Re: answer to YBM's bell problem

On Sep 9, 5:01�pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :

On Sep 9, 4:36 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Let me recall you what you just wrote :

The time n' in B is saying that the two light rays meet at the origin
of B
... where you just express clearly how absurd your "theory" is.

So you are saying that if a bunch of drunk scientists in B do not
believe the bell rings, then it does not ring.

I'm quoting you. Did you forget ?

�I say that if two
light rays meet at the origin of A in frame of A from each direction
of the x axis at a time of a/c, then the bell will ring because those
were the conditions you set forth to have it ring. �What the drunk
scientists in B believe does not affect whether or not the bell rings,
just whether two light rays meet in A at the origin. �Sure enough, two
light rays meet in A at the origin. �The bell rings.

You "theory" predict it will ring in A not in B.
If it rings in A, it has to ring in B. What did you think
transformation equations meant?

You have some kind of mental disability I've never heard before.
Let me write it clear :

I didn't show "the bell won't ring in B".

I've shown "According to Robert Winn theory the ring will ring in A
and not in B".
Why wouldn't it ring in B? If it is an event in A, it is also an
event in B.

Then, if YOU assert both your "theory" AND "the bell ring in A and in
B", you contradict yourself.
Well, I don't think so. If the bell rings in A, it has no choice but
to ring in B.
By the way, 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.
You can even provide the link :http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics..relativity/msg/a39fe2523de...

Well, I don't know what else I can do to thank you, YBM. I
alreadysaid that if they try to give me the Nobel Prize, I will make
sure that they give it to you.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages