Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363555
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Galilean relativity |
| Date | 2015-09-09 09:27 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <mspfjk$6vm$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <02b3059d-2cef-44c3-9768-573981eb060f@googlegroups.com> <5bddc5d0-096a-4cf0-b2a0-3dadd7660466@googlegroups.com> <834b3bd2-88d4-4965-9aa5-67fb95d48a9d@googlegroups.com> <msn65d$7cr$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4eee545c-c8c5-454d-9b7a-b59a57a978c4@googlegroups.com> |
On 9/9/2015 4:24 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:33:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/7/2015 2:17 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> OK, I will explain reality to you. Suppose you have two different measurements of time that >>> are called by the same name. An example would be one rotation of earth and one rotation of Mars. >>> They are both called a day. >> >> I see you have gotten bored and are trotting out the same old stuff, Robert. >> >> As you may now, the conventional terms like "day" that are used casually >> are way too imprecise to convey what the variable t or t' are intended >> to convey. You've just demonstrated it above in your casual use. >> >> But that's not the meaning that scientists are using when they write >> down the Galilean equations. They mean something very particular when >> they write t and t'. >> >> Now, I gather that you don't really care what scientists mean when >> they're talking, and you don't even really care what t and t' mean in >> those equations. What you care about is whether you can redefine t and >> t' to mean something completely different and somehow make the equations >> true. >> >> I'll give you an example. I can write 1+12=4 and say that it's true. You >> might say, "I don't see how that can be true". And I can say, "Well, >> Robert, it's very simple. All you have to do is say that 12 means 1 and >> 2 together, and 1 and 2 together make 3, and so 1 added to 3 makes 4." >> And you see, I've just made 1+12=4 a true statement, and I can tell you >> that ordinary people don't have to listen to their math teachers and >> they can use this equation with great success. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Isn't that special? The problem I see with what you are saying is that you > said nothing about what scientists mean when they say t'=t. Well, to be honest, I thought you might have remembered our discussing this the last time we talked, which is probably no more than a year ago. There we said that t is defined as the time shown on a standard clock at rest in the unprimed frame, and t' is defined as the time shown on a standard clock at rest in the primed frame. "Standard clock" means that it will show one second has elapsed after a set number of periods of the light emitted from a certain transition of a locally-at-rest cesium atom. That is what scientists mean. > To be honest, I > do not care what scientists mean when they say t'=t, but if you can't explain > it, then it is not worth worrying about anyway. I defined what t'=t means. Yes, and so you redefined what that statement means, as I said above, so that it is true. Just like redefining what 12 means so that 1+12=4 can be made true. > I said t is the time of a clock in S. If t is the time of a clock in S, then > t' is also the time of a clock in S. The reason why that is true is because > of the two little horizontal lines between t' and t. They are called an > equal sign. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 00:43 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-09-06 10:23 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 01:31 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-06 13:32 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-06 18:49 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:36 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 19:58 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 00:17 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 04:20 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:58 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 08:32 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:14 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-09 05:16 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:14 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-10 07:07 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 08:08 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:13 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:31 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:16 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-09 07:52 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-10 06:45 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-10 11:01 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-07 15:23 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:18 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 14:36 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-10 07:47 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 10:48 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 21:20 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:11 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:33 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:24 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:27 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 14:39 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 12:22 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 05:27 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 15:06 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 06:17 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 21:26 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 12:41 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 22:46 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 13:51 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 20:01 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 00:18 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 06:17 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:18 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-09 07:17 -0700
csiph-web