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 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →

#424359

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-09 05:34 -0700
Message-ID	<4ec69919-8031-4e1c-be6f-d5f7404088e0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424349

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 2:42:02 AM UTC-7, Ursler Zilberschlag wrote:
> Robert Winn wrote:
> 
> > OK, Harnagel, here are the equations I use for relativity.
> >  x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t  Go ahead and show the mistake.
> 
> t'=t

Sorry, Harnagel, that is not a mistake.  It is the only way the equations will work.  If you do not have the same rate of time in both frames of reference, you are going to end up with a length contraction.

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

#424360

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-07-09 05:54 -0700
Message-ID	<8ba70226-a489-4009-b2ae-f940d8af3496@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424342

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:35:55 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, so you do not want to discuss mathematics or physics.
> > 
> > I don't want to discuss WRONG mathematics and WRONG physics, which is all
> > you got.
> > 
> > > As I told you before, go blow smoke in someone else's face.
> > 
> > Why would I want to do what YOU do?
> > 
> > > I already have the correct equations to answer the question I had.
> > 
> > You don't and they don't.  So wipe the self-satisfied, dimwitted smile off
> > your face.
> > 
> > > I understand that scientists of today worship the Lorentz equations.
> > 
> > No, they don't, which proves that YOU understand NOTHING.  YOU are the
> > fool that is off ... and a LOT worse than a tangent.
> 
> OK, Harnagel, here are the equations I use for relativity.  
> 
>                x'=x-vt
>                y'=y
>                z'=z
>                t'=t
> 
> Go ahead and show the mistake.

Actually, you DON'T use them, which is the Galilean transform equations.
I'll explain to you why the GT is wrong, though.  If the GT were correct,
light from a moving source would travel at c with respect to (wrt) the
source and at c + v wrt a stationary observer.  The Lunar Laser Ranging
Experiments measure the travel time for a laser pulse to travel to the
moon and back.  The distance between the observatory and the moon varies
on a daily basis because the surface of the earth is moving at several
hundred miles/hour towards or away from the moon, or by the Principle
of Relativity, one sees the moon moving toward or away from the earth at
said several hundred miles/hour:

http://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/basics.html

If the GT were correct, the computed path of the moon would not be a
reasonable orbit.  Rather, it would look like this:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DPK0NJYoyXZ200UTRJMEpPbnc/view

That's only ONE refutation of the GT.  Another is that NASA communicates
with its spacecraft all over the solar system and computes distances
using short pules of electromagnetic energy.  A pulse is sent from
stations on earth, received by the spacecraft and a return pulse is sent
back to earth with onboard transmitters.  These spacecraft are moving
at up to 50 km/sec wrt earth, many times faster that the earth-moon
system.  NASA can check on spacecraft positions with ephemerides.  If
the GT were correct, calculated spacecraft positions from communication
signals would be up to 100,000 km off from ephemerides positions, but
would be right on if invariant c were assumed (which NASA does because
they aren't fools).

Other experimental evidence exists, some of it quite old:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm

"An Astronomical Proof for the Constancy of the Speed of Light" By W. de
Sitter

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B

"Is the speed of light independent of the velocity of the source" by 
K. Brecher 

"Recent observations of regularly pulsating X-ray sources in binary star
systems are analyzed in the framework of the 'emission' theory of light.
Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect
to an observer has a speed equal to c + kv in the observer's rest frame,
the arrival time of pulses from the binary X-ray sources is found to
imply that k is less than 2 billionths. This appears to be the most direct
and sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the
velocity of the source."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

"EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
BY A. A. MICHELSON

So, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the GT, but you don't really
care about that, do you?  All you want is to hear the wind whistling
through your tonsils.

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

#424369

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-07-09 06:54 -0700
Message-ID	<4fa9a0a3-09b9-4777-8a20-fc6efac86444@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424360

W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 14:54:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
> 
> "EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
> BY A. A. MICHELSON
> 
> So, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the GT

In the imagination of fanatic idiots, like you.

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

#424372

From	Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org>
Date	2017-07-09 13:58 +0000
Message-ID	<ojtcpe$19g0$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#424369

mlwozniak wrote:

> W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 14:54:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> napisał: 
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
>> "EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
>> BY A. A. MICHELSONSo, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the GT
> 
> In the imagination of fanatic idiots, like you.

Stop fucking posting about Physics. Post something you are good at. 
I might be interested.

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

#424381

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2017-07-09 08:04 -0700
Message-ID	<13857ea8-8b9e-4b47-83d8-e74d278b5f2b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424372

W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 15:58:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Ursler Zilberschlag napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> 
> > W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 14:54:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > napisał: 
> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
> >> "EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
> >> BY A. A. MICHELSONSo, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the GT
> > 
> > In the imagination of fanatic idiots, like you.
> 
> Stop fucking posting about Physics. Post something you are good at. 
> I might be interested.

No.

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

#424384

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-09 09:15 -0700
Message-ID	<51ba659e-1d1b-48b4-9687-41e26b3145ce@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424372

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 6:58:09 AM UTC-7, Ursler Zilberschlag wrote:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> 
> > W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 14:54:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > napisał: 
> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
> >> "EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
> >> BY A. A. MICHELSONSo, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the GT
> > 
> > In the imagination of fanatic idiots, like you.
> 
> Stop fucking posting about Physics. Post something you are good at. 
> I might be interested.

Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

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

#424392

From	Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org>
Date	2017-07-09 17:26 +0000
Message-ID	<ojtp0o$1smn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#424384

Robert Winn wrote:

> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 6:58:09 AM UTC-7, Ursler Zilberschlag wrote:
>> mlwozniak wrote:
>> 
>> > W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 14:54:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary
>> > Harnagel napisał:
>> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
>> >> "EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
>> >> BY A. A. MICHELSONSo, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the
>> >> GT
>> > 
>> > In the imagination of fanatic idiots, like you.
>> 
>> Stop fucking posting about Physics. Post something you are good at.
>> I might be interested.
> 
> Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

Yes, so?? Are you expecting me to contradict you? Fuck you. You guys are 
never posting any physics, I'm so bored.

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

#424406

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-09 17:40 -0700
Message-ID	<9c47a24b-07bd-4651-9a52-a874371a8e1a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424392

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:26:52 AM UTC-7, Ursler Zilberschlag wrote:
> Robert Winn wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 6:58:09 AM UTC-7, Ursler Zilberschlag wrote:
> >> mlwozniak wrote:
> >> 
> >> > W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 14:54:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary
> >> > Harnagel napisał:
> >> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
> Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
> >> >> "EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
> >> >> BY A. A. MICHELSONSo, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the
> >> >> GT
> >> > 
> >> > In the imagination of fanatic idiots, like you.
> >> 
> >> Stop fucking posting about Physics. Post something you are good at.
> >> I might be interested.
> > 
> > Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.
> 
> Yes, so?? Are you expecting me to contradict you? Fuck you. You guys are 
> never posting any physics, I'm so bored.

The Galilean transformation equations are physics.  They were used by physicists to describe relativity until 1887.  So now you say you do not want to discuss them.

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

#424383

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-09 09:14 -0700
Message-ID	<d7f68607-26e4-42de-98e4-c6a18bb257e2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424360

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:54:10 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 11:35:55 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, so you do not want to discuss mathematics or physics.
> > > 
> > > I don't want to discuss WRONG mathematics and WRONG physics, which is all
> > > you got.
> > > 
> > > > As I told you before, go blow smoke in someone else's face.
> > > 
> > > Why would I want to do what YOU do?
> > > 
> > > > I already have the correct equations to answer the question I had.
> > > 
> > > You don't and they don't.  So wipe the self-satisfied, dimwitted smile off
> > > your face.
> > > 
> > > > I understand that scientists of today worship the Lorentz equations.
> > > 
> > > No, they don't, which proves that YOU understand NOTHING.  YOU are the
> > > fool that is off ... and a LOT worse than a tangent.
> > 
> > OK, Harnagel, here are the equations I use for relativity.  
> > 
> >                x'=x-vt
> >                y'=y
> >                z'=z
> >                t'=t
> > 
> > Go ahead and show the mistake.
> 
> Actually, you DON'T use them, which is the Galilean transform equations.
> I'll explain to you why the GT is wrong, though.  If the GT were correct,
> light from a moving source would travel at c with respect to (wrt) the
> source and at c + v wrt a stationary observer.  The Lunar Laser Ranging
> Experiments measure the travel time for a laser pulse to travel to the
> moon and back.  The distance between the observatory and the moon varies
> on a daily basis because the surface of the earth is moving at several
> hundred miles/hour towards or away from the moon, or by the Principle
> of Relativity, one sees the moon moving toward or away from the earth at
> said several hundred miles/hour:
> 
> http://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/basics.html
> 
> If the GT were correct, the computed path of the moon would not be a
> reasonable orbit.  Rather, it would look like this:
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DPK0NJYoyXZ200UTRJMEpPbnc/view
> 
> That's only ONE refutation of the GT.  Another is that NASA communicates
> with its spacecraft all over the solar system and computes distances
> using short pules of electromagnetic energy.  A pulse is sent from
> stations on earth, received by the spacecraft and a return pulse is sent
> back to earth with onboard transmitters.  These spacecraft are moving
> at up to 50 km/sec wrt earth, many times faster that the earth-moon
> system.  NASA can check on spacecraft positions with ephemerides.  If
> the GT were correct, calculated spacecraft positions from communication
> signals would be up to 100,000 km off from ephemerides positions, but
> would be right on if invariant c were assumed (which NASA does because
> they aren't fools).
> 
> Other experimental evidence exists, some of it quite old:
> 
> http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-1e.htm
> 
> "An Astronomical Proof for the Constancy of the Speed of Light" By W. de
> Sitter
>  
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B
> 
> "Is the speed of light independent of the velocity of the source" by 
> K. Brecher 
> 
> "Recent observations of regularly pulsating X-ray sources in binary star
> systems are analyzed in the framework of the 'emission' theory of light.
> Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect
> to an observer has a speed equal to c + kv in the observer's rest frame,
> the arrival time of pulses from the binary X-ray sources is found to
> imply that k is less than 2 billionths. This appears to be the most direct
> and sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the
> velocity of the source."
> 
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light
> 
> "EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT"
> BY A. A. MICHELSON
> 
> So, Windy, each of these experiments refutes the GT, but you don't really
> care about that, do you?  All you want is to hear the wind whistling
> through your tonsils.

Each of those experiments refutes Newton's interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations, which was called absolute time.  Newton believed that all correctly working clocks in the universe would agree with one another.  So none of what you wrote refutes the Galilean transformation equations, since they still describe clocks running at any rates.  The problem that scientists have is that, like Newton, they seem to be unable to convert one rate of time to another.  
Suppose we have a meter stick and a yard stick, and we say 1 meter equals one yard.  They are pretty close in scientific terms.  Then we could say there is a length contraction because they are not EXACTLY the same.  See how it works?
What scientists do is about the same thing.  They take two different amounts of time, call them both a second, and, lo and behold, they end up with two different lengths that something travels in a second.  So there has to be a length contraction.  
But, as we all know, science is a democracy, so if all scientists stick together they can prove that there is a length contraction.  Why wouldn't they all stick together?
The length contraction has made them more money than any other cash cow they have ever had.  The length contraction would be magic, and people want to believe in magic.  Then scientists can all say, It is not really magic, but only scientists can understand it.  
But the problem you have is that the Galilean transformation equations work just fine if you use one rate of time in them.  See this equation?

                      t'=t

I know this is difficult for scientists to understand, but if you have two rates of time, you have to convert one to the other before you used it in the Galilean transformation equations.  
Well, that is probably enough explanation for one morning.  Maybe we can take this up another time.

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

#424395

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-07-09 10:40 -0700
Message-ID	<3e03b39f-14aa-471f-bf84-9c12feac47f1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424383

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:14:25 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> Each of those experiments refutes Newton's interpretation of the Galilean
> transformation equations, which was called absolute time.

Yes, it does.  You are screwed.

> Newton believed that all correctly working clocks in the universe would
> agree with one another.

That's what t' = t means.  It also means that c' = c + v is bull plop.
You are screwed.

> So none of what you wrote refutes the Galilean transformation equations,

Yes, it does.

> since they still describe clocks running at any rates.

No, they don't.  Only YOU claim that utter nonsense.

> The problem that scientists have is that, like Newton, they seem to be
> unable to convert one rate of time to another.

Dead wrong.  They can figure time zones just fine.
 
> Suppose we have a meter stick and a yard stick, and we say 1 meter equals
> one yard.

Then you'd be a fool.

> They are pretty close in scientific terms.  Then we could say there is a
> length contraction because they are not EXACTLY the same.

Then you'd be a fool.

> See how it works?

It doesn't.  You are a fool.

> What scientists do is about the same thing.

Scinetists don't do that.  Only stupid fools like you do it.

> [Completely stupid bullshit deleted  so Windy Winn's insanity doesn't
> contaminate sane people]

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

#424407

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-09 18:20 -0700
Message-ID	<c9382c0a-009e-4543-8478-369475517bed@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424395

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:40:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:14:25 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > Each of those experiments refutes Newton's interpretation of the Galilean
> > transformation equations, which was called absolute time.
> 
> Yes, it does.  You are screwed.
> 
> > Newton believed that all correctly working clocks in the universe would
> > agree with one another.
> 
> That's what t' = t means.  It also means that c' = c + v is bull plop.
> You are screwed.
> 
> > So none of what you wrote refutes the Galilean transformation equations,
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> > since they still describe clocks running at any rates.
> 
> No, they don't.  Only YOU claim that utter nonsense.

If I am the only one who believes that clocks with different rates can be described with the Galilean transformation equations, then I am the only person on earth who understands time on this earth.  
> 
> > The problem that scientists have is that, like Newton, they seem to be
> > unable to convert one rate of time to another.
> 
> Dead wrong.  They can figure time zones just fine.

We are not talking about time zones.  We are talking about clocks with different rates.  
>  
> > Suppose we have a meter stick and a yard stick, and we say 1 meter equals
> > one yard.
> 
> Then you'd be a fool.
> 
> > They are pretty close in scientific terms.  Then we could say there is a
> > length contraction because they are not EXACTLY the same.
> 
> Then you'd be a fool.
> 
> > See how it works?
> 
> It doesn't.  You are a fool.

No, I am not a fool.  I believe a yard is shorter than a meter.  I was just using this as an example of why we do not use different kinds of measurements in the same equation.  We would convert the yards to meters or the meters to yards.  
> 
> > What scientists do is about the same thing.
> 
> Scinetists don't do that.  Only stupid fools like you do it.

I am not the one with a length contraction.  I was just demonstrating why you have a length contraction.

>[Completely stupid        deleted so Windy Winn's insanity doesn't contaminate sane people]

You are not sane people.  You are as crazy as bedbugs.  As I said, here are the Galilean transformation equations.  

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

Your profane ramblings seem to imply that you agree that you cannot use meters and yards in the same Galilean transformation equation.  So what do we do if we have something measured in meters and are using yards in the equation?  You convert the meters into yards, and then the distances work.  I know how complicated this must seem.  
So why do you seem to think that it is different with time?
If you are counting days as one rotation of a planet, you cannot say that one rotation of Jupiter is equal to one rotation of earth because they are both called days.  Jupiter rotates about eight times while earth rotates once.  
So now we will talk about transitions of cesium atoms.  Scientists tell us that cesium atoms vary in rate of transitions according to conditions of velocity and gravitation.  So suppose that a cesium atom in a satellite orbiting earth has faster transitions than a cesium atom on earth.  Now we are going to say that a second counted by a cesium atom on earth is the amount of time we want to call a second in the Galilean transformation equations.  We have already said that while the cesium atom on earth is counting a second, the cesium atom in the satellite counts more than a second.  If you say that a second in the satellite is the same amount of time according to the Galilean transformation equations as a second on earth, then you are doing the same thing you would be doing if you said a Jupiter day is equal to an earth day because they are both called days.  We are going to call a second counted by a cesium atom on earth a Galilean second because Galileo said the earth was rotating, and was placed under house arrest for saying that.  So the only conclusion we can reach is that a satellite second is a shorter time than a Galilean second, and if we wish to use satellite seconds in the Galilean transformation equations, we have to convert satellite seconds to Galilean seconds, just as we converted meters to yards in our previous example.  Otherwise, we are going to end up with a length contraction.  I know how difficult this must seem.  Well, that is probably enough lecturing for one day.  Who among scientists is going to break ranks?
I do not see it happening.  I think it is likely that scientists will goose step together until the end of the earth.

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

#424410

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-07-09 21:13 -0700
Message-ID	<12ee1fd5-eae9-4668-96e0-3dd064928557@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424407

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:07 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:40:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:14:25 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > Each of those experiments refutes Newton's interpretation of the Galilean
> > > transformation equations, which was called absolute time.
> > 
> > Yes, it does.  You are screwed.
> > 
> > > Newton believed that all correctly working clocks in the universe would
> > > agree with one another.
> > 
> > That's what t' = t means.  It also means that c' = c + v is bull plop.
> > You are screwed.
> > 
> > > So none of what you wrote refutes the Galilean transformation equations,
> > 
> > Yes, it does.
> > 
> > > since they still describe clocks running at any rates.
> > 
> > No, they don't.  Only YOU claim that utter nonsense.
> 
> If I am the only one who believes that clocks with different rates can be
> described with the Galilean transformation equations, then I am the only
> person on earth who understands time on this earth.  

Nope.  It means you are just one more delusional nut-job around here.

> > > The problem that scientists have is that, like Newton, they seem to be
> > > unable to convert one rate of time to another.
> > 
> > Dead wrong.  They can figure time zones just fine.
> 
> We are not talking about time zones.  We are talking about clocks with
> different rates.  

YOU are.  I'm not... because I'm not delusional.

> > > Suppose we have a meter stick and a yard stick, and we say 1 meter equals
> > > one yard.
> > 
> > Then you'd be a fool.
> > 
> > > They are pretty close in scientific terms.  Then we could say there is a
> > > length contraction because they are not EXACTLY the same.
> > 
> > Then you'd be a fool.
> > 
> > > See how it works?
> > 
> > It doesn't.  You are a fool.
> 
> No, I am not a fool.

You are in a state of denial.

> I believe a yard is shorter than a meter.  I was just using this as an
> example of why we do not use different kinds of measurements in the same
> equation.  We would convert the yards to meters or the meters to yards.  

That's not what you did with time.

> > > What scientists do is about the same thing.
> > 
> > Scinetists don't do that.  Only stupid fools like you do it.
> 
> I am not the one with a length contraction.  I was just demonstrating why
> you have a length contraction.

Nobody I know has a length contraction.

> > [Completely stupid        deleted so Windy Winn's insanity doesn't
> contaminate sane people]
> 
> You are not sane people.  You are as crazy as bedbugs.

That may be true, but you are even crazier.

> [Regurgitated bull plop deleted again]

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

#424412

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-09 21:32 -0700
Message-ID	<47878b38-7ccb-46fd-9c2f-f11145d2330a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424410

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 9:13:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:07 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:40:08 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:14:25 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Each of those experiments refutes Newton's interpretation of the Galilean
> > > > transformation equations, which was called absolute time.
> > > 
> > > Yes, it does.  You are screwed.
> > > 
> > > > Newton believed that all correctly working clocks in the universe would
> > > > agree with one another.
> > > 
> > > That's what t' = t means.  It also means that c' = c + v is bull plop.
> > > You are screwed.
> > > 
> > > > So none of what you wrote refutes the Galilean transformation equations,
> > > 
> > > Yes, it does.
> > > 
> > > > since they still describe clocks running at any rates.
> > > 
> > > No, they don't.  Only YOU claim that utter nonsense.
> > 
> > If I am the only one who believes that clocks with different rates can be
> > described with the Galilean transformation equations, then I am the only
> > person on earth who understands time on this earth.  
> 
> Nope.  It means you are just one more delusional nut-job around here.
> 
> > > > The problem that scientists have is that, like Newton, they seem to be
> > > > unable to convert one rate of time to another.
> > > 
> > > Dead wrong.  They can figure time zones just fine.
> > 
> > We are not talking about time zones.  We are talking about clocks with
> > different rates.  
> 
> YOU are.  I'm not... because I'm not delusional.
> 
> > > > Suppose we have a meter stick and a yard stick, and we say 1 meter equals
> > > > one yard.
> > > 
> > > Then you'd be a fool.
> > > 
> > > > They are pretty close in scientific terms.  Then we could say there is a
> > > > length contraction because they are not EXACTLY the same.
> > > 
> > > Then you'd be a fool.
> > > 
> > > > See how it works?
> > > 
> > > It doesn't.  You are a fool.
> > 
> > No, I am not a fool.
> 
> You are in a state of denial.
> 
> > I believe a yard is shorter than a meter.  I was just using this as an
> > example of why we do not use different kinds of measurements in the same
> > equation.  We would convert the yards to meters or the meters to yards.  
> 
> That's not what you did with time.
> 
> > > > What scientists do is about the same thing.
> > > 
> > > Scinetists don't do that.  Only stupid fools like you do it.
> > 
> > I am not the one with a length contraction.  I was just demonstrating why
> > you have a length contraction.
> 
> Nobody I know has a length contraction.
> 
> > > [Completely stupid        deleted so Windy Winn's insanity doesn't
> > contaminate sane people]
> > 
> > You are not sane people.  You are as crazy as bedbugs.
> 
> That may be true, but you are even crazier.
> 
> > [Regurgitated bull plop deleted again]

Well, so you are saying once again, Gary, that you do not want to discuss relativity.  I understood you the first time you ran away from the subject.  Don't worry.  Read the charter of the newsgroup.  Anyone can post here.  You do not need to be able to prove your odd ideas.

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

#424421

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-07-10 04:09 -0700
Message-ID	<64199f67-f2b0-4681-a314-7de7776373f2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424412

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:32:10 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 9:13:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:07 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > If I am the only one who believes that clocks with different rates can be
> > > described with the Galilean transformation equations, then I am the only
> > > person on earth who understands time on this earth.  
> > 
> > Nope.  It means you are just one more delusional nut-job around here.
> > ....
> > > You are not sane people.  You are as crazy as bedbugs.
> > 
> > That may be true, but you are even crazier.
> > 
> > > [Regurgitated bull plop deleted again]
> 
> Well, so you are saying once again, Gary, that you do not want to discuss
> relativity.

Au contraire.  The problem is that YOU refuse to discuss relativity.  You
just regurgitate over and over again a demented and refuted idea you have
stuck in your brain.

“A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” 
― George Eliot

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge.  It requires
no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard

> I understood you the first time you ran away from the subject.

You really have a twisted view of reality.

> Don't worry.  Read the charter of the newsgroup.  Anyone can post here.
> You do not need to be able to prove your odd ideas.

This charter is the ONLY reason YOU can post here.

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

#424426

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-10 05:43 -0700
Message-ID	<95405adb-4ee2-4846-b900-84ed82620f66@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424421

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 4:09:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:32:10 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 9:13:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:20:07 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I am the only one who believes that clocks with different rates can be
> > > > described with the Galilean transformation equations, then I am the only
> > > > person on earth who understands time on this earth.  
> > > 
> > > Nope.  It means you are just one more delusional nut-job around here.
> > > ....
> > > > You are not sane people.  You are as crazy as bedbugs.
> > > 
> > > That may be true, but you are even crazier.
> > > 
> > > > [Regurgitated bull plop deleted again]
> > 
> > Well, so you are saying once again, Gary, that you do not want to discuss
> > relativity.
> 
> Au contraire.  The problem is that YOU refuse to discuss relativity.  You
> just regurgitate over and over again a demented and refuted idea you have
> stuck in your brain.
> 
> “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” 
> ― George Eliot
> 
> “Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge.  It requires
> no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard
> 
> > I understood you the first time you ran away from the subject.
> 
> You really have a twisted view of reality.
>
If you wanted to discuss relativity, you would be willing to discuss equations and what they mean.  Since all you are willing to discuss are personal insults, we can all see that you do not wish to discuss relativity. 
 
> > Don't worry.  Read the charter of the newsgroup.  Anyone can post here.
> > You do not need to be able to prove your odd ideas.
> 
> This charter is the ONLY reason YOU can post here.

As I said, anyone can post here.  I have tried to post on scientist controlled websites.  They always kick me off as soon as I post the Galilean transformation equations.  That always seemed odd to me, considering that it would seem that if scientists were sincere, they would at least have some interest in the Galilean transformation equations in a historical sense, since all scientists at one time believed in the Galilean transformation equations.

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

#424428

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-07-10 05:53 -0700
Message-ID	<6e8dfab7-9d75-4c34-bcb8-d13b6b38fa59@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424426

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:43:47 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 4:09:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Au contraire.  The problem is that YOU refuse to discuss relativity.  You
> > just regurgitate over and over again a demented and refuted idea you have
> > stuck in your brain.
> > 
> > “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” 
> > ― George Eliot
> > 
> > “Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge.  It requires
> > no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard
> > 
> > > I understood you the first time you ran away from the subject.
> > 
> > You really have a twisted view of reality.
> >
> If you wanted to discuss relativity, you would be willing to discuss
> equations and what they mean.

I have done so.  Are you so demented that you have forgotten?

> Since all you are willing to discuss are personal insults, we can all see
> that you do not wish to discuss relativity. 

That's because your false beliefs are personal insults when you force
them on others.

> > > Don't worry.  Read the charter of the newsgroup.  Anyone can post here.
> > > You do not need to be able to prove your odd ideas.
> > 
> > This charter is the ONLY reason YOU can post here.
> 
> As I said, anyone can post here.  I have tried to post on scientist
> controlled websites.  They always kick me off as soon as I post the
> Galilean transformation equations.

No, that's not why they kicked you off.  You were ejected because you
stupidly refuse to consider any alternative and that you might just
possibly be wrong.

> That always seemed odd to me, considering that it would seem that if
> scientists were sincere, they would at least have some interest in the
> Galilean transformation equations in a historical sense, since all
> scientists at one time believed in the Galilean transformation equations.

The problem is not in your stars but in YOU.  You are arrogant and
purposely ignorant.

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

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

#424429

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-10 07:30 -0700
Message-ID	<7f9d0115-0e71-4534-99f6-9834f3bedfe8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424428

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:53:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:43:47 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 4:09:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Au contraire.  The problem is that YOU refuse to discuss relativity.  You
> > > just regurgitate over and over again a demented and refuted idea you have
> > > stuck in your brain.
> > > 
> > > “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” 
> > > ― George Eliot
> > > 
> > > “Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge.  It requires
> > > no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard
> > > 
> > > > I understood you the first time you ran away from the subject.
> > > 
> > > You really have a twisted view of reality.
> > >
> > If you wanted to discuss relativity, you would be willing to discuss
> > equations and what they mean.
> 
> I have done so.  Are you so demented that you have forgotten?
>
Well, I must have forgotten, as you say.  Here are the Galilean transformation equations.  

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

These equations work with any measurement of time.  For instance you could use the time of one rotation of one of Jupiter's moons, you could use the time it takes for sand to go through an hourglass, you could use transitions of a cesium atom.  What you cannot do is use two different measurements of time in the equations.  For example, you cannot set the time of rotation of one of Jupiter's moons equal to one transition of a cesium atom.  I know how difficult this concept must seem.  

> > Since all you are willing to discuss are personal insults, we can all see
> > that you do not wish to discuss relativity. 
> 
> That's because your false beliefs are personal insults when you force
> them on others.
>
All I have said so far is that the time of rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is not equal to the time of one transition of a cesium atom.  If you disagree, go ahead and state your reason for disagreeing.

> > > > Don't worry.  Read the charter of the newsgroup.  Anyone can post here.
> > > > You do not need to be able to prove your odd ideas.
> > > 
> > > This charter is the ONLY reason YOU can post here.
> > 
> > As I said, anyone can post here.  I have tried to post on scientist
> > controlled websites.  They always kick me off as soon as I post the
> > Galilean transformation equations.
> 
> No, that's not why they kicked you off.  You were ejected because you
> stupidly refuse to consider any alternative and that you might just
> possibly be wrong.
>
I am not wrong.  The time of one rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is a different amount of time from the time of one transition of a cesium atom.  

> > That always seemed odd to me, considering that it would seem that if
> > scientists were sincere, they would at least have some interest in the
> > Galilean transformation equations in a historical sense, since all
> > scientists at one time believed in the Galilean transformation equations.
> 
> The problem is not in your stars but in YOU.  You are arrogant and
> purposely ignorant.
>
Why do you think I am arrogant for saying that the time for the rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is different from the time of one transition of a cesium atom?   I would think it would be obvious to anyone.  

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

No, I am willing.  Go ahead and show that the time for the rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is the same as the time for one transition of a cesium atom.  I say they are two different times.  That does not mean the Galilean transformation equations cannot be used with either measurement of time.  
For instance we can say that the planet Mars travels a certain number of miles while one of Jupiter's moons is rotating once on its axis.  We would use this equation.

                         t'=t

t is the time it takes for one of Jupiter's moons to rotate on its axis.  

Or we can determine that the planet Mars travels a certain distance in its orbit around the sun during one transition of a cesium atom on Mars.  Amazingly, the distance is not the same as the distance we computed that Mars traveled during one rotation of one of Jupiter's moons.  So the conclusion that I come to is that the time of rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is not the same as the time of one transition of a cesium atom on Mars.  I know how difficult this concept must seem.  But I think if scientists study this phenomenon for a while they will come to the same conclusion I came to.  It is the difference in time that causes the difference in distance.  Mars does not travel as far during one transition of a cesium atom on Mars as it travels during one rotation of one of Jupiter's moons.  
So now we are going to apply the same principle to transitions of cesium atoms.  Suppose we have a cesium atom on Mars and a cesium atom on Jupiter.  My understanding is that the cesium atom on Jupiter will have slower transitions than the cesium atom on Mars because the gravitation on Jupiter is greater.  That being the case, we have the same situation we had when we compared the time of rotation of one of Jupiter's moons with the time of a transition of a cesium atom on Mars.  Mars is going to travel farther in its orbit around the sun during a transition of a cesium atom on Jupiter than it will during a transition of a cesium atom on Mars.  
But wait, say scientists.  We have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom.  Period.  No one is allowed to think of time any other way.  That means that the difference that Mars traveled is caused by a length contraction, not by a difference in time.  
So we can all see the problem.  Scientists are crazy as bedbugs, as I said before.  
Are scientists going to change?  I have seen no evidence of it in twenty years of trying to communicate with scientists.  
That does not mean I am arrogant.  It just means that I am using the right equations, and scientists are not.  So go ahead and use whatever equations you decide to use.  But, thankfully, you cannot kick me off from sci.physics.relativity because the charter of the newsgroup says I can post anything whatsoever about relativity here in this newsgroup, even the correct equations.

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

#424434

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-07-10 08:03 -0700
Message-ID	<d5958b6e-0913-49a2-b576-0283af0ca660@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424429

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:53:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:43:47 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 4:09:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Au contraire.  The problem is that YOU refuse to discuss relativity.  You
> > > > just regurgitate over and over again a demented and refuted idea you have
> > > > stuck in your brain.
> > > > 
> > > > “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” 
> > > > ― George Eliot
> > > > 
> > > > “Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge.  It requires
> > > > no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard
> > > > 
> > > > > I understood you the first time you ran away from the subject.
> > > > 
> > > > You really have a twisted view of reality.
> > > >
> > > If you wanted to discuss relativity, you would be willing to discuss
> > > equations and what they mean.
> > 
> > I have done so.  Are you so demented that you have forgotten?
> >
> Well, I must have forgotten, as you say.  Here are the Galilean
> transformation equations.  
> 
>                      x'=x-vt
>                      y'=y
>                      z'=z
>                      t'=t

Regurgitated baloney coming:

> These equations work with any measurement of time.

No, they don't.

> {Asinine regurgitations deleted for mental sanity]

> > > Since all you are willing to discuss are personal insults, we can all see
> > > that you do not wish to discuss relativity. 
> > 
> > That's because your false beliefs are personal insults when you force
> > them on others.
>
> All I have said so far is that the time of rotation of one of Jupiter's
> moons is not equal to the time of one transition of a cesium atom.

Oh, you are saying MUCH more than that, and your implications are pure
bull plop.

> If you disagree, go ahead and state your reason for disagreeing.

I just did.

> > > As I said, anyone can post here.  I have tried to post on scientist
> > > controlled websites.  They always kick me off as soon as I post the
> > > Galilean transformation equations.
> > 
> > No, that's not why they kicked you off.  You were ejected because you
> > stupidly refuse to consider any alternative and that you might just
> > possibly be wrong.
>
> I am not wrong.

Of course you are.

> The time of one rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is a different amount of
> time from the time of one transition of a cesium atom.  

Which is a pretty stupid comparison if you stopped to think about it.

But you NEVER do.

> > > That always seemed odd to me, considering that it would seem that if
> > > scientists were sincere, they would at least have some interest in the
> > > Galilean transformation equations in a historical sense, since all
> > > scientists at one time believed in the Galilean transformation equations.
> > 
> > The problem is not in your stars but in YOU.  You are arrogant and
> > purposely ignorant.
>
> Why do you think I am arrogant for saying that the time for the rotation of
> one of Jupiter's moons is different from the time of one transition of a
> cesium atom?   I would think it would be obvious to anyone.  

Exactly.  It is SO obvious that anyone who makes such a statement is either
abysmally stupid or is getting ready to tell a lie.

> > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” 
> > -- Benjamin Franklin
> 
> No, I am willing.

Liar!  You are NOT willing at all.  I gave you references that refute the
GT and here you are, still peddling the same old bullshit.

> [More asinine regurgitations deleted] 
>                          
>                          t'=t
> 
> t is the time it takes for one of Jupiter's moons to rotate on its axis.  

And you haven't a clue as to what t' means.

> [Even more demented regurgitations deleted]
> Are scientists going to change?  I have seen no evidence of it in twenty
> years of trying to communicate with scientists.

And no one has seen YOU change either.  Ergo, you are not willing to learn
at all.
  
> That does not mean I am arrogant.

Yes, it does.

> It just means that I am using the right equations, and scientists are not.

Sheer bovinely-asinine arrogance.

> So go ahead and use whatever equations you decide to use.  But, thankfully,
> you cannot kick me off from sci.physics.relativity because the charter of
> the newsgroup says I can post anything whatsoever about relativity here in
> this newsgroup, even the correct equations.

But you NEVER post anything about relativity.  All you post is arrogant
bullshit and demented yammerings.

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

#424443

From	Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com>
Date	2017-07-10 09:28 -0700
Message-ID	<58782795-2f72-491a-90cc-0960b7922685@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424434

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:03:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:53:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:43:47 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 4:09:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Au contraire.  The problem is that YOU refuse to discuss relativity.  You
> > > > > just regurgitate over and over again a demented and refuted idea you have
> > > > > stuck in your brain.
> > > > > 
> > > > > “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” 
> > > > > ― George Eliot
> > > > > 
> > > > > “Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge.  It requires
> > > > > no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I understood you the first time you ran away from the subject.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You really have a twisted view of reality.
> > > > >
> > > > If you wanted to discuss relativity, you would be willing to discuss
> > > > equations and what they mean.
> > > 
> > > I have done so.  Are you so demented that you have forgotten?
> > >
> > Well, I must have forgotten, as you say.  Here are the Galilean
> > transformation equations.  
> > 
> >                      x'=x-vt
> >                      y'=y
> >                      z'=z
> >                      t'=t
> 
> Regurgitated baloney coming:
> 
> > These equations work with any measurement of time.
> 
> No, they don't.
> 
> > {Asinine regurgitations deleted for mental sanity]
> 
> > > > Since all you are willing to discuss are personal insults, we can all see
> > > > that you do not wish to discuss relativity. 
> > > 
> > > That's because your false beliefs are personal insults when you force
> > > them on others.
> >
> > All I have said so far is that the time of rotation of one of Jupiter's
> > moons is not equal to the time of one transition of a cesium atom.
> 
> Oh, you are saying MUCH more than that, and your implications are pure
> bull plop.
> 
> > If you disagree, go ahead and state your reason for disagreeing.
> 
> I just did.
> 
> > > > As I said, anyone can post here.  I have tried to post on scientist
> > > > controlled websites.  They always kick me off as soon as I post the
> > > > Galilean transformation equations.
> > > 
> > > No, that's not why they kicked you off.  You were ejected because you
> > > stupidly refuse to consider any alternative and that you might just
> > > possibly be wrong.
> >
> > I am not wrong.
> 
> Of course you are.
> 
> > The time of one rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is a different amount of
> > time from the time of one transition of a cesium atom.  
> 
> Which is a pretty stupid comparison if you stopped to think about it.
> 
> But you NEVER do.
> 
> > > > That always seemed odd to me, considering that it would seem that if
> > > > scientists were sincere, they would at least have some interest in the
> > > > Galilean transformation equations in a historical sense, since all
> > > > scientists at one time believed in the Galilean transformation equations.
> > > 
> > > The problem is not in your stars but in YOU.  You are arrogant and
> > > purposely ignorant.
> >
> > Why do you think I am arrogant for saying that the time for the rotation of
> > one of Jupiter's moons is different from the time of one transition of a
> > cesium atom?   I would think it would be obvious to anyone.  
> 
> Exactly.  It is SO obvious that anyone who makes such a statement is either
> abysmally stupid or is getting ready to tell a lie.
> 
> > > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” 
> > > -- Benjamin Franklin
> > 
> > No, I am willing.
> 
> Liar!  You are NOT willing at all.  I gave you references that refute the
> GT and here you are, still peddling the same old bullshit.
> 
> > [More asinine regurgitations deleted] 
> >                          
> >                          t'=t
> > 
> > t is the time it takes for one of Jupiter's moons to rotate on its axis.  
> 
> And you haven't a clue as to what t' means.
> 
> > [Even more demented regurgitations deleted]
> > Are scientists going to change?  I have seen no evidence of it in twenty
> > years of trying to communicate with scientists.
> 
> And no one has seen YOU change either.  Ergo, you are not willing to learn
> at all.
>   
> > That does not mean I am arrogant.
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> > It just means that I am using the right equations, and scientists are not.
> 
> Sheer bovinely-asinine arrogance.
> 
> > So go ahead and use whatever equations you decide to use.  But, thankfully,
> > you cannot kick me off from sci.physics.relativity because the charter of
> > the newsgroup says I can post anything whatsoever about relativity here in
> > this newsgroup, even the correct equations.
> 
> But you NEVER post anything about relativity.  All you post is arrogant
> bullshit and demented yammerings.

Well, post something other than personal insults and maybe people will believe you.  As it is, all you are doing is a discredit to science.  Everyone can see that the time it takes for one of Jupiter's moons to rotate is a different amount of time than the time of one transition of a cesium atom.  The fact that they are two different amounts of time does not prove there is a length contraction any more than two different rates of transitions of cesium atoms proves there is a length contraction.  If you think it does, post something other than personal insults.

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

#424448

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2017-07-10 11:53 -0700
Message-ID	<77469909-e5ea-44a6-aa20-21269ed49261@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#424443

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:28:30 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:03:22 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I must have forgotten, as you say.  Here are the Galilean
> > > transformation equations.  
> > > 
> > >                      x'=x-vt
> > >                      y'=y
> > >                      z'=z
> > >                      t'=t
> > 
> > Regurgitated baloney coming:
> > 
> > > These equations work with any measurement of time.
> > 
> > No, they don't.
> > 
> > > {Asinine regurgitations deleted for mental sanity]
> > ....
> > > All I have said so far is that the time of rotation of one of Jupiter's
> > > moons is not equal to the time of one transition of a cesium atom.
> > 
> > Oh, you are saying MUCH more than that, and your implications are pure
> > bull plop.
> > 
> > > If you disagree, go ahead and state your reason for disagreeing.
> > 
> > I just did.
> > 
> > > I am not wrong.
> > ....
> > Of course you are.
> > 
> > > The time of one rotation of one of Jupiter's moons is a different
> > > amount of time from the time of one transition of a cesium atom.  
> > 
> > Which is a pretty stupid comparison if you stopped to think about it.
> > 
> > But you NEVER do.
> > ....
> > > Why do you think I am arrogant for saying that the time for the rotation
> > > of one of Jupiter's moons is different from the time of one transition
> > > of a cesium atom?   I would think it would be obvious to anyone.  
> > 
> > Exactly.  It is SO obvious that anyone who makes such a statement is either
> > abysmally stupid or is getting ready to tell a lie.
> > 
> > > > “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” 
> > > > -- Benjamin Franklin
> > > 
> > > No, I am willing.
> > 
> > Liar!  You are NOT willing at all.  I gave you references that refute the
> > GT and here you are, still peddling the same old bullshit.
> > 
> > > [More asinine regurgitations deleted] 
> > >                          
> > >                          t'=t
> > > 
> > > t is the time it takes for one of Jupiter's moons to rotate on its axis.  
> > 
> > And you haven't a clue as to what t' means.
> > 
> > > [Even more demented regurgitations deleted]
> > > Are scientists going to change?  I have seen no evidence of it in twenty
> > > years of trying to communicate with scientists.
> > 
> > And no one has seen YOU change either.  Ergo, you are not willing to learn
> > at all.
> >   
> > > That does not mean I am arrogant.
> > 
> > Yes, it does.
> > 
> > > It just means that I am using the right equations, and scientists are not.
> > 
> > Sheer bovinely-asinine arrogance.
> > 
> > > So go ahead and use whatever equations you decide to use.  But,
> > > thankfully, you cannot kick me off from sci.physics.relativity because
> > > the charter of the newsgroup says I can post anything whatsoever about
> > > relativity here in this newsgroup, even the correct equations.
> > 
> > But you NEVER post anything about relativity.  All you post is arrogant
> > bullshit and demented yammerings.
> 
> Well, post something other than personal insults and maybe people will
> believe you.

I did.  It didn't work with you.  That's because you are an arrogant, ignorant
yammerhead.

> As it is, all you are doing is a discredit to science.

Pot, kettle, black.

> [Regurgitated bovine triteness deleted]

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

Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →

csiph-web

Re: Galilean transformation equations and Robert B. Winn

Contents

#424359

#424360

#424369

#424372

#424381

#424384

#424392

#424406

#424383

#424395

#424407

#424410

#424412

#424421

#424426

#424428

#424429

#424434

#424443

#424448