Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:48 On Jul 22, 9:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 9:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:21 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > The fastest clock would be at the center of gravity of the universe. > > > > > What center of gravity of the universe? > > > > > > all other clocks are slower than that clock. t'=t applies to only two > > > > > frames of reference at a time. For instance, if you are talking about > > > > > the earth and the moon, time on a clock on the moon would be n' and > > > > > time on the earth would be t. If you are talking about the earth and > > > > > the sun, time on a clock on earth would be n', and time on the sun > > > > > would be t. > > > > So you are saying that the universe does not have a center of > > > gravity. Why would everything else have a center of gravity, but not > > > the universe? > > > Not everything else does, Robert. There are a lot of things that do, > > but not everything. > > Your "argument" is a little like saying that mammals are defined by > > giving live birth to their young. You might be thinking in your head, > > "Dolphins do, bats do, humans do, tigers do, horses do. Why would it > > be the case that all these mammals give live birth to their young and > > yet mammals aren't definable by giving live birth to their young." > > This is the difference between taking a poll of things you are > > familiar with, and taking a poll of everything there is. > > > There are lots of examples of similar phenomena. Not everything that > > is 2D has a center in that 2D space. Not everything that is 1D has a > > center that is in that 1D space. Likewise, not everything that is 3D > > has a center in that 3D space. > > > PD > > Well, since you hypothesize this, go ahead and show some examples of > things that do not have a center. Sure. A line is a 1D object, and we're going to ask which point ON THIS LINE is the center. If the line has two endpoints, then there is a point on this line which is the center of the line. It sits halfway between the endpoints. You can even curve the line, and there will still be a point ON the line which is midway between the two endpoints, which you can find by simultaneously crawling along the line from the endpoints at the same speed. But a circle is a 1D object without endpoints, and there is no point on the circle that is the center of the circle. Likewise, if you take a sheet of paper, you can find a point ON the sheet of paper that is the center of the sheet of paper. But if you take the surface of a ball or the surface of a donut (a torus), there is no point ON the surface that is the center of that surface. Likewise, if you take a 3D box, like a room, you can find the center of the room. But it's certainly possible to imagine a curved 3D space that has no center in that 3D space. (Now, I say it's possible to imagine it, but I expect that you will find this is not easy for you. You may be able to visualize the circle and the donut, but go into complete vapor lock in the 3D case. Your mind may tell you it's ok with 1D and 2D, but 3D is somehow just "different". But that's just you, Robert, and your bone-filled cranium.) PD
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:49 On Jul 22, 10:02 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 9:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 9:28 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 17, 5:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > >news:f67fd82f-41a0-4534-be1b-e939bd623bbb(a)w35g2000prd.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 > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > >The fastest clock would be at the center of gravity of the universe. > > > > >all other clocks are slower than that clock. t'=t applies to only two > > > > >frames of reference at a time. > > > > > And not to clocks, it appears .. or else they would not run slow > > > > > > For instance, if you are talking about > > > > >the earth and the moon, time on a clock on the moon would be n' and > > > > >time on the earth would be t. > > > > > And vice versa, of course. . which means clocks run both faster than each > > > > other and slow than each other. A contradiction > > > > > > If you are talking about the earth and > > > > >the sun, time on a clock on earth would be n', and time on the sun > > > > >would be t. > > > > > And vice versa, of course. . which means clocks run both faster than each > > > > other and slow than each other. A contradiction > > > > > So .. if you have two clocks, A and B, where A moves at v relative to B, and > > > > so B at -v relative to A, which is faster? > > > > Well, here is where reality disagrees with science. In reality, if > > > you have one clock slower than the other, it is slower than the other > > > from both frames of reference, > > > Not always, Robert. No. That's what MEASUREMENTS say -- not always. > > > > which is what theGalilean > > > transformation equations show. > > > Equations don't show anything. They claim something, but that claim > > needs to be put to experimental test. And in this case, Robert, theGalileantransformations don't match experimental measurement. In > > science, measurements always trump equations. You didn't know that? > > > > Scientists are saying, we are > > > confused, so all people are required to be confused. > > Well, people who have faith in fairy tales do not like to be told they > are wrong. When as much time and effort has been spent propagating an > idea like length contraction, scientists make take centuries to get > over the false teaching they have created. That is certainly > understandable. All it takes is a clear experimental result that would show it wrong, and then it's easy, Robert. That's how scientists do it.
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:53 On Jul 22, 10:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Ah, so then when you said you believed it would be in the tenth decimal place, you were just chucking out a made-up number, even though it really doesn't matter? I can understand why no one would want to hire you as a welder, Robert. When somebody asks you about a metric for the quality of your work, you just chuck out a number because it sounds good, and it's only after you're off the job that they found out you were just making stuff up.
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 13:47 On Jul 22, 10:30 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Evidence comes in the form of repeatable observation, not what people say, Robert. I think this may be your problem. You're spending too much time worrying about what people SAY to you, and who you think of those people, and you're letting that determine what you think is right. You don't go check anything for yourself with careful measurements, or you don't go look to see what has already been measured. So if a scientist told you the sky is blue, you'd likely think it cannot possibly be blue, because it's something a scientist is saying to you, and it doesn't occur to you to look up to see for yourself. > 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: PD on 23 Jul 2010 13:49
On Jul 22, 10:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 6:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Galileo absolutely did say that the earth was rotating. In fact he > > > > > made reference to it at his trial. > > > > > Citation, Robert? Or were you there? > > > > There are accounts of Galileo's trial, PD. Look it up for yourself.. > > > I have. This is why I asked you to back up your statements that he > > wrote that the Earth rotates and that he used it as the basis for time > > in theGalileantransformations, or that he ever wrote equations at > > all. > > > As you can look up for yourself, Galileo explicitly denied that he > > ever taught that the Earth moved at his own trial, and there was never > > any evidence brought out at the trial that contradicted that denial. > > There is an anecdote that on his deathbed he muttered "Eppur si > > muove," but this too is unsupported by any documentation, and in any > > event would have happened long after both his trial and his writings. > > > Again, I'd like to point out to you that it is rather foolish to make > > claims about something you know very little about, especially around > > people who are actually willing to do some reading and research. You > > seem to enjoy doing foolish things, though, and I would guess that is > > common for fools to do. > > Actually, he is reputed to have said that phrase at his trial, Who has attested to that, Robert? He is reputed by whom to have said that? > but > since you do not believe the mathematics Galileo used, it does not > surprise me that you would try to prove that Galileo did not believe > the mathematics he used. What mathematics do you think he used, Robert? > However, there is nothing in Galileo's life to indicate that he was a > dishonest person trying to deceive the world the way scientists of > today are. |