Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.

There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.

I understand what you are saying. You are a
respected scientist and Party member,

You must have me confused with someone else.

Spoken like a scientist. Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.

Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?

On Apr 29, 3:22 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:





On Apr 29, 12:47 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 28, 12:10 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:14 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.
All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. �Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?
Time is relative, Bryan.  A cesium clock in S' defines one measurement
of time.  t'=t defines another measurement of time.  The coordinates
of the Galilean transformation equation will not work unless t'=t.  n'
is the rate of a clock running slower than t'=t.  A clock can be made
to run at any speed.  Two clocks running at any speed can be used to
represent t'=t as long as they are running at the same rate.
So no clue then?
The definition of t' is the time dimension in coordinate system S'.
t' = t is an assertion of the theory, not a definition. The Winn
transform simply contradicts the Galilean transform, and unlike both
the Galilean transform and Lorentz transform, the Winn transform
contradicts the principle of relativity.
Well, it is easy to make a statement, more difficult to prove one.
Good that you understand that much. You've posted a lot of novel
science, while any proof or evidence remains to be seen.

Here are the Galilean transformation equations:
                  x'=x-vt
                  y'=y
                  z'=z
                  t'=t
Agreed.

What the equations say is that if S is the frame of reference at rest,
then time on a cesium clock in S has to be used as t'=t.
What a mess.

The equations pertain to events identifiable in space and time, and
to two coordinate systems in which me can specify positions in space
and time. Call the coordinate systems S and S'; for any event, if
(x, y, z, t) are the coordinate of that event in S, then
(x', y', z', t') are, by definition, the coordinates of that same
event in S'.

The equations further assume that the origins of the coordinate
systems coincide. An event at (x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) in S has
coordinates (x'=0, y'=0, z'=0, t'=0) in S'. Furthermore, the axis
of the two systems must be parallel; and any movement of one
coordinate system with respect to the other must be entirely in
the x direction (same as the x' direction); and such movement must
be uniform, meaning constant velocity.

There is no particular reference to the element cesium in the
Galilean transformation. The element was discovered in 1860, some
218 yeas after Galileo's death. The coordinate system has a time
dimension; a cesium clock is relevant insofar as it measures that
dimension, and no farther.

So there is another cesium clock in S' running at a slower rate, say
scientists.
No, scientists insist on saying things unambiguously, accurately,
and precisely as possible.

They want to call that cesium clock t'.
Mr. Winn has that wrong. Scientists understand t' is, by definition,
the time axis in S'.

No, sorry, if
scientists want to use these correct equations, they will have to call
time on the cesium clock in S' by something other than t'.  t' is
already defined to be t'=t.  We refuse to do this, say scientists.
The world in Winn's head has diverged so far from the real one -- and
his idea of scientific understanding has gone so wrong, that we can do
nothing better than put a big red X through Winn's ramblings. To learn
what scientists say, listen to scientists.

    Well, then, play with your imaginary equations.  They actually do
give you a fairly accurate answer.  However, to find out what time on
the cesium clock in S' actually says, we can use the Galilean
transformation equations and call the time on the clock in S' by the
variable n'.
                 n'=t(1-v/c)
The Galilean transformation has no "n'", and such is greatly to the
credit of the Galilean transformation.

Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.

There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.

I understand what you are saying.  You are a
respected scientist and Party member,

You must have me confused with someone else.

Spoken like a scientist.  Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.

Except you aren't using them - you are using them in addition to some
crap you have added.

Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?

Why ask the question when you won't understand the answer?


Why answer when you do not have an answer?

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.
There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.

I understand what you are saying. �You are a
respected scientist and Party member,
You must have me confused with someone else.

Spoken like a scientist. �Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.

Spoken like a true kook. It's not the using and no one said it was.

Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?

You say devices to measure time at rest in S' will find it to be
something other than t'.
The earth rotates on its axis the same number of times in S' as it

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.
There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.

I understand what you are saying. �You are a
respected scientist and Party member,
You must have me confused with someone else.

Spoken like a scientist. �Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.

Spoken like a true kook. It's not the using and no one said it was.

Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?

You say devices to measure time at rest in S' will find it to be
something other than t'.

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.
There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.
I understand what you are saying. �You are a
respected scientist and Party member,
You must have me confused with someone else.
Spoken like a scientist. �Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.
Spoken like a true kook. It's not the using and no one said it was.

Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?
You say devices to measure time at rest in S' will find it to be
something other than t'.
The earth rotates on its axis the same number of times in S' as it
does in S.  The Sun rotates on its axis the same number of times in S'
as it does in S.  The planets revolve around the sun the same number
of times in S' as they do in S.  So how is t' different in S' than in
S?

Robert, *you* came up with n' for time measured in S', and *your* n'
does not equal t in general. "How" time is different between frames
is an interesting question (which has a well-established answer that
many of us have tried to explain in this newsgroup), but you
contradict Galileo's theory regardless of that issue.

Contradicting Galileo's transform makes sense. His theory turns out
not to hold when |v| is a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Accepting Galileo's transform can also make sense. Considering the
objects we encounter, "v << c" holds with few exceptions. Galileo
never had the chance to observe the phenomena that motivated
development of the Lorentz transform and special relativity.

What makes no sense is to do both simultaneously. To assert that
time measured in S' will be n', while also holding that time in S'
is t'=t, makes sense if and only if n'=t'=t in general. Robert, in
your system n' does not equal t' in general.

No, Bryan, scientists say that a cesium clock in S' is running slower

Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.
There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.
I understand what you are saying. �You are a
respected scientist and Party member,
You must have me confused with someone else.

Spoken like a scientist. �Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.
Spoken like a true kook. It's not the using and no one said it was.

Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?

You say devices to measure time at rest in S' will find it to be
something other than t'.

The earth rotates on its axis the same number of times in S' as it
does in S. The Sun rotates on its axis the same number of times in S'
as it does in S. The planets revolve around the sun the same number
of times in S' as they do in S. So how is t' different in S' than in
S?

On Apr 30, 8:10 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.
There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.
I understand what you are saying. �You are a
respected scientist and Party member,
You must have me confused with someone else.
Spoken like a scientist. �Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.
Spoken like a true kook. It's not the using and no one said it was.
Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?
You say devices to measure time at rest in S' will find it to be
something other than t'.
The earth rotates on its axis the same number of times in S' as it
does in S. The Sun rotates on its axis the same number of times in S'
as it does in S. The planets revolve around the sun the same number
of times in S' as they do in S. So how is t' different in S' than in
S?
Robert, *you* came up with n' for time measured in S', and *your* n'
does not equal t in general. "How" time is different between frames
is an interesting question (which has a well-established answer that
many of us have tried to explain in this newsgroup), but you
contradict Galileo's theory regardless of that issue.

Contradicting Galileo's transform makes sense. His theory turns out
not to hold when |v| is a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Accepting Galileo's transform can also make sense. Considering the
objects we encounter, "v << c" holds with few exceptions. Galileo
never had the chance to observe the phenomena that motivated
development of the Lorentz transform and special relativity.

What makes no sense is to do both simultaneously. To assert that
time measured in S' will be n', while also holding that time in S'
is t'=t, makes sense if and only if n'=t'=t in general. Robert, in
your system n' does not equal t' in general.

No, Bryan, scientists say that a cesium clock in S' is running slower
than an identical clock in S. That means that it cannot be called t'
in the Galilean transformation equations.

Sorry, you would have to
use a clock that is showing exactly the same time as a cesium clock in
S. If you do not have a clock like that and are too lazy to construct
one the way Eric Gisse and PD are, you might want to look at the
cesium clock in S. That shows what a t' clock in S' would show. As
for the slower clock in S', you will have to call the time on that
clock by some other variable than t' if you want to use the Galilean
transformation equations. This is really a moot point at this
particular time, because I am fairly sure that there are no scientists
who want to used the Galilean transformation equations. Just go ahead
and use the Lorentz equations if that is what you want to do.

rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 30, 8:10 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough.
There's no question that the same variable cannot represent two
non-equal quantities. The problem is that you claim to use the
Galilean transform, then you contradict the Galilean transform.
I understand what you are saying. �You are a
respected scientist and Party member,
You must have me confused with someone else.
Spoken like a scientist. �Only a scientist could claim that I am
contradicting the Galilean transformation equations by using them.
Spoken like a true kook. It's not the using and no one said it was.
Exactly how am I contradicting the Galilean transformation equations?
You say devices to measure time at rest in S' will find it to be
something other than t'.
The earth rotates on its axis the same number of times in S' as it
does in S.  The Sun rotates on its axis the same number of times in S'
as it does in S.  The planets revolve around the sun the same number
of times in S' as they do in S.  So how is t' different in S' than in
S?
Robert, *you* came up with n' for time measured in S', and *your* n'
does not equal t in general. "How" time is different between frames
is an interesting question (which has a well-established answer that
many of us have tried to explain in this newsgroup), but you
contradict Galileo's theory regardless of that issue.

Contradicting Galileo's transform makes sense. His theory turns out
not to hold when |v| is a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Accepting Galileo's transform can also make sense. Considering the
objects we encounter, "v << c" holds with few exceptions. Galileo
never had the chance to observe the phenomena that motivated
development of the Lorentz transform and special relativity.

What makes no sense is to do both simultaneously. To assert that
time measured in S' will be n', while also holding that time in S'
is t'=t, makes sense if and only if n'=t'=t in general. Robert, in
your system n' does not equal t' in general.

No, Bryan, scientists say that a cesium clock in S' is running slower
than an identical clock in S. That means that it cannot be called t'
in the Galilean transformation equations.

Calling it something else doesn't change the fact that time measured
in S' is not equal to t.

Sorry, you would have to
use a clock that is showing exactly the same time as a cesium clock in
S.  If you do not have a clock like that and are too lazy to construct
one the way Eric Gisse and PD are, you might want to look at the
cesium clock in S.  That shows what a t' clock in S' would show.  As
for the slower clock in S', you will have to call the time on that
clock by some other variable than t' if you want to use the Galilean
transformation equations.  This is really a moot point at this
particular time, because I am fairly sure that there are no scientists
who want to used the Galilean transformation equations.  Just go ahead
and use the Lorentz equations if that is what you want to do.

The choice is not arbitrary. We want to get things right.

On Apr 27, 10:39 am, JanPB, the film critic wrote:

On Apr 27, 8:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
“Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.

Detailed responses to your claims (which are FAPP false) were posted
many times on this NG already.

This is a wishful thinking on your part. It is OK to fantasize, but
it is not if you cannot tell what your fantasy is and what is not.
shrug

For those unfamiliar with Koobee - he is a crank of the "technical
mumbo-jumbo" variety.

So, a special crank of some sort that you are so scared sh*tless.
shrug

Unlike those who got stuck early on some
elementary algebra or calculus issue, he got stuck at a bit higher
level: basic differential geometry.

Another interpretation which is the correct one is that Koobee Wublee
has surpassed beyond differential geometry. After he has pointed out
the problem associated with what is commonly believed, you remained
confused. You have no ability to comprehend even the basic stuff.
shrug

Because of that he can easily
generate reams of technical nonsense which "looks" reasonable to a
layman.

Boy, you are really insulting the ‘layman’, Mr. film critic.

Answering this sort of thing takes time so people who do know
this stuff usually don't bother.

As I said, keeping silent is a very good strategy to prolong the
nonsense in SR and GR. <shrug

After all, it makes no difference.

Well, if you keep silent, you would not be embarrassed by Koobee
Wublee that seems to be the tail-between-the-legs approach favored by
Professors Carlip and Roberts. <shrug