Galilean transformation equations

[rbwinn]

[...]

Why don't you mention the part about length contraction
explaining observation?

What observation would that be, eric?

Why can't you answer the question yourself, bobby?

The Lorentz equations give too large a value for time in S',
consequently, it has to be compensated for by a length
contraction. So what is supposed to be getting observed?

You tell me, bobby. You're the one who has been arguing about this
subject for the past 15 years.
Let's see what - if anything - you've learned.

Here is what I learned.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
n'=t(1-v/c)
TheGalileantransformation equations work just fine.

Except those aren't theGalileantransformation equations, bobby. How
many times does this need to be explained to you?
It rather much seems you haven't learned a whole lot in the past 15
years.

Which one of these equations are you saying is not aGalilean
transformation equations?
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

Ok, so you know that your n' addition is not a part of theGalilean
transformation equations. Please stop implying that it is.

I have never said it was part of theGalileantransformation
equations.  It is time on a slower clock.  It applies to theGalilean
transformation equations the same way time on any other slower clock
applies to theGalileantransformation equations.
I bought an alarm clock at Walgreen's drug store last year that lost
ten minutes every day.  Are you saying that theGalilean
transformation equations cannot describe what that clock does?

What's the point of explaining it to you when you are simply too stupid to
understand?
I admit defeat, you fucking worthless heap of stupidity. Into the killfile
you go. I know you'll be posting the same stupid shit tomorrow as you have
been doing for the past 15 years, but I'm done replying to you for the time
being.

Well, I would certainly encourage to stop doing whatever it is that
gets you so worked up.

[rbwinn]

[...]

Why don't you mention the part about length contraction
explaining observation?

What observation would that be, eric?

Why can't you answer the question yourself, bobby?

The Lorentz equations give too large a value for time in S',
consequently, it has to be compensated for by a length
contraction. So what is supposed to be getting observed?

You tell me, bobby. You're the one who has been arguing about this
subject for the past 15 years.
Let's see what - if anything - you've learned.

Here is what I learned.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
n'=t(1-v/c)
TheGalileantransformation equations work just fine.

Except those aren't theGalileantransformation equations, bobby. How
many times does this need to be explained to you?
It rather much seems you haven't learned a whole lot in the past 15
years.

Which one of these equations are you saying is not aGalilean
transformation equations?
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

Ok, so you know that your n' addition is not a part of theGalilean
transformation equations. Please stop implying that it is.

I have never said it was part of theGalileantransformation
equations.  It is time on a slower clock.  It applies to theGalilean
transformation equations the same way time on any other slower clock
applies to theGalileantransformation equations.
I bought an alarm clock at Walgreen's drug store last year that lost
ten minutes every day.  Are you saying that theGalilean
transformation equations cannot describe what that clock does?

What's the point of explaining it to you when you are simply too stupid to
understand?
I admit defeat, you fucking worthless heap of stupidity. Into the killfile
you go. I know you'll be posting the same stupid shit tomorrow as you have
been doing for the past 15 years, but I'm done replying to you for the time
being.

Thank you for sharing, eric.

[rbwinn]

[...]

Why don't you mention the part about length contraction
explaining observation?

What observation would that be, eric?

Why can't you answer the question yourself, bobby?

The Lorentz equations give too large a value for time in S',
consequently, it has to be compensated for by a length
contraction. So what is supposed to be getting observed?

You tell me, bobby. You're the one who has been arguing about this
subject for the past 15 years.
Let's see what - if anything - you've learned.

Here is what I learned.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
n'=t(1-v/c)
TheGalileantransformation equations work just fine.

Except those aren't theGalileantransformation equations, bobby. How
many times does this need to be explained to you?
It rather much seems you haven't learned a whole lot in the past 15
years.

Which one of these equations are you saying is not aGalilean
transformation equations?
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

Ok, so you know that your n' addition is not a part of theGalilean
transformation equations. Please stop implying that it is.

I have never said it was part of theGalileantransformation
equations.  It is time on a slower clock.  It applies to theGalilean
transformation equations the same way time on any other slower clock
applies to theGalileantransformation equations.
I bought an alarm clock at Walgreen's drug store last year that lost
ten minutes every day.  Are you saying that theGalilean
transformation equations cannot describe what that clock does?

What's the point of explaining it to you when you are simply too stupid to
understand?
I admit defeat, you fucking worthless heap of stupidity. Into the killfile
you go. I know you'll be posting the same stupid shit tomorrow as you have
been doing for the past 15 years, but I'm done replying to you for the time
being.

Thank you for sharing, eric.