I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid I am
It's said that the devil is in the details.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:48:53 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.How about this: forget what Einstein said or wrote or how *he* developed relativity.
Consider just the theory, the model.
Or in a simplistic case, consider the set of inertial frames related by the Lorentz transformations.
These correctly predict the results of experiments, and that is all we need. No mumbo jumbo of what Einstein said or did.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:48:53 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.How about this: forget what Einstein said or wrote or how *he* developed relativity.
Consider just the theory, the model.
Or in a simplistic case, consider the set of inertial frames related by the Lorentz transformations.
These correctly predict the results of experiments, and that is all we need. No mumbo jumbo of what Einstein said or did.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:56:11 AM UTC+5, rotchm wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:48:53 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:There's a thought! I support your idea 100%.
It's said that the devil is in the details.How about this: forget what Einstein said or wrote or how *he* developed relativity.
Consider just the theory, the model.
Or in a simplistic case, consider the set of inertial frames related by the Lorentz transformations.
These correctly predict the results of experiments, and that is all we need. No mumbo jumbo of what Einstein said or did.
So looks like I have been wasting my time talking about what Einstein said.
The model is about preserving the equations for the transmission of electromagnetic waves across differently moving frames of reference. However the model cannot be right since it conflicts with Quantum Theory.
When Earth makes spaceships that can travel at near the speed of light, or through wormholes, then this will all be moot.
Remember to take on enough oxygen for your calculations, and enough food, for onboard the ship he sees himself eating meals at the normal rate.
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.
2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both values are securely stored for further analysis.
3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY
regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.
To complete one entire oscillation, so c₀ = λ₀f₀ is verified, time τ is
τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ , OR light fails to be regenerated at B. Let's settle with τ = λ₀/c₀.
Translating [tB - tA = t'A - tB] using the above NEWS, we have
10λ₀/c₀ - tA = 20λ₀/c₀ - 10λ₀/c₀, which is a pretty equality if we use tA=0.
Only that it IS NOT TRUE. Assuming, for simplicity, that tA = 0, the real value of t'A is
t'A = 2 tB + τ (and τ IS NOT REGISTERED BY THE CLOCK AT THE POINT B).
t'A = 20λ₀/c₀ + λ₀/c₀ = 21 λ₀/c₀
And, CLEARLY, tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB because 10 λ₀/c₀ ≠ 11 λ₀/c₀.
Now, relativists will cry foul and claim that distance BA be much greater than 5500 nm, so τ = λ₀/c₀ can be DISMISSED, buried deeply in the pit of shame.
Is it clear, now, why fanatic brainless relativists are just STUPID?
Or are they cretin hypocrites?
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:48:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.Neither is F=ma applied to point masses.
To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most
elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum
at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by definingWhat are you talking about. The clocks are simply set to synchronise
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
by tB - tA = t'A - tB.
REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.Who cares.
2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both values are securely stored for further analysis.
3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.Who cares.
To complete one entire oscillation, so c₀ = λ₀f₀ is verified, time τ is
τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ , OR light fails to be regenerated at B. Let's settle with τ = λ₀/c₀.
Translating [tB - tA = t'A - tB] using the above NEWS, we have
10λ₀/c₀ - tA = 20λ₀/c₀ - 10λ₀/c₀, which is a pretty equality if we use tA=0.
Only that it IS NOT TRUE. Assuming, for simplicity, that tA = 0, the real value of t'A is
t'A = 2 tB + τ (and τ IS NOT REGISTERED BY THE CLOCK AT THE POINT B).
t'A = 20λ₀/c₀ + λ₀/c₀ = 21 λ₀/c₀
And, CLEARLY, tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB because 10 λ₀/c₀ ≠ 11 λ₀/c₀.
Now, relativists will cry foul and claim that distance BA be much greater than 5500 nm, so τ = λ₀/c₀ can be DISMISSED, buried deeply in the pit of shame.
Is it clear, now, why fanatic brainless relativists are just STUPID?
Or are they cretin hypocrites?There is something wrong with you.
--
Jan
I just want to prove that I am a cretin
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.
2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both values are securely stored for further analysis.
3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY
regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:48:53 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most
elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum
at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.
2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both values are securely stored for further analysis.
3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.
So you are saying that there is a delay in regenerating the light signal and that cause an asymmetry.
These are technical details, it could be argued. Are they real? I could not find any reference.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-3, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:48:53 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most
elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum
at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.
2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both
values are securely stored for further analysis.
3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.
So you are saying that there is a delay in regenerating the light signal and that cause an asymmetry.Of course that you will not find references about the delay in the absorption/emission of photons by atoms in the mirror.
These are technical details, it could be argued. Are they real? I could not find any reference.
It would CRASH the fucking relativity ON THE SPOT.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:18:14 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:45:02 AM UTC-3, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:48:53 AM UTC+5, Richard Hertz wrote:
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the
concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most
elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum
at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.
2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both
values are securely stored for further analysis.
3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.
So you are saying that there is a delay in regenerating the light signal and that cause an asymmetry.Of course that you will not find references about the delay in the absorption/emission of photons by atoms in the mirror.
These are technical details, it could be argued. Are they real? I could not find any reference.
It would CRASH the fucking relativity ON THE SPOT.HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic.
--
Jan
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then claiming that the definition is false.
Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden
of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
not so much of a problem in 1905.
Sylvia.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
<snip>
It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then claiming that the definition is false.
Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
not so much of a problem in 1905.
Sylvia.Obviously, you are not too picky, but most of the time resented when you reply my posts. I don't care.
I made a living with concepts like synchronism, and know about it VOLUMES more than you possibly could.
Synchronism: of events that occur at the same time or rate.
Synchronism: What happens with clocks when people synchronize their watches, making sure that all their watches show the same time.
Domain of applicability of the word synchronism: Any 3D space (spherical shape) where the most distant objects within it
can operate IN SYNC, but the time (t = Distance/c) is IRRELEVANT and can be dismissed, in comparison with time durations
that emerge from any action within such domain (no less than 1 ppb being acceptable TO ME).
For instance, in measures involving 1 second, differences lower than 1 nanosec can be dismissed.
I have shown that the roundtrip of a photon (550 nm) in a distance BA of 5500 nm creates AN ERROR of 5% in Einstein's formula
tB - tA = t'A - tB, because there is a delay τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ in the process of absorption/reflection in the mirror at B, so t'A = 2 tB - tA + τ
tB - tA = 10 λ₀/c₀
t'A - tB ≥ 11 λ₀/c₀
Even when every 1-way trip last 18.3 femtosec, the aditional delay of 1.83 femtosec CAN'T BE IGNORED (5% error).
Maybe you want to use BA = 10,000 λ₀ = 5.5 mm, with a roundtrip time of 36.7 picosec, to reduce the error to 0.05%.
Or use distances > 5 m, so the error can be reduced to < 0.00005% (50 ppm).
When you'll be satisfied with the concept of synchronism between clocks in A and B?
When the formula is applied to BA in the range of mm, in the range of mt, or in the range of Km?
PLUS: It was VERY STUPID for Einstein, the clerk wannabe physicist, to claim that SYNCHRONISM involved the idea of
UNIVERSAL TIME t, everywhere!
And that he demanded that simultaneity was attached to the above demand, with clocks MOVING at v speed!
The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± BA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.
If you, Sylvia, disagree with the above concepts of mine, then it's for me a proof that we are so intellectually distant that
any further interaction has no use for me.
CORRECTION: The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± ΔBA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
<snip>
It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then claiming that the definition is false.
Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
not so much of a problem in 1905.
Sylvia.Obviously, you are not too picky, but most of the time resented when you reply my posts. I don't care.
I made a living with concepts like synchronism, and know about it VOLUMES more than you possibly could.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:55:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
CORRECTION: The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± ΔBA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.Your monomania and mental magic thinking disorder strikes again: you
cannot write "Einstein", you have to write "imbecile". Do you really think you are getting anything done here?
--
Jan
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:21:00 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:55:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
CORRECTION: The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± ΔBA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.Your monomania and mental magic thinking disorder strikes again: you cannot write "Einstein", you have to write "imbecile". Do you really think you are getting anything done here?
--Because he was an imbecile, but a one-eyed imbecile in a land of blind people.
Jan
You could be the good twin brother, but with glaucoma in your only working eye, and a little more retarded.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:21:00 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:55:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:Because he was an imbecile, but a one-eyed imbecile in a land of blind people.
Your monomania and mental magic thinking disorder strikes again: you
CORRECTION: The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± ΔBA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.
cannot write "Einstein", you have to write "imbecile". Do you really think >>> you are getting anything done here?
--
Jan
The above sentence means you are emotionally disturbed.
You could be the good twin brother, but with glaucoma in your only working eye, and a little more retarded.
Something is not quite right with you, mentally. Perhaps nobody
told you this but you don't feel quite normal.
On 17-Apr-23 9:48 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks synchronizing.
Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then claiming that the definition is false.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905
Einstein's manifesto.
On 17-Apr-23 9:48 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE,
and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then claiming that the definition is false.
Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden
of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
not so much of a problem in 1905.
Sylvia.
On 2023-04-16 23:48:52 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905So you want to study history and not physics,
Einstein's manifesto.
Mikko
No clock physically goes slower or faster.
The time dilation in the special relativity 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.
On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
No clock physically goes slower or faster.... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
The time dilation in the special relativity along with timeNot true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines
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.
at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well. (Without
"time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
be essentially 100%.)
You have A LOT to learn about basic physics before you can sensibly
write about it. What you write around here is wrong in essentially all details.
Tom Roberts
On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
No clock physically goes slower or faster.... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
The time dilation in the special relativity along with timeNot true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines
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.
at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well.
(Without
"time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
be essentially 100%.)
On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 17:21:50 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:In the meantime in the real world, however,
No clock physically goes slower or faster.... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
The time dilation in the special relativity along with timeNot true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well.
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.
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper clocks
keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
(WithoutSome experimental evidence that they would be?
"time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
be essentially 100%.)
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:21:50 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
No clock physically goes slower or faster.... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
The time dilation in the special relativity along with timeNot true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well. (Without
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.
"time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
be essentially 100%.)
You have A LOT to learn about basic physics before you can sensibly
write about it. What you write around here is wrong in essentially all details.
Tom Roberts
Actually, you are the one to have A LOT to forget about your indoctrination.
In your thick skull and fossilized brain, you persist (as with muons) to believ e that the
enviroments at CERN and Fermilab equal to those in outer space.
You, conveniently, forget the EXTREME electric and magnetic fields under which the
experiments are conducted, the EXTREME accelerations and decelerations, and the
interfering effect of intermediate and terminal instrumentation.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:41:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:21:50 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
No clock physically goes slower or faster.... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
The time dilation in the special relativity 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.Not true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well. (Without "time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would be essentially 100%.)
You have A LOT to learn about basic physics before you can sensibly write about it. What you write around here is wrong in essentially all details.
Tom Roberts
Actually, you are the one to have A LOT to forget about your indoctrination.He just told you the exeperimental results.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
<snip>
It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks
synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his
definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then
claiming that the definition is false.
Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden
of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
not so much of a problem in 1905.
Sylvia.
Obviously, you are not too picky, but most of the time resented when you reply my posts. I don't care.
I made a living with concepts like synchronism, and know about it VOLUMES more than you possibly could.
Synchronism: of events that occur at the same time or rate.
Synchronism: What happens with clocks when people synchronize their watches, making sure that all their watches show the same time.
Domain of applicability of the word synchronism: Any 3D space (spherical shape) where the most distant objects within it
can operate IN SYNC, but the time (t = Distance/c) is IRRELEVANT and can be dismissed, in comparison with time durations
that emerge from any action within such domain (no less than 1 ppb being acceptable TO ME).
For instance, in measures involving 1 second, differences lower than 1 nanosec can be dismissed.
I have shown that the roundtrip of a photon (550 nm) in a distance BA of 5500 nm creates AN ERROR of 5% in Einstein's formula
tB - tA = t'A - tB, because there is a delay τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ in the process of absorption/reflection in the mirror at B, so t'A = 2 tB - tA + τ
tB - tA = 10 λ₀/c₀
t'A - tB ≥ 11 λ₀/c₀
Even when every 1-way trip last 18.3 femtosec, the aditional delay of 1.83 femtosec CAN'T BE IGNORED (5% error).
Maybe you want to use BA = 10,000 λ₀ = 5.5 mm, with a roundtrip time of 36.7 picosec, to reduce the error to 0.05%.
Or use distances > 5 m, so the error can be reduced to < 0.00005% (50 ppm).
When you'll be satisfied with the concept of synchronism between clocks in A and B?
When the formula is applied to BA in the range of mm, in the range of mt, or in the range of Km?
PLUS: It was VERY STUPID for Einstein, the clerk wannabe physicist, to claim that SYNCHRONISM involved the idea of
UNIVERSAL TIME t, everywhere!
And that he demanded that simultaneity was attached to the above demand, with clocks MOVING at v speed!
The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± BA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.
If you, Sylvia, disagree with the above concepts of mine, then it's for me a proof that we are so intellectually distant that
any further interaction has no use for me.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:54:26 AM UTC-3, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-04-16 23:48:52 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905So you want to study history and not physics,
Einstein's manifesto.
Studying the history behind STEM development is as important as to
study specific STEM fields.
It gives you insights about the evolution of human knowledge, like what
was disruptive and what was incremental in the timeline.
But it requires having curiosity, coherence and much more time than
learn basic physics from Resnick-Hallyday and claim that
you're knowledgeable. It's your choice.
I've proven many, many times, the advantage of studying both in a
sequence: first, hard facts written in a technical book. Then,details
of the struggle behind any advance.
This has been my choice.
your way seems so complicated.
Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the moving clock
running slower. Calculations using simple junior high school level
algebra are sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving
clock running faster.
No clock physically goes slower or faster. The time dilation in the
special relativity 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.
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923
English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my
credits to any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is
true.
So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant
of nature.
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 02:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Liu wrote:
your way seems so complicated.
Time dilation does not occur. It is an imaginary bi-product of very ingenious mathematical description of a hypothetical universe in which
light always moves at c. Very impressive ScFi...!
--
-- lover of truth
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:36:38 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 02:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Liu wrote:
your way seems so complicated.
...
Time dilation does not occur. It is an imaginary bi-product of very ingenious mathematical description of a hypothetical universe in which light always moves at c. Very impressive ScFi...!Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
--
-- lover of truth
Time dilation does not occur.
Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 17:21:50 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:In the meantime in the real world, however,
No clock physically goes slower or faster.... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
The time dilation in the special relativity along with timeNot true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines >>> at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The >>> "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well.
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.
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper clocks
keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
(WithoutSome experimental evidence that they would be?
"time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
be essentially 100%.)
Curiously, time ago he mentioned a loss of ONLY 10%.
Maybe, if they increase the dial to confer some TeV, 1% or lower losses in the pion's rain will be obtained.
Anyway, I understood that pions generated in the upper atmosphere only lasted 26 ns (in a reference frame
in which they are at rest), when cosmic rays hit N or O nucleus, which ejected pions at 0.99c.
This represents a length of 7.8 METERS, not Km.
But Tom knows better, isn't it?
Without "time
dilation" they would experience essentially 100% loss.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923
English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my
credits to any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is
true.
So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant
of nature.
Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't know how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to supporting
SR 100%.
Constnt lighht speed certainly does not follow Maxwell's
treatment. They derive a value for the universal constant c, which is also the speed of an E-field disturbance relative to its source, its only reference. Everything in SR is consistent with P2 so you will never
disprove SR while you accept P2.
The constancy of light speed has never been even remotely proved to be correct, so why accept it?
On 4/20/23 7:54 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
Nonsense! Thought experiments can only show what was put into them.
But real experiments support Special Relativity, and have never refuted
it. They have refuted competing theories by Newton, Ritz, and many
others.
You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experiments that support
our current theories and have refuted older ones.
Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/20/23 7:54 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
Nonsense! Thought experiments can only show what was put into them.
But real experiments support Special Relativity, and have never refuted it. They have refuted competing theories by Newton, Ritz, and many
others.
You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experiments that support our current theories and have refuted older ones.The 'gehan' entity is clearly incapable of that.
Instead it seeks to verbally integrate
verbal descriptions of physics
into a verbaly coherent whole.
It will never succeed,
(and will go on asking)
Jan
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:18:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't
know how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to
supporting SR 100%.
Actually, no. Read carefully what Einstein's P2 says: that the speed of
light is independent of the motion of the light source *in a certain
one, fixed, system* (called "stationary" to distinguish it from the
others).
You need to add to it another assumption which Einstein makes in the
next section: in a "moving" system (k) the time it takes light to go
from A to B is equal to that from B to A. Note that it is NOT assumed
for such "moving" systems that 2AB/([absorption k-time] - [emission
k-time]) = c. (IOW, the full import of P2 for "moving" systems is NOT assumed.)
Einstein instead noticed that from such simple spatial and temporal considerations ALONE one could derive the Lorentz transformation,
without ever referring to Maxwell's equations.
This one fact was probably (I'm guessing) THE reason Einstein decided to publish the paper. It just seemed vastly improbable that this
possibility would be a coincidence.
And then he PROVES (using the just-derived Lorentz transformation,
still with the phi(v) factor undetermined) that the speed of light in "moving" systems must therefore be also c.
Constant light speed certainly does not follow Maxwell's treatment.The constancy of light speed has never been even remotely proved to be
They derive a value for the universal constant c, which is also the
speed of an E-field disturbance relative to its source, its only
reference. Everything in SR is consistent with P2 so you will never
disprove SR while you accept P2.
correct, so why accept it?
The reason you are saying this without any pause is that your education
in physics is *extremely* narrow. This is a common amateur failing: you
don't have the faintest idea how your objections to SR influence other, sometimes seemingly unrelated, phenomena.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 12:07:00 AM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/20/23 7:54 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
Nonsense! Thought experiments can only show what was put into them.
But real experiments support Special Relativity, and have never refuted it. They have refuted competing theories by Newton, Ritz, and many others.
You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experiments that support our current theories and have refuted older ones.The 'gehan' entity is clearly incapable of that.
Instead it seeks to verbally integrate
verbal descriptions of physics
into a verbaly coherent whole.
It will never succeed,
(and will go on asking)
JanThe verbal descriptions of physics, with basic algebra, as found in the books written by Einstein then, are simply not sufficient
to describe the theory completely and coherently.
Maybe Albert Einsteins biggest mistake was writing that book. Don't you agree?
On 4/20/23 7:54 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
Nonsense! Thought experiments can only show what was put into them.
But real experiments support Special Relativity, and have never refuted
it. They have refuted competing theories by Newton, Ritz, and many
others.
You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experiments that support
our current theories and have refuted older ones.
Tom Roberts
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:21:16 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:18:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't
know how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to
supporting SR 100%.
Actually, no. Read carefully what Einstein's P2 says: that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source *in a certain
one, fixed, system* (called "stationary" to distinguish it from the others).
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:43:35 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 12:07:00 AM UTC+5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 4/20/23 7:54 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
Nonsense! Thought experiments can only show what was put into them.
But real experiments support Special Relativity, and have never refuted
it. They have refuted competing theories by Newton, Ritz, and many others.
You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experiments that supportThe 'gehan' entity is clearly incapable of that.
our current theories and have refuted older ones.
Instead it seeks to verbally integrate
verbal descriptions of physics
into a verbaly coherent whole.
It will never succeed,
(and will go on asking)
JanThe verbal descriptions of physics, with basic algebra, as found in the books written by Einstein then, are simply not sufficient
to describe the theory completely and coherently.
Maybe Albert Einsteins biggest mistake was writing that book. Don't you agree?Einstein didn't write for hardened cranks. Like you, Gehan.
Am I the only one who disagrees with Einstein?No there are many other cranks in this forum: "Jane", Dick Hertz, Pat Dolan. The forum was created specifically for the likes of the above.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:12:43 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:21:16 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:18:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't >> know how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to
supporting SR 100%.
Actually, no. Read carefully what Einstein's P2 says: that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source *in a certain one, fixed, system* (called "stationary" to distinguish it from the others).
...
Could you clearly state what you think P2 really says, and what it does not say?
Here is a quotation:
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport
of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."
After which I hope you do not mind troubling you with some questions because there is an absolute silence many times when I ask questions that I think will be embarrassing to answer. ChatGPT has no such ego problems. Self contradictions are allowed.
It's said that the devil is in the details.You said: "So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate because
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
tB - tA = t'A - tB
is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.
2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both values are securely stored for further analysis.
3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY
regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.
To complete one entire oscillation, so c₀ = λ₀f₀ is verified, time τ is
τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ , OR light fails to be regenerated at B. Let's settle with τ = λ₀/c₀.
Translating [tB - tA = t'A - tB] using the above NEWS, we have
10λ₀/c₀ - tA = 20λ₀/c₀ - 10λ₀/c₀, which is a pretty equality if we use tA=0.
Only that it IS NOT TRUE. Assuming, for simplicity, that tA = 0, the real value of t'A is
t'A = 2 tB + τ (and τ IS NOT REGISTERED BY THE CLOCK AT THE POINT B).
t'A = 20λ₀/c₀ + λ₀/c₀ = 21 λ₀/c₀
And, CLEARLY, tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB because 10 λ₀/c₀ ≠ 11 λ₀/c₀.
Now, relativists will cry foul and claim that distance BA be much greater than 5500 nm, so τ = λ₀/c₀ can be DISMISSED, buried deeply in the pit of shame.
Is it clear, now, why fanatic brainless relativists are just STUPID?
Or are they cretin hypocrites?
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:12:43 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
...
Could you clearly state what you think P2 really says, and what it does
not say?
Here is a quotation:
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body."
After which I hope you do not mind troubling you with some questions
because there is an absolute silence many times when I ask questions
that I think will be embarrassing to answer. ChatGPT has no such ego problems. Self contradictions are allowed.
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:12:43 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
...
Could you clearly state what you think P2 really says, and what it does not say?
Here is a quotation:
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
After which I hope you do not mind troubling you with some questions because there is an absolute silence many times when I ask questionsWhat do you want to know?
that I think will be embarrassing to answer. ChatGPT has no such ego problems. Self contradictions are allowed.
P1 restates Newtonian relativity.
P2 says that OWLS will always have the value c. no matter what.
Is that hard to understand?
--
-- lover of truth
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:45:06 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
P1 restates Newtonian relativity.
P2 says that OWLS will always have the value c. no matter what.
Is that hard to understand?
--
-- lover of truth
No, so the question is, do we accept P2 as interpreted without question?
Come to think of it, P1 could be recursive, that is, addition law of
addition of velocities holds true in all frames. Including sub-frames.
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 21:05:03 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:45:06 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
P1 restates Newtonian relativity.
P2 says that OWLS will always have the value c. no matter what.
Is that hard to understand?
--
-- lover of truth
No, so the question is, do we accept P2 as interpreted without question?
Come to think of it, P1 could be recursive, that is, addition law of addition of velocities holds true in all frames. Including sub-frames.I suppose so. but do you mean Newton's addition rule of Einstein's
--
-- lover of truth
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 21:05:03 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Kookfight
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:45:06 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
P1 restates Newtonian relativity.
P2 says that OWLS will always have the value c. no matter what.
Is that hard to understand?
--
-- lover of truth
No, so the question is, do we accept P2 as interpreted without question?
Come to think of it, P1 could be recursive, that is, addition law of addition of velocities holds true in all frames. Including sub-frames.I suppose so. but do you mean Newton's addition rule of Einstein's
--
Kookfight
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:12:43 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
...
Could you clearly state what you think P2 really says, and what it does not say?
Here is a quotation:
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
After which I hope you do not mind troubling you with some questions because there is an absolute silence many times when I ask questionsWhat do you want to know?
that I think will be embarrassing to answer. ChatGPT has no such ego problems. Self contradictions are allowed.
P1 restates Newtonian relativity.
P2 says that OWLS will always have the value c. no matter what.
Is that hard to understand?
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in
the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is
equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light
speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
JackIt's quite long. I'll read it and will make, eventually, some comments next week.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,Hi Richard
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
We must admit that your research is very detailed and profound, you spend a lot of energy, and you are quite patient. Regarding this topic, I think Einstein only studied outbound motion, not inbound motion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
Jack
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,Hi Richard
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
We must admit that your research is very detailed and profound, you spend a lot of energy, and you are quite patient. Regarding this topic, I think Einstein only studied outbound motion, not inbound motion.
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
<snip>
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in
the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is
equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light
speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
Imbecile, OWLS has never been proven
because it's physically impossible, due to the need of connected clocks, which imply another 1-Way link back to the origin.
And TWLS IS NOT PROVEN, except for conformist relativists like you.
TWLS measurements ignore the delay to reflect light, and still have the same problem than OWLS measurements.
But, what to expect from amateur relativists like you, retarded polish.
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
<snip>
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in
the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is
equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
Imbecile, OWLS has never been provenDo you even READ the posts you are responding to? Are you able
to comprehend the written text at all?
The part I quoted from Einstein is NOT about proving anything experimentally. It's about a consequence of a certain definition.
because it's physically impossible, due to the need of connected clocks, which imply another 1-Way link back to the origin.Irrelevant, not even wrong.
And TWLS IS NOT PROVEN, except for conformist relativists like you.Irrelevant. N/A.
TWLS measurements ignore the delay to reflect light, and still have the same problem than OWLS measurements.
But, what to expect from amateur relativists like you, retarded polish.Irrelevant. You don't even understand what people are discussing here.
Change your hobby. You simply cannot do this.
--
Jan
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,Hi Richard
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
We must admit that your research is very detailed and profound, you spend a lot of energy, and you are quite patient. Regarding this topic, I think Einstein only studied outbound motion, not inbound motion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
Jack
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:36:29 PM UTC-3, Jack Liu wrote:1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 EnglishHi Richard
translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
We must admit that your research is very detailed and profound, you spend a lot of energy, and you are quite patient. Regarding this topic, I think Einstein only studied outbound motion, not inbound motion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
in the universe, no matter how it moves, it has no effect on time itself. Newton said: The order and direction of time are based on time itself, and do not depend on certain physical movements or changes in the physical environment.I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
JackJack, I've read your book and find it interesting, in particular Chapter 1 and your further considerations about the nonsense
of SR. In particular, these comments:
The absolute time proposed by Sir Newton flows forward eternally and independently, without any interference from external physical factors, and is not affected by observers. Its existence is independent of the changes of things. Whatever matter exists
.............................numbers displayed on a clock. Absolute time is independent of external physical conditions and advances uniformly;
Contrary to Newton's concept of independent and uniform time, in Einstein's theory, time does not operate independently, it is affected by physical factors. In Einstein's theory, time also does not pass uniformly, and its pace changes
.............................
According to Sir Newton's expression: Absolute time is pure and real time. It is mathematical time; it is the only time; it is not directly perceivable; it is inferred time. Relative time is time that can be perceived, or directly read, such as the
.............................dilated time, and adjusted his personal watch to real time, which is not affected by gravitation at all. Einstein himself in real life still trusted absolute time instead of relative time.
That is said, while ancient engineer worked on clock and adjusted the clock with new level of gravitation, Einstein worked on “TIME”. Einstein pointed out that TIME was dilated by stronger gravitation. However, afterward, Einstein abandoned this
.............................
Regarding your development of a new transform, in the point (page 136): Lorenz-Jack Transformation, Direct Way
I've found mathematical errors in your equations, from 2 to 11.
I agree with 1a and 1b. They are linear transformations in a unidimensional space, which is a subset of what Voigt did in 1887:
Voigt, in 1887, used the following linear transformation. NOTE how Voigt a four dimensional relationship and NEGATIVE time
18 years before Einstein. With this transform, Voigt proved that the 3D wave equation was INVARIANT under a general linear
transformation of "spacetime".
ξ = xm₁ + yn₁ + zp₁ − αt
η = xm₂ + yn₂ + zp₂ − βt
ζ = xm₃ + yn₃ + zp₃ - γt
τ = t − (ax + by + cz)
Voigt found that the INVARIANCE required a transform factor q² = 1/(1 - χ²/ω²), the famous γ, PLUS τ = t − χ/ω² (xα₁ + yβ₁ + zγ₁) , the famous local time, NOT AFFECTED BY q.
Your equations 1a and 1b are expressed (in Voigt's terminology), as:
ξ = x' = xm₁ − αt (1a)
τ = t' = t − ax (1b)
But Voigt had a purpose to propose such linear transformations: to find out what is required for the general wave equation be
invariant under such transformations, because galilean transforms failed to verify that.
Your proposal, and further equations, lack any purpose other than to change Lorentz transforms. And this is something that has not
a physical sense (like Voigt's work had), but just a mathematical purpose to challenge Lorentz.
Your comment following (1b) contains a basic error, making x = vt for x'=0. Actually, for (1a), x = - b/a t. This implies that v = - b/a,
which solved one incognito and compromise further developments from e
"When an object in S moves at a uniform speed in the direction of the negative X axis from the origin, there is x=vt for any time t; When the object is at the origin in the S' reference frame, substitute x'=0 into (1a)"
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 2:15:58 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
<snip>
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in
the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
Imbecile, OWLS has never been provenDo you even READ the posts you are responding to? Are you able
to comprehend the written text at all?
The part I quoted from Einstein is NOT about proving anything experimentally. It's about a consequence of a certain definition.
because it's physically impossible, due to the need of connected clocks, which imply another 1-Way link back to the origin.Irrelevant, not even wrong.
And TWLS IS NOT PROVEN, except for conformist relativists like you.Irrelevant. N/A.
TWLS measurements ignore the delay to reflect light, and still have the same problem than OWLS measurements.
But, what to expect from amateur relativists like you, retarded polish.Irrelevant. You don't even understand what people are discussing here.
Change your hobby. You simply cannot do this.
--It's quite simple, JanPB. Don't torture yourself anymore.
Jan
I'll save a lot of time since now, when replying anything from me:
I think that you are so full of crap that NOTHING that you write here, concerning any science except mathematics,
is worthless and a product of a fanatic indoctrinated mind, highly biased toward relativity that reject anything outside
the thin shell where your thoughts take shelter.
So, I directly call you imbecile or the like, regardless whatever shit do you write here.
So, don't bother to reply to me. Just ignore it, as I do with your shit.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:45:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:m, not universally (not
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
yet)).
An aetherist reading the paper in 1905 would mentally earmark this fixed system as the one in which "Maxwell's equations hold good".
Of course Einstein does not say that as he is about to demonstrate that
the Lorentz transformation can be derived without referring to either
aether or Maxwell's equations.
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in the
moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is equal to
that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c
in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
This derivation is somewhat different from the one typically shown in textbooks (the textbook derivations are not wrong but use a stronger set
of hypotheses which tend to look bizarre or at best thinly justified to
many students).
Is that hard to understand?
Apparently :-)
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:16:16 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:36:29 PM UTC-3, Jack Liu wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
It's said that the devil is in the details.
I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 EnglishHi Richard
translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
We must admit that your research is very detailed and profound, you spend a lot of energy, and you are quite patient. Regarding this topic, I think Einstein only studied outbound motion, not inbound motion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
exists in the universe, no matter how it moves, it has no effect on time itself. Newton said: The order and direction of time are based on time itself, and do not depend on certain physical movements or changes in the physical environment.I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
JackJack, I've read your book and find it interesting, in particular Chapter 1 and your further considerations about the nonsense
of SR. In particular, these comments:
The absolute time proposed by Sir Newton flows forward eternally and independently, without any interference from external physical factors, and is not affected by observers. Its existence is independent of the changes of things. Whatever matter
numbers displayed on a clock. Absolute time is independent of external physical conditions and advances uniformly;.............................
Contrary to Newton's concept of independent and uniform time, in Einstein's theory, time does not operate independently, it is affected by physical factors. In Einstein's theory, time also does not pass uniformly, and its pace changes
.............................
According to Sir Newton's expression: Absolute time is pure and real time. It is mathematical time; it is the only time; it is not directly perceivable; it is inferred time. Relative time is time that can be perceived, or directly read, such as the
dilated time, and adjusted his personal watch to real time, which is not affected by gravitation at all. Einstein himself in real life still trusted absolute time instead of relative time..............................
That is said, while ancient engineer worked on clock and adjusted the clock with new level of gravitation, Einstein worked on “TIME”. Einstein pointed out that TIME was dilated by stronger gravitation. However, afterward, Einstein abandoned this
.............................
Regarding your development of a new transform, in the point (page 136): Lorenz-Jack Transformation, Direct Way
I've found mathematical errors in your equations, from 2 to 11.
I agree with 1a and 1b. They are linear transformations in a unidimensional space, which is a subset of what Voigt did in 1887:
Voigt, in 1887, used the following linear transformation. NOTE how Voigt a four dimensional relationship and NEGATIVE time
18 years before Einstein. With this transform, Voigt proved that the 3D wave equation was INVARIANT under a general linear
transformation of "spacetime".
ξ = xm₁ + yn₁ + zp₁ − αt
η = xm₂ + yn₂ + zp₂ − βt
ζ = xm₃ + yn₃ + zp₃ - γt
τ = t − (ax + by + cz)
Voigt found that the INVARIANCE required a transform factor q² = 1/(1 - χ²/ω²), the famous γ, PLUS τ = t − χ/ω² (xα₁ + yβ₁ + zγ₁) , the famous local time, NOT AFFECTED BY q.
Your equations 1a and 1b are expressed (in Voigt's terminology), as:
ξ = x' = xm₁ − αt (1a)
τ = t' = t − ax (1b)
But Voigt had a purpose to propose such linear transformations: to find out what is required for the general wave equation be
invariant under such transformations, because galilean transforms failed to verify that.
Your proposal, and further equations, lack any purpose other than to change Lorentz transforms. And this is something that has not
a physical sense (like Voigt's work had), but just a mathematical purpose to challenge Lorentz.
Your comment following (1b) contains a basic error, making x = vt for x'=0. Actually, for (1a), x = - b/a t. This implies that v = - b/a,
which solved one incognito and compromise further developments from e
"When an object in S moves at a uniform speed in the direction of the negative X axis from the origin, there is x=vt for any time t; When the object is at the origin in the S' reference frame, substitute x'=0 into (1a)"Continuing, as I posted involuntarily without finishing;
** and compromise further developments from eq. 2 to eq. 11.
Plus, if you want to analyze the inbound motion, you have to find another way to synchronize S and S', because you wrote: "At the initial moment t=t'=0, the origins of the two coordinate systems coincide."
You are forcing the synchronism in the einstenian way, but later want to analyze transforms by making S' to move over the negative
x axis, but without considering the sign minus (-), which spoil the mathematical development.
If you try again, with more precision, maybe you will reach to some point. Synchronize S' being it far away in the negative axis, then make it come to x = 0, to see if basic equations change.
Don't forget a physical purpose for your transforms, as Voigt did.
This is as far as I can come for now.
I don't knnow where you got this idea. Einstein clearly calculoated that
the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving system. Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:13:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:45:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:m, not universally (not
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
yet)).
An aetherist reading the paper in 1905 would mentally earmark this fixed system as the one in which "Maxwell's equations hold good".
Of course Einstein does not say that as he is about to demonstrate that the Lorentz transformation can be derived without referring to either aether or Maxwell's equations.
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c
in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
I don't knnow where you got this idea.
Einstein clearly calculoated that
the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving system.
Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:43:48 AM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:13:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:45:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:m, not universally (not
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
yet)).
An aetherist reading the paper in 1905 would mentally earmark this fixed
system as the one in which "Maxwell's equations hold good".
Of course Einstein does not say that as he is about to demonstrate that
the Lorentz transformation can be derived without referring to either aether or Maxwell's equations.
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is equal to
that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
I don't knnow where you got this idea.From Einstein's paper (p. 46 of the Dover edition, after he says "we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light ia compatible with the principle of relativity". IOW, that P2 holds not only for that one system fixed in the beginning
of Section 1 (p.38).
Einstein clearly calculoated thatDifferent times, yes. Only that.
the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving system.
Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.P2 only says the speeds are the same AND equal to c in a certain
single, fixed, system. In other systems it's only assumed the AB-BA
times are equal. It's later PROVED that that speed is also c in other systems.
--It is certainly beginning to look like that. It appears we have to switch off reason during
Jan
some of the relativistic calculations, reason is compressed, reason is contracted.
Light going from A to B, let's say, between the walls of a moving train.
For a train at rest, AB/t = c
============[A_____________B]=============
Suppose the train was moving. Then we would have, in the track frame, if the train is moving with velocity v,
the velocity of light, if we use Newtonian physics, to be (AB+vt)/t. Calculated, not reality.
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:13:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:45:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:m, not universally (not
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
yet)).
An aetherist reading the paper in 1905 would mentally earmark this fixed system as the one in which "Maxwell's equations hold good".
Of course Einstein does not say that as he is about to demonstrate that the Lorentz transformation can be derived without referring to either aether or Maxwell's equations.
The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
I don't knnow where you got this idea.From Einstein's paper (p. 46 of the Dover edition, after he says "we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light ia compatible with the principle of relativity".
IOW, that P2 holds not only for that one system fixed in the beginning
of Section 1 (p.38).
Einstein clearly calculoated thatDifferent times, yes. Only that.
the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving system.
Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.P2 only says the speeds are the same AND equal to c in a certain
single, fixed, system. In other systems it's only assumed the AB-BA
times are equal. It's later PROVED that that speed is also c in other systems.
--
Jan
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
I don't knnow where you got this idea. Einstein clearly calculoated
that the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the
moving system. Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.
Crank,
c+v and c-v are closing speeds. You are too stupid to recognize that
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 18:03:14 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
I don't knnow where you got this idea. Einstein clearly calculoated
that the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the
moving system. Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.
ImbecileCrank,
c+v and c-v are closing speeds. You are too stupid to recognize thatWell you should dig up Einstein and tell him. They are his figures.
--
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:13:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:
Einstein clearly calculated that the light would take different times,
AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving system.
Different times, yes. Only that.
Only his postulate said the speeds should be the same.
P2 only says the speeds are the same AND equal to c in a certain single, fixed, system. In other systems it's only assumed the AB-BA times are
equal. It's later PROVED that that speed is also c in other systems.
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary clocks)'.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot...
It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary clocks)'.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary clocks)'.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
You just added lying to your imbecility.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its
clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver
they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:17:06 -0700 (PDT), Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
You just added lying to your imbecility.Really? Pleasse explain. Have you not read his paper?
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be considered.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be considered.
You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
WEAK, GULLIBLE AND RETARDED MINDS LIKE YOURS, PHYTON, ARE EASILY CONFUSED
BY THE GOBBLEDYGOOK OF THE MASTER SERPENT, THE COBRA EINSTEIN.
READ CAREFULLY §1 AND §2. MAYBE (BUT I DOUBT IT), YOU'LL REALIZE THE SOPHISM,
THE DECEPTIONS BY WHICH THE CRETIN DID YOU (MANY TIMES, AND YOU LIKED IT).
THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM §2. TRANSLATE IT TO FRENCH, IMBECILE.
***************************************
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.”
We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for
the synchronization of two clocks.
***************************************
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >>>> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >>>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >>>> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >>>>>> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >>>>>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >>>>>> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>> clocks)'.
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger. >>>
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at
speed c minus v relative to another frame"
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >>>> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >>>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >>>> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>> clocks)'.
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Again you can't give a substantive reply. how is it confused to assert that all velocities are additive?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:You are confused too.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>> clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/ >> This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Einstein was confused. Relativity is confused. It is full of countless logical fallacies. Einstein frequently engaged in illogical statements, including circular reasoning, ad hoc fallacy, and nonsequiturs. Relativists are endlessly practicing ad
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:You are confused too.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>> clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/ >> This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are >> additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
You are confused too.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:48:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
Reasserting Lorentz transformation equations is senseless.
Le 28/04/2023 à 17:51, Python a écrit :
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are
additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
You are confused too.It's when you see some posts like this that you understand the incredible damage you can cause by insulting everyone, and by spoiling the debates.
All my equations, all my concepts are logical and easy to understand.
But instead of advertising it, you've been spitting on it for decades.
That's crazy.
And today what do we notice?
That even on big American forums poor guys don't even know the general addition law of relativistic speeds, and are very close to saying that if
a train is traveling at v, and send a signal to c in front of it, the
signal will move to w=v+c
But you should cry, Jean-Pierre.
Bon, je remets mon équation pour la 567° fois ici.
Je sens que j'ai pas fini de la reposter encore et encore.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?R7b6omhEcqSYGEqaKkspnH-QZsE@jntp/Data.Media:1>
R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=R7b6omhEcqSYGEqaKkspnH-QZsE@jntp>Calling someone confused is not insulting. Criticisms are not insulting. Being offended easily is stupid. If a siren is sounded on a moving train its speed is the speed of sound plus that of the train and the same thing goes for light according to
Le 28/04/2023 à 20:25, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :I must say that I find the defenders of relativity a waste of time.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:48:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
Reasserting Lorentz transformation equations is senseless.Non, non.
R.H.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:59 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Again you can't give a substantive reply. how is it confused to assert that all velocities are additive?
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:You are confused too.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >>>>>>>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>>>> clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, >>>>>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>>>> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/ >>>> This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in >>>> our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >>>> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Einstein was confused. Relativity is confused. It is full of countless logical fallacies. Einstein frequently engaged in illogical statements, including circular reasoning, ad hoc fallacy, and nonsequiturs. Relativists are endlessly practicing adverrecundium or appeal to authority.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >>>> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >>>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >>>> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>> clocks)'.
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at speed c minus v relative to another frame"
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:30:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 28/04/2023 à 20:25, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:48:27 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
Reasserting Lorentz transformation equations is senseless.Non, non.
R.H.I must say that I find the defenders of relativity a waste of time.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>> clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (inCorrect. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at speed c minus v relative to another frame"
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>> clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/ >> This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >>>>>> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >>>>>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >>>>>> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>> clocks)'.
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger. >>>
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at
speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >>>>>>>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>>>> clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, >>>>>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>>>> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/ >>>> This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in >>>> our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >>>> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Closing speeds are relative speeds as for example two cars going 60 mph in opposite directions crash a 120 mph.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:The point is that they are not *relative* speeds.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks >>>>>> considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, >>>>>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>>>> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in >>>> our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >>>> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Relative speeds are real speeds.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:The point is that they are not *relative* speeds.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks >>>>>> considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, >>>>>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>>>> considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in >>>> our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >>>> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Relative speeds are real speeds.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:The point is that they are not *relative* speeds.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not >>>> denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e. >>>>>>>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks >>>>>>>> considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. >>>>>>>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, >>>>>>>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be >>>>>>>> considered.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary >>>>>>>>>> clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in >>>>>> our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at >>>>>> speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not
denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
The opposite of apparent speed.Relative speeds are real speeds.I can define closing speed, I can define relative speed.
Define "real speed".
On 4/29/2023 9:09 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not
denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.Closing speeds are not the speeds of anything. They are the
difference/sum of the speeds of two things observed by a third
reference. Such as if I observe the speed of light coming from my left
and the speed of light coming from my right, they have a closing speed
of 2c (the distance between them decreases by 2 light seconds per second from my reference) but nothing is actually moving at 2c. Same for light
and an object moving at v, there will be a closing speed of c+v or c-v,
but nothing is moving at those speeds.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The opposite of apparent speed.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:I can define closing speed, I can define relative speed.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Relative speeds are real speeds.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:The point is that they are not *relative* speeds.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not >>>> denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks >>>>>>>> considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones. >>>>>>>>>>>Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do. >>>>>>>> You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, >>>>>>>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at
speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
Define "real speed".
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:I can define closing speed, I can define relative speed.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Relative speeds are real speeds.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:The point is that they are not *relative* speeds.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not >>>> denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks >>>>>>>> considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones. >>>>>>>>>>>Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do. >>>>>>>> You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, >>>>>>>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at
speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
Define "real speed".
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:47:25 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:They would not be moving at a closing speed if the light shared the velocity of the source contradicting the second postulate.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:16:21 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:I can define closing speed, I can define relative speed.
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Relative speeds are real speeds.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 6:00:01 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:The point is that they are not *relative* speeds.
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:Yes they are closing speeds. And they are closing speeds within the same frame of reference. They are real and not apparent speeds.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:33:40 PM UTC+5, Python wrote: >>>>>> gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:This is just blatantly false. c-v or c+v in Einstein's article are not
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks >>>>>>>> considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones. >>>>>>>>>>>Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do. >>>>>>>> You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:
"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at
speed c minus v relative to another frame"
Typical of many confusing and illiterate accounts of Special Relativity don't you agree?
denoting light speed in any sort of frame of reference. They are
closing speeds between light and a moving object.
Define "real speed".These are different?
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:You are describing the unproven second postulate where the light does not share the velocity of the source contrary to everything else in existence including sound in air. The closing and separation speeds are real speeds of light differing from c and
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.Lying crank,
In the frame of the embankments light "closes" onto the rear wall (so there is closing speed) and chases the forward wall (so there is separation speed).
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:54:54 PM UTC+5, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
him in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is
written in plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his
method 'the moving clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame
(with the stationary clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its
clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver
they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.
Is this setup correct?
BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the
messenger.
https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/
You are describing the unproven second postulate where the light does
not share the velocity of the source contrary to everything else in
existence including sound in air.
[... further nonsense showing he does not understand basic physics
at all]
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:54:54 AM UTC-3, Python wrote:
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him >> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in >> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving >> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
clocks)'.
Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)
Page 4:
#####
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.”
#####
WEAK, GULLIBLE AND RETARDED MINDS LIKE YOURS, PHYTON, ARE EASILY CONFUSEDThis is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e. they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod, *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be considered.
BY THE GOBBLEDYGOOK OF THE MASTER SERPENT, THE COBRA EINSTEIN.
READ CAREFULLY §1 AND §2. MAYBE (BUT I DOUBT IT), YOU'LL REALIZE THE SOPHISM,
THE DECEPTIONS BY WHICH THE CRETIN DID YOU (MANY TIMES, AND YOU LIKED IT).
THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM §2. TRANSLATE IT TO FRENCH, IMBECILE.
***************************************
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.”
We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for
the synchronization of two clocks.
***************************************
YOU'RE THE EPITOME OF A RETARDED RELATIVIST, CLOSE TO DONO AND JANPB.
On 4/29/23 10:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
You are describing the unproven second postulate where the light doesA) One cannot "prove" anything in physics. One can only make
not share the velocity of the source contrary to everything else in existence including sound in air.
theories and test them. SR has been abundantly tested and
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.Lying crank,
In the frame of the embankments light "closes" onto the rear wall (so there is closing speed) and chases the forward wall (so there is separation speed).
On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 07:42:01 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/29/23 10:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
You are describing the unproven second postulate where the light doesA) One cannot "prove" anything in physics. One can only make
not share the velocity of the source contrary to everything else in
existence including sound in air.
theories and test them. SR has been abundantly tested and
and forbidden by it improper clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:26:47 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.Lying crank,
In the frame of the embankments light "closes" onto the rear wall (so there is closing speed) and chases the forward wall (so there is separation speed).this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File:Traincar_Relativity2.svg
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:01:16 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:26:47 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.Lying crank,
In the frame of the embankments light "closes" onto the rear wall (so there is closing speed) and chases the forward wall (so there is separation speed).this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File:Traincar_Relativity2.svg
Yes,
Why don't you take a break from posting your imbecilities and start studying (as you claimed to be doing)?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:55 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:01:16 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:26:47 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:this
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.Lying crank,
In the frame of the embankments light "closes" onto the rear wall (so there is closing speed) and chases the forward wall (so there is separation speed).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File:Traincar_Relativity2.svg
Yes,
Why don't you take a break from posting your imbecilities and start studying (as you claimed to be doing)?
It look like an imbecility to call closing speed and relative speed different. What do I do with that?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:55 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:01:16 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:26:47 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.Lying crank,
In the frame of the embankments light "closes" onto the rear wall (so there is closing speed) and chases the forward wall (so there is separation speed).this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File:Traincar_Relativity2.svg
Yes,
Why don't you take a break from posting your imbecilities and start studying (as you claimed to be doing)?It look like an imbecility to call closing speed and relative speed different. What do I do with that?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:14:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 9:13:55 PM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:01:16 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:26:47 AM UTC+5, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:24:56 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It is funny how the walls of a train are not considered moving at a 'closing speed' relative to the 'ray of light'.Lying crank,
In the frame of the embankments light "closes" onto the rear wall (so there is closing speed) and chases the forward wall (so there is separation speed).this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File:Traincar_Relativity2.svg
Yes,
You admit that you are a cretin. That is the first step.Why don't you take a break from posting your imbecilities and start studying (as you claimed to be doing)?It look like an imbecility to call closing speed and relative speed different. What do I do with that?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 34:12:54 |
Calls: | 6,950 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,397 |
Messages: | 5,441,780 |