On May 9, 8:38Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 9, 5:58Â*am, PD wrote:



On May 8, 10:54Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 8, 5:02Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 10:25Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:54Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:53Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:40Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 5:46Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 1:11Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 1:45Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40�am, PD wrote:

On May 7, 11:25�am, rbwinn wrote:

Well, no, if lightining strikes the front and rear of a moving train,
leaving marks on the train and the track, the marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart, which relativity of simultaneity
cannot explain.

Sure, it explains it.

Here's how:
The track observer goes back after the train has passed and notes that
the marks on the track are 400 m apart. Remember that, for the track
observer, the strikes hit simultaneously. Since the marks are also on
the train, the track observer correctly notes that the train is 400 m
long. (This is what a length measurement entails anyway: marking the
locations of the ends of an object at the same time.)

Now the train observer goes back after the strikes have hit and notes
that the marks on the train are 500 m apart. But it's also true that
this observer saw the front strike happen before the rear strike ---
the strikes are not simultaneous in this frame. So it doesn't bother
this observer at all that the track observer sees the marks 400 m
apart. That's exactly what you'd expect if you marked the location of
the front of a moving object before you marked the location of the
rear of the moving object -- and that's exactly what the train
observer is sure happened.

The length of the train is frame-dependent. Whether the marks at the
end of the train were made at the same time, is also frame-dependent.

Does this help you understand?

The train has an actual length.

No, actually, it does not. Length is a frame-dependent quantity. The
value in one frame is no more "actual" than the value in another
frame. Now, there is a "rest length" which is the length measured in
the frame in which the train just happens to be at rest, but there is
nothing preferential about this frame.

Well, no, length is not a frame dependent quantity.

That is at variance with experimental observation. Nice conjecture,
though.
How's that working for ya?

Â*Length is
length. Â*There is no distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, the Galilean transformation equations indicate otherwise..

The Galilean transformation equations are also at variance with
experimental observation. That's why they've been dropped. You can do
that with mathematics that doesn't model reality well.

Nice conjecture, though. How's that working for ya?

PD

The Galilean transformation equations work very well. Â*The Lorentz
equations not so well, but they give a fairly close approximation. Â*So
when are you going to tell us what the experiment was that proved the
Galilean transformation equations wrong?

I've already told you and pointed it out to you. You responded that
you don't read what scientists point out to you. How's that working
for you?

It got me to the Galilean transformation equations. Â*As far as I can
tell, I am the only one in the world who understands this subject.
Robert B. Winn

OK, so let's recap, shall we?
You believe the Galilean transformations work well.
However, you are unaware of the experimental evidence that shows the
Galilean transformations do not work well.
You have the policy of not reading references provided to you by
scientists that the Galilean transformations do not work well.
This policy has led you to believe further in the truth of the
Galilean transformations, and you further believe that you are the
only person in the world that understands this to be the case.

As far as I know, I am the only person in the world who uses the
Galiilean transformation equations.

Well, you don't much of anything very far, it seems.

Â*They work fine for me.

Yes, I imagine that's so. This is perhaps because you like playing
with equations and don't care much about experimental evidence. This
is probably one of the key differences between you and scientists.

Â*So unless
you can show me they do not work,I have to just discount anything that
you and other scientists say about it.

Well, as I've told you before, Bobby, the point isn't to convince you.
What you continue to believe is your business.

Â*You have posted nothing here
that shows them to be wrong. Â*With regard to your complaint that I do
not fulfill the fool's errands that you try to send me on, it is not
going to happen. Â*If you have a reference that you claim proves that
the Galilean transformation equations do not work, go ahead and tell
us what it is and why you think it proves the Galilean transformation
equations wrong.

I've done exactly that. You call it a fool's errand. Now, I haven't
got the foggiest idea why you'd ask me to provide something for you
that you would consider a fool's errand and that you don't have the
least interest in looking at.

It's a little like the bored old man sitting on the porch who hollers
at the neighbor kid, "Hey, kid, fetch me a bucket!" And when the
bucket comes and the kid asks, "So what do you need a bucket for?" the
old man says, "I don't need a bucket at all. I just wanted to see you
bring one to me."

Â*You have plenty of time to assign these fool's
errands. Â*Take a little of that time to explain yourself.
Robert B. Winn