🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 18, 7:06�pm, byungk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:18�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > n'=t(1-v/w)
>
> > > > n' is time on a cesium clock in a moving frame of reference, t is time
> > > > on a cesium clock in a frame of reference at rest.
>
> > > BTW, you made a mistake on your formula. v and w need to be squared,
> > > and whole (1 - v^2/w^2) needs to be square-rooted (http://
> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation, note the formula). I won't make a
> > > big deal out of the fact that you used an ... unconventional letter
> > > for speed of light. It's usually c.
>
> > These are not the Lorentz equations. �They are equations derived from
> > the Galilean transformation equations, the equations scientists
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were discussing "unconventional"
> physics. In that case (having looked at it a little more closely),
> here is the problem I see. You say:
> � �x=wt
> � �x'=wn'
> But I see absolutely no justification for this. First you adopt
> Galilean transformation, which is incompatible with constant speed of
> light in all inertial reference frames, and then to express a single
> point in two reference frames, you say x = wt and x' = wn' (why the
> prime, if you've already adopted a different letter, n, rather than
> t'?), rather than x' = w'n', where w' is, of course, w - v (v
> containing the sign). It is, on the face of it, self-contradictory.

Well, the reason was that scientists reported the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment to be that a cesium clock in either frame
of reference would show the speed of light to be c.   The equations
that show this would be x=ct and x'=cn' instead of x=ct and x'=ct'
used by Einstein because t' is defined t'=t in the Galilean
transformation equations.  So a clock running slower that t'=t in the
moving frame of reference has to be represented by a different
variable n'.  It does not have to be n', that was just the one I used.
       However, this only describes the position of a photon
traveling along the x axis in the positive direction.  A photon
traveling along the x axis in the negative direction has  a velocity
of -c, not c, so to describe the coordinates of a photon traveling
either direction, we have to use w=velocity of light.
> Could you provide a physical picture (a Gedankenexperiment, as it
> were) which these expressions are supposed to correspond to?
     The best example of how this works is Einstein's example of the
two strikes of lightning.  Lightning strikes the front and rear of a
moving train, leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and
marks on the railroad track.  The distance between themarks on the
train is the length of the train, and the distance between the marks
on the track is the length of the train, proving there is no
relativityof simultaneity or distance contraction.
      As the Galilean transformation equations show,  x'=x-vt.  t'=t
      A cesium clock on the train shows a time of n' for light from
the lightning at the rear of the train where

                      n'=t(1-v/c)
                      x'=cn'
       A cesium clock on the train shows a time of n' for lightning at
the front of the train where
                      n'=t(1-v/(-c) = t(1+v/c)
                        x'=(-c)n'
> > Velocity of light is w, not c, because the velocity of a photon
> > traveling on the x axis of a set of Cartesian coordinates in the
> > negative direction is -c, not c. �The Lorentz equations ignore this
> > fact by leaving the equations in an unreduced form so that c is always
> > squared in those equations. � (-c)(-c)=c^2
>
> Irrelevant. It is not the photons that are moving, it is the observer.
> The term "speed of light" is very misleading in this sense (and I do
> empathize with your confusion), because the constant value of "c" is a
> property of space-time. In a flat space, in the formalism of general
> relativity, this is expressed by the metric (I may be using
> unconventional letters here myself, it's been a while since I've done
> anything GR, oh, and the sign convention differs depending on whom you
> talk to ) dr^2 = (c dt)^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2).

The observer on the train is not moving in his own frame of reference.

> The presumption is, even if no photons actually existed (i.e. no
> electromagnetic fields anywhere at all), the properties derived in
> theories of relativity would hold. As for the "speed" part, we just
> tend to measure it with photons because it's the only massless
> particle we know.

> And as for the sign of the observer moving in different directions,
> it's expressly written into x' = x - vt, so the fact that you would
> end up with v^2/c^2 elsewhere is irrelevant.
    The equations x=wt and x=wn' show the positions of photons, as
Einstein said he was doing with x=ct, x'=ct'.
> > � � Scientists do not like these equations because they cannot
> > disprove them, and they give answers almost identical to Lorentz
> > equation answers with regard to anything that can be measured
> > directly, such as the orbit of Mercury, which was the first proof used
> > to show that the times given by the Lorentz equations agreed with
> > scientific measurements better than Newton's equations for
> > gravitation.
>
> Er, I sincerely hope that you check these statements with a real
> scientist real soon.

There are no real scientists who want to discuss these equations.

> First, special relativity (and these modified Galilean transformations
> that you propose to replace it with) has nothing to do with orbit of
> Mercury. The theoretical prediction (or rather, explanation) for the
> orbit of Mercury is an evidence for GENERAL RELATIVITY (Newtonian
> gravity could not explain the precession of perihelion of Mercury, as
> 1/r potential gives rise to a closed orbit---only with corrections to
> that 1/r potential (e.g. with GR effects) one would predict anything
> like that), which must take into account the effects of gravity.
> Proposing to do the same (or similar) with anything like Galilean
> transformation (or even the Lorentz transformation!) is equivalent of
> proposing to put the shuttles in earth's orbit using nothing but
> airplane propellers---your tool is not powerful enough.
The speed of the planet Mercury is 30 miles per second.   At that
speed, the Lorentz equations show that a cesium clock on Mercury would
be slower than a cesium clock that is not moving.  The equations for
time n' give the same result to several decimal places at that
velocity.
> Nonetheless, do you actually have detailed calculation of these
> effects that prove your claim?
Detailed enough.

    w=x/t=x'/n' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)/(t-vx/w^2)
              = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma = x'Lorentz/t'Lorentz
> Remember the burden is on the challenger to prove his own claim, not
> on the incumbents to disprove the challenger's claim (as a mathematics
> professor said once, if he had to read what every crank puts up on,
> e.g., arXiv.org, he wouldn't have the time for anything else). Also,
> to replace the orthodoxy, it's not sufficient only to duplicate what
> the orthodoxy has shown and proven (after all, why take one over the
> other in that case?)---you must also explain/predict something that
> the existing theory hasn't.
I predict that the length contraction does not exist.
Robert B. Winn