• Re: EInstein's 1905 SR HOAX: How a young clerk used false arguments and

    From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 15 18:05:00 2023
    From original post:
    ####################
    "It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
    ...
    #############

    Does this help?

    https://www.academia.edu/23386807/The_core_mathematical_error_of_Einsteins_Special_Relativity_Theory

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 15 18:09:02 2023
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:05:02 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    From original post:
    ####################
    "It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.
    ...
    #############

    Does this help?

    https://www.academia.edu/23386807/The_core_mathematical_error_of_Einsteins_Special_Relativity_Theory


    It doesn't since Valentin Danci is a crank. Just like you, Gehan.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 15 20:23:04 2023
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 9:54:37 PM UTC-3, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    <snip>

    From original post:
    ####################
    "It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.

    Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.

    Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY). "
    #############

    Specifically what are the false assumptions and can they be shown to be contradictory through a stepped reasoning process?
    If it is at all possible.

    The false assumptions are in plain sight. That's why I wrote four quotes of the 1905 paper in the OP.
    Read them and reason along with this additional quote:

    Quote 5, from "§1. Definition of Simultaneity": *************************************************
    "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
    by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events.
    If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
    the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of B.
    But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
    We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.”
    We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
    that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
    Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
    and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.
    In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

    tB - tA = t'A - tB

    We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following
    relations are universally valid:—

    1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
    2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
    *************************************************

    TRANSLATION OF THE ABOVE GOBBLEDYGOOK:

    1) At arbitrary points A and B of a 3D space, there are two observers (oA and oB) who have mechanical clocks that mark time by the
    position of the hands (toA, which marks A time, and toB, which marks B time).

    2) Clocks toA and toB are running free, and it's not known if they are synchronized. Light has to be used for this process.

    3) There is a radial distance |A - B| = |B - A| between both points, which are covered in a time t1 = |A - B|/c, and in a
    time t2 = |B - A|/c.
    To simplify, let's call BA = |A - B| = |B - A| as the radial distance between A(x,y,z) and B(x,y,z).

    4) Einstein define BY FORCE that COMMON TIME FOR A AND B is established by making t1 = t2. In his words, he called
    clocks toA and toB as being SYNCHRONIZED if they verify t1 = t2.

    As there is no way to measure OWLS, even in a thought experiment, Einstein resorted to the tricky TWLS, assuming light speed isotropy.

    The sequence of events is as follows:

    1) When toA = tA, a ray of light departs from A toward B.
    2) When toB = tB, the ray of light reaches B position (radial travel) and bounces back toward A.
    3) When toA = t'A, the reflected ray of light reaches A.

    That t1 = t2 means that tB - tA = t'A - tB. This is enough proof, for Einstein, that clocks toA and toB are synchronized.

    FALLACY 1: Isotropy of the speed of light is INSERTED AS A FACT, not even as a CONJECTURE.

    FALLACY 2: There is NO MEANS by which the mark toB = tB be known. To happen this IMPORTANT EVENT, digital communications
    (not even dreamed by Einstein) should have been used, so the observer oB could have sent his reading toB = tB towards oA.

    By using the TWLS conjecture, he was fallacious by assuming that tA + t'A = 2 tB. If the arbitrary value tA = 0, then

    tB = t'A/2 , which is A FALSE ASSERTION to declare synchronism between toA and toB clocks.

    FALLACY 3: Einstein didn't put limits to BA = |A - B| = |B - A|. What's the value of such distance? 1 mm, 1 m, 1 Km, 100 million Km?
    How could he possibly know that the innocent ray of light behave isotropically in quantum or cosmological distances?

    FALLACY 4: Which is the "common time" that he forgot to declare rigurously? What is SIMULTANEITY?
    Einstein finish "§1. Definition of Simultaneity" with the following ARROGANT, FULL OF FALLACIES COMMENT:

    "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments WE HAVE SETTLED WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have EVIDENTLY OBTAINED A DEFINITION of “SIMULTANEOUS,” or “SYNCHRONOUS,” and of “TIME.” The “TIME” of an event is that which is given
    SIMULTANEOUSLY with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of
    the event, this clock being synchronous, and INDEED synchronous for all time determinations, with a SPECIFIED stationary clock."

    ---------------------

    So, if you put two clocks 300,000,000 Km apart, and tB = t'A/2 = 1,000 sec THEN toA and toB are in sync?
    And the events involved are called simultaneous, by using the hands of mechanical clocks?

    And if BA = 3 nm, and tB = t'A/2 = 0.01 femtoseconds, THEN toA and toB are in sync? But if at such lengths
    mechanical clocks can't exist!
    And how possibly he could talk about simultaneity and time, if he DIDN'T KNOW THAT SUCH TIME HAD EXISTENCE IN THAT EPOCH.

    CONCLUSION: The fallacious, deceiving narrative of the 1905 paper FAILS to have ANY SENSE in upper and lower limits of time
    and length.

    Because Einstein's relativity is a FUCKING JOKE. Telling that it's a fairy tale would be AN INSULT to such histories
    that childs charish so much.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 16 04:19:19 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:23:06 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 9:54:37 PM UTC-3, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    <snip>
    From original post:
    ####################
    "It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.

    Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.

    Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY). "
    #############

    Specifically what are the false assumptions and can they be shown to be contradictory through a stepped reasoning process?
    If it is at all possible.
    The false assumptions are in plain sight. That's why I wrote four quotes of the 1905 paper in the OP.
    Read them and reason along with this additional quote:

    Quote 5, from "§1. Definition of Simultaneity": *************************************************
    "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A
    by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events.
    If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine
    the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of B.
    But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
    We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.”
    We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
    that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
    Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A,
    and arrive again at A at the “A time” t'A.
    In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
    tB - tA = t'A - tB
    We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following
    relations are universally valid:—

    1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
    2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
    *************************************************

    TRANSLATION OF THE ABOVE GOBBLEDYGOOK:

    1) At arbitrary points A and B of a 3D space, there are two observers (oA and oB) who have mechanical clocks that mark time by the
    position of the hands (toA, which marks A time, and toB, which marks B time).


    OK
    2) Clocks toA and toB are running free, and it's not known if they are synchronized. Light has to be used for this process.

    OK


    3) There is a radial distance |A - B| = |B - A| between both points, which are covered in a time t1 = |A - B|/c, and in a
    time t2 = |B - A|/c.
    To simplify, let's call BA = |A - B| = |B - A| as the radial distance between A(x,y,z) and B(x,y,z).

    OK

    4) Einstein define BY FORCE that COMMON TIME FOR A AND B is established by making t1 = t2. In his words, he called
    clocks toA and toB as being SYNCHRONIZED if they verify t1 = t2.

    Light signal synchronization can be performed by sending light signals from the midpoint between A and B.


    As there is no way to measure OWLS, even in a thought experiment, Einstein resorted to the tricky TWLS, assuming light speed isotropy.


    In a thought experiment, record the time it takes for light to pass A and then pass B. I never understood why OWLS cannot be measured
    and not measured in a thoughtless experiment.
    The sequence of events is as follows:

    1) When toA = tA, a ray of light departs from A toward B.
    2) When toB = tB, the ray of light reaches B position (radial travel) and bounces back toward A.
    3) When toA = t'A, the reflected ray of light reaches A.

    That t1 = t2 means that tB - tA = t'A - tB. This is enough proof, for Einstein, that clocks toA and toB are synchronized.

    FALLACY 1: Isotropy of the speed of light is INSERTED AS A FACT, not even as a CONJECTURE.

    What do you mean?

    FALLACY 2: There is NO MEANS by which the mark toB = tB be known. To happen this IMPORTANT EVENT, digital communications
    (not even dreamed by Einstein) should have been used, so the observer oB could have sent his reading toB = tB towards oA.

    By using the TWLS conjecture, he was fallacious by assuming that tA + t'A = 2 tB. If the arbitrary value tA = 0, then

    tB = t'A/2 , which is A FALSE ASSERTION to declare synchronism between toA and toB clocks.


    Data recorders using the synchronized clocks can be compared after the experiment. There were not videocameras in his day.

    FALLACY 3: Einstein didn't put limits to BA = |A - B| = |B - A|. What's the value of such distance? 1 mm, 1 m, 1 Km, 100 million Km?
    How could he possibly know that the innocent ray of light behave isotropically in quantum or cosmological distances?

    This is a false objection to the thought experiment: this experiment takes place in empty space.

    FALLACY 4: Which is the "common time" that he forgot to declare rigurously? What is SIMULTANEITY?
    Einstein finish "§1. Definition of Simultaneity" with the following ARROGANT, FULL OF FALLACIES COMMENT:

    "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments WE HAVE SETTLED
    WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY synchronous stationary clocks located at different
    places, and have EVIDENTLY OBTAINED A DEFINITION of “SIMULTANEOUS,” or “SYNCHRONOUS,” and of “TIME.” The “TIME” of an event is that which is given
    SIMULTANEOUSLY with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and INDEED synchronous for all time determinations, with a SPECIFIED stationary clock."

    ---------------------

    So, if you put two clocks 300,000,000 Km apart, and tB = t'A/2 = 1,000 sec THEN toA and toB are in sync?
    And the events involved are called simultaneous, by using the hands of mechanical clocks?

    I see what he is doing, imagining information is limited by the speed of light. I believe it is not. Real time information is, but forensics
    are not. If no-one sees the difference between the two I cannot help it.

    Let me try: this is like measuring moves of football players with a referee running to and fro with a tape measure and a clock.

    After the game is over, you can run the recording again in 3D (in advanced technology) and calculate lengths and distances and speed
    to your hearts content, in the frame of reference of the football field.

    And if BA = 3 nm, and tB = t'A/2 = 0.01 femtoseconds, THEN toA and toB are in sync? But if at such lengths
    mechanical clocks can't exist!
    And how possibly he could talk about simultaneity and time, if he DIDN'T KNOW THAT SUCH TIME HAD EXISTENCE IN THAT EPOCH.

    CONCLUSION: The fallacious, deceiving narrative of the 1905 paper FAILS to have ANY SENSE in upper and lower limits of time
    and length.
    The mechanical details do not matter in a thought experiment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 16 06:50:30 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:19:21 AM UTC-3, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:23:06 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    <snip>

    As there is no way to measure OWLS, even in a thought experiment, Einstein resorted to the tricky TWLS, assuming
    light speed isotropy.

    In a thought experiment, record the time it takes for light to pass A and then pass B. I never understood why OWLS cannot be measured
    and not measured in a thoughtless experiment.

    OWLS can not be measured because there is a RECURSION, A CIRCULAR REFERENCE. To know OWLS between A and B REQUIRES that the distance BA BE ALREADY KNOWN, which depends on OWLS. Timing in A and B has to be communicated to either side, which takes TIME
    DURATION (tB - tA) = BA/OWLS.

    Then, from side A, it applies that

    tB = tA + BA/OWLS

    OWLS = BA/(tB - tA)

    But BA = (tB - tA)/OWLS

    It results, then, that OWLS = OWLS

    It's a circular trap, as you can't define BA without knowing OWLS, and you can't define OWLS without knowing BA.

    <snip>

    That t1 = t2 means that tB - tA = t'A - tB. This is enough proof, for Einstein, that clocks toA and toB are synchronized.

    FALLACY 1: Isotropy of the speed of light is INSERTED AS A FACT, not even as a CONJECTURE.

    What do you mean?

    That he assumed that OWLS is the same either measuring light traveling from A to B OR from B to A, with no proof.

    FALLACY 2: There is NO MEANS by which the mark toB = tB be known.

    <snip>

    Data recorders using the synchronized clocks can be compared after the experiment. There were not videocameras in his day.

    Think about THE LIMITS of length BA. You can't use such method in 1 nanometer or 10,000,000 Km.

    FALLACY 3: Einstein didn't put limits to BA = |A - B| = |B - A|. What's the value of such distance? 1 mm, 1 m, 1 Km, 100 million Km?
    How could he possibly know that the innocent ray of light behave isotropically in quantum or cosmological distances?

    This is a false objection to the thought experiment: this experiment takes place in empty space.

    I never questioned that fact.

    FALLACY 4: Which is the "common time" that he forgot to declare rigurously? What is SIMULTANEITY?
    Einstein finish "§1. Definition of Simultaneity" with the following ARROGANT, FULL OF FALLACIES COMMENT:

    <snip>

    So, if you put two clocks 300,000,000 Km apart, and tB = t'A/2 = 1,000 sec THEN toA and toB are in sync?
    And the events involved are called simultaneous, by using the hands of mechanical clocks?

    I see what he is doing, imagining information is limited by the speed of light. I believe it is not. Real time information is, but forensics
    are not. If no-one sees the difference between the two I cannot help it.

    <snip>

    In that epoch, he didn't even think about information. He used time for light emission or reception SIGNALED by the simple detection of a ray of light, which operated on the start/stop mechanism of clocks, to obtain lectures.

    <snip>

    The mechanical details do not matter in a thought experiment.

    Yes, they matter in every thought experiment, because it's the ONLY WAY to insert RATIONALITY in the thoughts.
    One example of stupidity is the Maxwell's demon, by which he IMAGINED violating the laws of thermodynamics. He used a magic
    demon, within a box filled with gas molecules, which was divided in two sealed parts, except for a small door that his demon opened
    and closed at will.

    He IMAGINED that, using that door, he would allow COLD (slow) molecules to pass to the HOT side, while preventing HOT
    molecules in the COLD side to do the same. In this way, he IMAGINED the transfer of HEAT from the COLD side to the HOT
    one, violating thermodynamic laws.

    This was HIGHLY STUPID, but he was Maxwell, a supreme but fallible human. And the MECHANISM was IMPOSSIBLE.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Apr 16 14:03:54 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:43:21 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    <snip more Einstein crap from an apologist, except this pearl>

    The "Einstein's crap" has been correct since 1905, and only
    stupid idiots can think that they can find inconsistencies
    in what has been scrutinised by physicists for 180 years,
    and which is known to be mathematically consistent.

    <snip>

    As a good relativist, you fail even in basic math: 1905 + 180 = 2085 (unless you're predicting that this shit will last till then).

    The Bible, the Talmud and the Coran have been scrutinized by hundred thousand religious people and theologists. And
    this for hundred of years.

    And everyone, in his religious domain, have found each of them religiously consistent, and even found encoded messages.
    And the scrutiny continue, as of today.

    Every religion have normal worshipers and fanatics, except relativity, which has only fanatics.

    And the penalties for heresy, being it any inconsistency, is worse in relativism: morte civile.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 16 22:43:16 2023
    Den 15.04.2023 23:48, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    <snip Paul's parroting Einstein crap. Not a fucking new idea in 118 years>

    The "Einstein's crap" has been correct since 1905, and only
    stupid idiots can think that they can find inconsistencies
    in what has been scrutinised by physicists for 180 years,
    and which is known to be mathematically consistent.


    This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.

    EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:

    Richard haven't even got the number of clocks correct!

    Hard to count to two, Richard? :-D

    I didn't expect anything reasonable from a die hard relativist, who's a dyslexic cretin.

    Not for nothing I introduced notation to CLARIFY the dark, deceiving and fallacious paper that you worship.

    There are THREE CLOCKS, imbecile!

    In Einstein's words, QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the TWO ENDS A and B of the rod,
    CLOCKS ARE PLACED which SYNCHRONIZE WITH THE CLOCKS OF THE STATIONARY SYSTEM, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary system”
    at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"

    The point is that the coordinate clocks of the stationary
    system are synchronous according to the definition in §1.
    And since the indications of clock A and B "correspond at any
    instant to the time of the stationary system at the places where
    they happen to be", clock A and B must also be synchronous in
    the stationary system.

    There is no reference to any _physical_ clock in the stationary system,
    the only point with the quoted statement is the last sentence:
    "These clocks [A and B] are therefore synchronous in the stationary system."

    The only clock indications mentioned in §2 are tA, tB and tA',
    all indications on A and B. There are no other physical clocks
    in Einstein's scenario in §2.

    You can see Einstein's thought experiment explained in more detail
    here:

    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf

    But you won't read it, and will learn nothing, of course.


    <snip utter nonsense>
    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sun Apr 16 18:26:05 2023
    On 4/15/2023 7:16 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

    It's all the same infinitely strange, and in a well-constituted world we should still ask ourselves questions: "Why doesn't Hachel understand
    this notion?"

    Richard Hachel wrote:
    "In the same inertial system, all watches have the same bathmotropy".

    "In the same inertial system, all watches have the same chronotropy".

    Maybe it's because Richard Hachel doesn't understand or know the proper
    phrases for these things that watches purportedly have the same, so
    Richard Hachel makes up nonsense words instead.

    They say they don't understand me...

    Of course "they" don't understand you! You keep adding nonsense words
    which you never even defined to your responses. For example, what is the bathmotropy of a watch? Is it its color? Is it its mass? Is it the
    temperature of the bathwater of the maker of the watch the last time
    s/he took a bath? Do showers count?

    And I am told:
    "all clocks are synchronous in the stationary system".

    Here, it's me who doesn't understand anything.

    Do you know what "synchronous" means here? Do you know what the
    "stationary system" is? Do you know why it needed to me mentioned?

    No more than dehydrated water, a round square, a scarlet-white tint".

    Do you believe that sentence is a contradiction in terms/oxymoron?

    I find it sad to teach relativistic physics, a science of remarkable
    beauty, with such abstract notions.

    Maybe if you learned relativistic physics, you could teach it one day.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 16 22:50:56 2023
    Le 16/04/2023 à 22:43, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf

    It's very interesting (like other pages you've written).

    But Paul, please understand that I have a problem with this.

    It is obvious that in an isochronous universe, it is possible to adjust
    all watches in the simplest way.

    Take the idea of ​​a flat earth and solar synchronization.

    We imagine a flat earth, and the sun which revolves very far around it.

    We will then synchronize all the watches, and when it is noon, it will
    also be noon everywhere.

    In San Francisco, Paris, Moscow, and Beijing.

    Issue! The earth is not flat!

    We will never be able to tune all the watches, here it will be noon, here
    eight o'clock, here midnight.

    A solar synchronization is impossible and we have known it for millennia.

    Now, another problem exists in nature, as also exists the principle of universal gravitation: the principle of universal anisochrony.

    There is no absolute present time, just as there is no flat earth.

    One cannot synchronize (at least in relativistic physics) two watches, it
    is impossible.

    At best, in reality, each of them will see the other which lags behind
    itself by t=AB/c

    Real, physical, unavoidable value.

    How then to synchronize two watches "absolutely".

    I spot it, Einstein's synchronization procedure, is very simple and very pretty.

    But it is an abstract act.

    This is something that does not exist in relativistic physics.

    It only exists for the usual things, like: "You who are on the other side
    of the playground, when you see me shouting "top!"
    it will be noon on my watch, and you will set yours to noon".

    This, yes.

    But NOT in relativistic physics, where things are going very hard or going
    very far.

    I am absolutely disoriented that not only do we not admit this (but after
    all, we have the right to criticize me), but that in addition, in a world
    when even people are not stupid, we do not understand this what I'm saying about the notion of simultaneity, and that seems quite dramatic to me all
    the same.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 16 23:05:57 2023
    Le 17/04/2023 à 00:26, Volney a écrit :

    Maybe if you learned relativistic physics, you could teach it one day.

    This is the kind of scientifically criminal comment that people send back
    to me without even trying to understand what I'm writing.

    I notice that very often people who post don't even understand the theory
    that they themselves are advocating, let alone what I am saying.

    They just read a couple of things, and since they see that I don't explain things the way they do, or worse that others say "it's not good", they
    insult me ​​like you do in calling me a moron and ignoramus who should "learn SR".

    It's been years that I repeat that the problem is not scientific, I think
    that people who would are all gifted enough to understand what I say (it
    is very clear in many of my writings).
    The problem is human. They don't WANT to read what I write.

    The worst ones just want to make "cunt dinners" out of them.

    The problem seems irresolvable.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sun Apr 16 16:10:48 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:05:59 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:

    I notice that very often people who post don't even understand the theory that they themselves are advocating, let alone what I am saying.

    They just read a couple of things, and since they see that I don't explain things the way they do, or worse that others say "it's not good", they insult me ​​like you do in calling me a moron and ignoramus who should "learn SR".

    It's been years that I repeat that the problem is not scientific, I think that people who would are all gifted enough to understand what I say (it
    is very clear in many of my writings).

    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Apr 16 16:56:09 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:10:50 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>

    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    Feynman, the hypocrite and cynic calculist (WWII) that made a living with his viper, conflicting and fallacious mouth.

    Feynman, the man that laughed at everyone and everything in physics and beyond. The Lord Keynes of the '60s.

    I liked the man. He was OK. Fucked everyone, had a good life and die still laughing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 16 17:04:59 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:56:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:10:50 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    Feynman, the hypocrite and cynic calculist (WWII) that made a living with his viper, conflicting and fallacious mouth.

    Feynman, the man that laughed at everyone and everything in physics and beyond. The Lord Keynes of the '60s.

    I liked the man. He was OK. Fucked everyone, had a good life and die still laughing.

    Obviously, you are not qualified to critisize Feynman is any way shape or form. He was so far above you (and me) when it comes to physics that you have no hope of ever negating a single thing that he said.

    "If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Apr 16 17:39:47 2023
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:05:00 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:


    "If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    I am beginning to suspect that is the case about much of science.

    In that case they should stop writing books to explain it to us. Is the same true for Special Relativity?
    No Nobel prize for that, though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Apr 16 19:50:15 2023
    On 4/16/2023 7:04 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:56:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:10:50 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    Feynman, the hypocrite and cynic calculist (WWII) that made a living with his viper, conflicting and fallacious mouth.

    Feynman, the man that laughed at everyone and everything in physics and beyond. The Lord Keynes of the '60s.

    I liked the man. He was OK. Fucked everyone, had a good life and die still laughing.

    Obviously, you are not qualified to critisize Feynman is any way shape or form. He was so far above you (and me) when it comes to physics that you have no hope of ever negating a single thing that he said.

    "If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    RH has said that he doesn't care what anyone thinks of him. If that were
    true, why does he continuously keep drawing attention to himself? His
    posts are thinly veiled comments designed to garner fame, negative but
    still...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Apr 16 18:37:24 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:05:00 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:56:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:10:50 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

    <snip>
    "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    Feynman, the hypocrite and cynic calculist (WWII) that made a living with his viper, conflicting and fallacious mouth.

    Feynman, the man that laughed at everyone and everything in physics and beyond. The Lord Keynes of the '60s.

    I liked the man. He was OK. Fucked everyone, had a good life and die still laughing.
    Obviously, you are not qualified to critisize Feynman is any way shape or form. He was so far above you (and me) when it comes to physics that you have no hope of ever negating a single thing that he said.

    "If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

    - Richard P. Feynman

    Feynman, the "virtual photon" cretin. He had no shame, and he did crap on everyone and everything around him.

    Kind of Michio Kaku, but with some charisma.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 16 18:57:39 2023

    - Richard P. Feynman
    Feynman, the "virtual photon" cretin. He had no shame, and he did crap on everyone and everything around him.

    Kind of Michio Kaku, but with some charisma.

    I see nothing in his life that supports this. Any support for this claim?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Apr 17 03:13:13 2023
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:50:00 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 15.04.2023 05:09, skrev Richard Hertz:

    See also:
    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf

    <Snip Einstein's derivation"

    Proof that he RoS is invalid.

    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:

    Step 1 involves esynching the stationary clocks (C) with stationary
    sources and matching the moving clock (A and B) readings and rates with
    the stationary ones (presumably by passing them backwards and forwards
    several times and adjusting their readings when adjacent)
    Step 2. A and B are set in motion and light signals are sent between them
    in opposite directions.
    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch in
    the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    end

    However, if the light sources that send light signals between the moving
    clock are attached to the moving system, their emitted light is still
    deemed to move at c in the stationary system and Einstein's above claim
    remains intact. However, it is now obvious from symmetry that the two OWLS measurements should be identical.

    You will say "So what?"
    .....and I will tell you what...but note, this is copywrited.

    At step3, Einstein's calculations necessarily imply that the readings of
    all the stationary clocks advance by different NUMBERS during the opposite transits of light signals between A and B. The readings of A and B will therefore do the same.
    However, when considered from the moving frame, it obvious from
    symmetry...and in accord with Einstein...that the individual readings of
    both A and B must and will advance by the SAME number during those
    opposite transits irrespective of how they are synched.

    So according to Einstein, the reading of clock A will advance by DIFFERENT numbers during the opposite transits ...but also according to Einstein
    that same reading will advance by the SAME number.

    Similarity cannot be frame dependent. If two things are identical in one
    frame, they must be identical in all frames...and we are talking about
    numbers here. Note neither the distance between A and B nor the actual
    meanings behind the numbers affect any of the above.

    Like the whole of SR, this refutation of the RoS is based on calculation,
    not measurement..Please don't try to use anything derived from the RoS
    to back up Einstein's theories.






    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Apr 17 02:22:49 2023
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    The initial error lies in Einstein's derivation of the relativity of
    simultaneity (Ros). The rest of the paper is consistent with the RoS
    and cannot be criticised if the latter is accepted.
    I wont describe the error in full because I am writing an article on it
    myself but I will give you a clue. In his paper, Einstein stated "let a
    ray of light pass from (moving clock) A to B (and from B to A)".

    Which part of Einstein's paper are you referring to, specifically?

    He did not specify particular sources of that light.

    If you refer to the moving rod argument on p. 42 (Dover ed.), then the
    source does not matter because according to his Principle 2 (p. 41), the light ray's propagation does not depend on the motion of the source. So
    you can assume the light signals the rod observer on p. 42 uses
    originated either by a source at rest in the "stationary" systemor not.
    It doesn't matter.

    His whole argument collapses into a logical impossibility if the
    sources used throughout are attached to the rod connecting clocks A and
    B.

    It makes no difference. If it makes you feel better, just assume the
    light source was at rest in the "stationary" system.

    (Hint: according to P2, their light will still move at c in the
    stationary frame...and of course, the moving rod's length is of no
    concern).
    The RoS is nonsense...and therefore so is the whole of SR...

    No, you simply never understood it. This is a very subtle point. I'll
    give you another example of such subtlety: on p. 40 Einstein states the synchronisation condition to hold in the "stationary" system:
    tB - tA = t'A - tB. And then he also says a few paragraphs later that
    we further assume that the quotient 2AB/(t'A - tA) equals c.

    This will be too hard for you.
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:

    Step 1 involves esynching the stationary clocks (C) with stationary
    sources and matching the moving clock (A and B) readings and rates with
    the stationary ones (presumably by passing them backwards and forwards
    several times and adjusting their readings when adjacent)
    Step 2. A and B are set in motion and light signals are sent between
    them in opposite directions.
    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch in
    the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    However, if the light sources that send light signals between the moving
    clock are attached to the moving system, their emitted light is still
    deemed to move at c in the stationary system and Einstein's above claim
    remains intact. However, it is now obvious from symmetry that the two
    OWLS measurements should be identical.

    You will say "So what?"
    .....and I will tell you what...but note, this is copywrited.

    At step3, Einstein's calculations necessarily imply that the readings of
    all the stationary clocks advance by different NUMBERS during the
    opposite transits of light signals between A and B, the readings of which
    will therefore so do the same.
    However, when considered from the moving frame, it obvious from symmetry
    and in accord with Einstein, that the individual readings of both A and B
    must and will advance by the SAME number during those opposite transits irrespective of how they are synched.

    So according to Einstein, the reading of clock A will advance by
    DIFFERENT numbers during the opposite transits ...but also according to Einstein that same reading will advance by the SAME numbers.

    Similarity cannot be frame dependent. If two things are identical in one
    frame, they must be identical in all frames...and we are talking about
    numbers here.

    Like the whole of SR, this refutation of the RoS is based on calculation,
    not measurement..and please don't try to use anything derived from the RoS
    to back it up.












    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Apr 17 03:44:57 2023
    On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:43:16 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 15.04.2023 23:48, skrev Richard Hertz:


    There is no reference to any _physical_ clock in the stationary system,
    the only point with the quoted statement is the last sentence:
    "These clocks [A and B] are therefore synchronous in the stationary
    system."

    The only clock indications mentioned in §2 are tA, tB and tA',
    all indications on A and B. There are no other physical clocks in
    Einstein's scenario in §2.


    In paragraph 1, it is stated "It is essential to have time defined in the stationary system by means of stationary clocks."
    A little later he says, "We further imagine .......that the moving
    clocks A and B are synchronized with the stationary CLOCKS".

    In concocting his RoS, Einstein (and the stationary observer) calculated several time intervals, which would have meant nothing in particular if
    not referenced to a stationary clock.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 16 20:24:40 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 1:03:03 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    The initial error lies in Einstein's derivation of the relativity of
    simultaneity (Ros). The rest of the paper is consistent with the RoS
    and cannot be criticised if the latter is accepted.
    I wont describe the error in full because I am writing an article on it >> myself but I will give you a clue. In his paper, Einstein stated "let a >> ray of light pass from (moving clock) A to B (and from B to A)".

    Which part of Einstein's paper are you referring to, specifically?

    He did not specify particular sources of that light.

    If you refer to the moving rod argument on p. 42 (Dover ed.), then the source does not matter because according to his Principle 2 (p. 41), the light ray's propagation does not depend on the motion of the source. So you can assume the light signals the rod observer on p. 42 uses
    originated either by a source at rest in the "stationary" systemor not.
    It doesn't matter.

    His whole argument collapses into a logical impossibility if the
    sources used throughout are attached to the rod connecting clocks A and >> B.

    It makes no difference. If it makes you feel better, just assume the
    light source was at rest in the "stationary" system.

    (Hint: according to P2, their light will still move at c in the
    stationary frame...and of course, the moving rod's length is of no
    concern).
    The RoS is nonsense...and therefore so is the whole of SR...

    No, you simply never understood it. This is a very subtle point. I'll
    give you another example of such subtlety: on p. 40 Einstein states the synchronisation condition to hold in the "stationary" system:
    tB - tA = t'A - tB. And then he also says a few paragraphs later that
    we further assume that the quotient 2AB/(t'A - tA) equals c.

    This will be too hard for you.
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:

    Step 1 involves esynching the stationary clocks (C) with stationary
    sources and matching the moving clock (A and B) readings and rates with
    the stationary ones (presumably by passing them backwards and forwards several times and adjusting their readings when adjacent)

    "Presumably", right. You have no clue what Einstein is doing there.
    I noticed you haven't commented at all on the entire point of what
    Einstein did here. It went right over your head (as expected).

    Step 2. A and B are set in motion and light signals are sent between
    them in opposite directions.

    What are you talking about? Details, please. What specifically are your "opposite directions"?

    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch in
    the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
    before it got important).

    However, if the light sources that send light signals between the moving clock are attached to the moving system,

    This makes no difference because of postulate 2.

    their emitted light is still
    deemed to move at c in the stationary system and Einstein's above claim remains intact. However, it is now obvious from symmetry that the two
    OWLS measurements should be identical.

    You will say "So what?"
    .....and I will tell you what...but note, this is copywrited.

    At step3, Einstein's calculations necessarily imply that the readings of
    all the stationary clocks advance by different NUMBERS during the
    opposite transits of light signals between A and B, the readings of which will therefore so do the same.

    Gobbledygook. You need to write precisely what you mean and how
    it relates to what Einstein says.

    However, when considered from the moving frame, it obvious from symmetry
    and in accord with Einstein, that the individual readings of both A and B must and will advance by the SAME number during those opposite transits irrespective of how they are synched.

    So according to Einstein, the reading of clock A will advance by
    DIFFERENT numbers during the opposite transits ...but also according to Einstein that same reading will advance by the SAME numbers.

    Gobbledygook.

    Learn to write precisely what you mean. Your post above is just a word salad.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Apr 17 03:57:19 2023
    On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:



    It obviously WAS too hard for you.

    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:


    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
    moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch
    in the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
    before it got important).

    That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you have
    read and understood it.






    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 16 22:21:34 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:57:22 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:



    It obviously WAS too hard for you.
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:


    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
    moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch
    in the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it before it got important).

    That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you have read and understood it.

    It is the RoS derivation. I simply quoted how Einstein defined it.
    Your description OTOH is complete poetry, ignoring all the details
    in Einstein's argument. My first recommendation to you is to stop using
    your private undefined terms. If you want to debate Einstein's paper,
    stick to the terminology used there or define your terms.

    So for now, you have nothing to show except poetry.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 17 20:31:13 2023
    Den 16.04.2023 23:03, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:43:21 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 15.04.2023 23:48, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>
    <snip Paul's parroting Einstein crap. Not a fucking new idea in 118 years>

    Interesting to see that you would have snipped the following
    if it hadn't contained a typo:


    <snip more Einstein crap from an apologist, except this pearl>


    The "Einstein's crap" has been correct since 1905, and only
    stupid idiots can think that they can find inconsistencies
    in what has been scrutinised by physicists for 180 years,
    and which is known to be mathematically consistent.


    As a good relativist, you fail even in basic math: 1905 + 180 = 2085 (unless you're predicting that this shit will last till then).

    But since you didn't snip it, maybe you could address it?

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?


    The Bible, the Talmud and the Coran have been scrutinized by hundred thousand religious people and theologists. And
    this for hundred of years.

    And everyone, in his religious domain, have found each of them religiously consistent, and even found encoded messages.
    And the scrutiny continue, as of today.

    So you think SR is a religion, and claim SR is wrong
    because it isn't consistent with your religious belief.

    Could it be that you are posting in the wrong newsgroup?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Apr 17 11:50:24 2023
    On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 20:31:19 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    It was proven many times here, sorry, poor halfbrain,
    that you've decided ignore the proof changes nothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 17 22:03:13 2023
    Den 16.04.2023 01:16, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 15/04/2023 à 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod,
    clocks
    are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
    system, that
    is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the
    “time of the
    stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These
    clocks are
    therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"

    Important point:
    The moving clocks A and B are synchronous in the stationary system.
    ________________________

    Paul, my friend, I don't understand that term.

    Are you there Paul?

    What do you mean when you say: "all clocks are synchronous in the
    stationary system"?

    Let's take a concrete example from the real world:

    UTC clocks on the geoid are synchronous in the non rotating
    Earth centred frame of reference. (Often called the ECI-frame
    - Earth Centred Inertial frame,even if it isn't really inertial.)

    Imagine a hollow Earth. If a spherical EM-pulse was emitted
    from the centre, all the UTC-clocks would show the same
    when they were hit by the wavefront. That's because
    the speed of light is isotropic c in the ECI- frame.


    Imagine a rod at equator, oriented east-west.
    Two UTC-clocks are placed at its ends, clock B at the eastern
    end, and clock A on the western end.
    Let the length of the rod be rAB.
    The rod is moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s eastwards
    measured in the ECI-frame.

    To see if A and B are synchronous in the ground frame,
    let a light pulse be emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
    Let the pulse be reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
    and reach clock A when it shows tA'.

    We can now use Einstein's equations in §2 of "Electrodynamics".

    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
    Equations (3) and (4)

    tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B
    tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v) transit time B->A

    Since tAB > tBA we can conclude:
    The two UTC clocks are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.

    Let's look at concrete numbers.

    #1: rAB = 1 metre, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s

    tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 3.33564613 ns
    tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 3.33563578 ns
    tAB-tBA = 1.035e-14

    The difference is hardly measurable.

    #2: rAB = 100 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s

    tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 333.564613 μs
    tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 333.563578 μs
    tAB-tBA = 1.035 ns

    Should be measurable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Apr 17 14:51:10 2023
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    <snip>

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    <snip>

    I make this calculation, regarding graduated physicist since 1905, who did give a shit about SR:

    1) The current number of physicist is averaged in 500,000, as of today. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.010310/full/

    2) The number of physicists involved in research about relativity is less than 5%, or 25,000 relativist physicists, as of today.

    3) The total number of PhD/year, between 1910 and 2010, has been estimated in this article:

    https://futureoflife.org/guest-post/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/

    The equation that fits the curve is (y is the year, like y =1948):

    N_PhD(y) = 8E-06 y⁶ - 0,096 y⁵ + 469 y⁴ - 1E+06 y³ + 2E+09 y² - 1E+12 y + 5E+14

    The integral of N_PhD(y) between 1910 and 2010 yields a worldwide value of 816,500 PhD granted in the last century.

    If we add an estimate of 600,000 PhD between 2011 and 2022, the worldwide value in the last 112 years is about 1,416,500 PhD.

    It can be extrapolated that about a 3% of yearly awarded PhD are in physics. https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    4) Considering the above, 42,840 PhD were granted in physics since 1910, and 79% (33,750) of this total since 1990.

    Also, considering that only 2% of PhD are in Relativity/Gravitation, the numbers are:

    849 PhD granted in Relativity/Gravitation since 1910, and 675 being granted since 1990.

    (See Figure 6) https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    **************************************************************

    Now, Paul, with all this information, obtained from first class sources, I write again your question:

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    Yes, Paul, the 849 physicists that had a PhD in Relativity/Gravitation IN THE HISTORY (675 in the last 30 years),
    only account for about 200 physicists in the last 110 years that got a degree in SR. Now GR is the trend.

    And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.

    They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased
    any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.

    Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.

    Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to 1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
    After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
    plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several years after 1919.

    The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.

    Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old menace, still in force).

    With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.

    Here, read it and question it:

    Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak

    And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 17 14:36:10 2023
    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:57:22 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:



    It obviously WAS too hard for you.
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:


    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
    moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of synch
    in the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it before it got important).
    That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you have read and understood it.

    You misunderstood the concept of synchronisation of clocks when you
    said there was circularity due to disregarding the type of the emitter
    used (moving vs. stationary). I simply pointed out this was incorrect.

    BTW, you don't get to call when I (or anybody) "comes back". If you want
    that kind of forum, open a private one which you can moderate.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Apr 17 15:14:57 2023
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 16.04.2023 01:16, skrev Richard Hachel:
    Le 15/04/2023 à 20:50, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, >>> clocks
    are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
    system, that
    is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the
    “time of the
    stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These
    clocks are
    therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"

    Important point:
    The moving clocks A and B are synchronous in the stationary system.
    ________________________

    Paul, my friend, I don't understand that term.

    Are you there Paul?

    What do you mean when you say: "all clocks are synchronous in the stationary system"?

    Let's take a concrete example from the real world:

    UTC clocks on the geoid are synchronous in the non rotating
    Earth centred frame of reference. (Often called the ECI-frame
    - Earth Centred Inertial frame,even if it isn't really inertial.)

    Imagine a hollow Earth. If a spherical EM-pulse was emitted
    from the centre, all the UTC-clocks would show the same
    when they were hit by the wavefront. That's because
    the speed of light is isotropic c in the ECI- frame.


    Imagine a rod at equator, oriented east-west.
    Two UTC-clocks are placed at its ends, clock B at the eastern
    end, and clock A on the western end.
    Let the length of the rod be rAB.
    The rod is moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s eastwards
    measured in the ECI-frame.

    To see if A and B are synchronous in the ground frame,
    let a light pulse be emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
    Let the pulse be reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
    and reach clock A when it shows tA'.

    We can now use Einstein's equations in §2 of "Electrodynamics".

    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
    Equations (3) and (4)

    tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B
    tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v) transit time B->A

    Since tAB > tBA we can conclude:
    The two UTC clocks are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.

    Let's look at concrete numbers.

    #1: rAB = 1 metre, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s

    tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 3.33564613 ns
    tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 3.33563578 ns
    tAB-tBA = 1.035e-14

    The difference is hardly measurable.

    #2: rAB = 100 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s

    tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 333.564613 μs
    tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 333.563578 μs
    tAB-tBA = 1.035 ns

    Should be measurable.


    PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.

    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
    that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:

    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:

    + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.

    Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).

    And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
    outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.

    But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.

    So, don't bother to reply.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 18 02:25:04 2023
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:


    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
    moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
    synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
    before it got important).

    That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you
    have read and understood it.

    It is the RoS derivation. I simply quoted how Einstein defined it. Your description OTOH is complete poetry, ignoring all the details in
    Einstein's argument. My first recommendation to you is to stop using
    your private undefined terms. If you want to debate Einstein's paper,
    stick to the terminology used there or define your terms.

    So for now, you have nothing to show except poetry.

    You know nothing about physics or relativity.
    The RoS is based on the fact that the moving clocks measure light speeds
    in the moving frame to be different in opposite dorections. Rather than
    accept the fact that light WAS mpoving at c+/-v, Einstein simply
    redefined clock synchroniztion so his theory would appear to work..





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Apr 18 02:17:34 2023
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:03:13 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:


    UTC clocks on the geoid are synchronous in the non rotating Earth
    centred frame of reference. (Often called the ECI-frame - Earth Centred Inertial frame,even if it isn't really inertial.)

    Imagine a hollow Earth. If a spherical EM-pulse was emitted from the
    centre, all the UTC-clocks would show the same when they were hit by the wavefront. That's because the speed of light is isotropic c in the ECI- frame.

    Never proved.

    Imagine a rod at equator, oriented east-west.
    Two UTC-clocks are placed at its ends, clock B at the eastern end, and
    clock A on the western end.
    Let the length of the rod be rAB.
    The rod is moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s eastwards measured in the ECI-frame.

    To see if A and B are synchronous in the ground frame,
    let a light pulse be emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
    Let the pulse be reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
    and reach clock A when it shows tA'.

    We can now use Einstein's equations in §2 of "Electrodynamics".

    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf Equations (3) and (4)

    tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v)
    transit time B->A

    Since tAB > tBA we can conclude:
    The two UTC clocks are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.

    The light signals move at c relative to A not the ECI frame. They move in straight lines, not curves so tA = tB = rAB/c. The Sagnac effect clearly demonstrates this.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Apr 17 20:08:16 2023
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.

    Nope. You are simply a monomaniac who does not understand this
    theory but who for some reason desperately want to "do physics".

    They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory),

    Nobody worships Einstein, it's just a convenient delusion for you to maintain in
    order to belittle your opponents with as little effort as possible.

    and buried/erased
    any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.

    Nonsense. Einstein's 1905 paper is very good, actually.

    Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.

    Not even wrong.

    Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old menace, still in force).

    No, it's just a Hollywood fantasy of yours designed simply to maintain your monomania intact.

    See a doctor, it may be a consequence of something physical.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 17 20:13:55 2023
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:


    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
    moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
    synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
    before it got important).

    That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you
    have read and understood it.

    It is the RoS derivation. I simply quoted how Einstein defined it. Your description OTOH is complete poetry, ignoring all the details in Einstein's argument. My first recommendation to you is to stop using
    your private undefined terms. If you want to debate Einstein's paper, stick to the terminology used there or define your terms.

    So for now, you have nothing to show except poetry.

    You know nothing about physics or relativity.

    Oh yes, I do. You simply have no idea.

    The RoS is based on the fact that the moving clocks measure light speeds
    in the moving frame to be different in opposite dorections.

    No. This is false. Read Einstein's paper with more care next time.

    Rather than
    accept the fact that light WAS mpoving at c+/-v, Einstein simply
    redefined clock synchroniztion so his theory would appear to work..

    Nope. You've just fallen into The Standard Crank Trap. There is much
    more to it than that. This trap BTW is very common in this business,
    you are by far not the first victim of it.

    You have a lot to learn still. First: learn to read what people
    (including Einstein) actually wrote before running to the keyboard
    to post Yet Another Non-sequitur.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 18 13:00:43 2023
    Den 17.04.2023 23:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    <snip>

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    <snip>

    I make this calculation, regarding graduated physicist since 1905, who did give a shit about SR:

    1) The current number of physicist is averaged in 500,000, as of today. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.010310/full/

    2) The number of physicists involved in research about relativity is less than 5%, or 25,000 relativist physicists, as of today.

    3) The total number of PhD/year, between 1910 and 2010, has been estimated in this article:

    https://futureoflife.org/guest-post/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/

    The equation that fits the curve is (y is the year, like y =1948):

    N_PhD(y) = 8E-06 y⁶ - 0,096 y⁵ + 469 y⁴ - 1E+06 y³ + 2E+09 y² - 1E+12 y + 5E+14

    The integral of N_PhD(y) between 1910 and 2010 yields a worldwide value of 816,500 PhD granted in the last century.

    If we add an estimate of 600,000 PhD between 2011 and 2022, the worldwide value in the last 112 years is about 1,416,500 PhD.

    It can be extrapolated that about a 3% of yearly awarded PhD are in physics. https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    4) Considering the above, 42,840 PhD were granted in physics since 1910, and 79% (33,750) of this total since 1990.

    Also, considering that only 2% of PhD are in Relativity/Gravitation, the numbers are:

    849 PhD granted in Relativity/Gravitation since 1910, and 675 being granted since 1990.

    (See Figure 6) https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    **************************************************************

    Now, Paul, with all this information, obtained from first class sources, I write again your question:

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    Yes, Paul, the 849 physicists that had a PhD in Relativity/Gravitation IN THE HISTORY (675 in the last 30 years),
    only account for about 200 physicists in the last 110 years that got a degree in SR. Now GR is the trend.

    And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.

    They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased
    any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.

    Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.

    Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to 1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
    After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
    plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several years after 1919.

    The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.

    Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old menace, still in force).

    With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.

    Here, read it and question it:

    Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak

    And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.


    Why use so many words when your answer to my question:

    "Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?"

    is simply "yes"?

    SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
    and is proven to be mathematical consistent.

    You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Apr 18 05:32:33 2023
    On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 13:00:49 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
    and is proven to be mathematical consistent.

    You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.

    You're simply wrong to claim this bullshit,
    it's not a mathematical theory and it can't be
    mathematically consistent. What is really
    proven is that a part of it is mathematically
    consistent.

    The whole SR shit is inconsistent, and it's also
    proven.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Apr 18 05:38:58 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 17.04.2023 23:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    <snip>

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    <snip>

    I make this calculation, regarding graduated physicist since 1905, who did give a shit about SR:

    1) The current number of physicist is averaged in 500,000, as of today. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.010310/full/

    2) The number of physicists involved in research about relativity is less than 5%, or 25,000 relativist physicists, as of today.

    3) The total number of PhD/year, between 1910 and 2010, has been estimated in this article:

    https://futureoflife.org/guest-post/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/

    The equation that fits the curve is (y is the year, like y =1948):

    N_PhD(y) = 8E-06 y⁶ - 0,096 y⁵ + 469 y⁴ - 1E+06 y³ + 2E+09 y² - 1E+12 y + 5E+14

    The integral of N_PhD(y) between 1910 and 2010 yields a worldwide value of 816,500 PhD granted in the last century.

    If we add an estimate of 600,000 PhD between 2011 and 2022, the worldwide value in the last 112 years is about 1,416,500 PhD.

    It can be extrapolated that about a 3% of yearly awarded PhD are in physics.
    https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    4) Considering the above, 42,840 PhD were granted in physics since 1910, and 79% (33,750) of this total since 1990.

    Also, considering that only 2% of PhD are in Relativity/Gravitation, the numbers are:

    849 PhD granted in Relativity/Gravitation since 1910, and 675 being granted since 1990.

    (See Figure 6) https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    **************************************************************

    Now, Paul, with all this information, obtained from first class sources, I write again your question:

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    Yes, Paul, the 849 physicists that had a PhD in Relativity/Gravitation IN THE HISTORY (675 in the last 30 years),
    only account for about 200 physicists in the last 110 years that got a degree in SR. Now GR is the trend.

    And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.

    They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased
    any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.

    Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.

    Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to 1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
    After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
    plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several years after 1919.

    The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.

    Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old menace, still in force).

    With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.

    Here, read it and question it:

    Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid.
    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak

    And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.

    Why use so many words when your answer to my question:
    "Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?"
    is simply "yes"?

    SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
    and is proven to be mathematical consistent.

    You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    Because it was interesting to put a number to your "all the physicists who have scrutinized SR for 118 years" description of a fantasy.

    And it turned out that, actually, almost nobody gave a shit about SR or GR in the last 118 years.

    And I documented the approximate number scientifically, using first class sources.

    Now, go out and claim how popular relativity is. It's the MSM that propped relativity all these years, with some years rather quiet,
    but with a boost at the end of the '60s, curiously during the next decade, which was the golden age of electronics and computer sciences.

    Maybe you can learn something else than your 1905 manifesto mantra. Read the links that I provided. They are not poison for the mind,
    quite the contrary.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 18 12:54:19 2023
    Le 18/04/2023 à 13:00, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 17.04.2023 23:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    <snip>

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    <snip>

    I make this calculation, regarding graduated physicist since 1905, who did give
    a shit about SR:

    1) The current number of physicist is averaged in 500,000, as of today.
    https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.5.010310/full/

    2) The number of physicists involved in research about relativity is less than
    5%, or 25,000 relativist physicists, as of today.

    3) The total number of PhD/year, between 1910 and 2010, has been estimated in
    this article:


    https://futureoflife.org/guest-post/90-of-all-the-scientists-that-ever-lived-are-alive-today/

    The equation that fits the curve is (y is the year, like y =1948):

    N_PhD(y) = 8E-06 y⁶ - 0,096 y⁵ + 469 y⁴ - 1E+06 y³ + 2E+09 y² - 1E+12 y
    + 5E+14

    The integral of N_PhD(y) between 1910 and 2010 yields a worldwide value of >> 816,500 PhD granted in the last century.

    If we add an estimate of 600,000 PhD between 2011 and 2022, the worldwide value
    in the last 112 years is about 1,416,500 PhD.

    It can be extrapolated that about a 3% of yearly awarded PhD are in physics. >> https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    4) Considering the above, 42,840 PhD were granted in physics since 1910, and 79%
    (33,750) of this total since 1990.

    Also, considering that only 2% of PhD are in Relativity/Gravitation, the numbers
    are:

    849 PhD granted in Relativity/Gravitation since 1910, and 675 being granted >> since 1990.

    (See Figure 6)
    https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/trends-physics-phds-171819

    **************************************************************

    Now, Paul, with all this information, obtained from first class sources, I write
    again your question:

    Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?

    Yes, Paul, the 849 physicists that had a PhD in Relativity/Gravitation IN THE
    HISTORY (675 in the last 30 years),
    only account for about 200 physicists in the last 110 years that got a degree in
    SR. Now GR is the trend.

    And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's manifesto, were
    ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.

    They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity.
    They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased
    any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905
    manifesto.

    Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's
    relativity.

    Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to 1914, when
    WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
    After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom in 1919
    and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
    plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several >> years after 1919.

    The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only
    sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.

    Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years old
    menace, still in force).

    With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT >> SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.

    Here, read it and question it:

    Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid. >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak

    And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY.
    A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.


    Why use so many words when your answer to my question:

    "Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?"

    is simply "yes"?

    SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
    and is proven to be mathematical consistent.

    You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.

    It is not difficult to answer this question.

    Einstein's SR is not consistent, and it is ugly.

    Hachel's SR is coherent and beautiful.

    There is no need for a photograph to give the winner.

    The problem is purely human.

    If you want to drive an eisnteinian crazy, ask him how to find that four
    times nine is seven point two.

    This is however what he does when he says that the contraction of
    distances is 12*0.6 and that he is not able to understand that the
    distance traveled in his frame of reference is his proper time multiplied
    by the apparent speed of the object.

    It's all a filthy, crying antics, with the added bonus of the
    extraordinary hatred of the monkeys against the guy who is smarter than
    them.

    This goes as far as breaking internet service providers to death threats.


    The question is: But what happened?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Apr 18 10:48:27 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:54:22 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 18/04/2023 à 13:00, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 17.04.2023 23:51, skrev Richard Hertz:

    [the usual idiocies]

    Why use so many words when your answer to my question:

    "Do you, Richard Hertz, claim that all the physicists who
    have scrutinized SR for 118 years are wrong when they
    claim that SR is mathematically and logically consistent?"

    is simply "yes"?

    SR can never be proven correct, buy it can
    and is proven to be mathematical consistent.

    You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.

    It is not difficult to answer this question.

    Einstein's SR is not consistent, and it is ugly.

    Hachel's SR is coherent and beautiful.

    There is no need for a photograph to give the winner.

    The problem is purely human.

    If you want to drive an eisnteinian crazy, ask him how to find that four times nine is seven point two.

    This is however what he does when he says that the contraction of
    distances is 12*0.6 and that he is not able to understand that the
    distance traveled in his frame of reference is his proper time multiplied
    by the apparent speed of the object.

    It's all a filthy, crying antics, with the added bonus of the
    extraordinary hatred of the monkeys against the guy who is smarter than them.

    This goes as far as breaking internet service providers to death threats.


    The question is: But what happened?

    R.H.

    You may not realise this but what you wrote above is just plain silliness with no connection to reality (or physics for that matter). I left it intact.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 18 20:56:54 2023
    Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:


    PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.

    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
    that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:

    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:

    + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.

    Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).

    And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
    outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.

    But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.

    So, don't bother to reply.


    I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
    how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
    It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
    demonstration of realistic thinking.

    This is what I have learned:

    "If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
    B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
    OF SYNCHRONISM."

    So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
    and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
    for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
    it must corrected by:
    [v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm

    Or have I missed something?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Apr 18 14:39:32 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:


    PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.

    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
    that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:

    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:

    + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.

    Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).

    And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
    outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.

    But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.

    So, don't bother to reply.

    I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
    how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
    It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
    demonstration of realistic thinking.

    This is what I have learned:

    "If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
    B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
    OF SYNCHRONISM."
    So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
    and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
    for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
    it must corrected by:
    [v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm

    Or have I missed something?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no


    In your example, you gave involuntarily (I assume this) the answer: You drove for ONE HOUR, as measured with
    your clock synchronized (I also assume this) with other clocks in the surroundings of your departure time from A

    I assume, also, that time tA = UTC - 3 was the accepted synchronous time being at A.

    If you travel eastward for 1 hour, your clock SHOULD BE ADJUSTED to show tB = UTC - 2. Your speed v is irrelevant,
    as you also disclosed the time that you invested in such travel.

    A different thing is, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR CLOCK SYCHRONIZED WITH tA = UTC - 3, that your clock (giving tB)
    be constantly adjusted to be in sync with tA (UTC sync), by adding a difference Δt to tB:

    BA = v (tB - tA) = ΔtB

    Δt = 86,400 v (tB - tA)/6713Km = 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec

    Once v ΔtB = 6,713 Km, you have gone around the Earth, at the ground level in the equator, so you have to resync tB = tA,
    and add one day to your general time counter.

    If you moved v ΔtB/24 = 279.7083 Km, your moving clock SHOULD SHOW tA + 1Hr = UTC - 2.

    For any time ΔtB, your clock should show tB = tA + 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec, to be in sync with UTC(tA).

    Sec(1 day)/perimeter_at_equator = 0.01287055 sec/m

    NOW, you want to be sure that people at A know your instantaneous UTC synchronized time tB.

    You have to invest an additional time t+ = v/c ΔtB to communicate (1-way) your UTC synchronized time tB to the A side.


    You'll notice that A and B sides of this problem can't solve the verification, in real time, about how well sychronized are their clocks.

    There always will be a time window of uncertainty not lower than t+ = v/c ΔtB on the A side, EVEN WHEN A CORRECTION FOR
    SIMULTANEITY t+ = v/c ΔtB BE ADDED TO THE CLOCKS IN THE A SIDE.

    As you can see, this problem has more than one level of complexity.

    But Einstein just ignored all this shit, because he was a fucking cretin and deceiver.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Apr 18 23:11:33 2023
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:13:55 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:

    You know nothing about physics or relativity.

    Oh yes, I do. You simply have no idea.

    The RoS is based on the fact that the moving clocks measure light
    speeds in the moving frame to be different in opposite dorections.

    No. This is false. Read Einstein's paper with more care next time.

    I don't need to. Einstein's RoS is obvious. It is also obviously wrong.

    Rather than accept the fact that light WAS mpoving at c+/-v, Einstein
    simply redefined clock synchroniztion so his theory would appear to
    work..

    Nope. You've just fallen into The Standard Crank Trap. There is much
    more to it than that. This trap BTW is very common in this business,
    you are by far not the first victim of it.

    What does an ignorant fool gain by calling an expert a 'Crank'? Does it
    make him feel better"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Apr 18 23:35:08 2023
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:51:10 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's
    manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.

    They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.

    Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.

    Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to
    1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
    After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom
    in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
    plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and
    several years after 1919.

    The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto
    not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.

    Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years
    old menace, still in force).

    With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper,
    INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.

    Here, read it and question it:

    Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just
    stupid. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak

    And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.

    Richard, what you say is perfectly correct but you have to be careful.

    The whole of SR is a beautifully consistent concoction based on
    Einstein's unproven second postulate. Once that is accepted, the RoS
    appears reasonable and everything else flows from that.
    The one way speed of light emitted by a moving source has never been
    directly measured and until it is, Einstein will surely reign. However,
    as I pointed out, the RoS leads to a logical contradiction and is
    therefore wrong....and so is everything that follows.

    Why no serious attempt to measure OWLS from a moving source is pretty
    obvious. It will never get funding while the relativists are in charge.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Tue Apr 18 20:39:57 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:13:55 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:
    You know nothing about physics or relativity.

    Oh yes, I do. You simply have no idea.

    The RoS is based on the fact that the moving clocks measure light
    speeds in the moving frame to be different in opposite dorections.

    No. This is false. Read Einstein's paper with more care next time.

    I don't need to. Einstein's RoS is obvious. It is also obviously wrong.

    You've merely repeated what you said before. But it's incorrect.
    So you do need to reread Einstein's paper. Once more then: his RoS is not
    based on "the fact that the moving clocks measure light speeds in the
    moving frame to be different in opposite directions". This is one reason
    you get trapped in seeming circular reasoning. Believe it or not,
    Einstein really did think it through before submitting the paper.

    Rather than accept the fact that light WAS mpoving at c+/-v, Einstein
    simply redefined clock synchroniztion so his theory would appear to
    work..

    Nope. You've just fallen into The Standard Crank Trap. There is much
    more to it than that. This trap BTW is very common in this business,
    you are by far not the first victim of it.

    What does an ignorant fool gain by calling an expert a 'Crank'? Does it
    make him feel better"

    I don't gain anything, I'm just pointing out your mistakes.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Tue Apr 18 20:41:49 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 4:35:11 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:51:10 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    And all of these 200 CRETINS, who endorsed the 1905 Einstein's
    manifesto, were ASS KISSERS, or they wouldn't have got their PhD.

    They are partners in the crime of science that is einstenian special relativity. They worshiped Einstein (mandatory), and buried/erased any wrongdoing, fallacy, deception and plain lies embedded in such 1905 manifesto.

    Lorentz's relativity was far more honest, even far less stupid, than Einstein's relativity.

    Physicists kept calling the Lorentz-Einstein relativity from 1906 to
    1914, when WWI SILENCED ALL VOICES.
    After that, Eddington and the CABAL (TPTB), propped Einstein to stardom
    in 1919 and Lorentz only got his (Poincaré) transforms,
    plus being a servant/PR man of Einstein for the previous decade and several years after 1919.

    The 200 cretins that "scrutinized" the 1905 "Mirabolous year" manifesto not only sucked every convenient ass, but some dicks too.

    Zionist mandate: NOBODY CAN CRITICIZE EINSTEIN, OR ELSE... (110 years
    old menace, still in force).

    With a VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, I showed how ridiculous is such paper, INCORRECT SINCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPHS.

    Here, read it and question it:

    Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/gXYMOZCBjak

    And, even with several rewritings, SR still is an UNREAL, INVALID PSEUDO-THEORY. A PILE OF CRAP, CUMULATIVE WITH THE YEARS.
    Richard, what you say is perfectly correct but you have to be careful.

    The whole of SR is a beautifully consistent concoction based on
    Einstein's unproven second postulate.

    And you don't even understand what it says.

    Once that is accepted, the RoS
    appears reasonable and everything else flows from that.
    The one way speed of light emitted by a moving source has never been directly measured and until it is, Einstein will surely reign. However,
    as I pointed out, the RoS leads to a logical contradiction and is
    therefore wrong....and so is everything that follows.

    Nope. You simply don't understand Einstein rather careful argument here.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Apr 19 16:21:19 2023
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:57:22 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:



    It obviously WAS too hard for you.
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:


    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
    moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
    synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
    before it got important).
    That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you
    have read and understood it.

    You misunderstood the concept of synchronisation of clocks when you said there was circularity due to disregarding the type of the emitter used (moving vs. stationary). I simply pointed out this was incorrect.

    You would say it is incorrect just on principle. You really haven't the faintest idea of what we are discussing.

    BTW, you don't get to call when I (or anybody) "comes back". If you want
    that kind of forum, open a private one which you can moderate.

    ....comes back to my posts...
    I dont have time to argue with non scientists.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 19 10:48:41 2023
    You all fail to understand how deeply wrong is Einstein's 1905 "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity".

    His IGNORANT definition of synchronism by using ABSOLUTE TIME, just in the first part of his manifesto
    is WRONG, because:

    tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB

    The imbecile IGNORED the time that light takes to be reflected in the mirror at B:

    τ ≥ λ₀/c₀

    which is different for every component of light between 380 nm and 700 nm.

    Adopting λ₀ = 550 nm as average (green), it comes to be that

    t'A ≥ 2 tB - tA + τ = 2 tB - tA + λ₀/c₀

    And consider this: τ can't be measured by the clock at B. It's registered only in the instance 'A of clock at A.

    The absolute error τ ≥ (t'A - 2 tB + tA) is equal or greater than1.83 femtoseconds.

    This DELAY puts a lower limit to the validity of synchronism (and the stupid Einstein's simultaneity) to

    BA/c₀ ≥ 1.83E-15 s


    For BA = 5,500 nm, the error in Einstein's formula [tB - tA = t'A - tB] is of 5%.

    For BA = 5.5 mm, the error in Einstein's formula [tB - tA = t'A - tB] is of 0.005%.

    For BA = 5.5 m, the error in Einstein's formula [tB - tA = t'A - tB] is of 0.000005%.


    QUESTION: At which lower distance BA relativists will accept the validity of synchronism and simultaneity?
    Or cretins will establish that the reflection is INSTANTANEOUS and τ = 0, for the sake of their fucking science?

    This is why relativity IS A FARCE, an HOAX, since the first pages of the 1905 manifesto.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed Apr 19 11:11:10 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:57:22 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:24:40 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:22:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:15:08 -0700, JanPB wrote:



    It obviously WAS too hard for you.
    Einstein's thought experiment goes like this:


    Step 3: According to the stationary observer (O) and Einstein, the
    moving clocks will measure the two opposite OWLS to be different.
    Step 4: According to Einstein, A and B must therefore be out of
    synch in the moving system (because they have violated P2).

    No. This is not what Einstein does. What he does is what I described
    above and which you obviously never bothered to read (you snipped it
    before it got important).
    That is totally unrelated to his RoS derivation. Come back when you
    have read and understood it.

    You misunderstood the concept of synchronisation of clocks when you said there was circularity due to disregarding the type of the emitter used (moving vs. stationary). I simply pointed out this was incorrect.
    You would say it is incorrect just on principle. You really haven't the faintest idea of what we are discussing.

    OK, at this point you are reduced to dissecting fine rethorical points.
    Fine with me, I'll wait.

    BTW, you don't get to call when I (or anybody) "comes back". If you want that kind of forum, open a private one which you can moderate.
    ....comes back to my posts...
    I dont have time to argue with non scientists.

    You just assume what's convenient for your ego regarding those who
    disagree with you. This approach will lead you nowhere.

    As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll let you know.
    Spo far it's a been an almost exclusive stream of nonsense and false claims.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 19 21:00:54 2023
    Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:


    PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.

    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
    that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:

    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:

    + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.

    Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).

    And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
    outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.

    But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain. >>>
    So, don't bother to reply.


    I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
    how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
    It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
    demonstration of realistic thinking.

    This is what I have learned:

    "If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
    B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
    OF SYNCHRONISM."
    So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
    and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
    for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
    it must corrected by:
    [v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm

    Or have I missed something?




    In your example, you gave involuntarily (I assume this) the answer: You drove for ONE HOUR, as measured with
    your clock synchronized (I also assume this) with other clocks in the surroundings of your departure time from A

    "My example" was YOUR example and thus utter nonsense.

    I said:
    "I am on the equator and my clock is showing UTC"

    You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
    how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
    nonsense I have ever read!

    But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
    ____________________

    Richard Hertz wrote:
    "PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are,
    by using UTC in a discussion of SR."

    (You can snip the rest, you won't understand it.)

    The point is that according to SR, UTC (and TAI) clocks
    are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred frame (ECI),
    but they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
    This can be and is measured.

    I showed the calculation for two stationary UTC clocks at
    the ground at equator, oriented east-west, separated by 100 km.

    The ground frame is moving at v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI-frame,
    where the speed of light is c.

    A light pulse is emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
    The pulse is reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
    and reach clock A when it shows tA'.

    https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
    Equations (3) and (4)

    tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B
    tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v) transit time B->A

    rAB = 100 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s

    tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 333.564613 μs
    tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 333.563578 μs
    tAB-tBA = 1.035 ns

    That is, the difference between the transit time
    of the light forth and back is δt = 1.035 ns


    So according to SR, the UTC clocks are NOT synchronous
    in the ground frame.

    This phenomenon is often called the "Sagnac effect".

    I will show you why:

    If you send light in both direction around the Earth,
    the difference in transit time for the two directions will be:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    equation (8)

    ∆t = 4πrv/c²⋅√(1−v^/c²)

    r = 6378 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s
    ∆t = 0.41476 μs


    The circumference of the Earth is 2πr = 40074 km

    δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns

    _________________

    I will leave the rest as it is.


    I assume, also, that time tA = UTC - 3 was the accepted synchronous time being at A.

    If you travel eastward for 1 hour, your clock SHOULD BE ADJUSTED to show tB = UTC - 2. Your speed v is irrelevant,
    as you also disclosed the time that you invested in such travel.

    A different thing is, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR CLOCK SYCHRONIZED WITH tA = UTC - 3, that your clock (giving tB)
    be constantly adjusted to be in sync with tA (UTC sync), by adding a difference Δt to tB:

    BA = v (tB - tA) = ΔtB

    Δt = 86,400 v (tB - tA)/6713Km = 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec

    Once v ΔtB = 6,713 Km, you have gone around the Earth, at the ground level in the equator, so you have to resync tB = tA,
    and add one day to your general time counter.

    If you moved v ΔtB/24 = 279.7083 Km, your moving clock SHOULD SHOW tA + 1Hr = UTC - 2.

    For any time ΔtB, your clock should show tB = tA + 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec, to be in sync with UTC(tA).

    Sec(1 day)/perimeter_at_equator = 0.01287055 sec/m

    NOW, you want to be sure that people at A know your instantaneous UTC synchronized time tB.

    You have to invest an additional time t+ = v/c ΔtB to communicate (1-way) your UTC synchronized time tB to the A side.


    You'll notice that A and B sides of this problem can't solve the verification, in real time, about how well sychronized are their clocks.

    There always will be a time window of uncertainty not lower than t+ = v/c ΔtB on the A side, EVEN WHEN A CORRECTION FOR
    SIMULTANEITY t+ = v/c ΔtB BE ADDED TO THE CLOCKS IN THE A SIDE.

    As you can see, this problem has more than one level of complexity.

    But Einstein just ignored all this shit, because he was a fucking cretin and deceiver.


    Amazing, isn't it? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Wed Apr 19 12:35:37 2023
    On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:09:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
    in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
    my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
    for better purposes.




    *******************************************************************
    The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
    asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:

    Quote Einstein 1905:
    QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
    [NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
    the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”

    QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
    length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
    This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
    that it differs from l.
    Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
    two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.


    QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
    stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"

    ***** END OF QUOTING ******

    REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS

    Let's describe the whole scenario:
    1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
    2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmA.
    3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.

    This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.

    EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:

    When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.

    If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).

    When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.

    It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)

    This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.

    Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.

    REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2

    1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position.
    I register a time tmA = tA
    2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c

    The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time

    tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip is

    Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c

    PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN

    The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:

    1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA

    2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB

    tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)

    3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:

    t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES
    (by CALCULATION) is

    Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]

    A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.

    Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.

    He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
    come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.

    The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
    waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
    Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
    and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).

    But my position on this relativity is simple:

    1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
    2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT,
    without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
    as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the 1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused
    on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal
    of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.

    My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
    have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.

    RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
    WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
    WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.

    ****************************************
    It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.

    Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.

    Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).

    This will continue.

    Science had to have a beginning.
    It always starts off the most backward.
    You can't blame anyone for that.
    How can the modern blame the ancient?
    where of itself in the future will be
    the same? If Einstein was alive he
    could get better instead. Leave up
    to the world to hold him where he got
    the most wrong...

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 19 22:05:00 2023
    Le 18/04/2023 à 00:14, Richard Hertz a écrit :
    On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.


    Be careful, the theory of relativity is mathematically very simple, I keep saying it, but it is incredibly difficult to understand when you don't
    have the right physical concepts.

    It is necessary to proceed with the manner of small baby steps.

    Pay close attention to what you say, understand the words you use.

    Mathematically understanding the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations is very easy.

    Performing them physically is very difficult, and the only one who seems
    to have completely succeeded is me.

    It is therefore necessary to discuss with cordiality, and with baby steps,
    it is the only way to understand each other perfectly and to wipe off the
    map all misunderstandings, errors, cranks.

    Please, Richard and Paul, don't insult each other, it hurts the debate.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Wed Apr 19 15:54:10 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:


    PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.

    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
    that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:

    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:

    + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.

    Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).

    And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
    outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.

    But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.

    So, don't bother to reply.


    I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
    how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
    It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
    demonstration of realistic thinking.

    This is what I have learned:

    "If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
    B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
    OF SYNCHRONISM."
    So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
    and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
    for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
    it must corrected by:
    [v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm

    Or have I missed something?




    In your example, you gave involuntarily (I assume this) the answer: You drove for ONE HOUR, as measured with
    your clock synchronized (I also assume this) with other clocks in the surroundings of your departure time from A
    "My example" was YOUR example and thus utter nonsense.

    I said:
    "I am on the equator and my clock is showing UTC"

    You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
    how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
    nonsense I have ever read!

    But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
    ____________________
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    "PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are,
    by using UTC in a discussion of SR."
    (You can snip the rest, you won't understand it.)

    The point is that according to SR, UTC (and TAI) clocks
    are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred frame (ECI),
    but they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
    This can be and is measured.

    I showed the calculation for two stationary UTC clocks at
    the ground at equator, oriented east-west, separated by 100 km.

    The ground frame is moving at v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI-frame,
    where the speed of light is c.

    A light pulse is emitted from clock A when it shows tA.
    The pulse is reflected from clock B when it shows tB,
    and reach clock A when it shows tA'. https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf
    Equations (3) and (4)

    tAB = tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) transit time A->B
    tBA = tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v) transit time B->A
    rAB = 100 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s

    tAB = rAB/(c-v) = 333.564613 μs
    tBA = rAB/(c+v) = 333.563578 μs
    tAB-tBA = 1.035 ns
    That is, the difference between the transit time
    of the light forth and back is δt = 1.035 ns


    So according to SR, the UTC clocks are NOT synchronous
    in the ground frame.

    This phenomenon is often called the "Sagnac effect".

    I will show you why:

    If you send light in both direction around the Earth,
    the difference in transit time for the two directions will be:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    equation (8)

    ∆t = 4πrv/c²⋅√(1−v^/c²)

    r = 6378 km, v = 465.1 m/s, c = 299792458 m/s
    ∆t = 0.41476 μs


    The circumference of the Earth is 2πr = 40074 km

    δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns

    _________________

    I will leave the rest as it is.

    I assume, also, that time tA = UTC - 3 was the accepted synchronous time being at A.

    If you travel eastward for 1 hour, your clock SHOULD BE ADJUSTED to show tB = UTC - 2. Your speed v is irrelevant,
    as you also disclosed the time that you invested in such travel.

    A different thing is, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR CLOCK SYCHRONIZED WITH tA = UTC - 3, that your clock (giving tB)
    be constantly adjusted to be in sync with tA (UTC sync), by adding a difference Δt to tB:

    BA = v (tB - tA) = ΔtB

    Δt = 86,400 v (tB - tA)/6713Km = 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec

    Once v ΔtB = 6,713 Km, you have gone around the Earth, at the ground level in the equator, so you have to resync tB = tA,
    and add one day to your general time counter.

    If you moved v ΔtB/24 = 279.7083 Km, your moving clock SHOULD SHOW tA + 1Hr = UTC - 2.

    For any time ΔtB, your clock should show tB = tA + 0.01287055 v ΔtB sec, to be in sync with UTC(tA).

    Sec(1 day)/perimeter_at_equator = 0.01287055 sec/m

    NOW, you want to be sure that people at A know your instantaneous UTC synchronized time tB.

    You have to invest an additional time t+ = v/c ΔtB to communicate (1-way) your UTC synchronized time tB to the A side.


    You'll notice that A and B sides of this problem can't solve the verification, in real time, about how well sychronized are their clocks.

    There always will be a time window of uncertainty not lower than t+ = v/c ΔtB on the A side, EVEN WHEN A CORRECTION FOR
    SIMULTANEITY t+ = v/c ΔtB BE ADDED TO THE CLOCKS IN THE A SIDE.

    As you can see, this problem has more than one level of complexity.

    But Einstein just ignored all this shit, because he was a fucking cretin and deceiver.

    Amazing, isn't it? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    Definitely, you are too much infected with the Einstein virus, for which there is no and will not be any cure.

    You just DON'T REASON. Your mind is full of relativity shit, so there is not even a couple of neurons available for alternative thoughts.

    I insist, yet, with elementary concepts THAT RULE the modern world.

    1) Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), international basis of civil and scientific time, which was introduced on January 1, 1960.
    The unit of UTC is the second.
    In 1967, a committee at the United Nations officially adopted UTC as a standard that's more accurate than GMT for setting clocks.
    UTC incorporates measurements of the Earth's rotation as well as averaged readings from around 400 atomic clocks around the world,
    task being in charge of BIPM.
    UTC replaced the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) as the world standard of time on January 1, 1972. For 50 years now, UTC has been the
    standard that is used to set all time zones around the globe.

    Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), is the international reference time scale that forms the basis for the coordinated dissemination of standard frequencies and time signals; UTC is obtained from International Atomic Time (TAI) by the insertion of leap
    seconds according to the advice of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) to ensure approximate agreement with the time derived from the rotation of the Earth. The formal definition of UTC and TAI was adopted by the CGPM in
    2018.

    https://www.bipm.org/en/home

    2) UTC, as GMT, use the Prime Meridian, which run through Greenwich.

    There were two main reasons for the choice. The first was the fact that the USA had already chosen Greenwich as the basis for its own national time zone system. The second was that in the late 19th century, 72% of the world's commerce depended on sea-
    charts which used Greenwich as the Prime Meridian.

    The decision was based on the argument that by naming Greenwich as Longitude 0º, it would be advantageous to the largest number of people. Therefore, the Prime Meridian at Greenwich became the center of world time.

    3) The list of the UTC time offsets show the difference in hours and minutes from Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), from the westernmost (−12:00) to the easternmost (+14:00). It includes countries and regions that observe them during standard time
    or year-round.

    The UTC of any given region is given as: UTC ± hh:mm

    Examples:

    Canada (Labrador): UTC−03:30
    Canada (British Columbia): UTC−08:00
    Iran: UTC+03:30
    Vietnam: UTC+07:00


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UTC_offsets

    The actual number of offsets for a given day is 24, being +/-12 units from the Prime Meridian. Each unit represents 1 Hour time,
    or 3,600 seconds time. According to it, any given day contains 86,400 seconds.

    To facilitate tracking missions around the world, clocks in JPL's darkroom are set to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). It means
    that UTC extend into the local space surrounding Earth (by convention) to heights of thousand of km (like with GPS positioning).


    Now, Paul, adjust your relativity sychronism crap to this REALITY, and please use module 86400 to time in seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Wed Apr 19 22:27:47 2023
    On Wednesday, 19 April 2023 at 21:00:57 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 00:14, skrev Richard Hertz:


    PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are, by using UTC in a discussion of SR.

    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each)
    that are used to tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:

    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation), the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side), clock at B is ahead from clock at A by:

    + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    And, if B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION OF SYNCHRONISM.

    Not the crap that Einstein pulled out of his ass, being that UTC was the norm in 1905 (except in France).

    And IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, here on Earth, include the above concepts and you'll be REALISTIC, thinking
    outside the realm of fairies and deceivers.

    But I'm asking too much to you: old, fanatic and with a fossilized brain.

    So, don't bother to reply.


    I won't comment your brilliant lecture about UTC and
    how to correct moving clocks to make them show UTC.
    It is breathtaking, and I have nothing to add to your
    demonstration of realistic thinking.

    This is what I have learned:

    "If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
    B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
    OF SYNCHRONISM."
    So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
    and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
    for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
    it must corrected by:
    [v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm

    Or have I missed something?




    In your example, you gave involuntarily (I assume this) the answer: You drove for ONE HOUR, as measured with
    your clock synchronized (I also assume this) with other clocks in the surroundings of your departure time from A
    "My example" was YOUR example and thus utter nonsense.

    I said:
    "I am on the equator and my clock is showing UTC"

    You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
    how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
    nonsense I have ever read!

    But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
    ____________________
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    "PAUL, this post shows how full of crap you are,
    by using UTC in a discussion of SR."
    (You can snip the rest, you won't understand it.)

    The point is that according to SR, UTC (and TAI) clocks
    are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred frame (ECI),
    but they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.

    Isn't it because there is no such thing as
    "ground frame" according to your moronic
    religion?


    This can be and is measured.

    Of course it can be; a fanatic idiot can always
    measure whatever he wants and say it's "proper".


    I showed the calculation for two stationary UTC clocks at
    the ground at equator, oriented east-west, separated by 100 km.

    Well, take your calculation and put it straight
    into your lying, fanatic ass, where it belongs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 20 02:17:48 2023
    On 4/19/2023 6:54 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    This is what I have learned:

    "If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
    B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
    OF SYNCHRONISM."
    So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
    and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
    for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
    it must corrected by:
    [v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm

    Or have I missed something?

    Yes you have. It seems that Richard has been taking stupidity lessons
    from our Polish janitor.

    The UTC of any given region is given as: UTC ± hh:mm

    Hahahahahaha!!! It does appear Dick Hurts did take stupidity lessons
    from the Polish janitor! He appears to think that the position and/or
    rotation of earth creates time or something.

    Hint: There is one, and only one, UTC time. It ticks in lockstep with
    TAI time, GPS time and LORAN time. It is at a certain number of seconds
    offset from TAI time, the exact number depending on the insertion of
    leap seconds to compensate for the unsteady rotation of earth.

    Meanwhile, most countries don't care for local noon happening at 3am or
    10pm or something, so they don't use UTC directly but use a time zone
    offset from UTC for their official time, so that their clock noon
    happens approximately at solar noon. For example, Eastern Standard Time
    in the US is UTC-5:00, meaning noon Eastern Standard Time happens 5
    hours after 12:00 UTC. Each country decides for itself which time zone
    to use, the most recent to change was North Korea (because, well, North
    Korea).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Apr 19 23:36:41 2023
    On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 08:17:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 4/19/2023 6:54 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 18.04.2023 23:39, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    This is what I have learned:

    "If B is moving at a constant speed v, the clock at
    B HAVE TO be corrected by [v/c . BA] for ANY CALCULATION
    OF SYNCHRONISM."
    So if I am at the equator, and my clock is showing UTC,
    and I in my car drive eastwards with speed v = 100 km/h
    for an hour, then, to keep my watch synchronous with UTC,
    it must corrected by:
    [v/c . BA] = [27.7777778/299792458 ⋅ 100000] m = 9.265669 mm

    Or have I missed something?
    Yes you have. It seems that Richard has been taking stupidity lessons
    from our Polish janitor.
    The UTC of any given region is given as: UTC ± hh:mm
    Hahahahahaha!!! It does appear Dick Hurts did take stupidity lessons
    from the Polish janitor! He appears to think that the position and/or rotation of earth creates time or something.

    And do you still believe that adjusting clocks to
    your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?
    You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike.


    Hint: There is one, and only one, UTC time.

    There is. And it doesn't dilate, samely as other
    times of the real world (TAI, GPS, zone times).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Thu Apr 20 12:03:23 2023
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:



    You just assume what's convenient for your ego regarding those who
    disagree with you. This approach will lead you nowhere.

    As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll let you know.
    Spo far it's a been an almost exclusive stream of nonsense and false
    claims.

    Maybe we are not discussing the same part of Einstein's paper. I am
    referring to the section in which he attempts to prove that clocks which
    are correctly synchronized in one frame will not be in synch in any other.
    He does that by calculating that they will measure light speeds which
    differ from c. That is the basis of his RoS and is where the fundamental
    error lies.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 20 05:52:00 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:03:25 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:



    You just assume what's convenient for your ego regarding those who disagree with you. This approach will lead you nowhere.

    As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll let you know.
    Spo far it's a been an almost exclusive stream of nonsense and false claims.

    Maybe we are not discussing the same part of Einstein's paper. I am referring to the section in which he attempts to prove that clocks which
    are correctly synchronized in one frame will not be in synch in any other. He does that by calculating that they will measure light speeds which
    differ from c. That is the basis of his RoS and is where the fundamental error lies.





    --
    -- lover of truth


    Tell me if anyone understands this concept. I will not get into mathematics because I am not able
    to convince anyone through mathematics.

    For any 'observer' or clock, the movement of the source does not matter. So the source can be taken to be
    stationary in each case.

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.

    The reflected light source from B is from a source that is at rest with respect to A.

    The distance AB and BA therefore cannot change.

    Where am I getting this from? From the 'second postulate' which actually was stated before Einstein's paper.
    That is why it was a problem to him, he took it as a result of MM.

    Interesting to see the reasoning here.

    We are not discussing relativity but reason here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 20 11:27:09 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:03:25 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:



    You just assume what's convenient for your ego regarding those who disagree with you. This approach will lead you nowhere.

    As soon as you post something that makes sense, I'll let you know.
    Spo far it's a been an almost exclusive stream of nonsense and false claims.

    Maybe we are not discussing the same part of Einstein's paper. I am referring to the section in which he attempts to prove that clocks which
    are correctly synchronized in one frame will not be in synch in any other. He does that by calculating that they will measure light speeds which
    differ from c.

    Not light speeds. Time differences between certain events.

    That is the basis of his RoS and is where the fundamental
    error lies.

    It's an assumption(*), not an error.

    (*)designed to reproduce Newtonian kinematics as close as possible

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 20 22:30:09 2023
    Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
    how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
    nonsense I have ever read!

    But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
    ____________________

    Definitely, you are too much infected with the Einstein virus, for which there is no and will not be any cure.

    You just DON'T REASON. Your mind is full of relativity shit, so there is not even a couple of neurons available for alternative thoughts.

    I insist, yet, with elementary concepts THAT RULE the modern world.

    You have in several postings demonstrated that you
    don't know what UTC is, and now you think you can remedy
    that by looking it up and quoting.

    If you now really have learned what UTC is, you MUST know
    that what you have written in your previous postings is nonsense.



    1) Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), international basis of civil and scientific time, which was introduced on January 1, 1960.
    The unit of UTC is the second.
    In 1967, a committee at the United Nations officially adopted UTC as a standard that's more accurate than GMT for setting clocks.
    UTC incorporates measurements of the Earth's rotation as well as averaged readings from around 400 atomic clocks around the world,
    task being in charge of BIPM.
    UTC replaced the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) as the world standard of time on January 1, 1972. For 50 years now, UTC has been the
    standard that is used to set all time zones around the globe.

    Yes, I know what UTC is, and if you now have learned it,
    you will know the following:

    There are a number of clocks showing UTC in the world, and all
    these clocks will at any time always show the exactly the same
    (observed in the ECI-frame). If the clocks are precise, there
    will never be any need to adjust them (except for leap seconds).

    I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
    distance between them is 100 km.

    Note this:
    The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
    they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.

    But here is what you had to say about the UTC-clocks.

    Richard Hertz wrote:
    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity
    IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each) that are used to
    tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    There are 24 time Zones, but only one UTC.

    The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone
    they may be in is irrelevant.

    You do not USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (time zones) to tell UTC time.


    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator),
    which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    "UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D
    Each segment (Time Zone) is 1,667.9 km/h ??

    The ground at equator is moving with this speed in
    the ECI frame, and so are the clocks A and B.


    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light
    would
    cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    Not quite.
    Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
    Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms
    The difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)

    Which means that light moving eastwards will cover
    the 100 km distance between the clocks A and B in
    δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
    longer time than the light moving westwards.

    Since the transit time of the light between A and B is
    different in the two directions, the two UTC clocks
    are not synchronous in the ground frame.


    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's
    rotation),
    the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to
    B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time
    (observed in the ECI frame).

    ____________________________________

    Have you now learned the difference between LMT and UTC, Richard?

    Do you now know that you do not have to adjust a UTC clock because
    the Earth is rotating?

    You will snip this, won't you? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Thu Apr 20 15:50:59 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:30:14 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:00:57 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    You obviously don't know what UTC is, and your babble about
    how to keep clocks synchronized with UTC is some of the most stupid
    nonsense I have ever read!

    But it was hilarious, so I did get a good laugh.
    ____________________

    Definitely, you are too much infected with the Einstein virus, for which there is no and will not be any cure.

    You just DON'T REASON. Your mind is full of relativity shit, so there is not even a couple of neurons available for alternative thoughts.

    I insist, yet, with elementary concepts THAT RULE the modern world.

    You have in several postings demonstrated that you
    don't know what UTC is, and now you think you can remedy
    that by looking it up and quoting.

    If you now really have learned what UTC is, you MUST know
    that what you have written in your previous postings is nonsense.



    1) Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), international basis of civil and scientific time, which was introduced on January 1, 1960.
    The unit of UTC is the second.
    In 1967, a committee at the United Nations officially adopted UTC as a standard that's more accurate than GMT for setting clocks.
    UTC incorporates measurements of the Earth's rotation as well as averaged readings from around 400 atomic clocks around the world,
    task being in charge of BIPM.
    UTC replaced the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) as the world standard of time on January 1, 1972. For 50 years now, UTC has been the
    standard that is used to set all time zones around the globe.

    Yes, I know what UTC is, and if you now have learned it,
    you will know the following:

    There are a number of clocks showing UTC in the world, and all
    these clocks will at any time always show the exactly the same
    (observed in the ECI-frame). If the clocks are precise, there
    will never be any need to adjust them (except for leap seconds).

    I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
    distance between them is 100 km.

    Note this:
    The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
    they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.

    But here is what you had to say about the UTC-clocks.

    Richard Hertz wrote:
    A decent person would consider that, applying UTC in relativity
    IMPLIES TO USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (1 hour each) that are used to
    tell UTC time. You say: I'm living in UTC-8 or UTC+11, not just UTC.

    There are 24 time Zones, but only one UTC.

    The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone
    they may be in is irrelevant.

    You do not USE THE 24 LONGITUDES (time zones) to tell UTC time.


    Using UTC to argue about SR should include the following:
    On ground level, UTC is applied to a perimeter of 40,030 Km (equator), which was divided in 24 segments of 1,667.9 Km/Hr each.

    "UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D
    Each segment (Time Zone) is 1,667.9 km/h ??

    The ground at equator is moving with this speed in
    the ECI frame, and so are the clocks A and B.


    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light
    would
    cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    Not quite.
    Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
    Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms
    The difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)

    Which means that light moving eastwards will cover
    the 100 km distance between the clocks A and B in
    δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
    longer time than the light moving westwards.

    Since the transit time of the light between A and B is
    different in the two directions, the two UTC clocks
    are not synchronous in the ground frame.


    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's
    rotation),
    the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to
    B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time
    (observed in the ECI frame).

    ____________________________________

    Have you now learned the difference between LMT and UTC, Richard?

    Do you now know that you do not have to adjust a UTC clock because
    the Earth is rotating?

    You will snip this, won't you? :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    Paul, I didn't snip anything. I remember that we discussed something about this last year.

    Now, given what you wrote and the concept of synchronism of clocks on Earth and nearby space, DO YOU WANT
    TO DISCUSS SIMULTANEITY IN RELATIVITY, USING UTC?

    But THIS UTC: The one that, with a master clock reference centered on 51.4780° N, 0.0015° W (Greenwich Observatory
    outside of London), where time for an earthly day is set to start at 00:00 at midnight of any given day, and covers the
    globe since this Prime Meridian, in 24 longitudes that define areas from pole to pole, separated 15° each?

    Or do you prefer to stick to the 1905 manifesto, so you feel comfortable, and your credence are not shaken?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 20 16:48:14 2023
    On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:09:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
    in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
    my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
    for better purposes.




    *******************************************************************
    The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
    asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:

    Quote Einstein 1905:
    QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
    [NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
    the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”

    QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
    length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
    This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
    that it differs from l.
    Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
    two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words, that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.


    QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
    stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"

    ***** END OF QUOTING ******

    REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS

    Let's describe the whole scenario:
    1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
    2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmA.
    3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.

    This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.

    EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:

    When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.

    If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).

    When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.

    It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)

    This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.

    Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.

    REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2

    1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position.
    I register a time tmA = tA
    2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c

    The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time

    tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip is

    Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c

    PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN

    The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:

    1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA

    2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB

    tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)

    3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:

    t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES
    (by CALCULATION) is

    Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]

    A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.

    Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.

    He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
    come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.

    The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
    waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
    Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
    and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).

    But my position on this relativity is simple:

    1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
    2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT,
    without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
    as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the 1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused
    on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal
    of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.

    My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
    have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.

    RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
    WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
    WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.

    ****************************************
    It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.

    Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.

    Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).

    This will continue.
    Avoiding ad hominem criticism of Einstein, since I would instead focus on the alleged science, I should say the extreme failures in the most elementary logic committed by Einstein and the relativists invalidate the theory entirely. If Einstein were to
    give a clear and forthright exposition of his argumentation, it would have been more readily seen for the nonsense it is. We can know that a concept is illogical a priori without any need to scrutinize it. Time dilation and length contraction are plain
    examples of ad hoc reasoning. A sound scientific definition of time is necessary. That should be Time= Distance/Speed. More generally, Time = Change/ Rate of change. Regarding the deceiving kinematics, this is another example of Einstein presuming what
    he wants to conclude, petitio principii, as you recognize his "anticipation of a time t not equal to t'."

    You say you accept the second postulate. Einstein’s description of his “second postulate”: “Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” [Einstein’s
    1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”]. That means it rejects Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source. This is also a corollary of Newton's First Law of Motion. How could you accept that? Clearly, you do
    not, yet you use the phrase "independent of the frame of reference" when you mean it shares the velocity of the source. This is confused phraseology. Do you accept that light shares the velocity of the source (Galileo) or that it's independent of the
    motion of its source (Second Postulate)? The sense from your context is you accept Galileo.

    Yes, Lorentz transforms are without physical meaning. Since Poincare did not have an ether, his Lorentz transforms do not account for the lack of ether wind. As Curt Renshaw and others have pointed out, Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the
    transforms when there was no longer any need for them. They were originally meant to save the ether from the null result.

    Yet Einstein said he didn't know about the MMX in 1905 (a lie because he read a lengthy 1890's paper discussing it at length). He wanted to keep the equations "invariant." What is meant by the invariance of the Maxwell equations? It means the equations
    are kept the same while augmenting them with other equations, the Lorentz transformations. Without an ether, what use can they have? They become necessary when Galileo's shared velocity is denied and when they are needed to negate additive velocity
    between reference frames. The trouble is they negate these instead of incorporating them. Galilean transformations contain them while keeping Maxwell's equations "invariant."

    Yes, Einstein asserts what he wants to conclude.

    All of relativity is incoherent gobbledygook.

    Is relativity multicultural science? Einstein's definition of simultaneity reminds me of Ibram Kendi's definition of racism. Both use circular reasoning. ["Here is Kendi’s definition of “racism” in writing: “A collection of racist policies that
    lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas” Now ask yourself whether Kendi answered the question or whether he completely evaded answering the question. It should be clear that “racism” is a key term. If his definition wobbles,
    his entire thought process wobbles. I should also note that I’ve read other passages by Kendi in which he is similarly (and I suspect, coyly and consciously) circular...Consider the definition of circular reasoning: Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus
    in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.. . . Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two
    generally refer to the same thing." - https://dangerousintersection.org/2021/06/01/circular-thinking-101-ibram-kendis-definition-of-racism/]

    Relativity is a fairy tale.

    Paul Alsing is funny because Richard Feynman said if you understand something, you can explain it to the average person.

    Poor Paul Andersen and his arguments from "authority." There have been thousands of excellent scientists who have totally refuted relativity. For example, those 1,000's listed by G. O. Mueller.

    All that's needed to refute relativity is to think for a minute!

    Einstein assumed the Lorentz transformations and concluded the relativity of simultaneity. Otherwise, his train & lightning thought experiment makes no sense.

    The trouble with most critics of relativity is that they accept any of it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 20 17:36:32 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Apr 20 19:00:16 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:36:34 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.
    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?

    What to you mean by same frame? The frame of reference in which A and B are not moving?
    Inertial reference frame?

    Wait: Reference Frames:

    Very interesting:

    "In physics and astronomy, a frame of reference (or reference frame) is an abstract coordinate system whose origin, orientation, and scale are specified by a set of reference points―geometric points whose position is identified both mathematically (
    with numerical coordinate values) and physically (signaled by conventional markers).[1]

    For n dimensions, n + 1 reference points are sufficient to fully define a reference frame. Using rectangular Cartesian coordinates, a reference frame may be defined with a reference point at the origin and a reference point at one unit distance along
    each of the n coordinate axes.[citation needed]

    In Einsteinian relativity, reference frames are used to specify the relationship between a moving observer and the phenomenon under observation. In this context, the term often becomes observational frame of reference (or observational reference frame),
    which implies that the observer is at rest in the frame, although not necessarily located at its origin. A relativistic reference frame includes (or implies) the coordinate time, which does not equate across different reference frames moving relatively
    to each other. The situation thus differs from Galilean relativity, in which all possible coordinate times are essentially equivalent.[citation needed]" Wikipedia

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Apr 20 19:59:21 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:09:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
    in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
    my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
    for better purposes.




    *******************************************************************
    The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
    asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:

    Quote Einstein 1905:
    QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
    [NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
    the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”

    QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
    length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
    This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
    that it differs from l.
    Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words,
    that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.


    QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks
    are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that
    is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
    stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are
    therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"

    ***** END OF QUOTING ******

    REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS

    Let's describe the whole scenario:
    1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
    2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmA.
    3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.

    This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.

    EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:

    When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.

    If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).

    When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.

    It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)

    This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.

    Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote
    in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW
    AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.

    REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2

    1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position.
    I register a time tmA = tA
    2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c

    The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time

    tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip is

    Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c

    PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN

    The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:

    1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA

    2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB

    tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)

    3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:

    t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES
    (by CALCULATION) is

    Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]

    A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.

    Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.

    He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
    come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he
    introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.

    The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
    waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of
    the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
    Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
    and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).

    But my position on this relativity is simple:

    1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
    2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT,
    without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
    as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the 1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.

    My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
    have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.

    RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
    WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
    WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.

    ****************************************
    It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.

    Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and digressions.

    Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).

    This will continue.
    Avoiding ad hominem criticism of Einstein, since I would instead focus on the alleged science, I should say the extreme failures in the most elementary logic committed by Einstein and the relativists invalidate the theory entirely. If Einstein were to
    give a clear and forthright exposition of his argumentation, it would have been more readily seen for the nonsense it is. We can know that a concept is illogical a priori without any need to scrutinize it. Time dilation and length contraction are plain
    examples of ad hoc reasoning. A sound scientific definition of time is necessary. That should be Time= Distance/Speed. More generally, Time = Change/ Rate of change. Regarding the deceiving kinematics, this is another example of Einstein presuming what
    he wants to conclude, petitio principii, as you recognize his "anticipation of a time t not equal to t'."

    You say you accept the second postulate. Einstein’s description of his “second postulate”: “Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” [Einstein’s
    1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”]. That means it rejects Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source. This is also a corollary of Newton's First Law of Motion. How could you accept that? Clearly, you do
    not, yet you use the phrase "independent of the frame of reference" when you mean it shares the velocity of the source. This is confused phraseology. Do you accept that light shares the velocity of the source (Galileo) or that it's independent of the
    motion of its source (Second Postulate)? The sense from your context is you accept Galileo.

    Yes, Lorentz transforms are without physical meaning. Since Poincare did not have an ether, his Lorentz transforms do not account for the lack of ether wind. As Curt Renshaw and others have pointed out, Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the
    transforms when there was no longer any need for them. They were originally meant to save the ether from the null result.

    Yet Einstein said he didn't know about the MMX in 1905 (a lie because he read a lengthy 1890's paper discussing it at length). He wanted to keep the equations "invariant." What is meant by the invariance of the Maxwell equations? It means the equations
    are kept the same while augmenting them with other equations, the Lorentz transformations. Without an ether, what use can they have? They become necessary when Galileo's shared velocity is denied and when they are needed to negate additive velocity
    between reference frames. The trouble is they negate these instead of incorporating them. Galilean transformations contain them while keeping Maxwell's equations "invariant."

    Yes, Einstein asserts what he wants to conclude.

    All of relativity is incoherent gobbledygook.

    Is relativity multicultural science? Einstein's definition of simultaneity reminds me of Ibram Kendi's definition of racism. Both use circular reasoning. ["Here is Kendi’s definition of “racism” in writing: “A collection of racist policies that
    lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas” Now ask yourself whether Kendi answered the question or whether he completely evaded answering the question. It should be clear that “racism” is a key term. If his definition wobbles,
    his entire thought process wobbles. I should also note that I’ve read other passages by Kendi in which he is similarly (and I suspect, coyly and consciously) circular...Consider the definition of circular reasoning: Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus
    in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.. . . Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two
    generally refer to the same thing." - https://dangerousintersection.org/2021/06/01/circular-thinking-101-ibram-kendis-definition-of-racism/]

    Relativity is a fairy tale.

    Paul Alsing is funny because Richard Feynman said if you understand something, you can explain it to the average person.

    Poor Paul Andersen and his arguments from "authority." There have been thousands of excellent scientists who have totally refuted relativity. For example, those 1,000's listed by G. O. Mueller.

    All that's needed to refute relativity is to think for a minute!

    Einstein assumed the Lorentz transformations and concluded the relativity of simultaneity. Otherwise, his train & lightning thought experiment makes no sense.

    The trouble with most critics of relativity is that they accept any of it.

    I conside that this post is very interesting and contain deep thoughts about the development of the timeline that connects
    (1887) MMX, (1892) FitzGerald proposal that Lorentz kept developing, (1904) Lorentz final work over FitzGerald proposal,
    (1905) Poincaré etherless reformulation, (1905) Einstein's plagiarism (80% Lorentz, 15% Poincaré and 5% Einstein's worthless
    gobbledygook.

    In the above timeline, I found highly reasonable your comment about the lack of any need, after Poincaré (a mathematical work),
    to keep using Lorentz transforms in an etherless context.

    But the timeline didn't include the foundational work of 1887 Voigt, just months before MMX and not connected with it.

    Voigt, of whom 1908 Minkowski named as the real father of relativity, which I consider was not his objective at all, proposed
    something very simple, which Einstein HAD to have known (same notation):

    ** Which is the transformation that makes every linear transformation of new dimensions (ξ,η,ζ,τ)

    ξ = f₁(x,y,z,t)
    η = f₂(x,y,z,t)
    ζ = f₃(x,y,z,t)
    τ = f(x,y,z,t)

    that the 3D general wave equation is INVARIANT (and Voigt did this because galilean transform failed in its transform).

    With 19 free parameters, Voigt found that the INVARIANCE required a transform factor q² = 1/(1 - χ²/ω²), the famous GAMMA (γ),
    PLUS τ = t − χ/ω² (xα₁ + yβ₁ + zγ₁) , the famous LOCAL TIME. Also, he obtained its transforms mantaining t = τ.

    Only Einstein found an interesteing way to profit τ ≠ t, something that Lorentz, the year before, DISMISSED AS A COLATERAL ARTIFACT.

    Including Voigt in the relativity timeline (1897-1905) highlight the non-physical exploitation of the mathematics that gave τ ≠ t,
    being that the prime objective of Lorentz was to obtain ξ (or x') ≠ x, which also was non-physical and NEVER was proven right in
    119 years.

    While Lorentz just PLANTED Voigt's q (γ) OUT OF THE BLUE, Einstein did mathematic acrobacies to derive simultaneously τ and ξ.
    And this "derivation" is so strongly interconnected that, if ξ has been FALSE/UNPROVEN, automathically τ IS FALSE/UNPROVEN.

    Consider this in the general picture described in your post.

    Also, regarding circular logic like your example of racism, in enters into the realm of the pseudo-logic of sophism, in which Einstein
    was an expert as a fallacious deceiver.

    Sophism: a clever but false or fallacious argument, used deliberately to deceive.

    And, in one of many cases within the 1905 manifesto, the preemptive and subtle assertion that rAB ≠ l AND that it WOULD BE FOUND
    that movile clocks LOST its synchronism is a PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PETITIO PRINCIPII.

    The whole paper, besides the plagiarism since Point 4 onwards, is just pseudo-physics, based on SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION, not in
    real physics. He exploited this fallacy by mathematics.

    BUT MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS. ITS JUST A TOOL USED IN PHYSICS, NOT A PHYSICS LAWS GENERATOR PER SE.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 20 19:31:08 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:36:34 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?

    What to you mean by same frame? The frame of reference in which A and B are not moving?
    Inertial reference frame?

    Einstein called this the stationary frame...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Apr 20 20:01:37 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:31:10 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:36:34 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?

    What to you mean by same frame? The frame of reference in which A and B are not moving?
    Inertial reference frame?
    Einstein called this the stationary frame...

    No, he didn't, asshole. Crawl back to under the rock that you came from.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 20 21:17:33 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:01:39 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:31:10 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:36:34 AM UTC+5, Paul Alsing wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?

    What to you mean by same frame? The frame of reference in which A and B are not moving?
    Inertial reference frame?
    Einstein called this the stationary frame...

    No, he didn't, asshole. Crawl back to under the rock that you came from.

    Now remember, Richard, tomorrow is "Hug a Crank Day", so don't freak out like you did last year, no one is trying to hurt you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Apr 20 21:54:14 2023
    On Friday, 21 April 2023 at 02:36:34 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with respect to B.
    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?

    Sure, Al, poor halfbrain. And not in just one, they
    must be both in all frames.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Apr 21 13:27:22 2023
    On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Paul Alsing wrote:

    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with
    respect to B.

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame...
    pretty simple, eh?

    no, you expressed what you wanted to say incorrectly.. In fact, every
    object in the universe is in every frame.

    You probably meant 'A, B and the light source were mutually at rest'.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 21 07:12:37 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:27:25 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:36:32 -0700 (PDT), Paul Alsing wrote:

    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    For B, the source of light at A is not moving, but stationary with
    respect to B.

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame... pretty simple, eh?
    no, you expressed what you wanted to say incorrectly.. In fact, every
    object in the universe is in every frame.

    You probably meant 'A, B and the light source were mutually at rest'.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paparios@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 21 07:19:50 2023
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?

    Wrong!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paparios on Fri Apr 21 08:27:10 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?
    Wrong!!!


    Well yes, but is that now what the second postulate says? The motion of the source does not matter, meaning it could be plus 1
    -1, 0, or come to think of it, -299 792 000 m / s or + 299 792 000 m / s

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Apr 21 10:26:55 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:59:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:09:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    WARNING: This is a long and SERIOUS post, meant to show fatal flaws
    in SR, since the start. If you are not going to read it carefully, think about
    my comments and remarks, please don't keep reading and use your time
    for better purposes.




    *******************************************************************
    The equations in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times" ARE PLAIN
    WRONG. There is a FALLACIOUS SYNCHRONISM, which is deceivingly
    asserted in an extense wording meant to confuse and deceive readers:

    Quote Einstein 1905:
    QUOTE 1: (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system
    and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what
    points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are
    located at a definite time. The distance between these two points
    [NOTE: A and B], measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in
    this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated “the length of
    the rod [NOTE: length l = B-A].”

    QUOTE 2: The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call “the
    length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system [NOTE: rAB ≠ l = B-A].”
    This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find
    that it differs from l.
    Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these two operations are precisely equal [NOTE: rAB = l = B-A], or in other words,
    that a moving rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same body at rest in a definite position.


    QUOTE 3: "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks
    are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that
    is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
    stationary system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are
    therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”"

    ***** END OF QUOTING ******

    REPHRASING QUOTES WITH DETAILED PARAMETERS

    Let's describe the whole scenario:
    1) Observer oR is at rest, in the origin: his clock shows tR.
    2) Observer oA is on the side A of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmA.
    3) Observer oB is on the side B of the moving rod of length l:
    his clock shows tmB = tmA + l/v.

    This FALSE synchronism is due to the following fallacy, disguised in Einstein's wording.

    EXPLANATION OF REAL VALUES FOR THE THREE CLOCKS:

    When the rod of length AB passes by the coordinate origin (0,0,0,tR), only
    ONE SIDE can be synchronized with tR, because the rod moves at speed v.

    If side A is synchronized, it's made that (0,0,0,tR) = (0,0,0,tmA).

    When B passes by the origin, a time duration BA/v = l/v has passed.

    It means that the synchronism with the clock on the side B is given by (0,0,0,tR + BA/v) = (0,0,0,tmB)

    This means that the clock tmB is l/v seconds after clock tmA.

    Putting aside this problem for the moment, let's analyze what Einstein wrote
    in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", with more detail and NEW
    AND CLEAR denominations of the elements involved.

    REPHRASING OF THE DESCRIPTION THAT EINSTEIN DID IN § 2

    1) The observer oA states: A ray of light has departed from my position. I register a time tmA = tA
    2) The observer oB states: A ray of light has reached my position, coming
    from A. I register a time tmB = tmA + l/c

    The ray of light bounces back from the side B towards the side A. The observer oA affirms: The ray of light reached my position in a time

    tmA' = tmB + l/c = tmA + 2l/c

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip is

    Δtm = tmA' - tmA = 2l/c

    PERCEPTION AT THE ORIGIN

    The observer oR, in the origin, states that he PERCEIVED a rod with length
    rAB ≠ l, and that the timing involved is:

    1) Ray of light departs from A: tR = tA

    2) Ray of light reaches B: tR = tB

    tB = tA + rAB/(c − v)

    3) Ray of light bounces from B and reaches side A:

    t'A = tB + rAB/(c + v) = tA + rAB/(c − v) + rAB/(c + v) = tA + 2c rAB/(c² - v²)

    The elapsed time of the roundtrip that the observer at rest PERCEIVES (by CALCULATION) is

    Δt = tA' - tA = 2rAB/[c (1 - v²/c²)]

    A considerable difference with Δtm, as MEASURED in the moving rod.

    Using a DECEIVING kinematics, Einstein went further into his pursuit of Lorentz transforms, WHICH ARE PERCEPTUAL.

    He anticipated, in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", what would
    come later in § 3, by working HIS ANTICIPATION OF A TIME τ ≠ t, which he
    introduced with no other justification than HIS IMAGINATION about moving clocks being out of sync with the clock at rest.

    The entire initial text, from §1 to the most of the Point §3, is a sloppy work
    waiting for gullible and NOT SO detailed readers to be caught by the rest of
    the paper, starting at §4. The rest of the paper is a plagiarism of Lorentz and
    Poincaré (like the addition of velocities, Maxwell's invariance, longitudinal
    and traversal mass of the electron, etc.).

    But my position on this relativity is simple:

    1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely.
    2) I consider that Lorentz transforms are a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT, without physical meaning. Lorentz PLANTED Gamma from Voigt, as well
    as Voigt's local time. Poincaré got rid of ether in his formalism of the
    1904 Lorentz transforms, and named then after him. Einstein just focused on what Lorentz ignored as a residual factor (TIME), and made a big deal of it AS A NATURAL EXPRESSION WITH PHYSICAL VALUE.

    My conclusion: Even when Lorentz transforms are pretty curiosities that emerge BY MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATION (as many others), they don't
    have THE LEAST PHYSICAL MEANING.

    RELATIVITY IS A FRAUD, BORN IN A 1905 HOAX, FUELLED BY MANY WHO
    WANTED A NEW PHYSICS (UNACCOUNTABLE), AS A NEW TOY TO PLAY
    WITH. IT APPLIES TO SR OR GR.

    ****************************************
    It will be shown, in another thread, that these fallacies and deceptions (widely accepted) are the basis for the ILL-DERIVATION OF PERCEPTIONS
    OF LENGTHS AND TIMES, which ends in a dubious development of Lorentz transforms.

    Take note that the above content, rephrased from "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", show that the basis for Einstein's relativity are FALSE and introduced by the use of fallacies and confusing but not detailed assertions and
    digressions.

    Also, note that the concepts of "length contraction" and "time dilation" are subtled introduced and stated, which is A CIRCULAR THOUGHT (PETITIO PRINCIPII FALLACY).

    This will continue.
    Avoiding ad hominem criticism of Einstein, since I would instead focus on the alleged science, I should say the extreme failures in the most elementary logic committed by Einstein and the relativists invalidate the theory entirely. If Einstein were
    to give a clear and forthright exposition of his argumentation, it would have been more readily seen for the nonsense it is. We can know that a concept is illogical a priori without any need to scrutinize it. Time dilation and length contraction are
    plain examples of ad hoc reasoning. A sound scientific definition of time is necessary. That should be Time= Distance/Speed. More generally, Time = Change/ Rate of change. Regarding the deceiving kinematics, this is another example of Einstein presuming
    what he wants to conclude, petitio principii, as you recognize his "anticipation of a time t not equal to t'."

    You say you accept the second postulate. Einstein’s description of his “second postulate”: “Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” [Einstein’s
    1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”]. That means it rejects Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source. This is also a corollary of Newton's First Law of Motion. How could you accept that? Clearly, you do
    not, yet you use the phrase "independent of the frame of reference" when you mean it shares the velocity of the source. This is confused phraseology. Do you accept that light shares the velocity of the source (Galileo) or that it's independent of the
    motion of its source (Second Postulate)? The sense from your context is you accept Galileo.

    Yes, Lorentz transforms are without physical meaning. Since Poincare did not have an ether, his Lorentz transforms do not account for the lack of ether wind. As Curt Renshaw and others have pointed out, Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the
    transforms when there was no longer any need for them. They were originally meant to save the ether from the null result.

    Yet Einstein said he didn't know about the MMX in 1905 (a lie because he read a lengthy 1890's paper discussing it at length). He wanted to keep the equations "invariant." What is meant by the invariance of the Maxwell equations? It means the
    equations are kept the same while augmenting them with other equations, the Lorentz transformations. Without an ether, what use can they have? They become necessary when Galileo's shared velocity is denied and when they are needed to negate additive
    velocity between reference frames. The trouble is they negate these instead of incorporating them. Galilean transformations contain them while keeping Maxwell's equations "invariant."

    Yes, Einstein asserts what he wants to conclude.

    All of relativity is incoherent gobbledygook.

    Is relativity multicultural science? Einstein's definition of simultaneity reminds me of Ibram Kendi's definition of racism. Both use circular reasoning. ["Here is Kendi’s definition of “racism” in writing: “A collection of racist policies
    that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas” Now ask yourself whether Kendi answered the question or whether he completely evaded answering the question. It should be clear that “racism” is a key term. If his definition
    wobbles, his entire thought process wobbles. I should also note that I’ve read other passages by Kendi in which he is similarly (and I suspect, coyly and consciously) circular...Consider the definition of circular reasoning: Circular reasoning (Latin:
    circulus in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.. . . Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage
    the two generally refer to the same thing." - https://dangerousintersection.org/2021/06/01/circular-thinking-101-ibram-kendis-definition-of-racism/]

    Relativity is a fairy tale.

    Paul Alsing is funny because Richard Feynman said if you understand something, you can explain it to the average person.

    Poor Paul Andersen and his arguments from "authority." There have been thousands of excellent scientists who have totally refuted relativity. For example, those 1,000's listed by G. O. Mueller.

    All that's needed to refute relativity is to think for a minute!

    Einstein assumed the Lorentz transformations and concluded the relativity of simultaneity. Otherwise, his train & lightning thought experiment makes no sense.

    The trouble with most critics of relativity is that they accept any of it.
    I conside that this post is very interesting and contain deep thoughts about the development of the timeline that connects
    (1887) MMX, (1892) FitzGerald proposal that Lorentz kept developing, (1904) Lorentz final work over FitzGerald proposal,
    (1905) Poincaré etherless reformulation, (1905) Einstein's plagiarism (80% Lorentz, 15% Poincaré and 5% Einstein's worthless
    gobbledygook.

    In the above timeline, I found highly reasonable your comment about the lack of any need, after Poincaré (a mathematical work),
    to keep using Lorentz transforms in an etherless context.

    But the timeline didn't include the foundational work of 1887 Voigt, just months before MMX and not connected with it.

    Voigt, of whom 1908 Minkowski named as the real father of relativity, which I consider was not his objective at all, proposed
    something very simple, which Einstein HAD to have known (same notation):

    ** Which is the transformation that makes every linear transformation of new dimensions (ξ,η,ζ,τ)

    ξ = f₁(x,y,z,t)
    η = f₂(x,y,z,t)
    ζ = f₃(x,y,z,t)
    τ = f(x,y,z,t)

    that the 3D general wave equation is INVARIANT (and Voigt did this because galilean transform failed in its transform).

    With 19 free parameters, Voigt found that the INVARIANCE required a transform factor q² = 1/(1 - χ²/ω²), the famous GAMMA (γ),
    PLUS τ = t − χ/ω² (xα₁ + yβ₁ + zγ₁) , the famous LOCAL TIME. Also, he obtained its transforms mantaining t = τ.

    Only Einstein found an interesteing way to profit τ ≠ t, something that Lorentz, the year before, DISMISSED AS A COLATERAL ARTIFACT.

    Including Voigt in the relativity timeline (1897-1905) highlight the non-physical exploitation of the mathematics that gave τ ≠ t,
    being that the prime objective of Lorentz was to obtain ξ (or x') ≠ x, which also was non-physical and NEVER was proven right in
    119 years.

    While Lorentz just PLANTED Voigt's q (γ) OUT OF THE BLUE, Einstein did mathematic acrobacies to derive simultaneously τ and ξ.
    And this "derivation" is so strongly interconnected that, if ξ has been FALSE/UNPROVEN, automathically τ IS FALSE/UNPROVEN.

    Consider this in the general picture described in your post.

    Also, regarding circular logic like your example of racism, in enters into the realm of the pseudo-logic of sophism, in which Einstein
    was an expert as a fallacious deceiver.

    Sophism: a clever but false or fallacious argument, used deliberately to deceive.

    And, in one of many cases within the 1905 manifesto, the preemptive and subtle assertion that rAB ≠ l AND that it WOULD BE FOUND
    that movile clocks LOST its synchronism is a PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PETITIO PRINCIPII.

    The whole paper, besides the plagiarism since Point 4 onwards, is just pseudo-physics, based on SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION, not in
    real physics. He exploited this fallacy by mathematics.

    BUT MATHEMATICS IS NOT PHYSICS. ITS JUST A TOOL USED IN PHYSICS, NOT A PHYSICS LAWS GENERATOR PER SE.
    You said: "1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely. " Then you reject Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source.

    You said: "But the timeline didn't include the foundational work of 1887 Voigt, just months before MMX and not connected with it." & "Voigt did this because galilean transform failed in its transform)."

    Michelson already carried out a similar experiment in 1881. Perhaps Voigt was already trying to account for a null result in earlier experiments.

    It seems that the MMX is easily explainable utilizing Galilean transformations as follows.

    In the MMX, designate one rod, the horizontal rod taken as pointing toward Earth's orbital motion. Because the light beam shares the motion of its source (the Earth), it moves C + 30 km/sec out to the mirror. Since the mirror also moved at 30 km/sec. the
    beam's apparent velocity (within the apparatus) is C. Similarly, the way back to the interferometer.

    For the rod perpendicular to that, the light beam moves at the speed square root of (c^2 + v^2). It moves over a longer distance of a hypotenuse created by the motion of the Earth. The higher speed exactly compensates for the longer distance making its
    apparent speed within the apparatus C. Both light beams return to the interferometer at the same time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 21 15:23:13 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 2:26:56 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <snip long thread>

    You have to understand that I reject einstenian 1905 relativity and that I've been dissecting the 1905 paper, exclusively.
    I didn't attempt to go any further than on this "manifesto", what would be to focus on 1908 Minkowski's spacetime.

    I intend to display, with utter clarity, every issue of the points 1, 2 and 3, which I consider either fallacious, wrong or just stupid.

    Regarding the above, the use of mirrors by Einstein contain a fundamental error of concept when it is about the DOMAIN OF
    APPLICABILITY of the Einstein's examples.

    That's why I INSIST that what Einstein tried to impose since the start CAN'T BE VALID for distances lower than 1 meter, where
    the error in the following formula is about 5 ppm, and increase to 5% in distances of micrometers.

    The use of laser light of 550 nm (green) is not arbitrary. Such wavelength is the middle point with visible light (380 nm - 700 nm).
    So, it could be said that such green light is THE AVERAGE of white light used by Einstein in his 1905 paper.

    Just to start, the very first equation in the paper, about synchronism IS FALSE, because it is not verified in small distances:

    tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB , for lengths BA < 1 meter. And the error increases considerably in the cm, mm and um regions. This IS A FACT.

    t'A = 2 tB - tA + τ, being that τ IS ONLY REGISTERED BY t'A, BECAUSE THIS DELAY OCCURS AFTER tB IS SET.

    τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ is the time that light requires to be regenerated in the absorption/re-emission of incoming light in the mirror. Can't be
    dismissed if its magnitude is comparable to those of tA, tB and t'A. And this happens in distances BA < 1 meter.

    So, THE VERY FIRST CORRECTION that einstenians HAVE TO DO is establish A LOWER DISTANCE OF APPLICABILITY OF SR.


    **********************************
    Then, it comes THE FALLACIOUS AND DECEIVING EQUATION IN § 3, which Einstein used to wrongfully derive Lorentz transforms.
    It's well hidden in the next QUOTE of § 3:

    QUOTE ---------------------------------------------------------------

    "In the first place it is clear that the equations MUST BE LINEAR on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute
    to space and time.

    If we place x' = x − vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
    We first define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have to express in equations that τ is nothing else than the summary
    of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to the rule given in § 1.

    From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ₀ along the X-axis to x', and at the time τ₁ BE REFLECTED thence to the
    origin of the coordinates, arriving there at the time τ₂; we then must have

    1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁, or,

    by inserting the arguments of the function τ and applying the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in the stationary system:—"

    1/2 [τ(0,0,0,t) + τ[(0,0,0,t + x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v)]] = τ[(x',0,0,t + x'/(c-v)]

    END QUOTE ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Fallacies and errors:

    1) Using GALILEAN transform, Einstein FORCED an inexistent τ ≠ t AT PLAIN SIGTH, as a function of x', y, z, and t.

    2) 1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) ≠ τ₁, because of the delay in the regeneration of light at the mirror. Be it ΔT ≥ λ₀/c₀ (550 nm as average for white light).

    As before, with tA, tB and t'A, it happens that:

    τ₂ = 2τ₁ - τ₀ + ΔT

    equation that INVALIDATES THE LORENTZ DERIVATION using τ = f(x', y, z, t), that immediately follows.

    ONLY AFTER DECLARING THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT IS VALID ONLY FOR DISTANCES > 1 meter, such development COULD BE BARELY
    ACCEPTED.

    There are other wrongdoings and fallacies in point § 3, but the above is enough.




    You said: "1) I don't question the second postulate. I accept it entirely. " Then you reject Galileo's principle that everything shares the velocity of its source.

    You said: "But the timeline didn't include the foundational work of 1887 Voigt, just months before MMX and not connected with it." & "Voigt did this because galilean transform failed in its transform)."

    Michelson already carried out a similar experiment in 1881. Perhaps Voigt was already trying to account for a null result in earlier experiments.

    It seems that the MMX is easily explainable utilizing Galilean transformations as follows.

    In the MMX, designate one rod, the horizontal rod taken as pointing toward Earth's orbital motion. Because the light beam shares the motion of its source (the Earth), it moves C + 30 km/sec out to the mirror. Since the mirror also moved at 30 km/sec.
    the beam's apparent velocity (within the apparatus) is C. Similarly, the way back to the interferometer.

    For the rod perpendicular to that, the light beam moves at the speed square root of (c^2 + v^2). It moves over a longer distance of a hypotenuse created by the motion of the Earth. The higher speed exactly compensates for the longer distance making its
    apparent speed within the apparatus C. Both light beams return to the interferometer at the same time.

    About the 1887 MMX, I'm not familiarized with it, to the degree of criticize any aspect, except this funny detail:

    MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than a Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA. So, the results.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paparios@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 21 16:29:14 2023
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 11:27:12 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?
    Wrong!!!
    Well yes, but is that now what the second postulate says? The motion of the source does not matter, meaning it could be plus 1
    -1, 0, or come to think of it, -299 792 000 m / s or + 299 792 000 m / s

    Einstein used "principles" (see section 2):

    "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
    as follows:
    1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
    2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

    The word "velocity" is an error from the translation of the paper. Light (as well as sound) has a speed and not a velocity (which is a vector).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Apr 21 20:38:18 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 2:26:56 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <snip long thread>

    You have to understand that I reject einstenian 1905 relativity and that I've been dissecting the 1905 paper, exclusively.
    I didn't attempt to go any further than on this "manifesto", what would be to focus on 1908 Minkowski's spacetime.

    I intend to display, with utter clarity, every issue of the points 1, 2 and 3, which I consider either fallacious, wrong or just stupid.

    Regarding the above, the use of mirrors by Einstein contain a fundamental error of concept when it is about the DOMAIN OF
    APPLICABILITY of the Einstein's examples.

    That's why I INSIST that what Einstein tried to impose since the start CAN'T BE VALID for distances lower than 1 meter, where
    the error in the following formula is about 5 ppm, and increase to 5% in distances of micrometers.

    Your problem is that you don't understand how physics works. If what you are saying were applicable to physics, it would automatically reject the entirety of
    Newtonian mechanics. (Hint: Newton's theory is based on the concept of
    point mass.)

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paparios on Fri Apr 21 20:59:53 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:29:16 AM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 11:27:12 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?
    Wrong!!!
    Well yes, but is that now what the second postulate says? The motion of the source does not matter, meaning it could be plus 1
    -1, 0, or come to think of it, -299 792 000 m / s or + 299 792 000 m / s
    Einstein used "principles" (see section 2):

    "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
    principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
    as follows:
    1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
    two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
    2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
    the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
    moving body".

    The word "velocity" is an error from the translation of the paper. Light (as well as sound) has a speed and not a velocity (which is a vector).

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/andp.19053221004

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paparios on Fri Apr 21 22:28:09 2023
    On Saturday, 22 April 2023 at 01:29:16 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 11:27:12 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:19:51 PM UTC+5, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 21 de abril de 2023 a las 10:12:39 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?
    Wrong!!!
    Well yes, but is that now what the second postulate says? The motion of the source does not matter, meaning it could be plus 1
    -1, 0, or come to think of it, -299 792 000 m / s or + 299 792 000 m / s
    Einstein used "principles" (see section 2):

    "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
    principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
    as follows:
    1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
    two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
    2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
    the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
    moving body".

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
    bunch of idiots improper GPS and TAI keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 24 22:25:21 2023
    Den 21.04.2023 00:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:30:14 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Richard Hertz wrote:
    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would >> |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation),
    the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time
    (observed in the ECI frame).

    ____________________________________

    Have you now learned the difference between LMT and UTC, Richard?

    No answer, Richard?


    Paul, I didn't snip anything.
    Quite.

    You have no comments, and don't try to defend your stupidities.

    The following has no real content:

    I remember that we discussed something about this last year.

    Now, given what you wrote and the concept of synchronism of clocks on Earth and nearby space, DO YOU WANT
    TO DISCUSS SIMULTANEITY IN RELATIVITY, USING UTC?

    But THIS UTC: The one that, with a master clock reference centered on 51.4780° N, 0.0015° W (Greenwich Observatory
    outside of London), where time for an earthly day is set to start at 00:00 at midnight of any given day, and covers the
    globe since this Prime Meridian, in 24 longitudes that define areas from pole to pole, separated 15° each?

    Or do you prefer to stick to the 1905 manifesto, so you feel comfortable, and your credence are not shaken?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Apr 24 14:10:25 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:25:24 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 21.04.2023 00:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:30:14 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Richard Hertz wrote:
    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light would
    cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    So, wherever you place A and B (following the direction of Earth's rotation),
    the motion on the meridian that contains the length BA
    should be analyzed by USING UTC TIME at the lowest detail.

    In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km.

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time
    (observed in the ECI frame).

    ____________________________________

    Have you now learned the difference between LMT and UTC, Richard?
    No answer, Richard?

    Paul, I didn't snip anything.
    Quite.

    You have no comments, and don't try to defend your stupidities.

    The following has no real content:

    <snip, so Paul is happy>

    I have no confusions at all, Paul.

    And I don't care, also, about your LMT.

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.

    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Apr 25 20:51:24 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    About the 1887 MMX, I'm not familiarized with it, to the degree of criticize any aspect, except this funny detail:

    MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than a Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA. So, the results.
    I should have remembered you told me that before. I think that special relativity is primarily about explaining the MMX and fails to do so. I don't think any sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism is necessary to show that. I think Sagnac merely
    shows additive velocity as does the MMX.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Apr 26 12:20:36 2023
    On 4/25/23 10:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than
    a Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.

    It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer it
    does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to the
    room can be neglected.

    I think that special relativity is primarily about explaining the MMX
    and fails to do so.

    Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE
    than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result:
    since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and
    independent of orientation.

    I don't think any sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism is
    necessary to show that.

    The "that" you refer to is wrong. But I did not need any "sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism" to explain the MMX result using SR.

    I think Sagnac merely shows additive velocity as does the MMX.

    Then you do not know anything about it. The original Sagnac
    interferometer was in glass, and "additive velocity" simply does not
    work; look up "Fresnel drag coefficient", which was a pre-SR attempt to understand what was happening in moving optical media. Note that SR
    completely resolved the issue with its Lorentz composition of
    velocities. (The Fresnel drag coefficient is the first term of the
    Taylor series for the Lorentz composition of velocities.)

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 26 20:38:54 2023
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.

    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017

    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.


    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
    And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
    = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?


    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.

    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.


    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.

    So we are back to UTC!
    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds,
    don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.


    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?



    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
    Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
    The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
    And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.

    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
    at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Wed Apr 26 15:56:30 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017

    OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.


    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.

    I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.

    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
    And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
    = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?

    AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.


    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
    So we are back to UTC!

    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?


    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km. Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
    The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
    And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.

    OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?



    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
    at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.



    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    YOU KEEP DOING YOUR SHITTY MATH, BEFORE YOU FORGET EVEN HOW MUCH IS 1+1.

    YOU'RE SPIRALING DOWN WITH YOUR DEMENTIA, AND SUCH TRAVEL IS FRACTAL, ENDLESS.

    GO BACK TO PROGRAM PICs, AND TRY TO INSERT SOME AI IN THERE. THAT WOULD BE YOUR LIFE ACHIEVEMENT.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Apr 27 00:35:26 2023
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/25/23 10:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than a
    Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.

    It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer it
    does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to the
    room can be neglected.

    What nonsense. The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two
    'light clocks' at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the
    Earth's absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer and
    was never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally different.

    I think that special relativity is primarily about explaining the MMX
    and fails to do so.

    Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE
    than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result:
    since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and
    independent of orientation.

    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light simply
    moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that
    source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated. The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The experiment was
    doomed before it even began.

    I don't think any sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism is
    necessary to show that.

    The "that" you refer to is wrong. But I did not need any "sophisticated knowledge of electromagnetism" to explain the MMX result using SR.

    I think Sagnac merely shows additive velocity as does the MMX.

    Then you do not know anything about it. The original Sagnac
    interferometer was in glass, and "additive velocity" simply does not
    work; look up "Fresnel drag coefficient", which was a pre-SR attempt to understand what was happening in moving optical media. Note that SR completely resolved the issue with its Lorentz composition of
    velocities. (The Fresnel drag coefficient is the first term of the
    Taylor series for the Lorentz composition of velocities.)

    It obviously did not 'completely resolve it. 'First term' indeed. It only
    works for v<<c. It doesn't work at all if v is significant. The Sagnac
    effect is easily explained on Newtonian principles, using different
    wavelengths in the two paths rather than different travel times.

    Tom Roberts





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Wed Apr 26 17:49:50 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017
    OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.
    I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
    And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
    = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?
    AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
    So we are back to UTC!

    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?


    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km. Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame). The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
    And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
    OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?

    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
    at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul


    There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.

    As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the
    'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should
    travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion
    of the source.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed Apr 26 17:53:58 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/25/23 10:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE than a
    Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.

    It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer it does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to the
    room can be neglected.
    What nonsense. The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light clocks' at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the Earth's absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer and
    was never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally different.

    You completely misunderstood Tom's comment. It's a common pattern
    of yours: you don't read what people tell you with any care. You just
    scan a few words and immediately run to the keyboard.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Wed Apr 26 19:49:02 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017
    OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.
    I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
    And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
    = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?
    AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
    So we are back to UTC!

    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?


    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km. Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame). The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
    OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?

    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
    at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul

    There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.

    As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the
    'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion of the source.


    Example:
    Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
    Get this, Ghehan?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Wed Apr 26 19:54:03 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:49:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017
    OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.
    I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰ And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
    = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?
    AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
    So we are back to UTC!

    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?


    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
    Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
    The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
    OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?

    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
    at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul

    There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.

    As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion
    of the source.
    Example:
    Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
    Get this, Ghehan?

    Applying Einstein's kinematics to rotating FO rings, imbecile? Chasing what, your ass or tongue? Because your tongue is FTL.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 13:15:00 2023
    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/25/23 10:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz
    wrote:
    MM interferometer, a German manufactured one, is NOTHING ELSE
    than a Sagnac interferometer with ZERO AREA.

    It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac
    interferometer it does indeed have zero area. That implies its
    rotation relative to the room can be neglected.

    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In
    this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is
    zero.

    The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light
    clocks' at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the
    Earth's absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer
    and was never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally
    different.

    Again, you are wrong. The Sagnac analysis applies to any interferometer
    that has counter-propagating beams and is subject to rotation -- it can
    be applied to a Michelson interferometer, but since it has zero enclosed
    area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    [...] SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since
    the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the
    instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and
    independent of orientation.

    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it.

    Nonsense. Neither Newton nor Ritz are involved, just the equations and
    concepts of SR.

    Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at
    rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was
    rotated.

    That is an alternate description. Yes, several different theories can
    explain the MMX null result. This is actually quite common for a SINGLE experiment. But of all those theories, only SR is consistent with ALL
    the experimental evidence (within its domain).

    The clearest and most obvious experiments that refute:
    * Ritz's theory
    * Newtonian mechanics
    * any theory involving ballistic light
    * any aether theory in which the aether is dragged
    are particle experiments. Apparently you know nothing about them....

    The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light.

    Sure. It also verified SR equally well. And also an infinite set of
    aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. And
    also aether theory in which the aether is fully dragged by the earth (or
    the lab, or the interferometer, or the air, or ...).

    The experiment was doomed before it even began.

    Only in your personal fantasy world. In the world we inhabit it was an important and valuable contribution to physics.

    [further nonsense ignored]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 27 21:19:55 2023
    Den 27.04.2023 00:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following?
    ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
    at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf


    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    Your ability to miss the glaringly obvious is amazing! :-D


    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    Indeed it is:
    SR: speed of light is c in the inertial frame where
    the centre of the circular loop is stationary.
    Sagnac: speed of light is c in the ether where
    the centre of the circular loop is stationary.

    Both assumptions lead to the same math:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A is equation(10)

    Note that Sagnac also predicts:

    The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)

    The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)

    where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed
    of the sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.

    Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
    we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator
    will use different time depending on the direction.

    (We can imagine a high number of mirrors leading the light
    around the Earth.)

    So:
    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    This can be considered as facts. Right?

    Then the following must also be true:

    If we have two objects A and B at equator, and the distance
    between them is BA = 175.74578 km and 2πr = 40075017m
    then the transit time of the light from A to B and B to A
    must be respectively:


    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    which is the same result as:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs
    v = 465.1 m/s


    YOU KEEP DOING YOUR SHITTY MATH, BEFORE YOU FORGET EVEN HOW MUCH IS 1+1.

    Do you still dispute my shitty math, Richard?

    Make my day and yourself a fool - say yes.


    YOU'RE SPIRALING DOWN WITH YOUR DEMENTIA, AND SUCH TRAVEL IS FRACTAL, ENDLESS.

    GO BACK TO PROGRAM PICs, AND TRY TO INSERT SOME AI IN THERE. THAT WOULD BE YOUR LIFE ACHIEVEMENT.


    OWH! Your well formulated arguments are really lethal!

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 12:58:12 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.
    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it.

    No, this is false. You are talking about pop-sci presentations of the
    Sagnac setup but SR-based models work just fine[1]. Here is the final
    SR-based formula that accounts for all effects fully: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k

    Note that when people loosely talk about the area enclosed by the
    light track, what's really meant is the ORIENTED area of the orthogonal PROJECTION of the light track onto the xy-plane (assuming the axis
    of rotation is the z-axis). (This is what the form dx/\dy tells you.)

    So the light track itself can be quite fancy-shmancy, it could be some
    weird knotted curve, for example. That's why in the second half of the
    above note I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely
    without the light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    Note the date on this file: December 2016. We've been through all
    your confusions here over the years. None of your errors so far have
    been terribly original :-)

    [1] see e.g.: J. Anandan, “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics”, Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
    338–346

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 13:01:43 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:35:29 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.
    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated. The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The experiment was
    doomed before it even began.

    Ritz's ballistic theory fails variants of MMX using an
    extraterrestrial light source, i.e. not mounted on the MMX
    apparatus.

    Miller conducted an experiment using sunlight:
    "The interchange between sun light and laboratory sources
    in no way altered the results."
    Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson
    PNAS 11:306 (1925)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085994/

    Tomaschek performed the experiment using starlight,
    sunlight, and light reflected from the Moon and Jupiter
    Über das Verhalten des Lichtes außerirdischer Lichtquellen".
    Annalen der Physik. 378 (1): 105–126 (1924) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k153753/f115#

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 27 13:06:24 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to JanPB on Thu Apr 27 14:04:03 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    --
    Jan

    Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 27 15:37:55 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 4:04:05 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    --
    Jan
    Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?

    I had no issue reading and downloading the file.
    Here, I've re-uploaded the file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nYzHEkiDJq9pr0oc4xeRs0Jjzuw727Hp/view?usp=share_link

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 27 18:39:15 2023
    On 4/27/2023 5:04 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny):
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    --
    Jan

    Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?


    Jan hired Ken Seto to take care of internet availability?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Apr 27 17:46:46 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:49:04 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017
    OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.
    I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰ And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
    = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?
    AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
    So we are back to UTC!

    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?


    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
    Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
    The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
    OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?

    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth
    at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul

    There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.

    As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion
    of the source.
    Example:
    Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
    Get this, G..


    Rotation is absolute? The Sagnac apparatus will always show interference effects? How about a Sagnac experiment at the North Pole, aligned with the axis of the Earth?

    The experiment is performed with the rotation performed against the rotation of the Earth and with the rotation of the Earth.

    If the light source is onboard the apparatus, instead of outside, what happens to the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the 'motion' of the source?

    Why does it matter if the light source is inside or outside?

    Light does not travel like little billiard balls - it is absorbed and re-emitted each time, at each mirror.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Apr 28 00:59:35 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:


    It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer
    it does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to
    the room can be neglected.

    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In
    this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is
    zero.

    Complete crap again. I suspected you know very little about basic
    physics..this proves it.

    The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light clocks'
    at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the Earth's
    absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer and was
    never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally different.

    Again, you are wrong. The Sagnac analysis applies to any interferometer
    that has counter-propagating beams and is subject to rotation -- it can
    be applied to a Michelson interferometer, but since it has zero enclosed
    area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    Tommy, your problem is that you are trying to walk before you have learnt
    to crawl.
    The only feature the Michelson and Sagnac interferometers have in common
    is that any fringe displacement is the sole consequence of different
    numbers of wavelengths in the two paths. In the original MMX there was
    never going to be any such difference for the simple reason that no ether exists. When used to measure lengths, one arm is deliberately changed in
    a calibrated way.
    In Sagnac, different numbers of wavelengths exist in the two paths when
    it is has angular velocity. When viewed in the inertial frame, it is easy
    to see why. During an angular ACCELERATION, the wave numbers change.

    There is no similarity between that and the Michelson principle ....and
    by the way, the Michelson does not have 'zero area' when rotating. It
    sweeps over a diameter equal to the length of its arms.

    [...] SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the
    speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the
    instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and
    independent of orientation.

    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it.

    Nonsense. Neither Newton nor Ritz are involved, just the equations and concepts of SR.

    SR says that light moves at c relative to everything at rest in the
    source frame. That is sufficient to explain the null result...and it is
    pure Newton.
    The other long winded SR explanation is just baloney put forward to try
    to justify all SR's other nonsense.

    Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest
    with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was
    rotated.

    That is an alternate description. Yes, several different theories can
    explain the MMX null result. This is actually quite common for a SINGLE experiment. But of all those theories, only SR is consistent with ALL
    the experimental evidence (within its domain).

    It certainly is not. No experiment has refuted Newton. SR only appears consistent because (a) it relies on circular logic and (b) it claims
    support from a whole range of interferometor experiments that are wrongly analysed on the basis that light behaves like a simple
    oscillator....which is not correct. Michelson's 1913 moving mirror
    experiment is a prime example. It actually REFUTES SR not ballistic
    theory.

    The clearest and most obvious experiments that refute:
    * Ritz's theory * Newtonian mechanics * any theory involving
    ballistic light * any aether theory in which the aether is dragged
    are particle experiments. Apparently you know nothing about them....

    The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light.

    Sure. It also verified SR equally well. And also an infinite set of
    aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. And
    also aether theory in which the aether is fully dragged by the earth (or
    the lab, or the interferometer, or the air, or ...).

    SR is LET derived back to front. There is no absolute frame. Both
    theories are nothing but science fiction.

    The experiment was doomed before it even began.

    Only in your personal fantasy world. In the world we inhabit it was an important and valuable contribution to physics.

    It was doomed because for one thing, SR predicts quite emphatically that
    it would not produce a positive result.

    [further nonsense ignored]

    Tom Roberts





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 01:28:27 2023
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:27:25 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame...
    pretty simple, eh?
    no, you expressed what you wanted to say incorrectly.. In fact, every
    object in the universe is in every frame.

    You probably meant 'A, B and the light source were mutually at rest'.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be
    considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?

    No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
    suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light be
    sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did not
    matter where they were situated because his postulate stated that all
    light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.

    However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
    sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
    simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.







    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Apr 28 01:34:57 2023
    On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:27:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:03:25 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:21:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:36:10 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:



    Maybe we are not discussing the same part of Einstein's paper. I am
    referring to the section in which he attempts to prove that clocks
    which are correctly synchronized in one frame will not be in synch in
    any other.
    He does that by calculating that they will measure light speeds which
    differ from c.

    Not light speeds. Time differences between certain events.

    That is how OWLS is measured, dopey!

    That is the basis of his RoS and is where the fundamental error lies.

    It's an assumption(*), not an error.

    (*)designed to reproduce Newtonian kinematics as close as possible

    I have explained the error elsewhere. If the light sources used to send
    the light signals between A and B were attached to the moving clocks, a
    logical contradiction exists.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 18:52:41 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:27:25 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:

    Well then, both B and A must be, by definition, in the same frame...
    pretty simple, eh?
    no, you expressed what you wanted to say incorrectly.. In fact, every
    object in the universe is in every frame.

    You probably meant 'A, B and the light source were mutually at rest'.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Let me try this again:

    In the stationary frame of the observer, all light sources can be considered at rest with respect to the observer.

    Is this correct?

    It does not a
    No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
    suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light be
    sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did not
    matter where they were situated because his postulate stated that all
    light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.

    However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
    sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
    --
    -- lover of truth



    Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be replaced
    by an equivalent system with a stationary light source, stationary
    in the frame of reference of the observer.

    That is what I mean.

    Also,

    "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."

    It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly
    moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course
    I was following, but that method was not followed for some reason.

    If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals, then what would happen to SRT?

    Events are not syn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 27 18:53:55 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:49:04 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017
    OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.
    I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰ And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?
    AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
    So we are back to UTC!

    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?


    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
    Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
    The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
    And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
    OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?

    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3)
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul

    There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.

    As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion
    of the source.
    Example:
    Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
    Get this, G..


    Rotation is absolute? The Sagnac apparatus will always show interference effects?

    Yep, crank


    You claimed that you are taking courses, it is clear that you are lying. Or your native imbecility prevents you from learning anything.



    If the light source is onboard the apparatus, instead of outside, what happens to the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the 'motion' of the source?


    Nothing, the principle stands.

    Why does it matter if the light source is inside or outside?


    It doesn't, imbecile.


    Light does not travel like little billiard balls - it is absorbed and re-emitted each time, at each mirror.

    So?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Apr 27 20:55:46 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
    arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
    signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say, because a Sagnac device is designed
    to detect the first-order effect of rotation, whereas the Michelson-Morley device was designed to detect the second-order effect of orientation.
    The only reason the Michelson apparatus was (very slowly) rotated was
    to take essentially static readings at different orientations, because
    they didn't want to wait six months for the earth to be moving in the
    opposite direction. They *could* have stopped it at each orientation
    to take a reading. In fact, many later experiments just used stationary apparatus (on earth) and relied on the fact that the earth can't always
    be at rest in the presumed stationary aether. This is very different
    from a Sagnac apparatus, whose reading is dependent on the actual
    active rotation. Yes, the MM apparatus precludes any Sagnac effect,
    but that's just part of it's "irrelevant effect cancelling" design, not part of what it is designed to measure. That's just precluding what it's
    designed to NOT measure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 03:51:07 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    It does not a
    No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
    suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light be
    sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did not
    matter where they were situated because his postulate stated that all
    light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.

    However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
    sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
    simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
    --
    -- lover of truth



    Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the
    second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
    replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
    stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.

    That is what I mean.

    I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying particular
    light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter (because all light
    moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2), he was able to build
    a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not valid.

    I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical impossibility.
    It is complicated.

    If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein's calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still
    indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true
    if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means that
    the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT
    numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
    stationary clocks do).

    However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the travel
    times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.

    Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
    frame dependent.


    Also,

    "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
    concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system
    of co-ordinates,
    are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
    when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
    system."

    It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was following,
    but that method was not followed for some reason.

    If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,
    then what would happen to SRT?

    Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance two
    clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line along
    it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.




    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Apr 27 20:57:44 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 2:04:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    --
    Jan
    Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?

    Really? It was never denied before ("never" means "since December 2016).

    Yes! The link doesn't work now! Interesting. So Google Drive changed something. Looks like a bug because Google Drive says "Anyone with the link" can open it.

    I'll look into it.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 21:00:02 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:59:38 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:


    It's not "nothing else", but when analyzed as a Sagnac interferometer >>> it does indeed have zero area. That implies its rotation relative to
    the room can be neglected.

    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is zero.

    Complete crap again. I suspected you know very little about basic physics..this proves it.

    You are talking nonsense. Perhaps you should pick a different hobby?
    This physics thing doesn't seem to work for you too well.

    The Michelson interferometer consists essentially of two 'light clocks' >> at right angles and was therefore expected to detect the Earth's
    absolute speed. It is nothing like a sagnac interferometer and was
    never intended to be. The theory behind the two is totally different.

    Again, you are wrong. The Sagnac analysis applies to any interferometer that has counter-propagating beams and is subject to rotation -- it can
    be applied to a Michelson interferometer, but since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    Tommy, your problem is that you are trying to walk before you have learnt
    to crawl.

    HAHAHA! Pathetic.

    The only feature the Michelson and Sagnac interferometers have in common
    is that any fringe displacement is the sole consequence of different
    numbers of wavelengths in the two paths.

    Oh stop it.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to JanPB on Thu Apr 27 21:01:12 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 12:58:14 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely
    without the light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net
    area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Apr 27 22:12:56 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:53:57 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:49:04 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:49:52 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:56:31 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 24.04.2023 23:10, skrev Richard Hertz:

    My comment: "In the equator, this means that if light moves from A (west side) to B (east side),
    clock at B is ahead from clock at A by: + 86,400 . BA/6713Km."

    I considered a type of synchronism given by the use of light as a signaling mechanism PLUS the
    official (for more than 140 years) that a day has 86,400 seconds and that 24 longitudes are
    assigned to divide the ABSOLUTE TIME IN EARTH (equations are for the equator), then

    being A stationary, the clock in B should be equal to [tA + 86,400 . BA/42179Km], with module 86400 for counting seconds.
    What's the difference between this equation and
    the equation above (6713Km vs. 42179Km)?

    The first time I saw your equation above, I thought
    you had got the equatorial circumference of Earth wrong,
    (it is 40075017m) and that your equation should be:

    tB = tA + 86400⋅BA/40075017
    OK, I USED THE RADIUS AND FORGOT TO MULTIPLY BY 2 PI.
    Which is a sensible equation, because if tA is
    the Local Mean Time (LMT) of clock A,
    then tB is the LMT of clock B.

    But I see now that I have done you an injustice.
    Your confusion is much greater that I thought.
    Sorry for underestimating you.
    I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 0 Km, then tB = tA
    - If BA = 1,757.4578 Km, then tB = tA + 3,600 seconds
    - If BA = 175.74578 Km, then tB = tA + 360 seconds

    If A is at the prime meridian, then B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰
    And B's Local Mean Time is: LMT = UTC+(1.5787511⁰/15⁰)⋅(3600)s
    = UTC + 86400⋅BA/40075017 s = 378.9 s

    Your clock at longitude +1.5787511⁰ shows UTC+360 seconds,
    18.9 seconds less that the clock's LMT.

    What kind of time is that?
    AGAIN, I DON'T CARE ABOUT LMT. I DIDN'T USE IT.
    - If BA = 7,908,56013 Km, then tB = tA + 16,200 seconds

    Is this too difficult to understand, Paul?

    Is that your frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is much more advanced than what I thought in 2022?

    I'm talking about what would World Time in the case that a convention to divide the day in 86400 longitudes could be.
    So your "World Time" is Local Mean Time rounded off to whole seconds.

    But you are not talking about the Local Mean Time which is:

    LMT = UTC + (longitude/15⁰)⋅(1 hour) = UTC+86400⋅BA/40075017 seconds

    Your equation tB = [tA +86,400⋅ BA/42179Km] seconds is nonsense.

    And thinking about relating the above with relative simultaneity for one event occurring in A or B.

    Given the above, the only way to verify "simultaneity" would be by using 1-way light signaling.

    And that such mechanism would add a delay of ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) to any time measure at the equator level.

    Now, it only remains how to use ΔT to declare an event in B to be understood in terms of simultaneity with an equally exact
    event happening in A AT THE SAME ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TAI TIME.
    So we are back to UTC!

    You do know that TAI and UTC differ only by a number of leap seconds, don't you?

    But let us use TAI clocks.

    Can you elaborate this any further, or it's too much of a load for your "tired" brain?


    Sure.

    We have two TAI clocks A and B at equator separated by BA =175.74578 km.
    Clock A is at longitude 0 and B is at longitude +1.5787511⁰.

    Clock A and B are always showing the same time (observed in ECI-frame).
    The clocks are moving with the speed v = 465.1 m/s in the ECI frame.

    The transit time ΔT of light from A to B is NOT BA/c = 586.22482 μs
    And neither is it ΔT = 140.5966 x BA/42179Km (msec) = 585.81899 μs

    The transit time of light from A to B is:
    ΔT_AB = BA/(c-v) = 586.22573 μs

    The transit time of light from B to A is:
    ΔT_BA = BA/(c+v) = 586.22391 μs

    ΔT_AB - ΔT_BA ≈ 1.82 ns,
    which means that TAI clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.
    OMG! UTTER IMBECILITY! BOTH CLOCKS ARE MOVING AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED! ARE YOU CRAZY?

    -----------

    You will of course snip this and call it nonsense.
    But in that case I will re-ask the following question so you
    can flee from it again:

    Richard Hertz, do you dispute the following? ============================================

    According to Sagnac (which is pre-SR) light going around the Earth at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    NOW I CONFIRM THAT YOUR PROTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA IS EXTREMELY ADVANCED. SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    SAGNAC WAS HAPPY TO PROVE THAT RELATIVITY WAS AN HOAX.
    Speed of ground in the ECI-frame v = 465.1 m/s

    Light going with the rotation (eastwards) will use: equation (3) tf = 2πr/(c-v) = 40075017/(c-v) = 133.676075 ms

    Light going in the opposite direction will use: equation (6)
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) = 40075017/(c+v) = 133.675660 ms

    If this is true, then the following must also be true:
    ΔT_AB = tf⋅BA/2πr = 586.22573 μs
    ΔT_BA = tb⋅BA/2πr = 586.22391 μs

    --
    Paul

    There is a nice description here, pro-relativist.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907#:~:text=The%20experiment%20of%20Sagnac,a%20moving%20medium%20%5B4%5D.

    As for me, I do not understand how the assemetry could exist when the 'first posulate' exists. In the rotating frame of the disk, light should
    travel the same distances in the same time regardless of the relative motion
    of the source.
    Example:
    Light traveling against the rotation reaches a point diametrically opposed quicker than light "chasing" the direction of rotation.
    Get this, G..


    Rotation is absolute? The Sagnac apparatus will always show interference effects?
    Yep, crank


    You claimed that you are taking courses, it is clear that you are lying. Or your native imbecility prevents you from learning anything.
    I am taking a course.

    If the light source is onboard the apparatus, instead of outside, what happens to the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the 'motion' of the source?

    Nothing, the principle stands.

    OK
    Why does it matter if the light source is inside or outside?

    It doesn't, imbecile.
    Light does not travel like little billiard balls - it is absorbed and re-emitted each time, at each mirror.
    So?

    OK. When viewed from above in the rotating frame, why is there a difference between the way light travels, the asymmetry?

    I am not a gambling person, but think of being above a roulette wheel, with balls going in opposite directions. There is symmetry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 23:00:46 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:11 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    It does not a
    No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
    suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light be
    sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did not
    matter where they were situated because his postulate stated that all
    light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.

    I find his description difficult to understand but I am getting it. I think a visual description of the experiment would have been much better.

    A little vague.


    However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
    sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
    simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
    --
    -- lover of truth



    Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source, stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.

    Not sure how this would happen.

    That is what I mean.
    I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying particular
    light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter (because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2), he was able to build
    a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not valid.

    I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical impossibility.
    It is complicated.

    Could you explain
    If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein's calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true
    if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means that
    the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT
    numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
    stationary clocks do).

    However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.

    Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
    frame dependent.
    Also,


    You wont convince anyone.

    "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
    concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates,
    are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
    when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."

    It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was following, but that method was not followed for some reason.

    If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,
    then what would happen to SRT?
    Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line along
    it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Fri Apr 28 09:00:15 2023
    On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:30:09 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:


    I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
    distance between them is 100 km.

    Note this:
    The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
    they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.

    The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone they may be in
    is irrelevant.


    "UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D Each segment (Time Zone) is
    1,667.9 km/h ??

    The ground at equator is moving with this speed in the ECI frame, and so
    are the clocks A and B.


    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light
    would |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    Not quite.
    Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
    Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms The difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)

    Wrong. There is no difference.

    Which means that light moving eastwards will cover the 100 km distance between the clocks A and B in
    δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
    longer time than the light moving westwards.

    Wrong. It will take the same time.
    If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they would arrive
    back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect depends on that
    fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.

    Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in the
    two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground
    frame.

    Wrong. The transit times are the same.

    snip

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
    the ECI frame).

    They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two numbers be frame dependent.
    ____________________________________

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 09:43:05 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:11 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    It does not a
    No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
    suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light
    be sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did
    not matter where they were situated because his postulate stated
    that all light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.

    I find his description difficult to understand but I am getting it. I
    think a visual description of the experiment would have been much
    better.

    A little vague.

    Yes Sorry, I don't want to give away too many ddetails of my sensational discoveries. This one is worth plagiariaing.
    The experiment is tbasically as described by Einstein. It is also rather
    vague but if you study it for long enough you will get the gist. You should have a copy of his 1905 paper. It is available online. The first few pages
    are all you need to read to find the mistake.


    However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
    sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
    simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
    --
    -- lover of truth



    Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the
    second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
    replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
    stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.

    Not sure how this would happen.

    That is what I mean.
    I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out
    the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying
    particular light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter
    (because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2),
    he was able to build a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not
    valid.

    I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical
    impossibility. It is complicated.

    Could you explain
    If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein's
    calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still
    indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true
    if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means
    that the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT
    numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
    stationary clocks do).

    However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the
    travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would
    advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.

    Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
    frame dependent.
    Also,


    You wont convince anyone.

    It will be difficult not to accept it. I also have compiled an animation
    that demonstrates the principle.

    "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
    concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a
    system of co-ordinates,
    are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
    when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
    system."

    It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly
    moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was
    following,
    but that method was not followed for some reason.

    If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,
    then what would happen to SRT?
    Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
    two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
    along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?

    I just described one. Use your imagination. A hypothetical long and rigid cylinder that has a mark at each end and which spins around its long axis. Every time the mark goes around it ticks a clock. Its synchronization can
    be initially adjusted with light while at rest and checked again at high
    speed. It is basically a thought experiment but is actually almost
    practical.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 03:56:39 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:00:18 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:30:09 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:


    I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
    distance between them is 100 km.

    Note this:
    The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
    they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.

    The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone they may be in is irrelevant.


    "UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D Each segment (Time Zone) is 1,667.9 km/h ??

    The ground at equator is moving with this speed in the ECI frame, and so are the clocks A and B.


    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light
    would |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    Not quite.
    Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
    Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms The difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)

    Wrong. There is no difference.

    Which means that light moving eastwards will cover the 100 km distance between the clocks A and B in
    δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
    longer time than the light moving westwards.

    Wrong. It will take the same time.
    If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they would arrive
    back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.

    Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in the two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground frame.

    Wrong. The transit times are the same.

    snip

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
    the ECI frame).

    They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two numbers be frame dependent.
    ____________________________________


    This is what I cannot understand.
    Light is supposed to travel independent of the source. If that were true, and it is not, then, consider a point in space:

    _____________A______________

    A is moving to the right relative to the rest frame at 1,000 km/h

    How does light emit?

    _____________<A>____________

    _______<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>________

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Do not worry about A, A's subsequent motion is of no relevance. Regardless of the motion of the source.

    Place A on the equator.

    A is moving 1,000 km to the right.

    If the light was somehow made to curve around the equator, through fibre optics for example, then it would go around the Earth and meet back again at the emission point at the same time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 04:00:55 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:43:08 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:11 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    It does not a
    No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
    suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light
    be sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did >> >> not matter where they were situated because his postulate stated
    that all light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.

    I find his description difficult to understand but I am getting it. I think a visual description of the experiment would have been much
    better.

    A little vague.
    Yes Sorry, I don't want to give away too many ddetails of my sensational discoveries. This one is worth plagiariaing.
    The experiment is tbasically as described by Einstein. It is also rather vague but if you study it for long enough you will get the gist. You should have a copy of his 1905 paper. It is available online. The first few pages are all you need to read to find the mistake.

    However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
    sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
    simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
    --
    -- lover of truth



    Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the >> > second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
    replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
    stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.

    Not sure how this would happen.

    That is what I mean.
    I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out
    the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying
    particular light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter
    (because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2), >> he was able to build a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not
    valid.

    I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical
    impossibility. It is complicated.

    Could you explain
    If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein's >> calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still
    indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true >> if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means
    that the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT >> numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
    stationary clocks do).

    However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the
    travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would
    advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.

    Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
    frame dependent.
    Also,


    You wont convince anyone.
    It will be difficult not to accept it. I also have compiled an animation that demonstrates the principle.
    "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
    concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a
    system of co-ordinates,
    are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events >> > when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
    system."

    It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly
    moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was
    following,
    but that method was not followed for some reason.

    If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals, >> > then what would happen to SRT?
    Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
    two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
    along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?
    I just described one. Use your imagination. A hypothetical long and rigid cylinder that has a mark at each end and which spins around its long axis. Every time the mark goes around it ticks a clock. Its synchronization can
    be initially adjusted with light while at rest and checked again at high speed. It is basically a thought experiment but is actually almost practical.
    --
    -- lover of truth


    I have a copy of the 1905 paper. It is getting a little easier to understand.

    A large cylinder, with a mark on the circumference on each of the flat disk shaped ends of the cylinder.
    The cylinder is spinning and the marks are in synchronization by virtue of being on the same straight line in space.

    Einstein synchronization will give a non zero time difference between the marks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 04:27:57 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:35:29 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result: since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.
    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated. The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The experiment was doomed before it even began.
    Ritz's ballistic theory fails variants of MMX using an
    extraterrestrial light source, i.e. not mounted on the MMX
    apparatus.

    Miller conducted an experiment using sunlight:
    "The interchange between sun light and laboratory sources
    in no way altered the results."
    Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson
    PNAS 11:306 (1925)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085994/

    Tomaschek performed the experiment using starlight,
    sunlight, and light reflected from the Moon and Jupiter
    Über das Verhalten des Lichtes außerirdischer Lichtquellen".
    Annalen der Physik. 378 (1): 105–126 (1924) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k153753/f115#

    I hope you are aware, by the way, that there are a VARIETY of
    emission theories, each requiring different methods of disproof.

    1) In the Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory, reflected
    beams essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their
    incident speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror.
    2) Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a
    reflected beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of
    a mirror, regardless of the speed of the incident light.
    3) Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially
    bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that
    of a parallel beam emitted by the original source of light. Once
    emitted, in other words, a light beam somehow or other always
    retains a "memory" of the state of motion of the original light
    source, regardless of how many reflections the light beam
    undergoes.

    The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that
    there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that
    would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions
    of special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as
    experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to
    disprove other forms of emission theory.

    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 04:51:10 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 13:27:59 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:35:29 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT MORE
    than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX null result:
    since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of the
    instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant and independent of orientation.
    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light simply
    moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated. The result
    clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The experiment was doomed before it even began.
    Ritz's ballistic theory fails variants of MMX using an
    extraterrestrial light source, i.e. not mounted on the MMX
    apparatus.

    Miller conducted an experiment using sunlight:
    "The interchange between sun light and laboratory sources
    in no way altered the results."
    Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson
    PNAS 11:306 (1925)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085994/

    Tomaschek performed the experiment using starlight,
    sunlight, and light reflected from the Moon and Jupiter
    Über das Verhalten des Lichtes außerirdischer Lichtquellen".
    Annalen der Physik. 378 (1): 105–126 (1924) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k153753/f115#
    I hope you are aware, by the way, that there are a VARIETY of
    emission theories, each requiring different methods of disproof.

    1) In the Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory, reflected
    beams essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their
    incident speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror.
    2) Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a
    reflected beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of
    a mirror, regardless of the speed of the incident light.
    3) Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially
    bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that
    of a parallel beam emitted by the original source of light. Once
    emitted, in other words, a light beam somehow or other always
    retains a "memory" of the state of motion of the original light
    source, regardless of how many reflections the light beam
    undergoes.

    The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that
    there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that
    would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions
    of special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to
    disprove other forms of emission theory.

    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
    your bunch of idiots "improper" GPS and TAI keep
    measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Fri Apr 28 12:17:02 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:55:46 -0700 (PDT), Trevor Lange wrote:

    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
    interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
    arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
    signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say, because a Sagnac device is designed to
    detect the first-order effect of rotation, whereas the Michelson-Morley device was designed to detect the second-order effect of orientation.
    The only reason the Michelson apparatus was (very slowly) rotated was to
    take essentially static readings at different orientations, because they didn't want to wait six months for the earth to be moving in the
    opposite direction. They *could* have stopped it at each orientation to
    take a reading. In fact, many later experiments just used stationary apparatus (on earth) and relied on the fact that the earth can't always
    be at rest in the presumed stationary aether. This is very different
    from a Sagnac apparatus, whose reading is dependent on the actual active rotation. Yes, the MM apparatus precludes any Sagnac effect,
    but that's just part of it's "irrelevant effect cancelling" design, not
    part of what it is designed to measure. That's just precluding what
    it's designed to NOT measure.

    A lot of people here are ignorance of the facts. Do you know why the MMX apparatus was conceived? It was actually very ingenious. The TWLS
    measuring techniques developed by Fizeau and Foucault and improved by
    Michelson should have been able to detect the Earth's movement through the supposed Ether. (It was believed that the beams of a two way system would become diagonal in the Ether and slow down, 'lightclock' fashion.) When no significant variations were detected, it was naturally assumed that the
    Earth's absolute movement was too small to be measured in that way.
    There was a need for far more accurate clocks than those available at the
    time and so the idea of setting two 'lightclocks' at right angles and using interference was brilliantly conceived. It was seen as an effective way to overcome the timing problem.
    By contrast, the Sagnac interferometer was designed to exploit the fact
    that rotation is an absolute quantity and therefore should be directly measurable. The four mirror interferometer of George Sagnac verified that fact and the rest is history.
    The Michelson type could never detect rotation because the latter would
    always be perpendicular to all four arms. It is also insentitive to
    variations in light speed.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 28 12:45:43 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:

    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:35:29 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:20:36 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Then it is clear you do not understand SR. SR is about a WHOLE LOT
    MORE than just the MMX. SR easily and directly explains the MMX
    null result:
    since the speed of light is isotropic in the inertial rest frame of
    the instrument, the fringe positions are predicted to be constant
    and independent of orientation.
    Yes. It runs for cover behind Newton and Ritz to explain it. Light
    simply moves at c relative to its source and everything at rest with
    that source...so it would not matter how the apparatus was rotated.
    The result clearly verified Ritz's ballistic theory of light. The
    experiment was doomed before it even began.
    Ritz's ballistic theory fails variants of MMX using an extraterrestrial
    light source, i.e. not mounted on the MMX apparatus.

    Miller conducted an experiment using sunlight:
    "The interchange between sun light and laboratory sources in no way
    altered the results."
    Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson PNAS 11:306 (1925)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085994/

    Tomaschek performed the experiment using starlight,
    sunlight, and light reflected from the Moon and Jupiter Über das
    Verhalten des Lichtes außerirdischer Lichtquellen". Annalen der Physik.
    378 (1): 105–126 (1924)
    https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k153753/f115#

    I hope you are aware, by the way, that there are a VARIETY of emission theories, each requiring different methods of disproof.

    Gawd! More absolute crap from an incurably indoctrinated relativist.

    1) In the Thompson/Stewart variant of emission theory, reflected
    beams essentially "bounce" off of a mirror maintaining their
    incident speed as measured in the rest frame of the mirror.

    That one is correct. If either of the other two was correct, the reflected light would necessarily experience a Doppler shift in wavelength...and it
    is well known that reflected images don't change colour.

    2) Tolman described a variation of emission theory whereby a
    reflected beam is re-emitted at c relative to the rest frame of a
    mirror, regardless of the speed of the incident light.
    3) Ritz' version of emission theory is, in my viewpoint, especially
    bizarre: the velocity of a reflected beam is always equal to that


    The remarkable aspect of the Ritz variant of emission theory is that
    there was no purely terrestrial interferometric experiment that would distinguish between the predictions of Ritz and the predictions of
    special relativity. This included Sagnac's experiment as well as
    experiments of Quirino Majorana and of Michelson that served to disprove other forms of emission theory.

    Sagnac and those moving mirror experiments fully support ballistic theory
    and convincingly refute SR. I will tell you why in a new thread.

    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly disproven.

    Hahaha, What rubbish. ...and poor old Einstein never knew he would one day become god to a more braindead group of religious fanatics than those
    Mahammed and jesus christ produced together.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 13:07:15 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 03:56:39 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 2:00:18 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
    the ECI frame).

    They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two
    numbers be frame dependent.
    ____________________________________


    This is what I cannot understand.
    Light is supposed to travel independent of the source. If that were
    true, and it is not, then, consider a point in space:

    _____________A______________

    A is moving to the right relative to the rest frame at 1,000 km/h

    How does light emit?

    _____________<A>____________

    _______<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>________

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Do not worry about A, A's subsequent motion is of no relevance.
    Regardless of the motion of the source.

    Place A on the equator.

    A is moving 1,000 km to the right.

    If the light was somehow made to curve around the equator, through fibre optics for example, then it would go around the Earth and meet back
    again at the emission point at the same time.

    thinking. That has never been shown to be wrong.




    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 06:46:12 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:47 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly disproven.
    Hahaha, What rubbish.

    Hah back to you. It is evident from your writings that up
    until my post, you were *totally unaware* of the existence
    of different variants of emission theory, much less were
    capable of describing different consequences of those
    emission theories requiring different tests.

    I've left out a bunch of variants developed after Pauli wrote
    his book. Can you describe a few variants that I have not
    covered?

    You religious fanatics have had more than a century to
    come up with experiments to disprove SR (within its domain
    of applicability) and all you've managed is to repeat empty
    mantras while shutting your eyes to the simple facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 07:39:27 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 07:40:47 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:46:13 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:47 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly disproven.
    Hahaha, What rubbish.
    Hah back to you. It is evident from your writings that up
    until my post, you were *totally unaware* of the existence
    of different variants of emission theory, much less were
    capable of describing different consequences of those
    emission theories requiring different tests.

    I've left out a bunch of variants developed after Pauli wrote
    his book. Can you describe a few variants that I have not
    covered?

    You religious fanatics have had more than a century to
    come up with experiments to disprove SR (within its domain
    of applicability) and all you've managed is to repeat empty
    mantras while shutting your eyes to the simple facts.

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational. There are conflicts with experiment, so do others.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 07:51:43 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational. There are conflicts with experiment, so do others.

    Nature does not care what "seems to be most rational."
    Nature is what she is, and it is up to us beings of finite
    intellect to figure out her workings. None of us are G-d,
    and we cannot dictate to Nature how she should behave.
    This is something that crackpots do not accept.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 08:08:03 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational.

    ...to an antirelativity idiot, like you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 08:28:39 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational. There are conflicts with experiment, so do others.
    Nature does not care what "seems to be most rational."
    Nature is what she is, and it is up to us beings of finite
    intellect to figure out her workings.

    None of us are G-d,
    and we cannot dictate to Nature how she should behave.
    This is something that crackpots do not accept.

    You are contradicting yourself along your history of posts here.

    For you, Lorentz (relativity) has installed for more than a century that time suffer dilations with motions
    and that lengths (the only objective of Lorentz for 12 years) contract with motion.

    That this is SUBJECTIVE, PERCEPTUAL is irrelevant for relativists. Even the relativistic ChatGPT explained
    how both effects are PRESENT at the ISS, only that we can't measure the small length contraction.

    You have PERCEPTUAL EFFECTS OBSERVED AT A DISTANCE and, suddenly, you jump into the moving frame
    and FIND that those effects ARE REAL.

    Ask Tom about how this is applied to particle physics, violating any possible human rationality.

    He's convinced that humans triumphed over nature, but he's inhibited to seek alternate explanations.

    And you bought all this too. Relativism causes these confused states of mind because is SOPHISTRY, not even
    PHILOSOPHY, and even less real physics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 28 10:44:28 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 16:51:45 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational. There are conflicts with experiment, so do others.
    Nature does not care what "seems to be most rational."

    Sure. If you insist on being a fanatic
    idiot - nature won't stop you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 16:37:27 2023
    On 4/28/2023 4:43 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:11 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:52:41 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:28:30 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:12:37 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    It does not a
    No...Einstein did not specify any particular light sources...and I
    suspect that this was deliberate. He just said "let a ray of light
    be sent from A to B....and another from B to A." . It apparently did >>>>> not matter where they were situated because his postulate stated
    that all light moved at c in the stationary frame anyway.

    I find his description difficult to understand but I am getting it. I
    think a visual description of the experiment would have been much
    better.

    A little vague.

    Yes Sorry, I don't want to give away too many ddetails of my sensational discoveries. This one is worth plagiariaing.
    The experiment is tbasically as described by Einstein. It is also rather vague but if you study it for long enough you will get the gist. You should have a copy of his 1905 paper. It is available online. The first few pages are all you need to read to find the mistake.


    However it certainly DID matter, as I pointed out elsewhere. If the
    sources were attached to the moving clocks, his whole theory about
    simultaneity would fall apart...and so would the rest of SR.
    --
    -- lover of truth



    Since the movement of light sources does not matter, according to the
    second postulate, any system involving a moving light source can be
    replaced by an equivalent system with a stationary light source,
    stationary in the frame of reference of the observer.

    Not sure how this would happen.
    >
    That is what I mean.
    I knew what you meant...and it was basically Ok...I was pointing out
    the circular logic Einstein was using here. By not specifying
    particular light sources on the grounds that it wouldn't matter
    (because all light moved at c in the stationary frame according to P2),
    he was able to build a theory that squashed any claim that P2 was not
    valid.

    I personally discovered that this would lead to a logical
    impossibility. It is complicated.

    Could you explain
    If the sources were connected to the MOVING clocks, then all Einstein's
    calculations would still be correct and the moving clocks would still
    indicate different travel times for the opposite transits. That is true
    if the clocks were used directly to measure OWLS. BUT it also means
    that the individual readings of both A and B would advance by DIFFERENT
    numbers during the RL and LR transits (because that it what the
    stationary clocks do).

    However it is obvious from symmetry, that in the moving frame, the
    travel times must be equal and so the readings of both A and B would
    advance by IDENTICAL numbers during the opposite transits.

    Can you see the contradiction? Neither 'number' nor 'sameness' can be
    frame dependent.
    Also,


    You wont convince anyone.

    It will be difficult not to accept it. I also have compiled an animation
    that demonstrates the principle.

    "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
    concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a
    system of co-ordinates,
    are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
    when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
    system."

    It is possible to have a lattice of clocks synchronized by slowly
    moving clocks apart. This was actually mentioned in the course I was
    following,
    but that method was not followed for some reason.

    If you can synchronize clocks using other methods than light signals,
    then what would happen to SRT?
    Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
    two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
    along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?

    I just described one. Use your imagination. A hypothetical long and rigid cylinder that has a mark at each end and which spins around its long axis. Every time the mark goes around it ticks a clock. Its synchronization can
    be initially adjusted with light while at rest and checked again at high speed. It is basically a thought experiment but is actually almost
    practical.

    How do you propose to demonstrate that a "long and rigid cylinder" is
    actually straight and not subject to variances? After all, if space
    curves, so does your cylinder (a glorified rod.)

    I suppose it is all right so long as the results are accepted as
    theoretical as is every foundational basis of your thought experiment.

    I remind everyone once again, that science presents us with models
    that predict behavior, definitely not "the real(tm) thing."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 16:25:24 2023
    On 4/28/2023 4:00 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:30:09 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 20.04.2023 00:54, skrev Richard Hertz:


    I placed two stationary UTC clocks A and B at equator,
    distance between them is 100 km.

    Note this:
    The UTC clocks at A and B are never changed or adjusted in any way,
    they are stationary at the ground and they keep showing UTC.

    The clocks at A and B are showing UTC, and what time zone they may be in
    is irrelevant.


    "UTC is applied to the perimeter" ?? :-D Each segment (Time Zone) is
    1,667.9 km/h ??

    The ground at equator is moving with this speed in the ECI frame, and so
    are the clocks A and B.


    Or, if you prefer, in 86,400 segments of 463.3 m/sec each.

    If you REALLY want to use UTC in relativity, considering that light
    would |> cover such perimeter (1 DAY) in 133.4 msec.

    Not quite.
    Light moving eastwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67320288 ms
    Light moving westwards will cover the perimeter in: 133.67278812 ms The
    difference is ∆t = 0.41476 μs (Sagnac)

    Wrong. There is no difference.

    Which means that light moving eastwards will cover the 100 km distance
    between the clocks A and B in
    δt = ((100km)/(40074km))⋅0.41476 μs = 1.035 ns
    longer time than the light moving westwards.

    Wrong. It will take the same time.
    If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they would arrive
    back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.


    Two weak points here. 1) "IF" light signals could be simultaneously
    sent..." and 2) I haven't found a universal definition of "instant."

    To me that means zero differentiation in time. Of course with the
    velocity of light in fiber optic cable being close to 124,000 mi/second
    you can customize your definitions to make your claims true, but that is
    not realistic or reasonable from the standpoint of science. It does,
    however, satisfy most science fiction buffs.



    Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in the
    two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the ground
    frame.

    Wrong. The transit times are the same.


    True in a vacuum, however not demonstrated true in other transmitting
    mediums, unless you have experimental data showing otherwise. Please
    let me know when the experiments begin, I'd like to be present.


    snip

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
    the ECI frame).

    They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two numbers be frame dependent.

    Because they are not theoretical frames. You've spilled over into
    another completely different realm. The parameters that are legitimate
    in mind experiments do not have any validity where a real matter
    environment is in play. It is up to you to demonstrate the validity
    of your claims. In science fiction the rule is "It has to appear
    possible." In science there has to be some basis for convincing the
    audience.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paparios@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 28 14:54:01 2023
    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories. https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Paparios on Fri Apr 28 17:28:53 2023
    On 4/28/2023 4:54 PM, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven

    If a postulate is actually true... In this day and age all sorts
    of claims are made, many untrue. Just look at this newsgroup.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Paparios on Fri Apr 28 18:42:24 2023
    On 4/28/2023 6:26 PM, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 18:29:03 UTC-4, whodat escribió:
    On 4/28/2023 4:54 PM, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >>>>> of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics. >>> A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    If a postulate is actually true... In this day and age all sorts
    of claims are made, many untrue. Just look at this newsgroup.

    For sure, if the postulate is, for example, Earth is a plane, the consequences of the physical model derived from that postulate can be falsified, but a postulate (or axiom or assumption) is a definition which can't, by itself, be disproved.

    Good, now we've covered the equivalent of the first few minutes of
    a science 101 class.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paparios@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 28 16:26:30 2023
    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 18:29:03 UTC-4, whodat escribió:
    On 4/28/2023 4:54 PM, Paparios wrote:
    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >>> of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    If a postulate is actually true... In this day and age all sorts
    of claims are made, many untrue. Just look at this newsgroup.

    For sure, if the postulate is, for example, Earth is a plane, the consequences of the physical model derived from that postulate can be falsified, but a postulate (or axiom or assumption) is a definition which can't, by itself, be disproved.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Apr 29 00:07:56 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:58:12 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    <snip meaningless drivel>

    Note the date on this file: December 2016. We've been through all your confusions here over the years. None of your errors so far have been
    terribly original :-)

    What do you mean by that? I might have popped in here a few times in the
    past but because the atmosphere was invariably more akin to gang
    warfare... or even Gaelic football... than to constructive science, I
    chose to waste no further time. I see nothing much has changed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sat Apr 29 00:15:55 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:01:12 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:

    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 12:58:14 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
    light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net
    area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
    Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
    wavelength of the light used. Note the vital presence of 'A', the area
    enclosed by the beams.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Apr 29 00:23:40 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:08:03 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com
    wrote:

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational.

    ...to an antirelativity idiot, like you.

    How can someone be described as being 'anti something that is pure
    fiction'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 19:22:09 2023
    On 4/28/2023 7:07 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:58:12 -0700, JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    <snip meaningless drivel>

    Note the date on this file: December 2016. We've been through all your
    confusions here over the years. None of your errors so far have been
    terribly original :-)

    What do you mean by that? I might have popped in here a few times in the
    past but because the atmosphere was invariably more akin to gang
    warfare... or even Gaelic football... than to constructive science, I
    chose to waste no further time. I see nothing much has changed.

    Probably more than you realize.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 19:30:33 2023
    On 4/28/2023 7:23 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:08:03 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com
    wrote:

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational.

    ...to an antirelativity idiot, like you.

    How can someone be described as being 'anti something that is pure
    fiction'.

    Anti-fiction? Someone who prefers reality?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 17:42:57 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:23:43 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 08:08:03 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Emission theory seems to be the most rational.

    ...to an antirelativity idiot, like you.
    How can someone be described as being 'anti something that is pure
    fiction'.
    Relativity is a fairy tale.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 17:44:23 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:07:58 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    I might have popped in here a few times in the
    past but because the atmosphere was invariably more akin to gang
    warfare... or even Gaelic football... than to constructive science, I
    chose to waste no further time. I see nothing much has changed.

    So... don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out... again... there are already enough trolls here as it is, we certainly don't need another!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paparios on Sat Apr 29 01:04:40 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4,
    gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a
    premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
    It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
    be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.

    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven

    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the incurable Einstein worshipper.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 18:34:12 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
    light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net
    area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
    Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
    wavelength of the light used.

    That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision
    of a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words,
    the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape of the path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct multi-lobed paths
    with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.

    The postulate has never been directly verified.

    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So, the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established empirically.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Sat Apr 29 01:22:44 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:25:24 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 4:00 AM, Jane wrote:

    Wrong. It will take the same time.
    If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in
    opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they
    would arrive back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect
    depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.


    Two weak points here. 1) "IF" light signals could be simultaneously
    sent..." and 2) I haven't found a universal definition of "instant."

    Do you ever think before you write something? There is obviously no
    problem when those actions are performed at the same point.

    To me that means zero differentiation in time. Of course with the
    velocity of light in fiber optic cable being close to 124,000 mi/second
    you can customize your definitions to make your claims true, but that is
    not realistic or reasonable from the standpoint of science. It does,
    however, satisfy most science fiction buffs.



    Since the transit time of the light between A and B is different in
    the two directions, the two UTC clocks are not synchronous in the
    ground frame.

    Wrong. The transit times are the same.


    True in a vacuum, however not demonstrated true in other transmitting mediums, unless you have experimental data showing otherwise. Please let
    me know when the experiments begin, I'd like to be present.

    Thought experiments don't begin or end.


    snip

    Ah. I see. You are confusing Local Mean Time (LMT) and UTC.

    The perimeter is 40074 km, so if A and B both showed LMT,
    B would be 86400⋅100/40074 sec = 215.6 seconds ahead of A.

    But since A and B both show UTC, they show the same time (observed in
    the ECI frame).

    They both show the same time in all frames, silly. How could two
    numbers be frame dependent.

    Because they are not theoretical frames. You've spilled over into
    another completely different realm. The parameters that are legitimate
    in mind experiments do not have any validity where a real matter
    environment is in play. It is up to you to demonstrate the validity of
    your claims. In science fiction the rule is "It has to appear possible."
    In science there has to be some basis for convincing the audience.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Apr 29 01:54:51 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:19:55 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2023 00:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
    wrote:


    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
    AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    Indeed it is:
    SR: speed of light is c in the inertial frame where the centre of the circular loop is stationary.
    Sagnac: speed of light is c in the ether where the centre of the
    circular loop is stationary.

    Both assumptions lead to the same math:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A is equation(10)

    Note that Sagnac also predicts:

    The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)

    The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)

    where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.

    Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
    we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will use different time depending on the direction.

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame. In the ECI frame, the travel times are the same because the
    difference in light speeds exactly compensates for the path length
    difference. That is why a Sagnac interferometer works as it does. During constant rotation, there are different numbers of wavelengths in the two
    paths and the above equation applies.

    You are also making another fundamental mistake...and one that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years. If the travel times are not equal, as
    you claim, the fringe pattern will continue to move during constant
    rotation. That is NOT what happens. So Sagnac clearly refutes SR as does
    most of the other interferometer 'evidence' that is claimed to support SR
    and refute Newton.
    Michelson's 1913 moving mirror experiment is a prime example which I will discuss in another thread..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat Apr 29 02:01:21 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 06:46:12 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:


    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:45:47 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.
    Hahaha, What rubbish.

    Hah back to you. It is evident from your writings that up until my post,
    you were *totally unaware* of the existence of different variants of
    emission theory, much less were capable of describing different
    consequences of those emission theories requiring different tests.

    Surely you must realise yourself that everything you write is crap. I
    have studied Michelson's 1913 experiment thoroughly and its whole purpose
    was to determine which theory correct applies to light reflecting from a
    moving mirror. He referred to the case of r=1 (c+v) as 'undulatory'.

    I've left out a bunch of variants developed after Pauli wrote his book.
    Can you describe a few variants that I have not covered?

    Specular reflection is a difficult subject at any time but it is quite
    clear that the SR case, r=0, cannot be correct.

    You religious fanatics have had more than a century to come up with experiments to disprove SR (within its domain of applicability) and all you've managed is to repeat empty mantras while shutting your eyes to
    the simple facts.

    Well I have already explained why the RoS is a myth and that this then
    refutes the whole of SR. I am about to provide even more proof right now,
    in a new thread.




    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 19:14:13 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame.

    No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any rotating frame. You are full of shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 19:11:42 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Well I have already explained why the RoS is a myth and that this then refutes the whole of SR. I am about to provide even more proof right now,
    in a new thread.
    I thought you were going to immortalize all your imbecilities in a book.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 21:14:43 2023
    On 4/28/2023 8:22 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:25:24 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 4:00 AM, Jane wrote:

    Wrong. It will take the same time.
    If light signals could be simultaneously sent around the Earth in
    opposite directions, for instance in identical optical fibres, they
    would arrive back at the source at the same instant. The Sagnac effect
    depends on that fact. Sagnac interferometry proves it.


    Two weak points here. 1) "IF" light signals could be simultaneously
    sent..." and 2) I haven't found a universal definition of "instant."

    Do you ever think before you write something?

    That the question you should be asking yourself. Do you actually not
    understand the meaning of the word "IF?" So you think you know the
    meaning of "instant" that includes a finite time period. I'm frankly
    shocked at some of this stuff you've been writing lately.

    There is obviously no
    problem when those actions are performed at the same point.

    Aside from in a "thought experiment" do you actually believe they can
    be?

    <snip>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 19:29:17 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase >> > Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >> > of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a
    premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
    It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
    be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the incurable Einstein worshipper.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between
    relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
    it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory when science had progressed 100 years less than today.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 20:05:35 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase >> > Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >> > of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics. A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious. It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the incurable Einstein worshipper.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.


    Imbecile,


    So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Fri Apr 28 20:02:24 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:34:14 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
    light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
    Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L = wavelength of the light used.
    That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision
    of a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words,
    the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape of the path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.
    The postulate has never been directly verified.
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So, the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 20:52:37 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So, the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
    empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?

    Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny.
    There is no rational basis for your denial.

    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.

    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
    The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates,
    both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between distinct things is not rational.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...

    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is
    simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity, it's just your misunderstanding.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Fri Apr 28 21:08:20 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
    special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
    the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
    empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?
    Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
    premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. There is no rational basis for your denial.
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
    system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
    The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between distinct things is not rational.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...

    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    Too much bla bla bla, but relativists run from THIS FACT as fast as they can, while keeping the deceiving gobbledygook,
    which they ace as good charlatans do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Dono. on Fri Apr 28 21:54:54 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >> Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up >> >
    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious. It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
    incurable Einstein worshipper.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
    Imbecile,


    So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.

    Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.

    Newtons light corpuscles would not be limited by the rule 'when two of Newtons light corpuscles approach each other at velocity c, their closing velocity is 2c, but they pass each other at c.

    Unless Newton was smarter than Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Fri Apr 28 22:01:46 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:52:38 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
    special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
    the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
    empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?
    Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
    premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. There is no rational basis for your denial.
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
    system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
    The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between distinct things is not rational.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...

    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    That is a very good point Trevor, however look at the following reasoning:

    I use the rule of reason and logic throughout my studies from Physics to Mathematics to computer programming.

    Surely I can detect a change in the rules when I see them? All I can say
    is that the reasoning and logic processes used right upto SRT fail at the
    point of SRT and within SRT and beyond.

    The mathematics does not tell you anything. Words do not tell you anything except then that there are certain thing that cannot be expressed in
    words in ordinary usage, in ordinary language.

    Maybe we need the language of Alice in Wonderland (Written by a Mathematician)

    Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (commonly Alice in Wonderland) is an 1865 English novel by Lewis Carroll, a mathematics professor at Oxford University. -Wikipedia

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Fri Apr 28 22:07:25 2023
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 05:52:38 UTC+2, Trevor Lange wrote:

    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.

    A common sense prejudice, refuted by your
    bunch of idiots with your inflation "discovery".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Fri Apr 28 23:21:40 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:01:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
    general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
    account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
    relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    That is a very good point, however look at the following reasoning:

    Your message didn't contain any actual reasoning. Case closed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 02:24:35 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:54:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >> Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly
    disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven? >>
    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
    It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
    be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
    incurable Einstein worshipper.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
    Imbecile,


    So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.
    Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.

    No, it doesn't , lying imbecile

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Apr 29 05:24:31 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:24:37 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:54:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up

    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly >> > disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven?

    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
    It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
    be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
    incurable Einstein worshipper.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
    Imbecile,


    So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.
    Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.
    No, it doesn't , lying imbecile

    In optics, the corpuscular theory of light states that light is made up of small discrete particles called "corpuscles" (little particles) which travel in a straight line with a finite velocity and possess impetus. This was based on an alternate
    description of atomism of the time period. - Wikipedia

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sat Apr 29 05:21:04 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:21:41 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:01:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
    general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
    account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
    relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    That is a very good point, however look at the following reasoning:

    Your message didn't contain any actual reasoning. Case closed.

    Let me be very clear. I can only accept the second postulate if I am forced to do so. Put it down to ignorance or anything else.

    Right now that is case.

    I am not in the practice of accepting things because experts tell me so.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 15:11:47 2023
    Den 29.04.2023 03:54, skrev Jane:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:19:55 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2023 00:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
    AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    Indeed it is:
    SR: speed of light is c in the inertial frame where the centre of the
    circular loop is stationary.
    Sagnac: speed of light is c in the ether where the centre of the
    circular loop is stationary.

    Both assumptions lead to the same math:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A is equation(10)

    Note that Sagnac also predicts:

    The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)

    The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)

    where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the
    sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.

    Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
    we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will use
    different time depending on the direction.

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame. In the ECI frame
    No, the equations:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) and tb = 2πr/(c+v)
    are as measured by stationary (coordinate) clocks in the ECI frame.

    But we are stationary in the rotating frame, so it SHOULD have been
    measured by a single clock stationary at the rotating Earth.
    Then tf and tb would be proper times, and they would be:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)

    with v = 465.1 m/s √(1−v²/c²) = (1-1.2e-12)

    So the times for the two beams to go around the Earth are:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.676075 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tf = 133.676075 ms - 0.1604113 ps

    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.675660 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tb = 133.675660 ms - 0.1604108 ps

    0.16 ps is not measurable, that's why the term √(1−v²/c²)
    is ignored.


    the travel times are the same because the
    difference in light speeds exactly compensates for the path length difference.

    Nonsense.

    In the stationary frame, the light speed is c in both directions,
    and the path lengths are different, 2πrv/(c-v) and 2πrv/(c+v).

    In the rotating frame the path length is 2πr⋅√(1−v²/c²) in both directions and the light speeds are different, (c+v) and (c-v).

    That is why a Sagnac interferometer works as it does. During
    constant rotation, there are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths and the above equation applies.

    Quite.
    AND the travel times are different.

    See:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf



    You are also making another fundamental mistake...and one that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years. If the travel times are not equal, as
    you claim, the fringe pattern will continue to move during constant
    rotation.

    Good grief!
    I will give you a tip:
    If you think you have found something which has escaped all
    physicists for hundred of years, think again or you will
    make a giant fool of yourself.
    (Which is done, too late to rethink!)

    The fringe shift is ∆φ = 2πf⋅∆t where ∆t = tf-tb

    ∆t constant, ∆φ constant.

    That is NOT what happens. So Sagnac clearly refutes SR as does
    most of the other interferometer 'evidence' that is claimed to support SR
    and refute Newton.
    Michelson's 1913 moving mirror experiment is a prime example which I will discuss in another thread..

    And yet again make a fool of yourself.
    Maybe you should think before posting?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Apr 29 10:36:01 2023
    On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 19:33:31 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/29/23 7:21 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Let me be very clear. I can only accept the second postulate if I am
    forced to do so.
    You don't need to accept Einstein's second postulate. In 1905 Einstein intermixed what today we consider two separate theories: Special
    Relativity and classical electrodynamics. His first postulate is clearly geometrical, while his second postulate is clearly electrodynamical. We
    now know how to separate these two theories. Here's the geometrical part (SR), which does not need or use his second postulate:

    From the definition of inertial frames it is straightforward to show
    that the relationships between standard coordinates [#] in different
    inertial frames can only be described by three groups:
    a) the Euclid group (in 4D)
    b) the Galilei group
    c) the Lorentz group

    [#] Cartesian coordinates on space, becoming Minkowski
    coordinates on spacetime. Aka inertial coordinates. The
    key points are that the four coordinate axes are mutually
    orthogonal, and the metric components are all constant.

    Experiments and observations of the world we inhabit refute (a) and (b),


    But forbidden by your bunch of idiots inproper
    GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t in forbidden by your
    bunch of idiots improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 12:33:18 2023
    On 4/29/23 7:21 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Let me be very clear. I can only accept the second postulate if I am
    forced to do so.

    You don't need to accept Einstein's second postulate. In 1905 Einstein intermixed what today we consider two separate theories: Special
    Relativity and classical electrodynamics. His first postulate is clearly geometrical, while his second postulate is clearly electrodynamical. We
    now know how to separate these two theories. Here's the geometrical part
    (SR), which does not need or use his second postulate:

    From the definition of inertial frames it is straightforward to show
    that the relationships between standard coordinates [#] in different
    inertial frames can only be described by three groups:
    a) the Euclid group (in 4D)
    b) the Galilei group
    c) the Lorentz group

    [#] Cartesian coordinates on space, becoming Minkowski
    coordinates on spacetime. Aka inertial coordinates. The
    key points are that the four coordinate axes are mutually
    orthogonal, and the metric components are all constant.

    Experiments and observations of the world we inhabit refute (a) and (b),
    and confirm (c), so in physics we only use the Lorentz group. IOW SR is
    valid:

    In (a), space and time behave exactly the same, contrary to very basic observations of the world we inhabit. (a) also implies that combining
    two large relative velocities in the +x direction can result in a
    relative velocity in the -x direction, also contrary to observation.

    Distinguishing (b) from (c) requires either exquisite measurement
    precision or relative speeds an appreciable fraction of c. It wasn't
    until the 1930s that it was possible to distinguish them without
    involving electrodynamics -- all experiments capable of distinguishing
    them are consistent with (c) and inconsistent with (b). Today there are thousands of particle experiments that refute (b) and support (c).

    [The advent of GR means that SR applies only locally,
    which is now known as local Lorentz invariance (LLI).]

    Indeed, no experiment has ever refuted local Lorentz invariance, and
    there have been A LOT of experiments testing it.

    In retrospect, in 1905 Einstein was lucky in that the vacuum speed of
    light "just happens" to be the same as the invariant speed of the
    (local) geometry. Due to this happy circumstance, we use a single symbol
    "c" to represent these two very different aspects of the world we inhabit.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sat Apr 29 12:33:12 2023
    On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
    interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two
    straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area
    the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say,

    Not really -- it a TRUE thing to say.

    because a Sagnac device is designed to detect the first-order effect
    of rotation, whereas the Michelson-Morley device was designed to
    detect the second-order effect of orientation.

    Sure, they were designed for different reasons.

    Still, there is nothing to prevent one from applying the Sagnac analysis
    to a Michelson interferometer. This is straightforward, and the zero
    enclosed area implies zero fringe shift due to the rotation. This holds
    in Michelson's original aether theory, and also in SR.

    The only reason the Michelson apparatus was (very slowly) rotated was
    to take essentially static readings at different orientations,
    because they didn't want to wait six months for the earth to be
    moving in the opposite direction. They *could* have stopped it at
    each orientation to take a reading. In fact, many later experiments
    just used stationary apparatus (on earth) and relied on the fact that
    the earth can't always be at rest in the presumed stationary aether.

    Yes to all. But irrelevant.

    This is very different from a Sagnac apparatus, whose reading is
    dependent on the actual active rotation.

    Yes again. But irrelevant.

    Yes, the MM apparatus precludes any Sagnac effect,

    Sure. But not due to any "magic", it is due to the interferometer having
    zero enclosed area, as the Sagnac analysis shows.

    Note also that if the actual instrument happens to have a nonzero
    enclosed area, then for a constant rotation rate it would offset the
    fringe position by a constant, which could not be distinguished from
    a misalignment of the mirrors -- it would not affect the Michelson
    analysis in any way.

    but that's just part of it's "irrelevant effect cancelling" design,
    not part of what it is designed to measure. That's just precluding
    what it's designed to NOT measure.

    Yes. But not due to any "magic", it is due to the interferometer having
    zero enclosed area, as the Sagnac analysis shows.

    Note that the Sagnac signal is due to the rotation of the instrument,
    while the Michelson signal is supposedly due to its (linear) motion
    relative to the aether. No Michelson interferometer has ever displayed a significant signal that can be interpreted as due to motion relative to
    the aether. Sagnac interferometers routinely detect their rotation and
    are used in many applications for that purpose (c.f. fiber-optic gyroscope).

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Apr 29 14:39:07 2023
    On 4/29/2023 1:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
    interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
    arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
    signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say,

    Not really -- it a TRUE thing to say.

    There is a difference. A Sagnac device has one loop which the light beam
    passes through in the two different directions. The M-M device has two
    loops, both of zero area, each with one beam in it, not two
    counterrotating beams.

    I could imagine a zero area Sagnac device, with the path in a figure-8 configuration, with two beams taking opposite directions through the
    figure-8. Both lobes of the 8 are the exact same size and shape but the
    path is such that one of the beams passes clockwise through one lobe but counter clockwise through the other, so the total intersected area would
    be 0. I don't know if such a configuration has any use other than to
    verify the equal areas really do cancel to 0.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 29 12:08:20 2023
    On April 28, Jane wrote:
    A lot of people here are ignorance of the facts.

    Aggravating, ain't it?

    The Michelson type could never detect rotation because the latter would always be perpendicular to all four arms.

    whatever -

    It is also insensitive to variations in light speed.

    Right. The Michelson apparatus showed null,
    because it can't detect the observer's motion
    through the ether in different directions. It isn't
    designed for that.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Apr 29 12:05:40 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:25 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
    interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two
    straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area
    the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say, because a Sagnac device is designed to
    detect the first-order effect of rotation, whereas the Michelson-Morley device was designed to detect the second-order effect of translation.

    Sure, they were designed for different reasons.

    Right -- and the experiments are completely different, one with an apparatus rotating at high speed to detect the Sagnac effect and the other not. Remember, you said (of the MMX) "SINCE it has zero enclosed area, the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed", but the MMX wasn't rotating (at any appreciable speed), so the "observed" absence of the Sagnac effect doesn't rely on zero area... there would be no signal even with non-zero area, because: It. Isn't. Rotating.

    There is nothing to prevent one from applying the Sagnac analysis
    to a Michelson interferometer. This is straightforward...

    Right -- and oddly pointless. Again, when you say "SINCE the MMX apparatus has
    zero enclosed area, the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed", this
    is misleading, because unless you are just blathering pointlessly you are must be referring to the predicted and observed null result of the MMX... but of course that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Sagnac effect, and no
    one ever imagined that it did.

    Yes, the MM apparatus precludes any Sagnac effect,

    Sure. But not due to any "magic"....

    That fact that you would bring magic into the discussion is revealing.
    It's just another oddly random and irrelevant statement that reveals fundamental misunderstandings. It's self-evident that the MMX would
    show no Sagnac effect, and this is as irrelevant as it is self-evident.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Apr 29 21:47:26 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/29/2023 1:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12?AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac
    interferometer that has been topologically deformed into two straight
    arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed area the Sagnac
    signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say,

    Not really -- it a TRUE thing to say.

    There is a difference. A Sagnac device has one loop which the light beam passes through in the two different directions. The M-M device has two
    loops, both of zero area, each with one beam in it, not two
    counterrotating beams.

    I could imagine a zero area Sagnac device, with the path in a figure-8 configuration, with two beams taking opposite directions through the figure-8. Both lobes of the 8 are the exact same size and shape but the
    path is such that one of the beams passes clockwise through one lobe but counter clockwise through the other, so the total intersected area would
    be 0. I don't know if such a configuration has any use other than to
    verify the equal areas really do cancel to 0.

    Easier, you could wind a coil with two optical fibers,
    with a short at one end.
    While useless for interferometry such a configuration
    is quite useful for winding low-inductance resistors,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Apr 29 13:03:02 2023
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 2:04:05 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT
    EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?
    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k
    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.
    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    --
    Jan
    Why on Earth did you post a link, if the access is denied?

    Fixed link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-O4MZ1Y99lb3fpwHbGDegTg

    Looks like GoogleDrive no longer allows the shorter forms of links.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Apr 29 12:51:59 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:08:22 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
    special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
    the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
    empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?
    Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
    premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. There is no rational basis for your denial.
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.
    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
    system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
    The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the
    readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between distinct things is not rational.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...

    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
    general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
    account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
    relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.
    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    So do Newton's point masses and Maxwell's equations.

    No theory in physics uses models that are 100% reality mappings.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 14:01:50 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:21:06 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:21:41 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:01:48 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
    general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
    account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
    relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    That is a very good point, however look at the following reasoning:

    Your message didn't contain any actual reasoning. Case closed.
    Let me be very clear. I can only accept the second postulate if I am forced to do so. Put it down to ignorance or anything else.

    Put down to native imbecility

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Apr 30 00:53:54 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:11:42 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Well I have already explained why the RoS is a myth and that this then
    refutes the whole of SR. I am about to provide even more proof right
    now,
    in a new thread.
    I thought you were going to immortalize all your imbecilities in a book.

    As a retired science journalist, writing about my experiences will come naturally. Einstein's relativity will be central stage because it is
    obviously complete nonsense.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sun Apr 30 00:35:26 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:34:12 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
    light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net
    area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
    Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
    wavelength of the light used.

    That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision of
    a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular
    path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for
    other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words,
    the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape of the
    path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct
    multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.

    The postulate has never been directly verified.

    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
    into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely
    tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
    has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with principles
    such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as to the
    relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible
    levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever
    been found. So,
    the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well
    established empirically.

    Absolute garbage. You are totally confused.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 00:59:32 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
    it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory
    when science had progressed 100 years less than today.

    Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been
    relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart
    from wasting over 100 years of research money.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 29 18:02:41 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
    it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
    Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart
    from wasting over 100 years of research money.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Apr 30 01:03:18 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:14:13 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame.

    No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any rotating
    frame. You are full of shit.

    In masculine terms "FUCK OFF YOU HALF-BRAINED IDIOT".





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 29 18:08:46 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:03:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:14:13 -0700, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame.

    No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any rotating frame. You are full of shit.

    Reduced you to frothing at the mouth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Apr 30 03:10:50 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between
    relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
    it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and
    scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory
    when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
    Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been
    relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart
    from wasting over 100 years of research money.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.

    I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
    there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.

    Can you be more specific?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Python on Sat Apr 29 18:31:00 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:10:53 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave >>> it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory >>> when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
    Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been
    relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart
    from wasting over 100 years of research money.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
    I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
    there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.

    Can you be more specific?

    This specific is OK for you?

    https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Wallace_Kantor

    This is the presentation of his book: Relativistic Propagation of Light


    "Wallace Kantor critically examines "the immediately relevant experimental evidence in the kinematics of the special theory of relativity
    and the old lumeriferous ether theory. The result is surprising: there is no kinematic experimental evidence for either of these theories.

    There is, instead, considerable unrecognized experimental evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, that contradicts these theories.
    There is experimental evidence showing that the speed of light does actually depend on the motion of its source at the time of emission.

    There is experimental evidence that the speed of light in certain physical situations does exceed the vacuum speed of light emitted from
    a stationary source. There is the only valid first-order experimental evidence that the speed of light skew-convected by a flowing fluid is
    found to conform to the classical (etherless) addition of speeds, and not the Einstein "addition" of speeds; the ether theory Fresnel
    convection coefficient is also thereby experimentally contradicted." - From the Preface Though out of print, Kantor's classic remains a
    compelling summary of the experiments commonly used to defend the special theory of relativity. His arguments and analysis stand
    firmly rooted on what actually happens in the lab".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 30 03:33:53 2023
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:10:53 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave >>>>> it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>>>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory >>>>> when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
    Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been >>>> relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart >>>> from wasting over 100 years of research money.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
    I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
    there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.

    Can you be more specific?

    This specific is OK for you?

    https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Wallace_Kantor

    This is the presentation of his book: Relativistic Propagation of Light


    "Wallace Kantor critically examines "the immediately relevant experimental evidence in the kinematics of the special theory of relativity
    and the old lumeriferous ether theory. The result is surprising: there is no kinematic experimental evidence for either of these theories.

    There is, instead, considerable unrecognized experimental evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, that contradicts these theories.
    There is experimental evidence showing that the speed of light does actually depend on the motion of its source at the time of emission.

    There is experimental evidence that the speed of light in certain physical situations does exceed the vacuum speed of light emitted from
    a stationary source. There is the only valid first-order experimental evidence that the speed of light skew-convected by a flowing fluid is
    found to conform to the classical (etherless) addition of speeds, and not the Einstein "addition" of speeds; the ether theory Fresnel
    convection coefficient is also thereby experimentally contradicted." - From the Preface Though out of print, Kantor's classic remains a
    compelling summary of the experiments commonly used to defend the special theory of relativity. His arguments and analysis stand
    firmly rooted on what actually happens in the lab".



    See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
    language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 30 03:32:52 2023
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:10:53 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave >>>>> it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>>>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory >>>>> when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
    Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been >>>> relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart >>>> from wasting over 100 years of research money.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
    I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
    there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.

    Can you be more specific?

    This specific is OK for you?

    https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Wallace_Kantor

    This is the presentation of his book: Relativistic Propagation of Light


    "Wallace Kantor critically examines "the immediately relevant experimental evidence in the kinematics of the special theory of relativity
    and the old lumeriferous ether theory. The result is surprising: there is no kinematic experimental evidence for either of these theories.

    There is, instead, considerable unrecognized experimental evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, that contradicts these theories.
    There is experimental evidence showing that the speed of light does actually depend on the motion of its source at the time of emission.

    There is experimental evidence that the speed of light in certain physical situations does exceed the vacuum speed of light emitted from
    a stationary source. There is the only valid first-order experimental evidence that the speed of light skew-convected by a flowing fluid is
    found to conform to the classical (etherless) addition of speeds, and not the Einstein "addition" of speeds; the ether theory Fresnel
    convection coefficient is also thereby experimentally contradicted." - From the Preface Though out of print, Kantor's classic remains a
    compelling summary of the experiments commonly used to defend the special theory of relativity. His arguments and analysis stand
    firmly rooted on what actually happens in the lab".



    Ok, thanks. So he definitely is a crank.

    I'm collecting this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Python on Sat Apr 29 18:38:31 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>

    See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
    language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.

    I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Apr 29 18:36:24 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:31:05 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:10:53 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:59:35 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:29:17 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:


    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.

    I live an alternate universe where irrationality prevails. Let us leave
    it at that.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn of the rationality and >>> scientific thinking processes when, and only when, studying some theory
    when science had progressed 100 years less than today.
    Fortunately, no aspect of Einstein's disruptive theories has ever been >> relevant to life on this planet. They have caused no direct harm apart >> from wasting over 100 years of research money.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    It certainly has been a waste of money, considering that Wallace Kantor has refuted the alleged evidence for special relativity in his book and papers.
    I browsed through Wallace Kantor's publications. I've seen nothing
    there pretending refuting SR experimental validations.

    Can you be more specific?
    This specific is OK for you?

    https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Wallace_Kantor

    This is the presentation of his book: Relativistic Propagation of Light


    "Wallace Kantor critically examines "the immediately relevant experimental evidence in the kinematics of the special theory of relativity
    and the old lumeriferous ether theory. The result is surprising: there is no kinematic experimental evidence for either of these theories.

    There is, instead, considerable unrecognized experimental evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, that contradicts these theories.
    There is experimental evidence showing that the speed of light does actually depend on the motion of its source at the time of emission.

    There is experimental evidence that the speed of light in certain physical situations does exceed the vacuum speed of light emitted from
    a stationary source. There is the only valid first-order experimental evidence that the speed of light skew-convected by a flowing fluid is
    found to conform to the classical (etherless) addition of speeds, and not the Einstein "addition" of speeds; the ether theory Fresnel
    convection coefficient is also thereby experimentally contradicted." - From the Preface Though out of print, Kantor's classic remains a
    compelling summary of the experiments commonly used to defend the special theory of relativity. His arguments and analysis stand
    firmly rooted on what actually happens in the lab".


    Curiously, in a giant reservoir with 84,080,202 eBooks, this one is not available.

    And NOT A SINGLE BOOK CRITICIZING RELATIVITY OR EINSTEIN is available.

    I've been using this reservoir for years. Not that it's a site controlled by jews.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 30 03:42:21 2023
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>

    See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
    language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.

    I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.


    I didn't expect you to stay decent. But as ridiculous as it
    was, it was not that ridiculous compared to your records.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Apr 30 02:53:52 2023
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 15:11:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 29.04.2023 03:54, skrev Jane:

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A


    snip

    The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)

    The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)

    where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the
    sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.

    Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
    we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will
    use different time depending on the direction.

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame. In the ECI frame

    No, the equations:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) and tb = 2πr/(c+v)
    are as measured by stationary (coordinate) clocks in the ECI frame.


    But we are stationary in the rotating frame, so it SHOULD have been
    measured by a single clock stationary at the rotating Earth.
    Then tf and tb would be proper times, and they would be:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)

    with v = 465.1 m/s √(1−v²/c²) = (1-1.2e-12)

    So the times for the two beams to go around the Earth are:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.676075 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tf = 133.676075 ms - 0.1604113 ps

    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.675660 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tb = 133.675660 ms - 0.1604108 ps

    0.16 ps is not measurable, that's why the term √(1−v²/c²)
    is ignored.

    No. In the ECI frame, the light travels at c+v and c-v so the travel
    times are equal...as they must be for Sagnac to work.

    the travel times are the same because the difference in light speeds
    exactly compensates for the path length difference.

    Nonsense.

    But Sagnac proves it to be true. The fringes are displaced because there
    are different wave numbers in the paths during any constant rotation.

    In the stationary frame, the light speed is c in both directions,
    and the path lengths are different, 2πrv/(c-v) and 2πrv/(c+v).

    No, in the ROTATING FRAME the light speed is c in both directions. Can
    you not understand that?

    In the rotating frame the path length is 2πr⋅√(1−v²/c²) in both directions and the light speeds are different, (c+v) and (c-v).

    Wrong again. In the rotating frame the path lengths are both obviously
    just 2πr. However, the use of rotating frames can lead to imaginary
    effects. In this case, there is an imaginary Doppler wavelength shift due
    to the fact that the (inertial) emission point moves (invisibly)
    backwards in the rotating frame.

    That is why a Sagnac interferometer works as it does. During constant
    rotation, there are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths
    and the above equation applies.

    Quite.
    AND the travel times are different.

    No. Travel times must be the same to ensure the fringes are stationary.
    Light elements leave the source in phase and reunite in different
    phase...but the difference is constant. (light is not like an
    oscillator). Wave numbers change only during an acceleration.

    See:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

    Oh dear. very wrong again. You have fallen into the 'rotating frame'
    trap, as explained above...and you have NOT refuted ballistic theory at
    all. In fact that produces the correct equation when analysed in the
    inertial frame. Difference in path lengths divided by wavelength equals 4Aѡ/cλ.
    So would you please correct your very misleading article for the sake of
    your own reputation. Why would anyone accept anything you write if you
    do not make it clear that you were wrong. You should also apologise to
    all Newton supporters and explain that Sagnac fully supports ballistic
    light theory.

    You are also making another fundamental mistake...and one that has gone
    unnoticed for hundreds of years. If the travel times are not equal, as
    you claim, the fringe pattern will continue to move during constant
    rotation.

    Good grief!
    I will give you a tip:
    If you think you have found something which has escaped all physicists
    for hundred of years, think again or you will make a giant fool of
    yourself.
    (Which is done, too late to rethink!)

    The fringe shift is ∆φ = 2πf⋅∆t where ∆t = tf-tb,

    Your frequency 'f' does not exist....unless you want to incorrectly use
    wave emission rate, c/λ. You then get ∆φ = 2π x (difference in numbers
    of waves arriving per unit time from opposite directions). If they are
    both arriving at c, as you are forced to believe, that difference must be
    zero because the wavelength has not changed.

    snip

    The fringe displacement is stated in the above equation. It is dependent
    on angular velocity. The fringe pattern does not change or move during
    any constant rotation.

    But if the travel times are not equal, AS YOUR FLAWED THEORY CLAIMS, the
    fringe pattern will CONSTANTLY MOVE during constant rotation. That should
    be obvious because the phasing between the two reuniting beams will
    constantly change.

    You might now agree that this has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years,
    and you must therefore agree that my exposure of the truth clearly
    refutes SR.

    ∆t constant, ∆φ constant.

    That is NOT what happens. So Sagnac clearly refutes SR as does
    most of the other interferometer 'evidence' that is claimed to support
    SR and refute Newton.
    Michelson's 1913 moving mirror experiment is a prime example which I
    will discuss in another thread..

    And yet again make a fool of yourself.

    Naturally you would say that. In earlier times, one of my writing
    assignments was about fibre optic gyros. The physicist at a factory I
    visited laughed when I told him I had been taught more or less what you
    have just written above. "Surely they don't still teach that nonsense",
    he said. Then he explained how it was all about wavelength differences.

    Maybe you should think before posting?

    You relativists would say that because you know I am right. Maybe you
    should think after you have read my posts.
    SR relies crucially on light having an intrinsic frequency... which it
    does not have (also unnoticed for very many years).





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Python on Sat Apr 29 19:54:32 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>

    See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
    language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.

    I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.

    I didn't expect you to stay decent. But as ridiculous as it
    was, it was not that ridiculous compared to your records.

    I'm a decent, honest and religious person. God gave me more intelligence than I could have possibly desired.

    It makes things difficult for me when interacting with others, lesser blessed.

    That's why I tried, sometimes and only here, some original thinking or critics about the history of physics and technology.

    My past work, still unable to disclose, put me in front of many state-of-the-art projects with multinational partners.

    I don't invent the jew hand. It's everywhere and is the most powerful force driving the world since WWII.

    Einstein did his designed job to get another god of science (any science). Others followed, and an order was established in physics.

    Name to me ANY FIELD OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES, and I'll show you the threads of the puppets and the puppeteers.

    Medical sciences, logistics, chemistry, finances, trading, politics, economy, social sciences, mathematics, electronics, mining,
    agriculture, education, journalism, military, astronomy, cosmology, entertainment, publishing houses, arts, real state, housing,
    food industry, WHATEVER.

    In 80 years, and with extreme intelligence and sense of unity beyond frontiers, unmatched by any other religious group, a
    minority of less than 0.5% of the world population CONTROL EVERYTHING. You have to be proud of this, don't deny it.

    Relativity is just a minor glitch in the stream of daily events. Consider most of the remaining 99.5% like Homer Simpsons.

    Consider myself as a distant spectator of the events that unfold daily all over the world. I'm glad that I'm retired of everything.

    But I don't lie, nor I have an agenda or have any desire to be an activist. I just put a wire to the ground just only here.

    I'm trying to have fun with little things, and historic revisionism in physics just fill the quote.

    You CAN'T FIND ANY ANTI-RELATIVITY OR EINSTEIN BOOK in Google. Maybe you'll have a little bit more luck with Duck Duck Go.

    And that's how far I'm willing to go, when searching material. I have other means, which I will not disclose, and it's not P2P.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Sun Apr 30 03:21:07 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:14:43 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 8:22 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:25:24 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 4:00 AM, Jane wrote:


    Two weak points here. 1) "IF" light signals could be simultaneously
    sent..." and 2) I haven't found a universal definition of "instant."

    Do you ever think before you write something?

    That the question you should be asking yourself. Do you actually not understand the meaning of the word "IF?" So you think you know the
    meaning of "instant" that includes a finite time period. I'm frankly
    shocked at some of this stuff you've been writing lately.

    Instants are infinitesimal.

    There is obviously no problem when those actions are performed at the
    same point.

    Aside from in a "thought experiment" do you actually believe they can
    be?

    Oh I think I can see your problem. Maybe you are confusing an 'instant'
    with an 'interval'

    In fact it is rather strange that we humans use the single word 'time'
    for all three of its meanings. Time instant, time interval or even time passage.

    <snip>





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Apr 29 20:24:42 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>

    See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
    language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.

    I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.

    I didn't expect you to stay decent. But as ridiculous as it
    was, it was not that ridiculous compared to your records.
    I'm a decent, honest and religious person. God gave me more intelligence than I could have possibly desired.

    It makes things difficult for me when interacting with others, lesser blessed.

    That's why I tried, sometimes and only here, some original thinking or critics about the history of physics and technology.

    My past work, still unable to disclose, put me in front of many state-of-the-art projects with multinational partners.

    I don't invent the jew hand. It's everywhere and is the most powerful force driving the world since WWII.

    Einstein did his designed job to get another god of science (any science). Others followed, and an order was established in physics.

    Name to me ANY FIELD OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES, and I'll show you the threads of the puppets and the puppeteers.

    Medical sciences, logistics, chemistry, finances, trading, politics, economy, social sciences, mathematics, electronics, mining,
    agriculture, education, journalism, military, astronomy, cosmology, entertainment, publishing houses, arts, real state, housing,
    food industry, WHATEVER.

    In 80 years, and with extreme intelligence and sense of unity beyond frontiers, unmatched by any other religious group, a
    minority of less than 0.5% of the world population CONTROL EVERYTHING. You have to be proud of this, don't deny it.

    Relativity is just a minor glitch in the stream of daily events. Consider most of the remaining 99.5% like Homer Simpsons.

    Consider myself as a distant spectator of the events that unfold daily all over the world. I'm glad that I'm retired of everything.

    But I don't lie, nor I have an agenda or have any desire to be an activist. I just put a wire to the ground just only here.

    I'm trying to have fun with little things, and historic revisionism in physics just fill the quote.

    You CAN'T FIND ANY ANTI-RELATIVITY OR EINSTEIN BOOK in Google. Maybe you'll have a little bit more luck with Duck Duck Go.

    And that's how far I'm willing to go, when searching material. I have other means, which I will not disclose, and it's not P2P.
    It wouldn't be hard for people at the top, above the Gates and other known rich people to control much of world affairs. The richest people are probably better at concealing their wealth than people like Mr. Gates. They wouldn't be confined to any race
    or family. The Rothschilds lost their influence long ago.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 13:42:15 2023
    On 29-Apr-23 10:24 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:24:37 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:54:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4,
    gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >>>>>>>> Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase >>>>>>>>> Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion >>>>>>>>> of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up >>>>>>>>>
    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly >>>>>>>>> disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven? >>>>>>>>
    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a >>>>>>> premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious. >>>>>> It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever >>>>>> be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
    incurable Einstein worshipper.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.
    Imbecile,


    So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.
    Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.
    No, it doesn't , lying imbecile

    In optics, the corpuscular theory of light states that light is made up of small discrete particles called "corpuscles" (little particles) which travel in a straight line with a finite velocity and possess impetus. This was based on an alternate
    description of atomism of the time period. - Wikipedia

    I don't see the point of that comment. Many theories about many things
    were proposed in the past. Most did not survive the test of time.
    Leaving aside the modern quantum mechanics interpretation involving
    photons, which is certainly not what the corpuscular theory proponents
    had in mind, the corpuscular theory of light is been abundantly
    falsified, and is of only mild historical interest. It forms, and can
    form, no part of modern physics.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Sun Apr 30 03:45:03 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:37:27 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 4:43 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:00:46 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:



    then what would happen to SRT?
    Yes. Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. For instance
    two clocks at the ends of a long rotating cylinder synched to a line
    along it. Impractical but good enough to prove the point.
    --
    -- lover of truth

    Mechanically synched clocks completely destroy SR. - Diagram?

    I just described one. Use your imagination. A hypothetical long and
    rigid cylinder that has a mark at each end and which spins around its
    long axis. Every time the mark goes around it ticks a clock. Its
    synchronization can be initially adjusted with light while at rest and
    checked again at high speed. It is basically a thought experiment but
    is actually almost practical.

    How do you propose to demonstrate that a "long and rigid cylinder" is actually straight and not subject to variances? After all, if space
    curves, so does your cylinder (a glorified rod.)

    The idea that space 'curves' is based on a theory that began with the RoS.
    We are querying the RoS so none of its claimed repercussion can be used
    in its defence.

    I suppose it is all right so long as the results are accepted as
    theoretical as is every foundational basis of your thought experiment.

    Well it is possible right now to synch clocks that way but the synch will
    no doubt wander somewhat. Their readings will remain the same
    indefinitely.

    I remind everyone once again, that science presents us with models that predict behavior, definitely not "the real(tm) thing."

    Well, mechanically synched clocks will IN THEORY measure light speeds
    that differ from c. That is enough to negate Einstein's method.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 29 20:50:44 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:34:12 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
    light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net >> > area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
    Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
    wavelength of the light used.

    That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision of
    a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words,
    the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape of the path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct
    multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.

    The postulate has never been directly verified.

    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
    into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
    has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible
    levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever
    been found. So,
    the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established empirically.

    Absolute garbage. You are totally confused.

    This is just an infantile "not so". Why do you even bother? Can't
    you pick another hobby?

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Apr 30 00:15:12 2023
    On 4/29/23 1:39 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 1:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/27/23 10:55 PM, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a
    Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into
    two straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed
    area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say,

    Not really -- it a TRUE thing to say.

    There is a difference. A Sagnac device has one loop which the light
    beam passes through in the two different directions. The M-M device
    has two loops, both of zero area, each with one beam in it, not two counterrotating beams.

    Sure. But the two are still just topological deformations of each other.
    In particular, the two beams propagate independently, and so can be
    deformed independently. The Sagnac analysis still holds.

    Note I am not talking about the design, purpose, or construction of the
    two interferometers, I am talking about the ANALYSIS of them.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 30 00:32:38 2023
    On 4/28/23 8:04 PM, Jane wrote:
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are
    obvious.

    Nonsense. Both of Einstein's 1905 postulates have been directly tested.
    For the first postulate, look up "tests of local Lorentz invariance".

    For the second postulate: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

    Note also that as I recently posted [#], one does not need the second
    postulate to derive the Lorentz transform and SR (in the modern sense, excluding electrodynamics).

    [#] in the thread "EInstein's 1905 SR HOAX: How a young clerk
    used false arguments and deceived the world for 110 years"

    It is virtually impossible to do so even today

    Complete nonsense.

    no funding would ever be given to something that would topple the
    god Einstein.

    More nonsense -- you OBVIOUSLY do not understand how science works, or
    how funding agencies allocate their resources. There have been LOTS of experiments testing relativity that have been funded. Each had the
    potential to refute SR, but to date all have supported SR.

    Outside of your fantasy world, in the world we inhabit, anyone who
    performed an experiment that refuted SR would be a very strong contender
    for a Nobel Prize.

    [... further nonsense ignored -- there are no "Einstein worshipers",
    that is a fantasy among fools and idiots]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Apr 29 23:31:57 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:11:54 PM UTC+5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 29.04.2023 03:54, skrev Jane:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:19:55 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2023 00:56, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER. >>> AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    Indeed it is:
    SR: speed of light is c in the inertial frame where the centre of the
    circular loop is stationary.
    Sagnac: speed of light is c in the ether where the centre of the
    circular loop is stationary.

    Both assumptions lead to the same math:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A is equation(10)

    Note that Sagnac also predicts:

    The time tf to go around the loop with the rotation:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) eq.(3)

    The time tb to go around the loop in opposite direction:
    tb = 2πr/(c+v) eq.(6)

    where r is the radius of the circular loop and v is the speed of the
    sender/detector in the inertial frame/ether.

    Since we both accept Sagnac to be valid in the real world,
    we must also agree that light going around the Earth at equator will use >> different time depending on the direction.

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame. In the ECI frame
    No, the equations:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) and tb = 2πr/(c+v)
    are as measured by stationary (coordinate) clocks in the ECI frame.

    But we are stationary in the rotating frame, so it SHOULD have been
    measured by a single clock stationary at the rotating Earth.
    Then tf and tb would be proper times, and they would be:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)

    with v = 465.1 m/s √(1−v²/c²) = (1-1.2e-12)

    So the times for the two beams to go around the Earth are:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.676075 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tf = 133.676075 ms - 0.1604113 ps

    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.675660 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tb = 133.675660 ms - 0.1604108 ps

    0.16 ps is not measurable, that's why the term √(1−v²/c²)
    is ignored.
    the travel times are the same because the
    difference in light speeds exactly compensates for the path length difference.
    Nonsense.

    In the stationary frame, the light speed is c in both directions,
    and the path lengths are different, 2πrv/(c-v) and 2πrv/(c+v).

    In the rotating frame the path length is 2πr⋅√(1−v²/c²) in both directions and the light speeds are different, (c+v) and (c-v).
    That is why a Sagnac interferometer works as it does. During
    constant rotation, there are different numbers of wavelengths in the two paths and the above equation applies.
    Quite.
    AND the travel times are different.

    See:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

    You are also making another fundamental mistake...and one that has gone unnoticed for hundreds of years. If the travel times are not equal, as
    you claim, the fringe pattern will continue to move during constant rotation.
    Good grief!
    I will give you a tip:
    If you think you have found something which has escaped all
    physicists for hundred of years, think again or you will
    make a giant fool of yourself.
    (Which is done, too late to rethink!)

    The fringe shift is ∆φ = 2πf⋅∆t where ∆t = tf-tb

    ∆t constant, ∆φ constant.
    That is NOT what happens. So Sagnac clearly refutes SR as does
    most of the other interferometer 'evidence' that is claimed to support SR and refute Newton.
    Michelson's 1913 moving mirror experiment is a prime example which I will discuss in another thread..
    And yet again make a fool of yourself.
    Maybe you should think before posting?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Rotating relative to what? If you are in a rotating frame on spinning turntable in space?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 29 23:31:03 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without the
    light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero net >> > area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
    Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
    wavelength of the light used.

    That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision of
    a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are different. In other words, the exact Sagnac effect, above first order, depends on the shape
    of the path for a given area. That's why it's possible to construct multi-lobed paths with net zero area but non-zero Sagnac effect.

    Your inability to even attempt a response amounts to tacit admission
    of your error. Good.

    The postulate has never been directly verified.

    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
    into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
    has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible
    levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever
    been found. So, the foundations of special relativity have been
    abundantly well established empirically.

    Absolute garbage. You are totally confused.

    That is not a substantive rebuttal. If you still don't understand the empirical
    basis of local Lorentz invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification. There's
    no need for you to persist in your juvenile misunderstandings.

    If you still don't understand the empirical basis of local Lorentz
    invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification. There's no need for
    you to persist in your juvenile misunderstandings.

    Everyone can see you running away from this, so if at any time they
    want to send you back to the showers, they now know that all they have
    to do is re-post the above, and watch you run away.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sat Apr 29 23:33:28 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:54:33 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

    <snip>

    See Richard? When you're not high you wrote in a better
    language. Sill wrong, of course, but better.

    I bet that you're regretting this comment after my last post.

    I didn't expect you to stay decent. But as ridiculous as it
    was, it was not that ridiculous compared to your records.
    I'm a decent, honest and religious person. God gave me more intelligence than I could have possibly desired.

    It makes things difficult for me when interacting with others, lesser blessed.

    That's why I tried, sometimes and only here, some original thinking or critics about the history of physics and technology.

    My past work, still unable to disclose, put me in front of many state-of-the-art projects with multinational partners.

    I don't invent the jew hand. It's everywhere and is the most powerful force driving the world since WWII.

    Einstein did his designed job to get another god of science (any science). Others followed, and an order was established in physics.

    Name to me ANY FIELD OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES, and I'll show you the threads of the puppets and the puppeteers.

    Medical sciences, logistics, chemistry, finances, trading, politics, economy, social sciences, mathematics, electronics, mining,
    agriculture, education, journalism, military, astronomy, cosmology, entertainment, publishing houses, arts, real state, housing,
    food industry, WHATEVER.

    In 80 years, and with extreme intelligence and sense of unity beyond frontiers, unmatched by any other religious group, a
    minority of less than 0.5% of the world population CONTROL EVERYTHING. You have to be proud of this, don't deny it.

    Relativity is just a minor glitch in the stream of daily events. Consider most of the remaining 99.5% like Homer Simpsons.

    Consider myself as a distant spectator of the events that unfold daily all over the world. I'm glad that I'm retired of everything.

    But I don't lie, nor I have an agenda or have any desire to be an activist. I just put a wire to the ground just only here.

    I'm trying to have fun with little things, and historic revisionism in physics just fill the quote.

    You CAN'T FIND ANY ANTI-RELATIVITY OR EINSTEIN BOOK in Google. Maybe you'll have a little bit more luck with Duck Duck Go.

    And that's how far I'm willing to go, when searching material. I have other means, which I will not disclose, and it's not P2P.

    There are Dingles book science at the crossroads and others

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Apr 29 23:35:00 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:42:18 AM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 29-Apr-23 10:24 pm, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 2:24:37 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:54:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:05:37 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:04:43 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:54:01 -0700, Paparios wrote:

    El viernes, 28 de abril de 2023 a las 10:39:30 UTC-4,
    gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:27:59 PM UTC+5, Prokaryotic Capase >>>>>>>> Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 3:01:45 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase
    Homolog wrote:
    ...
    See Pauli's classic text on the Theory of Relativity for a discussion
    of these various theories.
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/4/mode/2up >>>>>>>>>
    To date, EVERY variant of emission theory has been thoroughly >>>>>>>>> disproven.

    Has the second postulate ever been disproven? Can it be disproven? >>>>>>>>
    I have not really been convinced.

    You are not convinced because you are a total ignorant of basic physics.
    A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a >>>>>>> premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. >>>>>> The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are obvious.
    It is virtually impossible to do so even today and no funding would ever
    be given to something that would topple the god Einstein.
    Therefore a postulate can't be disproven
    What nonsense. It epitomizes the confusion that permeates the mind if the
    incurable Einstein worshipper.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>>>> relative speed and closing speed.
    Imbecile,


    So does Newtonian kinematics. closing speed and relative speed are two DIFFERENT concepts. You are not only an imbecile, you are a prejudiced liar as well, you just hate special relativity.
    Thank you, so any references to the above, because Relativity seems allergic to closing speeds, making a sharp distinction.
    No, it doesn't , lying imbecile

    In optics, the corpuscular theory of light states that light is made up of small discrete particles called "corpuscles" (little particles) which travel in a straight line with a finite velocity and possess impetus. This was based on an alternate
    description of atomism of the time period. - Wikipedia

    I don't see the point of that comment. Many theories about many things
    were proposed in the past. Most did not survive the test of time.
    Leaving aside the modern quantum mechanics interpretation involving
    photons, which is certainly not what the corpuscular theory proponents
    had in mind, the corpuscular theory of light is been abundantly
    falsified, and is of only mild historical interest. It forms, and can
    form, no part of modern physics.

    Sylvia.
    Newton did not, in his theory, postulate the 'constant speed of light'
    It is that simple.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Apr 29 23:39:25 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:15:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a
    Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed into
    two straight arms at right angles -- since it has zero enclosed
    area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say,

    Note I am not talking about the design, purpose, or construction of the
    two interferometers, I am talking about the ANALYSIS of them.

    So am I. The analyses are completely different, because for Sagnac
    we have a rotating apparatus and we analyze the first-order effect of
    the rotation, whereas for the MMX we have a non-rotating apparatus and
    we analyze the second-order effect of translation. The phenomena and
    the analyses are completely different.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Apr 29 23:37:04 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:32:50 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/28/23 8:04 PM, Jane wrote:
    The postulate has never been directly verified. The reasons are
    obvious.

    Nonsense. Both of Einstein's 1905 postulates have been directly tested.
    For the first postulate, look up "tests of local Lorentz invariance".

    For the second postulate: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

    Note also that as I recently posted [#], one does not need the second postulate to derive the Lorentz transform and SR (in the modern sense, excluding electrodynamics).

    [#] in the thread "EInstein's 1905 SR HOAX: How a young clerk
    used false arguments and deceived the world for 110 years"
    It is virtually impossible to do so even today
    Complete nonsense.
    no funding would ever be given to something that would topple the
    god Einstein.
    More nonsense -- you OBVIOUSLY do not understand how science works, or
    how funding agencies allocate their resources. There have been LOTS of experiments testing relativity that have been funded. Each had the
    potential to refute SR, but to date all have supported SR.

    Outside of your fantasy world, in the world we inhabit, anyone who
    performed an experiment that refuted SR would be a very strong contender
    for a Nobel Prize.

    [... further nonsense ignored -- there are no "Einstein worshipers",
    that is a fantasy among fools and idiots]

    Tom Roberts

    If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now you say
    the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove some people crazy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 29 23:51:18 2023
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:37:06 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove some people crazy.

    A physical theory can have many different axiomatic bases, and it has
    always been well known that the principle of relativity, all by itself, logically
    implies the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems
    up to a single constant that we can call k, and that every quantity of
    bound energy E has inertia k*E. In Newtonian physics, k=0, but making
    use of the latter fact, we can experimentally measure k (in many different ways, most having nothing to do with light propagation), and we find
    that it is nearly but not quite 0, it actually equals 1/c^2, so standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.
    What part of this don't you understand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sun Apr 30 00:07:18 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:51:20 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:37:06 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove some people crazy.
    A physical theory can have many different axiomatic bases, and it has
    always been well known that the principle of relativity, all by itself, logically
    implies the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems
    up to a single constant that we can call k, and that every quantity of
    bound energy E has inertia k*E. In Newtonian physics, k=0, but making
    use of the latter fact, we can experimentally measure k (in many different ways, most having nothing to do with light propagation), and we find
    that it is nearly but not quite 0, it actually equals 1/c^2, so standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.
    What part of this don't you understand?

    You choose an arbitrary limit to the speed of travel of information, be it c or anything else, speed of sound etc, and then make your equations.

    I do not believe reality is limited by the speed of light.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sun Apr 30 01:12:07 2023
    On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 09:19:31 UTC+2, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:07:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    You choose an arbitrary limit to the speed of travel of information, be it c or anything else, speed of sound etc, and then make your equations.
    Not at all; that is your misunderstanding. There is no "choosing" involved. We can measure empirically that every localized quantity of energy E (including
    kinetic energy) has inertia E/c^2. We don't choose this, and we don't assume it, we measure it. From this all the other consequences of local Lorentz invariance
    follow unambiguously. Do you understand this?
    I do not believe reality is limited by the speed of light.
    That is a senseless statement, and special relativity does not make senseless assertions such as "reality is limited by the speed of light". That doesn't even make sense. What has been discovered is that every quantity of energy E has inertia E/c^2, and this has many consequences, including the fact that (for example) if you apply a constant force to
    a mass it does not undergo constant acceleration (in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates), it's inertia increases with its kinetic energy, and it asymptotically approaches the speed c. This isn't assumed,
    it is an empirical fact. Do you understand this?

    No, it is not. Do you understand this?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 00:19:29 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:07:20 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    You choose an arbitrary limit to the speed of travel of information, be it
    c or anything else, speed of sound etc, and then make your equations.

    Not at all; that is your misunderstanding. There is no "choosing" involved.
    We can measure empirically that every localized quantity of energy E (including
    kinetic energy) has inertia E/c^2. We don't choose this, and we don't assume it, we measure it. From this all the other consequences of local Lorentz invariance
    follow unambiguously. Do you understand this?

    I do not believe reality is limited by the speed of light.

    That is a senseless statement, and special relativity does not make
    senseless assertions such as "reality is limited by the speed of light".
    That doesn't even make sense. What has been discovered is that every
    quantity of energy E has inertia E/c^2, and this has many consequences, including the fact that (for example) if you apply a constant force to
    a mass it does not undergo constant acceleration (in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates), it's inertia increases with its kinetic energy, and it asymptotically approaches the speed c. This isn't assumed,
    it is an empirical fact. Do you understand this?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 30 14:22:53 2023
    Den 30.04.2023 04:53, skrev Jane:
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 15:11:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 29.04.2023 03:54, skrev Jane:

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame.

    No, the equations:
    tf = 2πr/(c-v) and tb = 2πr/(c+v)
    are as measured by stationary (coordinate) clocks in the ECI frame.


    But we are stationary in the rotating frame, so it SHOULD have been
    measured by a single clock stationary at the rotating Earth.
    Then tf and tb would be proper times, and they would be:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)
    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²)

    with v = 465.1 m/s √(1−v²/c²) = (1-1.2e-12)

    So the times for the two beams to go around the Earth are:

    tf = (2πr/(c-v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.676075 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tf = 133.676075 ms - 0.1604113 ps

    tb = (2πr/(c+v))⋅√(1−v²/c²) = (133.675660 ms)⋅(1-1.2e-12)
    tb = 133.675660 ms - 0.1604108 ps

    0.16 ps is not measurable, that's why the term √(1−v²/c²)
    is ignored.

    No. In the ECI frame, the light travels at c+v and c-v so the travel
    times are equal...as they must be for Sagnac to work.

    Sorry, this is enough.

    I won't waste my time reading your posts.

    *plonk*

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 15:38:16 2023
    On 4/30/23 1:37 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now
    you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove
    some people crazy.

    Only people who aren't paying attention.

    Einstein's 1905 paper was titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
    Bodies" -- its focus was clearly electrodynamics and not the geometrical revolution it created. It implicitly assumes Maxwell's equations (ME)
    and derives the Lorentz transform, and many of the geometrical aspects
    of SR, from the ME and his two postulates (plus a bunch of other
    assumptions he didn't mention as they were obvious to his intended
    audience).

    Today we find it convenient to separate the geometrical aspects of SR
    from electrodynamics, and we call the result SR for convenience. It is
    this geometrical theory that does not need his second postulate (as it
    is about electrodynamics, not geometry).

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sun Apr 30 15:42:15 2023
    On 4/28/23 9:29 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction
    between relative speed and closing speed.

    That is not an "artificial" distinction, that is a real and obvious
    difference.

    You are implicitly assuming the Galilean transform and DEMANDING that
    nature conform to your wishes. The world we inhabit does not work that way.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Apr 30 14:05:10 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:38:29 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 1:37 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now
    you say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove
    some people crazy.
    Only people who aren't paying attention.


    Einstein's 1905 paper was titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
    Bodies" -- its focus was clearly electrodynamics and not the geometrical revolution it created.

    Hehem! Tom is adjusting his narrative, so nothing is left out of merits for the plagiarism that the imbecile did with his 1905 manifesto.

    - 70% plagiarized from Lorentz 1904.
    - 25% plagiarized from Poincaré 1905.
    - 5% crap created by the cretin with his kinematics 1905.

    The imbecile didn't understand the work of Poincaré and Minkowski until 1911, when Alexander Pick explained it to him in Prague.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Alexander_Pick

    But, as with everyone else, the cretin stabbed Pick in the back just months after Pick put all his influence to the Emperor, so
    Einstein could have a lame professorship. Pick was supposed to be his mathematical partner, but the rat ran away from Prague,
    with Pick's ideas, and brought everything to Grossman in 1912, who was MUCH MORE manipulable. Less than 2 years after,
    he stabbed Grossman in the back, while going to Berlin and partnering DIRECTLY with Levi-Civita. He fucked the last one, dropping
    him by Hilbert, just 15 months after arriving to Berlin.

    Where is your idea of A GEOMETRICAL REVOLUTION created by an imbecile who BARELY MANAGED CALCULUS 101?

    Follow the timeline, Tom, and stop talking nonsense. READ, EDUCATE YOURSELF, MAN.




    It implicitly assumes Maxwell's equations (ME)
    and derives the Lorentz transform, and many of the geometrical aspects
    of SR, from the ME and his two postulates (plus a bunch of other
    assumptions he didn't mention as they were obvious to his intended audience).

    Today we find it convenient to separate the geometrical aspects of SR
    from electrodynamics, and we call the result SR for convenience. It is
    this geometrical theory that does not need his second postulate (as it
    is about electrodynamics, not geometry).

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 30 17:51:35 2023
    On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into >>>> special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So, >>>> the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
    empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed?
    Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no >> failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
    premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing >> curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was >> shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has
    survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny.
    There is no rational basis for your denial.
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between
    relative speed and closing speed.
    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
    system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
    The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the
    velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates, >> both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the >> readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially
    synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between
    distinct things is not rational.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality...

    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and >> general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective >> account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is
    simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special >> relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
    local than at longer distances.

    Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
    small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging
    as you approach the top. By just a little.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sun Apr 30 22:26:27 2023
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 23:31:03 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    I mention how to cancel out the "area" term completely without
    the light track actually collapsing onto itself.

    On the other hand, it's possible to have "light tracks" with zero
    net area that have non-zero Sagnac shift (albeit second-order).

    The experimentally verified equation for a Sagnac interferometer is
    Fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL, where w = angular velocity and L =
    wavelength of the light used.

    That's just the first-order approximation, which is all the precision
    of a typical Sagnac device is capable of measuring, but even for a
    circular path the exact theoretical expression has higher-order
    terms, and for other shapes of the path the higher-order terms are
    different. In other words, the exact Sagnac effect, above first
    order, depends on the shape of the path for a given area. That's why
    it's possible to construct multi-lobed paths with net zero area but
    non-zero Sagnac effect.

    Your inability to even attempt a response amounts to tacit admission of
    your error. Good.

    The postulate has never been directly verified.

    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact
    into special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely
    tested principles in all of physics, and no failure of this principle
    has ever been experimentally confirmed. It is on a par with
    principles such as conservation of momentum, etc. Also, given the
    principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom as
    to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and
    that degree of freedom has been experimentally established to
    incredible levels of precision. No failure of local Lorentz
    invariance has ever been found. So, the foundations of special
    relativity have been abundantly well established empirically.

    Absolute garbage. You are totally confused.

    That is not a substantive rebuttal. If you still don't understand the empirical basis of local Lorentz invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification. There's no need for you to persist in your juvenile misunderstandings.

    All the sham experiments that claim to support Einstein are riddled with
    holes. So are the ones that claim to regute Newton. There is absolutely
    no believable evidence that even remotely suggests that SR is correct and plenty to say it is not.

    If you still don't understand the empirical basis of local Lorentz invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification. There's no need for you
    to persist in your juvenile misunderstandings.

    There is no abslute frame...you can forget your Lorentz invariance.

    Everyone can see you running away from this, so if at any time they want
    to send you back to the showers, they now know that all they have to do
    is re-post the above, and watch you run away.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sun Apr 30 22:20:47 2023
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:05:40 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:25 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Sure, they were designed for different reasons.

    Right -- and the experiments are completely different, one with an
    apparatus rotating at high speed to detect the Sagnac effect and the
    other not.

    Sagnac interferometers do not rotate at high speed you moron.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 30 22:36:28 2023
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:54:32 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:


    I'm a.... religious person.

    ....That rules out intelligence...

    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Sun Apr 30 22:47:43 2023
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 23:51:18 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:37:06 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    If the theory of Relativity was founded on two postulates, and now you
    say the second one was not necessary, you can see why it drove some
    people crazy.

    A physical theory can have many different axiomatic bases, and it has
    always been well known that the principle of relativity, all by itself, logically implies the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems up to a single constant that we can call k, and that every
    quantity of bound energy E has inertia k*E. In Newtonian physics, k=0,
    but making use of the latter fact, we can experimentally measure k (in
    many different ways, most having nothing to do with light propagation),
    and we find that it is nearly but not quite 0, it actually equals 1/c^2,
    so standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.
    What part of this don't you understand?

    I don't understand why you bother to post such meaningless pedantic
    drivel.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 30 15:55:24 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 3:51:19 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 18:08:46 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:03:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:14:13 -0700, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame.

    No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any
    rotating frame. You are full of shit.

    Reduced you to frothing at the mouth.

    I see that you are still frothing at the mouth and choking on your bile.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Apr 30 22:51:17 2023
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 18:08:46 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:03:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 19:14:13 -0700, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Oh dear! You are making the mistake of viewing this in the rotating
    frame.

    No, he doesn't. The calculation is definitely not done in any
    rotating frame. You are full of shit.

    Reduced you to frothing at the mouth.

    FO





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Apr 30 23:21:47 2023
    On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:22:53 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    Den 30.04.2023 04:53, skrev Jane:
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 15:11:47 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:


    No. In the ECI frame, the light travels at c+v and c-v so the travel
    times are equal...as they must be for Sagnac to work.

    Sorry, this is enough.

    I won't waste my time reading your posts.

    *plonk*

    Aha! plonking accepts defeat. I win and SR is refuted.

    You sound just like the difficult fellow fellow my uncle John talked
    about ten years ago, before he died. You might know him. He actually
    introduced me to this NG a long time ago but I never had time to enjoy
    the fun. He was very clever man but could not stop smoking... and it
    killed him... horrible...
    However they pumped him full of morphine and he spent his last months on
    his computer, probably posting crazy stuff here. I distinctly remember
    him screaming and swearing about a 'bloody Norwegian professor who
    thought he knew everything]'. Were you around ten years ago? 'Andersen'
    sounds Nordic. He told me his nickname once but I cannot remember it...it
    was a funny Greek name like Hercules or Democles, chronicles, testicles
    or something like that.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 30 17:14:07 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:21:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    He told me his nickname once but I cannot remember it...it
    was a funny Greek name like Hercules or Democles, chronicles, testicles
    or something like that.

    Imbecility runs in your family.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Apr 30 17:15:00 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
    special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
    the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
    empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed? >> Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no
    failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
    premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing
    curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was
    shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has
    survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. >> There is no rational basis for your denial.
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.
    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
    system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
    The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the >> velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates,
    both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the
    readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially
    synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between
    distinct things is not rational.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality... >>
    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
    general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
    account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is
    simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
    relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
    local than at longer distances.

    Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
    small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging
    as you approach the top. By just a little.

    Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
    was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?

    Lorentz had the immoral "decency" of borrowing it, and planting it in his 1904 paper, without acknowledging Voigt.
    Poincaré just used Lorentz 1904 transforms and got rid of the absolute ether reference, by eliminating X' = X - vt.
    Minkowski took over from Poincaré 1906 to develop his spacetime, without questioning the embedded Lorentz
    factor in his c²dτ² = dx² +dy² + dz² - c²dt².

    Einstein, playing with his kinematics, light and mirrors, sought the way to use his K/(c-v) and K/(c+v) timings by using
    calculus wrongfully so he could get the damned Q/(c² - v²) factor, essential for Lorentz transforms.

    Any other derivations have used OWLS and mirrors, dismissing the delay with the regeneration time for light in atoms.

    You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).

    Think about it: light and mirrors, like what Colombus gave to the indians when arrive to "America", gaining their amazement.

    The history repeats, second time as a farce, like relativity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Apr 30 17:21:28 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:14:09 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:21:50 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    He told me his nickname once but I cannot remember it...it
    was a funny Greek name like Hercules or Democles, chronicles, testicles
    or something like that.
    Imbecility runs in your family.

    Cretinism runs in yours, Adrian Sfarti.

    Are you sure that you're not related to the Horowitz of Lithuania? Moses Harry Horowitz, born 1897, was the
    head of the Three Stooges, and I have to tell you that you ARE Moe, the cretin character.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon May 1 01:13:55 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
    AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    That formula is comes directly from Newton. It is just (path wavenumber difference)/(wavelength). Fringe displacement = 4π.ω.A/(λc)..... note 4 is correct not 8 CMIIR.

    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING
    MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof
    that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in
    many claimed refutations of Newton.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 1 03:18:45 2023
    Le 01/05/2023 à 03:13, Jane a écrit :
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    SAGNAC DIDN'T CARE ABOUT EARTH'S ROTATION ANGULAR VELOCITY.

    HE ONLY DID CARE ABOUT THE ANGULAR ROTATION ω OF HIS INTERFEROMETER.
    AND HE FOUND THAT

    Δθ = 8π/(λc).ω.A

    AND THIS FORMULA IS VALID AFTER 109 YEARS, ISN'T IT?

    That formula is comes directly from Newton. It is just (path wavenumber difference)/(wavelength). Fringe displacement = 4π.ω.A/(λc)..... note 4 is
    correct not 8 CMIIR.

    No, in the SR Sagnac formula has an extra term (which is very tiny):
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRdWxyOUtrekVMN0k

    BUT RELATIVISTS ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO USE RELATIVITY ANYWHERE, STEALING
    MERITS TO NEWTON'S WORLD.

    This is false both in general and in the Sagnac case (see above).

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in many claimed refutations of Newton.






    You've been caught as an insincere troll, "Jane"... Give up.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 30 22:36:27 2023
    On 4/30/2023 5:36 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:54:32 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:


    I'm a.... religious person.

    ....That rules out intelligence...

    Strange, that, from someone who disappears every Saturday sabbath...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 30 21:13:01 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in many claimed refutations of Newton.

    There are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
    1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
    of Relativity".

    BASIC KNOWLEDGE CHALLENGE: Describe at least four
    different variants of ballistic theory.

    Sagnac rules out many, but not all variants of ballistic
    theory. Do you know which forms of ballistic theory Sagnac
    rules out, and which it does not?

    To date, EVERY form of ballistic theory has been ruled out
    by experiment and/or by observational evidence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 30 23:53:53 2023
    On 4/30/2023 8:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
    local than at longer distances.

    Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
    small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging
    as you approach the top. By just a little.

    Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
    was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?

    And what does Voigt have to do with local Lorentz invariance?

    I am aware that Voigt was very close to coming up with the Lorentz transformation, but his length terms were all off by (what we now know
    as) gamma. Because of this Voigt's math didn't work in reverse; swapping
    the stationary and moving frames doesn't work the way SR does, with v
    replaced by -v and x' by -x.

    Voigt also screwed up the t' calculation. It was more than the added
    gamma factor, but I don't remember what.

    So close but so far.

    You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).

    Just because (c² - v²) can be factored into (c + v)(c - v) doesn't mean
    those (c + v) and (c - v) terms have significance, especially the (c +
    v) term being the speed of anything. That's grasping for straws.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to whodat on Sun Apr 30 21:00:38 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:36:31 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 4/30/2023 5:36 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 19:54:32 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:42:24 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
    Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:33:56 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:


    I'm a.... religious person.

    ....That rules out intelligence...
    Strange, that, from someone who disappears every Saturday sabbath...
    Both of them are kapos. Of the despicable kind.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Apr 30 21:16:05 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in many claimed refutations of Newton.
    There are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
    1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
    of Relativity".

    BASIC KNOWLEDGE CHALLENGE: Describe at least four
    different variants of ballistic theory.

    Sagnac rules out many, but not all variants of ballistic
    theory. Do you know which forms of ballistic theory Sagnac
    rules out, and which it does not?

    To date, EVERY form of ballistic theory has been ruled out
    by experiment and/or by observational evidence.


    For extra points: what experiment rules out all the ballistic theories?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Apr 30 21:15:23 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:13:02 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    There are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
    1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
    of Relativity".
    https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi00paul/page/n7/mode/2up

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Apr 30 21:18:37 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/30/2023 8:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
    local than at longer distances.

    Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
    small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging >> as you approach the top. By just a little.

    Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
    was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
    And what does Voigt have to do with local Lorentz invariance?

    I am aware that Voigt was very close to coming up with the Lorentz transformation, but his length terms were all off by (what we now know
    as) gamma. Because of this Voigt's math didn't work in reverse; swapping
    the stationary and moving frames doesn't work the way SR does, with v replaced by -v and x' by -x.

    Voigt also screwed up the t' calculation. It was more than the added
    gamma factor, but I don't remember what.

    So close but so far.
    You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).
    Just because (c² - v²) can be factored into (c + v)(c - v) doesn't mean those (c + v) and (c - v) terms have significance, especially the (c +
    v) term being the speed of anything. That's grasping for straws.

    Voigt didn't screw up anything.

    His transforms, developed for 4D spaces, gave that x' and t' aren't affected by Gamma, while y' and z' did.

    If you multiply the four transforms by the Gamma factor, you obtain Lorentz.

    Who's right? Voigt or Lorentz-Poincaré?

    One of the last things Minkowski did, before his tragic death, was to name Voigt as the father of relativity, in 1908.

    Voigt, a humble and distinguished physicist, did thanks Minkowski. Maybe this act encouraged Voig to write to Lorentz
    about the local time that he inserted in his papers since 1892, 5 years after Voigt's paper. Not only that but Gamma as well.

    Face to face, three years later, at the 1911 Solvay's Conference, Lorentz acknowledged to Voigt only the local time subject.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Apr 30 21:30:50 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:18:39 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Voigt didn't screw up anything.



    Actually, he did:


    -Voigt Transform does not generate a symmetry group
    -The kinetic energy of the moving body and the Doppler Effect are not the same under the Voigt and Lorentz transforms. This has catastrophic experimental consequences for your beloved Voigt transforms.

    Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Apr 30 21:31:36 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:16:06 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group,
    you are too new to remember those.

    Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof
    that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in
    many claimed refutations of Newton.
    There are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
    1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
    of Relativity".

    BASIC KNOWLEDGE CHALLENGE: Describe at least four
    different variants of ballistic theory.

    Sagnac rules out many, but not all variants of ballistic
    theory. Do you know which forms of ballistic theory Sagnac
    rules out, and which it does not?

    To date, EVERY form of ballistic theory has been ruled out
    by experiment and/or by observational evidence.
    For extra points: what experiment rules out all the ballistic theories?

    Are you referring to one conducted by a major relativity
    skeptic who published an idea that he thought would be
    able to resurrect ballistic theories in general, and who had
    the knowledge and means to conduct this experiment?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Apr 30 21:34:05 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:31:38 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:16:06 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

    We go through those Sagnac conniptions periodically on this group, you are too new to remember those.

    Sagnac is vital because it has always been wrongly regarded as prime proof
    that ballistic theory is wrong. You can see the error yourself on Paul's
    website...if he has not already deleted it. Similar errors are present in
    many claimed refutations of Newton.
    There are various forms of ballistic theory. Those known in
    1921 have been described by Pauli in his classic text, "Theory
    of Relativity".

    BASIC KNOWLEDGE CHALLENGE: Describe at least four
    different variants of ballistic theory.

    Sagnac rules out many, but not all variants of ballistic
    theory. Do you know which forms of ballistic theory Sagnac
    rules out, and which it does not?

    To date, EVERY form of ballistic theory has been ruled out
    by experiment and/or by observational evidence.
    For extra points: what experiment rules out all the ballistic theories?
    Are you referring to one conducted by a major relativity
    skeptic who published an idea that he thought would be
    able to resurrect ballistic theories in general, and who had
    the knowledge and means to conduct this experiment?


    Yep. Hint , he had an associate. The experiment idea originated with....Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon May 1 15:04:25 2023
    On 5/1/2023 12:18 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/30/2023 8:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    It actually works better at short distances because things are "more"
    local than at longer distances.

    Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
    small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging >>>> as you approach the top. By just a little.

    Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
    was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
    And what does Voigt have to do with local Lorentz invariance?

    I am aware that Voigt was very close to coming up with the Lorentz
    transformation, but his length terms were all off by (what we now know
    as) gamma. Because of this Voigt's math didn't work in reverse; swapping
    the stationary and moving frames doesn't work the way SR does, with v
    replaced by -v and x' by -x.

    Voigt also screwed up the t' calculation. It was more than the added
    gamma factor, but I don't remember what.

    So close but so far.
    You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).
    Just because (c² - v²) can be factored into (c + v)(c - v) doesn't mean
    those (c + v) and (c - v) terms have significance, especially the (c +
    v) term being the speed of anything. That's grasping for straws.

    Voigt didn't screw up anything.

    If so, he didn't think things through to completion, since the Voigt transformation applied to the moving frame to the stationary isn't a
    mirror image of the Voigt transformation from the stationary to the
    moving frame.

    His transforms, developed for 4D spaces, gave that x' and t' aren't affected by Gamma, while y' and z' did.

    Which is, in part, why the mirror transform doesn't undo the initial
    transform. You should be able to transform
    stationary-->moving-->stationary and get the initial setup.

    If you multiply the four transforms by the Gamma factor, you obtain Lorentz.

    Voigt was so close yet so far! What happened? Why didn't Voigt take the
    simple last step and fix his transformation? Did he not see that?

    Face to face, three years later, at the 1911 Solvay's Conference, Lorentz acknowledged to Voigt only the local time subject.

    And Lorentz told Einstein that Einstein's SR version of the Lorentz transformation was superior to his own.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon May 1 12:20:51 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:18:39 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 12:53:55 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/30/2023 8:15 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    It actually works better at short distances because things are "more" >> local than at longer distances.

    Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
    small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging >> as you approach the top. By just a little.

    Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
    was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?
    And what does Voigt have to do with local Lorentz invariance?

    I am aware that Voigt was very close to coming up with the Lorentz transformation, but his length terms were all off by (what we now know
    as) gamma. Because of this Voigt's math didn't work in reverse; swapping the stationary and moving frames doesn't work the way SR does, with v replaced by -v and x' by -x.

    Voigt also screwed up the t' calculation. It was more than the added
    gamma factor, but I don't remember what.

    So close but so far.
    You don't get the 1/(c² - v²) factor without combining in some way (like kinematics and mirrors) factors 1/(c-v) AND 1/(c+v).
    Just because (c² - v²) can be factored into (c + v)(c - v) doesn't mean those (c + v) and (c - v) terms have significance, especially the (c +
    v) term being the speed of anything. That's grasping for straws.
    Voigt didn't screw up anything.

    His transforms, developed for 4D spaces, gave that x' and t' aren't affected by Gamma, while y' and z' did.

    If you multiply the four transforms by the Gamma factor, you obtain Lorentz.

    It doesn't matter as far as assigning the credit goes. Again, there is a reason why the Schwarzschild radius is not called the Laplace radius.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon May 1 12:19:31 2023
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:51:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 4/29/2023 12:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:52:38 AM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Galileo's and Newton's principle of relativity -- carried over intact into
    special relativity -- is among the most thoroughly and precisely tested principles
    in all of physics, and no failure of this principle has ever been experimentally
    confirmed. It is on a par with principles such as conservation of momentum, etc.
    Also, given the principle of relativity, there is only a single degree of freedom
    as to the relationship between standard inertial coordinate systems, and that
    degree of freedom has been experimentally established to incredible levels of
    precision. No failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. So,
    the foundations of special relativity have been abundantly well established
    empirically.

    Except that SR was incomplete, not to say wrong, and GR was developed? >> Local Lorentz invariance is a cornerstone of general relativity. Again, no
    failure of local Lorentz invariance has ever been found. You're confusing the
    premise of local Lorentz invariance with the premise of globally vanishing
    curvature of the spatio-temporal pseudo-metrical relations. The latter was
    shown to be untenable by the equivalence principle, but the former has >> survived unscathed... and it is the former that you are trying to deny. >> There is no rational basis for your denial.
    I cannot accept a theory that makes an artificial distinction between >>> relative speed and closing speed.
    Velocities are (and have always been) coordinate-dependent. For any specified
    system of space and time coordinates x,t, the velocity of a trajectory is dx/dt.
    The distinction you mentioned is nothing but the distinction between the
    velocity of a trajectory in terms of two different systems of coordinates,
    both of which are standard inertial coordinate systems, corresponding to the
    readings on grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially >> synchronized in two different frames. Refusing to distinguish between >> distinct things is not rational.

    As far as I am concerned, I am supposed to turn off the rationality... >>
    To the contrary, the foundations of modern science -- including special and
    general relativity -- are perfectly rational, and give a clear and objective
    account of all the phenomena. The reason you think it is irrational is >> simply that you misunderstand it. What you in your mind think of as special
    relativity is indeed irrational, but that is not actually special relativity,
    it's just your misunderstanding.

    Local Lorentz invariance FAILS COMPLETELY in the space regions with lengths below 1 millimeter.

    It actually works better at short distances because things are "more" local than at longer distances.

    Of course, what "local" really means depends on your tolerances for
    small variance effects. Einstein's elevator will have gravity diverging
    as you approach the top. By just a little.
    Are you aware that the only first class physicist that derived Gamma factor using linear transformation and algebra
    was Waldemar Voigt, in 1887?

    Yes, and the Schwarzschild radius formula was first derived by Laplace.
    Credit is not always assigned correctly(*) but it in general does not go
    to the fist person who wrote down a formula. Physics is not just formulas.

    (*)One cute example of this was pointed out by Walter Rudin in one of his books: the Stone-Czech compactification was first constructed by
    Tychonoff, and Tychonoff's theorem was first proved by Czech.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon May 1 21:56:07 2023
    On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In
    this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson
    interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically
    deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is
    zero.

    Complete crap again.

    So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic, you
    should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
    analysis to a Michelson interferometer.

    I suspected you know very little about basic
    physics..this proves it.

    In the absence of the explanation requested above, it's clear that your opinions are worthless.

    SR says that light moves at c relative to everything at rest in the
    source frame.

    Not really. That holds only with a number of conditions and
    qualifications, which you ALWAYS omit.

    No experiment has refuted Newton.

    You merely display your personal ignorance. There are thousands of
    particle experiments that refute Newton. And support SR.

    [... further nonsense ignored]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon May 1 22:53:33 2023
    On 4/30/23 5:26 PM, Jane wrote:
    All the sham experiments that claim to support Einstein are riddled
    with holes. So are the ones that claim to regute Newton. There is
    absolutely no believable evidence that even remotely suggests that SR
    is correct and plenty to say it is not.

    This is just the ravings of a lunatic, until and unless you show
    PRECISELY where the error lies. There are several hundred such
    experiments, and you must do this for each and every one of them. But
    start with one, any one of your own choosing -- tell us precisely and in
    detail where an error was made that is sufficiently serious to negate
    its conclusion.

    So far your writings around here give little hope that you will ever do
    this. I will read a physics analysis, but not when your writings are indistinguishable from the ravings of a lunatic.

    [See also the thread 'Claims that SR has been "refuted"'.
    Perhaps respond there.]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Trevor Lange on Mon May 1 22:20:54 2023
    On 4/30/23 1:39 AM, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:15:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as
    a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically
    deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- since it
    has zero enclosed area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be
    zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say,

    Note I am not talking about the design, purpose, or construction of
    the two interferometers, I am talking about the ANALYSIS of them.

    So am I. The analyses are completely different [...] The phenomena
    and the analyses are completely different.

    Sure. So what? There is nothing to prevent the application of a Sagnac
    analysis to a Michelson interferometer. Nothing you have said indicates otherwise, you just keep repeating irrelevant facts that are obvious.

    [... the MMX apparatus] Isn't. Rotating.

    You need to read what you write. This is clearly just plain
    wrong. The MMX is rotating rather slowly, but it is rotating. Note that
    some Sagnac interferometers are fixed at rest in the lab -- rotating
    much slower than the MMX -- and detect the rotation of the earth.

    You have yet to explain why one cannot apply a Sagnac analysis to a
    Michelson interferometer. Or show that what I said above is wrong. You
    just keep repeating irrelevant facts that are obvious.

    It's self-evident that the MMX would show no Sagnac effect, and this
    is as irrelevant as it is self-evident.

    No, it's not. NOTHING in physics is "self-evident". To show that the MMX displays no Sagnac effect requires that one apply a Sagnac analysis to
    it, as I did (the enclosed area of the light paths is an important
    aspect of that). Bare assertions like yours are useless.

    This newsgroup has plenty of fools, idiots, and cranks. Stop acting like
    one and do some physics.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon May 1 21:09:04 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:53:46 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 5:26 PM, Jane wrote:
    All the sham experiments that claim to support Einstein are riddled
    with holes. So are the ones that claim to regute Newton. There is absolutely no believable evidence that even remotely suggests that SR
    is correct and plenty to say it is not.

    This is just the ravings of a lunatic, until and unless you show
    PRECISELY where the error lies. There are several hundred such
    experiments, and you must do this for each and every one of them. But
    start with one, any one of your own choosing -- tell us precisely and in detail where an error was made that is sufficiently serious to negate
    its conclusion.

    So far your writings around here give little hope that you will ever do this. I will read a physics analysis, but not when your writings are indistinguishable from the ravings of a lunatic.

    [See also the thread 'Claims that SR has been "refuted"'.
    Perhaps respond there.]

    Tom Roberts
    You are clearly ignorant of Wallace Kantor and J. G. Fox who have refuted all the evidence. There is still an ongoing debate and many studies questioning the second postulate and experiments on it by professionals. But who needs professionals to know it'
    s nonsense? The light from outer space when entering the atmosphere shares the velocity it had in space for some time until refracting to the speed normal in air.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trevor Lange@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon May 1 21:11:29 2023
    On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:21:06 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    There is nothing to prevent the application of a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.

    Nothing except sanity and rationality. As explained to you patiently
    and carefully before, the apparatus in the MMX is not rotating other than
    to re-orient it so that the readings can be taken at different orientations. The relevant analysis pertains to the second order effect of pure translation, not the first order Sagnac effect of rotation.

    You have yet to explain why one cannot apply a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.

    Again, a Sagnac analysis consists of analyzing the first order effect of rotation on the propagation along paths around regions of opposite
    sign, whereas the apparatus in the MMX is only being incidentally re-oriented and the paths do not enclose any area and do not even have a definite sign i.e., if a pulse goes out and back along an arm, it can't even be said to
    have followed a clockwise or a counter-clockwise path. And of course the
    null result of MMX has nothing whatsoever to do with Sagnac, other than
    noise rejection. Talking about applying a Sagnac analysis to the MMX is utterly idiotic.

    It's self-evident that the MMX would show no Sagnac effect, and this
    is as irrelevant as it is self-evident.

    NOTHING in physics is "self-evident".

    When someone says something is self-evident, this is understood to mean
    it's self-evident to any competent intellect. I fully accept that neither this nor anything else is self-evident to *you*. That's why I take the
    trouble to explain things to you. You're welcome.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue May 2 23:47:25 2023
    On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In
    this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson
    interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been
    topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its
    enclosed area is zero.

    Complete crap again.

    So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
    analysis to a Michelson interferometer.

    It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever. For one thing,
    the arms of the michelson are always perpendicular to rotation and always
    of equal length unless a medium is included somewhere. The Michelson is
    not sensitive to light speed, since changes in that do not alter wave
    numbers at all.
    In a Sagnac ring gyroscope, the light paths are parallel to rotation.
    When analysed in the nonrotating frame, the light path lengths in the
    ring are obviously different and contain different numbers of
    wavelengths. The Newtonian analysis gives the correct fringe displacement
    of 4Aѡ/cλ.


    I suspected you know very little about basic physics..this proves it.

    In the absence of the explanation requested above, it's clear that your opinions are worthless.

    Anyone who sees similarities between these two types of interferometer
    does not have much of a clue.

    SR says that light moves at c relative to everything at rest in the
    source frame.

    Not really. That holds only with a number of conditions and
    qualifications, which you ALWAYS omit.

    The conditions in the interferometer do not change when it is rotated.

    No experiment has refuted Newton.

    You merely display your personal ignorance. There are thousands of
    particle experiments that refute Newton. And support SR.

    You mean like Paul Andersen's bogus Sagnac theory and Michelson's fake
    moving mirror experiment. ...just to mention a few.

    [... further nonsense ignored]

    If you cannot see the blatant error in this: https://paulba.no/pdf/ sagnac_ring.pdf you are as ignorant as he is.

    That's the kind of rubbish you think refutes Newton....and use to teach students.

    Tom Roberts





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed May 3 01:22:55 2023
    On 5/1/2023 11:20 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/30/23 1:39 AM, Trevor Lange wrote:
    On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:15:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>> Another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as
     a Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed
    into two straight arms at right angles -- since it
    has zero enclosed area the Sagnac signal is predicted to be
    zero, as observed.

    That's an odd thing to say,

    Note I am not talking about the design, purpose, or construction of
    the two interferometers, I am talking about the ANALYSIS of them.

    So am I.  The analyses are completely different [...] The phenomena
    and the analyses are completely different.

    Sure. So what? There is nothing to prevent the application of a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer. Nothing you have said indicates otherwise, you just keep repeating irrelevant facts that are obvious.

    If I create a device similar to the Michelson interferometer, except
    that the two arms are not of zero area (say there are two mirrors at the
    ends of the arms), and one beam is in one arm and the second in the
    other arm (like the Michelson interferometer), will it work (poorly) as
    a Sagnac device? Will it work if and only if the areas and lengths of
    the arms are exactly the same?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Tue May 2 23:09:55 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:47:28 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In >>> this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson >>> interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been
    topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its
    enclosed area is zero.

    Complete crap again.

    So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
    analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
    It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever. For one thing,
    the arms of the michelson are always perpendicular to rotation and always
    of equal length unless a medium is included somewhere. The Michelson is
    not sensitive to light speed, since changes in that do not alter wave numbers at all.
    In a Sagnac ring gyroscope, the light paths are parallel to rotation.
    When analysed in the nonrotating frame, the light path lengths in the
    ring are obviously different and contain different numbers of
    wavelengths. The Newtonian analysis gives the correct fringe displacement
    of 4Aѡ/cλ.

    The light path of a Michelson-Morley interferometer is
    smoothly deformable to that of a Sagnac interferometer. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i8vW8gQF6ifJ6BFFRbwLwJ7U6PYw0o12/view?usp=share_link

    The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a three
    dimensional path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the
    *oriented* enclosed area of the 2D projection of the loop on
    the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed May 3 07:14:04 2023
    On Tue, 02 May 2023 23:09:55 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:47:28 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense.
    In this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a
    Michelson interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has
    been topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles
    -- its enclosed area is zero.

    Complete crap again.

    So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic,
    you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
    analysis to a Michelson interferometer.

    It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever. For one thing,
    the arms of the michelson are always perpendicular to rotation and
    always of equal length unless a medium is included somewhere. The
    Michelson is not sensitive to light speed, since changes in that do not
    alter wave numbers at all.
    In a Sagnac ring gyroscope, the light paths are parallel to rotation.
    When analysed in the nonrotating frame, the light path lengths in the
    ring are obviously different and contain different numbers of
    wavelengths. The Newtonian analysis gives the correct fringe
    displacement of 4Aѡ/cλ.

    The light path of a Michelson-Morley interferometer is smoothly
    deformable to that of a Sagnac interferometer. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i8vW8gQF6ifJ6BFFRbwLwJ7U6PYw0o12/view?
    usp=share_link

    That is one of the more amusing things I have seen here.

    The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a three dimensional
    path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the *oriented* enclosed
    area of the 2D projection of the loop on the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.

    You obviously know nothing at all about interferometry. The Michelson interferometer was designed to detect linear changes in speed (but it
    could never actually do that). The Sagnac to detect rotation. There is no similarity in design or operation.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed May 3 10:42:37 2023
    On 5/2/23 6:47 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
    another way of looking at a Michelson interferometer is as a
    Sagnac interferometer that has been topologically deformed
    into two straight arms at right angles -- its enclosed area is
    zero.
    Complete crap again.

    So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a
    lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot
    apply a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.

    It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever.

    This is just plain not true. A physicist looking at the MMX will
    immediately notice that it is rotating (relative to the lab), in a way
    that is similar to Sagnac's interferometer. The question arises: does
    the Sagnac effect affect the result? -- that is not at all "obvious",
    but by applying a Sagnac analysis to the Michelson interferometer one concludes: no.

    [... more nonsense] Anyone who sees similarities between these two
    types of interferometer does not have much of a clue.

    YOU do not have a clue -- both interferometers are rotating (relative to
    the lab).

    You merely display your personal ignorance. There are thousands of
    particle experiments that refute Newton. And support SR.

    You mean like Paul Andersen's bogus Sagnac theory and Michelson's
    fake moving mirror experiment. ...just to mention a few.

    Again you display complete ignorance of modern physics. The things you
    mention are not "particle experiments".

    If you cannot see the blatant error in this: https://paulba.no/pdf/ sagnac_ring.pdf you are as ignorant as he is.

    And yet YOU have never pointed out any error. You only make vague
    references to unspecified "errors". That's useless. I do not pursue
    figments of other people's imaginations.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed May 3 11:20:08 2023
    On 5/3/23 12:22 AM, Volney wrote:
    If I create a device similar to the Michelson interferometer, except
    that the two arms are not of zero area (say there are two mirrors at
    the ends of the arms), and one beam is in one arm and the second in
    the other arm (like the Michelson interferometer), will it work
    (poorly) as a Sagnac device?

    Sure, as long as it is rotated and has nonzero total enclosed area.

    Indeed the Michelson interferometer in our lab uses corner cubes at the
    ends of the arms (makes setup much easier), so each arm has non-zero
    area. The two arms are ~10cm and ~65cm long, so the areas are not close
    to equal. It is fixed in the lab, so the only rotation is that of
    earth's daily grind; the very, very tiny Sagnac signal is constant, and
    much smaller than other errors. (We use it to stabilize lasers, not
    search for cosmic parameters).

    Will it work if and only if the areas and lengths of the arms are
    exactly the same?

    No. For a Sagnac signal what is needed is a nonzero total enclosed area,
    where the area of each arm is signed (integral of dx ^ dy along each
    light path, where {x,y,z} are orthogonal spatial coordinates and the
    rotation is around z; here ^ is the wedge product and d is the exterior derivative). So with arms of equal areas, the light directions must be
    such that the areas add, not cancel.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to jane on Wed May 3 10:17:44 2023
    On April 30, jane wrote:
    If you still don't understand the empirical basis of local Lorentz
    invariance, go ahead and ask for clarification.

    There is no absolute frame...

    Then you support Einstein, and reject Newton.

    Then what are you arguing about?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed May 3 16:43:30 2023
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:09:56 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:47:28 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:56:07 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 4/27/23 7:59 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:15:00 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 4/26/23 7:35 PM, Jane wrote:
    What nonsense.

    Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is nonsense. In >>> this case what I said is valid: another way of looking at a Michelson >>> interferometer is as a Sagnac interferometer that has been
    topologically deformed into two straight arms at right angles -- its >>> enclosed area is zero.

    Complete crap again.

    So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic, you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac analysis to a Michelson interferometer.
    It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever. For one thing, the arms of the michelson are always perpendicular to rotation and always of equal length unless a medium is included somewhere. The Michelson is not sensitive to light speed, since changes in that do not alter wave numbers at all.
    In a Sagnac ring gyroscope, the light paths are parallel to rotation.
    When analysed in the nonrotating frame, the light path lengths in the
    ring are obviously different and contain different numbers of
    wavelengths. The Newtonian analysis gives the correct fringe displacement of 4Aѡ/cλ.
    The light path of a Michelson-Morley interferometer is
    smoothly deformable to that of a Sagnac interferometer. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i8vW8gQF6ifJ6BFFRbwLwJ7U6PYw0o12/view?usp=share_link

    The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a three
    dimensional path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the
    *oriented* enclosed area of the 2D projection of the loop on
    the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.


    There is an issue , though. One cannot find a point in the plane determined by the MMX arms that would mimic the center of rotation for Sagnac.
    One can get around the above issue by remembering that the contemporary MMX interferometers are crosses (resonating cavities) that rotate about the intersection of the two arms. If you modify your drawing, you will get the perfect equivalence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu May 4 00:53:16 2023
    On Wed, 03 May 2023 10:42:37 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 5/2/23 6:47 PM, Jane wrote:

    So you claim. If that is anything more than the raving of a lunatic,
    you should be able to explain in detail why one cannot apply a Sagnac
    analysis to a Michelson interferometer.

    It should be obvious. There is no similarity whatsoever.

    This is just plain not true. A physicist looking at the MMX will
    immediately notice that it is rotating (relative to the lab), in a way
    that is similar to Sagnac's interferometer. The question arises: does
    the Sagnac effect affect the result? -- that is not at all "obvious",
    but by applying a Sagnac analysis to the Michelson interferometer one concludes: no.

    [... more nonsense] Anyone who sees similarities between these two
    types of interferometer does not have much of a clue.

    YOU do not have a clue -- both interferometers are rotating (relative to
    the lab).

    What are you trying to prove with all this unadulterated crap? Are you
    trying to find an alternative reason for the null result? Are you
    desperate for the Ether to exist because you know Einstein's theory
    relies on it?

    You merely display your personal ignorance. There are thousands of
    particle experiments that refute Newton. And support SR.

    You mean like Paul Andersen's bogus Sagnac theory and Michelson's fake
    moving mirror experiment. ...just to mention a few.

    Again you display complete ignorance of modern physics. The things you mention are not "particle experiments".

    The latter experiment is a shocking example of relativist ignorance. The
    value of r hardly effects the path length differences. It could be 2000
    and the experimental result would be about the same.

    If you cannot see the blatant error in this: https://paulba.no/pdf/
    sagnac_ring.pdf you are as ignorant as he is.

    And yet YOU have never pointed out any error. You only make vague
    references to unspecified "errors". That's useless. I do not pursue
    figments of other people's imaginations.

    I have given a clue....but I want to see how dumb you relativists really
    are.

    The mistake is pretty obvious and has been used as a main refutation of ballistic theory for a hundred years. Anyone who cannot identify it is
    not fit to post on this NG.

    Tom Roberts (indoctrinated beyond the point of no return)





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 3 18:41:48 2023
    Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's because
    behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.

    Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed May 3 19:22:45 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 7:53:19 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 03 May 2023 10:42:37 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

    Again you display complete ignorance of modern physics. The things you mention are not "particle experiments".
    The latter experiment is a shocking example of relativist ignorance. The value of r hardly effects the path length differences. It could be 2000
    and the experimental result would be about the same.
    If you cannot see the blatant error in this: https://paulba.no/pdf/
    sagnac_ring.pdf you are as ignorant as he is.

    And yet YOU have never pointed out any error. You only make vague references to unspecified "errors". That's useless. I do not pursue figments of other people's imaginations.
    I have given a clue....but I want to see how dumb you relativists really are.

    The mistake is pretty obvious and has been used as a main refutation of ballistic theory for a hundred years. Anyone who cannot identify it is
    not fit to post on this NG.

    (sigh)
    Michelson's 1913 experiment disproved some but not all forms
    of emission theory. I had asked you to demonstrate to me your
    knowledge by describing forms of emission theory that were not
    covered in Pauli's 1921 text (for which I gave you an Internet
    Archive link).

    To date, you have not responded. You have thus far demonstrated
    yourself to be nothing more than an ignorant, hardened crackpot,
    no more knowledgeable than the usual crank who posts here.
    Your pretense of having deeper knowledge than you display is
    totally unconvincing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Wed May 3 19:35:21 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's because
    behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.

    That may be what Sagnac believed, but Sagnac was unaware that
    SR is totally capable of explaining the phenomenon. There is no
    evidence that Sagnac understood SR at anything deeper than a
    "pop-sci" level.

    Michelson, although an SR skeptic, *did* understand SR well
    enough that he never tried to interpret his 1925 large-scale
    demonstration of the Sagnac effect as being in any way
    incompatible with relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment

    Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Dono. on Wed May 3 20:03:03 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:43:32 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:09:56 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a three
    dimensional path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the
    *oriented* enclosed area of the 2D projection of the loop on
    the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.
    There is an issue , though. One cannot find a point in the plane determined by the MMX arms that would mimic the center of rotation for Sagnac.

    There is no issue. The operation of a Sagnac interferometer
    does not depend on the center of rotation being centered on the
    rotation axis. If you align the axis of a sensitive ring laser
    gyroscope with the rotation axis of the Earth, it will detect the
    same 1.99x10^-7 radians/second whether the gyroscope is
    at the Equator or at either Pole.

    One can get around the above issue by remembering that the contemporary MMX interferometers are crosses (resonating cavities) that rotate about the intersection of the two arms. If you modify your drawing, you will get the perfect equivalence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed May 3 20:06:50 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:35:23 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's because
    behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.
    That may be what Sagnac believed, but Sagnac was unaware that
    SR is totally capable of explaining the phenomenon. There is no
    evidence that Sagnac understood SR at anything deeper than a
    "pop-sci" level.

    Michelson, although an SR skeptic, *did* understand SR well
    enough that he never tried to interpret his 1925 large-scale
    demonstration of the Sagnac effect as being in any way
    incompatible with relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
    Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.

    Why not use first hand history from Sagnac himself?


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070514001340#se0230


    6.4. The Sagnac effect

    In the following months, Sagnac described a less sensitive but more practical variant of his interferential strioscope, and he also showed that his interferometer could be used to measure phase shifts at an interface (a silvered plate for instance) with
    exquisite precision.74 Plausibly, these results were but an instrumental diversion and he already had a grander project: the demonstration of a rotational ether wind. Remember that he originally conceived his interferometer for this purpose. The first
    case of rotational ether wind he investigated, an altitude-dependent drag, was not the most obvious. For someone familiar with Bjerknes' atmospheric vortices, the most obvious case should have been the relative ether wind implied by the earth's diurnal
    rotation in a stationary-ether theory. Plausibly, that was Sagnac's first idea75 but he immediately realized that the detection of this tiny effect would require an excessively large interferometer. In 1909 he realized that a much stronger effect of the
    same kind would be obtained by placing the interferometer on a uniformly rotating table.76 The difficulty of this experiment probably explains why four years elapsed before he completed it. He described the results in a pli cacheté of 18 August 1913 (
    Fig. 22) and then in two communications of 27 October and 22 December 1913 to the Académie des sciences.77
    .......
    Fig. 22. The first page of Sagnac's pli cacheté of 18 August 1913. Sagnac writes: “This is the experimental proof of the whirling relative ether wind that the rotating system creates through its motion.” From the Archives de l'Académie des sciences.
    .......
    As we saw, the reasoning that led Sagnac to this experiment was based on his theory of the propagation of light, which required a stationary ether. In his view his experiment was analogous to the Michelson–Morley ether-drift experiment, except that it
    gave a positive result. In the new experiment, motion with respect to the ether had a measurable effect, and this effect was of first order in the implied velocities. Sagnac believed he had struck a fatal blow on relativity theory by proving the
    existence of the ether. He concluded:

    “The observed interferential effect proves to be the optical whirling effect caused by the motion of the system with respect to the ether, and it directly manifests the existence of the ether, necessary carrier of the luminous waves of Huygens and
    Fresnel.”

    The title of the first note in the Comptes rendus expresses the same conviction: “The luminous ether proved by the effect of the relative ether wind in a uniformly rotating interferometer.”79
    .......
    6.6. A simple derivation of the Sagnac effect

    The negligibility of the rays' curvature being established, there is a simple direct way to derive the fringe-shift formula for the Sagnac effect. Sagnac gave it in his memoir of 1914, as a favor to readers unfamiliar with his personal theory of the
    propagation of light. The ether being stationary, he reasoned, the only significant effect of the rotation of the table (as judged by an ether-bound observer) is that the element
    of the optical circuit moves ahead of the waves when they travel from the beginning to the end of the element. The resulting delay is...
    ......

    This simple derivation of the Sagnac effect does not require the concept of ether wind and it can easily be transposed in the context of Lorentz's theory or in the context of special relativity. Yet Sagnac never ceased to see his experiment as a proof of
    a relative ether whirling. Remember that he arrived at this experiment by exploring the consequences of his “principle of the effect of motion,” which implied a relation between the phase shift on a light circuit and the circulation of the relative
    ether flow. Sagnac meant his experiments of 1910 and 1913 to test the rotational character of that flow. In France, he was not alone in regarding the motion of the ether as a basic open question. Reviewing recent advances in optics for the Revue géné
    rale des sciences in 1914, the Marseilles professor Louis Houllevigue adorned his account of Sagnac's experiment with the comment:

    “M. Sagnac seems to have taken all the cautionary measures we might imagine in order to shelter himself from errors. If he has not omitted anything, the result of his experiment is one of the most important that optics has registered since Fresnel,
    since it would unquestionably prove the existence of a wave-carrying medium independent from material media. Thus would be closed, in favor of the ether, a still much undecided debate.”

    Foreign experts in the optics and electrodynamics of moving bodies would not have so easily embraced this conclusion.

    A good proportion of them had already been seduced by Einstein's ether-less theory. Most of them accepted Lorentz's electromagnetic theory, in which the question of the motion of the ether became futile.

    In earlier times, however, this question had been the center of attention of several important physicists, so much so that one may wonder whether the kind of experiments Sagnac conceived in the 1910s had not been discussed before him. Indeed they had
    been.83
    .......
    7. Anticipations of the Sagnac effect
    7.1. Dilemmas of the optics of moving bodies
    7.2. Lodge on ether whirling
    7.3. Michelson's ether-drag test of 1897
    7.4. Michelson's ether-wind experiment of 1904
    7.5. Kaluza
    7.6. Lodge, Michelson, and Sagnac
    7.7. Harress
    7.8. Harzer, Einstein, and Laue on Harress
    7.9. Harress and Sagnac

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Wed May 3 20:25:58 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:06:51 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:35:23 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's because
    behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.
    That may be what Sagnac believed, but Sagnac was unaware that
    SR is totally capable of explaining the phenomenon. There is no
    evidence that Sagnac understood SR at anything deeper than a
    "pop-sci" level.

    Michelson, although an SR skeptic, *did* understand SR well
    enough that he never tried to interpret his 1925 large-scale
    demonstration of the Sagnac effect as being in any way
    incompatible with relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
    Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.
    Why not use first hand history from Sagnac himself?

    Sagnac's major works are available both in English translation and
    in the original French on Wikisource: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Georges_Sagnac

    Some years ago, I had also tracked down some earlier work of his
    dating back to 1910-1911.

    As I stated, there is no evidence that Sagnac understood SR at
    anything beyond the most superficial level.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed May 3 20:19:14 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:03:05 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:43:32 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 11:09:56 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    The Sagnac interferometer can be generalized to a three
    dimensional path. The sensitivity to rotation depends on the
    *oriented* enclosed area of the 2D projection of the loop on
    the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.
    There is an issue , though. One cannot find a point in the plane determined by the MMX arms that would mimic the center of rotation for Sagnac.
    There is no issue. The operation of a Sagnac interferometer
    does not depend on the center of rotation being centered on the
    rotation axis. If you align the axis of a sensitive ring laser
    gyroscope with the rotation axis of the Earth, it will detect the
    same 1.99x10^-7 radians/second whether the gyroscope is
    at the Equator or at either Pole.


    You completely missed the point, it is not about making Sagnac looking more like MMX (the off center rotation of the Sagnac setup is less intuitive), it is about figuring out an MMX setup that is virtually identical to the common Sagnac setup.

    One can get around the above issue by remembering that the contemporary MMX interferometers are crosses (resonating cavities) that rotate about the intersection of the two arms. If you modify your drawing, you will get the perfect equivalence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Wed May 3 20:34:21 2023
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:06:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 11:35:23 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
    Nobody gets the real thing. When I wrote that MMI is just a Sagnac interferometer with zero enclosed area, it's because
    behind Sagnac's theory is the drag that ether imposes on light.
    That may be what Sagnac believed, but Sagnac was unaware that
    SR is totally capable of explaining the phenomenon. There is no
    evidence that Sagnac understood SR at anything deeper than a
    "pop-sci" level.

    Michelson, although an SR skeptic, *did* understand SR well
    enough that he never tried to interpret his 1925 large-scale
    demonstration of the Sagnac effect as being in any way
    incompatible with relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
    Just read Sagnac autobiography, and stop writing nonsense. He invested 9 years developing his 1912 final project and theory.
    Why not use first hand history from Sagnac himself?


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070514001340#se0230

    Goo paper. Read the section on "Harress"

    "Since the early 1920s, many physicists have discussed relativistic explanations of the Sagnac effect in a deeper manner, also in a general-relativistic context. Their efforts have not prevented the anti-relativist sect to brandish the Sagnac effect as a
    proof of the ether. "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu May 4 05:41:10 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 12:34:23 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

    <snip>

    Goo paper. Read the section on "Harress"

    "Since the early 1920s, many physicists have discussed relativistic explanations of the Sagnac effect in a deeper manner, also in a general-relativistic context. Their efforts have not prevented the anti-relativist sect to brandish the Sagnac effect as
    a proof of the ether. "

    I cited many developments of relativists in good faith, just to display how relativism, since 1910, tried to steal ANY physical phenomenon
    as caused by relativistic effects, even with GR on the lab.

    This part of the article that name real physicists as a SECT is just a mere example about how relativism has operated by a
    CAPILLARITY mechanism, to infect and assimilate classic physics from their foundations, under the pretext (initially) of
    ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS. After one generation of physicists, the "humidity" at the foundations have caught most of the walls.

    In three generations, what was REAL PHYSICS has been buried within the walls of the building of physics, and relativity is
    present (with all the damages in the walls) everywhe