🚀 go-pugleaf

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