Galilean transformation equations and relativity.

[rbwinn]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Well, I predicted that two different rates of time could be accounted for without a length contraction, which turned out to be true. As I understand it you are saying that all time has to be referenced to your cesium clocks. You sound a little proud of your clocks. Out here in reality, we do not even have any of your cesium clocks. For instance, a prisoner in a jail cell might tell time by the position of the reflection of the sun on his wall. The Galilean transformation equations are public domain. We common people can use them however we choose.

We can also notice that if one of your cesium clocks is moving, it has a different rate of time than a cesium clock that is not moving. I account for that by using the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time. That is the mathematically correct way to do it. You can complain about it all you want to. I will still keep using the Galilean transformation equations. As I said before, there is nothing you can do about it. The Galilean transformation equations are public domain.

 

 

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-

Well, in experiments they are faster or slower, starting with cesium clocks transported by propeller airplanes on transcontinental flights. The Lorentz equations show that light is traveling at c in all frames of reference. If that is what you mean by isotropic, then the equations are isotropic. The problem I see with them is that it is physically impossible for a clock in K' to be both slower and faster than a clock in K.

[John Cuthber]

 

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.

 

Exactly which part of "show me the numbers" did you not understand?

[rbwinn]

 

 

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.

Well, I did not stop using the Galilean transformation equations just because scientists did. At any rate, all I do is use the Galilean transformation equations to show different rates of time. For instance, if a clock in K' is slower than a clock in K, then I just use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time.

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t'=t means that the time of a clock in K is being used as the time of the equations. The time of a slower clock in K' does not pertain to this set of transforms. Now we use the Galilean transformation equations with the time of the slower clock in K'. We call the time of the slower clock t2' because t' was already defined to be t'=t, the time of the clock in K.

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2'

 

t2= t2' means that the time of the slower clock in K' is being used for the time of the equations. The time of the clock at rest in K does not pertain to this transform.

[uncool]

Well, in experiments they are faster or slower, starting with cesium clocks transported by propeller airplanes on transcontinental flights.

Not quite. What it shows is that less time has elapsed on this flight. In other words, the clock that was on a plane (call it plane 1) measured this trip in a "slower" way. It would have measured a different trip in a different way, that is, the clock on plane 1 would have measured the rate of speed of a clock on another plane, say plane 2, in a different way, possibly faster. As I've said, position dependence of time is important here. That's what relativity of simultaneity is all about.

As I have said, the Lorentz equations don't have one clock being "both slower and faster" than another clock, what it has is one clock being neither slower nor faster than another clock. And that is not a physical impossibility.

 

The dependence of t' on x is of extreme importance. It implies that at some positions, you will have t' > t, and at others t' < t. And there is no reason for that to be a physical impossibility, but it does contradict your version of Galilean relativity.

=Uncool-

[rbwinn]

Exactly which part of "show me the numbers" did you not understand?

If you are the great scientist you claim to be, you can figure the numbers out for yourself. I know scientists of today like to have someone hold their little hands and give them money every time they do something. I provided the equations. If you do not like them, show the numbers that prove they are wrong.

[Greg H.]

If you are the great scientist you claim to be, you can figure the numbers out for yourself. I know scientists of today like to have someone hold their little hands and give them money every time they do something. I provided the equations. If you do not like them, show the numbers that prove they are wrong.

Unfortunately, that's not how science, or this forum, works. Also, stop with the insults and the snide remarks. They fail to do anything but make you look childish.

 

Numerous members of the forums have provided reasoned arguments, backed up with experimental evidence, illustrating why you're wrong. They have also called for evidence on your part, which you are obliged to provide by the rules of the speculations forum. Please provide the calculations as requested, along with clear illuminations of what your variables are supposed to represent, and for the love of God lose the belligerent "Science is against me" tone of your posts.

[rbwinn]

Not quite. What it shows is that less time has elapsed on this flight. In other words, the clock that was on a plane (call it plane 1) measured this trip in a "slower" way. It would have measured a different trip in a different way, that is, the clock on plane 1 would have measured the rate of speed of a clock on another plane, say plane 2, in a different way, possibly faster. As I've said, position dependence of time is important here. That's what relativity of simultaneity is all about.

As I have said, the Lorentz equations don't have one clock being "both slower and faster" than another clock, what it has is one clock being neither slower nor faster than another clock. And that is not a physical impossibility.

 

The dependence of t' on x is of extreme importance. It implies that at some positions, you will have t' > t, and at others t' < t. And there is no reason for that to be a physical impossibility, but it does contradict your version of Galilean relativity.

=Uncool-

No, I don't believe your assessment of the experiments. They were always reported as being that the moving clock was slower, which proved Einstein's theory. I think that was what happened. The clocks on the planes showed less time than clocks kept on the ground. In any event, I don't get all excited by what scientists say about it. They were trying to match up Einstein's theory with experiments and did whatever it took to say the experiments matched. The way I use the Galilean transformation equations does not make any predictions about times. All it does is uses the Galilean transformation equations with every rate of time separately.

So here is the experiment you need to run with the Lorentz equations. K' is moving with velocity v relative to K in the +x direction. When the origins of K and K' coincide, light is emitted at the origins. In the +x direction, the light reaches x=1 light sec in one second in K and x'=(1-v)gamma light sec in t'=(1-v)gamma sec. In the -x direction light reaches x=-1 light sec in 1 sec. and

x'=(-1-v)gamma light sec in t'=(1+v)gamma sec. There is no other way I see to interpret it than that there is a faster clock in K' because the light travels farther in more time than in K.

[John Cuthber]

If you are the great scientist you claim to be, you can figure the numbers out for yourself. I know scientists of today like to have someone hold their little hands and give them money every time they do something. I provided the equations. If you do not like them, show the numbers that prove they are wrong.

Only one of us is claiming to be a "great scientist" and it isn't me.

So, once again, show me the numbers.

[uncool]

Only one of us is claiming to be a "great scientist" and it isn't me.

So, once again, show me the numbers.

To be fair, he isn't claiming to be a "great scientist"; he apparently thinks that scientists are frauds.

No, I don't believe your assessment of the experiments.

You can feel free to use the Lorentz equations to determine that what I am saying is correct.

They were always reported as being that the moving clock was slower, which proved Einstein's theory.

You may be interested in the fact that scientific reporting is very poor. A better way to say it would be that the moving clock was slower relative to the frame of the Earth. Which is what relativity predicts.

I think that was what happened. The clocks on the planes showed less time than clocks kept on the ground. In any event, I don't get all excited by what scientists say about it. They were trying to match up Einstein's theory with experiments and did whatever it took to say the experiments matched.

That is an accusation of fraud that you really need to have a lot of evidence to show. You are accusing scientists of effectively making up data, which is one of the most heinous things you can do as a scientist; scientists are trained from the start to avoid it, and with an experiment this high-level, there is a huge amount of intense scrutiny involved.

The way I use the Galilean transformation equations does not make any predictions about times. All it does is uses the Galilean transformation equations with every rate of time separately.

But it does make further predictions - namely, that the speed of light is not isotropic relative to every frame. Which has been experimentally tested.

So here is the experiment you need to run with the Lorentz equations. K' is moving with velocity v relative to K in the +x direction. When the origins of K and K' coincide, light is emitted at the origins. In the +x direction, the light reaches x=1 light sec in one second in K and x'=(1-v)gamma light sec in t'=(1-v)gamma sec. In the -x direction light reaches x=-1 light sec in 1 sec. and

x'=(-1-v)gamma light sec in t'=(1+v)gamma sec. There is no other way I see to interpret it than that there is a faster clock in K' because the light travels farther in more time than in K.

But as you've already said yourself - light travels both farther in more time (in the -x direction) and shorter in less time (in the +x direction), which means that the clock is neither faster nor slower. You are requiring relativity to follow a rule that it explicitly not only lacks, but violates. In other words, you are still setting up a strawman version of relativity.

 

Once again, special relativity says that clocks that are moving at different velocities are neither "faster" nor "slower" than each other. This is a part of what is meant by the relativity of simultaneity. By requiring that there be a "faster" and "slower", you are adding in a contradiction to relativity that doesn't exist without your additional assumption.

=Uncool-

Edited October 17, 2013 by uncool

[rbwinn]

Unfortunately, that's not how science, or this forum, works. Also, stop with the insults and the snide remarks. They fail to do anything but make you look childish.

 

Numerous members of the forums have provided reasoned arguments, backed up with experimental evidence, illustrating why you're wrong. They have also called for evidence on your part, which you are obliged to provide by the rules of the speculations forum. Please provide the calculations as requested, along with clear illuminations of what your variables are supposed to represent, and for the love of God lose the belligerent "Science is against me" tone of your posts.

I thought you said you did not believe in God. Science is for scientists just the same way law is for lawyers. I would not hire a lawyer for anything. Why should I treat scientists any different? I already told you that I have to work and do not have unlimited time like scientists do to post to this forum. So I have to make an assessment before I post, Do I want to go into some long involved discussion of what the Galilean transformation equations say when scientists from first to last have already said they do not understand them?

I do not see it as a profitable method of discussion. This is a more difficult situation than Copernicus faced when he dared to oppose Ptolemaic astronomy, and it was difficult enough for Copernicus that he did not have his ideas published until after he died. The situation is different today. Scientists have used Einstein's theory as a cash cow for more than a hundred years. What scientist of today would dare to speak out against money being given by governments to scientists for "research"? Any scientist who dared to do that would be run out of science. Where would a scientist like that get a job?

So scientists are the opposition to truth today, not state religions as was the case back in the time of Copernicus. Scientists of that time kept using Ptoleaic astronomy after it had been proven wrong because they were afraid of persecution from state religions. Galileo spent his last years under house arrest because he said that the earth rotated on its axis. Scientists of today are afraid of peer pressure, the opinions of other scientists, who have all said that use of the Galilean transformation equations without absolute time and their super accurate cesium clocks is prohibited. Since I am not a scientist, I just go ahead and use the Galilean transformation equations because they are the correct equations to represent relativity. There is no requirement for me to please scientists. All I need to do is get the mathematics right.

Only one of us is claiming to be a "great scientist" and it isn't me.

So, once again, show me the numbers.

Well, OK, tell me what you want me to figure out, and I will do it. I am not going to go on fool's errands all over the internet. If you want me to explain something, post it here, and I will do it.

[uncool]

I thought you said you did not believe in God. Science is for scientists just the same way law is for lawyers. I would not hire a lawyer for anything. Why should I treat scientists any different? I already told you that I have to work and do not have unlimited time like scientists do to post to this forum.

And as others have told you, that is a falsehood about scientists. You have a very, very distorted view of science and scientists.

So I have to make an assessment before I post, Do I want to go into some long involved discussion of what the Galilean transformation equations say when scientists from first to last have already said they do not understand them?

No, they have not. They have disputed your beliefs about the Galilean transforms. That is not the same thing, and goes to illustrate the distortion I mentioned earlier.

I do not see it as a profitable method of discussion.

Then don't discuss it. That's your problem, not one for scientists.

This is a more difficult situation than Copernicus faced when he dared to oppose Ptolemaic astronomy, and it was difficult enough for Copernicus that he did not have his ideas published until after he died. The situation is different today. Scientists have used Einstein's theory as a cash cow for more than a hundred years. What scientist of today would dare to speak out against money being given by governments to scientists for "research"? Any scientist who dared to do that would be run out of science. Where would a scientist like that get a job?

Do you want me to make a list? I'll start with the neutrino scientists at OPERA, who within the past 3 years published a paper that demonstrated results that seemed to dispute relativity. In science, things that conflict with the mainstream are much more likely to get money - as long as they are done correctly.

So scientists are the opposition to truth today,

This doesn't follow from the above. It also is blatantly false and defamatory.

not state religions as was the case back in the time of Copernicus. Scientists of that time kept using Ptoleaic astronomy after it had been proven wrong because they were afraid of persecution from state religions. Galileo spent his last years under house arrest because he said that the earth rotated on its axis. Scientists of today are afraid of peer pressure, the opinions of other scientists, who have all said that use of the Galilean transformation equations without absolute time and their super accurate cesium clocks is prohibited.

There are plenty of scientists who still use the Galilean transforms. Just not in the realm of high speeds, where special relativity is much closer. As you've been told, it's not prohibited - it's just incorrect when dealing with high speeds (and no, 30 mi/s is not a high speed). Yet another example of distortion.

Since I am not a scientist, I just go ahead and use the Galilean transformation equations because they are the correct equations to represent relativity. There is no requirement for me to please scientists. All I need to do is get the mathematics right.

And to match the experiments. Which, as you've repeatedly be shown, you don't do.

=Uncool-

[Bignose]

What scientist of today would dare to speak out

let me correct that for you.

 

What scientist of today would dare speak out without evidence... ? None

 

What scientist of today would dare speak out with evidence... ? Damn near every one. Because if a scientist had evidence that their idea was better, they would be incredibly well respected.

 

You may not realize it, but most scientists go into science to discover something new. To find some piece of knowledge that no else knew.

 

I don't know where this 'cash cow' is, or this group of scientists that sit around protecting the holy word of Einstein are.

 

Do you remember the excitement that was shown when there was an initial indication that neutrinos may be able to go faster than the speed of light? That excitement was shown precisely because of how much the group wanted to be to show that Einstein may actually have been wrong! That there was more knowledge that had yet to be learned. If science is all about hushing things up, they sure did a rotten job there. (I suppose you'll tell us that the 'calculation error' they found was the science cabal coming around and fixing the problem, right?)

 

Furthermore, I would that any conscionable scientist would tell you that in reality, we know that relativity is wrong. There, I said it. Please don't that this out of context, because here is the context: we know that the theory of relativity is wrong is so much as we know it is incomplete. It does wonderfully at the scales it is valid for, but you start getting to the very small, and it doesn't work. Quantum mechanics is the same way -- works wonderfully for some scale (the very small) but doesn't work at the very large. I strongly suspect there will be a future theory that combines the two. String Theory has been trying to fulfill that promise for a while, with limited successes. There is also a theory of quantum loop gravity. There are probably others out there too.

 

So, there you have it. We know that the theory of relativity is wrong... in a certain context.

 

What we also know is that when we do experiments that are in its domain of validity, the predictions made by the theory or relativity do a pretty smashing job. I know if you insist on believing some kind of conspiracy theory that that won't mean anything to you. Maybe I just posted that for other future readers, then.

 

But, I do have this tiny sliver of hope that you will read this and understand. Science isn't dogmatically defending theories because they have to. They defend theories because they work. And they will be extremely eager to drop a theory if another one comes along that works even better. Science is very meritocratic -- the theory that works the best wins. That's why some day, when there is an idea that works and bridges both the small scale (the quantum) and the large (relativity)... both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics will be discarded. Because the new theory will work. That's all it takes. A theory has to work better than the others.

[swansont]

Well, I predicted that two different rates of time could be accounted for without a length contraction, which turned out to be true.

It turned out to be "true" because you assumed the answer, and then hand-waved some equations to make it work out.

 

As I understand it you are saying that all time has to be referenced to your cesium clocks. You sound a little proud of your clocks.

I am actually very proud of my clocks (though they are Rubidium rather than Cesium). The ensemble of them comprises arguably the best clock in the world, so I don't think I'm wrong to be proud.

 

Out here in reality, we do not even have any of your cesium clocks. For instance, a prisoner in a jail cell might tell time by the position of the reflection of the sun on his wall.

 

 

Out in reality you actually depend on atomic time — and properly applied relativity — more than you realize. GPS is one obvious example, but there are clock synchronizations that occur in communication, among other things. Without good clocks you can kiss cell phones and high-speed internet goodbye.

 

The Galilean transformation equations are public domain.

meaningless twaddle.

 

We common people can use them however we choose.

Quite true. You can assert that 1+1=3 all you want, as well. It doesn't make you right, and if you try to apply that to reality, there will be problems.

 

We can also notice that if one of your cesium clocks is moving, it has a different rate of time than a cesium clock that is not moving. I account for that by using the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time.

That's not how the transforms work. If they are valid, they will predict this behavior as you shift from one frame to the other.

 

That is the mathematically correct way to do it. You can complain about it all you want to. I will still keep using the Galilean transformation equations.

It is not the mathematically correct way of doing things. If you were in a physics class, you would fail. Perhaps, based on sentiments you've expressed, you'll take that as a badge of honor, but if you do I won't pretend to understand it. Willful ignorance is beyond my comprehension.

 

Well, in experiments they are faster or slower, starting with cesium clocks transported by propeller airplanes on transcontinental flights. The Lorentz equations show that light is traveling at c in all frames of reference. If that is what you mean by isotropic, then the equations are isotropic. The problem I see with them is that it is physically impossible for a clock in K' to be both slower and faster than a clock in K.

One problem: you don't get to tell nature how to behave.

Well, I did not stop using the Galilean transformation equations just because scientists did. At any rate, all I do is use the Galilean transformation equations to show different rates of time. For instance, if a clock in K' is slower than a clock in K, then I just use the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for each rate of time.

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t'=t means that the time of a clock in K is being used as the time of the equations. The time of a slower clock in K' does not pertain to this set of transforms. Now we use the Galilean transformation equations with the time of the slower clock in K'. We call the time of the slower clock t2' because t' was already defined to be t'=t, the time of the clock in K.

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2'

 

t2= t2' means that the time of the slower clock in K' is being used for the time of the equations. The time of the clock at rest in K does not pertain to this transform.

 

You cheated. You assumed the answer, so there's no surprise you get the answer you want.

 

If Galilean transforms are correct, you should be able to show that t ≠ t' without any further assumptions. (or t ≠ t2, if you think doing two rounds helps)

[rbwinn]

To be fair, he isn't claiming to be a "great scientist"; he apparently thinks that scientists are frauds.

You can feel free to use the Lorentz equations to determine that what I am saying is correct.

You may be interested in the fact that scientific reporting is very poor. A better way to say it would be that the moving clock was slower relative to the frame of the Earth. Which is what relativity predicts.

 

Well, that is fine. We were told that the moving clocks were slower, which is the way I always thought of it.

 

That is an accusation of fraud that you really need to have a lot of evidence to show. You are accusing scientists of effectively making up data, which is one of the most heinous things you can do as a scientist; scientists are trained from the start to avoid it, and with an experiment this high-level, there is a huge amount of intense scrutiny involved.

 

Well, scientists have to agree on something in the end, and they are going to agree on whatever seems most advantageous to scientists. If they are getting large sums of money from governments to do "research" using Einstein's theory, it seems to me they are going to be influenced to some extent by that.

But it does make further predictions - namely, that the speed of light is not isotropic relative to every frame. Which has been experimentally tested.

 

But as you've already said yourself - light travels both farther in more time (in the -x direction) and shorter in less time (in the +x direction), which means that the clock is neither faster nor slower. You are requiring relativity to follow a rule that it explicitly not only lacks, but violates. In other words, you are still setting up a strawman version of relativity.

 

No, I was just pointing out that events with regard to a light ray directed in the -x direction do not agree with what scientists have been saying.

 

Once again, special relativity says that clocks that are moving at different velocities are neither "faster" nor "slower" than each other. This is a part of what is meant by the relativity of simultaneity. By requiring that there be a "faster" and "slower", you are adding in a contradiction to relativity that doesn't exist without your additional assumption.

=Uncool-

I do not agree with scientists about relativity of simultaneity either.

 

 

And as others have told you, that is a falsehood about scientists. You have a very, very distorted view of science and scientists.

No, they have not. They have disputed your beliefs about the Galilean transforms. That is not the same thing, and goes to illustrate the distortion I mentioned earlier.

Then don't discuss it. That's your problem, not one for scientists.

Do you want me to make a list? I'll start with the neutrino scientists at OPERA, who within the past 3 years published a paper that demonstrated results that seemed to dispute relativity. In science, things that conflict with the mainstream are much more likely to get money - as long as they are done correctly.

This doesn't follow from the above. It also is blatantly false and defamatory.

There are plenty of scientists who still use the Galilean transforms. Just not in the realm of high speeds, where special relativity is much closer. As you've been told, it's not prohibited - it's just incorrect when dealing with high speeds (and no, 30 mi/s is not a high speed). Yet another example of distortion.

And to match the experiments. Which, as you've repeatedly be shown, you don't do.

=Uncool-

Well, you keep making this accusation. So go ahead and show the experiment that cannot be explained by the Galilean transformation equations as I use them.

[uncool]

 

To be fair, he isn't claiming to be a "great scientist"; he apparently thinks that scientists are frauds.

You can feel free to use the Lorentz equations to determine that what I am saying is correct.

You may be interested in the fact that scientific reporting is very poor. A better way to say it would be that the moving clock was slower relative to the frame of the Earth. Which is what relativity predicts.

Well, that is fine. We were told that the moving clocks were slower, which is the way I always thought of it.

 

Then you were relying on a depiction of relativity that is meant to be shown to people who have poor understandings of math and physics - the idea that there isn't necessarily a "faster" and "slower" that can be applied to all clocks is confusing, and less likely to help people understand.

 

That is an accusation of fraud that you really need to have a lot of evidence to show. You are accusing scientists of effectively making up data, which is one of the most heinous things you can do as a scientist; scientists are trained from the start to avoid it, and with an experiment this high-level, there is a huge amount of intense scrutiny involved.

Well, scientists have to agree on something in the end, and they are going to agree on whatever seems most advantageous to scientists. If they are getting large sums of money from governments to do "research" using Einstein's theory, it seems to me they are going to be influenced to some extent by that.

 

But you've gone far beyond that. What you said was that they would do "whatever it took to say the experiments matched." That's not just "being influenced"; that's fraud.

 

But it does make further predictions - namely, that the speed of light is not isotropic relative to every frame. Which has been experimentally tested.

But as you've already said yourself - light travels both farther in more time (in the -x direction) and shorter in less time (in the +x direction), which means that the clock is neither faster nor slower. You are requiring relativity to follow a rule that it explicitly not only lacks, but violates. In other words, you are still setting up a strawman version of relativity.

No, I was just pointing out that events with regard to a light ray directed in the -x direction do not agree with what scientists have been saying.

 

Oh? You have an experiment that shows this?

 

Again, every experiment that we have tested shows that the speed of light is the same in every direction relative to every frame. That is what scientists have been saying; that is what experiment shows.

 

Once again, special relativity says that clocks that are moving at different velocities are neither "faster" nor "slower" than each other. This is a part of what is meant by the relativity of simultaneity. By requiring that there be a "faster" and "slower", you are adding in a contradiction to relativity that doesn't exist without your additional assumption.

I do not agree with scientists about relativity of simultaneity either.

 

I realize that. That's irrelevant to what I was saying. The point I was making was that you are saying that relativity has a problem because you have added a law that relativity doesn't assume to it and the pointed to a contradiction. The problem isn't with relativity, it's with your addition to it.

 

On a side note: the way you are currently using quotes mixes your text with mine. Please try to use [ / quote ] and [ quote ] (remove the spaces) to distinguish. Example:

 

[ quote ]

[ quote ]

I say blah

[ / quote ]

You respond blahblah

[ / quote ]

I respond blahblahblah to your response.

 

Becomes

 

 

I say blah

You respond blahblah

 

I respond blahblahblah to your response.

 

Having that distinguishing feature makes conversations much, much, much easier.

=Uncool-

Edited October 17, 2013 by uncool

[John Cuthber]

 

Well, OK, tell me what you want me to figure out, and I will do it. I am not going to go on fool's errands all over the internet. If you want me to explain something, post it here, and I will do it.

The GPS satellites orbit the earth at an altitude of about 20,200 km

They orbit the earth twice each sidereal day.

A sidereal day is about 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0916 seconds.

That gives you the data for a figure for the orbital speed (measured from an earth based frame of reference)

 

They have atomic clocks in them, I believe they are Cs beam clocks so for the sake of discussion we can assume they are.

It's a simplification but lets say that they use the local Cs frequency and divide it down so they tick exactly once a second (local time).

On earth they would be set to count the Cs frequency and they use that to generate the 1 second tick of the clock

1 second = 9,192, 631,770 oscillations of the Cs clock.

 

The ones on the satellites are set to count a different number of oscillations to get a "second" because they system wants that "second" to synchronise with clocks here on Earth (it's not vital- but it makes the maths a lot easier.)

On earth (before launch) those clocks are set to run 38 microseconds per day slow.

They "count" to 9,192,631,774 oscillations for each second.

 

If someone used your system to set the clock up before it was launched, how many oscillations of the Cs radiation, here on earth, would the set it to count for each second?

(Please show the working as well as the number)

Edited October 17, 2013 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

 

On a side note: the way you are currently using quotes mixes your text with mine. Please try to use [ / quote ] and [ quote ] (remove the spaces) to distinguish. Example:

 

[ quote ]

[ quote ]

I say blah

[ / quote ]

You respond blahblah

[ / quote ]

I respond blahblahblah to your response.

 

Becomes

 

I respond blahblahblah to your response.

 

Having that distinguishing feature makes conversations much, much, much easier.

=Uncool-

 

I think I fixed the post, and one in which the same error happened in response to me. And I concur: please use the quotes properly.

 

Well, you keep making this accusation. So go ahead and show the experiment that cannot be explained by the Galilean transformation equations as I use them.

 

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you? t is the time in frame K. t' is the time in frame K'. In a Galilean transform, they are equal. Galilean transforms do not have time dilation in them!

 

The burden of proof here is on you. Show how Galilean transforms give you time dilation without assuming it first (and thereby using circular logic)

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

rbwinn, the rules of our Speculation section state you need to respond to calls for evidence. Looking back over the whole thread, you've been shown several suggestions that would help you comply with those rules, or admit that you may be mistaken. We need to break this impasse for the discussion to be productive.

 

The thread can't stay open much longer without some evidence in support of your position.

 

Please don't respond to this modnote. If you object, please use the Report Post function instead of discussing it here.

[swansont]

Well, scientists have to agree on something in the end, and they are going to agree on whatever seems most advantageous to scientists. If they are getting large sums of money from governments to do "research" using Einstein's theory, it seems to me they are going to be influenced to some extent by that.

 

 

That's not how it works. Scientists who are not paid by the government (and even those that are) do experiments, too, and would notice if anyone was fudging the numbers. Not unlike how you're being called out for doing so.

 

More telling is that there's also industry which relies on relativity to make products. If the theory is wrong, the products don't work and the company goes bankrupt. Garmin made a profit of $500 million last year (and is losing business because smartphones do GPS these days). That sounds a whole lot like the theory works, rather than agreeing on some deception.

[rbwinn]

" 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.

 

My equations would be more accurate than GR or SR because once these experiments were run, it was known what the experimental values for the times were. In the Hafele-Keating experiment the traveling cesium clock lost 59 nanoseconds on the eastward trip and gained 275 nanoseconds on the westward trip.

So to be more accurate than GR or SR, all I would have to do is say t'=t=the time of the eastward trip according to a clock on the ground, t2=t2' = the time of the eastward trip according to a clock on the ground minus 59 nanoseconds.

Then I would do the same thing for the westward trip. t'=t=the time of the westward trip according to a clock kept on the ground, and t2=t2' = the time of the westward trip according to a clock kept on the ground plus 273 nanoseconds.

Why would I worry about GR or SR if the experimental values were known?

The same principle applies to any other differences in time in any other experiments involving GR and SR. Once the experiments are run, I just put the time values in the Galilean transformation equations.

Are you saying you think that they are going to change from one experiment to the next?

swansont

 

OK, I will stop using the Quote thing. I did not want to use it in the first place. You believe scientists are the most honest people in the world. That has not been my experience with them.

How many times are you going to have to forbid me from using the Galilean transformation equations? As many times as you want to. I already told you I was going to keep using them.

I know how proud you are of your cesium clocks. You forbid anyone to express relativity using the Galilean transformation equations and one of your cesium clocks unless they use absolute time. Then some other scientist wants me to use the results of an experiment involving cesium clocks. So I just go ahead and use results obtained from cesium clocks, knowing you will be upset about it, but I see that as your problem, not mine. I quit trying to make scientists happy a long time ago.

As I pointed out before, the Galilean transformation equations are public domain.

[uncool]

Well, in experiments they are faster or slower, starting with cesium clocks transported by propeller airplanes on transcontinental flights.

As I've explained, no, they are not faster or slower. That is your addition to relativity.

The Lorentz equations show that light is traveling at c in all frames of reference. If that is what you mean by isotropic, then the equations are isotropic. The problem I see with them is that it is physically impossible for a clock in K' to be both slower and faster than a clock in K.

And as I've explained before, with relativity the clocks aren't "slower" or "faster". That is not part of relativity. They are different, in a way that is determined by the Lorentz equations. That is what relativity says.

 

If you wanted to respond to what relativity actually says, you could claim that it is physically impossible for a clock in K' to be neither slower nor faster than a clock in K. You'd still be wrong, but you'd be dealing with what relativity actually says, rather than your imagined version of relativity. The problem isn't with relativity itself - it's with your imagined version of relativity.

My equations would be more accurate than GR or SR because once these experiments were run, it was known what the experimental values for the times were.

What you are saying is that you couldn't determine it from your equations directly, meaning that you can't predict the experimental values. On the other hand, GR and SR did predict these values, and pretty accurately at that. And in science, you take the theory that predicts over the one that doesn't.

In the Hafele-Keating experiment the traveling cesium clock lost 59 nanoseconds on the eastward trip and gained 275 nanoseconds on the westward trip.

So to be more accurate than GR or SR, all I would have to do is say t'=t=the time of the eastward trip according to a clock on the ground, t2=t2' = the time of the eastward trip according to a clock on the ground minus 59 nanoseconds.

Then I would do the same thing for the westward trip. t'=t=the time of the westward trip according to a clock kept on the ground, and t2=t2' = the time of the westward trip according to a clock kept on the ground plus 273 nanoseconds.

That's not a prediction. That's a postdiction. Prediction comes from the Latin dico dicere, to say, and pre, meaning before. You are making pronouncements after having seen the answers. John Cuthber was asking you to get the answer without knowing the outcome.

Why would I worry about GR or SR if the experimental values were known?

The same principle applies to any other differences in time in any other experiments involving GR and SR. Once the experiments are run, I just put the time values in the Galilean transformation equations.

That's the problem - your equations don't predict the experiments. SR and GR, on the other hand, predicted the values - they figured out what SR and GR implied the values would be, and then ran the experiment, and found them to match up well. That's the sign of a good theory.

Are you saying you think that they are going to change from one experiment to the next?

He's saying that your idea doesn't predict the results of the experiments, and you have just confirmed it.

 

swansont

 

OK, I will stop using the Quote thing.

Why? The request to use them properly was a further request, not a "Use them properly or not at all" request.

I did not want to use it in the first place. You believe scientists are the most honest people in the world. That has not been my experience with them.

How many times are you going to have to forbid me from using the Galilean transformation equations? As many times as you want to. I already told you I was going to keep using them.

He hasn't "forbid [you] from using them". No one has. He's pointed out that you've been using them wrongly.

I know how proud you are of your cesium clocks. You forbid anyone to express relativity using the Galilean transformation equations and one of your cesium clocks unless they use absolute time.

Galilean transformation equations assume absolute time. That's what swansont's been saying. There's been no "forbidding" - it's a simple fact about the Galilean transformation equations.

Then some other scientist wants me to use the results of an experiment involving cesium clocks. So I just go ahead and use results obtained from cesium clocks, knowing you will be upset about it, but I see that as your problem, not mine. I quit trying to make scientists happy a long time ago.

As I pointed out before, the Galilean transformation equations are public domain.

They are, but that doesn't mean that you're using them correctly.

=Uncool-

Edited October 18, 2013 by uncool

[John Cuthber]

RBwinn,the number starts with 9.

What is is?

[ajb]

AJB If you have two cesium clocks in the same frame of reference, they will both show the same rate of time.

Thank you.

 

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.

Right and we see such phenomena. Moreover this seems to fit very well with special and indeed general relativity when carefully analysed.

 

That has nothing to do with the equations I gave. The Galilean transformation equations work with any rate of time.

We mean units of time I think. And yes, sure we can use any units of time we see fit.

 

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.

Right okay.

 

I am still having some difficulty here. It seems that we assume that one clock run slower and then we fudge things with a bastardized version of the Galilean transformations.

 

I suggest starting with two clocks that are synchronised when they are comoving. That is consider them both to be in the same rest frame and set their times equal. Moreover, let us use clocks that use the same units, does not matter what but the same units.

 

Then see if there is any difference in the time measured by the two clocks when one is moving relative to the other using the Galilean transformations.

 

By definition you will get t=t'.

 

You will need something more like a Lorentz transformation to get time dilation.

Edited October 18, 2013 by ajb

[rbwinn]

John Cuthber

 

Is your real name Bill Clinton?

uncool

 

All right. They put a cesium clock on an airplane and flew it east. It was slower by some number of nanoseconds than an identical clock kept on the ground. They put a cesium clock on an airplane and flew it west. It was faster by some number of nanoseconds than an identical clock kept on the ground. You say the clocks are not faster or slower. It is my addition to relativity. No it is not my addition. It was what these two scientists said, Haile-bob and Keating or whatever their names were. They said the clocks on the airplanes had different times from each other and from clocks on the ground.

So you say clocks are neither slower nor faster, they are (different). I think I have heard this before in the politics forum. I got kicked out of Amazon discussion forums for telling a homosexual that I did not want to be a homosexual. I already have people in this forum threatening to get me kicked out.

Now as to what I can predict, If I do what Einstein did with the Lorentz equations and plug the 186,000*t and 186000*t2' into the Galilean transformation equations, I get a slower time in the moving frame of reference than you get with the Lorentz equations. So suppose I go to scientists and say, Look, I think a clock on an airplane would be slower than a clock on the ground, do you think they are going to run the experiment. No, I don't think so either. You already know all this when you say my equations were no good because they did not result in an experiment like the Lorentz equations did. Then the result of the experiment was not exactly what scientists predicted, so it is explained by combining the Lorentz equations and General Relativity together, and then the answer comes within a certain amount. As I pointed out, now that the experiment has been done, I can just put the experimental values into the Galilean transformation equations. How are you going to do that with the equations you have?

The Galilean transformation equations do not assume absolute time. You assume absolute time. As I said before, the Galilean transformation equations are public domain. I will continue to use them

 

Thank you.


Right and we see such phenomena. Moreover this seems to fit very well with special and indeed general relativity when carefully analysed.


We mean units of time I think. And yes, sure we can use any units of time we see fit.


Right okay.

I am still having some difficulty here. It seems that we assume that one clock run slower and then we fudge things with a bastardized version of the Galilean transformations.

I suggest starting with two clocks that are synchronised when they are comoving. That is consider them both to be in the same rest frame and set their times equal. Moreover, let us use clocks that use the same units, does not matter what but the same units.

Then see if there is any difference in the time measured by the two clocks when one is moving relative to the other using the Galilean transformations.

By definition you will get t=t'.

You will need something more like a Lorentz transformation to get time dilation.

Yes, thank you, I will explain. What Einstein did was to substitute two little equations x=ct and x'=ct' into the Lorentz equations, which he said proved the Lorentz equations kept the speed of light the same in two frames of reference. The very first thing I did twenty years ago was substitute the same two little equations into the Galilean transformation equations, ending up with

t'=t(1-v/c). That did not bother scientists nearly as much as what I am doing now because it was easy for them to find a mistake in it. It took me about six or seven years before I could see that you cannot use the variable t' in the Galilean transformation equations to say t'=t and then say t'=t(1-v/c), so I started using n'. x'=cn'. That made scientists a little angry because they could not really find anything wrong with it. Then last year I saw that what I was really doing was using the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for time as seen in K and once for time as seen in K'. So the equations I use now are for K

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t'=t means a cesium clock at rest in K is the time used in both frames of reference. Then for the equations using the slower clock in K' we have

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2'

 

t2' is the time of the slower clock at rest in K'.

 

Now our substitution into the Galilean transformation equation would be

 

ct2'=ct-vt

t2'=(t-v/c) = (t-vct/c^2)

 

which shows us that the Lorentz equations are really just a special case of this relationship in the Galilean transformation equations, made by imposing a length contraction.

 

x=ct, x'=ct2', c=x/t=x'/t2'=(x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)=(x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma

 

It is my opinion that neither this representation in the Galilean transformation equations nor the Lorentz equations give a correct representation of light, but they do indicate the difference in times that was shown by experiment.

[ajb]

Yes, thank you, I will explain. What Einstein did was to substitute two little equations x=ct and x'=ct' into the Lorentz equations, which he said proved the Lorentz equations kept the speed of light the same in two frames of reference.

It was realised before Einstein's papers of 1905 that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under the Galilean transformations like classical mechanics is. Moreover, it was known that the correct transformations here are the Lorentz transformations and that these implied that the speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation is invariant under the action of these transformations on the theory.

 

What Einstein did was to takes this and suggest that in fact all mechanics must be consistent with this and so was born special relativity.

 

The very first thing I did twenty years ago was substitute the same two little equations into the Galilean transformation equations, ending up with

t'=t(1-v/c). That did not bother scientists nearly as much as what I am doing now because it was easy for them to find a mistake in it.

Right, this just does not make sense in this context.

 

It took me about six or seven years before I could see that you cannot use the variable t' in the Galilean transformation equations to say t'=t and then say t'=t(1-v/c), so I started using n'. x'=cn'. That made scientists a little angry because they could not really find anything wrong with it.

This looks little more than a slight redefinition of our variables. You now think of c as some universal constant and want to define x = cn and x' = cn' and so on right?

 

If so that looks okay, but the physical meaning if c and n is not clear. In particular n has the units of time, but it can not be seen as time measured by some clock in the context of Galilean relativity.

 

Then last year I saw that what I was really doing was using the Galilean transformation equations twice, once for time as seen in K and once for time as seen in K'.

Two points, first in the context of Galilean the duration of any event as measured in frame K or K' must be the same. I can't see how this could be otherwise. Stating that one clock runs slower means that we have clocks that cannot be synchronised rather than anything deep.

 

Also we have a group structure here and can compose the transformations. You should be able to write two transformation as one single transformation via composition.

 

So the equations I use now are for K

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

t'=t means a cesium clock at rest in K is the time used in both frames of reference.

Okay...

Then for the equations using the slower clock in K' we have

 

x=x'+v'(t2')

y=y'

z=z'

t2=t2'

 

t2' is the time of the slower clock at rest in K'.

Why do we have a slower clock? You seem to be stating that as some assumption. Don't do that rather synchronise the clocks in a given frame so that they tick at the same rate and then consider different frames.