On May 5, 7:08Â*pm, " wrote:
On 5 mayo, 18:40, rbwinn wrote:





On May 5, 2:44 pm, " wrote:

On 5 mayo, 17:32, rbwinn wrote:

On May 5, 1:44�pm, YBM wrote:

rbwinn a �crit :

You neglect the fact that if x or x' is negative in the equations
x=ct, x'=ct', then either the velocity of light has to be negative or
time has to be negative. �

You're right that in the case of x=ct, when t in negative, so is x...
So what ?

The equations you gave would apply only to
positive values of x and x',

Where did you get this ? I used the equation of propagation
of light x=ct, which applies either when t or x are negative
or positive, and the LT which apply for any x,t, positive or
negative.

Well, for example, light is emitted at the origins of S and S' when
they coincide. Â*According to Einstein, the light would propagate in S
as a sphere with a radius of ct, and Â*in S' as a sphere with a radius
of ct', except that the sphere in S' is an oblate sphere because of
the distance contraction. Â*So we consider a photon proceeding from the
origins of S and S' at t=t'=0 in the Â*-x direction. Â*When a time of t
has transpired in S, a time of t' has transpired in S'. Â*The photon is
at the coordinate x in S and at the coordinate x' in S'. Â*Both x and
x' are negative. Â*Both t and t' are positive. Â*The velocity of the
photon is -c, not c as you insist it would be. Â*The Lorentz equations
themselves show that x=(-c)t.

meaning that a photon is traveling in the
+x direction relative to the x axis. �

x=ct means that light is traveling in the (Ox) (call this
+x if you want) direction and that x=0 at t=0. This equation
of movement applies as well for x,t being negative or positive.

The Lorentz equation works because it is showing velocity of light,
not speed of light as scientists say it does. Â*If the equations were
using speed of light, you would be able to reduce them down by the
rules of algebra, and they would still work. Â*They will not work if
you reduce them down past

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

with the equations x=ct, x'=ct', because if you do, the velocity of a
photon is wrong. Â*Why not reduce the numerator to t(1-v/c)?
Â* Â*If you did, you would have to put a -c into the equation for c
every time x was negative. Â*So if you reflect light from a mirror, the
velocity of a photon changes, and you have to change from c to -c.
The Lorentz equations do this automatically with the value of x,
however, they do so at the price of a distance contraction.
Â* Â* Â*So what is your theory about how light exists if nothing can be
accellerated to the speed of light?
Robert B. Winn

We all agree with you. So in the interest of science, and since you
have the uttermost knowledge about this subject, please disconnect
yourself right now from your Internet and start writing a book or
paper about this new science. We, in the mean time will contact the
editors of some prestigious Journals, such as Science and Nature, and
let them know that you are about to provide to the scientific
community with the most important discovery of this century, so they
can be ready when your work is ready.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

What is that supposed to mean? Â*Do I seem like a Party member to you?
I will post the equations here. Â*If you do not like them, wander
around in darkness with the other scientists of our time.

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

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

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*wn'=wt-vt
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* n'=t(1-v/c)

OK, it is all there. Â*So what did that change? Â*Do you see any
scientists saying that "scientific time" can be called something other
than t'?
Robert B. Winn

Who are you talking to then?. Are you a scientist? Do you see any
scientist posting here?
Why are you wasting your time with the wrong people?
Are you trying to prove something to yourself?

It does not matter. Go back and read the charter of the newsgroup.
Do you see any prohibition against posting something true on this
newsgroup just because scientists all believe something false?
Anyone is free to post something here as long as it is about the
subject of relativity. My post is on subject. You are unhappy about
what I said because it does not conform to European propaganda. There
is plenty of European propaganda posted here. If you do not like my
post, go study some European propaganda.
Robert B. Winn

In sci.physics.relativity, rbwinn

wrote
on Mon, 5 May 2008 13:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
:
On May 5, 12:07*pm, YBM wrote:
rbwinn a écrit :

On May 5, 11:18?am, YBM wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Einstein's own equations for
velocity of light do not work in the Lorentz equations if x or x' are
negative.
Wrong. They work.

No, they do not work. *Einstein said that x=ct, x'=ct'. *If x is
negative, then

* * * * * * * * *t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)

cannot be used with the equation x=ct. *The velocity of light has to
be -c in the equation for t' in order for the equation to work if x is
negative. * x=(-c)t, not x=ct.

Wrong.

Let's assume that x=ct

By LT we get :

x'= gamma*(x-vt)
t'= gamma*(t-vx/c^2) * *where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

let's have a look at x'/t' (*) under the condition that x=ct :

* x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx^2/c^2) = (ct-vt)/(t-vct/c^2)
* * * * = t(c-v)/( t (1 - v/c) ) = c(c-v)/(c-v)
* * * * = c

= x'=ct'

(*) the case t'=0 is trivially ok (0=c0).

You neglect the fact that if x or x' is negative in the equations
x=ct, x'=ct', then either the velocity of light has to be negative or
time has to be negative.

The substitution x^2 = c^2t^2 works equally well, yielding
x'^2 = c^2t'^2. This is a more accurate specification of the
problem anyway, as light expands spherically from a point source.

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On May 5, 9:08�pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, rbwinn

�wrote
on Mon, 5 May 2008 13:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
:





On May 5, 12:07�pm, YBM wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :

On May 5, 11:18?am, YBM wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Einstein's own equations for
velocity of light do not work in the Lorentz equations if x or x' are
negative.
Wrong. They work.

No, they do not work. �Einstein said that x=ct, x'=ct'. �If x is
negative, then

� � � � � � � � �t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)

cannot be used with the equation x=ct. �The velocity of light has to
be -c in the equation for t' in order for the equation to work if x is
negative. � x=(-c)t, not x=ct.

Wrong.

Let's assume that x=ct

By LT we get :

x'= gamma*(x-vt)
t'= gamma*(t-vx/c^2) � �where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

let's have a look at x'/t' (*) under the condition that x=ct :

� x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx^2/c^2) = (ct-vt)/(t-vct/c^2)
� � � � = t(c-v)/( t (1 - v/c) ) = c(c-v)/(c-v)
� � � � = c

= x'=ct'

(*) the case t'=0 is trivially ok (0=c0).

You neglect the fact that if x or x' is negative in the equations
x=ct, x'=ct', then either the velocity of light has to be negative or
time has to be negative.

The substitution x^2 = c^2t^2 works equally well, yielding
x'^2 = c^2t'^2. �This is a more accurate specification of the
problem anyway, as light expands spherically from a point source.

[rest snipped]

Well, what about a photon traveling in the +x direction reflected by a
mirror back in the direction it came from? I would just say it had a
velocity of -c.
I know that c^2 seems like a good idea to scientists. (-c)^2=c^2
Robert B. Winn

On May 6, 1:57�am, "harry" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

...

This statement made in an explanation of addition of velocities shows
the confusion existing in the minds of scientists about velocity of
light.
"The constancy of light (Einstein's dictum) tells us that the velocity
of light in the forward direction is equal to the velocity of light in
the backward direction, i.e. �CF = CB = C."

Where did you find that crappy statement?

Relative to a set of coordinates S, if a photon is traveling on the x
axis in the +x direction, it has a velocity of c. �If a photon is
traveling on the x axis in the -x direction, it has a velocity of
(-c). �Scientists do not seem to be aware that the Lorentz equations
automatically resolve the velocities of photons

You are really funny :-)

because c is always
squared in those equations, and the velocity of a photon is only shown
implicitly in the variables x and x'. �Einstein's own equations for
velocity of light do not work in the Lorentz equations if x or x' are
negative.

Great nonsense. :-))

The equations x=ct and x'=ct' should have been �x=wt and
x'=wt', where w is the velocity of light.

I think that you have given that crap before...

[...]

Harald

Well, Harald, if you have nothing to say, why pretend that you do?
You can either say something or not. If not, then why waste the time
of others with your little snippets of pretense?
If you see something you can disprove, by all means go ahead and
disprove it. Being part of a great Religion dedicated to worship of
the distance contraction is not going to impress me. The distance
contraction is not going to save one soul.
Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn

On 6 mayo, 01:19, rbwinn wrote:
On May 5, 9:08�pm, The Ghost In The Machine



wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, rbwinn

�wrote
on Mon, 5 May 2008 13:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
:

On May 5, 12:07�pm, YBM wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :

On May 5, 11:18?am, YBM wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Einstein's own equations for
velocity of light do not work in the Lorentz equations if x or x' are
negative.
Wrong. They work.

No, they do not work. �Einstein said that x=ct, x'=ct'. �If x is
negative, then

� � � � � � � � �t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)

cannot be used with the equation x=ct. �The velocity of light has to
be -c in the equation for t' in order for the equation to work if x is
negative. � x=(-c)t, not x=ct.

Wrong.

Let's assume that x=ct

By LT we get :

x'= gamma*(x-vt)
t'= gamma*(t-vx/c^2) � �where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

let's have a look at x'/t' (*) under the condition that x=ct :

� x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx^2/c^2) = (ct-vt)/(t-vct/c^2)
� � � � = t(c-v)/( t (1 - v/c) ) = c(c-v)/(c-v)
� � � � = c

= x'=ct'

(*) the case t'=0 is trivially ok (0=c0).

You neglect the fact that if x or x' is negative in the equations
x=ct, x'=ct', then either the velocity of light has to be negative or
time has to be negative.

The substitution x^2 = c^2t^2 works equally well, yielding
x'^2 = c^2t'^2. �This is a more accurate specification of the
problem anyway, as light expands spherically from a point source.

[rest snipped]

Well, what about a photon traveling in the +x direction reflected by a
mirror back in the direction it came from? I would just say it had a
velocity of -c.
I know that c^2 seems like a good idea to scientists. (-c)^2=c^2
Robert B. Winn

Assume you are in a rocket in deep space, and you are not feeling any
acceleration force whatsoever. From your window you see nothing (no
stars or other objects are visible) but another rocket who appears to
be approaching you.

Now, which is the correct answer that best describe the reality (or
truth) of the situation.

a) You are moving at a constant speed approaching a static rocket.
b) The rocket you see is moving at a constant speed towards your
location.
c) Both you and the approaching rocket are moving at constant speeds
towards each other.

This is the first step in understanding relativity.

Miguel Rios

"rbwinn" wrote in message
...
On May 6, 1:57?am, "harry" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

...

This statement made in an explanation of addition of velocities shows
the confusion existing in the minds of scientists about velocity of
light.
"The constancy of light (Einstein's dictum) tells us that the velocity
of light in the forward direction is equal to the velocity of light in
the backward direction, i.e. ?CF = CB = C."

Where did you find that crappy statement?

Relative to a set of coordinates S, if a photon is traveling on the x
axis in the +x direction, it has a velocity of c. ?If a photon is
traveling on the x axis in the -x direction, it has a velocity of
(-c). ?Scientists do not seem to be aware that the Lorentz equations
automatically resolve the velocities of photons

You are really funny :-)

because c is always
squared in those equations, and the velocity of a photon is only shown
implicitly in the variables x and x'. ?Einstein's own equations for
velocity of light do not work in the Lorentz equations if x or x' are
negative.

Great nonsense. :-))

The equations x=ct and x'=ct' should have been ?x=wt and
x'=wt', where w is the velocity of light.

I think that you have given that crap before...

[...]

Harald

Well, Harald, if you have nothing to say, why pretend that you do?

I told you that I found erroneous claims (and telling you is NOT nothing) as
it's useful for you to know that - except of course if you are only here to
do some trolling of course...

[...]

Just trying to help someone who doesn't want to be helped I guess....

Harald

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

rbwinn wrote:
On May 6, 3:29�am, YBM wrote:
....
*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.

Ok, let's see, just below :

That is what I said. You cannot substitute x=ct into the equation for
t' if x is a negative coordinate.

Why ? x=ct is a valid equation of movement even for x0, LT are valid
for any x,y,z,t, making the substitution gives x'=ct' which is
consistent with RR's postulates, and is valid for any x', even negative.

There is NOTHING in any algebraic transformations I used that makes
a problem when x or t or x' or t' are negative...

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)

resp. means respectively, so I hadn't to say twice (almost) the same
thing :

x=ct and LT implies x'=ct' (for any x,t)
x=-ct and LT implies x'=-ct' (for any x,t)

I have proven that the Lorentz equations are using
velocity of light, not just speed of light as scientists try to
claim.

I have now a terrible doubt. Are you suggestion that x=ct or
x=-ct ARE Lorentz equations ??

....
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.

I'm afraid it's true... Theses are not lorentz equations...

Einstein did not use these
coordinates. He used x=ct, x'=ct', which only did the job half way.

It doesn't, using special cases in the LT derivation doesn't meant that
the general case won't work at the end... Did you ever solve any kind
of identity at school ?

As a matter of fact you can plug in LT any equation of movement
like :

x=u*t + x0
y=v*t + y0
z=w*t + z0

velocity : (u,v,w), speed = sqrt(u^2+v^2+w^2) = c

Note that the case considered in classical LT derivation is
velocity (c,0,0), and that your fetish special case is
velocity (-c,0,0)

And you'll get by LT a equation of movement in S' satisfying speed = c.

Just do it.



[snip nonsense]

On May 6, 7:55Â*am, " wrote:
On 6 mayo, 01:19, rbwinn wrote:





On May 5, 9:08�pm, The Ghost In The Machine

wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, rbwinn

�wrote
on Mon, 5 May 2008 13:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
:

On May 5, 12:07�pm, YBM wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :

On May 5, 11:18?am, YBM wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Einstein's own equations for
velocity of light do not work in the Lorentz equations if x or x' are
negative.
Wrong. They work.

No, they do not work. �Einstein said that x=ct, x'=ct'. �If x is
negative, then

� � � � � � � � �t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)

cannot be used with the equation x=ct. �The velocity of light has to
be -c in the equation for t' in order for the equation to work if x is
negative. � x=(-c)t, not x=ct.

Wrong.

Let's assume that x=ct

By LT we get :

x'= gamma*(x-vt)
t'= gamma*(t-vx/c^2) � �where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

let's have a look at x'/t' (*) under the condition that x=ct :

� x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx^2/c^2) = (ct-vt)/(t-vct/c^2)
� � � � = t(c-v)/( t (1 - v/c) ) = c(c-v)/(c-v)
� � � � = c

= x'=ct'

(*) the case t'=0 is trivially ok (0=c0).

You neglect the fact that if x or x' is negative in the equations
x=ct, x'=ct', then either the velocity of light has to be negative or
time has to be negative.

The substitution x^2 = c^2t^2 works equally well, yielding
x'^2 = c^2t'^2. �This is a more accurate specification of the
problem anyway, as light expands spherically from a point source.

[rest snipped]

Well, what about a photon traveling in the +x direction reflected by a
mirror back in the direction it came from? Â*I would just say it had a
velocity of -c.
I know that c^2 seems like a good idea to scientists. Â*(-c)^2=c^2
Robert B. Winn

Assume you are in a rocket in deep space, and you are not feeling any
acceleration force whatsoever. From your window you see nothing (no
stars or other objects are visible) but another rocket who appears to
be approaching you.

Now, which is the correct answer that best describe the reality (or
truth) of the situation.

a) You are moving at a constant speed approaching a static rocket.
b) The rocket you see is moving at a constant speed towards your
location.
c) Both you and the approaching rocket are moving at constant speeds
towards each other.

This is the first step in understanding relativity.

Well, it would depend on how you got into that situation, wouldn't it?
This is no different from Einstein's description of a train sitting at
the station with another train moving beside it. A psassenger gets
confused about which train is moving, but that does not change
anything, does it? One train is sitting still on the track, and the
other is moving. The train with the slower clock would be the one
that is moving. Maybe you could do the same thing with your two
spaceships. The one with the slower clock would be the one in
motion. If both clocks are at the same rate, they are moving toward
each other.
Robert B. Winn

On May 6, 8:11�am, "harry" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

...
On May 6, 1:57?am, "harry" wrote:





"rbwinn" wrote in message

...

This statement made in an explanation of addition of velocities shows
the confusion existing in the minds of scientists about velocity of
light.
"The constancy of light (Einstein's dictum) tells us that the velocity
of light in the forward direction is equal to the velocity of light in
the backward direction, i.e. ?CF = CB = C."

Where did you find that crappy statement?

Relative to a set of coordinates S, if a photon is traveling on the x
axis in the +x direction, it has a velocity of c. ?If a photon is
traveling on the x axis in the -x direction, it has a velocity of
(-c). ?Scientists do not seem to be aware that the Lorentz equations
automatically resolve the velocities of photons

You are really funny :-)

because c is always
squared in those equations, and the velocity of a photon is only shown
implicitly in the variables x and x'. ?Einstein's own equations for
velocity of light do not work in the Lorentz equations if x or x' are
negative.

Great nonsense. :-))

The equations x=ct and x'=ct' should have been ?x=wt and
x'=wt', where w is the velocity of light.

I think that you have given that crap before...

[...]

Harald
Well, Harald, if you have nothing to say, why pretend that you do?

I told you that I found erroneous claims (and telling you is NOT nothing) as
it's useful for you to know that - except of course if you are only here to
do some trolling of course...

[...]

Just trying to help someone who doesn't want to be helped I guess....

No, that does not work. If you had seen something wrong, then you
could have explained what it was. As it was, you said nothing.
Robert B. Winn