Galilean transformation equations and relativity.

[uncool]

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.

Correct - the clocks on the airplane showed different times because they measured this particular trip in a slower or faster way. As I said before, they would show a different amount of time for a different plane (while they stay on the same plane). That is because of the x-dependence of t'.

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this. It seems like nonsense.

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.

Except that's not a prediction, it's a postdiction. But further: please do so. Find out exactly how much change you actually get. I'm guessing that the amount of change will be far off from what was actually found (note that I am referring to the amount of change, not the actual values; relativity predicts the amount of change accurately, so you need to as well).

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.

You have the order wrong. The prediction was the combination of the Lorentz equations and GR; that prediction came before the experiment.

As I pointed out, now that the experiment has been done, I can just put the experimental values into the Galilean transformation equations.

And in doing so, you will fail to predict.

How are you going to do that with the equations you have?

The Galilean transformation equations do not assume absolute time.

Yes, they do; that is the point of t = t'. You are adding another transformation. Which is fine - but it's not the Galilean transformation equations; it's your expansion.

You assume absolute time. As I said before, the Galilean transformation equations are public domain. I will continue to use them

And as I've said before, you are free to use them incorrectly; no one has to accept that your idea is correct (and it is not).

=Uncool-

[rbwinn]

 

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?

No, I was using the Galilean transformation equations as they were.

 

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

 

If t'=t, and t was the time of a clock in K, then some other variable had to be used for the time of the slower clock in K', so I used n'. That was when scientists began to become angry because they could not really find anything wrong with what I did. I just said, The time of the slower clock in K' is irrelevant to the Galilean transformation equations. The Galilean transformation equations say that the only time being used for time coordinates in the equations is the time of a clock in K. The slower clock in K' is no different to the Galilean transformation equations than a clock I bought at Walgreen's drug store that loses ten minutes per day. It is just another slower clock to the Galilean transformation equations.

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.

 

Well, all I was using the n' for was to have another variable that was not t', since t' was already defined as t'=t. n' was the time of the clock in K'. That way I could say x'=cn', since scientists were saying that the clock in K' showed light to be traveling at c.

 

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.

 

I was figuring everything from the origins of K and K', so that did not matter to me. I just had light emitted at the origins when they coincided, so one event was always at (0,0,0,0) in K and (0,0,0,0) in K', so the clocks were always in agreement at that event. Then I would figure out what the clocks were saying after one second in K.

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.

 

I don't think you can. If you see a way to do it, let me know. I believe you have to use a separate Gallilean transformation for every different rate of time. It is the same as dividing a day on Jupiter the same as we do a day on earth, with 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in a minute, and then saying put a second of Jupiter time into the same equation as a second on earth.

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.

No, I would never attempt that. I assume the clock is slower because of gravitation and maybe other reasons, but I just use a different set of Galilean transformation equations for every different rate of time. As I said, we could divide up the time of rotation of any planet into days, hours, seconds, etc., the way we do a day on earth, but a second on Neptune is going to be a different amount of time than a second on Mars, and it is no different with transitions of cesium atoms that are oscillating at different rates. If you are going to say a certain number of oscillations of a cesium atom are the basis for all time in the universe, you are going to run into difficulties with relativity because a Neptune second is not the same as a Mars second, and a second in K' is not the same amount of time as a second in K. But scientists have all of these equations they have been using that base everything on a certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope atom. If that is what scientists want to do, that is what they are going to do, but they can't describe relativity accurately if they do it, and so they are not going to describe relativity accurately.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

rbwinn, it's clear your assumptions are keeping you from understanding what everyone else in the thread is trying to explain to you. Seven pages later and the same assumptions are still being used despite numerous varied attempts to help you understand.

 

At this point I don't see how it could be explained any better. You have demonstrated that you won't be swayed by the explanations given here or the reality of functioning technology. Your arguments have been refuted and you have given no further evidence (repetition doesn't count).

 

By the rules of the Speculations section, I'm closing the thread. Do NOT open the subject again.

[swansont]

Yes, they do; that is the point of t = t'. You are adding another transformation. Which is fine - but it's not the Galilean transformation equations; it's your expansion.

It's not even that, it's a fudge factor. It's assuming the answer and then arranging this so the math work out.

 

rbwinn has yet to show how you get a time dilation prediction if you start with the Galilean transforms and make no assumptions, which is why this whole thread is crap.

 

edit: xpost with the modnote. Oh well.