rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 30, 8:10 pm, Bryan Olson 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.


--
--Bryan