🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 18, 4:10�pm, byungk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 18, 10:58�am, 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.
>
> As far as mathematics goes, special relativity has nothing special
> about it---if you accept Einstein's two postulates, in particular, the
> one that says that speed of light is the same in all inertial frames
> (so c does not change between x and x'), the rest is high school
> algebra, at least up to the formula for time-dilation (assuming you
> found the Lorentz transformation which satisfies the postulate about
> c).
>
> What you would instead need to do is show experimentally (which is not
> proof, although if thoroughly checked enough, it could be considered a
> counter-example) that this relationship does not hold, which would
> imply that Einstein's postulate, as simple as it was, was not correct.
> And I believe some guys did take an atomic clock around the world on
> an airplane, and the deviation of the clock on the plane (compared to
> the one left on ground) matched the theoretical prediction, within the
> experimental error).
>
> So, unless you just want to repeat the same old experiments, you
> probably should wait until we can build starships (or at least a probe
> which can travel far at some high velocity and carry enough fuel to
> reverse its direction and come back to us).

These are not the Lorentz equations.  They are equations derived from
the Galilean transformation equations, the equations scientists
discarded when Einstein began using the Lorentz equation to describe
transmission of light.
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
    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.
Robert B. Winn