Re: time dilation

On Apr 25, 6:14 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 25, 12:58 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 24, 10:50 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 9:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 24, 8:48 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, the reason why I compare myself to Galileo is because I use his
equations, which no one else I know about does.
That last bit is just clueless beyond belief. You know of no one
who uses Galileo's equations? �Unfathomable. �We can all see that
you �*responded* to posts here that clearly showed the authors
using Galileo's equations. I myself noted Galileo's transform and
equations to be the same as Lorentz's for small v.

I do not compare
myself to Einstein as much because Einstein is a different kind of
person. �Einstein published a paper which substituted equations
describing magnetic fields in the place of equations that Galileo had
derived which scientists up to that time had used to describe
transmission of light. �The world immediately adored Einstein and
called him the greatest genius who ever lived.
Totally wrong. Only the top theorists quickly recognized Einstein's
theories as he real stuff. The physics establishment was not fond of
the notion of a young German Jewish patent examiner and physics
theorist explaining to them how the universe works.

"The world immediately adored Einstein?" �Robert, you simply do not
know what you are talking about.

Galileo, on the other hand, calculated that Mercury, Venus , and the
sun were not in orbit around the earth, as scientists of his time
taught, and published his results. �For this, he was put on trial as a
heretic and forced to recant his findings.
That is why I compare myself to Galileo. �I think he would have done
better to tell the truth in court and go ahead an let the court
execute him.
That's easy for you to say. Your theories appear only in your own
rambles. You go on writing whatever with no serious threat to your
life or liberty.

That's as it should be. Everyone deserves the right to free
expression, no matter how stupid their ideas are. In this group, your
posts meet the criteria; they are original and on-topic. There is no
sanity requirement.

Nevertheless, you are out of line comparing yourself to Galileo..
You need to learn some respect.

Well, OK, then, Bryan, teach me some respect.

You've made yourself unteachable, Mr. Thinks-he's-Galileo.

You say you know all about relativity.

Cite me saying that, retract, or be a liar.

You said these equations were wrong.
                  x'=x-vt
                  y'=y
                  z'=z
                  t'=t
                 n'=t(1-v/c)
Robert B. Winn

Congrats Robert - I'm stuck in Anchorage for the next hour or five so
I need entertainment. Your ignorant ramblings satisfy that
requirement!

Your addition to the Galilean transformation set of equations is
inconsistent with t' = t. As has been explained to you - repeatedly.
Why doesn't that sink into your thick goddamn skull?- Hide quoted text -

Well, no, Eric, it is not.  As I explained to PD, a scientist could
actually construct a clock that would run in S' at the same rate a
cesium clock runs in S.

Yes, he could. I asked you why anyone would do that. You said
(paraphrasing), because I want you to.
You also thought this would get rid of distance contraction, which you
don't like, even though it actually happens in nature. It doesn't get
rid of distance contraction, but hey, it's your idea. You go with it.

Well, your paraphrasing is very creative. I don't care what you and
Eric do. I was just trying to be helpful, since you both said you
could not visualize a t' clock. I thought an actual clock might be
the thing that could help you see what was meant. it seems though,
that Eric has become interested in psychiatry. so there is little
possibility he is going to do any actual work after this. And you
seem to have become a science worker union organizer. So evidently,
our conversations have almost come to a conclusion. Well, it has
certainly been interesting talking to both of you.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"
    ... | Einstein had to take a few years before everyone ... | buttress science -- and your claim. ... |> | If at the point A of space there is a clock, ... Whoever gave you the idea that *I* was the peer in ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock, ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the ... Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of ... Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?
    ... Einstein said it, they believe it, that ... |> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated ... and mark one 'K-frame' with a zero and an x displaced from zero. ... We don't need to use persuasive rhetoric in mathematics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question on GR sources
    ... How is information of the sense of rotation communicated to the field, ... But in the end (after a successful divorce from Einstein), ... It is assumed that a clock falling directly ... fought careers and come to admit that the whole thing of physics was ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... slower than an identical clock on earth. ... between Special Relativity and a curved orbit. ... scientists, a moving clock is slower than a stationary clock whether ... So there must be a distance contraction, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)