Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:14 rbwinn wrote: [...] >> Again .. you lie. And you didn't even have to go to college to learn >> your dishonesty. Does being so dishonest sit well with you, Winn? >> You don't seem the least bit bothered by it. >> >> > What else is new? >> >> You understanding anything about it *would* be new .. but there is >> little sign of that ever happening after so many years. > > Thank you for sharing, artful. Like a boulder on the beach, the rbwinn just sits there and lets the tides of knowledge slap him over and over without moving. What a peaceful existence that must be ...
From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:15 rbwinn wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:13 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> Why don't you mention the part about length contraction explaining >> >> observation? >> >> > What observation would that be, eric? >> >> Why can't you answer the question yourself, bobby? > > The Lorentz equations give too large a value for time in S', > consequently, it has to be compensated for by a length contraction. > So what is supposed to be getting observed? You tell me, bobby. You're the one who has been arguing about this subject for the past 15 years. Let's see what - if anything - you've learned.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:18 rbwinn wrote: [...] > Well, the Lorentz equations give the times of the Lorentz equations, > and the length contraction moves things where the times of the Lorentz > equations say they would be. That does not prove anything to me > except that the Lorentz equation times are too great. Do you demand Intel explain to you how the semiconductor technology of their integrated circuits work? When they don't, do you sniff about how you are unconvinced because 'that does not prove anything to me' on a newsgroup for 15 years? Or is it just about relativity?
From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:19 Jeff Whittaker wrote: [...] > And once again Bobby is deliberately obtuse in an attempt to deflect > the argument. Don't be narrow. He could quite easily be *that stupid*. [...]
From: eric gisse on 1 Jul 2010 21:20
rbwinn wrote: > On 30 June, 12:14, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> PD wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > So let's see. So far, and in just the past day, you've made a >> > dishonest statement about college graduates learning to be dishonest >> > in college [...] >> >> I must have missed that course, or perhaps unknowingly tested out of it. > > I would have thought you were at the head of the class in that one, > eric. So is that why you quit university, bobby? Or was it for a more prosaic reason, like being stupid? |