Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418697 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-08 09:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-13 15:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 149 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 09:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 10:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-08 11:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:00 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:25 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Lissa Hermes <isussui@aeawwih.es> - 2017-05-08 20:29 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:34 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 13:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-08 15:45 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 20:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 03:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 14:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:52 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 07:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:55 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 08:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:56 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 15:26 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 15:15 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-11 12:51 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 08:13 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-11 22:14 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:41 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-12 00:04 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 17:40 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-12 07:53 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 06:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-12 19:32 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 18:37 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-13 13:06 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 05:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 12:57 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:36 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 05:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:51 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:58 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 12:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 13:02 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 16:14 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 16:24 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:51 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 01:19 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 09:44 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 18:24 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 19:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 00:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-13 05:33 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 09:23 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 05:56 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 07:05 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 07:17 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:39 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 06:39 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:26 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:43 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 00:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:53 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 21:55 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 07:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:28 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:30 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:03 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 06:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:38 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-17 02:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:59 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 06:49 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:27 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:42 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 09:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 10:10 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-14 10:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:54 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-14 23:29 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:32 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 10:06 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-14 12:00 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 21:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-15 04:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:17 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:21 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:31 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:38 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:55 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:06 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 06:44 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:40 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 00:12 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:00 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 09:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:52 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:12 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-18 20:59 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:47 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-18 19:04 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:25 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:24 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-16 22:54 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 00:27 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-17 09:39 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 07:30 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:22 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:36 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 09:01 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:53 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:13 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 00:16 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 23:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 04:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-16 06:18 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:34 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:38 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 06:35 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:56 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 14:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 23:26 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:59 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-11 21:48 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-10 10:58 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:55 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-08 10:47 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 11:34 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:19 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 07:11 -0700
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:21 +0000
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:49 -0500
Re: Galilean explanation of distance and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 15:13 -0700
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5af3137e-ee60-485b-91fc-951892d777b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419044 |
W dniu środa, 10 maja 2017 18:56:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 5/10/17 10:31 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:55:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/10/17 9:41 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> Well, I was actually trying to discuss relativity. What you are doing is called pouting. > >> > >> If you want to call refusing to have my chain tugged by you pouting, > >> Robert, you should feel free to do that. You call things what you want > >> to call them, whether they are or not, all the time. > >> > >> I don't think it's useful to talk about a subject in science when you > >> are unaware of the experimental evidence about that subject. Maybe you do. > >> > > Well, I just believe that if experimental evidence existed, you would be willing to talk about it. > > > > Like I said, you believe a lot of things. > I believe that a man should not talk from an obvious position of > ignorance, especially if correcting the ignorance is easy for him. And that he should obey ingenious Shit of ingenious Great Guru. > > But there are people who seem to like to talk from positions of > ignorance and are completely uninterested in correcting that ignorance, And they don't want to obey ingenious Shit of ingenious Great Guru:( What a shame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 16:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeqpg2$be2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418776 |
On 5/8/17 4:30 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/8/17 12:42 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:53:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> You mention that there is a proclamation by scientists somewhere that >>>> the use of Galilean transformations in everyday life is subject to >>>> punishment. Do you have any record or reference to such a proclamation? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Well, I do not know of any official declaration, just an attitude. >> >> Aha. So there was no proclamation about being subject to punishment >> after all. When you say something you know is false right from the >> moment it leaves your lips, there's a word for that. Do you know what it is? >> > Well, what about what Gary Harnagel just did? Wasn't that a punishment. At West point, > it was called The Silence. The Amish call it shunning. > It is difinitely a form of punishment. So there was no proclamation about being subject to punishment after all. When you say something you know is false right from the moment it leaves your lips, there's a word for that. Do you know what it is? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4656f8d8-b531-451b-986b-3dbffb6fff66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418711 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 8 maja 2017 18:53:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 5/8/17 11:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was based on the concept that distances remained the same. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > > This idea that distances could be a standard that was unchanging is foreign to scientific thought of today, which is based on the Lorentz equations, showing > > distances as parameters that expand or contract depending on velocity. > > > > > > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of Galilean relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment according to the > > judgment of scientists. My own personal opinion is that Galilean relativity is the correct representation of times and distances > > and that modern science is a mis-interpretation of reality. > > > > As it turns out, Robert, length contraction has been observed > experimentally. Sure! And an observer walking a street observes trees and buildings running around them. Or at least, he should observe it if he was a proper observer. Everybody knows that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fef8579-3d62-4a35-9dc5-ea7bc08ef3fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418728 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:48:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 8 maja 2017 18:53:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > On 5/8/17 11:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > > The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was based on the concept that distances remained the same. > > > > > > x'=x-vt > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'=t > > > > > > This idea that distances could be a standard that was unchanging is foreign to scientific thought of today, which is based on the Lorentz equations, showing > > > distances as parameters that expand or contract depending on velocity. > > > > > > > > > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of Galilean relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment according to the > > > judgment of scientists. My own personal opinion is that Galilean relativity is the correct representation of times and distances > > > and that modern science is a mis-interpretation of reality. > > > > > > > As it turns out, Robert, length contraction has been observed > > experimentally. > > Sure! And an observer walking a street observes > trees and buildings running around them. > Or at least, he should observe it if he was a > proper observer. Everybody knows that. Yes, and Odd Bodkin is going to explain the experiment where it was proven that the length contraction exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 15:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeqjrn$16s$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418728 |
On 5/8/17 12:47 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 8 maja 2017 18:53:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >> As it turns out, Robert, length contraction has been observed >> experimentally. > > Sure! And an observer walking a street observes > trees and buildings running around them. Does your common sense tell you that trees and buildings are stationary, Wozniak? > Or at least, he should observe it if he was a > proper observer. Everybody knows that. I don't believe "proper observer" is in the jargon of relativity. How lovely of you to make it up. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ac7c615-69d6-467d-a4ec-d452d0740a2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418711 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/8/17 11:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > The explanation of relativity that was used until 1887 was based on the concept that distances remained the same. > > > > x'=x-vt > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=t > > > > This idea that distances could be a standard that was unchanging is foreign to scientific thought of today, which is based on the Lorentz equations, showing > > distances as parameters that expand or contract depending on velocity. > > > > > > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > y'=y > > z'=z > > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > What scientists have done is to proclaim that use of Galilean relativity is forbidden and subject to punishment according to the > > judgment of scientists. My own personal opinion is that Galilean relativity is the correct representation of times and distances > > and that modern science is a mis-interpretation of reality. > > > > As it turns out, Robert, length contraction has been observed > experimentally. I believe you are completely unfamiliar with those > facts, but that’s neither here nor there. No.....length contraction never been measured. In fact it is impossible to do so. > > However, in quite a lot of applications, the use of the Galilean > transformations is sufficient for everyday use, as the numerical > differences between the Lorentz result and the Galilean result are well > below the measurement accuracy in the application. Those applications of > the Galilean transformations happen routinely in thousands of > applications daily, and as far as I know nobody has been punished for > doing that. > > You mention that there is a proclamation by scientists somewhere that > the use of Galilean transformations in everyday life is subject to > punishment. Do you have any record or reference to such a proclamation? > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of7bpk$64g$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #419322 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> As it turns out, Robert, length contraction has been observed >> experimentally. I believe you are completely unfamiliar with those >> facts, but that's neither here nor there. >No.....length contraction never been measured. In fact it is impossible to >do so. No, Stupid Ken. Just because you're too stupid to know how to measure it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't know how to do so. You're just projecting your own failure onto everyone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of7kf4$10hi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419322 |
On 5/13/17 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> As it turns out, Robert, length contraction has been observed >> experimentally. I believe you are completely unfamiliar with those >> facts, but that’s neither here nor there. > > No.....length contraction never been measured. In fact it is impossible to do so. That's a factual error, Ken. It is both possible AND accomplished. The world actually includes many things you did not know were possible, Seto. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 15:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6da54a43-652e-42ad-bf4e-8e7bc6ebe198@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419350 |
W dniu sobota, 13 maja 2017 20:49:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 5/13/17 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> As it turns out, Robert, length contraction has been observed > >> experimentally. I believe you are completely unfamiliar with those > >> facts, but that’s neither here nor there. > > > > No.....length contraction never been measured. In fact it is impossible to do so. > > That's a factual error, Ken. It is both possible AND accomplished. A fanatic idiot will always find a way to measure what he believes.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web