone's time.

[uncool]

uncool

 

I have abandoned the idea that scientists can explain the speed of light. Whether you use my equation for t2' or the Lorentz equation for t', which is the same equation with a length contraction,

Except that it still isn't. The Lorentz equations are the following:

 

x' = \gamma (x - vt)

y' = y

z' = z

t' = \gamma (t - v/c^2 x)

 

if I haven't made a mistake. It includes time dilation and "shear" in x (i.e. the part with x - vt), which are what yours feature, but also includes length contraction and dependence of t' on x. All of these are necessary, and you have forgotten the last one. This is, in fact, the "fix" that I mentioned before.

a light beam directed in the -x direction takes a longer time in K' to get to a set of coordinates than it does in K. That means, taking two events associated with the light beam, time is slower in K than in K'.

Not true. Once again, the Lorentz equations don't have an absolute ordering on how "fast" clocks are.

So the Lorentz equations may be showing light traveling at c in all frames of reference, but they are flipping frames of reference to do it, depending on the direction of the light ray.

No, they are not. Anything that is moving at the speed of light relative to K will be moving at the speed of light relative to K'. K' is one frame of reference, period.

So I just go with experiment. A clock in K' shows less time than a clock in K.

So you are once again violating the principle of relativity itself - the foundation of Galilean relativity.

My own theory is that light is energy that reacts with the elements in a frame of reference at a rate of c. So whether an interferometer is moving or standing still, it shows light to be traveling at c.

So your idea - not theory; that has a specific meaning in science - is that light "reacts at c" relative to every frame, basically? Because that's effectively the same as the premise for relativity that I've stated repeatedly.

=Uncool-

Edited October 16, 2013 by uncool

[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.

 

 

The "Galilean transformation equations as I use them" are not the Galilean transformations. AFAICT you are using a mishmash of Galilean and Lorentz transforms to get the answer you want. In a properly done Galilean transform, the clocks agree in both frames. Galilean transforms are inconsistent with an invariant, finite speed of light (but this only becomes obvious when v is an appreciable fraction of c)

 

Secondly, GPS is adjusted continually.

 

It is? Do tell.

 

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".

When I first studied relativity, neither did I. I was paying college tuition. And I didn't have the benefit of an internet where I could learn things for free. But neither did I go around insisting I was right with no basis for doing so.

 

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.

I refer you to my previous comments. t is the time in the K frame of reference. t' is the time in the K' frame (much the same as y=y' and z=z', because they are co-located). In Galilean transforms, the times are equal. IOW, the two observers agree on the time. (If you want to make some headway, you can't insist at this point that you are doing it correctly. That would be the opposite of headway.)

 

Assume Waldo is our observer at the origin of the K' frame. In the Galilean transform, x' = x-vt, meaning we can answer the question "Where's Waldo" after some time t. We know he's at x'=0 (though we could have chosen an arbitrary value). Pop that into the equation, and we get x = vt, giving us his position in the frame K. Which should be intuitive — they started with co-located origins, and went a distance vt. If you reverse this, you have the same distance and same speed, so you must have the same time observed in K'. There is no time dilation. There can't be. The transforms have to work in both directions.

[uncool]

The "Galilean transformation equations as I use them" are not the Galilean transformations. AFAICT you are using a mishmash of Galilean and Lorentz transforms to get the answer you want. In a properly done Galilean transform, the clocks agree in both frames. Galilean transforms are inconsistent with an invariant, finite speed of light (but this only becomes obvious when v is an appreciable fraction of c)

I agree with the statement as stated. However, rbwinn seems to be using (in effect) a generalization of the Galilean transform that includes arbitrary time dilation; this group is not inconsistent with an invariant, finite speed of light in a particular direction. It is, however, inconsistent with an invariant, isotropic, finite speed of light (as I have been pointing out), which is not true for the Lorentz transform.

=Uncool-

Edited October 16, 2013 by uncool

[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.

Why do GPS receivers go to all the trouble of using the complex math of GR if it isn't necessary? I'm sure the designers would love to use cheaper processors and/or get a faster result by using your simple arithmetic. If it worked.

[rbwinn]

Anyone is free to use the Galilean transformation equations. They are public domain.

uncool

 

And I have shown several times that the Lorentz equations have exactly the same flipping of frames of reference mine have with regard to a light ray going in the -x direction. That is why I do not regard the equation for time as much more than an estimate and have the same kind of belief about the Lorentz equations.

swansont

 

I do not believe in absolute time. The Galilean transformation will work for any rate of time measured in any way. The only restriction the Galilean transformation equations have is that you have to use the same measurement of time in both frames of reference. So if you have different rates of time in K and K', you cannot set them equal to each other in the Galilean transformation equations. But there is no restriction on what the two observers can agree to use as time. They can use the rotation of one of Saturn's moons, they can use the orbit of the planet Mercury, they can use the rotation of the sun, they can use transitions of a cesium isotope atom. What they cannot do is use the transitions of two different cesium isotope atoms oscillating at different rates.

John Cuthber

Well, yes, my theory does give better answers than GR. GR assumes that the speed calculated from one frame of reference is the same as the speed calculated from the other frame of reference. Reality shows us that if a clock in one frame of reference is slower that the clock in the other frame of reference, then an observer using that clock will get a faster speed between frames of reference than an observer using a faster clock. As for these experiments you want me to look up, why don't you just give a brief description of them, and I will give my opinion. I don't have all day to do this the way scientists do. I have to work during the day.

[uncool]

Anyone is free to use the Galilean transformation equations. They are public domain.

This doesn't seem to respond to anything anyone has said. The closest I can see is what swansont has said with 'The "Galilean transformation equations as I use them" are not the Galilean transformations. ' And your response has nothing to do with that; his point is that what you are calling the "Galilean transformation equations as I used them" are not the actual Galilean transformations.

uncool

 

And I have shown several times that the Lorentz equations have exactly the same flipping of frames of reference mine have with regard to a light ray going in the -x direction. That is why I do not regard the equation for time as much more than an estimate and have the same kind of belief about the Lorentz equations.

What do you mean by "flipping of frames of reference"? The objection that I have stated is that the speed of light is not isotropic except in at most one frame, if your idea is correct, which is absolutely not true for the Lorentz transform. The speed of light is isotropic in every frame when using the Lorentz transform. If you are stating that either part of what I have said is false, please demonstrate it; if you are saying something else, please try to explain what you are saying in a different way, since "flipping of frames of reference" doesn't mean anything to me.

=Uncool-

[John Cuthber]

Anyone is free to use the Galilean transformation equations. They are public domain.

 

John Cuthber

Well, yes, my theory does give better answers than GR. GR assumes that the speed calculated from one frame of reference is the same as the speed calculated from the other frame of reference. Reality shows us that if a clock in one frame of reference is slower that the clock in the other frame of reference, then an observer using that clock will get a faster speed between frames of reference than an observer using a faster clock. As for these experiments you want me to look up, why don't you just give a brief description of them, and I will give my opinion. I don't have all day to do this the way scientists do. I have to work during the day.

Use them and show us the numbers.

Show us these "better answers"

Incidentally, it may surprise you to realise that scientists have to work too.

I'm typing this just before 7 a.m. before I go and catch a bus to work.

If you find time to reply I will get to see it it in about eleven and a half hours when I get back home.

Edited October 17, 2013 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

 

 

I do not believe in absolute time. The Galilean transformation will work for any rate of time measured in any way. The only restriction the Galilean transformation equations have is that you have to use the same measurement of time in both frames of reference. So if you have different rates of time in K and K', you cannot set them equal to each other in the Galilean transformation equations. But there is no restriction on what the two observers can agree to use as time. They can use the rotation of one of Saturn's moons, they can use the orbit of the planet Mercury, they can use the rotation of the sun, they can use transitions of a cesium isotope atom. What they cannot do is use the transitions of two different cesium isotope atoms oscillating at different rates.

 

Galilean transforms are inconsistent with different rates of time. By their very nature, the Galilean transforms demand the same time in all frames. That's what they predict. t = t' . So if you have different rates of time, it is wrong to use Galilean transforms. If you "rig" them for different rates of time, you are no longer using Galilean transforms, you are using something else.

 

IOW, Galilean transforms do not predict what we observe in nature.

[rbwinn]

uncool

 

Your idea is that by making the time of a slower clock in K a time coordinate, you solve the problem of a light ray directed in the negative direction requiring a faster clock in K'. It does not get the job done. In fact, a length contraction makes the problem worse. To see whether or not I am right, start the light beam at (0,0) in K and (0,0) in K' and send it to one light sec in K in one sec. It will go a longer distance in K' in a longer time. If sent in the +x direction, it will go a shorter distance in less time. So I have to regard the Lorentz equations an insufficient explanation of relativity along with GR, whatever their success may have been in experiments. Contracting lengths does nothing to solve the problem in the negative direction. The Lorentz equations as transformation equations are no better than the Galilean transformation equations with regard to isotropy and have the added problem of a length contraction.

As far as your concern about the coordinate x, the planet Mercury is the fastest moving thing with regard to solar system astronomy, which was what I was using in my thought process. The Galilean transformation equations have the same times at all coordinates in K and K'. I never regarded t2' as anything but an estimate. Perhaps the Lorentz equation does give a more accurate time, but it agrees with t2' in my equations to about six decimal places at the speed of Mercury, so I figured it was close enough in computing orbits of planets. The difference between scientists and me is that I do not claim to have explained all things in the universe. I just explained a few things that I could see wrong with what scientists were saying.

John Cuthber

 

Well, I post this over an over again, but scientists never seem to grasp it. Supose that there is an astronaut in orbit around the earth. The astronaut has a clock in his satellite that is slower than a clock on earth. Most scientists seem to agree with this except for some who will say his clock will be faster. At any rate, his clock shows a different time for an orbit than a clock on earth. So a scientist on earth times an orbit of the satellite and computes its speed. Then the astronaut is told, calculate your speed using your clock.

The astronaut has a means of determining the radius of his orbit. I used to work on radar in the Navy. This can be done by radar or by other means. It is possible. Once the radius of orbit is known, the circumference of the orbit can be determined.

So what do you think the result of this experiment is going to be, the astronaut is going to get the same speed for his orbit as the scientist on the ground gets?

That is what the Lorentz equations and General Relativity say. I say that if the astronaut's clock is slower, he will get a faster speed of orbit.

So using Isaac Newton's equations for orbits, I started figuring orbits using differences in rates of time, using the Galilean transformation equations instead of the length contraction equations that scientists use. For the solar system, then, the sun would have the fastest time, Mercury would have the slowest, and time of each planet would increase until the outer planets would have clocks that agreed more closely with sun time.

You may not like my experiments, but they are what is available to me and were what interested me at the time.

swansont

 

The Galilean transformation equations predict what I observe in nature. As I said before, I use the solar system to prove what I say. The sun has the fastest rate of time because it is at rest relative to the solar system. Mercury has the slowest rate of time because it orbits the fastest. Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but it has the time in our solar system that most agrees with sun time because it is the object in orbit around the sun that is moving the slowest, other than comets, etc. I use the Galilean transformation equations to compute all of these times because the Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction.

As I told one other scientist, the Galilean transformation equations are public domain. If there were any scientists on earth who wanted to use them, they are free to do it. The problem I see is that I am the only person on earth using them, and I am not a scientist. So I have to believe we are in for a couple more centuries of the same kind of scientific extremism.

[swansont]

swansont

 

The Galilean transformation equations predict what I observe in nature.

 

 

No, they don't. Without assuming the answer, can you use the Galilean transforms to predict that a moving clock runs slow? (hint: the answer is no)

 

IOW, find what time the moving clock will display at time t using only these four equations

 

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

The clocks in K and K' run at equal rates when at rest with respect to each other, and synchronized at the co-located origins of the reference frames. There are no other assumptions allowed.

As I said before, I use the solar system to prove what I say. The sun has the fastest rate of time because it is at rest relative to the solar system. Mercury has the slowest rate of time because it orbits the fastest. Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but it has the time in our solar system that most agrees with sun time because it is the object in orbit around the sun that is moving the slowest, other than comets, etc. I use the Galilean transformation equations to compute all of these times because the Galilean transformation equations do not have a length contraction.

They don't have time dilation, either.

 

As I told one other scientist, the Galilean transformation equations are public domain. If there were any scientists on earth who wanted to use them, they are free to do it. The problem I see is that I am the only person on earth using them, and I am not a scientist. So I have to believe we are in for a couple more centuries of the same kind of scientific extremism.

The equations being in the public domain isn't the issue, and I can't fathom the illogic that would lead one to think that it is. You are making claims about (and with) the Galilean transforms that aren't true.

[Endy0816]

the Lorentz equation does give a more accurate time

 

 

This is absolutely correct. As you are now on record for stating this we can stop debating the matter.

 

Galilean transforms stopped being used because they didn't accurately describe reality. That's it. No grand conspiracy, they just didn't work at the observed speeds.

[uncool]

uncool

 

Your idea is that by making the time of a slower clock in K a time coordinate, you solve the problem of a light ray directed in the negative direction requiring a faster clock in K'. It does not get the job done.

I want to make sure that I understand before I go on; please answer yes or no to the following question. Are you claiming that my statement that " The speed of light is isotropic in every frame when using the Lorentz transform. " is false?

In fact, a length contraction makes the problem worse. To see whether or not I am right, start the light beam at (0,0) in K and (0,0) in K' and send it to one light sec in K in one sec. It will go a longer distance in K' in a longer time. If sent in the +x direction, it will go a shorter distance in less time.

Which is precisely what the Lorentz equations predict, as I can show (if you want). Do you want me to do so?

So I have to regard the Lorentz equations an insufficient explanation of relativity along with GR, whatever their success may have been in experiments. Contracting lengths does nothing to solve the problem in the negative direction. The Lorentz equations as transformation equations are no better than the Galilean transformation equations with regard to isotropy and have the added problem of a length contraction.

As I've said, there is another part that is important - the mixing of time and space. Namely, t' is not equal to \gamma t, but \gamma (t - v/c^2 x). As I've said before, you can't simply drop terms because you don't like them.

As far as your concern about the coordinate x,

What concern? Again, which part of which post here are you responding to? This is why I've asked you to use the quote button.

=Uncool-

[Greg H.]

So I have to regard the Lorentz equations an insufficient explanation of relativity along with GR, whatever their success may have been in experiments.

So basically, what you're saying is that if the obtained experimental results don't match your theory, it's the experiment that's wrong. Check my signature. I have a feeling it applies.

 

The difference between scientists and me is that I do not claim to have explained all things in the universe.

No serious scientist would ever make a claim like this - even within their own narrow subset of overall science.

 

You know who does? Dogmatists and religious shills with an agenda to push.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Greg H.

[rbwinn]

swansont

 

It is not a question of predicting anything. If scientists say that a clock in K' has a different rate than a clock in K, then how do you use the Galilean transformation equations to show the time of the clock in K'? Clocks can have different rates of time. It happens all the time. I went to Walgreen's drug store and bought a clock that lost ten minutes every day. Are you saying that the Galilean transformation equations cannot describe what my Walgreen's alarm clock says?

I would just use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for a GPS clock that scientists would agree with and once for my Walgreen's alarm clock, which is fairly useless except to show what a person using it would perceive if they did not know it was slow. For example, if they had the slow clock in a car and used milage markers and the slow clock to determine the speed of the car, they would get too fast a speed.

Scientists were the people who said they had a slow clock in frame of reference K'. Whether they were lying, misinterpreted something, or actually had a slower clock, I have to decide. Since they seem to be consistent about this, I have to assume there is a slower clock. So I just apply the Galilean transformation equations the same way I would with any other slow clock. This does not break any laws of physics or mathematics as you claim it does. It just compares the rate of a slow clock to distances.

Your claim is that this cannot be done. My claim is that I did it and will continue to do it.

You say I am making claims about the Galilean transformation equations that are not true. What are the claims I am making that are not true?

Greg H

 

Well, all experimental results will match my theory because it does nothing but apply the results of experiments scientists say they have already made. I can predict what a moving clock will read by saying x=ct and x'=c(t2') and substituting those two values into the Galilean transformation equations to get the difference between the two times, but I do not say that it is more than an estimate. For values at the velocities I was considering, planets in the solar system, that substitution produced answers that agreed with the Lorentz equations to several decimal places, so I was not too concerned about their accuracy at that point. What I was trying to do was to find a way to use Isaac Newton's equations for orbits of planets with the different times Einstein's theory predicted. All my equations do is show the differences in rates of time, regardless of what the rates are. So if we are comparing rates of rotation of two planets and saying that one rotation of a planet is a day, then we would use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time. Where scientists and I differ is that I do the same thing with scientific time. I say that if transitions of a cesium isotope atom are slower in K' than transitions of a cesium isotope atom in K, then there are two different rates of time, just like with the rotations of two different planets, and so I apply the Galilean transformation equations twice, just as I did with the two planets.

It is really nothing to argue about. Scientists have convinced me that they are not going to use the Galilean transformation equations in any circumstances. I can understand that. Einstein's theory was the greatest cash cow for scientists that ever came along. I would not really imagine that scientists are going to abandon something like that or even consider something a high school graduate was doing. You say you are turning science into a religion and are going to enforce dogma. I can see that is true. However, consider what is going to happen. Enforcement of scientific dogma only causes people to want to experiment, just as people did when Copernicus decided that the planets were orbiting the sun. Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest because he said that the earth rotated on its axis. Fortunately for us today, we are allowed freedom of religion, so we don't have to follow the teachings of yours.

I want to make sure that I understand before I go on; please answer yes or no to the following question. Are you claiming that my statement that " The speed of light is isotropic in every frame when using the Lorentz transform. " is false?
Which is precisely what the Lorentz equations predict, as I can show (if you want). Do you want me to do so?
As I've said, there is another part that is important - the mixing of time and space. Namely, t' is not equal to \gamma t, but \gamma (t - v/c^2 x). As I've said before, you can't simply drop terms because you don't like them.
What concern? Again, which part of which post here are you responding to? This is why I've asked you to use the quote button.
=Uncool-

Well, I guess you have enough concerns about this to use the quote button this time. I already showed that if the speed of light is c in both frames of reference for a light ray in the -x direction, then the Lorentz equations require a faster clock in K' instead of a slower one. If you think you can show something else, go ahead and try. t' in the Lorentz transformation equations is equal to t'=(t-vx/c^2)gamma. I don't recall saying anything different.

[uncool]

 

I want to make sure that I understand before I go on; please answer yes or no to the following question. Are you claiming that my statement that " The speed of light is isotropic in every frame when using the Lorentz transform. " is false?

Which is precisely what the Lorentz equations predict, as I can show (if you want). Do you want me to do so?

As I've said, there is another part that is important - the mixing of time and space. Namely, t' is not equal to \gamma t, but \gamma (t - v/c^2 x). As I've said before, you can't simply drop terms because you don't like them.

What concern? Again, which part of which post here are you responding to? This is why I've asked you to use the quote button.

=Uncool-

Well, I guess you have enough concerns about this to use the quote button this time. I already showed that if the speed of light is c in both frames of reference for a light ray in the -x direction, then the Lorentz equations require a faster clock in K' instead of a slower one. If you think you can show something else, go ahead and try. t' in the Lorentz transformation equations is equal to t'=(t-vx/c^2)gamma. I don't recall saying anything different.

 

And as I've already explained, the clocks for the Lorentz transformation aren't "faster" or "slower" than each other - that's a comparison that simply makes no sense. Which is why I asked you a question that didn't involve "faster" or "slower". Would you mind simply answering the yes or no question, namely: Are you claiming that my statement that " The speed of light is isotropic in every frame when using the Lorentz transform. " is false?

=Uncool-

[swansont]

swansont

 

It is not a question of predicting anything.

You could not be more wrong. Being able to predict results is a fundamental aspect of any scientific theory.

 

 

 

If scientists say that a clock in K' has a different rate than a clock in K, then how do you use the Galilean transformation equations to show the time of the clock in K'?

You don't. The Galilean transforms do not match up with nature except as an approximation for small values of v, thus they are not part of any valid theory of relativity.

 

Clocks can have different rates of time. It happens all the time. I went to Walgreen's drug store and bought a clock that lost ten minutes every day. Are you saying that the Galilean transformation equations cannot describe what my Walgreen's alarm clock says?

No, I'm talking about good clocks that have fractional frequency stabilities of (at a minimum) parts in a trillion or better. Gaining or losing a second in a day is about a part in 100,000, so we're discussing clocks that at the very least are more ten million times better than even that. (the best atomic clocks are a thousand times or so even better than this value)

 

I would just use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for a GPS clock that scientists would agree with and once for my Walgreen's alarm clock, which is fairly useless except to show what a person using it would perceive if they did not know it was slow. For example, if they had the slow clock in a car and used milage markers and the slow clock to determine the speed of the car, they would get too fast a speed.

Scientists were the people who said they had a slow clock in frame of reference K'. Whether they were lying, misinterpreted something, or actually had a slower clock, I have to decide. Since they seem to be consistent about this, I have to assume there is a slower clock. So I just apply the Galilean transformation equations the same way I would with any other slow clock. This does not break any laws of physics or mathematics as you claim it does. It just compares the rate of a slow clock to distances.

Your claim is that this cannot be done. My claim is that I did it and will continue to do it.

You say I am making claims about the Galilean transformation equations that are not true. What are the claims I am making that are not true?

The part that's not true is that you are using Galilean transforms (with the implication that you are doing the math correctly) to do anything. You aren't. Galilean transforms have no way to account for time dilation. It's not part of the math. To get anything other that t = t' means you are fudging the math.

 

Einstein's theory was the greatest cash cow for scientists that ever came along.

 

How is it that the technology based on it actually works? That's the ultimate proof.