correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: rbwinn on 23 Jul 2010 02:05 On Jul 22, 10:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > news:3f93b27a-8cb5-48fa-a85a-bd880bd73984(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > You did not prove anything > > You proved Galilean transforms do not work .. in that they are contradicted > by what we observe experimentally. I just pointed out that you did it. > > > except that you are capable of saying, > > Absolute time, absolute time, absolute time, just as I predicted. > > Funny .. you predict that the thing the shows Galilean transforms are > incorrect would be used to prove Galilean transforms are incorrect. Not a > terribly clever prediction. > > Nor does your prediction reduce in anyway the validity of the arguments that > refute Galilean transforms, because those transforms mean that time is the > same in all frames (and we know, and you admit, that time is NOT the same in > all frames). > > > I already proved what I set out to prove. > > No .. You proved Galilean transforms do not work. That's not what you set > out to prove. But you did it anyway. Whatever. If you want to imitate the Dark Ages, that is certainly something you are free to do. I prefer to follow the mathematics. Why don't you go and live a happy life using the Lorentz equations?
From: rbwinn on 23 Jul 2010 02:08 On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > [snip all] > > rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for ~15 > years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of contempt > or straight up killfiling. The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right , and you are wrong. Or do you plan to start explaining how a slow clock gives the same velocity as a faster clock?
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 02:14 >"rbwinn" wrote in message >news:114f2da8-f6d4-4a98-8af4-79dd4e710f71(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > >On Jul 22, 10:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" wrote in message >> >> news:3f93b27a-8cb5-48fa-a85a-bd880bd73984(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >> >> > You did not prove anything >> >> You proved Galilean transforms do not work .. in that they are >> contradicted >> by what we observe experimentally. I just pointed out that you did it. >> >> > except that you are capable of saying, >> > Absolute time, absolute time, absolute time, just as I predicted. >> >> Funny .. you predict that the thing the shows Galilean transforms are >> incorrect would be used to prove Galilean transforms are incorrect. Not >> a >> terribly clever prediction. >> >> Nor does your prediction reduce in anyway the validity of the arguments >> that >> refute Galilean transforms, because those transforms mean that time is >> the >> same in all frames (and we know, and you admit, that time is NOT the same >> in >> all frames). >> >> > I already proved what I set out to prove. >> >> No .. You proved Galilean transforms do not work. That's not what you >> set >> out to prove. But you did it anyway. > >Whatever. What a dishonest way of ignoring that you've just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms mean time is the same everywhere, reality shows otherwise, so Galilean transforms do not work in realirty. Simple. And you just proved it yourself
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 02:16 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Inertial wrote: >> >> [snip all] >> >> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for >> ~15 >> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of >> contempt >> or straight up killfiling. > >The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree with what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely.
From: eric gisse on 23 Jul 2010 02:58
Inertial wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > >>On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Inertial wrote: >>> >>> [snip all] >>> >>> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for >>> ~15 >>> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of >>> contempt >>> or straight up killfiling. >> >>The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right > > No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree > with > what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely. Just ignore him. |