🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 6, 2:37 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 7:47 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:25 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 9:03 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 6:53 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 3, 11:28 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:21 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 2, 9:38 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:14:24 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
> > > > > > > > in alt.atheism:
>
> > > > > > > > >On Aug 1, 3:35?pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> In article <e41a1737-acad-4cdc-ae31-4f6523f32...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > >> rbwinn says...
>
> > > > > > > > >> >So what exactly is it
> > > > > > > > >> >that you are trying to do?
> > > > > > > > >> >Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > > > > >> I could ask you the same question, Robert. All you are doing is rattling cages.
> > > > > > > > >> You aren't actually accomplishing anything else.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Worse yet, you are still crossposting. You posted this to all of the following
> > > > > > > > >> groups, whether you know it or not:
> > > > > > > > >> sci.physics,cam.misc,alt.sci.physics,alt.atheism.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Crossposting is always irritating, so it is almost never the right thing to do.
> > > > > > > > >> It certainly isn't right here. Pick one group and stick with it. Pick one where
> > > > > > > > >> it is on topic.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Finally, make sure you know how to use your news client. Do you know how to coax
> > > > > > > > >> it to display all the groups it is about to post to? Do you know how to turn OFF
> > > > > > > > >> crossposting?
>
> > > > > > > > >Well, scientists were all done talking to me about the theory of
> > > > > > > > >relativity two years ago when I finally figured out how the Galilean
> > > > > > > > >transformation equations describe relativity of time If any
> > > > > > > > >scientists decide they want to talk to me, I would certainly rather
> > > > > > > > >talk to them than these atheists.
>
> > > > > > > > You already demonstrated to us how confused you are in that area.
> > > > > > > > Please, don't bring it up again. Didn't you learn anything from those
> > > > > > > > who critiqued your 'work'?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > x'=x-vt
> > > > > > > y'=y
> > > > > > > z'=z
> > > > > > > t'=t
>
> > > > > > > w=velocity of light
> > > > > > > x=wt
> > > > > > > x'=wn'
>
> > > > > > > x'=x-vt
> > > > > > > wn' = wt -vt
> > > > > > > n'=t(1-v/w)
>
> > > > > > > w = x/t = x'/n' = (x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)/(t-vx/w^2)
> > > > > > > = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma
> > > > > > > = x'Lorentz/t'Lorentz
>
> > > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > > What are these nonsense?
> > > > > > If you want to put forward any formula, be very clear about every step
> > > > > > and what do they mean.
> > > > > > There is no head and no tail to the above, and certainly nothing in
> > > > > > between.
> > > > > > Do you see any physicist respond to you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Anyone who took physics in high school should be able to follow these
> > > > > equations.
> > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > Yes, unless the equations do not make sense.
> > > > I am telling you that your equation did not have any meaning and was
> > > > insufficiently represented.
> > > > Where did you take them from?
> > > > You being a high school standard has no capability or ability to make
> > > > up a physics formula of any useful form, except to show your stupidity
> > > > or insanity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > These equations are in any high school physics text.
>
> > > x'=x-vt
> > > y'=y
> > > z'=z
> > > t'=t
>
> > > They are called the Galilean transformation equations and were used
> > > to describe transmission of light until the Michelson-Morley
> > > experiment proved that ether did not exist. Then Einstein and Lorentz
> > > substituted the Lorentz equations, which require a distance
> > > contraction and are therefore obviously wrong.
>
> > > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > > y'=y
> > > z'=z
> > > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> > > However, they do sow the speed of light to be c in both frames of
> > > reference, which is what the Michelson-Morley experiment requires.
>
> > > To do the same thing with the Galilean transformation equations, you
> > > have to use velocity of light instead of speed of light.
>
> > > w=velocity of light
> > > x=wt
> > > x'=wn'
>
> > > x'=x-vt
> > > wn'=wt-vt
> > > n'=t(1-v/w)
>
> > > n' is time on a cesium clock in the moving frame of reference.
>
> > > So tell me, hhyaps, do you know more now than you did before I
> > > explained it to you?
> > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > OK, rbwinn.
> > When I mentioned that you only have high school standard and should
> > not try to bring up equations, I meant you no harm except to tell you
> > that what has presented by you make no sense.
> > First, I just would focus on the first part of this post:
> > x' = x - vt
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = t
> > If you can be any scientific standing or understanding, you would not
> > post these to try to argue.
> > The first equation doesn't even have y and z in its formula and you
> > are trying to show what?
> > You have to present full derivatives of how the equation come about
> > and explain the problem before going one step further.
> > Do you know that when I said there is no head and no tail?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The equations represent coordinates on two sets of Cartesian
> coordinates, frame of reference S and frame of reference s'.  The
> first equation x'=x-vt shows that S' is in motion relative to frame of
> reference S such that the x' axis of S' is on the x axis of S and  S'
> is moving with velocity of  v relative to S'.   The coordinates
> x',y',and z' in S' can be determined with the above equations from the
> coordinates in S, x, y, and z.  Time in S' is measured the same as
> time in S.  That is what t'=t means.  People who have studied physics
> are supposed to know all of this.
>
> Robert B. Winn

Very interesting.
Pls show the all the equations and make a sense out of them, put in
your data or correction and we can then know what you are trying to
explain.
You have skipped the background and expect every one here to
understand?
I am a trained scientist though not in physics, and I cannot make out
what you want to say.