Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?

On Jan 31, 7:58 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:12f7dfe4-b550-49a8-9df5-82c77425a6c2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Jan 31, 4:13 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c6744b32-9527-41d7-9127-79581c0e5589@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jan 31, 1:13 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:32 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

Looks like you have forgotten the mental beating you took the last
time you were here. Back for more, oh ignorant one?

Note: The only people who think Einstein's stuff is religion are folks
like you who can't hack the math who thus think we are taking it on
faith.

Eric,
Good to hear from you again. I seem to have forgotten the
mental beating. Maybe you could refresh my memory about it. Let's
see, I had some equations that represented times and distances.

x=wt
w=velocity of light
x'=x-vt
x'=wn'
t'=t
wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)

Oh gawd .. not that crap again .. It was well and truly shown to be
self-inconsistent before and it still is

So with regard to Einstein's little explanation, if a photon is
going in a +x direction, it has a velocity of c; if it is going in a -
x direction, it has a velocity of -c. n' is the time it would take a
photon to travel a distance of x'. n' would correspond to t' in the
Lorentz equations as Einstein explained them. Einstein's equation was
x'=ct'. In other words, n' would refer to the transitions of a
cesium isotope molecule in S' as compared to t, which would be the
transitions of a cesium isotope molecule in S, and t'=t would refer to
the rotation of the sun or some other common measurement of time as
seen from both frames of reference.
OK, so let's just go through the mental beating once again for
old times sake.

No .. please don't. A hundred teims is more than enough

Jeckyl,
Good to hear from you again. So you claim to have proven these
equations wrong. When did that happen? Why are you so bashful about
it now? Are you telling us that you just do not like to show off?
I did not see it the first time, so why not just do it one more
time so everyone can see?

No need .. you equations are a load of self-contradictory crap .. try using
google if you don't remember the many many many times I (and others) proved
you wrong. I have no interest in going thru the same tedious process again
for the likes of an ignorant cretin like you.

Actually, I never did get to thank you for helping me get the bugs out
of these equations. Anyway, Jeckyl, this thread was supposed to be
about how civil relativists are compared to people who question them.
I have never seen it. They all get totally insulting every time I
post anything. Last time you just wandered off when I arrived at the
equations I posted here and figured out what they meant. Really I am
just using the Galillean transformation equations with t'=t. There is
a common reference for time that the two frames of reference have. As
I recall, when I was talking to you, I was using degrees of rotation
of the sun as a reference for time. Then according to the way that
scientists interpret the Michelson Morley experiment, the speed of
light in S' would be c relative to the transitions of a cesium isotope
molecule in that frame of reference, which is given by w=x/n', where
the time on a cesium clock n'= t(1-v/w), and w is the velocity of a
photon traveling along the x axis.
What I am doing here is relating scientific time to astronomical
time. You scientists should be a little happier about it. Astronomy
is science , too.
Einstein said Special Relativity was relativity in the absence of
gravitation, then used the Lorentz equations. My belief is that he
was wrong. Relativity in the absence of gravitation would be the
equations I gave.
As I recall, you had a temper tantrum and wandered off because you
were using velocities wrong. Anyway, my equations relate to the
Lorentz equations in the following manner.

w = x/t = x'/n' = (x-vt)/[t(1-v/w)] = (x-vt)/[t-vt/w] = (x-vt)/
(t-vx/w^2) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma

=x'(Lorentz equations)/t'(Lorentz equations)

Well, good talking to you, Jeckyl. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... Particle light and relativity dates back to Newton and Galileo. ... I quoted the name correctly and the term inertia appears ... inertial frame of reference, but you have spent a lot of time refuting those ... we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... you want a peer reviewed explanation. ... A and B move at velocity v1 and v2 from C, ... understand relativity should be able to understand what they mean and ... said that you use a frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Experimental Detection of Universal Reference Frame
    ... >> The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the ground that it ... >> declares all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion to be ... >> physical effects without reference to any preferred reference frame. ... >> uniform velocity with respect to BCRF. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TDD: Test-Driven Design or Test-Driven Development?
    ... In terms of Relativity physics it's just as valid ... In fact the notion that there is no favored frame of reference regarding ... to objects and their association with velocity, time, space, etc. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?
    ... | Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... that the velocity of light in our theory plays the ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading