Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 21:08 rbwinn wrote: > On 24 June, 21:32, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> artful wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> > Then label those frames S and S' and it does. My god but you're >> > stupid >> >> Bobby is exploring the true depths of stupidity. >> >> No rush - he's been doing it for more than a decade. He'll be here >> tomorrow. > > Thank you for sharing, eric. Have you found the bottom yet, Bobby? Personally I prefer to explore the parameter space of 'correct' directly, instead of mapping out all of 'incorrect'. How many new ways of being wrong have you tried this week, Bobby?
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 21:08 rbwinn wrote: [...] > I just follow the math, PD. Why that math? You have no training in the subject, so your choice of 'the math' is rather arbitrary.
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 09:13 On 25 June, 18:08, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > > I just follow the math, PD. > > Why that math? You have no training in the subject, so your choice of 'the > math' is rather arbitrary. What do you mean I have no training in the subject. I started out in a two room school in Montana learning 1+1=2. Then I continued on through high school. Then I took one year of college. I was taught mathematics during all of that schooling. In particular, with regard to this discussion, the math that applies is algebra. The Lorentz equations are algebra. The Galilean transformation equations are algebra. Algebra is not arbitrary.
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 09:16 On 25 June, 18:08, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On 24 June, 21:32, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> artful wrote: > > >> [...] > > >> > Then label those frames S and S' and it does. My god but you're > >> > stupid > > >> Bobby is exploring the true depths of stupidity. > > >> No rush - he's been doing it for more than a decade. He'll be here > >> tomorrow. > > > Thank you for sharing, eric. > > Have you found the bottom yet, Bobby? > > Personally I prefer to explore the parameter space of 'correct' directly, > instead of mapping out all of 'incorrect'. How many new ways of being wrong > have you tried this week, Bobby? Thank you for sharing, Eric.
From: rbwinn on 26 Jun 2010 09:26
On 25 June, 18:06, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > > I know a psychologist who was trying to drill through a board with an > > electric drill, and he was having great difficulty. He said to > > himself, This drill bit is obviously very dull, so he applied more > > pressure, and after a long difficult time he was able to get the hole > > drilled completely through the board, although it was more burned than > > drilled. > > Then he discovered that he had drilled completely through a > > board with the drill running in reverse. > > Compare and contrast with Robert B. Winn, the welder by trade, who has spent > 15 years discussing concepts he does not understand. > > Observe as he struggles mightily with the basic question of 'what is t'?'.. > > > College graduates are certainly interesting people. > > As opposed to people like Robert B. Winn who are proud of not knowing > things. I know there is no length contraction. That means that t' is time on a clock in S. Nothing to struggle with there that I can see. |