🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 6, 4:37 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

It's a bare arse meaningless representation of the meaning of
acceleration.  In one dimension.  Referencing three to be perverse.
It's also a representation pre-calculus.  I suggest you learn some
methematics if you want to tackle physics.

Al