On Apr 27, 2:09�pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.

And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.

All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. �Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.

If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?

Time is relative, Bryan. A cesium clock in S' defines one measurement
of time. t'=t defines another measurement of time. The coordinates
of the Galilean transformation equation will not work unless t'=t. n'
is the rate of a clock running slower than t'=t. A clock can be made
to run at any speed. Two clocks running at any speed can be used to
represent t'=t as long as they are running at the same rate.
Robert B. Winn

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.

All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. �Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.

If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?

Time is relative, Bryan. A cesium clock in S' defines one measurement
of time. t'=t defines another measurement of time. The coordinates
of the Galilean transformation equation will not work unless t'=t. n'
is the rate of a clock running slower than t'=t. A clock can be made
to run at any speed. Two clocks running at any speed can be used to
represent t'=t as long as they are running at the same rate.

So no clue then?

The definition of t' is the time dimension in coordinate system S'.
t' = t is an assertion of the theory, not a definition. The Winn
transform simply contradicts the Galilean transform, and unlike both
the Galilean transform and Lorentz transform, the Winn transform
contradicts the principle of relativity.


--
--Bryan

"Shubee" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 5:19 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a
great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's
the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.

You worshipful reverence for Einstein is based on a lie.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...a1e855c9be269b

Shubee

I'm sorry to inform you that it is far more likely that what is published in
the physics literature, which makes perfect sense if you really understood
physics, is more accurate than your so-called understanding of history.
Sure, Einstein and Hilbert both worked on GR and worked together at times.
That doesn't mean that Einstein was a fake as you so erroneously claim. The
physics literature is the true record of who wrote/published what and it is
very clear that Einstein played the dominant role in GR. Your mistake is
thinking that because Einstein didn't do 100% of the work that he is some
sort of fake. That idea rests solely in your own mind and the minds of
others like you who have a twisted sense of the history of science.

"Shubee" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 5:19 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"rbwinn" wrote in message

Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a
great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's
the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.

You worshipful reverence for Einstein is based on a lie.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...a1e855c9be269b

Shubee

Now that you mention it I have no time nor disk space for this kind of
twisted nonsense - Plonk!

On Apr 27, 10:39 am, JanPB, the film critic wrote:
On Apr 27, 8:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

“Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.

Detailed responses to your claims (which are FAPP false) were posted
many times on this NG already.

This is a wishful thinking on your part. It is OK to fantasize, but
it is not if you cannot tell what your fantasy is and what is not.
shrug

For those unfamiliar with Koobee - he is a crank of the "technical
mumbo-jumbo" variety.

So, a special crank of some sort that you are so scared sh*tless.
shrug

Unlike those who got stuck early on some
elementary algebra or calculus issue, he got stuck at a bit higher
level: basic differential geometry.

Another interpretation which is the correct one is that Koobee Wublee
has surpassed beyond differential geometry. After he has pointed out
the problem associated with what is commonly believed, you remained
confused. You have no ability to comprehend even the basic stuff.
shrug

Because of that he can easily
generate reams of technical nonsense which "looks" reasonable to a
layman.

Boy, you are really insulting the ‘layman’, Mr. film critic.

Answering this sort of thing takes time so people who do know
this stuff usually don't bother.

As I said, keeping silent is a very good strategy to prolong the
nonsense in SR and GR. shrug

After all, it makes no difference.

Well, if you keep silent, you would not be embarrassed by Koobee
Wublee that seems to be the tail-between-the-legs approach favored by
Professors Carlip and Roberts. shrug

On Apr 27, 8:52 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictur...en-costume.jpg

On Apr 27, 8:56 pm, Dono, the stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume whined:

http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictur...en-costume.jpg

Within minutes of publishing of Koobee Wublee’s great post below, he
got 38 one-star ratings.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f71d409fd43d8b

This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. Has anyone complained
to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?

On Apr 27, 9:02 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Shubee" wrote in message

That doesn't mean that Einstein was a fake as you so erroneously claim.

I never said that Einstein was a fake. I merely said that Einstein's
reputation has been exaggerated to the point of being a god.

The physics literature is the true record of who wrote/published what
and it is very clear that Einstein played the dominant role in GR.

In other words, because Einstein never acknowledged the major insights
that he hustled from others to make SR and GR work, then those other
contributors never existed?

Your mistake is thinking that because Einstein didn't do 100% of the
work that he is some sort of fake.

Were you ever taught that all lying idol worshippers are going to
hell? The only point that I’ve raised is that we should weigh the
insights of all the individual contributors to GR.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

On Apr 27, 9:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/10f71d409fd...

This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. Has anyone complained
to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?

That's you! Hahahahahaha

On Apr 28, 8:10*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
Alen wrote:
[...]
Mind this bit:

* * *"In all cases it is easy to distinguish them from other
* * *members of the public who are interested in science and
* * *even from the occasional layperson who has their own theory
* * *about physics ... Such people are not surprised when you
* * *tell them their idea is wrong, and are genuinely interested
* * *to have the reasons explained to them."
[...]

--Bryan

Yes, indeed; that would be the absolute favourite
expectation of the orthodox supporters - the perfect
outcome. Not, in fact, only the favourite, but the only
one to be even allowed on considered at all!

I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc. Could it ever be that I
simply disagree? Oh dear! Never! Impossible! Such
a concept is beyond the horizon.Inconceivable!

The so-called kooks thus have no monopoly on self-inflicted
blindness. In spite of any physics or mathematical
intelligence they may have, the orthodox supporters
totally fail in any capacity to understand that humans
are autonomous beings with autonomous minds, and
that this fact cannot be 'corrected' by the magic of
incantations like 'kook', 'crackpot', and the like.

Alen