Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 2 Jul 2010 22:59 rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 2, 12:58 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> rbwinn wrote: >> > On Jul 1, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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? >> >> > It is just about relativity. I use the equations scientists threw >> > away in 1887. You are very offended by that. >> >> I'm no more 'offended' at you being stupid than I am 'offended' at the >> people around here who put up the 'obama = hitler' signs. >> >> Ridiculous stupidity that makes noise but accomplishes nothing does not >> offend me. That you've been doing this for 15 years and have convinced >> literally _not one person_ that you are right is evidence enough. > > I would not expect any other result , considering what is popular > today. So even though you know you have spent 15 years having convinced nobody of your cause, you still think you are right? Guess that 1 year of college sure does trump the 4 of undergraduate study and 4-6 of PhD study of a normal physicist.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 23:01 On Jul 2, 11:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 1, 6:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 10:18 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 4:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't worry at all. So you want to talk about measurements, just > > > > > > choose the ones you want to talk about. > > > > > > The ones that are documented in the library, Robert. Those are the > > > > > ones. > > > > > > I don't really care to talk about them with you much at all, > > > > > especially since you aren't interested in looking at them. You seem to > > > > > think that measurements aren't to be believed. That's fine for you, > > > > > Robert, but it does make what you say completely irrelevant to > > > > > science. And because of that, we won't really be *discussing* > > > > > anything. Instead, you will likely continue to make foolish > > > > > statements, and I will continue to comment on how foolish they are and > > > > > why. > > > > > > PD > > > > > Well, so you do not want to discuss relativity. What else is new? > > > > Oh, I'm happy to discuss it, Bobby. Part of that discussion will be > > > telling you where you can find documentation on the actual > > > measurements. Since the actual measurements are essential for > > > determining truth in science, then actually looking at that > > > documentation is essential for determining the truth. You see, just > > > *discussing* things here is not sufficient. This is what a lot of > > > people have been telling you over and over again. > > > Uh huh. So since you have looked at the documentation, just tell me > > where it disagrees with my equations. > > You have the very same access to the documentation that I do, Robert. > The only difference between you and me is that I've put in the effort > to remove my rear from my chair to go look at it. You, on the other > hand, are asking others to save you the effort of removing your rear > from your chair, and to just feed it to you where you are sitting. > Forgive me for not being sympathetic to your laziness, Robert. > > PD Well, it does not matter how lazy I am if I have the right equations to describe relativity. Your equations are still going to give the wrong answers.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 23:02 On Jul 2, 12:55 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 1, 6:14 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 ... > > > Yes, very peaceful. I don't have to worry about a length contraction.. > > Nor do you have to worry about any of the other things scientists worry > about because you are a welder and those things don't concern you. That is correct. Scientists invented nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are their problem.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 23:10 On Jul 2, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 6:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 10:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 7:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 11:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> 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? > > > > > > Facts are open to independent confirmation, Robert. You claim to know > > > > > things but without the benefit of facts that are open to independent > > > > > confirmation. That's a little boneheaded, don't you think so too? > > > > > > PD > > > > > Well, I just use facts reported by scientists. They said they had a > > > > slower clock in S'. > > > > I don't think that's quite what they said, Robert. I think they said > > > things more carefully than what you heard or comprehended. This may be > > > part of your problem. > > > You don't think that scientists said there was a slower clock in S'. > > What do you claim they said? > > The scientists that I've talked with, Bobby, would tell you that the > clocks are identical and both run at equal rates in their own rest > frames. They will also tell you that if you pick two events, then the > interval of time measured on the clock for which those two events > occur in the same place, will be greater than the interval of time > measured on the clock for which those two events do not occur in the > same place. The first case is the reference frame S, the second case > is the reference frame S'. You see, that is a much different statement > than the BS you just spouted. > > Now, I don't know the names of the scientists you talked to, but I'm > presuming you do. What were their names, Bobby? > > PD Well, you were one of them. All I know is you call yourself PD. So how does your description of events differ from mine? There is more time on the clock that is not moving. The clock in S' is slower. This is something I have noticed about scientists. Even when they say something that is identical to what I say, they do it in a contentious manner, as though they are saying it in a better manner. No, sorry, it does not matter whether you say that S has a greater interval of time or that a clock in S is faster than a clock in S'. You are nit-picking in an effort to pretend that you said something different than what I said.
From: rbwinn on 2 Jul 2010 23:11
On Jul 2, 5:43 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Jul 1, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > > It is just about relativity. TheGalileantransformation equations > > give a true representation of relativity. > > Ok, and why do you believe they are a 'true representation of reality' when > observation says they are not? > > Do you have conflicting observations, or is that just your personal opinion? Well, you are the one claiming they give conflicting observations. Go ahead and prove what you say. |