Re: Galilean transformation equations

On Mar 10, 5:16�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:26�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 9, 5:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 9, 6:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 9, 8:08 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 9, 9:55 am, yuan...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 3, 6:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Let's play a game.

Write out any analytically tractable problem in electromagnetism, and
I'll solve it. Then I'll write a problem in electromagnetism and
you'll solve it.

I was just reading a biography of Bohm.

Apparently he was frustrated with those who thought that physics was
about solving "problems" rather than about developing a deeper
understanding of Nature.

This is the very same thing that Smolin and Woit are concerned about.
They think that the "shut up and calculate" MO advocated by Feynman,
Weinberg, Dyson, and others has caused physicists to just give up on
conceptual understanding of how things work.

Well, no, actually it was the length contraction. Once scientists
discovered they had put that one over, they were all done trying to
understand anything. How much money do you get from the government
for understanding?
Robert B. Winn

There. You see, Bobby? Even given the chance to talk about physics,
you can't help but turn the conversation to being about politics and
how your tax dollars are spent. It sure seems to me all you really
want to talk about is off-topic subjects on sci.physics.relativity.
Why do you insist on doing that, Bobby? Perhaps you would like to
discuss these things with the nice folks at alt.politics.

PD-

Well, I would, but they are even worse to talk to than scientists.
Anyway, with scientists the topic can always be returned to the
Galilean transformation equations after scientists have made their
best efforts to change the subject. �What is there in politics like
that?

It was you who changed the subject, Bobby. Are you a scientist? If
scientists are the ones changing the subject, then you must be a
scientist.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, I am still talking about the Galilean transformation equations.

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

Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... conceptual understanding of how things work. ... Robert B. Winn ... Why do you insist on doing that, Bobby? ... Galilean transformation equations after scientists have made their ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cranks on the endangered species list
    ... "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." ... Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE. ... unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... conceptual understanding of how things work. ... Why do you insist on doing that, Bobby? ... Galilean transformation equations after scientists have made their ... which are excluded from humanity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Global Warming -- Follow the Money!!
    ... unlimited money and time is required to solve it. ... Solar cell technology, biofuels etc. ... "scientists" engaged in it are well aware of this fact. ... Because you apparently have understanding how very difficult it is to ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Vatican to host debate on evolution
    ... not embraced what is called "ID", although the one claim made - from understanding of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church - is that all living humans are descended from common ancestors. ... These meetings on various scientific subjects are often called so that the Church may be informed - and debate the philosophical and theological implications of what science is showing. ... Eminent scientists, such as Stephen Hawkins, have been on various advisory committees. ... The Catholic Church, while leaving to science ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading