Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408751 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800
Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-10 11:52 -0800
Re: Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-10 21:08 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:24 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:39 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:44 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:21 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:07 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:41 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:18 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 15:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 18:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 23:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 05:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 06:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 09:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:43 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 21:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 07:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 08:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 10:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 17:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 17:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:42 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 15:19 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:53 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:30 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:32 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:26 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:59 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-15 20:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 00:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 05:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 16:32 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 08:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 12:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 21:18 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:55 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 06:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:24 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 18:10 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 04:44 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 22:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 04:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 10:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 15:47 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 16:53 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 18:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:50 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:17 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:19 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-17 21:01 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 00:35 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:09 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:13 +0100
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:03 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:47 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:46 -0600
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 12:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 12:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 11:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3162fa03-5ac8-4ac1-afc9-8345be8cc369@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409951 |
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 8:53:15 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 7:47:27 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> >> Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:44:36 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>>>>>> Three events happen, here are their coordinates in frame S:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0
> >>>>>>>> Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0
> >>>>>>>> Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could
> >>>>>>>> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events
> >>>>>>>> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according
> >>>>>>>> to a clock at rest in S'?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I asked the same question to a welder who learnt about Lorentz
> >>>>>> Transformation equation on his spare time. He provided very consistent
> >>>>>> answers. I'm afraid you may have a biggest mouth as this welder, but
> >>>>>> cannot answer, Mr Winn. You are just pretending.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, I am not pretending. So are you saying that this welder used the
> >>>>> Lorentz equations to give you answers to your question? I do not really
> >>>>> believe you. One thing that is missing from your problem is the velocity
> >>>>> of S' relative to S. So at best, what could be given is an equation for x'.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well Mr Winn, you are allowed to assume this velocity of S' with respect
> >>>> to S is (v,0,0), this means v in the +x direction (v>0). I thought you
> >>>> could have assume that by yourself. My welder friend said that you
> >>>> are just pretending and that you are a fraud, Mr Winn.
> >>>
> >>> Well, yes, the velocity is positive, but, so what? The Lorentz equations
> >>> give you some bogus values for x', but it still does not mean anything.
> >>> The correct equations would be
> >>>
> >>> x'=x=vt
> >>> y'=y
> >>> z'=z
> >>> t'=t
> >>>
> >>> For A and B, x'=x because vt=0.
> >>> For C, x'= 150,000 - .5v
> >>
> >> Your answer is incomplete. You didn't gave the time of the events
> >> in S'.
> >
> > Yes, you are correct. I did not give time of events in S'.
> > The original post asked for values for x'. So are you
> > saying now that you want values for time?
>
> The original post asked for both spatial coordinates and time,
> Mr Winn. I wonder if you are mentally able to properly read
> more than a few words without forgetting most of them.
>
> >> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could
> >> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events
> >> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according
> >> to a clock at rest in S'?
Oh, well, I was not going to give you anything for a while, remember? But I will give you the correct equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
t is the time of a clock in S. v is the velocity of S' relative to S. Now you say that you have a clock in S' with a different rate of time.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the clock in S'. It can be faster or slower than the clock that shows t according to these equations. So the important relationship is the distance traveled by one frame of reference relative to the other.
v'n' = -vt
So now I will explain in more detail. Isaac Newton based all of his equations on the idea that n' would be equal to t. That would mean that
v'=-v
See how that worked?
Einstein based Special Relativity on the idea that the clock in S' would be slower than the clock in S. The Galilean transformation equations would show this slower clock as
n'=t-vt/c
So then
v'n' = -vt
v' = -vt/(t-vt/c)
v' = -v/(1-v/c)
But experiment shows that the clock in S' might be faster than the clock in S. I do not have an equation yet for this. You would have to find the rate of the clock by experiment, and then use the two sets of equations as I have shown them to determine velocities as seen from each frame of reference. These are the correct equations for determining what you wanted me to determine. If you have any difficulty using them, feel free to ask. I know how difficult it can seem using equations that do not have a length contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 18:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8a0ir$sdg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409811 |
Dne 18/02/2017 v 18:02 Robert Winn napsal(a): > > Well, what I was pointing out to scientists was that Einstein solved the problem the wrong way. Here are the Galilean transformation equations: > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > Inverse equations > > x = x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z > t = t' The Galilean transformation limitations were known even before Einstein. GPS system is one of the most obvious manifestation of not applicability of Galileo transform. If I would come to woodworkers to show them how the trees should be cut, they would laugh at me. If I would come to welders to show them how to weld the steel, they would laugh at me. And the laugh would be deserved. But for some reasons, workers and engineers do not hesitate to tell scientists how to do science, but feel offended, if they laugh at them. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 10:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ba9c924-1dbe-4335-9d71-46472b59b72b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409659 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:35:04 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/15/2017 4:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > All I did was look it up on Wikepedia. If you do not want to discuss it, I can > > certainly understand your reluctance. > > Thank you for your reference, Robert. You may notice that the earth > moves in the solar system as well. In fact, it moves rather quickly. I > gave you that number. So for some months, the earth is chasing New > Horizons and six months later, the earth is headed in the opposite > direction. So the speed of New Horizons relative to the earth (not > relative to the sun or relative to its flyby target) goes up and down by > 30 km/s. So you take the launch speed of 16.3 km/s, add to it the bump > it got from a gravity boost from the Jupiter flyby (discussed in the > Wikipedia article), and then add to that the motion of the earth in the > opposite direction to get the speed of New Horizons relative to earth > observers. I'm sure you can see how this gets above the speed of Mercury. Yes, I know, but you have to understand that the universe is expanding according to science. The furthest galaxies are moving away from use at ever increasing velocities. So, relative to some far distant galaxy, if we follow the reasoning of scientists, I may personally be moving faster than the speed of light. You seem to feel so desperate to prove me wrong about something that you go to ridiculous lengths. > > You have one method of discussion. Whatever I say is wrong, whatever > > you say is right, because you are a supporter of science and the Lorentz > > equations, and I was caught using the Galilean transformation equations. > > What happens to people caught using the Galilean transformation equations? > > Well, you are here to punish people caught using the Galilean transformation equations. > > The reason you get so many disputes, Robert, is that you say so many > silly things. What you say about the Galilean transformations is just > ONE of the silly things you say. It certainly is not true that you're > being punished for using the Galilean transformations. What is true is > that you are experiencing chastisement for saying lots and lots and lots > of things that are wrong. > Name one. > > I did say that electrons in a tube TV are theoretical and cannot be > ? measured. I used to work on radar, remember? > > The cathode ray tube of a television is no different from the cathode ray tube of a television. > > Obviously. Well, we finally agreed on something. This is a major milestone. The problem I see is that if I had put down what I was intending to say, it would not have happened. > > You can see what is happening on a CRT, but it does not really prove anything about electrons. > > An electronic signal is being sent from the emitter of the cathode ray tube. A yoke around > > the neck of the CRT directs the signal to places on the screen. But whether scientists are > > correct in every detail of their theory about electrons is not really proven by what happens. > > Nor does every detail of their theory about electrons have to be right. > All that matters is whether that "electromagnetic signal" that is sent > from the emitter of the CRT and proceeds to the screen of the CRT is > known to be composed of electrons or not, and whether the speed of those > electrons has been measured. > > I think it is remarkable that someone who once worked on radar is not > convinced that what is traveling from emitter to screen in a CRT are > electrons. > > Tell me, Robert, do you believe that cosmic rays exist? We've measured > the speed of those too. You've measured the speed of cosmic rays? How do you know you have measured the speed of cosmic rays? Did you use Cartesian coordinates of some other system of coordinates? > > What about atoms, Robert? Do you believe that atoms exist or not? Do you > believe that they can be observed and their rate of passage can be measured? > I have no idea. After talking to scientists I am afraid to say what I believe. Why don't you ask me if I think Obama was born in the United States? > I just want to get a feel for how backward about science you really are. > > > > It just proves that a magnetic field in the yoke deflects the electromagnetic signal to the > > intended places on the screen. The theory itself could be wrong in a lot of ways. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 13:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o87i8j$17el$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409694 |
On 2/17/2017 12:50 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >> The reason you get so many disputes, Robert, is that you say so many >> silly things. What you say about the Galilean transformations is just >> ONE of the silly things you say. It certainly is not true that you're >> being punished for using the Galilean transformations. What is true is >> that you are experiencing chastisement for saying lots and lots and lots >> of things that are wrong. >> > Name one. > You said that the fastest thing whose speed had been measured was Mercury. When other things faster were mentioned, you said they were all theoretical and could not be directly observed, which is of course nonsense, Robert. Then you said you did not want to talk about those things. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about with regard to you and the silly things you say. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 13:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o87ici$17el$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409694 |
On 2/17/2017 12:50 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > You've measured the speed of cosmic rays? How do you know you have measured the speed of > cosmic rays? Did you use Cartesian coordinates of some other system of coordinates? It's pretty easy to measure the speed of something, Robert. You detect its passage in two locations and you measure the time of flight between those two locations. That's what's done with cosmic rays, using scintillator detectors at two different heights. It's not complicated, Robert. I'm frankly amazed that you do not know these simple things. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 14:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9172306c-bb86-43e4-9721-b7d1c62eb2be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409700 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:19:49 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/17/2017 12:50 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > You've measured the speed of cosmic rays? How do you know you have measured the speed of > > cosmic rays? Did you use Cartesian coordinates of some other system of coordinates? > > It's pretty easy to measure the speed of something, Robert. You detect > its passage in two locations and you measure the time of flight between > those two locations. That's what's done with cosmic rays, using > scintillator detectors at two different heights. It's not complicated, > Robert. I'm frankly amazed that you do not know these simple things. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, I was amazed that you could not understand two sets of Cartesian coordinates, so I guess we are even.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 21:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o87kq8$1c8q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409694 |
Robert Winn wrote: > Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according to a clock at rest in S'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0f26a69-ac0c-48cc-991c-46490bd12999@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409709 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > > equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. > > Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations > you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? > > Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: > > Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s > > A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could > you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events > happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according > to a clock at rest in S'? Yes, I could do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 00:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o881c1$1up1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409724 |
Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Robert Winn wrote: >>> Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation >>> equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. >> >> Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations >> you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? >> >> Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: >> >> Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >> Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >> Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s >> >> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could >> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events >> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according >> to a clock at rest in S'? > > Yes, I could do it. I do not believe you. If you can provide an answer, provide it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 18:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12c2e1c9-e8ae-423f-8884-23009cfa67c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409734 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 4:35:34 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >> Robert Winn wrote: > >>> Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > >>> equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. > >> > >> Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations > >> you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? > >> > >> Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: > >> > >> Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > >> Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > >> Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s > >> > >> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could > >> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events > >> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according > >> to a clock at rest in S'? > > > > Yes, I could do it. > > I do not believe you. If you can provide an answer, provide it. I do not care what you believe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 04:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o88dta$d2e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409742 |
Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 4:35:34 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>> Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation >>>>> equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. >>>> >>>> Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations >>>> you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? >>>> >>>> Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: >>>> >>>> Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >>>> Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >>>> Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s >>>> >>>> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could >>>> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events >>>> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according >>>> to a clock at rest in S'? >>> >>> Yes, I could do it. >> >> I do not believe you. If you can provide an answer, provide it. > > I do not care what you believe. So you are not that good in using Galilean Transformation equations Mr Winn. As usual it was all about pretending on your side. This is clearly above the kind of algebra you've learned. There is no problem anyway, it is a question too hard for you to solve, I may understand that. Moreover you're certainly too old to be able to learn how to solve so a simple high school problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 21:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5353fdf6-9443-4bad-92a2-4b1146c060d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409747 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 8:09:34 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 4:35:34 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >> Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > >>>> Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > >>>>> equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. > >>>> > >>>> Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations > >>>> you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? > >>>> > >>>> Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: > >>>> > >>>> Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > >>>> Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > >>>> Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s > >>>> > >>>> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could > >>>> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events > >>>> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according > >>>> to a clock at rest in S'? > >>> > >>> Yes, I could do it. > >> > >> I do not believe you. If you can provide an answer, provide it. > > > > I do not care what you believe. > > So you are not that good in using Galilean Transformation equations > Mr Winn. As usual it was all about pretending on your side. > > This is clearly above the kind of algebra you've learned. There is > no problem anyway, it is a question too hard for you to solve, I may > understand that. Moreover you're certainly too old to be able to > learn how to solve so a simple high school problem. I figured it out in my head. I don't need to write it down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 18:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c135ed4d-c488-4f79-9575-b554dc88550c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409724 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 4:13:40 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > > Robert Winn wrote: > > > Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > > > equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. > > > > Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations > > you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? > > > > Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: > > > > Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > > Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > > Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s > > > > A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could > > you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events > > happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according > > to a clock at rest in S'? > > Yes, I could do it. Yes, I can do this too, but, it is going to take an army of scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 19:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17ad01ce-7325-401e-bfee-9cefd7e2ba90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409740 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:35:48 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 4:13:40 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: > > > Robert Winn wrote: > > > > Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > > > > equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. > > > > > > Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations > > > you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? > > > > > > Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: > > > > > > Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > > > Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > > > Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s > > > > > > A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could > > > you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events > > > happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according > > > to a clock at rest in S'? > > > > Yes, I could do it. > > Yes, I can do this too, but, it is going to take an army of scientists. The clapper of the bell hits the side of the bell. It would be the same as any other event. But to avoid confusion among scientists, you would probably have to use bolts of lightning like Einstein did with the trains.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 04:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o88e4i$d2e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409744 |
Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:35:48 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: >> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 4:13:40 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:01:16 PM UTC-7, Python wrote: >>>> Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation >>>>> equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. >>>> >>>> Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations >>>> you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? >>>> >>>> Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: >>>> >>>> Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >>>> Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >>>> Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s >>>> >>>> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could >>>> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events >>>> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according >>>> to a clock at rest in S'? >>> >>> Yes, I could do it. >> >> Yes, I can do this too, but, it is going to take an army of scientists. > > It would be the same as any other event. *exactly*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 18:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <431c326e-d675-42f8-ac64-393d63aa7f48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409709 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 2:01:16 PM UTC-6, Python wrote: > Robert Winn wrote: > > Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > > equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. > > Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations > you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? > > Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: > > Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s > > A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could > you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events > happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according > to a clock at rest in S'? Depends on what you mean by "bell rings".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 04:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o88dhl$cj5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409741 |
John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 2:01:16 PM UTC-6, Python wrote: >> Robert Winn wrote: >>> Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation >>> equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. >> >> Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations >> you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? >> >> Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: >> >> Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >> Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 >> Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s >> >> A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could >> you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events >> happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according >> to a clock at rest in S'? > > Depends on what you mean by "bell rings". Whatever you want, Mr Gogo. Something happen at a given place at a given time, that's all. You cannot change reality. It is quite weird that you think you would need "an army of scientists" to answer the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 19:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a74d4bd-1499-4137-a83b-5594de5fc28a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409741 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 7:37:33 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 2:01:16 PM UTC-6, Python wrote: > > Robert Winn wrote: > > > Yes, I am a very backward person. I do know how to use the Galilean transformation > > > equations, though. That is more than any scientist can say. > > > > Mr Winn, if you know how to use the Galilean transformation equations > > you may easily answer a simple question, don't you? > > > > Three events happens, here are their coordinates in frame S: > > > > Event A : a bell rings at position x=0, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > > Event B : a bell rings at position x=300000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0 > > Event C : a bell rings at position x=150000km, y=0, z=0 at time t=0.5s > > > > A frame S' is moving in the +x direction with respect to S, could > > you give the coordinates in S' of the position where these three events > > happens, and, for all of them, the at what time they happens according > > to a clock at rest in S'? > > Depends on what you mean by "bell rings". The clapper of the bell hits the side of the bell. But to avoid confusion among scientists, it should probably be changed to lightning strikes like Einstein used with his train problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8cuvr$1dci$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409694 |
On 2/17/2017 12:50 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >> What about atoms, Robert? Do you believe that atoms exist or not? Do you >> believe that they can be observed and their rate of passage can be measured? >> > I have no idea. After talking to scientists I am afraid to say what I believe. > Why don't you ask me if I think Obama was born in the United States? > You're afraid to tell a woodworker whether you believe that atoms exist? Oh my. You certainly have been deeply psychologically affected by scientists if you are too afraid to say something as simple as that. What a shame. Perhaps you could get some help for that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7ql5a$1dg1$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408895 |
On 2/11/2017 11:31 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > Special relativity is supposed to be a gravitationless system. Exactly where do you conduct these experiments? I think you have misunderstood something, Robert. Where did you ever get the idea that special relativity only applies where there is no gravity? How do you think relativity gets applied in accelerators dug in tunnels underground? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web