Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
inverse equations
x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y = y'
z = z'
t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
inverse equations
x = x' - v't'
y = y'
z = z'
t = t'
v' = -v
Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
x = x'- m'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
inverse equations
x' = x - mn
y'=y
z'=z
n'=n
m' = -m
Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:27:35 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> inverse equations
> x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> y = y'
> z = z'
> t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> x'=x-vt
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t'=t
> inverse equations
> x = x' - v't'
> y = y'
> z = z'
> t = t'
> v' = -v
> Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> x = x'- m'n'
> y = y'
> z = z'
> n = n'
> inverse equations
> x' = x - mn
> y'=y
> z'=z
> n'=n
> m' = -m
> Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.

After how many decades you are still confused and in square one.

--
Jan

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:25:05 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:27:35 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > inverse equations
> > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> > Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> > inverse equations
> > x = x' - v't'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = t'
> > v' = -v
> > Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> > x = x'- m'n'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > n = n'
> > inverse equations
> > x' = x - mn
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > n'=n
> > m' = -m
> > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> > So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> After how many decades you are still confused and in square one.
>
> --
> Jan

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:25:05 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:27:35 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > inverse equations
> > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> > Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> > inverse equations
> > x = x' - v't'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = t'
> > v' = -v
> > Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> > x = x'- m'n'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > n = n'
> > inverse equations
> > x' = x - mn
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > n'=n
> > m' = -m
> > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> > So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> After how many decades you are still confused and in square one.
>
> --
> Jan
Jan
Thank you for your response. Maybe you would like to take a few moments to show what you think I am confused about. Do you agree with Einstein that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane?

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:47:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 12:25:05 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:27:35 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> > > y' = y
> > > z' = z
> > > t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > inverse equations
> > > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > y = y'
> > > z = z'
> > > t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> > > Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> > > x'=x-vt
> > > y'=y
> > > z'=z
> > > t'=t
> > > inverse equations
> > > x = x' - v't'
> > > y = y'
> > > z = z'
> > > t = t'
> > > v' = -v
> > > Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> > > x = x'- m'n'
> > > y = y'
> > > z = z'
> > > n = n'
> > > inverse equations
> > > x' = x - mn
> > > y'=y
> > > z'=z
> > > n'=n
> > > m' = -m
> > > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> > > So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> > After how many decades you are still confused and in square one.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Jan
> Thank you for your response. Maybe you would like to take a few moments to show what you think I am confused about. Do you agree with Einstein that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane?

No, it would be a waste of time. You never learn.

--
Jan

Time dilation is the second item in Einstein-EDoMB-1905 Section §4

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Lorentz Contraction is the first item.

Time dilation has an equation. Lorentz Contraction does not.

Moving time = stationary time / gamma

gamma is a dimensionless number greater than 1.

So moving time is less than stationary time.

Moving time is a clock which moves, with speed-v, from x = 0 to some stationary milepost-x where an observer is in possession of a likewise stationary clock. This clock is synchronized with origin clock x = 0. The stationary observer sees moving clock-v go by with less face time than his own clock.

This is time “dilation” in the sense that the moving unit of time, a second, a minute, is expanded in duration, while keeping unit value. Dilation of the unit subtracts from clock face value.

And then it gets really weird. The guy who has the moving clock considers himself stationary at location [ x′ = 0 ] on the axis X′, the entirety of axis X′ moving with speed-v. When this purportedly moving guy considers himself stationary, the so-called stationary clock appears to him to move with negative speed-v, and that clock suffers time dilation just as his own clock once did.

The clock paradox has been around for 120 years.

On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> inverse equations
> x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> y = y'
> z = z'
> t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> x'=x-vt
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t'=t
> inverse equations
> x = x' - v't'
> y = y'
> z = z'
> t = t'
> v' = -v
> Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> x = x'- m'n'
> y = y'
> z = z'
> n = n'
> inverse equations
> x' = x - mn
> y'=y
> z'=z
> n'=n
> m' = -m
> Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.

Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
about this.

It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
scientific community.

Sylvia.

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > inverse equations
> > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> > Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> > inverse equations
> > x = x' - v't'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = t'
> > v' = -v
> > Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> > x = x'- m'n'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > n = n'
> > inverse equations
> > x' = x - mn
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > n'=n
> > m' = -m
> > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> > So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> about this.
>
> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> scientific community.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia, what about the Richard Hertz back story to the Einstein catapult to scientific stardom?

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 5:17:04 PM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:
> Time dilation is the second item in Einstein-EDoMB-1905 Section §4
>
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Lorentz Contraction is the first item.
>
> Time dilation has an equation. Lorentz Contraction does not.
>
> Moving time = stationary time / gamma
>
> gamma is a dimensionless number greater than 1.
>
> So moving time is less than stationary time.
>
> Moving time is a clock which moves, with speed-v, from x = 0 to some stationary milepost-x where an observer is in possession of a likewise stationary clock. This clock is synchronized with origin clock x = 0. The stationary observer sees moving clock-v go by with less face time than his own clock.
>
> This is time “dilation” in the sense that the moving unit of time, a second, a minute, is expanded in duration, while keeping unit value. Dilation of the unit subtracts from clock face value.
>
> And then it gets really weird. The guy who has the moving clock considers himself stationary at location [ x′ = 0 ] on the axis X′, the entirety of axis X′ moving with speed-v. When this purportedly moving guy considers himself stationary, the so-called stationary clock appears to him to move with negative speed-v, and that clock suffers time dilation just as his own clock once did.
>
> The clock paradox has been around for 120 years.
Yes, I know what scientists think. You seem to understand it better than most scientists, which can be seen from your last statement, "the stationary clock appears to him to move with negative speed -v. This is the part of the Lorentz equation interpretation I disagree with and have disagreed with since high school. If the moving clock is slower, then the stationary clock does not appear to move with a negative speed -v. It appears to move with a velocity greater than -v. I explained this with the Galilean transformation equations for the slower clock.
x = x' - m'n' where m' is the velocity of the so-called stationary clock relative to the so-called moving clock. Since the distances do not change from the original Galilean transformation equation
x' = x-vt, we get x-x'=-m'n', x-x'=vt, so -m'n'=vt, m' = -vt/n', meaning that if n' is less time than t, m' is a faster speed than v. This agrees with reality, since if the pilot of an airplane has a slower clock, as Einstein says he will, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. These equations also work if the moving clock is faster than the stationary clock, as we observe with a GPS satellite. Then the satellite clock results in a slower speed for the satellite.

On 10-Oct-23 1:31 pm, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
>>> Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
>>> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
>>> y' = y
>>> z' = z
>>> t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> inverse equations
>>> x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
>>> Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
>>> x'=x-vt
>>> y'=y
>>> z'=z
>>> t'=t
>>> inverse equations
>>> x = x' - v't'
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> t = t'
>>> v' = -v
>>> Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
>>> x = x'- m'n'
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> n = n'
>>> inverse equations
>>> x' = x - mn
>>> y'=y
>>> z'=z
>>> n'=n
>>> m' = -m
>>> Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
>>> So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
>> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
>> about this.
>>
>> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
>> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
>> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
>> behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
>> a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
>> scientific community.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Sylvia, what about the Richard Hertz back story to the Einstein catapult to scientific stardom?

I try not to contaminate by brain by remembering any of Hertz's nonsense.

Sylvia.

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > inverse equations
> > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> > Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> > inverse equations
> > x = x' - v't'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = t'
> > v' = -v
> > Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> > x = x'- m'n'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > n = n'
> > inverse equations
> > x' = x - mn
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > n'=n
> > m' = -m
> > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> > So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> about this.
>
> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> scientific community.
>
> Sylvia.
Well, I know all about that Sylvia. Scientists before 1887 used the Galilean transformation equations. Isaac Newton used absolute time, which shows that all clocks working correctly would agree with each other. What scientists of today do not consider is that both Galileo and Newton were good enough at following the axioms of algebra that if they had been told, Experiment has shown that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving, or A clock in a GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth because of the effects of gravitation, they could have worked the problem. All they had to do was keep the velocities straight, something scientists of today do not do because they use speed instead of velocity.
I am not an experimenter or a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education, but I can follow the axioms of algebra well enough to work the problem of relativity. As I said before, I am not explaining electromagnetic waves. I am explaining relativity.
If you want to discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment we can do that. I can explain that experiment using the Galilean transformation equations I showed here. Einstein used two little equations he said he extracted from the Lorentz equations that he said explained the Michelson-Morley experiment.
x = ct
x' = ct'
These two equations will not work with the Galilean transformation equations because t'=t. So we say that the time of the slower clock is n'.
x'=x-vt
cn' = ct - vt
n' = t - vt/c
n' = t - vct/c^2
which is obviously where Lorentz got the numerator for his equation for t'.
But, as I said, I have not believed scientists since I figured the problem in high school and saw that a slower clock would result in a faster velocity as computed from the time of the slower clock. Anyway, this equation for time of the slower clock gives the same speed for something moving to several decimal places until you get to very fast velocities. But this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations seems to me to be what Einstein was trying to explain in his book. His problem was that he was using the Lorentz equations, which show the same speed from either frame of reference, which obviously does not agree with reality. But if scientists want to have a miracle, I really have no objection. I just see no need for it. The Galilean transformation equations agree with reality if a moving clock is faster or slower.

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:31:23 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> > > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> > > y' = y
> > > z' = z
> > > t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > inverse equations
> > > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > y = y'
> > > z = z'
> > > t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> > > Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> > > x'=x-vt
> > > y'=y
> > > z'=z
> > > t'=t
> > > inverse equations
> > > x = x' - v't'
> > > y = y'
> > > z = z'
> > > t = t'
> > > v' = -v
> > > Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> > > x = x'- m'n'
> > > y = y'
> > > z = z'
> > > n = n'
> > > inverse equations
> > > x' = x - mn
> > > y'=y
> > > z'=z
> > > n'=n
> > > m' = -m
> > > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> > > So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> > Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> > about this.
> >
> > It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> > impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> > very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> > behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> > a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> > scientific community.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Sylvia, what about the Richard Hertz back story to the Einstein catapult to scientific stardom?
I have talked to enough scientists to convince me that there is not going to be a scientist in my lifetime who is going to disagree with what other scientists are doing. Scientists since World War II have been given millions, billions, and now trillions of dollars by governments in return for all agreeing with Einstein. I just go ahead and disagree because I am not a scientist, and no one pays me for using wrong equations.

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 04:27:30 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> > x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > inverse equations
> > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> > v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> > Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> > inverse equations
> > x = x' - v't'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > t = t'
> > v' = -v
> > Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> > x = x'- m'n'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > n = n'
> > inverse equations
> > x' = x - mn
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > n'=n
> > m' = -m
> > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> > So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> about this.
>
> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> behaving in the expected way.

Sorry, lady, it's a nonsensical propaganda bullshit, developed
after.

> Einstein provided a solution.

His mumble was not even consistent. Sometimes it
happens that people are following a mumbling mystician,
and this is the case.

On 10-Oct-23 3:39 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
>>> Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
>>> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
>>> y' = y
>>> z' = z
>>> t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> inverse equations
>>> x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
>>> v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
>>> Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
>>> x'=x-vt
>>> y'=y
>>> z'=z
>>> t'=t
>>> inverse equations
>>> x = x' - v't'
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> t = t'
>>> v' = -v
>>> Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
>>> x = x'- m'n'
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> n = n'
>>> inverse equations
>>> x' = x - mn
>>> y'=y
>>> z'=z
>>> n'=n
>>> m' = -m
>>> Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
>>> So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
>> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
>> about this.
>>
>> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
>> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
>> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
>> behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
>> a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
>> scientific community.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Well, I know all about that Sylvia. Scientists before 1887 used the Galilean transformation equations. Isaac Newton used absolute time, which shows that all clocks working correctly would agree with each other. What scientists of today do not consider is that both Galileo and Newton were good enough at following the axioms of algebra that if they had been told, Experiment has shown that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving, or A clock in a GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth because of the effects of gravitation, they could have worked the problem. All they had to do was keep the velocities straight, something scientists of today do not do because they use speed instead of velocity.
> I am not an experimenter or a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education, but I can follow the axioms of algebra well enough to work the problem of relativity. As I said before, I am not explaining electromagnetic waves. I am explaining relativity.
> If you want to discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment we can do that. I can explain that experiment using the Galilean transformation equations I showed here. Einstein used two little equations he said he extracted from the Lorentz equations that he said explained the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> x = ct
> x' = ct'
> These two equations will not work with the Galilean transformation equations because t'=t. So we say that the time of the slower clock is n'.
> x'=x-vt
> cn' = ct - vt
> n' = t - vt/c
> n' = t - vct/c^2
> which is obviously where Lorentz got the numerator for his equation for t'.
> But, as I said, I have not believed scientists since I figured the problem in high school and saw that a slower clock would result in a faster velocity as computed from the time of the slower clock. Anyway, this equation for time of the slower clock gives the same speed for something moving to several decimal places until you get to very fast velocities. But this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations seems to me to be what Einstein was trying to explain in his book. His problem was that he was using the Lorentz equations, which show the same speed from either frame of reference, which obviously does not agree with reality. But if scientists want to have a miracle, I really have no objection. I just see no need for it. The Galilean transformation equations agree with reality if a moving clock is faster or slower.

How do you explain the result of the Fizeau experiment, which was
performed half a century before Einstein proposed his theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
[-]
> > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt =
> > -m'n'. So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' =
> > -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is
> > slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as
> > we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the
> > miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do
> > not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct
> > manner.

You may want to have a look at Hafele and Keating, for observations
on real clocks on real airplanes. (and the explanations thereof)

> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> about this.
>
> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> scientific community.

I see that you have become more cautious about th experimental basis.
My take on it: It all started with the experiments
of Weber and Kohlrausch,
who showed that there must be a fundamental velocity
hiding in electricity and magnetism. (equal to the velocity of light)
Maxwell found a wave equation that incorporated this,
with the internal velocity indeed being the velocity of light.

This posed a puzzle: what is this velocity,
and what is it with respect to?
In particular, in which frame should Maxwell's equations be valid?

For 25 years people floundered, without finding the correct solution.
All partial explanations conflicted with other partial explanations.

Einstein's revolutionary flash of insight, sometime in spring 1905,
was that the answer must be:
Maxwell's equations are valid in every inertial frame!
(with the same fundamental velocity for all)

The Einstein 1905 paper on it is best seen as didactics,
explaining how this at first sight perplexing answer is possible.
(with profound implications for the nature of space-time)

This is why that 'obscure patent clerk' had such an immediate impact:
he explained what 'everybody' knew already,
from an entirely new viewpoint,
thereby resolving all problems with electromagnetism at one go. [1]

Jan

[1] This is also the reason for the lack of references.
None were needed, because whatever could have been refered too
was common knowledge, for the intended readership.

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 10:08:44 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> > But, as I said, I have not believed scientists since I figured the problem in high school and saw that a slower clock would result in a faster velocity as computed from the time of the slower clock. Anyway, this equation for time of the slower clock gives the same speed for something moving to several decimal places until you get to very fast velocities. But this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations seems to me to be what Einstein was trying to explain in his book. His problem was that he was using the Lorentz equations, which show the same speed from either frame of reference, which obviously does not agree with reality. But if scientists want to have a miracle, I really have no objection. I just see no need for it. The Galilean transformation equations agree with reality if a moving clock is faster or slower.
> How do you explain the result of the Fizeau experiment, which was
> performed half a century before Einstein proposed his theory?

What to explain here, lady?
Do You seriously insist it violates GT?
Maybe it also violates Euclidean geometry

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 10:23:37 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> My take on it: It all started with the experiments
> of Weber and Kohlrausch,
> who showed that there must be a fundamental velocity
> hiding in electricity and magnetism. (equal to the velocity of light)
> Maxwell found a wave equation that incorporated this,
> with the internal velocity indeed being the velocity of light.
>
> This posed a puzzle: what is this velocity,
> and what is it with respect to?
> In particular, in which frame should Maxwell's equations be valid?
>
> For 25 years people floundered, without finding the correct solution.
> All partial explanations conflicted with other partial explanations.

Cut this mystical mumbo jumbo. Speed is a
derivative of 2 coordinates, speed is a result of
a conventiion. That's why it needs postulates.

> The Einstein 1905 paper on it is best seen as didactics,

Poor halfbrain was mumbling inconsistently.

> This is why that 'obscure patent clerk' had such an immediate impact:
> he explained what 'everybody' knew already,
> from an entirely new viewpoint,

So did Jesus Christ.

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:08:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Oct-23 3:39 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> >>> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> >>> y' = y
> >>> z' = z
> >>> t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>> inverse equations
> >>> x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>> y = y'
> >>> z = z'
> >>> t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>> v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> >>> Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> >>> x'=x-vt
> >>> y'=y
> >>> z'=z
> >>> t'=t
> >>> inverse equations
> >>> x = x' - v't'
> >>> y = y'
> >>> z = z'
> >>> t = t'
> >>> v' = -v
> >>> Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> >>> x = x'- m'n'
> >>> y = y'
> >>> z = z'
> >>> n = n'
> >>> inverse equations
> >>> x' = x - mn
> >>> y'=y
> >>> z'=z
> >>> n'=n
> >>> m' = -m
> >>> Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> >>> So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> >> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> >> about this.
> >>
> >> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> >> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> >> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> >> behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> >> a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> >> scientific community.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > Well, I know all about that Sylvia. Scientists before 1887 used the Galilean transformation equations. Isaac Newton used absolute time, which shows that all clocks working correctly would agree with each other. What scientists of today do not consider is that both Galileo and Newton were good enough at following the axioms of algebra that if they had been told, Experiment has shown that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving, or A clock in a GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth because of the effects of gravitation, they could have worked the problem. All they had to do was keep the velocities straight, something scientists of today do not do because they use speed instead of velocity.
> > I am not an experimenter or a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education, but I can follow the axioms of algebra well enough to work the problem of relativity. As I said before, I am not explaining electromagnetic waves. I am explaining relativity.
> > If you want to discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment we can do that. I can explain that experiment using the Galilean transformation equations I showed here. Einstein used two little equations he said he extracted from the Lorentz equations that he said explained the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> > x = ct
> > x' = ct'
> > These two equations will not work with the Galilean transformation equations because t'=t. So we say that the time of the slower clock is n'.
> > x'=x-vt
> > cn' = ct - vt
> > n' = t - vt/c
> > n' = t - vct/c^2
> > which is obviously where Lorentz got the numerator for his equation for t'.
> > But, as I said, I have not believed scientists since I figured the problem in high school and saw that a slower clock would result in a faster velocity as computed from the time of the slower clock. Anyway, this equation for time of the slower clock gives the same speed for something moving to several decimal places until you get to very fast velocities. But this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations seems to me to be what Einstein was trying to explain in his book. His problem was that he was using the Lorentz equations, which show the same speed from either frame of reference, which obviously does not agree with reality. But if scientists want to have a miracle, I really have no objection. I just see no need for it. The Galilean transformation equations agree with reality if a moving clock is faster or slower.
> How do you explain the result of the Fizeau experiment, which was
> performed half a century before Einstein proposed his theory?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
>
> Sylvia.
Fizeau's experiment was an early version of the Michelson-Morley experiment using water instead of air as the medium of conducting light. Fizeau did not get the result he expected. Instead, a smaller speed than the speed of the water was shown to increase the speed of the light. Later experiments with better apparatus showed that the slight increase in speed was because of the size of the pipes used by Fizeau. So according to scientists, the result was essentially the same as the Michelson-Morley experiment, which I already explained. Einstein said that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were explained by two little equations which he said he extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. As I explained, these equations will not work in the Galilean transformation equations because t' is defined to equal t. If there is a slower or faster clock that does not agree with t, the time of the clock that is not moving, then you have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity than in the equations that show x'=x-vt because t' is defined to equal t. So, as I explained, I said that velocity as calculated from the time of the moving clock was m' and the time of the moving clock was n'. So then these Galilean transformation equations calculated from the time of the slower clock would be
x = x' - m'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
What these equations mean is that the moving frame of reference is being used as a preferred frame, and the time of the clock in S'(x',y',z',n') is being used in both
frames of reference. There is a faster clock in S(x,y,z,t), but the time of that clock is shown by the Galilean transformation equations
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
It takes two sets of Galilean transformation equations to show the times of both clocks.
What scientists do is to say that a second is always the same amount of time, even if the earth rotates a different number of degrees during a second measured by a slower clock. So whatever scientists do with what they call atomic or scientific time is going to include a length contraction if they use the Lorentz equations. All of these things proposed by scientists are minor miracles which are measured in nanoseconds and extremely small differences in speed concerning anything that can be measured. I just go ahead and use the Galilean transformation equations, which do not incorporate any of these little miracles. That is not to say that miracles do not occur. I just work the math without them because I believe that a pilot of an airplane with a slower clock than a clock on the ground will get a faster speed for his airplane than an observer on the ground, or a faster clock in a GPS satellite indicates a slower speed for the satellite than an observer on the ground would get.

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:23:37 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> [-]
> > > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt =
> > > -m'n'. So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' =
> > > -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is
> > > slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as
> > > we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the
> > > miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do
> > > not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct
> > > manner.
> You may want to have a look at Hafele and Keating, for observations
> on real clocks on real airplanes. (and the explanations thereof)
> > Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> > about this.
> >
> > It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> > impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> > very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> > behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> > a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> > scientific community.
> I see that you have become more cautious about th experimental basis.
> My take on it: It all started with the experiments
> of Weber and Kohlrausch,
> who showed that there must be a fundamental velocity
> hiding in electricity and magnetism. (equal to the velocity of light)
> Maxwell found a wave equation that incorporated this,
> with the internal velocity indeed being the velocity of light.
>
> This posed a puzzle: what is this velocity,
> and what is it with respect to?
> In particular, in which frame should Maxwell's equations be valid?
>
> For 25 years people floundered, without finding the correct solution.
> All partial explanations conflicted with other partial explanations.
>
> Einstein's revolutionary flash of insight, sometime in spring 1905,
> was that the answer must be:
> Maxwell's equations are valid in every inertial frame!
> (with the same fundamental velocity for all)
>
> The Einstein 1905 paper on it is best seen as didactics,
> explaining how this at first sight perplexing answer is possible.
> (with profound implications for the nature of space-time)
>
> This is why that 'obscure patent clerk' had such an immediate impact:
> he explained what 'everybody' knew already,
> from an entirely new viewpoint,
> thereby resolving all problems with electromagnetism at one go. [1]
>
> Jan
>
> [1] This is also the reason for the lack of references.
> None were needed, because whatever could have been refered too
> was common knowledge, for the intended readership.
Yes, I know all about the Hafele-Keating experiment. If clocks were flown around the earth one way, they were slower than clocks on the ground. If they were flown around the earth the other way, they were faster. That does not matter to the Galilean transformation equations. There is no length contraction in the Galilean transformation equations. So we have
x'=x-vt
x-x' = vt

x = x' - m'n' n' is the time of a clock that does not agree with t'=t, but has a different rate, slower or faster. m' is the velocity of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' as shown by the time of the clock with time n'.
x - x' = -m'n'
-m'n'= vt
m' = -vt/n'
If n' is less than t, m' is a faster velocity. If n' is greater than t, m' is a slower velocity. No length contraction, no miracles, just junior high algebra. So this is the way I will continue to work relativity. I am sorry if scientists get upset by this, but that is just the way it is.

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 09:08:44 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Oct-23 3:39 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 7:27:30 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> Back when I was in high school, our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the faster clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to discover that the equations of Special Relativity show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane.
> >>> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(12-v^2/c^2)
> >>> y' = y
> >>> z' = z
> >>> t' = )t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>> inverse equations
> >>> x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>> y = y'
> >>> z = z'
> >>> t = (t' + vx')/(1-v^2/c^2)
> >>> v is the speed of the airplane and is the same speed as seen from either frame of reference. But we common people live in something called reality where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock, he will get a faster speed for the airplane. Special Relativity is nothing more than a mathematical description of a miracle that scientists have imagined to themselves. What would be the correct equations for what Einstein described, a clock in a flying airplane being slower than a clock on the ground?
> >>> Isaac Newton used Galileo's equations for relativity, as did all scientists until 1887. Newton's interpretation of relativity used absolute time, the idea that all clocks that were working correctly would agree with one another, which I believe Einstein was trying to imitate in saying that the speed of the airplane would be seen the same from either frame of reference, but obviously, reality shows something different. The pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane if his clock is slower. The Galilean transformation equations are
> >>> x'=x-vt
> >>> y'=y
> >>> z'=z
> >>> t'=t
> >>> inverse equations
> >>> x = x' - v't'
> >>> y = y'
> >>> z = z'
> >>> t = t'
> >>> v' = -v
> >>> Notice the two little horizontal marks between t and t'. They are called an equal sign and mean that t and t' are the same number of seconds. If there is a clock in the moving frame of reference that shows less time than t, the time of the clock on the ground, the time of that clock is not shown in these Galilean transformation equations. In order to show the time of the slower clock in the airplane, you would have to use another set of Galilean transformation equations with the same distances for x and x', but with different variables for time and velocity. So suppose we say that the velocity of the airplane according to the time of the slower clock on the airplane is m' and the time of the slower clock is n'. Then we have
> >>> x = x'- m'n'
> >>> y = y'
> >>> z = z'
> >>> n = n'
> >>> inverse equations
> >>> x' = x - mn
> >>> y'=y
> >>> z'=z
> >>> n'=n
> >>> m' = -m
> >>> Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt = -m'n'.
> >>> So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' = -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct manner.
> >> Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> >> about this.
> >>
> >> It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> >> impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> >> very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> >> behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> >> a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> >> scientific community.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > Well, I know all about that Sylvia. Scientists before 1887 used the Galilean transformation equations. Isaac Newton used absolute time, which shows that all clocks working correctly would agree with each other. What scientists of today do not consider is that both Galileo and Newton were good enough at following the axioms of algebra that if they had been told, Experiment has shown that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving, or A clock in a GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth because of the effects of gravitation, they could have worked the problem. All they had to do was keep the velocities straight, something scientists of today do not do because they use speed instead of velocity.
> > I am not an experimenter or a scientist. I am a welder with a high school education, but I can follow the axioms of algebra well enough to work the problem of relativity. As I said before, I am not explaining electromagnetic waves. I am explaining relativity.
> > If you want to discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment we can do that. I can explain that experiment using the Galilean transformation equations I showed here. Einstein used two little equations he said he extracted from the Lorentz equations that he said explained the Michelson-Morley experiment.
> > x = ct
> > x' = ct'
> > These two equations will not work with the Galilean transformation equations because t'=t. So we say that the time of the slower clock is n'.
> > x'=x-vt
> > cn' = ct - vt
> > n' = t - vt/c
> > n' = t - vct/c^2
> > which is obviously where Lorentz got the numerator for his equation for t'.
> > But, as I said, I have not believed scientists since I figured the problem in high school and saw that a slower clock would result in a faster velocity as computed from the time of the slower clock. Anyway, this equation for time of the slower clock gives the same speed for something moving to several decimal places until you get to very fast velocities. But this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations seems to me to be what Einstein was trying to explain in his book. His problem was that he was using the Lorentz equations, which show the same speed from either frame of reference, which obviously does not agree with reality. But if scientists want to have a miracle, I really have no objection. I just see no need for it. The Galilean transformation equations agree with reality if a moving clock is faster or slower.
> How do you explain the result of the Fizeau experiment, which was
> performed half a century before Einstein proposed his theory?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
>
> Sylvia

No need for relativity. A classical model does just fine.
In Fizeau the variable speed is proportional to the the 'extra distance' through
the water that the light has to travel. In the non moving experiment lightspeed
in the water is defined by c/n.
When the water moves relative to the source the lightspeed changes to reflect
the increase or decrease in optical density. And so for instance when the water
moves towards the source this can be modelled mathematically as the refractive
index of the refractive index for the 'extra distance' travelled.
As the light effectively travels through 'more water' to get the same distance
from source to detector.
So for example in a non moving experiment light travels through x distance of water.
When the water moves, light has to travel through an extra distance y of water.
So the change in speed from c/n is +- the refractive index of the refractive index
of the extra distance of water travelled as defined by
C+-(V x .67)/n
Where .67 =1-(1-n)

This traditional Fresnel equation can also be expressed as
c/n+-v{(1-n)+(1-n)^2}

On 10-Oct-23 9:38 pm, Robert Winn wrote:

> Fizeau's experiment was an early version of the Michelson-Morley experiment using water instead of air as the medium of conducting light. Fizeau did not get the result he expected. Instead, a smaller speed than the speed of the water was shown to increase the speed of the light. Later experiments with better apparatus showed that the slight increase in speed was because of the size of the pipes used by Fizeau.

If you're going to just outright lie, there's not a lot of point to this
interaction.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 11:54:26 UTC+1, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:23:37 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10-Oct-23 5:27 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> > [-]
> > > > Since distances are the same in all of these Galilean equations, vt =
> > > > -m'n'. So the velocity of the ground relative to the airplane would be m' =
> > > > -vt/n', a faster speed for the airplane if the clock in the airplane is
> > > > slower than a clock on the ground. These equations describe reality as
> > > > we observe it to be. They indicate that there is no need for the
> > > > miracle Einstein describes. How this relates to electromagnetism, I do
> > > > not say, just that these equations describe relativity in the correct
> > > > manner.
> > You may want to have a look at Hafele and Keating, for observations
> > on real clocks on real airplanes. (and the explanations thereof)
> > > Don't you think it would have been noticed long ago if you were right
> > > about this.
> > >
> > > It's not as if Einstein, as a young patent clerk, had some ability to
> > > impose his theory on an unwilling world. Experimenters had been taking a
> > > very close look at reality, and had been finding that it was not
> > > behaving in the expected way. Einstein provided a solution. That is why
> > > a young patent clerk was able to get his theory accepted by the
> > > scientific community.
> > I see that you have become more cautious about th experimental basis.
> > My take on it: It all started with the experiments
> > of Weber and Kohlrausch,
> > who showed that there must be a fundamental velocity
> > hiding in electricity and magnetism. (equal to the velocity of light)
> > Maxwell found a wave equation that incorporated this,
> > with the internal velocity indeed being the velocity of light.
> >
> > This posed a puzzle: what is this velocity,
> > and what is it with respect to?
> > In particular, in which frame should Maxwell's equations be valid?
> >
> > For 25 years people floundered, without finding the correct solution.
> > All partial explanations conflicted with other partial explanations.
> >
> > Einstein's revolutionary flash of insight, sometime in spring 1905,
> > was that the answer must be:
> > Maxwell's equations are valid in every inertial frame!
> > (with the same fundamental velocity for all)
> >
> > The Einstein 1905 paper on it is best seen as didactics,
> > explaining how this at first sight perplexing answer is possible.
> > (with profound implications for the nature of space-time)
> >
> > This is why that 'obscure patent clerk' had such an immediate impact:
> > he explained what 'everybody' knew already,
> > from an entirely new viewpoint,
> > thereby resolving all problems with electromagnetism at one go. [1]
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] This is also the reason for the lack of references.
> > None were needed, because whatever could have been refered too
> > was common knowledge, for the intended readership.
> Yes, I know all about the Hafele-Keating experiment. If clocks were flown around the earth one way, they were slower than clocks on the ground. If they were flown around the earth the other way, they were faster. That does not matter to the Galilean transformation equations. There is no length contraction in the Galilean transformation equations. So we have
> x'=x-vt
> x-x' = vt
>
> x = x' - m'n' n' is the time of a clock that does not agree with t'=t, but has a different rate, slower or faster. m' is the velocity of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' as shown by the time of the clock with time n'.
> x - x' = -m'n'
> -m'n'= vt
> m' = -vt/n'
> If n' is less than t, m' is a faster velocity. If n' is greater than t, m' is a slower velocity. No length contraction, no miracles, just junior high algebra. So this is the way I will continue to work relativity. I am sorry if scientists get upset by this, but that is just the way it is.

No need for relativity to explain Hafael Keating.
Look at classical resonance. It has been known for centuries that
the natural resonant frequency of a system will reduce its frequency
if subject to an external force. So an atom, also confirmed by all observations
to date to be a resonant system, will also reduce its frequency when subject
to external force. As we see happen where less g force with altitude increases
the atoms ‘ticking’.
The same occurs in Hafael Keating. The eastward travelling plane experiences
more force than the westward plane relative to the earths Center. Because it
travels at a greater speed relative to the earth Center, than the westward plane.
Which means the eastward plane (and its caesium atoms) will tick slower
than the westward plane.
As observed

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> The eastward travelling plane experiences
> more force than the westward plane relative to the earths Center. Because it
> travels at a greater speed relative to the earth Center, than the westward plane.
> Which means the eastward plane (and its caesium atoms) will tick slower
> than the westward plane.

You take the prize. The utter cretinism prize

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 4:50:06 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-Oct-23 9:38 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> > Fizeau's experiment was an early version of the Michelson-Morley experiment using water instead of air as the medium of conducting light. Fizeau did not get the result he expected. Instead, a smaller speed than the speed of the water was shown to increase the speed of the light. Later experiments with better apparatus showed that the slight increase in speed was because of the size of the pipes used by Fizeau.
> If you're going to just outright lie, there's not a lot of point to this
> interaction.
>
> Sylvia.
I did not outright lie. The only thing I ever knew about the Fizeau experiment before this morning was its name. Whenever I talk with scientists I try to answer all of their posts. This is how I learn. While scientists never answer anything I say, they will always find fault with my answers to anything they say. You asked, What about the Fizeau experiment? So I looked up the Fizeau experiment and said, Well, here is what I remember about what I just read concerning the Fizeau experiment. It is one way to get a bunch of scientists to engage me in conversation. So how about the pilot of the airplane with the slower clock? Do you believe in the miracle Einstein describes or do you believe in the reality we common people live in where if the pilot of the airplane has a slower clock he will get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground with a faster clock?

On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:54:35 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:16:02 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > The eastward travelling plane experiences
> > more force than the westward plane relative to the earths Center. Because it
> > travels at a greater speed relative to the earth Center, than the westward plane.
> > Which means the eastward plane (and its caesium atoms) will tick slower
> > than the westward plane.
> You take the prize. The utter cretinism prize
Good to see you, Dono. When did I lose out on the utter cretinism prize?