Re: time dilation

On Apr 18, 7:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


Well, I have to believe what I have believed all along.

That's fine. Few will care what you believe. It suffices for other
readers to point out where your mistake is.

 There is
nothing in electrodynamic theory that would prove these equations
wrong, otherwise some scientist would post the proof and tell other
scientists, Here is the proof.

They've already done that. Just not here. It's available in many, many
places. Just not here.
You can go on all you want saying, "well, if there was proof, some
would lay it at my feet where I choose to cast my eyes." You will find
that that kind of cheap baiting does not elicit much response.

That is what used to happen when I posted the equation t'=t(1-v/c).

So sorry not to knuckle under your expectation based on your flimsy
experience.

Scientists were right.  The equation was wrong.  t'=t.
So what is the problem now?
 You don't know electrodynamic theory well
enough to say, The equations violate the laws of electrodynamics
because, and then give the reason?

Yes, I do. It's rather laborious to reproduce it here. It's more
effective to point you to where you can find it in a more suitable
format. You may find that inconvenient, but I don't find your whining
about it to be very motivational.

 All you do is refer back to some
theories that were discarded when the idea of absolute time was
discarded

Maxwell's equations have not been discarded.

and say that because these theories were discarded, the
equations I have are wrong.

No, they're wrong because they prevent that laws that have not been
discarded from obeying the principle of relativity.

    What specifically do you claim is violated?
    If the Heavyside theory violated something you claim my equations
do, what was it the Heavyside equations violated?
     My opinion is that it is scientists who are lazy because they
have equations that show scientific time to be t' and t.  They are too
lazy to use equations that show all time is relative including
scientific time.

Sorry, but such tawdry baiting doesn't do a whole lot. I know you want
them to work and you blame scientists for not making them work for you
and you call them lazy for not complying. As you can see, that
strategy isn't very effective.

Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: {SHOCKING} ManBearPig is a FRAUD
    ... The scientists wanted grant so they started taking ... the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) ... When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 ...     Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Kook: A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution
    ...    This just indicates your own illogical ... speciation, common ancestry-common descent-human evolution, so they ... enormous database of scientific facts. ... rejected by most scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making a monkey out of Darwin
    ... share a common ancestor, ... scientists, and they almost invariably admit that it is for religious ...   We are all related by common descent. ... accept evolution because of the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: global warming hoax
    ...   norm, not ten years. ... the evidence" but provide no evidence of this statement, ... refutes thousands of scientists in fields as diverse as chemistry, ... Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Kook: A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution
    ... speciation, common ancestry-common descent-human evolution, so they ...   Speciation has ... enormous database of scientific facts. ... rejected by most scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast