Re: answer to YBM's bell problem

On Sep 9, 4:10�pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :


The time n' in B is saying that the two light rays meet at the origin
of B

There is no "time n'" in B in this case : there is two candidates.
Which one do you select ? Why ?

, not at the origin of A. �

Beside not being what you formulas says, this is absurd : now,
according to you, the two light rays are meeting on the bell
for observers in A, but elsewhere for observers in B. Note that,
then, the bell won't ring neither.
How absurd are you going to be ?

All it takes to ring a bell at the origin of A is for two light rays,
one from each direction to meet at the origin of A at the same time.
I proved that was happening. The bell rings, regardless of anything
else. In the same amount of time, B moves a distance of vt relative
to A. When the origin of B is a distance of vt from the origin of A,
the bell rings, whether an observer in B is hallucinating, dead, or
whatever. That is just the way it works.

That being the case, they cannot be
used to compute the time when the bell rings. �The bell rings when the
light meets at the origin of A according to the time in A, which is
t=a/c. �The way this relates to time in B is that B has traveled a
distance of vt, and the origin of B is a distance of vt from the
origin of A when the bell rings. �So the bell rings in B when the
origin of B is a distance of vt from the origin of A, not when an
observer in A thinks light has reached somewhere. �The light is not
controlled by observers.

Is it a kind of random poetry ? Did you realize that as seen in B,
according to your theory and the variant (without formulas) you
just introduced, the bell doesn't ring ?

It absolutely does ring. Light reaches the origin of A from both
directions at the same time, and the bell rings. If it is operating,
it cannot do anything but ring.

It is indeed not in SR and GR, in you "theory" it is worse : what
happens differs according moving observers, clocks differs according
to the event an observer consider, and so on ...

There is no such absurdities in SR : for SR, the bell
rings in both frames... It just happens that in frame
B they were emitted at coordinates
(-a/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),0,0) at time va/(c^2*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
for the "left" light ray, and :
(a/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),0,0) at time -va/(c^2*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

Next time you'll pretend I've proven something, please
don't lie and write that I've proven Robert Winn's modified
"Galilean Transformation" to be absurd.- Hide quoted text -

Well, it would have taken me years to have gotten n' from the
equations you derived it from. �I have to give you credit for it. �

I just reverse two of the meaningless I provide in order to get
the value of n' you didn't provide in a specific case. If you
are so dumb that it would have taken years for you to get your
own meaningless equations from a equivalent form you just provide,
why don't you ask yourself a simple question : "Is it surprising
that everyone says me I don't understand equations of motion,
Galilean transformations, Lorentz transformations, ... ?"

So
you do not think the length contraction is an absurdity. �I think the
length contraction is an absurdity.

Given that what you've proposed for 11 years has now being proven
completely absurd, could you go on and try to understand what
lenght contraction is ? Feel free to ask here for help. But
- please - read the numerous FAQ and posts in the archive about
this issue first.

And I strongly insist :

Next time you'll pretend I've proven something, please
don't lie and write that I've proven Robert Winn's modified
"Galilean Transformation" to be absurd.- Hide quoted text -

Well, You claim to have proven the bell will not ring. It is obvious
to me that it would.
Robert B. Winn
.

Loading