Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity



rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 5, 3:11�pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 4, 9:14 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 2, 8:58 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 2, 6:52 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 2, 5:15 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 2, 3:38 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 8:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 10:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 8:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 9:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 5:58 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 5:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 1, 5:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 30, 11:03 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 30, 5:28 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 29, 6:13 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

You look like a very very ill person, and a very dishonest piece of
***.- Hide quoted text -

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

Which is the greater character weakness, Robert -- profanity or lying?

PD

Well, they are both pretty bad, PD.
My advice is to stay away from both of them.

I would agree. You seem to have trouble refraining from one of them,
yet you see the mote in another's eye.

PD

No, I just make a general statement regarding profanity.

Oh, and you lied, too. Frequently. That would be the beam, no?

Some people
will definitely take offense at any criticism of profanity. I still
need to give my honest opinion about it.

Even with the beam in your own?

So you are claiming that unless a person is perfect, they have no
right to express an opinion about anything.

It might be worth being careful about it, especially when you are
expressing an opinion about character weaknesses, don't you think? Do
you think you have the *right*, as a sinner yourself, to express an
opinion about someone else's character weaknesses? Isn't there
something written like, "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself"? I'm
just asking a question here, Bobby.

Well, that is certainly
an interesting idea. So what about your own opinion that I should not
be allowed to post equations in sci.physics.relativity?

Nowhere have I ever said that you should not be allowed to post
equations in sci.physics.relativity. Or anything like it. Nor is it my
unstated opinion.

Are we to
assume then that you have reached perfection and have no
imperfections, whatsoever?

Certainly not. Oodles of imperfections. As for your lying, I've simply
noted the fact and asked you whether you think that is less of a
character flaw than profanity. So what's your opinion on that, Bobby,
and what are you going to do about it?

Well, I am going to ask you, Which one of these equations do you think
is a lie?

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
Robert B. Winn

I didn't say any of those equations are a lie. I've already pointed
out some of your lies. The equations are mathematically fine. They
just don't correspond to anything measurable in the physical world. As
such, they are useless, except in a few cases where they give numbers
that approximate the measurements sufficiently for the precision
required. Those few cases might suit you just fine. For the cases
where such approximations aren't good enough, they are useless, and
more useful ones are used instead.

So, what do you think of lying as a habit, compared to profanity, and
what are you going to do about it?

PD- Hide quoted text -

Well, PD, I am not going to do anything.

Does that mean you're going to continue to do what you've been doing,
not doing anything to change that? Or are you going to stop doing what
you've been doing?

I am going to keep posting the Galilean transformation equations right
here in sci.physics.relativity.
Robert B. Winn

You are, of course, welcome to do so. They are still wrong, no matter
how many times you post them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, of course, doug, you and other scientists are welcome to your
own opinion.
Robert B. Winn

The difference is that scientists are backed up by experiments which
show that your equations are wrong. You can bask in your ignorance
since you will never try to do anything useful in science but those
who must do useful things are constrained to follow the facts. You
are just trolling for a hobby. Those who are serious actually pay
attention to the real world.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I think it is wonderful that you would make an actual statement
about it. Not many scientists will make an actual statement like you
did. So, doug, just tell us about the experiment that shows my
equations wrong.
Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn

Now you are back to your trolling, pretending to have not heard of
the hundred years of experiments that show relativity to be correct.
Use the web and find some. Try to explain GPS, etc. If you wanted
to do anything other than troll you would try to justify your
views by trying to make an experiment fit your equations. They do
not so you are lost and are left with just trolling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is pure baloney. �The experiment in question took place in 1887.
Scientists say, The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light was
traveling at 186,000 miles per second in all frames of reference, so
the Galilean transformation equations have to be discarded. �Einstein
and Lorentz said, There is a length contraction, there is a length
contraction. �Scientists all bowed down to worship the length
contraction.
� � �So I say, The Galilean transformation equations can show light to
be traveling at 186,000 miles per second in all frames of reference,
and there is no length contraction.
� � � Heresy, heresy, cry scientists.

� � � So here are the equations.

� � � � � � x'=x-vt
� � � � � � y'=y
� � � � � � z'=z
� � � � � � t'=t

� � � � w=velocity of light
� � � � � �x=wt
� � � � � �x'=wn'

� � � � � �x'=x-vt
� � � � � �wn'=wt-vt
� � � � � � n'=t(1-v/w)

� � n' is the time it takes a photon to travel a distance of x'. �If
the photon is traveling in the +x direction it has a velocity of c =
186,000 miles per second. �If a photon is traveling in the -x
direction, it has a velocity of �-c= -186,000 miles per second.
� � So the Galilean transformation equations describe the results of
the Michelson-Morley experiment. �Why do you want some other
experiment described?
Robert B. Winn

This shows you really are trolling. If the Galilean transformations
had worked, no one would have spent any time worrying about MMX..
Thus your premise is wrong. �You know that though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


In what way do they not work? Light is traveling at c=186,000 miles
per second in both frames of reference.
Robert B. winn

You are just playing games. Read up on relativity and then come back.
Others have explained it to you in great detail and you just close
your eyes and pretend you did not see the explaination. Since you
refuse to even look at relativity, it is a waste of time to play
your silly game.
.

Quantcast