Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity

On Oct 8, 9:26�pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:40 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:24 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 7, 9:44 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 7, 6:22 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

On Oct 7, 7:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:59 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 7, 6:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:22 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 7, 5:26 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 6, 9:46 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:24 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not at all. We've been discussing several topics, including
relativity, your habit of lying, and why you consider scientists not
worth public investment. We've also been talking about you going to
the library and looking up some experimental papers, an activity that
you seem to be fastidiously avoiding for some reason.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't have time to do it. If you want to tell me something, go
ahead and tell me.

I've already told you, Robert, I have no interest in spoon-feeding you
and that it's important that you do a little legwork, though I'm happy
to point in the exact direction your legs should go, as I've been
there quite often myself. You have plenty time to post and no time to
do any legwork. This is a common excuse used by the lazy. I've known
lots of people who complain endlessly but are not interested in doing
anything to change their situation, as that would risk reducing the
number of things to complain about. These people are not worth much,
in my opinion. I wonder if you share the same opinion about people
like that.

You object a lot to the usage of profanity, but you seem to overlook
the sins of sloth and bearing false witness -- both of which are
deserving of special mention in the Bible.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I posted these equations, PD.

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 for a photon to travel a distance of x'
according to a cesium clock in S'.

If you can show how some experiment relates to these equations, I
might look it up.

I've already told you the relation. These experiments show that, when
you put in the *measured* values into Galilean relations on the left-
hand side and the right-hand side, the equality doesn't hold and so
the equations do not describe reality; whereas, if you put the
measured values into Lorentz relations on the left-hand side and the
right-hand side, the equality does hold and so the equations do
describe reality. This is what the experimental papers show, which is
entirely relevant.

You've said you have no interest in looking up those experimental
papers, and then you said you had no time to look up those
experimental papers, though you're happy to read those results if
someone will transcribe them here for you. And I've explained to you
why this spoon-feeding is a bad idea, even though you want it to
happen. I'm happy to point you to where you can do the reading
someplace else, but I'm not going to let you do all the reading here,
as that's a bad idea (as I've explained) and I don't like acting on
bad ideas.

PD

Well, I can already tell you what it is all about. It is about ether
theory.

No, and I'll repeat what I told you earlier. These are *experimental*
papers and have nothing to do with ether *theory*. You do know the
difference between theory and experiment, don't you?

So I'll tell you what. Since you think that someone should
visit this website

I wasn't suggesting visiting any website. In fact, I was suggesting
you removing your rear end from your chair and going to the library,
where the published collections of experimental results are kept. I
hope that isn't asking too much of someone that is prone to sloth and
bearing false witness.

You seem remarkably resistant to finding out what experiment says
about the Galilean transformation equations. Why is that?

No, I am not going to the library.

Of course you are not going to the library. That would require
some effort on your part. And, if you did go, you would see that
you were wrong. You cannot have that so you just sit here and
ignore the truth.

I first posted these equations two years ago. The only person who has
posted anything about the equations since that time has been YBM. YBM
had some very good questions about the equations and was able to
identify the differences between his beliefs and mine. So I asked
YBM, Is there an experiment that shows you to be right and me to be
wrong?
I have not heard from him since I asked him that.
As I said, I am not going to the library. The library is more
than a mile away, and I do not drive a car.
So if you do not want to discuss these equations, why do you keep
responding to my posts?
As I said, I am not interested in socialist economics or
psychology.
Robert B. Winn

Here is a hundred things for you to read without even getting out
of your chair.http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....text -

- Show quoted text -

As I said, I am not interested in socialist economics or psychology.
Was there something that you wanted to say?
Robert B. Winn

More trolling. You asked for things that support relativity and you
will not leave your chair so a list of online sources was supplied
and you cannot even be bothered to click on the links to see what
you have been asking about. This proves that you are not interested
in any answers, you are just out for the troll.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your claim is that there is a length contraction. These equations do
not show a length contraction.

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

What you have to understand is that I am not basing my entire
existence on a length contraction the way you are. These equations
were discarded by science because scientists said they could not
explain a constant speed of light such as scientists claimed to have
proven. So here are some more equations:

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 for a photon to travel a distance of x'.
The equations still do not show a distance contraction. Light is
traveling at a speed of c= 186,000 miles per second in all frames of
reference.
My question to you is, Where is the experiment that proves these
equations wrong?
You say, Here are a hundred experiments that prove these equations
wrong.
So now go ahead and show how these experiments show the equations
wrong. As far as I can tell all you are saying is that unless the
equations show a length contraction, they are wrong.
Robert B. Winn

The fact that you have been given a list of experiments that verify
that your formulas are wrong and you refuse to even look at it shows
that you have no interest in learning and are just out to troll.
If you want to learn, read the references. You do not have the
excuse of having to get out of your chair. You seem to be able
to operate a mouse so click on the links and read something.
It is your fault if you want to remain ignorant and just mindlessly
repeat the same thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

None of the experiments you listed disprove anything I said. �

This proves that you have not read any of the experiments that
were listed.
If so





show how any experiment you listed shows these equations wrong.
� � � � � � � 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' in the
moving frame of reference.

You keep saying this as though we had forgotten what it is you have
been confused about.

OK, doug, show us how any of the experiments you listed show this to
be wrong.

Pretty clearly you did not look at them. �See if you can find one that
supports your view.

The Michelson-Morley experiment supports my view. According to
scientists, it shows light traveling at 186,000 miles per second in
two different frames of reference.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... relativity, your habit of lying, and why you consider scientists not ... worth public investment. ... This is what the experimental papers show, ... Your claim is that there is a length contraction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... length contraction one. ... He feels that anything scientists say must be wrong. ... There is no reason to believe you without any evidence for your ... of reference at rest using the Galilean transformation equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... relativity, your habit of lying, and why you consider scientists not ... This is what the experimental papers show, ... existence on a length contraction the way you are. ... moving frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... relativity, your habit of lying, and why you consider scientists not ... This is what the experimental papers show, ... existence on a length contraction the way you are. ... � � My question to you is, Where is the experiment that proves these ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... relativity, your habit of lying, and why you consider scientists not ... This is what the experimental papers show, ... existence on a length contraction the way you are. ... � � My question to you is, Where is the experiment that proves these ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading