On May 6, 3:29�am, YBM wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, you say there are issues with the Galilean transformation
equations. �I don't see any. �t'=t. �You have another clock running
slower than a t' clock. �Convert the rate of time to t'. �Everything
works. �What is the problem you see?
Robert B. Winn

*you* have issues with the meaning of x,t,c,+/-c, etc.

Well, OK, show the issues. x is a coordinate on the x axis of set of
coordinates S, t is time in S, c= 186,000 miles per second, the speed
of light, +c =c, -c = -186,000 miles per second, meaning velocity in
the negative direction on an axis of a set of coordinates.

with GT
(or any kind of equation btw), this is not that GT or LT has
issues... BTW you're just trying to change the subject of
the discussion by switching from a plain wrong statement of
you (see below) to a fantasy nonsense I won't even try to
make sense of.

You said :

The equations x=ct and x'=ct' should have been �x=wt and
x'=wt', where w is the velocity of light. �This can be shown by
considering the equation for t'.

� � � � � � � � � �t'=(t-vx/c2)/sqrt(1-v2/c2)
That is what I said. You cannot substitute x=ct into the equation for
t' if x is a negative coordinate. That is why scientists left the
equation in an unreduced form with all values for c squared. That
way, if the velocity of light is negative, the equation works it out
automatically, and scientists do not have to think about it. There is
nothing "plain wrong" about what I said. Scientists want to keep
their hands over their eyes with regard to this particular thing.

Then I've shown you that x=ct (resp. x=-ct) and LT give without
any kind of problem : x'=ct' (resp. x=-ct) where c is the speed
of light.

Well, I do not know what you are saying here. I do not understand the
term, (resp. x= -ct) and what you are trying to say with it. I have
already said that I am aware that the Lorentz equations automatically
resolve velocity of light by showing only speed of light and
coordinates, but I have proven that the Lorentz equations are using
velocity of light, not just speed of light as scientists try to
claim. Einstein and earlier scientists seemed to have a better grasp
of velocity because he used to specifically say, velocity of light,
as did other scientists of his time. That was one of the factors that
led me to examine velocities of photons instead of just believing in
an automatic speed of light machine, as scientists of today believe.

Then you said that I (and others) have pretended that c is the
/velocity/ of light insteed of speed, when no one never did that.

No, I said that you believe that the Lorentz equations are using speed
of light, not velocity of light. The velocity of light is preserved
in the equations in the spatial coordinates because of the equations

x=wt
x'=wt'
where w is the velocity of a photon. Einstein did not use these
coordinates. He used x=ct, x'=ct', which only did the job half way.

I even lost some time to explain you that, as a matter of fact,
this is indeed velocity (as a vector) which appears in the equation
of uniform movement : OM=V.t + OA. x=ct or x=-ct being special
cases for movements on the x axis, and that in theses cases you
were basically right to call +/- c velocities.

The Lorentz equations are the same special case. The equations as
used by Einstein describe two sets of coordinates, one at rest, and
one in motion with a velocity of v relative to the other with the x
axis coinciding.

I wonder if you even try to read, then understand a single word of
what I wrote. No, I don't wonder : I know you didn't.

You're not especially talking to scientists here, but to educated
people (if you forget demented crank like Androcles, Wilson, srp,
etc.). May you consider being on the wrong track from the very
beginning and try by yourself to get the point of Relativity from
the very beginning ? I mean by that : coordinates, frames, time
synchronization procedures, equations of movements, transformations
(GT and LT)...

I went all through that with scientists on this newsgroup for twenty
years. They are all hypnotized by distance contraction.
A few years back I finally realized that the Lorentz equations were
using velocity of light, not speed of light, from which I was able to
see that the Galilean transformation equations can do everything the
Lorentz equations do without a distance contraction if you use
velocity of light instead of speed.

w=velocity of light
x=wt
x'=wn'

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)

w = x/t = x'/n' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2 gamma

=x'Lorentz/t'Lorentz

The difference is that I use n' for time on a cesium clock in S',
which scientists feel is an affront to "scientific time". n' is
really the same as the numerator of the Lorentz equation for t', and
results in a time slightly slower than the Lorentz equation gives,
eliminating the distance contraction that the Lorentz equations make
necessary by their slightly faster clock.
The reason why I believe scientists will probably not consider
these equations in my lifetime is because they still view time as an
entity instead of a relative paramater which helps describe the energy
of a system, dating back to "absolute time", the concept of which now
comes down to us in the form of "scientific time".
Robert B. Winn