Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.

On May 31, 8:24 am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
[...]

rbwinn has been spamming these newsgroups for over a decade with his
idiotic bull****. Folks like this get weeded out in introductory
physics courses.

The best course of action at this pointis to tell him to **** off,
ignore him, and wait for him to die.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article om,
rbwinn wrote:


Well, here, Puddle.

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

x'=wn', n'=t(1-v/w)

w=x/t=x'/n'=(x-vt)/(t-vt/w) = (x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/c^2)gamma

Tell us which part of these equations are not mathematics.


Quoted formula's doesn't make mathematics in this case. You have a serious
lack
of knowledge of modern physics.

But it does give him a leg up on the alt.astronomy saucerheads.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist

"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

Aren't you working today?

Got fired again because they talked to the Sheriff .

Tooooo Bad!

HJ

On May 31, 8:24 am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
[...]

rbwinn has been spamming these newsgroups for over a decade with his
idiotic bull****. Folks like this get weeded out in introductory
physics courses.

The best course of action at this pointis to tell him to **** off,
ignore him, and wait for him to die.

On May 31, 8:24?am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
On 30 May 2007 15:51:58 -0700, rbwinn wrote:





On May 30, 6:29?am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
On 30 May 2007 03:21:10 -0700, rbwinn wrote:

On May 29, 11:32 am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
On 27 May 2007 15:11:22 -0700, rbwinn wrote:

On May 27, 8:34?am, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

2bwinn wrote:
Freedom. Eric. am still free to think for myself.

Indeed. You have every freedom to be wrong - just don't expect people to roll
over and listen to you post obvious nonsense.

Post a single reference to the n' equation being Galilean.

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
0oster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

The Galilean transformation equations are these:

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

Those are the only four equations in the Galilean transformation
equations. They will not give the time on a clock in S' because a
clock in S' is slower than t'=t.

n' gives the time on a clock in S'.

Robert B. Winn

-----------------------------
Your other 'formulas' here...
x=wt
x'=wn'
n'=t(1-v/w)
-----------------------------

No, the time for a clock in S', by the very definition of these
formulas is t'. If the time is slower in S' than S, then t' will be
some fraction of t.

Sorry, Jeff, but if you do that, you will have a distance
contraction. know how precious clocks are to scientists, but t'=t
means that the earth rotates on its axis. All a clock was at the time
of Galileo was a device that approximated the amount of rotation of
the earth. The earth rotates the same amount as seen from S' as it
does from S. That is why t'=t, not because of clocks. Now scientists
claim to have more accurate clocks which keep time by transitions of
cesium isotope molecules. The problem with those clocks is that if a
clock is put in motion relative to another clock, it will run slower.
So if we are using the Galilean transformation equations, then time on
a moving clock is n'=t(1-v/w).
Robert B. Winn

No, I'm sorry, but if you define your two frames of reference and
state that t=t' then BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF HOW FRAMES OF
REFERENCE WORK, you have chosen to NOT have any time dialation. If
you want time to be different in S' you need to use ft=t', where f1.
Until you do that, you are simply talking out of your posterior.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry I broke your little rule, but if you have ft=t', where f1,
then you have a distance contraction. What I have is t'=t and a clock
running at a different speed than t' in S'. I just computed the time
on the clock, that is all. There is no distance contraction in my
equations.
Robert B. Winn

Damn, you are unbelievably thick.

What you are doing is equivalent to saying, "x'=x, but if I ever need
to actually figure out where we are along the x axis in S', im gonna
use this equation: j'=x-vt." Which is equivalent to saying x'=j'=x-vt
thus x'x unless v=0. By the same reasoning t'=n'=t(1-v/w) thus t't
unless v=0.

Once more for the incredibly slow witted...your initial set of
equations create a 1 to 1 relationship between the two frames of
reference. If we are at position x at time t then we can use those to
determine what position x' is and what time t' is. If you state that
t'=t then you have, once again, say it with me, BY DEFINITION, stated
that the time in frame of reference S will be the same as the time in
S', so there is no time dialation.

And as far as you retarded sun rotation as time keeping...yes, of
course, with the twin paradox as an example, when the two twins
rejoin, after twin prime's trip around the solar system, they will
agree that the sun rotated a certain number of times. But twin prime
will have observed the rotations to have occurred at a much faster
rate, since his time t' is normally defined to be some fraction of his
brother's time t. Thus, twin prime will be younger than his twin. Your
attempt to use the sun as a universal time for different frames of
referrence just doesn't work.- Hide quoted text -

It works for me. Where you get the weird equations you get, I will
never know. What Galileo said was x'=x-vt. As long as t'=t, the
equation is true. So you say you have a clock running slower. Why
don't you see how your clock compares with the rotation of the
earth?
Robert B. Winn

On May 31, 9:14?am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 31, 8:24 am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
[...]

rbwinn has been spamming these newsgroups for over a decade with his
idiotic bull****. Folks like this get weeded out in introductory
physics courses.

The best course of action at this pointis to tell him to **** off,
ignore him, and wait for him to die.

So what is your problem, Eric? You seem to be having some trouble
following your own advice.
Robert B. Winn

On May 31, 6:57?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 31, 8:24 am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
[...]

rbwinn has been spamming these newsgroups for over a decade with his
idiotic bull****. Folks like this get weeded out in introductory
physics courses.

The best course of action at this pointis to tell him to **** off,
ignore him, and wait for him to die.

Eric, you seem to be repeating yourself. I often see scientists doing
this.
Robert B. Winn

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:26:33 -0700, rbwinn wrote:

On May 31, 8:24?am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
On 30 May 2007 15:51:58 -0700, rbwinn wrote:





On May 30, 6:29?am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
On 30 May 2007 03:21:10 -0700, rbwinn wrote:

On May 29, 11:32 am, Jeff Whittaker wrote:
On 27 May 2007 15:11:22 -0700, rbwinn wrote:

On May 27, 8:34?am, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,

2bwinn wrote:
Freedom. Eric. am still free to think for myself.

Indeed. You have every freedom to be wrong - just don't expect people to roll
over and listen to you post obvious nonsense.

Post a single reference to the n' equation being Galilean.

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
0oster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

The Galilean transformation equations are these:

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

Those are the only four equations in the Galilean transformation
equations. They will not give the time on a clock in S' because a
clock in S' is slower than t'=t.

n' gives the time on a clock in S'.

Robert B. Winn

-----------------------------
Your other 'formulas' here...
x=wt
x'=wn'
n'=t(1-v/w)
-----------------------------

No, the time for a clock in S', by the very definition of these
formulas is t'. If the time is slower in S' than S, then t' will be
some fraction of t.

Sorry, Jeff, but if you do that, you will have a distance
contraction. know how precious clocks are to scientists, but t'=t
means that the earth rotates on its axis. All a clock was at the time
of Galileo was a device that approximated the amount of rotation of
the earth. The earth rotates the same amount as seen from S' as it
does from S. That is why t'=t, not because of clocks. Now scientists
claim to have more accurate clocks which keep time by transitions of
cesium isotope molecules. The problem with those clocks is that if a
clock is put in motion relative to another clock, it will run slower.
So if we are using the Galilean transformation equations, then time on
a moving clock is n'=t(1-v/w).
Robert B. Winn

No, I'm sorry, but if you define your two frames of reference and
state that t=t' then BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF HOW FRAMES OF
REFERENCE WORK, you have chosen to NOT have any time dialation. If
you want time to be different in S' you need to use ft=t', where f1.
Until you do that, you are simply talking out of your posterior.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry I broke your little rule, but if you have ft=t', where f1,
then you have a distance contraction. What I have is t'=t and a clock
running at a different speed than t' in S'. I just computed the time
on the clock, that is all. There is no distance contraction in my
equations.
Robert B. Winn

Damn, you are unbelievably thick.

What you are doing is equivalent to saying, "x'=x, but if I ever need
to actually figure out where we are along the x axis in S', im gonna
use this equation: j'=x-vt." Which is equivalent to saying x'=j'=x-vt
thus x'x unless v=0. By the same reasoning t'=n'=t(1-v/w) thus t't
unless v=0.

Once more for the incredibly slow witted...your initial set of
equations create a 1 to 1 relationship between the two frames of
reference. If we are at position x at time t then we can use those to
determine what position x' is and what time t' is. If you state that
t'=t then you have, once again, say it with me, BY DEFINITION, stated
that the time in frame of reference S will be the same as the time in
S', so there is no time dialation.

And as far as you retarded sun rotation as time keeping...yes, of
course, with the twin paradox as an example, when the two twins
rejoin, after twin prime's trip around the solar system, they will
agree that the sun rotated a certain number of times. But twin prime
will have observed the rotations to have occurred at a much faster
rate, since his time t' is normally defined to be some fraction of his
brother's time t. Thus, twin prime will be younger than his twin. Your
attempt to use the sun as a universal time for different frames of
referrence just doesn't work.- Hide quoted text -

It works for me. Where you get the weird equations you get, I will
never know. What Galileo said was x'=x-vt. As long as t'=t, the
equation is true. So you say you have a clock running slower. Why
don't you see how your clock compares with the rotation of the
earth?
Robert B. Winn


It doesn't matter whether or not 'it works for you'. In order for your
equations to be of any use, the mathematics needs to be consistent and
mean something to other people. Now if you are going to use these
equations, they have a meaning when you define them. If you define
t'=t then you have stated that time is the same for observers in both
frames of reference. If you want there to be some time dialation that
is the only place you can do it. You can't add another variable and
say it is them time in S', t' has already been defined as time in S'.

Let me try using the twin paradox again, with an attempt at your
rotations of the earth/sun. Twin non-prime is on earth. Twin prime is
in a space ship going nearly the speed of light. Let's say twin prime
jaunts around the galaxy/solar system or whatever for 1 year as time
measured by twin non-prime. Now, twin non-prime will have measured 365
(approx) rotations of the earth. Well, you know what? Twin prime will
have measured that many rotations as well. But as far as twin prime is
concerned, the rotations were much, much faster to him. Maybe he saw
52 rotations for what his perception and clock on his ship said was a
24 hour period. So, he would have gotten back to earth, after what was
only 1 week (approx) for him.