Bruce,
Thank you for your acknowledgement that the Galileian transformation equations exist. Now, if you recall, I also told you that what scientists are saying about the Galileian transformation equations does not appear to be entirely correct.
If we take two sets of coordinates, K and K', the way Einstein described, and describe the positions of two photons emitted when the origins of the two sets of coordinates coincide, then from the K, the two photons are equal distances from the origin of K, whereas, from the origin of K', the two photons are equal distances from the origin of K'.
So if we have a +x photon and a -x photon, and K' is moving in the +x direction, then from K we have three events which are simultaneous. The +x photon arrives at a distance of x from the origin of K, the origin of K' arrives at a distance of vt from the origin of K, the _x photon arrives at a distance of -x from the origin of K. From K' these three events are not simultaneous. First the +x photon arrives at a distance of x from the origin of K, next the origin of K' arrives at a distance of vt from the origin of K, then the -x photon arrives at a distance of -x from the origin of K.
These facts appear indisputable to me. If you have some objection to the above analysis, you have never shown it. All you have done is to say that it is not the same interpretation that scientists have always given to the Galileian transformation equations. You are correct about that. Scientists were wrong.
Robert B. Winn

• Been over this with you.. - bruce - May 13, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
  • Obvious goof.. - bruce - May 13, 2001 - 19:40 UTC
    • x'=ct' - rbwinn - May 14, 2001 - 13:06 UTC
  • It is one thing to say something and another to prove it. - rbwinn - May 14, 2001 - 13:03 UTC
    • When you.. - bruce - May 14, 2001 - 21:53 UTC
      • synchronize GPS satellite - rbwinn - May 15, 2001 - 00:59 UTC
        • I already know how to explain why.. - bruce - May 15, 2001 - 02:01 UTC
          • Thank you for your comments, Bruce - rbwinn - May 15, 2001 - 19:23 UTC
            • Simply speaking.. - bruce - May 15, 2001 - 19:56 UTC
              • No, I can do it. - rbwinn - May 15, 2001 - 22:37 UTC
                • Bruce - bruce - May 15, 2001 - 23:59 UTC
                  • Bruce, - rbwinn - May 16, 2001 - 03:10 UTC
                    • Bruce - bruce - May 16, 2001 - 04:27 UTC
                      • Clocks - rbwinn - May 16, 2001 - 22:13 UTC
                        • Excuses, excuses.. - bruce - May 17, 2001 - 04:56 UTC
                          • 38,000 nanoseconds - rbwinn - May 17, 2001 - 12:56 UTC
                            • Speed not distance - thunder005 - May 17, 2001 - 20:14 UTC
                              • re:speed not distance - rbwinn - May 18, 2001 - 00:35 UTC
                                • Space time... - thunder005 - May 18, 2001 - 04:55 UTC
                                  • Fritz - bruce - May 18, 2001 - 05:49 UTC
                            • Sure - bruce - May 18, 2001 - 04:48 UTC
                              • satellite - rbwinn - May 18, 2001 - 06:56 UTC
                                • As you've been told many times... - bruce - May 18, 2001 - 21:07 UTC
                                  • adieu - rbwinn - May 19, 2001 - 19:41 UTC
                                    • I would like you.. - bruce - May 19, 2001 - 20:45 UTC
                                      • velocity - rbwinn - May 20, 2001 - 04:36 UTC
                                        • The only thing you've proven.. - bruce - May 20, 2001 - 22:54 UTC
                                          • adieu again - rbwinn - May 21, 2001 - 23:16 UTC
                                            • You are a fool - bruce - May 21, 2001 - 23:35 UTC
                                              • You are a name caller - rbwinn - May 22, 2001 - 13:10 UTC