Circular motion in SR

[rbwinn]

[snip]
How many more years will you post while knowing full well that you are
way out of your depth?

I have never been out of my depth yet.  Do you still want to know how
S' is moving relative to S?
Robert B. Winn

You are hilariously out of your depth. You have no idea what you are
talking about, but by god that doesn't stop you from posting so many
paragraphs about it. Go away.

Go away? That seems a little territorial, Eric. The charter to the
newsgroup says anyone can post here about relativity. If you are so
offended, why don't you go talk to some of the other college
graduates?
Robert B. Winn

[rbwinn]

Does it not occur to you that removing one mistake in what you are
saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying
if the remainder is just as bad? Does it not occur to you that
removing one napkinfull of coffeegrounds from a overflowing trash bin
does not make the remainder worthy of reinspection?>�No responses since that time except ones like yours

which contain no mathematics, whatsoever. �I think you are correct.
Scientists have contributed about all they are ever going to
contribute to this conversation.

Well, I keep an open mind.  I have never seen anything presented as
proof of a distance contraction that I could not disprove with the
equations I use.
Robert B. Winn

You are not disproving anything. You are simply saying, well, you
obviously haven't followed my recommended procedure of abandoning a
local physical reference as the standard for length and using a
preferred-frame reference to redefine all your lengths for you, and
that way the Galilean transforms would be preserved.
Sorry, that doesn't seem compelling.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think it does not seem compelling to you because you limit your
thinking to areas of science where scientific interpretation of time
seems effective.
But what about astronomy?
Did it occur to you that when they were crashing billion dollar probes
into the planet Mars, they could have had more money for research in
the fields of science that interest you if they had landed the Mars
probe successfully the first time?
   But they couldn't get the distance correct because they had that
pesky distance contraction.
    But after a few trial and error corrections, they managed to land
one.

The stupidity is overwhelming. You have no idea what you are talking
about and you are completely oblivious as to what actually goes on.

Well, I am really hurt that you would say that, Eric.  Perhaps you
will recall that I knew what was going on with S and S' when you kept
asking about them.  If you have any more questions about frames of
reference, don't hesitate to ask again.
Robert B. Winn

Stop posting, idiot.- Hide quoted text -

Well, from my frame of reference, one thing is clear. You are
certainly going to fit right into the society of scientists as it
exists today.
Robert B. Winn

[rbwinn]

Does it not occur to you that removing one mistake in what you are
saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying
if the remainder is just as bad? Does it not occur to you that
removing one napkinfull of coffeegrounds from a overflowing trash bin
does not make the remainder worthy of reinspection?>�No responses since that time except ones like yours

which contain no mathematics, whatsoever. �I think you are correct.
Scientists have contributed about all they are ever going to
contribute to this conversation.

Well, I keep an open mind.  I have never seen anything presented as
proof of a distance contraction that I could not disprove with the
equations I use.
Robert B. Winn

You are not disproving anything. You are simply saying, well, you
obviously haven't followed my recommended procedure of abandoning a
local physical reference as the standard for length and using a
preferred-frame reference to redefine all your lengths for you, and
that way the Galilean transforms would be preserved.
Sorry, that doesn't seem compelling.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think it does not seem compelling to you because you limit your
thinking to areas of science where scientific interpretation of time
seems effective.
But what about astronomy?
Did it occur to you that when they were crashing billion dollar probes
into the planet Mars, they could have had more money for research in
the fields of science that interest you if they had landed the Mars
probe successfully the first time?
   But they couldn't get the distance correct because they had that
pesky distance contraction.
    But after a few trial and error corrections, they managed to land
one.

The stupidity is overwhelming. You have no idea what you are talking
about and you are completely oblivious as to what actually goes on.

Well, I am really hurt that you would say that, Eric.  Perhaps you
will recall that I knew what was going on with S and S' when you kept
asking about them.  If you have any more questions about frames of
reference, don't hesitate to ask again.
Robert B. Winn

Stop posting, idiot.- Hide quoted text -

See, S is a set of coordinates at rest, and S' is a set of coordinates
in motion. Then we can figure out where a photon is relative to the
two frames of reference. This helps us describe transmission of
light. If you have any more questions about frames of reference, just
let me know.
Robert B. Winn

[rbwinn]

Does it not occur to you that removing one mistake in what you are
saying does not substantially change the value of what you are saying
if the remainder is just as bad? Does it not occur to you that
removing one napkinfull of coffeegrounds from a overflowing trash bin
does not make the remainder worthy of reinspection?>�No responses since that time except ones like yours

which contain no mathematics, whatsoever. �I think you are correct.
Scientists have contributed about all they are ever going to
contribute to this conversation.

Well, I keep an open mind.  I have never seen anything presented as
proof of a distance contraction that I could not disprove with the
equations I use.
Robert B. Winn

You are not disproving anything. You are simply saying, well, you
obviously haven't followed my recommended procedure of abandoning a
local physical reference as the standard for length and using a
preferred-frame reference to redefine all your lengths for you, and
that way the Galilean transforms would be preserved.
Sorry, that doesn't seem compelling.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think it does not seem compelling to you because you limit your
thinking to areas of science where scientific interpretation of time
seems effective.
But what about astronomy?
Did it occur to you that when they were crashing billion dollar probes
into the planet Mars, they could have had more money for research in
the fields of science that interest you if they had landed the Mars
probe successfully the first time?
   But they couldn't get the distance correct because they had that
pesky distance contraction.
    But after a few trial and error corrections, they managed to land
one.

The stupidity is overwhelming. You have no idea what you are talking
about and you are completely oblivious as to what actually goes on.

Well, I am really hurt that you would say that, Eric.  Perhaps you
will recall that I knew what was going on with S and S' when you kept
asking about them.  If you have any more questions about frames of
reference, don't hesitate to ask again.
Robert B. Winn

Stop posting, idiot.

Thank you for your comments, Eric. If you will check the charter to
the newsgroup, there is no prohibition against any classification of
people posting to this newsgroup as long as they are discussing the
theory of relativity.
Robert B. Winn