Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2010 00:09 On Jun 26, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On 26 June, 07:31, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 26, 8:26 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > 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. > > >> Well, Robert, you claim to KNOW something but without the benefit of > >> direct observation in cases where the length contraction is advertised > >> to be easily measurable. Thus you are claiming to KNOW something you > >> really don't know anything about. This would be like claiming to KNOW > >> all about somebody without ever having met them. It would be ... > >> idiotic. > > >> > That means that t' is time on > >> > a clock in S. Nothing to struggle with there that I can see. > > > Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, PD. > > You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Well, that seems a little unfair. So facts can only be used by scientists?
From: eric gisse on 27 Jun 2010 01:42 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 26, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> > On 26 June, 07:31, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 26, 8:26 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Well, Robert, you claim to KNOW something but without the benefit of >> >> direct observation in cases where the length contraction is advertised >> >> to be easily measurable. Thus you are claiming to KNOW something you >> >> really don't know anything about. This would be like claiming to KNOW >> >> all about somebody without ever having met them. It would be ... >> >> idiotic. >> >> >> > That means that t' is time on >> >> > a clock in S. Nothing to struggle with there that I can see. >> >> > Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, PD. >> >> You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. > > Well, that seems a little unfair. So facts can only be used by > scientists? Since you have no understanding of why scientists accept length contraction, I don't see how it is all that unfair.
From: eric gisse on 27 Jun 2010 01:48 rbwinn wrote: [...] > Well, I know there is not a length contraction, if that is what you > are talking about. Since you 'know' about as much about length contraction as you do quantum tunneling, do you also 'know' that does not exist as well?
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2010 19:47 On 26 June, 22:42, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jun 26, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> rbwinn wrote: > >> > On 26 June, 07:31, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 26, 8:26 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> Well, Robert, you claim to KNOW something but without the benefit of > >> >> direct observation in cases where the length contraction is advertised > >> >> to be easily measurable. Thus you are claiming to KNOW something you > >> >> really don't know anything about. This would be like claiming to KNOW > >> >> all about somebody without ever having met them. It would be ... > >> >> idiotic. > > >> >> > That means that t' is time on > >> >> > a clock in S. Nothing to struggle with there that I can see. > > >> > Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, PD. > > >> You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. > > > Well, that seems a little unfair. So facts can only be used by > > scientists? > > Since you have no understanding of why scientists accept length contraction, > I don't see how it is all that unfair. I understand why they accept length contraction. They want to use the Lorentz equations.
From: rbwinn on 27 Jun 2010 19:49
On 26 June, 22:48, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > [...] > > > Well, I know there is not a length contraction, if that is what you > > are talking about. > > Since you 'know' about as much about length contraction as you do quantum > tunneling, do you also 'know' that does not exist as well? I have no idea what you call quantum tunneling. The Europeans dug a tunnel under the English channel. Is it something like that? |