Re: answer to YBM's bell problem

rbwinn a écrit :
On Sep 10, 5:56�pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a �crit :





On Sep 10, 1:43 pm, YBM <ybm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn a crit :
Just apply the equations of your "theory", it leads to this
contradiction.
No contradiction at all. The transformation equations are
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
What is there about these equations that you do not understand?
This is the equations of the Galilean Transformations, not of your
"theory", as usual you deliberately "forget" the meaningless
n'=t(1-v/w) you add.
I already said you what GT predict : of course the bell ring
in both frame... *but* with GT the speeds of the light rays
are not c in *both* frames.
Well, you said n'=t(1-v/w). I could not have said it better myself.
Listen, disgusting *** : in order to proove that any theory
is absurd, one have to play with it, to write down its formulas,
to make some logical deduction from them. The fact that I wrote
some of you stupid equations does not mean that I accept them.
As a matter of fact, I've proven them to be absurd.
So, 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...
Robert Winn's best fumble :
The time n' in B is saying that the two light rays meet at the origin
of B
so... the ring bell in B but not in A (the bell is not at the origin
of B whenever the light rays meet !)
Well, in the frame of reference of the bell, where do you think the
light rays meet?
This is probably the most stupid question you'll ever ask...

On the bell : the origine of A, (0,0,0) in A frame. Got it ?

(this is what both TL and GL predict, not what predicts
"Robert Winn stupid so-called transformation).

Again : do you have a problem with posts longer that three lines ?
You seem to not even read anything longer that this, since you only
repond to the very end of any post.

If you are mentaly disabled, as it is quite clear now, we can
do the effort to write to you about one problem at a time, with
as few words as possible. Would it help you to read what we wrote ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just post the relevant facts. n' is not a transformation equation.

Right. As I've shown it cannot be, so you'd better drop it.

It is time on a clock in B that shows light to be traveling at a speed
of c.

Nope. Read again the setup I proposed : You'd get c of one ligh ray, not
for the other one. Same conclusion : meaningless formula sould be
dropped (and if not it would lead to contradictory conclusion, as I
shown you).

So, 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/a39fe2523de79ced

Robert Winn's best fumble :
> The time n' in B is saying that the two light rays meet at the origin
> of B

so... the ring bell in B but not in A (the bell is not at the origin
of B whenever the light rays meet !)


.

Loading