From: eric gisse on
rbwinn wrote:

> 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.

Why don't you mention the part about length contraction explaining
observation?
From: eric gisse on
rbwinn wrote:

> 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?

You have no idea what length contraction is either, yet you retain a strong
opinion on it. Why is that?
From: YBM on
rbwinn a �crit :
> 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.

No. They accept experiments results and theorical predictions and the
way they match.

By the way most of them don't have issues with their penis as you have,
and don't panic about length contraction with respect to a women walking
by.

From: PD on
On Jun 23, 7:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June, 09:25, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 9:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:a209036c-78a9-413e-8216-0bfe54ef4884(a)q29g2000vba.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >news:88390667-78fc-43b3-a480-43b63b45f6b2(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups..com...
>
> > > >> > > On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> > >>news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > >> > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    x'=x-vt
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    y'=y
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    z'=z
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    t'=t
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >       Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of
> > > >> > >> >> > > > reference
> > > >> > >> >> > > > S'
> > > >> > >> >> > > > is
> > > >> > >> >> > > > slower than a clock in S which shows t.  According to
> > > >> > >> >> > > > theGalilean
> > > >> > >> >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show
> > > >> > >> >> > > > t'.
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Time
> > > >> > >> >> > > > on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other
> > > >> > >> >> > > > variable if
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > >> >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used.  We call
> > > >> > >> >> > > >time on
> > > >> > >> >> > > >the
> > > >> > >> >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'.
> > > >> > >> >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean
> > > >> > >> >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows
> > > >> > >> >> > > > light to
> > > >> > >> >> > > > be
> > > >> > >> >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'.  Therefore, if
> > > >> > >> >> > > >  |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                         cn'=ct-vt
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                         n'=t(1-v/c)
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >          We can now calculate orbits of satellites and
> > > >> > >> >> > > > planets
> > > >> > >> >> > > > without
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their
> > > >> > >> >> > > > length
> > > >> > >> >> > > > contraction.  For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit
> > > >> > >> >> > > > around
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > >> >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec.  While a second of time takes place on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > earth, a
> > > >> > >> >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                             n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                             1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                              t(sun)=1.0001 sec.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >        Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to
> > > >> > >> >> > > > verify
> > > >> > >> >> > > > that
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for
> > > >> > >> >> > > > gravitation,
> > > >> > >> >> > > > we
> > > >> > >> >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                               n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87
> > > >> > >> >> > > > km/sec/
> > > >> > >> >> > > > 300,000km/sec)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                               n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >           So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> > >> >> > > > clock
> > > >> > >> >> > > > on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Mercury.  The question now is where would this put the
> > > >> > >> >> > > > perihelion
> > > >> > >> >> > > > of
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations?
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find
> > > >> > >> >> > > that
> > > >> > >> >> > > you've
> > > >> > >> >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've
> > > >> > >> >> > > put
> > > >> > >> >> > > out
> > > >> > >> >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have
> > > >> > >> >> > > learned
> > > >> > >> >> > > something.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is
> > > >> > >> >> > > moving
> > > >> > >> >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring
> > > >> > >> >> > > time (as
> > > >> > >> >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as
> > > >> > >> >> > > denoted
> > > >> > >> >> > > by
> > > >> > >> >> > > the quantity t').
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and
> > > >> > >> >> > > runs
> > > >> > >> >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B
> > > >> > >> >> > > is
> > > >> > >> >> > > measuring time but A is not.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not
> > > >> > >> >> > > measuring
> > > >> > >> >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > PD
>
> > > >> > >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of
> > > >> > >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way imaginable.
> > > >> > >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.- Hide quoted
> > > >> > >> >> > text -
>
> > > >> > >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert. It
> > > >> > >> >> really does help to know what the terms mean.
>
> > > >> > >> > So how did you "measure" time, PD?  With an hourglass, with the
> > > >> > >> > sun,
> > > >> > >> > with the moon, with a waterclock?  You must have done it some way.
>
> > > >> > >> We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'.  It is implied
> > > >> > >> (in
> > > >> > >> physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly
> > > >> > >> working
> > > >> > >> 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its
> > > >> > >> own
> > > >> > >> location in its own rest frame.  so if a duration dt of time at a
> > > >> > >> location
> > > >> > >> has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of
> > > >> > >> exactly
> > > >> > >> dt as well.
>
> > > >> > >> This is very very simple and basic stuff.
>
> > > >> > > Uh huh.  So what about the marks on S and S'?  They are not a clock
> > > >> > > any more?  That did not last long.
>
> > > >> > I said nothing about those marks.  You havea great deal of trouble
> > > >> > reading
> > > >> > and understanding .. that explains a lot.
>
> > > >> > However .. on the subject of such marks .. marks alone are not a clock
> > > >> > (they
> > > >> > are a ruler) .. you would also need something moving past those marks
> > > >> > at a
> > > >> > known rate, from that you can calculate the time.  If you have
> > > >> > correctly
> > > >> > measured distances between the marks (ie measured from a
> > > >> > mutually-at-rest
> > > >> > observer .. ie the marks are not moving wrt the observer) and have
> > > >> > correctly
> > > >> > measured the speed of the moving object, then clock will work and be
> > > >> > correct.
>
> > > >> > This does NOT change the fact thegalileantransforms are proven
> > > >> > incorrect
> > > >> > by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same
> > > >> > time
> > > >> > when those clocks are in relative motion.
>
> > > >> Well, I was just measuring time with the marks.  The marks are ten
> > > >> meters apart on both S and S'.
>
> > > > No, they're not. That is a claim that is inconsistent with real
> > > > *measurement*, Robert.
>
> > > No .. he's ok on that one, as he is referring to two DIFFERENT sets of
> > > marks.
>
> > > The marks at rest in S are 10m apart in S
>
> > > The marks at rest in S' are 10m apart in S'
>
> > > If that is what he is saying, that's fine
>
> > No he's not fine. Because he then says the marks will line up as they
> > pass each other. And they will not.
>
> > > If he says the BOTH sets of marks are 10m apart in BOTH frames, then he is
> > > wrong
>
> > > >>  Now scientists claim to have two
> > > >> separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'.  An observer
> > > >> in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S.  An
> > > >> observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on
> > > >> S'.  An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same
> > > >> distance apart.
>
> > > > No, Robert. Reality is set by what is *measured*. And *measurement*
> > > > says that the marks in S and S' are not the same distance apart.
>
> > > >>  So we have a difference between reality and science.
> > > >> Continuing on with reality, t'=t.  Hey, what do you know?
> > > >> That is the equation for time coordinates in theGalilean
> > > >> transformation equations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> So, PD, prove what you say.  But this frame of reference clock is
> handy even in the false mathematics used by scientists.  If an
> observer in S measures time by the marks the same way an observer in
> S' measures time by the marks, they both get the same answer even with
> the length contraction.  t'=t.

But this would be meaningless, Robert, because the distance between
the marks made in S will not be the same distance apart in S'. This
would be measurably so. Therefore marking time by using distances that
are not 10 m apart (as verified by measurement), and saying the speed
is 10 m/s, and then marking time this speeding object passes the marks
as being 1 second apart -- that would be ... stupid, Robert.

PD
From: PD on
On Jun 26, 10:44 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 11:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 26, 1:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 June, 08:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Algebra is not physics, Robert. One cannot use algebra to determine,
> > > > prove, or disprove the truth of a physical statement.
>
> > > > PD
>
> > > Well, I have all of these books by Isaac Newton and Galileo that I
> > > need to get rid of, right?
>
> > Not at all. They don't prove things with algebra, either. They use
> > measurements.
>
> > But which books by Newton and Galileo do you have? This way I can't
> > point this out to you in some detail.
>
> > PD
>
> Well, just the ones available on the computer.

Name them, Robert. Surely, since you have a computer, you can look
that up.

>  Do scientists have a
> program like net nanny or something that gets rid of Newton and
> Galileo the way net nanny gets rid of pornography?

Why would you want to do that?
Newton and Galileo used measurements to support their claims, Robert.
That's valuable information.

You are under the impression they proved their laws with algebra?

Perhaps you're not reading books by Newton or Galileo at all.

PD