Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363480
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Galilean relativity |
| Date | 2015-09-08 12:33 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <msn65d$7cr$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <705fcee8-4406-4a3f-924b-24d4fdf1c2e1@googlegroups.com> <01cca1a8-ca60-4dfa-a640-832a8acaf9aa@googlegroups.com> <02b3059d-2cef-44c3-9768-573981eb060f@googlegroups.com> <5bddc5d0-096a-4cf0-b2a0-3dadd7660466@googlegroups.com> <834b3bd2-88d4-4965-9aa5-67fb95d48a9d@googlegroups.com> |
On 9/7/2015 2:17 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > OK, I will explain reality to you. Suppose you have two different measurements of time that > are called by the same name. An example would be one rotation of earth and one rotation of Mars. > They are both called a day. I see you have gotten bored and are trotting out the same old stuff, Robert. As you may now, the conventional terms like "day" that are used casually are way too imprecise to convey what the variable t or t' are intended to convey. You've just demonstrated it above in your casual use. But that's not the meaning that scientists are using when they write down the Galilean equations. They mean something very particular when they write t and t'. Now, I gather that you don't really care what scientists mean when they're talking, and you don't even really care what t and t' mean in those equations. What you care about is whether you can redefine t and t' to mean something completely different and somehow make the equations true. I'll give you an example. I can write 1+12=4 and say that it's true. You might say, "I don't see how that can be true". And I can say, "Well, Robert, it's very simple. All you have to do is say that 12 means 1 and 2 together, and 1 and 2 together make 3, and so 1 added to 3 makes 4." And you see, I've just made 1+12=4 a true statement, and I can tell you that ordinary people don't have to listen to their math teachers and they can use this equation with great success. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 00:43 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-09-06 10:23 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 01:31 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-06 13:32 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-06 18:49 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:36 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 19:58 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 00:17 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 04:20 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:58 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 08:32 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:14 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-09 05:16 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:14 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-10 07:07 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 08:08 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:13 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:31 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:16 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-09 07:52 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-10 06:45 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-10 11:01 -0400
Re: Galilean relativity pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-07 15:23 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:18 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-09-09 11:27 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 14:36 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-10 07:47 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 10:48 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 21:20 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:11 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:33 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:24 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:27 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 14:39 -0500
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 12:22 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 05:27 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 15:06 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 06:17 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 21:26 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 12:41 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 22:46 +0200
Re: Galilean relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 13:51 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 20:01 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 00:18 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 06:17 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:18 -0700
Re: Galilean relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-09 07:17 -0700
csiph-web