Re: Galilean transformation equations

On Feb 24, 7:57�pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:13�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 24, 5:55 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:58 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 6:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 20, 8:22 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 20, 6:02 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 19, 10:05 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 19, 4:35 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 19, 5:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 19, 7:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 19, 3:23 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 18, 8:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 18, 7:18 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 18, 7:30 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:13 pm, jonas.thornv...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 19 Jan, 14:17, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:02 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I do not post in sci.physics.relativity because I think I am going
to convince some scientist of something.. I do it mainly because if
someone reads these conversations centuries from now, they will be
able to see how scientists think and what the problem is with
scientists.

That's an interesting delusion. What on earth makes you think these
archived conversations will be available centuries from now?

The HTTP protocol was invented in 1991. The Mosaic browser was
released in 1993. At that time, FTP archives could be searched by an
internet protocol called archie and in fact all web browsers could
access that information by using the archie:// prefix rather than the
http:// prefix, and there was a handy-dandy archie UI built into the
browsers. Nowadays, all of the information that had been stored on
those servers has been moved or disposed of, and I believe there are
only a few archie servers left on the planet, the leading one being in
Poland. That was 15 years ago.

Now, what were you saying about people reading centuries from now how
you wasted your time today?

I believe there must have been a cobbler back in 1700 who didn't think
much of what Newton had to say about gravitation. Can you lay your
hands on what this cobbler said?

PD

To be quite honest noone will even remember anything you put forward
PD here on the NG, it purely lack both substance and profoundness.
Many future generations will however watch TV shows about the 19
centuries missconceptions regarding time and spatial magnitudes.

I can see how many of our times most celebrated scientist actually be
heckled and laughed at both in litterature and drama, and there
probably will be lists circling around with names of the professors
who came up with the most silly ideas in theoretical physics.

Your name will never reach any of those list because you do not come
up with any crazy ideas, quite possible there could be like an
underground movement for most persistent brownnose, and there you
actaully would qualify together with Gisse and some others but dont
hold your breath or put to much faith in that you will reach any
Jackass fame, you simply not that important..

Maybe i just made you famous.

JT

Just a couple of comments:
- I'm not under any illusion that anything that is put forward by
anyone on this newsgroup will be remembered by anyone else. This
newsgroup is not the venue for advancement of science. If you were
hoping that it could serve as that, then I'm afraid you're living an
unfortunate fantasy.
- I find it remarkable that you can read the future about how the
science of today will be judged. Most scientist base their
understanding on what is available in the body of experimental
evidence today, with a few conjectures about what *might* be the case,
pending expansion of that body of experimental evidence. I have to say
that you shaking your fist and hollering "You'll be sorry one day!" is
quite an entertaining display.
- You seem to think that the most important thing in science is to be
novel, to be the one that comes up with crazy ideas. Homeless people
on park benches come up with crazy ideas daily. Now, how do you
suppose one marks the difference between scientifically valuable crazy
ideas and park-bench-mutterer crazy ideas?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So prove what you say. Stop responding to my posts.

How would that go anywhere to prove what I say? What I just said above
doesn't have anything to do with responding to your posts.

If you don't want people responding to your posts, then stop posting
to a public discussion forum where the ground rule is that every post
is subject to comment by all comers. Doesn't that seem like a sensible
part of the charter to pay attention to?

You said a long
time ago that you were not going to post anything about mathematics or
science.

I don't think that's true, Bobby, but then again, you've got lousy
memory about what Einstein or anybody else says.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you go talk to some of these nice scientists, PD.
I am sure you could find some who would agree with you about whatever
you say.

Why don't you stop making posts about mathematics and psychology and
your dissatisfaction about how your tax dollars are spent to a public
physics newsgroup, Bobby?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That might be something you would want to consider, PD.
Robert B. Winn

But you won't consider stopping making irrelevant posts about
mathematics and psychology and your dissatisfaction about how your tax
dollars are spent to physics newsgroups? Why not, Bobby? Don't want to
take your own advice?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you for sharing, PD.
Robert B. Winn

Thank you for making yourself exempt from the rules that you'd like
others to live by.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What rules would those be, PD?
Robert B. Winn

The ones where you think that posts about mathematics or politics or
psychology should not be posted to physics groups. Your posts like
that excluded of course.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My posts were about the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn

Your posts were explicitly about mathematics, where you wanted to talk
about the mathematics of the Galilean transformation equations, and
you asked people to discuss the mathematical validity or invalidity of
the Galilean transformation equations. And you interspersed those
posts with posts about psychology and your dissatisfaction with the
way your tax dollars are being spent. Those are off-topic in this
group.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, we all know how important it is to you to keep everything on
topic in this newsgroup.
Robert B. Winn

Hey, Bobby, I'm game to be off-topic since you are. What's interesting
to me is that you criticize others for being off-topic even as you're
doing the same. Seems like the height of hypocrisy to me. Doesn't it
seem that way to you too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you for your comments about psychology, PD. To get back to the
subject at hand, YBM claims that the Galilean transformation equations
can only be used with absolute time, while people who are willing to
accept the existance of a length contraction will be allowed to use
relativity of time.
I am sure as a practicing psychologist you will appreciate YBM's
consternation when I posted these equations showing relativity of time
as it relates to the Galilean transformation equations.

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

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = c^2t^2

x'^2 + y'^2 +z'^2 = c^n'^2

I am not saying that psychology does not have a place in relieving
the consternation of scientists who suddenly encounter this opposition
to the philosophy of length contraction, but what I am saying is that
the comforting of these individuals could be undertaken in a
psychological setting rather than in this newsgroup, leaving more
opportunity to discuss the equations and ideas about relativity rather
than the mental anxieties of scientists.
I am not suggesting that the mental health and well-being of
scientists is unimportant. I just feel that a newsgroup about
relativity is not the best place to conduct this therapy for disturbed
scientists. I think it would be more advantageous to all concerned to
discuss equations and scientific concepts in this newsgroup. I know
this seems unfair to people who believe in a length contraction and
are trying to enforce that philosophy upon the world.
Robert B. Winn
.

Quantcast