Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423433 > unrolled thread

Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn

Started by	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
First post	2017-06-25 08:30 -0700
Last post	2017-06-26 03:49 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 255 — 20 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →

#423433 — Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-25 08:30 -0700
Subject	Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn
Message-ID	<b239808a-9d2e-49a4-bac7-b64ac50de736@googlegroups.com>

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> Robert B. Winn being in jail, or in a psychiatric ward these days,
> or dead, here are again the equations he stubbornly refuses to use:
> 
>                      x'=x-vt
>                      y'=y
>                      z'=z
>                      t'=t

The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.  

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

Now if you have a slower clock somewhere, then you have to use different variables for the time of that clock.  

                     x'=x-v'n
                     y'=y
                     z'=z
                     n'=n

See, a second on a fast clock is not the same as a second on a slower clock.  I know how difficult this might be for people who believe in a length contraction to visualize.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#423435

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-06-25 08:56 -0700
Message-ID	<9eeedd0c-7479-4559-a632-6dbe5a841228@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423433

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> >
> > Robert B. Winn being in jail, or in a psychiatric ward these days,
> > or dead, here are again the equations he stubbornly refuses to use:
> > 
> >                      x'=x-vt
> >                      y'=y
> >                      z'=z
> >                      t'=t
> 
> 
> The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.  
> 
>                       x'=x-vt
>                       y'=y
>                       z'=z
>                       t'=t
> 
> Now if you have a slower clock somewhere, then you have to use different
> variables for the time of that clock.  
> 
>                      x'=x-v'n
>                      y'=y
>                      z'=z
>                      n'=n

Wrong!  Not only wrong, it's asinine.

> See, a second on a fast clock is not the same as a second on a slower clock.

Only Windy Winn fawns over his slower clock.  Normal people use accurate
clocks.

I know how difficult this might be for Windy Winn who denies reality to
visualize.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423453

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-25 17:28 -0700
Message-ID	<ecfc0509-dc45-4670-b1fd-82375dce4090@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423435

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:56:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert B. Winn being in jail, or in a psychiatric ward these days,
> > > or dead, here are again the equations he stubbornly refuses to use:
> > > 
> > >                      x'=x-vt
> > >                      y'=y
> > >                      z'=z
> > >                      t'=t
> > 
> > 
> > The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.  
> > 
> >                       x'=x-vt
> >                       y'=y
> >                       z'=z
> >                       t'=t
> > 
> > Now if you have a slower clock somewhere, then you have to use different
> > variables for the time of that clock.  
> > 
> >                      x'=x-v'n
> >                      y'=y
> >                      z'=z
> >                      n'=n
> 
> Wrong!  Not only wrong, it's asinine.
> 
> > See, a second on a fast clock is not the same as a second on a slower clock.
> 
> Only Windy Winn fawns over his slower clock.  Normal people use accurate
> clocks.
> 
> I know how difficult this might be for Windy Winn who denies reality to
> visualize.

Einstein had a slower clock, but you say there are no slower clocks, only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you think Einstein came to have a slower clock?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423454

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-06-25 18:00 -0700
Message-ID	<7bd6769e-e06c-462a-9cc5-b0ddd0bbc2d5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423453

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:28:18 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:56:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Robert B. Winn being in jail, or in a psychiatric ward these days,
> > > > or dead, here are again the equations he stubbornly refuses to use:
> > > > 
> > > >                      x'=x-vt
> > > >                      y'=y
> > > >                      z'=z
> > > >                      t'=t
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.  
> > > 
> > >                       x'=x-vt
> > >                       y'=y
> > >                       z'=z
> > >                       t'=t
> > > 
> > > Now if you have a slower clock somewhere, then you have to use different
> > > variables for the time of that clock.  
> > > 
> > >                      x'=x-v'n
> > >                      y'=y
> > >                      z'=z
> > >                      n'=n
> > 
> > Wrong!  Not only wrong, it's asinine.
> > 
> > > See, a second on a fast clock is not the same as a second on a slower
> > > clock.
> > 
> > Only Windy Winn fawns over his slower clock.  Normal people use accurate
> > clocks.
> > 
> > I know how difficult this might be for Windy Winn who denies reality to
> > visualize.
> 
> Einstein had a slower clock,

No, he didn't have a slower clock.  He was a THEORETICAL physicist.

> but you say there are no slower clocks,

You are fatally mistaken.  I said only that fools would believe what they say.

> only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you think Einstein
> came to have a slower clock?

He probably bought it at Walgreens, like YOU did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423459

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-25 19:45 -0700
Message-ID	<1c989fe9-a92c-42ab-9dad-dd7e4e17bbc8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423454

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:28:18 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:56:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert B. Winn being in jail, or in a psychiatric ward these days,
> > > > > or dead, here are again the equations he stubbornly refuses to use:
> > > > > 
> > > > >                      x'=x-vt
> > > > >                      y'=y
> > > > >                      z'=z
> > > > >                      t'=t
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.  
> > > > 
> > > >                       x'=x-vt
> > > >                       y'=y
> > > >                       z'=z
> > > >                       t'=t
> > > > 
> > > > Now if you have a slower clock somewhere, then you have to use different
> > > > variables for the time of that clock.  
> > > > 
> > > >                      x'=x-v'n
> > > >                      y'=y
> > > >                      z'=z
> > > >                      n'=n
> > > 
> > > Wrong!  Not only wrong, it's asinine.
> > > 
> > > > See, a second on a fast clock is not the same as a second on a slower
> > > > clock.
> > > 
> > > Only Windy Winn fawns over his slower clock.  Normal people use accurate
> > > clocks.
> > > 
> > > I know how difficult this might be for Windy Winn who denies reality to
> > > visualize.
> > 
> > Einstein had a slower clock,
> 
> No, he didn't have a slower clock.  He was a THEORETICAL physicist.
> 
> > but you say there are no slower clocks,
> 
> You are fatally mistaken.  I said only that fools would believe what they say.
> 
> > only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you think Einstein
> > came to have a slower clock?
> 
> He probably bought it at Walgreens, like YOU did.

No, I think you are wrong about that.  Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.  I have to agree with him.  The moving clock was slower.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423460

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-06-25 20:19 -0700
Message-ID	<24838577-febf-41a9-bde6-15a4bb6b3339@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423459

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:28:18 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:56:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert B. Winn being in jail, or in a psychiatric ward these days,
> > > > > > or dead, here are again the equations he stubbornly refuses to use:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                      x'=x-vt
> > > > > >                      y'=y
> > > > > >                      z'=z
> > > > > >                      t'=t
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.  
> > > > > 
> > > > >                       x'=x-vt
> > > > >                       y'=y
> > > > >                       z'=z
> > > > >                       t'=t
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now if you have a slower clock somewhere, then you have to use
> > > > > different variables for the time of that clock.  
> > > > > 
> > > > >                      x'=x-v'n
> > > > >                      y'=y
> > > > >                      z'=z
> > > > >                      n'=n
> > > > 
> > > > Wrong!  Not only wrong, it's asinine.
> > > > 
> > > > > See, a second on a fast clock is not the same as a second on a slower
> > > > > clock.
> > > > 
> > > > Only Windy Winn fawns over his slower clock.  Normal people use accurate
> > > > clocks.
> > > > 
> > > > I know how difficult this might be for Windy Winn who denies reality to
> > > > visualize.
> > > 
> > > Einstein had a slower clock,
> > 
> > No, he didn't have a slower clock.  He was a THEORETICAL physicist.
> > 
> > > but you say there are no slower clocks,
> > 
> > You are fatally mistaken.  I said only that fools would believe what they
> > say.
> > 
> > > only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you think Einstein
> > > came to have a slower clock?
> > 
> > He probably bought it at Walgreens, like YOU did.
> 
> No, I think you are wrong about that.

You are the one in error, mon ami.  And Einstein was wrong about moving
clocks running slow.  Didn't you get the memos?  They've been floating around
here for quite some time.

> Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.

No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was wrong
about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to run
slow.

> I have to agree with him.

Then you are wronger than he was.  He had an excuse, YOU don't.

> The moving clock was slower.

No, it wasn't.  You are BADLY mistaken.  Scientists today KNOW better.  YOU
are decades out of date.  The world of science has moved on, yet there you
sit in your jockies pretending that you're smarter than everyone else.
You're not.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” 
-- Benjamin Franklin

“Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your
mouth” – 1 Samuel 2:3

“A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.” 
― Orrin Woodward

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423469

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-06-26 02:46 -0700
Message-ID	<aeda19d5-04cf-48c5-95ab-612789b7de20@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423460

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:19:57 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:28:18 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:56:20 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Robert B. Winn being in jail, or in a psychiatric ward these days,
> > > > > > > or dead, here are again the equations he stubbornly refuses to use:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >                      x'=x-vt
> > > > > > >                      y'=y
> > > > > > >                      z'=z
> > > > > > >                      t'=t
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                       x'=x-vt
> > > > > >                       y'=y
> > > > > >                       z'=z
> > > > > >                       t'=t
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Now if you have a slower clock somewhere, then you have to use
> > > > > > different variables for the time of that clock.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                      x'=x-v'n
> > > > > >                      y'=y
> > > > > >                      z'=z
> > > > > >                      n'=n
> > > > > 
> > > > > Wrong!  Not only wrong, it's asinine.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > See, a second on a fast clock is not the same as a second on a slower
> > > > > > clock.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Only Windy Winn fawns over his slower clock.  Normal people use accurate
> > > > > clocks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I know how difficult this might be for Windy Winn who denies reality to
> > > > > visualize.
> > > > 
> > > > Einstein had a slower clock,
> > > 
> > > No, he didn't have a slower clock.  He was a THEORETICAL physicist.
> > > 
> > > > but you say there are no slower clocks,
> > > 
> > > You are fatally mistaken.  I said only that fools would believe what they
> > > say.
> > > 
> > > > only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you think Einstein
> > > > came to have a slower clock?
> > > 
> > > He probably bought it at Walgreens, like YOU did.
> > 
> > No, I think you are wrong about that.
> 
> You are the one in error, mon ami.  And Einstein was wrong about moving
> clocks running slow.  Didn't you get the memos?  They've been floating around
> here for quite some time.
> 
> > Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.
> 
> No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was wrong
> about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to run
> slow.
> 
> > I have to agree with him.
> 
> Then you are wronger than he was.  He had an excuse, YOU don't.
> 
> > The moving clock was slower.
> 
> No, it wasn't.  You are BADLY mistaken.  Scientists today KNOW better.  YOU
> are decades out of date.  The world of science has moved on, yet there you
> sit in your jockies pretending that you're smarter than everyone else.
> You're not.
> 
> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” 
> -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your
> mouth” – 1 Samuel 2:3
> 
> “A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.” 
> ― Orrin Woodward

Orrin Woodward?  Now you are taking a name in vain.  I sell books for Orrin Woodward.  Orrin Woodward has a degree in engineering.  Do you think he is going to agree with Einstein?
But anyway, how would you like to get out of debt?  make more money? pay less taxes?  I can sell you the Green Box for $120 and get you started on the road to financial freedom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423474

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-06-26 04:46 -0700
Message-ID	<6e5705a3-6d8f-41d0-8cee-f0a549077877@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423469

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:46:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:19:57 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.
> > 
> > No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was wrong
> > about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to run
> > slow.
> > 
> > > I have to agree with him.
> > 
> > Then you are wronger than he was.  He had an excuse, YOU don't.
> > 
> > > The moving clock was slower.
> > 
> > No, it wasn't.  You are BADLY mistaken.  Scientists today KNOW better.  YOU
> > are decades out of date.  The world of science has moved on, yet there you
> > sit in your jockies pretending that you're smarter than everyone else.
> > You're not.
> > 
> > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” 
> > -- Benjamin Franklin
> > 
> > “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your
> > mouth” – 1 Samuel 2:3
> > 
> > “A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.” 
> > ― Orrin Woodward
> 
> Orrin Woodward?  Now you are taking a name in vain.

No, I'm not.  He described YOU quite accurately.

> I sell books for Orrin Woodward.

He might not let you if he found out how arrogant, ignorant and dishonest
you are.

> Orrin Woodward has a degree in engineering.
> Do you think he is going to agree with Einstein?

I have a degree in engineering and I don't agree with YOU :-)

> But anyway, how would you like to get out of debt?

I'm not in debt.

> make more money?

I'm doing okay.

> pay less taxes?

That's "Pay less TAX."  The plural implies the amount is individual,
countable monetary units, so you should say, "Pay FEWER taxes."

> I can sell you the Green Box for $120 and get you started on the road to
> financial freedom.

Is that why you're living in a trailer on a ranch in Arizona?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423575

From	ldzwinn@gmail.com
Date	2017-06-28 05:40 -0700
Message-ID	<ecc7f78c-8b18-4a5f-88a2-c65dd9bfc11c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423474

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 4:46:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:46:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:19:57 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.
> > > 
> > > No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was wrong
> > > about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to run
> > > slow.
> > > 
> > > > I have to agree with him.
> > > 
> > > Then you are wronger than he was.  He had an excuse, YOU don't.
> > > 
> > > > The moving clock was slower.
> > > 
> > > No, it wasn't.  You are BADLY mistaken.  Scientists today KNOW better.  YOU
> > > are decades out of date.  The world of science has moved on, yet there you
> > > sit in your jockies pretending that you're smarter than everyone else.
> > > You're not.
> > > 
> > > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” 
> > > -- Benjamin Franklin
> > > 
> > > “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your
> > > mouth” – 1 Samuel 2:3
> > > 
> > > “A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.” 
> > > ― Orrin Woodward
> > 
> > Orrin Woodward?  Now you are taking a name in vain.
> 
> No, I'm not.  He described YOU quite accurately.
> 
> > I sell books for Orrin Woodward.
> 
> He might not let you if he found out how arrogant, ignorant and dishonest
> you are.
> 
> > Orrin Woodward has a degree in engineering.
> > Do you think he is going to agree with Einstein?
> 
> I have a degree in engineering and I don't agree with YOU :-)
> 
> > But anyway, how would you like to get out of debt?
> 
> I'm not in debt.
> 
> > make more money?
> 
> I'm doing okay.
> 
> > pay less taxes?
> 
> That's "Pay less TAX."  The plural implies the amount is individual,
> countable monetary units, so you should say, "Pay FEWER taxes."
> 
> > I can sell you the Green Box for $120 and get you started on the road to
> > financial freedom.
> 
> Is that why you're living in a trailer on a ranch in Arizona?

Well, I have not become a millionaire yet.  I just bought the green box a month ago.  You would only be my second customer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423531

From	Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be>
Date	2017-06-27 05:52 -0700
Message-ID	<2afb83c3-225c-4f54-b805-7c7889b63556@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423460

On Monday, 26 June 2017 05:19:57 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > > only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you 
> > > > think Einstein came to have a slower clock?
> > > 
> > > He probably bought it at Walgreens, like YOU did.
> > 
> > No, I think you are wrong about that.
> 
> You are the one in error, mon ami.  And Einstein was wrong about moving
> clocks running slow.  Didn't you get the memos?  They've been 
> floating around here for quite some time.

Somewhere along the line I'am missing something. 
Can some one give me a link to the memos mentioned?

> > Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.
> 
> No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was wrong
> about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to run
> slow.
> 

Consider two identical clocks A and B in front of me, on a table.
They are identical in the sense that after one year the two clocks still 
show the same time/reading.
Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back, 
from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55. 
That means there is a constant time difference between the two clocks. 
Clock B runs behind. 
That means during the time that clock B travelled (away and back) 
clock B did run slower than clock A. 
To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.

Nicolaas Vroom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423534

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-06-27 06:50 -0700
Message-ID	<c88305ed-b869-4b9d-9fab-d32a8d07c280@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423531

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>
> On Monday, 26 June 2017 05:19:57 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 6:00:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > only accurate clocks and inaccurate clocks.  So how do you 
> > > > > think Einstein came to have a slower clock?
> > > > 
> > > > He probably bought it at Walgreens, like YOU did.
> > > 
> > > No, I think you are wrong about that.
> > 
> > You are the one in error, mon ami.  And Einstein was wrong about moving
> > clocks running slow.  Didn't you get the memos?  They've been 
> > floating around here for quite some time.
> 
> Somewhere along the line I'am missing something. 
> Can some one give me a link to the memos mentioned?

Too numerous to bother with.  Just ask your questions.

> > > Einstein definitely said he had a slower clock.
> > 
> > No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he was wrong
> > about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving clocks APPEAR to run
> > slow.
> > 
> 
> Consider two identical clocks A and B in front of me, on a table.
> They are identical in the sense that after one year the two clocks still 
> show the same time/reading.
> Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back, 
> from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55. 
> That means there is a constant time difference between the two clocks. 
> Clock B runs behind.

Yes, it is running at the same rate as A, but it is behind.

> That means during the time that clock B travelled (away and back) 
> clock B did run slower than clock A.

But you have no way of directly determining that.  You ASSUME that it was
running slower in transit, but there is another explanation, one that
doesn't run into a paradox (i.e., while B was in transit, he saw A's
clock running slower).
 
> To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.
>   
> Nicolaas Vroom

Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion (which is why A's clock
appears to run slower to B).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423541

From	Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be>
Date	2017-06-27 07:33 -0700
Message-ID	<6f91b6d4-d951-4fd4-8a4a-30c5d5a7dfc6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423534

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 15:50:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 26 June 2017 05:19:57 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> >
> > > No, he didn't say that.  He said moving clocks run slow, and he 
> > > was wrong about that.  What he SHOULD have said is that moving 
> > > clocks APPEAR to run slow.
> > > 
> > 
> > Consider two identical clocks A and B in front of me, on a table.
> > They are identical in the sense that after one year the two clocks 
> > still show the same time/reading.
> > Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back, 
> > from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55. 
> > That means there is a constant time difference between the two clocks. 
> > Clock B runs behind.
> 
> Yes, it is running at the same rate as A, but it is behind.
> 
> > That means during the time that clock B travelled (away and back) 
> > clock B did run slower than clock A.
> 
> But you have no way of directly determining that.  

That is correct if you mean during the time the two clocks were not
at my desk.
After clock B returned and before looking there are three possible answers:
1) They both show the same time.
2) Clock B shows an earlier time and runs behind.
3) Clock A shows an earlier time and runs behind.
In case 2) clock B is considered the moving clock
In case 3) clock A is considered the moving clock

> You ASSUME that it was
> running slower in transit, but there is another explanation, one that
> doesn't run into a paradox (i.e., while B was in transit, he saw A's
> clock running slower).

I do not see any paradox. This is a physical experiment and it requires
a physical explanation. 

While B is in transit it is "difficult" to see A's clock 
The same for A to see B's clock.
Ofcourse each can transmit at regular intervals a timing system.

> > To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.
> >   
> 
> Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
> The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
> claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 

That is "correct" before they meet again.

> (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).

And vice versa.
The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.

Nicolaas Vroom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423543

From	Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl>
Date	2017-06-27 08:09 -0700
Message-ID	<6a33c658-5ff5-4e58-9a32-36c96c2958f1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423541

El martes, 27 de junio de 2017, 10:33:11 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom  escribió:
> On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 15:50:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:

> > Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
> > The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
> > claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 
> 
> That is "correct" before they meet again.
> 
> > (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).
> 
> And vice versa.
> The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
> IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.
> 
> Nicolaas Vroom.

Consider, for example, the GPS satellite atomic clocks. Before launching, the frequency of those clocks is set to 10.2299999954326 MHz. Then, in your GPS receiver on the ground, the signals received from the GPS satellite are measured to be exactly of 10.23 Mhz. Nothing has changed in the orbiting atomic clock, but on the ground its frequency is measured at 10.23 Mhz, which is the geometrical projection in spacetime from the frequency of the orbiting satellite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423546

From	Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo>
Date	2017-06-27 15:45 +0000
Message-ID	<oitui1$1lft$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#423543

Paparios wrote:

>  10.2299999954326 MHz. Then, in
> your GPS receiver on the ground, the signals received from the GPS
> satellite are measured to be exactly of 10.23 Mhz.

Talking MHz, there is essentially no any difference between a 10.23 MHz 
and a 10.229(99) MHz. Which reveals you must be a guitar player in 
Electronics and Embedded Systems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423568

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-06-27 23:12 -0700
Message-ID	<ad4be642-d4d2-49df-ba5b-83abf71f5f78@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423543

W dniu wtorek, 27 czerwca 2017 17:09:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał:
> El martes, 27 de junio de 2017, 10:33:11 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom  escribió:
> > On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 15:50:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> 
> > > Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
> > > The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
> > > claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 
> > 
> > That is "correct" before they meet again.
> > 
> > > (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).
> > 
> > And vice versa.
> > The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
> > IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.
> > 
> > Nicolaas Vroom.
> 
> Consider, for example, the GPS satellite atomic clocks. Before launching, the frequency of those clocks is set to 10.2299999954326 MHz. Then, in your GPS receiver on the ground, the signals received from the GPS satellite are measured to be exactly of 10.23 Mhz. Nothing has changed in the orbiting atomic clock
, but on the ground its frequency is measured at 10.23 Mhz

And, unfortunately, "orbiting atomic clock" measures the same
frequency. Good bye, the Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423544

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-06-27 08:31 -0700
Message-ID	<c74d3cbf-358f-43f2-9c67-f8e664ce2038@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423541

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:33:11 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 15:50:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > >
> > > Consider two identical clocks A and B in front of me, on a table.
> > > They are identical in the sense that after one year the two clocks 
> > > still show the same time/reading.
> > > Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back, 
> > > from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55. 
> > > That means there is a constant time difference between the two clocks. 
> > > Clock B runs behind.
> > 
> > Yes, it is running at the same rate as A, but it is behind.
> > 
> > > That means during the time that clock B travelled (away and back) 
> > > clock B did run slower than clock A.
> > 
> > But you have no way of directly determining that.  
> 
> That is correct if you mean during the time the two clocks were not
> at my desk.
> After clock B returned and before looking there are three possible answers:
> 1) They both show the same time.
> 2) Clock B shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> 3) Clock A shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> In case 2) clock B is considered the moving clock
> In case 3) clock A is considered the moving clock

A and B cannot get back together again unless one of them changes frames.
The one that changes frames will lag the other.

> > You ASSUME that it was
> > running slower in transit, but there is another explanation, one that
> > doesn't run into a paradox (i.e., while B was in transit, he saw A's
> > clock running slower).
> 
> I do not see any paradox. This is a physical experiment and it requires
> a physical explanation. 

And there is one:  one that does not require either clock to actually be
running slower.

> While B is in transit it is "difficult" to see A's clock 
> The same for A to see B's clock.
> Ofcourse each can transmit at regular intervals a timing system.

Sure.  Not really so difficult after all.  Of course, Doppler effects and
time delays would have to be taken into account.

> > > To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.
> > >   
> > 
> > Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
> > The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
> > claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 
> 
> That is "correct" before they meet again.

Which can't happen unless one of them changes frames.

> > (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).
> 
> And vice versa.
> The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
> IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.
> 
> Nicolaas Vroom.

They will be reading different times, but you still can't assume either
of them was "running slow."  As Paparios says, it's a geometric projection
effect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423571

From	Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be>
Date	2017-06-28 01:57 -0700
Message-ID	<ceaf40f5-d284-4f0b-867c-e31c7b472d56@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423544

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 17:32:03 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:33:11 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >
> > 
> > After clock B returned and before looking there are three possible answers:
> > 1) They both show the same time.
> > 2) Clock B shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > 3) Clock A shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > In case 2) clock B is considered the moving clock
> > In case 3) clock A is considered the moving clock
> 
> A and B cannot get back together again unless one of them changes frames.
> The one that changes frames will lag the other.

Cannot they both change frames?
Does not any change in speed implies a change in frame?
Anyway what has changing frames to do with this experiment?
IMO the most important issue is (in case 2) that clock B must change its speed 
(direction of speed) 
 
> > > You ASSUME that it was
> > > running slower in transit, but there is another explanation, one that
> > > doesn't run into a paradox (i.e., while B was in transit, he saw A's
> > > clock running slower).
> > 
> > I do not see any paradox. This is a physical experiment and it requires
> > a physical explanation. 
> 
> And there is one:  one that does not require either clock to actually be
> running slower.

I do not understand how this explanation explains the outcome of the
experiment i.e. that when the two clocks meet their readings are different.

 
> > While B is in transit it is "difficult" to see A's clock 
> > The same for A to see B's clock.
> > Ofcourse each can transmit at regular intervals a timing system.
> 
> Sure.  Not really so difficult after all.  Of course, Doppler effects and
> time delays would have to be taken into account.
> 
> > > > To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
> > > The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
> > > claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 
> > 
> > That is "correct" before they meet again.
> 
> Which can't happen unless one of them changes frames.
> 

If you mean unless at least one changes its speed.
In this experiment clock B has at least change its speed twice.

> > > (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).
> > 
> > And vice versa.
> > The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
> > IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.
> 
> They will be reading different times, but you still can't assume either
> of them was "running slow."  As Paparios says, it's a geometric projection
> effect.

Why can not I say that one clock is running slower as the other (while moving)?
Such an description is in accordance with the final observation i.e. that
the readings are different.

IMO the only lesson learned from this experiment that when you want to understand
the laws of nature you should not use clocks which move relatif to each other 
and if you do then you should adjust the readings of each clock.

Nicolaas Vroom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423572

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-06-28 04:21 -0700
Message-ID	<d8c46924-520a-4108-ba84-86fcf9293cc0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423571

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 2:57:53 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 17:32:03 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:33:11 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > After clock B returned and before looking there are three possible
> > > answers:
> > > 1) They both show the same time.
> > > 2) Clock B shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > > 3) Clock A shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > > In case 2) clock B is considered the moving clock
> > > In case 3) clock A is considered the moving clock
> > 
> > A and B cannot get back together again unless one of them changes frames.
> > The one that changes frames will lag the other.
> 
> Cannot they both change frames?

Sure, but then one cannot say anything definite without describing exactly
how each did so.  You would also have to define another frame that remained
inertial.  Why would you try to insert such complications into a simple
statement?

> Does not any change in speed implies a change in frame?

Yes (we're discussing SR here).

> Anyway what has changing frames to do with this experiment?

It should be obvious that A and B cannot get back together without doing
so, and THAT is the crux of the matter (look at a Minkowski diagram of the
situation).

> IMO the most important issue is (in case 2) that clock B must change its
> speed (direction of speed) 

THAT changes frames.

> > > > You ASSUME that it was
> > > > running slower in transit, but there is another explanation, one that
> > > > doesn't run into a paradox (i.e., while B was in transit, he saw A's
> > > > clock running slower).
> > > 
> > > I do not see any paradox. This is a physical experiment and it requires
> > > a physical explanation. 
> > 
> > And there is one:  one that does not require either clock to actually be
> > running slower.
> 
> I do not understand how this explanation explains the outcome of the
> experiment i.e. that when the two clocks meet their readings are different.

Look at a Minkowski diagram:  the paths have different lengths.
 
> > > While B is in transit it is "difficult" to see A's clock 
> > > The same for A to see B's clock.
> > > Ofcourse each can transmit at regular intervals a timing system.
> > 
> > Sure.  Not really so difficult after all.  Of course, Doppler effects and
> > time delays would have to be taken into account.
> > 
> > > > > To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is
> > > > > wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run
> > > > slower.  The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B
> > > > can justifiably claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 
> > > 
> > > That is "correct" before they meet again.
> > 
> > Which can't happen unless one of them changes frames.
> 
> If you mean unless at least one changes its speed.
> In this experiment clock B has at least change its speed twice.

Exactly!

> > > > (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).
> > > 
> > > And vice versa.
> > > The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
> > > IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.
> > 
> > They will be reading different times, but you still can't assume either
> > of them was "running slow."  As Paparios says, it's a geometric projection
> > effect.
> 
> Why can not I say that one clock is running slower as the other (while
> moving)?

Because you cannot ascertain WHICH clock is "moving."  Speed is purely
relative.

> Such an description is in accordance with the final observation i.e. that
> the readings are different.

But it's not in accordance with what actually happens.  Remember?  Which
clock ends up behind the other depends upon who changed frames.

> IMO the only lesson learned from this experiment that when you want to
> understand the laws of nature you should not use clocks which move relative
> to each other and if you do then you should adjust the readings of each
> clock.
> 
> Nicolaas Vroom

Sounds like you are reinventing the first postulate (PoR) here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423579

From	ldzwinn@gmail.com
Date	2017-06-28 06:36 -0700
Message-ID	<8ae4573c-6aa7-459f-8625-4591157543e4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423571

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 1:57:53 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 17:32:03 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:33:11 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > After clock B returned and before looking there are three possible answers:
> > > 1) They both show the same time.
> > > 2) Clock B shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > > 3) Clock A shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > > In case 2) clock B is considered the moving clock
> > > In case 3) clock A is considered the moving clock
> > 
> > A and B cannot get back together again unless one of them changes frames.
> > The one that changes frames will lag the other.
> 
> Cannot they both change frames?
> Does not any change in speed implies a change in frame?
> Anyway what has changing frames to do with this experiment?
> IMO the most important issue is (in case 2) that clock B must change its speed 
> (direction of speed) 
>  
> > > > You ASSUME that it was
> > > > running slower in transit, but there is another explanation, one that
> > > > doesn't run into a paradox (i.e., while B was in transit, he saw A's
> > > > clock running slower).
> > > 
> > > I do not see any paradox. This is a physical experiment and it requires
> > > a physical explanation. 
> > 
> > And there is one:  one that does not require either clock to actually be
> > running slower.
> 
> I do not understand how this explanation explains the outcome of the
> experiment i.e. that when the two clocks meet their readings are different.
> 
>  
> > > While B is in transit it is "difficult" to see A's clock 
> > > The same for A to see B's clock.
> > > Ofcourse each can transmit at regular intervals a timing system.
> > 
> > Sure.  Not really so difficult after all.  Of course, Doppler effects and
> > time delays would have to be taken into account.
> > 
> > > > > To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.
> > > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
> > > > The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
> > > > claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 
> > > 
> > > That is "correct" before they meet again.
> > 
> > Which can't happen unless one of them changes frames.
> > 
> 
> If you mean unless at least one changes its speed.
> In this experiment clock B has at least change its speed twice.
> 
> > > > (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).
> > > 
> > > And vice versa.
> > > The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
> > > IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.
> > 
> > They will be reading different times, but you still can't assume either
> > of them was "running slow."  As Paparios says, it's a geometric projection
> > effect.
> 
> Why can not I say that one clock is running slower as the other (while moving)?
> Such an description is in accordance with the final observation i.e. that
> the readings are different.
> 
> IMO the only lesson learned from this experiment that when you want to understand
> the laws of nature you should not use clocks which move relatif to each other 
> and if you do then you should adjust the readings of each clock.
> 
> Nicolaas Vroom

The definition of a frame of reference appears to me to need to be clarified.  Einstein appeared to understand it better.  He said there was a frame of reference of a stationary clock called S and a frame of reference of a moving clock called S'.  If the moving clock slows down and stops moving relative to S, it still has its own frame of reference S'.  The only thing we can say with regard to S and S' is that neither is moving relative to the other.  There is no change of frames of reference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423577

From	ldzwinn@gmail.com
Date	2017-06-28 06:27 -0700
Message-ID	<e6fd0caa-7ec6-4377-b604-43c188a3a0ec@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#423544

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:32:03 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:33:11 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 15:50:13 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Consider two identical clocks A and B in front of me, on a table.
> > > > They are identical in the sense that after one year the two clocks 
> > > > still show the same time/reading.
> > > > Using a "tool" clock B is moved away and when clock B is brought back, 
> > > > from now on: when clock A shows 12 o'clock clock B shows 11.55. 
> > > > That means there is a constant time difference between the two clocks. 
> > > > Clock B runs behind.
> > > 
> > > Yes, it is running at the same rate as A, but it is behind.
> > > 
> > > > That means during the time that clock B travelled (away and back) 
> > > > clock B did run slower than clock A.
> > > 
> > > But you have no way of directly determining that.  
> > 
> > That is correct if you mean during the time the two clocks were not
> > at my desk.
> > After clock B returned and before looking there are three possible answers:
> > 1) They both show the same time.
> > 2) Clock B shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > 3) Clock A shows an earlier time and runs behind.
> > In case 2) clock B is considered the moving clock
> > In case 3) clock A is considered the moving clock
> 
> A and B cannot get back together again unless one of them changes frames.
> The one that changes frames will lag the other.
> 
> > > You ASSUME that it was
> > > running slower in transit, but there is another explanation, one that
> > > doesn't run into a paradox (i.e., while B was in transit, he saw A's
> > > clock running slower).
> > 
> > I do not see any paradox. This is a physical experiment and it requires
> > a physical explanation. 
> 
> And there is one:  one that does not require either clock to actually be
> running slower.
> 
> > While B is in transit it is "difficult" to see A's clock 
> > The same for A to see B's clock.
> > Ofcourse each can transmit at regular intervals a timing system.
> 
> Sure.  Not really so difficult after all.  Of course, Doppler effects and
> time delays would have to be taken into account.
> 
> > > > To describe this phemomena (experiment) IMO the wording APPEAR is wrong.
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > Nope.  What is wrong is claiming that clocks in motion actually run slower.
> > > The first problem is, What do you mean by "in motion"?  B can justifiably
> > > claim that HE is stationary and A is in motion 
> > 
> > That is "correct" before they meet again.
> 
> Which can't happen unless one of them changes frames.

So go ahead and explain what you mean by this changing of frames.  As far as I can tell, a clock in S' never leaves S'.
> 
> > > (which is why A's clock APPEARS to run slower to B).
> > 
> > And vice versa.
> > The wording APPEARS is tricky when they are in transit. 
> > IMO after they meet the word APPEAR can not be used any more.
> > 
> > Nicolaas Vroom.
> 
> They will be reading different times, but you still can't assume either
> of them was "running slow."  As Paparios says, it's a geometric projection
> effect.

Geometric projection effect.  That sounds kind of complicated.  Could we say that one frame of reference just has fewer transitions of a cesium atom?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →

csiph-web

Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn

Contents

#423433 — Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn

#423435

#423453

#423454

#423459

#423460

#423469

#423474

#423575

#423531

#423534

#423541

#423543

#423546

#423568

#423544

#423571

#423572

#423579

#423577