On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:00:18 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:

It is Sunday Morning in Seattle (and Renton) and I have a long standing regular appointment with the bottle

You need to lay off it, pattycakes

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:30:02 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 8:00:18 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:

It is Sunday Morning in Seattle (and Renton) and I have a long standing regular appointment with the bottle

You need to lay off it, pattycakes

Okay TowneStanTrevor, time to get down to it.

First, a little limbering up of your mental muscles by reviewing how Kepler's third law of planetary motion ultimately became a boobytrap for relativity. It turns out that Kep's third does not survive translation between frames, thereby violating the
principle of relativity. See more here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate. The greatest online relativists of our time rose in unison to meet this existential threat
to SR by declaring that Kep's 3rd was obviously not a law of physics. How did they determine this? By tautology, of course. See where the highest rated rebuttal dismissed K3 out of hand as an illegitimate law of physics because if K3 were IN FACT a
legitimate law of physics then it couldn't possibly falsify SR. That's it. That's all she wrote. Case closed. Next! This is what passes for scientific investigation and reasoning these days. Disgusting.

Two posts ago I demonstrated that there are several methods in which a unique value for the relative velocity between two observers can be measured. And that the value of said velocity is unique no matter which observer measures it, or which method is
used to measure it. This is the least we can ask of common sense and predictable universe. The LTs assume as much with v, the only unprimed variable in the damned things other than c. In this next series of post we are going to take a much deeper dive
into the falsification of SR by assuming the postulates of SR and the LTs leads to the absurd result that two observers can never agree on the mutually shared relative velocity between them without first resorting to a many worlds interpretation of SR.

Do you agree with this program?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Could you describe this more simply in a way that cannot possible by misinterpreted?

For example, the three triplets problem:

A, B, C are triplets, A and C fly away and come back after Ta Tb elapsed time on their own personal smart watches.

They come back home and A, B and C compare the time on their watches.

B is older than A and C, as the story goes.

However,

Since A moved relative to B and C and B moved relative to A and and C:

Do A and C show the same time, is time dilation symmetric between A and C as I earlier said?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:33:30 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

Could you describe this more simply in a way that cannot possible by misinterpreted?

For example, the three triplets problem:

A, B, C are triplets, A and C fly away and come back after Ta Tb elapsed time on their own personal smart watches.

They come back home and A, B and C compare the time on their watches.

B is older than A and C, as the story goes.

However,

Since A moved relative to B and C and B moved relative to A and and C:

Do A and C show the same time, is time dilation symmetric between A and C as I earlier said?

gehan who am, are you tahkin' to me?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:47:58 AM UTC+5, patdolan wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:33:30 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

Could you describe this more simply in a way that cannot possible by misinterpreted?

For example, the three triplets problem:

A, B, C are triplets, A and C fly away and come back after Ta Tb elapsed time on their own personal smart watches.

They come back home and A, B and C compare the time on their watches.

B is older than A and C, as the story goes.

However,

Since A moved relative to B and C and B moved relative to A and and C:

Do A and C show the same time, is time dilation symmetric between A and C as I earlier said?

gehan who am, are you tahkin' to me?

Sorry yes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:23:11 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:47:58 AM UTC+5, patdolan wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 9:33:30 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

Could you describe this more simply in a way that cannot possible by misinterpreted?

For example, the three triplets problem:

A, B, C are triplets, A and C fly away and come back after Ta Tb elapsed time on their own personal smart watches.

They come back home and A, B and C compare the time on their watches.

B is older than A and C, as the story goes.

However,

Since A moved relative to B and C and B moved relative to A and and C:

Do A and C show the same time, is time dilation symmetric between A and C as I earlier said?

gehan who am, are you tahkin' to me?

Sorry yes.

gehan who am, I am going to take you under my wing. Together we will take a truth tour of special and general relativity wherein I will expose, not only all it faults and untruths, but also the psychological reason for those who need to believe in
relativity. Please back two bags and your tooth brush. It may be a long trip.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sorry yes.

gehan who am, I am going to take you under my wing. Together we will take a truth tour of special and general relativity wherein I will expose, not only all it faults and untruths, but also the psychological reason for those who need to believe in

relativity. Please back two bags and your tooth brush. It may be a long trip.


patdolan do you have any book before hand?
so we can warm up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

First of all, we need to post a quote or a definition of Special Relativity that we agree is an accurate description of it.

We do not want to be accused of not understanding relativity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:56:30 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

First of all, we need to post a quote or a definition of Special Relativity that we agree is an accurate description of it.

We do not want to be accused of not understanding relativity.

AGREED!
I suggest take Lorenz transfer and Lorenz factor as essentials of SP, other things as derived.
And then, my point of view is that: SP is half baked theory since Einstein consider only outbound motion, and ignored inbound motion. hence we have two sets of Lorenz transfers and Lorenz factors, among which motion might cause time contraction as long
as motion is inbound one. So time dilation is not valid for all motion.
What is your opinion? Patdolan.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:30:44 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:56:30 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

First of all, we need to post a quote or a definition of Special Relativity that we agree is an accurate description of it.

We do not want to be accused of not understanding relativity.

AGREED!
I suggest take Lorenz transfer and Lorenz factor as essentials of SP, other things as derived.
And then, my point of view is that: SP is half baked theory since Einstein consider only outbound motion, and ignored inbound motion. hence we have two sets of Lorenz transfers and Lorenz factors, among which motion might cause time contraction as long

as motion is inbound one. So time dilation is not valid for all motion.

What is your opinion? Patdolan.

gahan my man, and Jack:

You are wise beyond your years to realize that there does not exist a logically tight definition of the principle of relativity. Give up all hope of finding or getting one; mathematical or otherwise. Instead you must learn to argue as Bruce Lee would
have argued:

"Be like water, formless, shapeless. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”

But before we proceed, gahan and Jack, I will hear each of your confessions of disbelief in the principle of relativity. Both to you must perform this before you can become my disciples.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

But before we proceed, gahan and Jack, I will hear each of your confessions of disbelief in the principle of relativity. Both to you must perform this before you can become my disciples.

Don't play tricks. Post your book or your thesis here. If you haven't any, just say you haven't yet.
My point is in Absolute Time. To save time, you can start reading the introduction by yourself first.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view


Time theory of General Relativity is logical catastrophe. Time is something used to measure the speed of other physical phenomena, not whose speed to
be measured. Mathematically, the speed of time, as time divided by time,
must be 1, simply a constant. The so-called time slowing or time speeding up

in general relativity is just like a person lifting himself, which is logically impos-
sible. Besides, General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate any

measurable physical phenomenon with TIME. The slowing down of time in
general relativity only means some physical factors (in which general relativity
considers gravitation ONLY) cause other physical phenomena to slow down;
It has nothing to do with the pace change of Real Time. Also, it will inevitably
lead to such ridiculous conclusions: more gravitation slows down a type of
Time (some physical phenomenon) and speeds up other type of Time (other physical phenomenon). Time theory of General Relativity is theory of clock of certain type, not theory about time.
As of Special Relativity, although it has been coming into being for more than a century, it is still a half-baked theory. In his famous relativity essay in 1905,
Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the moving clock running

slower. Calculations using simple junior high school level algebra are suffi- cient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock running faster,

as demonstrated in this book. In other words, in the second half of the special relativity that should be developed, the time effect of motion is opposite to the
first half of the theory.

No clock physically goes slower or faster. The time dilation in the special rela-
tivity along with time contraction (that should be added) are not objective

physical permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of physics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:48:29 AM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:

But before we proceed, gahan and Jack, I will hear each of your confessions of disbelief in the principle of relativity. Both to you must perform this before you can become my disciples.

Don't play tricks. Post your book or your thesis here. If you haven't any, just say you haven't yet.
My point is in Absolute Time. To save time, you can start reading the introduction by yourself first.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view

Time theory of General Relativity is logical catastrophe. Time is something used to measure the speed of other physical phenomena, not whose speed to
be measured. Mathematically, the speed of time, as time divided by time, must be 1, simply a constant. The so-called time slowing or time speeding up

in general relativity is just like a person lifting himself, which is logically impos-
sible. Besides, General Relativity misunderstood Positivism as to equate any

measurable physical phenomenon with TIME. The slowing down of time in general relativity only means some physical factors (in which general relativity
considers gravitation ONLY) cause other physical phenomena to slow down;
It has nothing to do with the pace change of Real Time. Also, it will inevitably
lead to such ridiculous conclusions: more gravitation slows down a type of Time (some physical phenomenon) and speeds up other type of Time (other physical phenomenon). Time theory of General Relativity is theory of clock of
certain type, not theory about time.
As of Special Relativity, although it has been coming into being for more than
a century, it is still a half-baked theory. In his famous relativity essay in 1905,
Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the moving clock running

slower. Calculations using simple junior high school level algebra are suffi-
cient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock running faster,

as demonstrated in this book. In other words, in the second half of the special
relativity that should be developed, the time effect of motion is opposite to the
first half of the theory.

No clock physically goes slower or faster. The time dilation in the special rela-
tivity along with time contraction (that should be added) are not objective

physical permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of physics.

Jack, you fiend! You aren't against relativity at all, are you. You have your own version to flog. Go to Dono's dojo and become his disciple. I don't want you anymore. BTW, it that you all cgi-ed up on page 134? And you again on pages 119, 121 and
123? And is that you and your wife on page 41? And might gahan-who-am also be your wife?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jack, you fiend! You aren't against relativity at all, are you. You have your own version to flog. Go to Dono's dojo and become his disciple. I don't want you anymore. BTW, it that you all cgi-ed up on page 134? And you again on pages 119, 121 and 123?

And is that you and your wife on page 41? And might gahan-who-am also be your wife?

If you are not able to read someone else book, please just post your book or your thesis here, to show your point of view. If you haven't anything, just say you haven't yet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18-Apr-23 2:30 am, Jack Liu wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:56:30 AM UTC-5, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

First of all, we need to post a quote or a definition of Special Relativity that we agree is an accurate description of it.

We do not want to be accused of not understanding relativity.

AGREED!
I suggest take Lorenz transfer and Lorenz factor as essentials of SP, other things as derived.
And then, my point of view is that: SP is half baked theory since Einstein consider only outbound motion, and ignored inbound motion. hence we have two sets of Lorenz transfers and Lorenz factors, among which motion might cause time contraction as

long as motion is inbound one. So time dilation is not valid for all motion.

What is your opinion? Patdolan.

The Lorentz transform by itself is a complete description. There is no
separate "Lorentz factor".

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Lorentz transform by itself is a complete description. There is no separate "Lorentz factor".

Sylvia.

Lorentz factor and Lorentz transform are different. Lorentz factor could be larger or less than 1, Lorentz transform not possible

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)