Re: galilean transformation equations

On Apr 9, 4:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:12 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 8, 8:50 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 8, 5:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 7, 11:21 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 7, 4:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 7, 5:55 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 7, 4:58 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 6, 6:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:56 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 3, 5:57 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 2, 6:38 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 2, 11:48 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:42 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 5:08 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 3:54 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 31, 7:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 30, 10:42 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

Robert B. Winn

If you want to post these but don't want people to comment on them,
have you considered making a few hundred copies and stapling them to
telephone poles, Bobby?

PD

Well, I never did consider that, PD. Is there a reason why you think
I should consider it?
Robert B. Winn

Certainly Bobby. Posting copies on telephones is a much more
appropriate venue for posting something you don't want comments on,
rather than posting the same thing on a discussion group. Doesn't that
make sense to you?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, no, PD, it does not, but go ahead and explain your idea if you
want to.
Robert B. Winn

I believe you have earned the right to be the poster boy for the
Passive-Aggressive Race for a Cure Society.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, go ahead and tell us why you think a person who uses the
Galilean transformation equations is what you claim they are.

I didn't make an association between using the Galilean
transformations and being passive-aggressive. You did.

Your stature as the Passive Aggressive Poster Child is quite
independent of your use of the Galilean transformations. Your use of
the Galilean transformations is also quite independent of science. In
fact, I would guess that your activities in general are quite
independent of what anybody else is doing.

Well, I am certainly sorry to hear that science has gone so far
astray. You seem very opposed to independence. Are all scientists as
opposed to independence as you are?

I'm not opposed to independence at all. I fully acknowledge that what
you do is completely independent of science. You are proud of that,
and I acknowledge it. Where the problem is, is when you try to paint
what you're doing as also doing science, while being independent of
science. This is known in most circles as an obvious break with
reality.

In any event, I think you would be happier posting your comments
about psychology in alt.psychology. This newsgroup is about
relativity. You may not be aware of it, but the Galilean
transformation equations are an interpretation of relativity.

Actually, no, the Galilean transformation equations are in no way an
interpretation of relativity, except perhaps to someone who is doing
something completely independent of science. Likewise, I can imagine
someone planting tulips in a flowerbed and calling it an
interpretation of Hubble's law, while maintaining a stern independence
from astronomy.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, if you believe Isaac Newton was not a scientist,

I didn't say that. Aristotle was a scientist as well, but his ideas
had nothing to do with relativity.

why don't you
wait until after the resurrection and discuss your idea with Sir Isaac
himself.

I'm sure Sir Isaac is quite happy to see that a few things have been
learned in the past three centuries beyond what he could put together.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, Sir Isaac's ideas were about relativity. I agree with some of
Sir Isaac's ideas, namerly, the ones about there not being a length
contraction.

I don't recall anywhere that Sir Isaac said there is no length
contraction. Do you? Where?

Where I disagree with Sir Isaac is that I believe that a
clock that moves is slower than a clock at rest.

What is interesting is that you just choose what to believe based on
your whim, rather than by careful and quantitative measurement. Party
politicians do the same thing. I think you'd make a fine party
politician.

PD

Well, go ahead and show how you get a length contraction using Isaac
Newton's equations.

Please show how to get quantum tunneling from Darwin's theory of
speciation by natural selection. Failing that, then tell me that
Darwin's theory of speciation by natural selection says there is no
quantum tunneling.

There is no danger that I will ever be a party
politician. I have been registered as an independent voter from the
first time I ever voted.

Well, that's a pity, Bobby, because your approach to science is just
like a party politician.

I do not care what Darwin's theory of speciation says. I have never
read it. I have no idea what you mean by quantum tunneling. I would
expect that it is about as relevant as the length contraction.

Well, actually, quantum tunneling is critical to the device that you
use to post to the internet. As for Darwin, do catch up.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Catch up with someone who is going backward?  No, thank you.
Robert B. Winn

Isn't it odd how you expect to find everything in physics to be
useless? Perhaps you should go post on a welding newsgroup.
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast