Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363480

Re: Galilean relativity

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>

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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