Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 24, 12:29 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 5:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 24, 7:35 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 23, 10:56 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 22, 12:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 22, 7:33 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 19, 11:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:32�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:24�am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Does it not occur to you that removing one mistake in what you are
saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying
if the remainder is just as bad? Does it not occur to you that
removing one napkinfull of coffeegrounds from a overflowing trash bin
does not make the remainder worthy of reinspection?>�No responses since that time except ones like yours
which contain no mathematics, whatsoever. �I think you are correct.
Scientists have contributed about all they are ever going to
contribute to this conversation.

Well, I keep an open mind.  I have never seen anything presented as
proof of a distance contraction that I could not disprove with the
equations I use.
Robert B. Winn

You are not disproving anything. You are simply saying, well, you
obviously haven't followed my recommended procedure of abandoning a
local physical reference as the standard for length and using a
preferred-frame reference to redefine all your lengths for you, and
that way the Galilean transforms would be preserved.

Sorry, that doesn't seem compelling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think it does not seem compelling to you because you limit your
thinking to areas of science where scientific interpretation of time
seems effective.
But what about astronomy?
Did it occur to you that when they were crashing billion dollar probes
into the planet Mars, they could have had more money for research in
the fields of science that interest you if they had landed the Mars
probe successfully the first time?

That was a stupid *arithmetic* error. Someone forgot to convert inches
to meters when they did the calculation. There was nothing wrong with
the physics.

How do you know what caused the problem?  Because that was what
someone in the government said?  My father was operations officer at
PointMuguNaval missile base just after World War II.  When they
tested one missile it started out over the sea, as planned, then
turned around and went right over the city of Los Angeles, then turned
and went out to sea again.  They ended up saying that the missile had
done exactly what they wanted it to do.

   But they couldn't get the distance correct because they had that
pesky distance contraction.
    But after a few trial and error corrections, they managed to land
one.

There was no trial and error. They *found* the mistake and corrected
it.

So they say.

Ah, well, you know what they say about conspiracy. Those who are
determined to find a conspiracy are guaranteed of success. Any
assertion can be masked by a cover-up, no?

Tell me, when you find your checking account doesn't balance, do you
a) determine that the laws of addition and subtraction must be wrong
because they yield wrong results, or
b) alter the balance by trial and error until the account balances?

Well, I take anything said by a government agency with a grain of
salt.  It seems to me that their primary goal is always to get more
government funding, not to tell the truth.

So it's good to admit to a math error when trying to secure more
government funding?

In case it's new to you, it's not the first time there's been a screw-
up:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mars/space_missions.html&edu=high


 So where did you get the
information that someone was using meters instead of feet, or whatever
you said happened?  That sounds a little suspect to me.

It was in the newspapers. Of course, they all lie too. Massive coverup
and all.

Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quick, check Snopes.
    ... It was clear the very first time. ... Soon, the lies will come, saying that I made them up. ... I guess "that" doesn't come to a shock to the club. ... John and I are both crying. ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: This was fascinating to watch
    ... I would say you gave it a more than fair shot before bailing. ... So I take this as your saying that in this case, ... negative opinion made solely on the basis of personal experience was a ... Shoot, if I had done that the first time my heart was broken, I might have ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying ... if the remainder is just as bad? ... Tell me, when you find your checking account doesn't balance, do you ... alter the balance by trial and error until the account balances? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying ... if the remainder is just as bad? ... preferred-frame reference to redefine all your lengths for you, ...     But after a few trial and error corrections, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying ... if the remainder is just as bad? ... proof of a distance contraction that I could not disprove with the ... preferred-frame reference to redefine all your lengths for you, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading