rbwinn wrote:
When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"

It's what "they" do - what SR (and Galilean Relativity too) does...
Clearly you don't read (or understand) a single word of what people
wrote here.

On 17 mayo, 20:30, rbwinn wrote:
On May 17, 7:13�am, bz wrote:

rbwinn wrote in news:95a55775-9417-470a-b60d-
:

Well, what we have today is show business, not science. Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn

Have you ever applied for research funding? Have you ever even met a
"scientist" as you so name any person who do relativity research?
What is this agenda of the scientists? Are you making this up?
I have participated, colaborated and being the leader in several
research projects, and I can assure you that what you say about "give
scientists a comfortable life without having to do much" is not only a
lie but also a gratuite offense. Most researchers have to do research
because, especially in the academic world, your job continuity depends
on the researcher ability to:
a)get appropiate funding to be able to buy research equipment and
support a research team, including graduate students and technicians.
b)obtain good results from the funding (that is being very efficient)
that allow the team to publish results in conferences and indexed
journals, and finally,
c) use your research to improve your teaching.
Better universities and research institutions usually have also the
better researchers.
Nobody will get any funding without a good idea (among other things,
the available funding is always less than the requests from the
applications). And if you do not work, not only you will not get any
future money, but your job position may be shaking.
Regarding the researcher personal income, you'd be surprise at the
difference in income of a Ph.D. with say 10 years experience as a
professor, as compared with the income of the same person in the
industry.
Of course, some people get the Nobel Prize and for sure all of them
have dedicated most of their time to do research, because when you
enter into this profession, the important thing is not how much you
earn or how little you work, but the pleasure of being working in the
frontier of science.
So please get some real information before writing nonsense.

Miguel Rios

On May 17, 6:51�pm, TMG wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, what we have today is show business, not science. �Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. �I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. �So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. �Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. �When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. �What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. �The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn

Robert -

You seem flustered by the pace of modern science. Scary things like
"nuclear explosions" and "atomic waste" vex you.

You have strong feelings - you seem unhappy with how scientists
understand how light works. You clearly state that there is some sort of
� "agenda". Then, of course, you have another chip on your shoulder -
"scientists" live a comfortable life "without having to do much".

Clearly, you are an ill informed, shallow minded, mouth breathing, dull
witted, dim witted, sorry ass red-neck, throw-back, excuse for a waste
of skin,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, that may all be true, but it does not resolve anything.
Scientists are still working the mathematics incorrectly.
Robert B. Winn

On May 17, 7:24Â*pm, " wrote:
On 17 mayo, 20:30, rbwinn wrote:





On May 17, 7:13�am, bz wrote:

rbwinn wrote in news:95a55775-9417-470a-b60d-
:

Well, what we have today is show business, not science. Â*Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. Â*I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. Â*So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. Â*Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. Â*When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. Â*What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. Â*The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn

Have you ever applied for research funding? Have you ever even met a
"scientist" as you so name any person who do relativity research?
What is this agenda of the scientists? Are you making this up?
I have participated, colaborated and being the leader in several
research projects, and I can assure you that what you say about "give
scientists a comfortable life without having to do much" is not only a
lie but also a gratuite offense. Most researchers have to do research
because, especially in the academic world, your job continuity depends
on the researcher ability to:
a)get appropiate funding to be able to buy research equipment and
support a research team, including graduate students and technicians.
b)obtain good results from the funding (that is being very efficient)
that allow the team to publish results in conferences and indexed
journals, and finally,
c) use your research to improve your teaching.
Better universities and research institutions usually have also the
better researchers.
Nobody will get any funding without a good idea (among other things,
the available funding is always less than the requests from the
applications). And if you do not work, not only you will not get any
future money, but your job position may be shaking.
Regarding the researcher personal income, you'd be surprise at the
difference in income of a Ph.D. with say 10 years experience as a
professor, as compared with the income of the same person in the
industry.
Of course, some people get the Nobel Prize and for sure all of them
have dedicated most of their time to do research, because when you
enter into this profession, the important thing is not how much you
earn or how little you work, but the pleasure of being working in the
frontier of science.
So please get some real information before writing nonsense.

Well, the real information is that all scientists today agree that the
arm of an interferometer, the length of a train, ect., are contracted
in length if they move. So I say, I don't believe it. I think you
are doing the mathematics wrong. What you appear to me to be saying
is that you have the right to do the mathematics wrong if a majority
of scientists decide to do it that way. My opinion is that you have
the right to do the mathematics any way you choose to do it, even if
you are not in a majority, but incorrect mathematics is not generally
as successful as correct mathematics. I would continue to search for
the correct mathematics regardless of how successful scientists are
with the incorrect mathematics.
Robert B. Winn

On May 9, 6:37*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

...
On May 9, 9:48 am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 9, 6:21 am, PD wrote:

On May 8, 11:00 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 8, 5:04 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:54 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:43 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 7:17 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 3:57 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 18:38, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 12:54 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 14:34, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40?am, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 12:25, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 8:06 am, PD
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. ?According to mathematics, if the
bolts of lightning
are simultaneous in the frame of reference of the
track, the marks on
the track will be closer together than the length
of the train; if the
bolts of lightning are simultaneous in the frame
of reference of the
train, the marks on the track are further apart
than the length of the
train. ?Reality shows that the marks on the track
will be the length
of the train apart, disproving this false teaching
of Einstein.
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense. That is a bunch of words salad. What in
the world those
marks you mention have to do with relativity of
simultaneity?
This shows you have not read anything about SR. What
does it mean
"according to mathematics"? And where does Einstein
say the nonsense
of the marks on the track?
There are two events (the strikes) and two
observers. What these
observers see is the light signal information that
tells them about
the occurrence of those strikes. That is the reason
one of them can
certify "I saw both strikes to be simultaneous",
while the second
certify "I saw the front strike occurring before the
back strike".

Einstein was the one who thought of the train and two
bolts of
lightning. He did not fully consider the mathematics
of the situation
he described. Einstein did not say anything about
marks on the track,
but I did. The marks on the track prove that
relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Lightning hits
the front and
rear of the train simultaneously as seen by an
observer by the track,
leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and
marks on the
railroad track. The distance between the marks on the
train is the
length of the train. The distance between the marks on
the track is
the length of the train. In order for relativity of
simultaneity to
exist, the marks on the track would have to be closer
together than
the length of the train. Conversely, if the bolts of
lightning are
seen simultaneously by the observer on the train, in
order for
relativity of simultaneity to exist, the marks on the
track would have
to be further apart than the length of the train.
Reality shows that
the marks on the track are the length of the train
apart.
Robert B. Winn

That is complete nonsense. What Einstein wrote about
this subject,
just for people like you, can be seen
inhttp://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Observers do not have to measure any length (actually it
would be very
tough to measure a 200000km train, not speaking of how
to build it and
how to place the tracks). The only requirement is for
the observers to
coincide at t=0 at x=0, that the strikes occurred at
x=-X0 and at x=
+X0 and that the train with its observer is moving at a
speed v into
the +x direction.
The observations consist of both observers receiving the
light signals
that communicate them of the strikes occurrence. Where
in the world
are you seeing something related to measuring lengths?

c=176,000 miles /sec. The mile is a unit of length. The
velocity of
the train is also measured in units of length divided by
time. In
addition to that, the train has a length that is measured
in units of
length.
Robert B. Winn

And what are you trying to say with that?.
We are talking about the relativity of simultaneity, and
that refers
to time relations, not to length contraction.
The whole point of this train thought experiment is to prove
that time
is not absolute.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Relativity of simultaneity, as explained by Einstein, is
dependent on
length contraction.

Actually, no it's not. You'll notice that the relativity of
simultaneity is established without needing to reference the
distance
between the marks. However, you brought up the *additional*
information about the distance between the marks. In so doing,
you
find out that there is a *consequence* of relativity of
simultaneity:
relativity of length.

If lightning strikes both ends of a train,
leaving marks on the ends of the train and marks on the track,
the
only way the marks can be closer together than the length of
the
train, as is required if the lightning at the front strikes
first, is
if there is a distance contraction, as seen from the frame of
reference of the track.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, as I said, that would be the problem of people who believe
it
exists. I believe the Galilean transformation equations which
indicate that relativity of simultaneity and distance contraction
do
not exist.

I know you believe that. That's because you're ignorant of the
experimental data, I believe. If you're not interested enough in the
truth to investigate the data, then I'm under no compunction to make
you change your beliefs.

PD

Ignorant of experimental dataI

Ignorant of experimental data? The only experiment I have to run is
posting equations in sci.physics.relativity.

Aha. There, you see, is where you make a basic mistake, confusing
looking at equations with looking at experimental data. You keep
wanting to look at equations, and you shy away from looking at data.

You might consider asking a scientist how science is done, Bobby,
rather than just playing it the way you want to play it.

So, PD, when are you
going to tell us about the experiments that disprove the Galilean
transformation equations?

I already have, Bobby, and I've reminded you about it too. Just
because you're still holding the hoop up, Bobby, doesn't mean that I'm
going to jump through it again. You can lift a finger too.

You have plenty of time to post all of these denials. If you had
anything meaningful, you could post it, too. Science has not written
anything about the Galilean transformation equations except proofs
that the ether theory does not explain the results of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. I have already read enough of those. If you have
something new, go ahead and tell us what it is.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

| xxein: *I am wondering why anybody should even try to teach anything
| to a resolute believer in something else.

So why do you?

xxein1: Maybe just the possibility that an idiot like you can gain a
physical understanding.

I seem to be wrong on that, again.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On May 9, 6:37 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

...
On May 9, 9:48 am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 9, 6:21 am, PD wrote:

On May 8, 11:00 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 8, 5:04 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:54 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 6:43 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 7:17 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 3:57 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 18:38, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 12:54 pm, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 14:34, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40?am, "
wrote:

On 7 mayo, 12:25, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 8:06 am, PD

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. ?According to mathematics, if
the
bolts of lightning
are simultaneous in the frame of reference of
the
track, the marks on
the track will be closer together than the
length
of the train; if the
bolts of lightning are simultaneous in the frame
of reference of the
train, the marks on the track are further apart
than the length of the
train. ?Reality shows that the marks on the
track
will be the length
of the train apart, disproving this false
teaching
of Einstein.
Robert B. Winn

Nonsense. That is a bunch of words salad. What in
the world those
marks you mention have to do with relativity of
simultaneity?
This shows you have not read anything about SR.
What
does it mean
"according to mathematics"? And where does
Einstein
say the nonsense
of the marks on the track?
There are two events (the strikes) and two
observers. What these
observers see is the light signal information that
tells them about
the occurrence of those strikes. That is the
reason
one of them can
certify "I saw both strikes to be simultaneous",
while the second
certify "I saw the front strike occurring before
the
back strike".

Einstein was the one who thought of the train and
two
bolts of
lightning. He did not fully consider the mathematics
of the situation
he described. Einstein did not say anything about
marks on the track,
but I did. The marks on the track prove that
relativity of
simultaneity cannot exist in reality. Lightning hits
the front and
rear of the train simultaneously as seen by an
observer by the track,
leaving marks on the front and rear of the train and
marks on the
railroad track. The distance between the marks on
the
train is the
length of the train. The distance between the marks
on
the track is
the length of the train. In order for relativity of
simultaneity to
exist, the marks on the track would have to be
closer
together than
the length of the train. Conversely, if the bolts of
lightning are
seen simultaneously by the observer on the train, in
order for
relativity of simultaneity to exist, the marks on
the
track would have
to be further apart than the length of the train.
Reality shows that
the marks on the track are the length of the train
apart.
Robert B. Winn

That is complete nonsense. What Einstein wrote about
this subject,
just for people like you, can be seen
inhttp://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Observers do not have to measure any length (actually
it
would be very
tough to measure a 200000km train, not speaking of how
to build it and
how to place the tracks). The only requirement is for
the observers to
coincide at t=0 at x=0, that the strikes occurred at
x=-X0 and at x=
+X0 and that the train with its observer is moving at
a
speed v into
the +x direction.
The observations consist of both observers receiving
the
light signals
that communicate them of the strikes occurrence. Where
in the world
are you seeing something related to measuring lengths?

c=176,000 miles /sec. The mile is a unit of length. The
velocity of
the train is also measured in units of length divided by
time. In
addition to that, the train has a length that is
measured
in units of
length.
Robert B. Winn

And what are you trying to say with that?.
We are talking about the relativity of simultaneity, and
that refers
to time relations, not to length contraction.
The whole point of this train thought experiment is to
prove
that time
is not absolute.

Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Relativity of simultaneity, as explained by Einstein, is
dependent on
length contraction.

Actually, no it's not. You'll notice that the relativity of
simultaneity is established without needing to reference the
distance
between the marks. However, you brought up the *additional*
information about the distance between the marks. In so doing,
you
find out that there is a *consequence* of relativity of
simultaneity:
relativity of length.

If lightning strikes both ends of a train,
leaving marks on the ends of the train and marks on the
track,
the
only way the marks can be closer together than the length of
the
train, as is required if the lightning at the front strikes
first, is
if there is a distance contraction, as seen from the frame
of
reference of the track.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

Well, as I said, that would be the problem of people who believe
it
exists. I believe the Galilean transformation equations which
indicate that relativity of simultaneity and distance
contraction
do
not exist.

I know you believe that. That's because you're ignorant of the
experimental data, I believe. If you're not interested enough in
the
truth to investigate the data, then I'm under no compunction to
make
you change your beliefs.

PD

Ignorant of experimental dataI

Ignorant of experimental data? The only experiment I have to run is
posting equations in sci.physics.relativity.

Aha. There, you see, is where you make a basic mistake, confusing
looking at equations with looking at experimental data. You keep
wanting to look at equations, and you shy away from looking at data.

You might consider asking a scientist how science is done, Bobby,
rather than just playing it the way you want to play it.

So, PD, when are you
going to tell us about the experiments that disprove the Galilean
transformation equations?

I already have, Bobby, and I've reminded you about it too. Just
because you're still holding the hoop up, Bobby, doesn't mean that I'm
going to jump through it again. You can lift a finger too.

You have plenty of time to post all of these denials. If you had
anything meaningful, you could post it, too. Science has not written
anything about the Galilean transformation equations except proofs
that the ether theory does not explain the results of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. I have already read enough of those. If you have
something new, go ahead and tell us what it is.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

| xxein: I am wondering why anybody should even try to teach anything
| to a resolute believer in something else.

So why do you?

| xxein1: Maybe just the possibility that an idiot like you can gain a
| physical understanding.

| I seem to be wrong on that, again.

A ****head like you will always be wrong, nothing new there.

--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Androcles

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

On May 17, 8:48*am, kenseto wrote:
On May 16, 5:02*pm, PD wrote:



On May 16, 11:54*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 16, 9:26*am, PD wrote:

On May 16, 7:26*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 15, 10:45*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:47*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 15, 5:22*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 8:49*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 14, 5:03*pm, PD wrote:

On May 14, 12:53*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 14, 11:22*am, " wrote:

On 14 mayo, 10:03, kenseto wrote:

On May 13, 6:36 pm, "Simple Simon" wrote:

3. Einstein asserted that the train observer is rushing toward the
light front from the front and receding away from the light front from
the rear.
These assertions means that the light front from the front
will take less transit time to reach the train observer and that the
light front from the rear will take more transit time to reach the
train observer.

Obviously (assuming that the specificity that you omit has the observers and
events at the same times and locations as the classic thought experiment
does).

No I didn't assume anything of the sort. Einstein's assertion implies
that the light front from the front will take less transit time to
reach the train observer and the light front fron the rear will take
longer transit time to reach the train observer. This can only mean
one thing: Einstein's assertion violates the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.

Once more you show you do not understand English!. Stop lying!

On the contrary, what Einstein said, and everybody else but you
understands, is that the train observer is moving towards the light
signal coming from the front of the train, and that light signal is,
for sure, traveling at c to reach him (as the back light signal is
also doing). Isotropy is never touched here

****ing idiot....the light signal from the front and the rear were
generated at equal distance from the train observer. if the signal
from the front reaches the train observer before the signal from the
rear that means that it takes different transit times for light to
travel equal distance in different directions.

No, the light signals *started* their transit at different times in
the train frame. The transit times are equal. As a consequence, they
arrive at different times.

Hey idiot if the light signals ("started" or "occurred") at different
times in the train frame then these are not the same light signals as
seen by the track observer. Why? Because Einstein stipulated that the
singals occurred simultaneously.

He said no such thing. You do not have his book in front of you, and
your memory is terrible. He said only that the *track observer*
concludes that the strikes are simultaneous, because he has
observations that are consistent with that conclusion.

Hey idiot if the strikes were not simultaneous to begin with how can
the track observer sees them to be simultaneous?

This is where you get stuck. You think you have to *start* from
choosing an assertion: the strikes are either physically simultaneous
or they are not physically simultaneous, but only one or the other.
Then you think you *derive* observations from those assertions.

Hey idiot the gedanken specified that both observers are at equal
distance from the strikes and that the speed of light is isotropic in
the train and the track. These two specifications (stipulations)
demands that the strikes are physcially simultaneous to begin with if
the track observer was to see the strikes to be simultaneous.

These two specifications (stipulations) ALSO demand that the strikes
are not physically simultaneous to begin with if the train observer
sees the strikes to be not simultaneous.

Wrong....these two specifications (stipulations) also demand that the
strikes were physically simultaneous to begin with for the train
observer.

No, they do not. Read it. Fetch the book and read it.

Hey idiot the two stipulations (equal distance from the strikes and
isotropy of the speed of light) automatically demands that the strikes
were simultaneous to begin with.

No, that's not correct either. Only when you add the factor of whether
the observer saw the light arrive at the same time do you come to that
conclusion. Don't be an idiot.

Suppose a lightning strike hits 2 miles east of your house, and
another lightning strike hits 2 miles north of your house, and we'll
stipulate that the speed of light is isotropic from both strikes. Do
you now say these two requirements alone make the strikes
simultaneous? What if you saw the light from the first strike on
Tuesday afternoon, and the light from the second strike on Wednesday
morning? Don't be an idiot, Ken.




There is no demand that the train observer sees the strikes
to be not simultaneous.

Read it. Fetch the book and read it. You are in basic denial of
reality, Ken.

Hey idiot.....according to Einstein the train observer sees the
strikes to be not simultaneous because he is moving wrt the light
fronts.

Nope, it is so because that's what that observer actually sees.
Einstein shows that this is entirely consistent with the laws of
physics, as seen by the track observer.

This is a new stipulation and it violates the isotropy of the
speed of light and the PoR in the train frame.

No, it doesn't.

Einstein failed to
realize that his SR postulates says that the speed of light is
independent of the state of motion of the source or the observer.
You are stupid.

Ken Seto

On May 17, 9:39*am, rbwinn wrote:


Well, no, PD, I make judgments based on the fact that scientists are
working the mathematics incorrectly. *I think I would have been able
to convince Einstein that he was working it wrong because he had a
goal in mind. *He was trying to derive a Unified Field Theory. *So if
I had said to Einstein, "Hey, Albert, if you reflect a photon 180
degrees with a mirror, the velocity of the photon changes from +c to -
c relative to a set of coordinates," I think Einstein would have
listened. *With regard to his disciples, I do not think they ever will
because they see themselves as protectors of the theory, which is
reputed to work, therefore, they must defend it at all costs. Their
only goal is to be regarded as being as intelligent as Einstein, not
to be able to understand how light works. *So they will say exactly
what Einstein said, because if it worked for him, it will work for
them. *But the fact remains that the reason why they end up with an
interferometer arm that contracts in length is because they do not
work the mathematics correctly. *The have a close approximation taken
from some complex equations, and that is good enough for them. *All
they have to do is memorize a discipline, and they are the smartest
people on earth in their own minds.
Robert B. Winn

Your capacity to just make stuff up for fun is boundless.

PD

On May 18, 10:20Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 17, 7:24Â*pm, " wrote:



On 17 mayo, 20:30, rbwinn wrote:

On May 17, 7:13�am, bz wrote:

rbwinn wrote in news:95a55775-9417-470a-b60d-
:

Well, what we have today is show business, not science. Â*Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. Â*I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. Â*So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. Â*Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. Â*When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. Â*What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. Â*The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn

Have you ever applied for research funding? Have you ever even met a
"scientist" as you so name any person who do relativity research?
What is this agenda of the scientists? Are you making this up?
I have participated, colaborated and being the leader in several
research projects, and I can assure you that what you say about "give
scientists a comfortable life without having to do much" is not only a
lie but also a gratuite offense. Most researchers have to do research
because, especially in the academic world, your job continuity depends
on the researcher ability to:
a)get appropiate funding to be able to buy research equipment and
support a research team, including graduate students and technicians.
b)obtain good results from the funding (that is being very efficient)
that allow the team to publish results in conferences and indexed
journals, and finally,
c) use your research to improve your teaching.
Better universities and research institutions usually have also the
better researchers.
Nobody will get any funding without a good idea (among other things,
the available funding is always less than the requests from the
applications). And if you do not work, not only you will not get any
future money, but your job position may be shaking.
Regarding the researcher personal income, you'd be surprise at the
difference in income of a Ph.D. with say 10 years experience as a
professor, as compared with the income of the same person in the
industry.
Of course, some people get the Nobel Prize and for sure all of them
have dedicated most of their time to do research, because when you
enter into this profession, the important thing is not how much you
earn or how little you work, but the pleasure of being working in the
frontier of science.
So please get some real information before writing nonsense.

Well, the real information is that all scientists today agree that the
arm of an interferometer, the length of a train, ect., are contracted
in length if they move. Â*So I say, I don't believe it. Â*I think you
are doing the mathematics wrong. Â*What you appear to me to be saying
is that you have the right to do the mathematics wrong if a majority
of scientists decide to do it that way. Â*My opinion is that you have
the right to do the mathematics any way you choose to do it, even if
you are not in a majority, but incorrect mathematics is not generally
as successful as correct mathematics.

Fortunately, the mathematics in use does seem to work very well. In
experiment, in the design of practical objects, and as a critical
element in other physical models that also work very well.

Unfortunately, your mathematics hasn't been demonstrated to be useful
for very much at all.

Â*I would continue to search for
the correct mathematics regardless of how successful scientists are
with the incorrect mathematics.

Well, that right there says it all. Thanks. You go ahead. I'm sure
you're making wonderful progress, at least for killing time.

Robert B. Winn

On May 22, 11:11Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 18, 10:20Â*am, rbwinn wrote:





On May 17, 7:24Â*pm, " wrote:

On 17 mayo, 20:30, rbwinn wrote:

On May 17, 7:13�am, bz wrote:

rbwinn wrote in news:95a55775-9417-470a-b60d-
:

Well, what we have today is show business, not science. Â*Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. Â*I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. Â*So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. Â*Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. Â*When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. Â*What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. Â*The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn

Have you ever applied for research funding? Have you ever even met a
"scientist" as you so name any person who do relativity research?
What is this agenda of the scientists? Are you making this up?
I have participated, colaborated and being the leader in several
research projects, and I can assure you that what you say about "give
scientists a comfortable life without having to do much" is not only a
lie but also a gratuite offense. Most researchers have to do research
because, especially in the academic world, your job continuity depends
on the researcher ability to:
a)get appropiate funding to be able to buy research equipment and
support a research team, including graduate students and technicians.
b)obtain good results from the funding (that is being very efficient)
that allow the team to publish results in conferences and indexed
journals, and finally,
c) use your research to improve your teaching.
Better universities and research institutions usually have also the
better researchers.
Nobody will get any funding without a good idea (among other things,
the available funding is always less than the requests from the
applications). And if you do not work, not only you will not get any
future money, but your job position may be shaking.
Regarding the researcher personal income, you'd be surprise at the
difference in income of a Ph.D. with say 10 years experience as a
professor, as compared with the income of the same person in the
industry.
Of course, some people get the Nobel Prize and for sure all of them
have dedicated most of their time to do research, because when you
enter into this profession, the important thing is not how much you
earn or how little you work, but the pleasure of being working in the
frontier of science.
So please get some real information before writing nonsense.

Well, the real information is that all scientists today agree that the
arm of an interferometer, the length of a train, ect., are contracted
in length if they move. Â*So I say, I don't believe it. Â*I think you
are doing the mathematics wrong. Â*What you appear to me to be saying
is that you have the right to do the mathematics wrong if a majority
of scientists decide to do it that way. Â*My opinion is that you have
the right to do the mathematics any way you choose to do it, even if
you are not in a majority, but incorrect mathematics is not generally
as successful as correct mathematics.

Fortunately, the mathematics in use does seem to work very well. In
experiment, in the design of practical objects, and as a critical
element in other physical models that also work very well.

Unfortunately, your mathematics hasn't been demonstrated to be useful
for very much at all.

Â*I would continue to search for
the correct mathematics regardless of how successful scientists are
with the incorrect mathematics.

Well, that right there says it all. Thanks. You go ahead. I'm sure
you're making wonderful progress, at least for killing time.

Well, I know it might seem odd to a scientist that methematics could
be used for something in the subject of relativity other than nuclear
explosions, core meltdowns, etc. If you want to call what I do
killing time, that would be up to you. What I do seems a little less
destructive than what scientists do with the same subject.
Robert B. Winn