Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 25, 6:37 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:48 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





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 that case it would be.  We were so close, but human error caused
the crash.  Next time we will use a computer.
Better than saying, We do not know what happened.

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.

Well, newspapers do lie.  They are controlled by political party
politics.  So which political party controlled the newspaper you read?
Robert B. Winn

Sorry, I thought we were talking about physics. If you think all of
physics is a conspiracy, take it up at alt.conspiracy.

PD
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR cannot determine Contraction
    ... But that is NOT what he is saying. ... shorter) in the frame in which it is moving. ... He says that there is no length contraction. ... It is in the sense that physics considers things as real. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Warped Vacuum?
    ... Saying that there is no medium present ... >> I think you do not understand what a medium in physics means. ... What if the ether is in another dimension? ... meaning of words that already have a well known meaning. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How can light travel without losing energy?
    ... What I am saying is that, ... MIGHT produce a similar reduction in energy to the reduction in velocity ... >from finding those laws or good approximations thereof. ... >our understanding of the laws of physics are adequate: ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying ... if the remainder is just as bad? ... It was in the newspapers. ... So which political party controlled the newspaper you read? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The forces inherent in energy
    ... particle physics etc. ... best find value for ourselves in the universe the particles create. ... What's a philosopher? ... You appear to be saying that although particle interactions are governed ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast