He also thinks the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg and that 9/11 was
an inside job, amongst other fantasies.
Le 13/04/2023 à 17:59, Python a écrit :
He also thinks the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg and that 9/11 was
an inside job, amongst other fantasies.
Yes, it's true.
I sign.
And?
For the Titanic, the boat was poorly designed, and could not hold the
sea for more than four days...
It broke in two at the front end, which sank immediately.
The main body of the boat then drifted for several minutes before
sinking much further.
You watch too many movies on TV.
The iceberg was just an invention to touch the icebreaker insurance and
not to ridicule the creators of "the unsinkable that God himself could
sink" and the Royal Navy.
LOL.
He farted on his own after four days.
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 13/04/2023 à 17:59, Python a écrit :
He also thinks the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg and that 9/11 was
an inside job, amongst other fantasies.
Yes, it's true.
I sign.
And?
For the Titanic, the boat was poorly designed, and could not hold the
sea for more than four days...
It broke in two at the front end, which sank immediately.
The main body of the boat then drifted for several minutes before
sinking much further.
You watch too many movies on TV.
The iceberg was just an invention to touch the icebreaker insurance and
not to ridicule the creators of "the unsinkable that God himself could
sink" and the Royal Navy.
LOL.
He farted on his own after four days.
R.M.S. Titanic farted?
Le 14/04/2023 à 10:14, Python a écrit :
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 13/04/2023 à 17:59, Python a écrit :
He also thinks the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg and that 9/11 was
an inside job, amongst other fantasies.
Yes, it's true.
I sign.
And?
For the Titanic, the boat was poorly designed, and could not hold the
sea for more than four days...
It broke in two at the front end, which sank immediately.
The main body of the boat then drifted for several minutes before
sinking much further.
You watch too many movies on TV.
The iceberg was just an invention to touch the icebreaker insurance
and not to ridicule the creators of "the unsinkable that God himself
could sink" and the Royal Navy.
LOL.
He farted on his own after four days.
R.M.S. Titanic farted?
We know today that witnesses were paid not to say that the boat had
broken in two.
Me, I'm stupid
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:09:50 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:43:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.
Only one could be going slower than the other.
Such predicted contradictions do not belong.
Not even wrong. Gobbledygook.Mitchell RaemschYou are right.
But I think that they were trying to describe actual situation:
1. Clocks A and B are in relative motion.
2. A is accumulating clock seconds slower than B.
3. A is accumulating clock seconds faster than B.
4. But they don't know which of the above is the actual true.
5. So they cover both possibilities and knowing that only one of the statement is true.
Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using
the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to
use it.
Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing?Yes.
The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround.
The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration.
The situation is not symmetric.
Or is it calculated.
It can be calculated as well.
What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like a GPS that could show the person on board
where he is in this space time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from?
You could simple run a projection from accelerometers but during a coasting stage, the stage where the spaceship is moving
with constant velocity, is there anything that will inform the person on board that he is taking a particular path.
Basically, can a navigation system for spacetime be created, in theory?
On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using >> the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to
use it.
Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing?Yes.
The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround.
The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration.
The situation is not symmetric.
Or is it calculated.
It can be calculated as well.
What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like a GPS that could show the person on boardI would think all that is needed is a clock measuring proper time of the traveler and an accelerometer. And computing power to keep track of everything, so if there is zero acceleration for a year, you know that
where he is in this space time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from?
you were moving at a certain constant speed for a year, but need past history to compute what the speed (relative to the start) would be.
You could simple run a projection from accelerometers but during a coasting stage, the stage where the spaceship is movingPast history of all accelerations and times.
with constant velocity, is there anything that will inform the person on board that he is taking a particular path.
Basically, can a navigation system for spacetime be created, in theory?
JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 5:46:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
The truth is that the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are correct.
I think it is true that Henri Poincaré was the greatest mathematician in >> the history of mankind, but not only that.
Excellent physicist, very good philosopher.
So the problem is not his.
The problem is that, once these transformations have been given, what have
human beings done with them?
Minkowski block.
It is pathetic.
That's not AT ALL what Poincaré meant.
The only one in the whole history of humanity who was able to take his
equations to carry them further is another Frenchman (Richard Hachel).
Ah, we finally know now. Another monomaniac.No Richard Hachel (aka M.D. Richard Lengrand) is polymaniac.
He also thinks the Titanic didn't hit an iceberg and that 9/11 was
an inside job, amongst other fantasies.
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has claimed that Poland would
cease to exist if a direct war were to occur between Russia and NATO, regardless of the outcome.
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:37:14 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:You keep making it into some sort of personal issue.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:That Einsteinian science is wrong jan.
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.False.
But even he said he could be wrong...
He was more honest than you say you
are.
But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual
time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction.
There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrectNo. Just you...Only one could be going slower than the other.Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying.
Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished
already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that everyone is an idiot?
The paradox has always been a real contradiction.
assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, come
up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's
the problem, not relativity.
(*)You assume that the same set of clocks participatesComparing two clocks the following possibilities exist:
in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make
that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock
must be running both faster and slower than some other
clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in
relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more
detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by
such mirages in the desert.
1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B
2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate.
Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying.Do you see Einstein's nonsense that:Except this is not what Einstein says.
A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. ???????????
This has been posted on this NG countless times over the years butYour summary above is stating something very different than
what relativity says.
here is a recent iteration: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/quhr5NzrTio/m/bzzqG9rWBAAJ
So give us the real statement what relativity is saying.Read that post I referred to above. Relativity definitely does NOT say
I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit.
that "each clock is slower than the other", which is obvious nonsense. Relativity would not have survived (would not have been accepted
for publication even) if it claimed any siuch ludicrous thing.
--
Jan
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:You keep making it into some sort of personal issue.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:That Einsteinian science is wrong jan.
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.False.
But even he said he could be wrong...
He was more honest than you say you
are.
But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual
time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction.
There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrectNo. Just you...Only one could be going slower than the other.Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying.
Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did
say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished
already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that
everyone is an idiot?
The paradox has always been a real contradiction.
assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, come
up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's
the problem, not relativity.
(*)You assume that the same set of clocks participatesComparing two clocks the following possibilities exist:
in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make
that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock
must be running both faster and slower than some other
clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in
relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more
detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by
such mirages in the desert.
1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B
2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate.
Do you see Einstein's nonsense that:Except this is not what Einstein says.
A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
???????????
Your summary above is stating something very different than
what relativity says.
I find it amazing that 117 later people are still making this
elementary mistake. Not only that, they just assume that
nobody else would have noticed such a trivial error in 117
years.
The sheer amount of pure Hollywood-like fantasy required to
sustain such nonsensical claim is rather impressive (assuming
no mental illness, of course).
--
Jan
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:09:50 PM UTC+5, Ken Seto wrote:and IRT is described fully in my book:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:43:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.
Only one could be going slower than the other.
Such predicted contradictions do not belong.
Mitchell RaemschYou are right.
But I think that they were trying to describe actual situation:
1. Clocks A and B are in relative motion.
2. A is accumulating clock seconds slower than B.
3. A is accumulating clock seconds faster than B.
4. But they don't know which of the above is the actual true.
5. So they cover both possibilities and knowing that only one of the statement is true.
6. Checkout my theory IRT. Each clock has two possibilities:A predicts that B is accumulating clock seconds slower or faster than A. and B is accumulating clock second faster than A. Only one of these predictions is correct. My theory is called IRT
Model Mechanics: The Final Theory
Unfortunately Microsoft blocked my book on line. Amazon posted my book (in pdf form) online in their site with the following link:
Amazon_BookOnline.pdf
Fact: it is available on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Model-Mechanics-Ken-H-Seto/dp/0964713624
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:Except this is not what Einstein says.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:You keep making it into some sort of personal issue.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:That Einsteinian science is wrong jan.
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.False.
But even he said he could be wrong...
He was more honest than you say you
are.
But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual
time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction.
There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrectNo. Just you...Only one could be going slower than the other.Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying.
Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did
say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished
already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that
everyone is an idiot?
The paradox has always been a real contradiction.
assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, come
up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's
the problem, not relativity.
(*)You assume that the same set of clocks participates
in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make
that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock
must be running both faster and slower than some other
clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in
relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more
detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by
such mirages in the desert.
1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B
2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate.
Do you see Einstein's nonsense that:
A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
???????????
Your summary above is stating something very different than
what relativity says.
I find it amazing that 117 later people are still making this
elementary mistake. Not only that, they just assume that
nobody else would have noticed such a trivial error in 117
years.
Why don't you tell us what SR really say instead of making assertions that that's not what SR say?
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:You forgot already, Stupid Ken? You have been told repeatedly what it
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
Comparing two clocks the following possibilities exist:
1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B
2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate.
Do you see Einstein's nonsense that:
A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
???????????
Except this is not what Einstein says.
Your summary above is stating something very different than
what relativity says.
I find it amazing that 117 later people are still making this
elementary mistake. Not only that, they just assume that
nobody else would have noticed such a trivial error in 117
years.
Why don't you tell us what SR really say instead of making assertions that that's not what SR say?
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:54:27 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/12/23 3:15 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
That means that when two people get back together again, theYes, while they are together.
clocks will tick the same.
that means the approaching motion case time contraction, insteadYou need to improve your logic skills. This does not follow at
of time dilation.
all.
What it really means is that in terms of one clock's coordinates,
the other clock has decreasing "time dilation" as they come back
together with decreasing relative velocity. Once they are back
together they have zero relative velocity and identical clock tick
rates.
Note: this says nothing about the elapsed proper times of the two
clocks -- that is related to their two paths through spacetime, and
not merely their relative velocity.
Tom Roberts
Hi Tom,
when velocity decreased in outgoing direction, time dilation would
decrease too.
when the clock move back. there is different story.
When the traveling twin (other clock) comes back, the velocity
becomes negative, the other clock would experience time contraction
instead of time dilation.
I described this situation in detail in
chapter 7 of my book Absolute time.
I described this situation in detail in
chapter 7 of my book Absolute time.
Then it's wrong and not worth reading.
Tom Roberts
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:21:46 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Speed of light relative to what?To ANY frame of reference, imbecile.
On 4/13/2023 1:34 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein's 1905 paper reaches the transform without mentioning or using >> the aether at all, other than to state up front that he's not going to
use it.
Is the different path through space time detectable by either party? Is it a real thing?Yes.
The traveling twin experiences acceleration at the turnaround.
The stay-at-home twin does not experience the acceleration.
The situation is not symmetric.
Or is it calculated.
It can be calculated as well.
What I mean is, is there some sort of space time navigation device like a GPS that could show the person on boardI would think all that is needed is a clock measuring proper time of the traveler and an accelerometer. And computing power to keep track of everything, so if there is zero acceleration for a year, you know that
where he is in this space time and what sensors would it use to obtain its data from?
you were moving at a certain constant speed for a year, but need past history to compute what the speed (relative to the start) would be.
You could simple run a projection from accelerometers but during a coasting stage, the stage where the spaceship is movingPast history of all accelerations and times.
with constant velocity, is there anything that will inform the person on board that he is taking a particular path.
Basically, can a navigation system for spacetime be created, in theory?
Speed of light relative to what?
So a spaceship travelling at 0.5c will be travelling at 0.5c as measured in all frames of reference?
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:41:36 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
So a spaceship travelling at 0.5c will be travelling at 0.5c as measured in all frames of reference?You mean... you did not know this? This is really basic relativity... just what do you think that Einstein meant when he wrote... "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer."?
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:59:49 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:41:36 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
So a spaceship travelling at 0.5c will be travelling at 0.5c as measured in all frames of reference?You mean... you did not know this? This is really basic relativity... just what do you think that Einstein meant when he wrote... "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer."?
I thought he meant it just for light only. Thus addition of velocities becomes completely meaningless as the velocities between two relatively moving objects in two frames of reference becomes a significant fraction of light.
I do not accept the concept of the velocity of something with respect to nothing as a meaningful concept. It is like using the wave equation
for sound waves or water waves and then applying it to empty space.
This is not a problem of understanding, it is a question of how one is prepared to view the universe.
It's not "relative to nothing". The speed of light is c relative to EVERYTHING (inertial).
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 08:45:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
It's not "relative to nothing". The speed of light is c relative to EVERYTHING (inertial).EVERYTHING (inertial) is nothing, stupid Mike.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:06:30 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 08:45:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.It's not "relative to nothing". The speed of light is c relative to EVERYTHING (inertial).EVERYTHING (inertial) is nothing, stupid Mike.
If I am to be called names I may as well cash in.
You want to believe that go ahead.
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.
Only one clock can be slower than the other at the same time. That is why
the Twin paradox is wrong...
Mitchell Raemsch
Only one clock can be slower than the other at the same time. That is why
the Twin paradox is wrong...
Mitchell Raemsch
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen. The
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description.
"Trying to understand the way nature works
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 21:02:02 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description.Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to
remind that you had to announce its significant
part false, as it didn't want to fit your madness.
Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature worksis a mistake. It doesn't work, it never worked.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:06:30 PM UTC+5, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 08:45:30 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
It's not "relative to nothing". The speed of light is c relative toEVERYTHING (inertial) is nothing, stupid Mike.
EVERYTHING (inertial).
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.
If I am to be called names I may as well cash in.
You want to believe that go ahead.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:32:14 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:21:46 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Speed of light relative to what?To ANY frame of reference, imbecile.
Velocity without a reference frame does not make any sense. If you mean velocity relative to all other frames of reference, that also does not
make sense.
So a spaceship travelling at 0.5c will be travelling at 0.5c as measured in all frames of reference?
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:02:02 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen. The
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
Oh is that the game we are playing? Subtle trickery?
The intial arguments for SRT rely on Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Relativity, which Einstein calls
the 'Principle of Relativity'. He does make the claim that the present (in 1905, pre-Relativity)
methods of understanding time and measurement may be suspect, but that is a claim.
The problem with the paper is clarity. There is no mention of how closing velocity is different
from relative velocity, which every schoolboy knows if he has done Mathematics. There is
no discussion of real-time effects as opposed to recorded events. I am not sure it will be understood
here, but the lightning and train tracks thoughtless experiment is easily solved: which lightning strike
was first? Stop the train, get out and take measurements.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:37:09 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
On 17-Apr-23 10:55 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:02:02 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen.
Stopping the train and getting out involves choosing an inertial frame
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
Oh is that the game we are playing? Subtle trickery?
The intial arguments for SRT rely on Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Relativity, which Einstein calls
the 'Principle of Relativity'. He does make the claim that the present (in 1905, pre-Relativity)
methods of understanding time and measurement may be suspect, but that is a claim.
The problem with the paper is clarity. There is no mention of how closing velocity is different
from relative velocity, which every schoolboy knows if he has done Mathematics. There is
no discussion of real-time effects as opposed to recorded events. I am not sure it will be understood
here, but the lightning and train tracks thoughtless experiment is easily solved: which lightning strike
was first? Stop the train, get out and take measurements.
in which to do the measurements, and no inertial frame is more valid
than any other.
Sylvia.
So then the initial specification of the problem chooses on inertial frame at rest. Which one to choose?
So the train is moving with respect to the tracks or the tracks are moving with respect to the train.
We do not know
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?
On 17-Apr-23 10:55 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:02:02 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen.
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
Oh is that the game we are playing? Subtle trickery?
The intial arguments for SRT rely on Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Relativity, which Einstein calls
the 'Principle of Relativity'. He does make the claim that the present (in 1905, pre-Relativity)
methods of understanding time and measurement may be suspect, but that is a claim.
The problem with the paper is clarity. There is no mention of how closing velocity is differentStopping the train and getting out involves choosing an inertial frame
from relative velocity, which every schoolboy knows if he has done Mathematics. There is
no discussion of real-time effects as opposed to recorded events. I am not sure it will be understood
here, but the lightning and train tracks thoughtless experiment is easily solved: which lightning strike
was first? Stop the train, get out and take measurements.
in which to do the measurements, and no inertial frame is more valid
than any other.
Sylvia.
[usual stupid rant]
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:37:09 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17-Apr-23 10:55 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:02:02 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen.
Stopping the train and getting out involves choosing an inertial frame
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
Oh is that the game we are playing? Subtle trickery?
The intial arguments for SRT rely on Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Relativity, which Einstein calls
the 'Principle of Relativity'. He does make the claim that the present (in 1905, pre-Relativity)
methods of understanding time and measurement may be suspect, but that is a claim.
The problem with the paper is clarity. There is no mention of how closing velocity is different
from relative velocity, which every schoolboy knows if he has done Mathematics. There is
no discussion of real-time effects as opposed to recorded events. I am not sure it will be understood
here, but the lightning and train tracks thoughtless experiment is easily solved: which lightning strike
was first? Stop the train, get out and take measurements.
in which to do the measurements, and no inertial frame is more valid
than any other.
Sylvia.
So then the initial specification of the problem chooses on inertial frame at rest. Which one to choose?
So the train is moving with respect to the tracks or the tracks are moving with respect to the train.
We do not know
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?You seem highly confused. If you do not want to end up pushing nonsense
like the local bunch of cranks down here (Thomas Heger, Richard Hertz,
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand, etc.) I suggest you to carefully read
part I.1. of Einstein's article (about how to synchronize co-moving
clocks)
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[usual stupid rant]
Oh shut up, idiot!
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:37:09 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17-Apr-23 10:55 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:02:02 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen.
Stopping the train and getting out involves choosing an inertial frame
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
Oh is that the game we are playing? Subtle trickery?
The intial arguments for SRT rely on Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Relativity, which Einstein calls
the 'Principle of Relativity'. He does make the claim that the present (in 1905, pre-Relativity)
methods of understanding time and measurement may be suspect, but that is a claim.
The problem with the paper is clarity. There is no mention of how closing velocity is different
from relative velocity, which every schoolboy knows if he has done Mathematics. There is
no discussion of real-time effects as opposed to recorded events. I am not sure it will be understood
here, but the lightning and train tracks thoughtless experiment is easily solved: which lightning strike
was first? Stop the train, get out and take measurements.
in which to do the measurements, and no inertial frame is more valid
than any other.
Sylvia.
So then the initial specification of the problem chooses on inertial frame at rest. Which one to choose?
So the train is moving with respect to the tracks or the tracks are moving with respect to the train.
We do not know
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?You seem highly confused. If you do not want to end up pushing nonsense
like the local bunch of cranks down here (Thomas Heger, Richard Hertz,
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand, etc.) I suggest you to carefully read
part I.1. of Einstein's article (about how to synchronize co-moving
clocks). It is a part that is too often overlooked by most people
(or they miserably fail to get the point).
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:11:03 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:37:09 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17-Apr-23 10:55 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:02:02 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen.
You seem highly confused. If you do not want to end up pushing nonsenseStopping the train and getting out involves choosing an inertial frame >>>> in which to do the measurements, and no inertial frame is more valid
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
Oh is that the game we are playing? Subtle trickery?
The intial arguments for SRT rely on Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Relativity, which Einstein calls
the 'Principle of Relativity'. He does make the claim that the present (in 1905, pre-Relativity)
methods of understanding time and measurement may be suspect, but that is a claim.
The problem with the paper is clarity. There is no mention of how closing velocity is different
from relative velocity, which every schoolboy knows if he has done Mathematics. There is
no discussion of real-time effects as opposed to recorded events. I am not sure it will be understood
here, but the lightning and train tracks thoughtless experiment is easily solved: which lightning strike
was first? Stop the train, get out and take measurements.
than any other.
Sylvia.
So then the initial specification of the problem chooses on inertial frame at rest. Which one to choose?
So the train is moving with respect to the tracks or the tracks are moving with respect to the train.
We do not know
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?
like the local bunch of cranks down here (Thomas Heger, Richard Hertz,
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand, etc.) I suggest you to carefully read
part I.1. of Einstein's article (about how to synchronize co-moving
clocks). It is a part that is too often overlooked by most people
(or they miserably fail to get the point).
I get confused when my question are not answered. No on can say a question cannot be asked. There should be an answer to every question even if it is 'your question makes no sense' in case I will re-word it.
I understand the synchronization of stationary clocks by the light signal method.
What I do not understand is the need to synchronize moving clocks by the same method.
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:happen. The quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:11:03 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:37:09 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17-Apr-23 10:55 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:02:02 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will
You seem highly confused. If you do not want to end up pushing nonsense >> like the local bunch of cranks down here (Thomas Heger, Richard Hertz,Stopping the train and getting out involves choosing an inertial frame >>>> in which to do the measurements, and no inertial frame is more valid >>>> than any other.
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
Oh is that the game we are playing? Subtle trickery?
The intial arguments for SRT rely on Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Relativity, which Einstein calls
the 'Principle of Relativity'. He does make the claim that the present (in 1905, pre-Relativity)
methods of understanding time and measurement may be suspect, but that is a claim.
The problem with the paper is clarity. There is no mention of how closing velocity is different
from relative velocity, which every schoolboy knows if he has done Mathematics. There is
no discussion of real-time effects as opposed to recorded events. I am not sure it will be understood
here, but the lightning and train tracks thoughtless experiment is easily solved: which lightning strike
was first? Stop the train, get out and take measurements.
Sylvia.
So then the initial specification of the problem chooses on inertial frame at rest. Which one to choose?
So the train is moving with respect to the tracks or the tracks are moving with respect to the train.
We do not know
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand, etc.) I suggest you to carefully read
part I.1. of Einstein's article (about how to synchronize co-moving
clocks). It is a part that is too often overlooked by most people
(or they miserably fail to get the point).
I get confused when my question are not answered. No on can say a question cannot be asked. There should be an answer to every question even if it is 'your question makes no sense' in case I will re-word it.
I understand the synchronization of stationary clocks by the light signal method.Really? If you did, you wouldn't post such confused questions.
What I do not understand is the need to synchronize moving clocks by the same method.There is nothing of that kind in SR. It basically cannot be done in a consistent way.
You are indeed highly confused.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?It is a pre-condition of the thought experiment.
Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to go
through it two or three times, because if you blink at the
wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind
up very confused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:26:33 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?It is a pre-condition of the thought experiment.
Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to goWhy choose the center of radiation of the light to be the endpoints of M instead of M'?
through it two or three times, because if you blink at the
wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind
up very confused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
Each observer will see the end of the train and light emanating from that spot. Moving sources are equivalent to non moving sources if the second postulate is true. If the light from the source is seen by both M and M' then it is not moving withrespect to each.
Why cant anyone see this?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[usual stupid rant]
Oh shut up, idiot!
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:41:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:quantum mechanical and the relativity ideas are examples of this."
The transmission of anything at a velocity c relative to EVERYTHING else is a hopeless tautology that is not worthy of science.No one ever claimed that relativity was easy to understand. It is clearly not in the least intuative.
There is no substitute for study.
"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean."
"Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability. It involves subtle trickery, beautiful tightropes of logic on which one has to walk in order not to make a mistake in predicting what will happen. The
- Richard P. Feynman (both quotes)
I understand the synchronization of stationary clocks by the light signal method.
Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion
he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that
his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than
the other... not both...
Mitchell Raemsch
Le 17/04/2023 à 15:48, Python a écrit :...
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Instead of continuing to play the monkey, you better explain clearly WHY
the good old doctor Hachel does not understand and refuses the synchronization of Einstein.
R.H.
The syncnronization described in the 1905 paper is better characterised as initial synchronization, or initialized. It cannot mean synchronized
in the sense of running in lockstep with each other.
A series of back and forth signals would have to take place to establish
that the clocks are running in lockstep with each other.
Is this the source of your difficulty?
Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion
he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that
his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than
the other... not both...
Mitchell Raemsch
He proposed another theory of motion
he called Closing Velocity.
I see no references
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 6:43:45 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 2:20:08 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:37:14 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:35:21 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:12:33 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:45:22 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:28:54 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:You keep making it into some sort of personal issue.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:That Einsteinian science is wrong jan.
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.False.
But even he said he could be wrong...
He was more honest than you say you
are.
But this is simply a mathematical issue: the mutual
time dilation in relativity is not a contradiction.
There is no contradiction there. You make an incorrect assumption along the way and, unsurprisingly, comeNo. Just you...Only one could be going slower than the other.Not even wrong. This is NOT what relativity is saying.
Just stop and think for one second: if relativity in fact did
say what you claim, it would be instantly demolished
already in early December 1905. What are you thinking, that everyone is an idiot?
The paradox has always been a real contradiction.
up with an error. But it's your wrong assumption(*) that's
the problem, not relativity.
(*)You assume that the same set of clocks participatesComparing two clocks the following possibilities exist:
in the time dilation comparison. Obviously, if you make
that FALSE assumption, you get nonsense: the same clock
must be running both faster and slower than some other
clock. But this is NOT how the time dilation works in relativity. You really ought to study this theory in more detail. Until you do that, you'll be forever haunted by
such mirages in the desert.
1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B
2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B.
3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate.
Why are you refusing to give us what Einstein is really saying.Do you see Einstein's nonsense that:Except this is not what Einstein says.
A sees B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than A.
B sees A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate than B. ???????????
This has been posted on this NG countless times over the years butYour summary above is stating something very different than
what relativity says.
here is a recent iteration: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/quhr5NzrTio/m/bzzqG9rWBAAJ
So give us the real statement what relativity is saying.Read that post I referred to above. Relativity definitely does NOT say that "each clock is slower than the other", which is obvious nonsense. Relativity would not have survived (would not have been accepted
I think that you don't know what relativity is saying. So you just give your bullshit.
for publication even) if it claimed any siuch ludicrous thing.
I did not say that "each clock is slower is slower than the other."Not that it's running slower but comparing certain clocks and
I said that A predicts that B is running slower than A.
and that and that B predicts that A is running slower than B.
calculating yields that result. It's about certain rates measured
*at a distance*.
There is no contradiction in that, it's like that example of two roads
I gave: the key point is that until A and B turn around, all they are
doing is calculating time rates at a distance using their (distant)
clocks.
--
Jan
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:04 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:26:33 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:56:17 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
So why is it the lightning strikes are simultaneous in the track frame? Who is to say that?It is a pre-condition of the thought experiment.
The centers of radiation are where/when the bars strike eachTry this animation of mine. You will probably need to goWhy choose the center of radiation of the light to be the endpoints of M instead of M'?
through it two or three times, because if you blink at the
wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind
up very confused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
other to create sparks. So the centers of radiation are the
endpoints of *BOTH*. View the animation again. You are
misinterpreting what you see.
They would say: "It's just incredible, they have understood the most difficult part (the relativity of chronotropy by change of reference
frame) and their gamma factor is correct; but are unable to understand the simple notion of anisotropy, and they believe again to the notion of
"plane of present time in a given inertial frame".
I think their astonishment would be very great.
R.H.
Maybe you could define what Chronotropy and Bathnotropy is or refer to the post
so we can clear this up?
OK "That is, the way they measure time internally. In short, internal, proper chronotropy."
What else is there? Sorry I ask you to repeat yourself.
Le 19/04/2023 à 14:39, "gehan.am...@gmail.com" a écrit :
Maybe you could define what Chronotropy and Bathnotropy is or refer to the post
so we can clear this up?
OK "That is, the way they measure time internally. In short, internal, proper
chronotropy."
What else is there? Sorry I ask you to repeat yourself.What is the bathmotropy of a human heart?
It's his excitability.
For example, if you consume a lot of coffee, it is possible that the bathmotropia of your heart is greater.
It is a medical term, of course, but I do not see why physicists could
not, too, use this term.
When doctors measure someone's height, they use meters.
They say "this man is 1.78m tall."
Physicists use the same notion, they say: "This particle traveled 253m."
Doctors and physicists can thus agree on a concept, and use the same term.
In physics, the bathmotropy of watches is their reciprocal excitability.
If the bathmotropy is more important, the chronotropy is more important.
If a heart is more excitable, it beats faster.
Chronotropy and bathmotropy MUST enter the vocabulary of relativistic physicists.
It's still not the ocean to drink that we ask them.
When two watches are in motion with respect to each other, there will
exist in relativity, a strange phenomenon which makes their reciprocal bathmotropy seem to decrease.
Each of the watches considers that the other has a less excitable, less efficient mechanism.
This is the notion of reciprocal negative bathmotropy.
This is a universal internal mechanism.
But that is not all.
In addition, another phenomenon will occur which is linked to spatial anisochrony (the fact that absolute simultaneity does not exist for two entities, even fixed ones, which are not in the same place), and the time measured by one watch compared to another will therefore be doubly disturbed.
The formula for comparing the times measured will therefore be, in total: t=t₀.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
The numerator being a factor of the anisochrony crossed, the denominator being linked to the reciprocal chronotropy (how time is measured in
relation to the other frame of reference).
R.H.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=e6CbtcFcSzIhxcsUfdbU5XU0bps@jntp>
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 8:21:47 PM UTC+5, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 19/04/2023 à 14:39, "gehan.am...@gmail.com" a écrit :
Maybe you could define what Chronotropy and Bathnotropy is or refer to the post
so we can clear this up?
OK "That is, the way they measure time internally. In short, internal, proper
chronotropy."
What else is there? Sorry I ask you to repeat yourself.What is the bathmotropy of a human heart?
It's his excitability.
For example, if you consume a lot of coffee, it is possible that the bathmotropia of your heart is greater.
It is a medical term, of course, but I do not see why physicists could not, too, use this term.
When doctors measure someone's height, they use meters.
They say "this man is 1.78m tall."
Physicists use the same notion, they say: "This particle traveled 253m."
Doctors and physicists can thus agree on a concept, and use the same term.
In physics, the bathmotropy of watches is their reciprocal excitability.
If the bathmotropy is more important, the chronotropy is more important.
If a heart is more excitable, it beats faster.
Chronotropy and bathmotropy MUST enter the vocabulary of relativistic physicists.
It's still not the ocean to drink that we ask them.
When two watches are in motion with respect to each other, there will exist in relativity, a strange phenomenon which makes their reciprocal bathmotropy seem to decrease.
Each of the watches considers that the other has a less excitable, less efficient mechanism.
This is the notion of reciprocal negative bathmotropy.
This is a universal internal mechanism.
But that is not all.
In addition, another phenomenon will occur which is linked to spatial anisochrony (the fact that absolute simultaneity does not exist for two entities, even fixed ones, which are not in the same place), and the time measured by one watch compared to another will therefore be doubly disturbed.
The formula for comparing the times measured will therefore be, in total: t=t₀.(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
The numerator being a factor of the anisochrony crossed, the denominator being linked to the reciprocal chronotropy (how time is measured in relation to the other frame of reference).
R.H.I see, thank you, it is a sort of relative ticking rate:
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=e6CbtcFcSzIhxcsUfdbU5XU0bps@jntp>
Bathmotropic often refers to modifying the degree of excitability specifically of the heart; in general, it refers to modification of the degree of excitability (threshold of excitation) of musculature in general, including the heart.
Bathmotropic - Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Not sure I agree with this though
>Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion
he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that
his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than
the other... not both...
Mitchell Raemsch
He proposed another theory of motion
he called Closing Velocity.
I see no references
On 4/17/2023 10:43 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed another theory of motion
he called Closing Velocity. Relativity clearly has contradictions that
his other theory does not. Only one clock can be going slower than
the other... not both...
Mitchell Raemsch
He proposed another theory of motion
he called Closing Velocity.
I see no referencesMitch never provides references. He pulls his "facts" from his butt,
sniffs them, and if he likes what he smells, he declares them true.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:14:03 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:06:04 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:If I am on a moving rod and lightning strikes the ends which one do I see first?
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:26:33 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:The centers of radiation are where/when the bars strike each
Try this animation of mine. You will probably need to goWhy choose the center of radiation of the light to be the endpoints of M instead of M'?
through it two or three times, because if you blink at the
wrong moment, you will miss important events and wind
up very confused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_and_Embankment_Thought_Experiment_And_Its_Inverse.gif
other to create sparks. So the centers of radiation are the
endpoints of *BOTH*. View the animation again. You are
misinterpreting what you see.
(a) If I am moving with respect to the Aether
(b) If there is no Aether and I cannot say if I am moving or not
Where is the misinterpretation?
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:31:00 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 8:21:47 PM UTC+5, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 19/04/2023 à 14:39, "gehan.am...@gmail.com" a écrit :
Maybe you could define what Chronotropy and Bathnotropy is or refer to the post
Not sure I agree with this thoughIs light speed absolute?
If so does it not wave in time
and is that not its absolute
time?
The atom motion gives
it slow time that is not
relativistic.
Define speed of light.
Why not velocity of light?
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Define speed of light.
Why not velocity of light?So... to the best of your ability... what is the difference between speed and velocity?
Hint: high-school physics for freshman...
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:27:52 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Define speed of light.
Why not velocity of light?So... to the best of your ability... what is the difference between speed and velocity?
Hint: high-school physics for freshman...Paul? isn't that a little superficial?
Why would that make you smart you idiot?
Gamma is not programmed by velocity.
Direction does not count.
In E=mc squared c isn't velocity either.
Einstein didn't call his light movement
a velocity. He knew better. His law
of motion was a constant "speed"
of light.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Define speed of light.
Why not velocity of light?So... to the best of your ability... what is the difference between speed and velocity?
Hint: high-school physics for freshman...
Speed is simply the distance divided by time regardless of direction...
On Friday, 21 April 2023 at 10:44:39 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Speed is simply the distance divided by time regardless of direction...Another common sense prejudice, refuted by your idiot gurus
with their inflation "discovery".
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 9:18:39 AM UTC+5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:27:52 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Define speed of light.
Why not velocity of light?So... to the best of your ability... what is the difference between speed and velocity?
Don't you need some additional qualifications when you talk about the speed of light?Hint: high-school physics for freshman...Paul? isn't that a little superficial?
Why would that make you smart you idiot?
Gamma is not programmed by velocity.
Direction does not count.
In E=mc squared c isn't velocity either.
Einstein didn't call his light movement
a velocity. He knew better. His law
of motion was a constant "speed"
of light.
Wikipedia again:
"velocity of light wikipedia"
Search term leads to the following result:
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Speed_of_light
Which says:
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant that is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 300,000 kilometres per second; 186,000 miles per second; 671 million miles per hour).[Note 3] "
"It also is generally assumed that the speed of light is isotropic, meaning that it has the same value regardless of the direction in which it is measured."
The high school physics they taught me would require, if I held to the principles taught, to define velocity of light, and speed of light separately but never mind that, and be more specific.
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 4:53:52 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 9:18:39 AM UTC+5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:27:52 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Define speed of light.
Why not velocity of light?So... to the best of your ability... what is the difference between speed and velocity?
Don't you need some additional qualifications when you talk about the speed of light?Hint: high-school physics for freshman...Paul? isn't that a little superficial?
Why would that make you smart you idiot?
Gamma is not programmed by velocity.
Direction does not count.
In E=mc squared c isn't velocity either.
Einstein didn't call his light movement
a velocity. He knew better. His law
of motion was a constant "speed"
of light.
Wikipedia again:
"velocity of light wikipedia"
Search term leads to the following result:
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Speed_of_light
Which says:
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant that is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 300,000 kilometres per second; 186,000 miles per second; 671 million miles per hour).[Note 3] "
"It also is generally assumed that the speed of light is isotropic, meaning that it has the same value regardless of the direction in which it is measured."
The high school physics they taught me would require, if I held to the principles taught, to define velocity of light, and speed of light separately but never mind that, and be more specific.So, which is the "velocity" of the light the Sun emits?
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:30:31 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
The high school physics they taught me would require, if I held to the principles taught, to define velocity of light, and speed of light separately but never mind that, and be more specific.
So, which is the "velocity" of the light the Sun emits?
Light from the sun consists of photons emitted in all directions.
It is interesting that Einstein used the term velocity of light:
"namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."
It is interesting that Einstein used the term velocity of light:
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.The contradiction is already in the ad hoc premise guaranteeing a contradictory result. Contradictory premises do not predict. Relativity does not predict. It is not a science.
Only one could be going slower than the other.
Such predicted contradictions do not belong.
Mitchell Raemsch
El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 11:09:09 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:30:31 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
The high school physics they taught me would require, if I held to the principles taught, to define velocity of light, and speed of light separately but never mind that, and be more specific.
So, which is the "velocity" of the light the Sun emits?
Light from the sun consists of photons emitted in all directions.
Therefore the light from the Sun has a speed and not a velocity (which is a vector)
It is interesting that Einstein used the term velocity of light:
"namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."
That is a problem of the translation from German to English.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:43:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
is a contradiction in Einsteinian science.
Only one could be going slower than the other.
Such predicted contradictions do not belong.
Mitchell RaemschThe contradiction is already in the ad hoc premise guaranteeing a contradictory result. Contradictory premises do not predict. Relativity does not predict. It is not a science.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:04:08 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,800 |
