Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 22 Jul 2010 23:13 On Jul 4, 5:09 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:31 pm, 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? > > OK .. so RBWINN is now (finally) claiming there is an absolute frame, > S, in which the center of mass of the universe is at rest. > > He is also claiming that clocks in motion relative to that absolute > frame the will run slow. > > Q1: Does EVERYTHING in motion relative to that frame run slow, or only > some clocks? > > Q2: Are clock on earth all running slow then? > > Q3: If time is the same everywhere (as RBWINN agreed is the case due > to t'=t) then why not just set all clocks to show the time t? Then > there is no slow clocks and Gallilean transforms apply. Q1 All clocks run slow compared to a clock at the center of gravity of the universe because all clocks are moving compared to that clock. However, the center of gravity of the universe is also probably moving. Q2 Clocks on earth that are operating correctly are running at the correct speed for clocks on earth. That is slower than the same clocks would be running if they were at the center of gravity of the universe. Q3 t'=t is not defining absolute time. The proof of this is seen by applying the Galilean transformation equations to two different clocks. If S and S' are the frames of reference of Jupiter and one of its moons, then t is time on a clock on Jupiter. If S and S' are frames of reference representing Mars and one of its moons, then t is time on a clock on Mars. A clock on Mars is slower than a clock on Jupiter because Mars has a faster velocity relative to the sun. Consequently, t'=t is not representing absolute time, but relative time, according to the rate of time t represents.
From: rbwinn on 22 Jul 2010 23:15 On Jul 19, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:44 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 6:07 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 14, 9:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 9:13 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 6:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > >news:c34cba53-2a43-453f-936b-7088df7d2bef(a)j7g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:7a91960b-b849-4b8f-b358-0aceb2d1b712(a)i9g2000prn..googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Jun 28, 10:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It sounds like perhaps you are proposing something similar to LET > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In LET, reality isGalilean. Space doesn't contract and time doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > >> slow > > > > > > > > > > > > >> down. TheGalileantransforms apply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> However, in that simple 3D galillean universe, what happens is clocks > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (and > > > > > > > > > > > > >> all processes) run slower and rulers (and all matter and fields) > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contract > > > > > > > > > > > > >> due to absolute motion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They do so in such a way that the MEASUREMENTS made with such clocks > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rulers are no longer related byGalileantransforms, but by Lorentz > > > > > > > > > > > > >> transforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It seems you are proposing the instead, we just have clock running slow > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that the relation ship between what we MEASURE clocks (and processes) > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > > > > > >> do > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is related by > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> x'=x-vt > > > > > > > > > > > > >> y'=y > > > > > > > > > > > > >> z'=z > > > > > > > > > > > > >> t'=t(1-v/c) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Only you are using n for the measured time, there is no need for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you are talking about what is measured, you can just use x,y,z,t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Those equations do not work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know your equations are wrong. Glad to hear you admit it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They require a different reference for > > > > > > > > > > > > > time in S' than in S. TheGalileantransformation equations require > > > > > > > > > > > > > t' to equal t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And so your equation using t(1-v/c) for time in S' is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So .. given that the definition of a correct clock is one that shows the > > > > > > > > > > > >> time in the frame in which it is at rest .... what is the formula for the > > > > > > > > > > > >> time shown on a correct clock at rest in S' as observed by an observer at > > > > > > > > > > > >> rest in frame S ?? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Can you answer that honestly? I doubt it. Prove me wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > >The clock in S' is ticking slower than the clock in S as observed from > > > > > > > > > > > >either frame of reference. A clock at rest in S' is moving with a > > > > > > > > > > > >velocity of v relative to an observer in S. The time on the clock > > > > > > > > > > > >would be > > > > > > > > > > > > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > > > > > > > > > > > >where t is time on a clock at rest in S. > > > > > > > > > > > > You've still not answered .. just calling it 'S' doesn't say what the frame > > > > > > > > > > > is. Are you at rest in this frame S now? Am I? Is anything? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets ask again .. see if you can answer this time > > > > > > > > > > > > So in what frame of reference are the clocks ticking at the 'correct' > > > > > > > > > > > rate, and not slowed by motion? What is the relationship between the > > > > > > > > > > > time shown on some clock moving in that frame, and the actual time in > > > > > > > > > > > that frame? > > > > > > > > > > > > And a further question > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have two frames moving relative to each other, and each with a clock > > > > > > > > > > > at rest in them .. which clock runs slow and which runs fast? And why will > > > > > > > > > > > they do that .. why don't the people at rest in those frames simply set the > > > > > > > > > > > clocks to the correct rate .. why do they let their clocks run slow or fast? > > > > > > > > > > > There are reasons why things happen, including motion. Now, I know > > > > > > > > > > you scientists are all impressed by having a train stand still and the > > > > > > > > > > railroad track moving. The problem with it is that it is not > > > > > > > > > > reality. The train is still what is moving. > > > > > > > > > > The Earth is not moving, Robert? Then why do the locations of the > > > > > > > > > other planets move in the night sky? > > > > > > > > > The earth is moving relative to the sun, PD. > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. And so you see, the railroad tracks, which are connected > > > > > > > to the moving earth, are also moving. Don't you think so too? > > > > > > > So what? S represents the railroad track, and S' represents the > > > > > > train. A clock on the train is slower than a clock on the ground by > > > > > > the railroad track. > > > > > > As measured from somone on the ground by the railroad track. > > > > > > By the way, a clock on the ground by the railroad track is slower than > > > > > a clock on the train, as measured by someone on the train. > > > > Did this come as a surprise to you? > > > > > > > So all we have to do is put a clock on the ground > > > > > > by the railroad track. What is supposed to be so difficult about that? > > > > > > It's not at all difficult. Why do you suppose it is difficult? > > > > > What do you think the size of the slowing-down effect is for a typical > > > > > train speed, Robert? > > > > > You took a year of college classes. Surely you can do arithmetic. > > > > > There would be a difference after about ten decimal places, I believe. > > > > What speed are you using for the train, Robert? > > > > Let's suppose for an instant that you've done the calculation > > > correctly (or at all). > > > So what do you suppose would be involved in measuring a time > > > difference in the tenth decimal place? > > > I am not going to try to measure it. I did not bother to calculate > > it. I am just guessing what it would be. If you want to be more > > accurate than that, go ahead and do the math. > > Ah, good. So you often state you believe things you just guess at? > > PD I can tell from the equation that one time would be greater than the other. That is all that is necessary for the purposes of this discussion. It does not really matter that it takes ten decimals for the difference in time to show itself.
From: Inertial on 22 Jul 2010 23:24 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:3feb59f8-1922-4317-84df-66610b7a6536(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 4, 5:09 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 13, 11:31 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > x'=x-vt >> > y'=y >> > z'=z >> > t'=t [snip] >> > cn'=ct-vt >> > n'=t(1-v/c) [snip] >> OK .. so RBWINN is now (finally) claiming there is an absolute frame, >> S, in which the center of mass of the universe is at rest. >> >> He is also claiming that clocks in motion relative to that absolute >> frame the will run slow. >> >> Q1: Does EVERYTHING in motion relative to that frame run slow, or only >> some clocks? >> >> Q2: Are clock on earth all running slow then? >> >> Q3: If time is the same everywhere (as RBWINN agreed is the case due >> to t'=t) then why not just set all clocks to show the time t? Then >> there is no slow clocks and Gallilean transforms apply. > >Q1 All clocks run slow compared to a clock at the center of gravity >of the universe because all clocks are moving compared to that clock. >However, the center of gravity of the universe is also probably >moving. Relative to what? Where/what is the frame where clocks run fastest? >Q2 Clocks on earth that are operating correctly are running at the >correct speed for clocks on earth. That is slower than the same >clocks would be running if they were at the center of gravity of the >universe. > >Q3 t'=t is not defining absolute time. Wrong. That is EXACTLY what it defines. It says time is the same regardless of velocity or position. > The proof of this is seen by >applying the Galilean transformation equations to two different >clocks. If S and S' are the frames of reference of Jupiter and one of >its moons, then t is time on a clock on Jupiter. And the Galilean transforms say t' = t > If S and S' are >frames of reference representing Mars and one of its moons, then t is > time on a clock on Mars. A clock on Mars is slower than a clock on >Jupiter because Mars has a faster velocity relative to the sun. >Consequently, t'=t is not representing absolute time, but relative >time, according to the rate of time t represents. No matter WHAT pair of inertial frames you choose, Galilean transforms say that the time is the same for both. That is precisely what t' = t MEANS. So you cannot deny that AND claim to use Galilean transforms. That's just self-contradictory. What YOU DO add is an additional equation that relates the time shown on clocks to velocity. That will mean that faster moving objects will tick slower. And you've said that that movement must be measured relative to the centre-of-mass of the universe. And that the time shown on a clock, moving at v relative to that centre of mass frame, is given by t(1-v/c) .. where we assume v is the speed (so always a +ve value) of the clock relative to that centre of mass frame. Is that correct?
From: rbwinn on 22 Jul 2010 23:30 On Jul 15, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 6:37 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 14, 4:17 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 12, 6:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 11, 11:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 4:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 12:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 12:51 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 7:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 4:56 pm, cully when <cullyw...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eric gisse 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I don't know. I have actually met stupid people and there are times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have done rather stupid things. Bobby has convince me he would have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to climb several rungs of the ladder to reach the stupid level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert isn't stupid, but he is a tad sociopathic, possibly a bit - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pathic in other areas, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has a certain quiet tone that comes across even through typing. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagine him saying things like, "Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > screaming?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, PD, show the conviction of your accusations. Go to a magistrate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where you live and file a petition for the institutionalization of a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > person believed to be insane. Otherwise, you are just another person > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who multiplies words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Tell me where you live, so that I can file with the authorities > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that have you in their jurisdiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glad to be of help, since you've asked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Somewhere in the Phoenix area, Robert? I'm thinking Maricopa? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever walked across the fields in your back yard when you've > > > > > > > > > > > > > seen the authorities coming, or do you just hide under the trailer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is one group of people I enjoy talking with more than > > > > > > > > > > > > scientists. That is lawyers. > > > > > > > > > > > > And do you walk across the field when you see lawyers coming, or do > > > > > > > > > > > you just hide under your trailer when you see lawyers coming? > > > > > > > > > > > What happens when the authorities and lawyers come at the same time? > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of lawyers who go to church where I do. Do they > > > > > > > > > > count? > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I'm more curious what happens when authorities come to where > > > > > > > > > you live. > > > > > > > > > Since you go to church, it's obvious that you can get to the library > > > > > > > > > in Maricopa. There's actually a very good university in Phoenix, too. > > > > > > > > > So you really don't have a good excuse not to go there to get some > > > > > > > > > answers you keep asking for here. > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > So you are saying that scientists here are forbidden to speak about > > > > > > > > relativity with people who do not have college degrees. > > > > > > > > Not at all. Just because someone doesn't respond to you in the fashion > > > > > > > you're fishing for doesn't mean they are forbidden by anyone from > > > > > > > doing so. It must may mean that people don't like to accommodate your > > > > > > > laziness as a general rule. > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > Well, I don't see how it means anything for someone who has never > > > > > > worked a day in their life to tell me that I am lazy. > > > > > > I don't know who this person is that has told you that you're lazy but > > > > > has never worked a day in his life. I work six days a week, and I'm > > > > > telling you you're lazy, too. > > > > > > PD > > > > > You work six days a week doing what? > > > > My job, Robert. > > > And I'm not a welder. > > > Nor am I a compulsive liar. > > > It's probably not a good idea to project your own situation onto > > > others. > > > > PD > > > Well, you sound like you are on government welfare of some kind. > > Nope. I'm not supported by any government money, Robert. > > > I > > don't think you do anything except put out bad information. > > Well, you think all sorts of goofy things, especially without evidence. You claim to accept evidence from other people, but no matter what I say, you say it is not evidence. That is certainly to be expected from science advocates of today. Their science is in a Dark Ages just as real as existed anciently.
From: rbwinn on 22 Jul 2010 23:32
On Jul 15, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 8:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 11:53 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 6, 7:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 4:04 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 4, 12:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:26 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 12:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 7:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 4:56 pm, cully when <cullyw...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eric gisse 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I don't know. I have actually met stupid people and there are times > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have done rather stupid things. Bobby has convince me he would have > > > > > > > > > > > > > to climb several rungs of the ladder to reach the stupid level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert isn't stupid, but he is a tad sociopathic, possibly a bit - > > > > > > > > > > > > pathic in other areas, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > He has a certain quiet tone that comes across even through typing. I > > > > > > > > > > > > imagine him saying things like, "Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped > > > > > > > > > > > > screaming?" > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, PD, show the conviction of your accusations. Go to a magistrate > > > > > > > > > > > where you live and file a petition for the institutionalization of a > > > > > > > > > > > person believed to be insane. Otherwise, you are just another person > > > > > > > > > > > who multiplies words. > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Tell me where you live, so that I can file with the authorities > > > > > > > > > > that have you in their jurisdiction. > > > > > > > > > > Glad to be of help, since you've asked. > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > I live in Maricopa. > > > > > > > > > I guessed that much. On the very end of a road bordering some fields, > > > > > > > > I'm thinking. > > > > > > > > Do your neighbors know you too? Have they filed reports with the > > > > > > > > authorities about you in recent years? > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > No, not on the very end of a road. Next to a block wall of a sub- > > > > > > > division. Are you concerned about the safety of my neighbors? Why > > > > > > > don't you go to a magistrate where you live and file a petition for > > > > > > > the institutionalization of a person you believe to be insane? That > > > > > > > is what is done here in the United States for the situation you > > > > > > > describe. If you do not do it, then we can all say you are just > > > > > > > blowing smoke, which is exactly what you are doing. > > > > > > > I think I'd much rather go to the magistrate where you live, and > > > > > > that's why I'm asking to be sure about where you live. When I go to > > > > > > the magistrate, he or she may be interested in whether there are other > > > > > > concerns about your sanity, and so that is the reason I asked about > > > > > > your neighbors and whether they've ever seen you outside your trailer. > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > I don't think the magistrate where I live wants to see me again. Last > > > > > time I requested trial by jury. > > > > > Well, it may be worth another shot. Perhaps the neighbors think so > > > > too. Perhaps you've swaddled yourself in a touch too much Smug. > > > > > PD > > > > Be my guest. I don't think you would get anywhere with it, but who > > > knows what might happen in a socialistic government like we now have? > > > Exactly. You may be living in the wrong country. > > Do you get along with the Baltierras? > > What about the Baltierras, Robert? Do you get along with them? I seem to. I do not know any Baltierras. |