• Re: Why relativity theory really is utterly stupid.

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Aug 19 22:00:51 2023
    On Saturday, 19 August 2023 at 23:19:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Paul Alsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:25:37?PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:

    "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get
    him out of the subject he was educated."
    - Mark Twain

    Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers...

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/
    That applies primarily to Americans.
    European academics, and German ones in particular,
    tried to adhere to 'Das Bildungsideal' (after Von Humboldt)

    A university professor was supposed to be a cultured man,
    in the first place.
    (and only a subject specialist only in the second)

    In other words, professors were supposed and required
    to have general cultural awareness and knowledge,

    And communists were supposed to be humble
    servants of working people, poor halfbrain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 14:06:52 2023
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory. When a
    sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind
    formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to JanPB on Thu Aug 24 14:25:17 2023
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:56:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:

    c) Who do not understand relativity, but think that they do, and in consequence have an unshakeable belief that there something wrong with it.

    The (c)-type is common in life in general, not only in relativity or even science
    in general. Newton and Goethe and many others wrote about this already centuries ago (namely the fact that the least knowledgeable are frequently the most sure of themselves).

    --
    Jan

    Scarce have I taken my position here
    When there behind I see a guest appear.
    I know him, he is of the school newfounded,
    And his presumption will be quite unbounded.
    -- Goethe, Faust

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 19:37:10 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.

    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.

    No, false.

    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.

    Not even wrong.

    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.

    It's impossible to explain anything to you because you don't have
    any basics in physics. You just post gobbledygook and assume
    that the fact that things don't make sense to you imply there is
    something wrong with them.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 22:45:21 2023
    On 8/24/2023 5:06 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.

    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.

    No, there isn't. Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations completely differently than how Lorentz did. He did not involve any ether, just as
    he stated at the beginning of the SR paper.

    Since he discards the ether wind,

    The entire ether.

    they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.

    Correct.

    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless.

    What does that have anything to do with anything? You may as well have
    used the speed of a racehorse on a racetrack 1000 miles away instead.
    The ether wind is NEVER involved in Einstein's theory so it will NEVER
    be included in the formula, not even as zeroes.

    (why do cranks keep digging up the grave of the ether?)

    The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind formula without using zeros.

    He didn't use the ether at all. Just like he said he wouldn't.

    Kindly explain.

    You are just very, very confused.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to JanPB on Thu Aug 24 19:45:29 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:37:11 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.

    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    No, false.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Not even wrong.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    It's impossible to explain anything to you because you don't have
    any basics in physics. You just post gobbledygook and assume
    that the fact that things don't make sense to you imply there is
    something wrong with them.

    --
    Jan
    Who made you the explainer jan?
    Go back to your education.
    There is a reason to question it.
    Your teachers never supplied
    the whole truth. Just enough
    for bias through you to continue...
    authority is the problem and
    it comes through education.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 20:11:21 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory. When a
    sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind
    formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula, and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas. Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 02:59:04 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory. When
    a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind
    formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,

    Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he treats ether as a linear medium.

    and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.

    Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas.
    He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and
    without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).

    Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.

    There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper
    does not use ether at all.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Aug 25 03:08:36 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:45:31 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:37:11 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.

    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    No, false.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Not even wrong.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
    ether wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    It's impossible to explain anything to you because you don't have
    any basics in physics. You just post gobbledygook and assume
    that the fact that things don't make sense to you imply there is
    something wrong with them.

    --
    Jan
    Who made you the explainer jan?

    I am not any "explainer" but I can see clearly that Laurence cannot
    ever get anywhere with his quest. And this is something that cannot be
    shown to him because any such demonstration requires more
    knowledge on his part that's available to him.

    There is no way out of this conundrum except by his making the decision
    to stop pretending and learning the stuff he is interested in. Daydreaming
    and deluding oneself will lead nowhere.

    Go back to your education.
    There is a reason to question it.
    Your teachers never supplied
    the whole truth.

    There we go again with amateurs assuming experts simply
    repeat what they were told. Where does this silly myth come from?
    TV soaps?

    Just enough
    for bias through you to continue...

    Again the standard crank line that knowledge is bias.

    authority is the problem and
    it comes through education.

    Oh stop it, it's nonsense.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Aug 25 13:44:28 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,
    Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he treats ether as a linear medium.
    and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas.
    He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and
    without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
    Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
    There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper
    does not use ether at all.

    --
    Jan
    He still had the same formulas. This is an accepted fact. Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result. Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether, which is
    undeniably what Einstein did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 17:15:08 2023
    On 8/25/2023 4:44 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,
    Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
    treats ether as a linear medium.
    and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas.
    He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and
    without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties). >>> Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
    There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper
    does not use ether at all.

    --
    Jan
    He still had the same formulas. This is an accepted fact.

    The end Lorentz space contraction/time dilation formulas, correct.

    Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.

    And Lorentz was wrong about that.

    Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether, which is undeniably what Einstein did.

    Again, how could he have an ether wind formula when he explicitly worked without any ether? Let's discuss the latest weather report for the moon
    while we're at it.

    Oh, state this "ether wind formula" which Einstein derived. If you can.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 14:56:25 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:44:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,
    Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he treats ether as a linear medium.
    and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas.
    He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
    Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
    There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper
    does not use ether at all.

    --
    Jan
    He still had the same formulas.

    Yes but those formulas (which happened to be the same) were derived by
    Einstein using methods that did not assume ether. So in Einstein's paper the formulas are not "ether wind formulas".

    It happens frequently that the same formula can be derived by different
    means. For example, the Sagnac delay formula looks the same (except for
    the time dilation factor) whether derived by Galilean or relativistic means, the Schwarzschild radius formula can be derived by Newtonian methods
    (as was done by Laplace), etc.

    I'm surprised that such obvious points would require elucidation.

    This is an accepted fact.

    Yes but they are derived completely differently and without using ether.
    Hence, they are not "ether wind derived" in Einstein's 1905 paper. They
    only happen to be the same but in principle Einstein's method could
    have yielded a different formula.

    Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.

    Yes. And Einstein did no such thing, he derived a formula (which ended up
    being the same) from certain fundamental kinematical considerations only.

    Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,

    In Einstein's paper the Lorentz transformation is not "kept", it's derived.
    And it's not "ether wind formula" because ether is not used in the derivation.

    You are being misled by the formal identity of the transformation in
    Lorentz and Einstein's theories. It's like saying that Schwarzschild's
    formula for his radius was a "Newtonian mechanics formula" (hence
    inconsistent) simply because the same formula can be derived that way.

    which is undeniably what Einstein did.

    Einstein did not use ether in his derivation, so there is no "ether wind" in it. The fact that his formula ends up being the same as Lorentz's is,
    from the general perspective, merely a coincidence.

    All of the above is basic science, I find it amazing that this sort of
    thing can be considered a debatable point by an adult employing just
    common sense logic and mundane life experience.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Aug 25 20:38:24 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:56:27 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:44:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,
    Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
    treats ether as a linear medium.
    and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas. He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
    Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
    There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper does not use ether at all.

    --
    Jan
    He still had the same formulas.
    Yes but those formulas (which happened to be the same) were derived by Einstein using methods that did not assume ether. So in Einstein's paper the formulas are not "ether wind formulas".

    It happens frequently that the same formula can be derived by different means. For example, the Sagnac delay formula looks the same (except for
    the time dilation factor) whether derived by Galilean or relativistic means, the Schwarzschild radius formula can be derived by Newtonian methods
    (as was done by Laplace), etc.

    I'm surprised that such obvious points would require elucidation.
    This is an accepted fact.
    Yes but they are derived completely differently and without using ether. Hence, they are not "ether wind derived" in Einstein's 1905 paper. They
    only happen to be the same but in principle Einstein's method could
    have yielded a different formula.
    Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.
    Yes. And Einstein did no such thing, he derived a formula (which ended up being the same) from certain fundamental kinematical considerations only.
    Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,
    In Einstein's paper the Lorentz transformation is not "kept", it's derived. And it's not "ether wind formula" because ether is not used in the derivation.

    You are being misled by the formal identity of the transformation in
    Lorentz and Einstein's theories. It's like saying that Schwarzschild's formula for his radius was a "Newtonian mechanics formula" (hence inconsistent) simply because the same formula can be derived that way.
    which is undeniably what Einstein did.
    Einstein did not use ether in his derivation, so there is no "ether wind" in it. The fact that his formula ends up being the same as Lorentz's is,
    from the general perspective, merely a coincidence.

    All of the above is basic science, I find it amazing that this sort of
    thing can be considered a debatable point by an adult employing just
    common sense logic and mundane life experience.

    --
    Jan
    It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing. Amazing, you can't understand that. The point is, there is no use for it without an ether. Therefore that is ridiculous of relativity. Relativity is utterly ridiculous. There is no other
    purpose for it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 20:52:44 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:38:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:56:27 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:44:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his
    theory. When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
    ether wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,
    Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
    treats ether as a linear medium.
    and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas. He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
    Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
    There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper does not use ether at all.

    --
    Jan
    He still had the same formulas.
    Yes but those formulas (which happened to be the same) were derived by Einstein using methods that did not assume ether. So in Einstein's paper the
    formulas are not "ether wind formulas".

    It happens frequently that the same formula can be derived by different means. For example, the Sagnac delay formula looks the same (except for the time dilation factor) whether derived by Galilean or relativistic means,
    the Schwarzschild radius formula can be derived by Newtonian methods
    (as was done by Laplace), etc.

    I'm surprised that such obvious points would require elucidation.
    This is an accepted fact.
    Yes but they are derived completely differently and without using ether. Hence, they are not "ether wind derived" in Einstein's 1905 paper. They only happen to be the same but in principle Einstein's method could
    have yielded a different formula.
    Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.
    Yes. And Einstein did no such thing, he derived a formula (which ended up being the same) from certain fundamental kinematical considerations only.
    Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,
    In Einstein's paper the Lorentz transformation is not "kept", it's derived.
    And it's not "ether wind formula" because ether is not used in the derivation.

    You are being misled by the formal identity of the transformation in Lorentz and Einstein's theories. It's like saying that Schwarzschild's formula for his radius was a "Newtonian mechanics formula" (hence inconsistent) simply because the same formula can be derived that way.
    which is undeniably what Einstein did.
    Einstein did not use ether in his derivation, so there is no "ether wind" in
    it. The fact that his formula ends up being the same as Lorentz's is,
    from the general perspective, merely a coincidence.

    All of the above is basic science, I find it amazing that this sort of thing can be considered a debatable point by an adult employing just common sense logic and mundane life experience.

    --
    Jan
    It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing. Amazing, you can't understand that. The point is, there is no use for it without an ether. Therefore that is ridiculous of relativity. Relativity is utterly ridiculous. There is no other
    purpose for it.

    Relativity vs absolute? their difference cannot be measured.
    Where could space go to if the universe is only expanding?
    Rate is a different story. Rate can slow and then it can speed
    back up. Time requires Gamma for space travel's reality.
    Einstein became an Aether scientist in the 1920's
    He said it was absolutely necessary as his space time
    immaterial.

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Aug 26 11:11:56 2023
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    "Relativists
    are the best logicians but only as long as the logic supports their weird theory. The
    minute logic appears to confront their weird theory; they turn themselves into the
    weirdest thinkers and overthrow even the most straight forward logic. Another trait
    of relativists is that they can be both stupid and intelligent at the same time just like
    the Schrodinger’s cat which is both dead and alive at the same time.(So relativists
    while arguing for relativity are actually proving the quantum theory!)" - "Photon clock and the maya of time dilation"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Aug 26 12:29:57 2023
    On August 19, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    "There is no one so stupid as an educated man, once you get
    him out of the subject he was educated."

    Oops... apparently it was authored by Will Rogers...
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/04/25/educated/

    That applies primarily to Americans.
    European academics, and German ones in particular,
    tried to adhere to 'Das Bildungsideal' (after Von Humboldt)
    A university professor was supposed to be a cultured man,
    in the first place.
    (and only a subject specialist only in the second)
    In other words, professors were supposed and required
    to have general cultural awareness and knowledge, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_education>

    uh huh
    Germans smart, americans dumb.

    Kurt Godel, who sits on everybody's list of Certified Jeenyuses,
    was a German (racially) professor, and presumably man of
    culture. Making regular visits to Berlin for the opera and philharmonic.

    He stated that intelligence could not be the result of blind,
    random evolution, but had to come from... somewhere else.
    He was vague on the specifics of that elsewhere.

    Godel was a cultured intellectual, not a blowhard, who always
    knew what he was talking about, unlike those Texas cowboys.
    Therefore Darwin was wrong, and evolution refuted.
    QED

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Aug 26 13:47:35 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:38:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:56:27 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:44:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:59:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:11:23 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.
    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.
    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his
    theory. When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
    ether wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain.
    Contrary to the denials, Lorentz included an ether wind formula,
    Nobody is denying this, stop making stuff up. It's in Lorentz's paper, he
    treats ether as a linear medium.
    and as everyone accepts, Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Nobody "accepts" it because Einstein did not "keep" the same formulas. He derived them from scratch using a completely different method and without assuming ether's existence (let alone its dielectric properties).
    Using an ether wind formula meant to measure the ether wind is stupid when Einstein had no ether at all.
    There is no "ether wind formula" in Einstein's 1905 paper. His paper does not use ether at all.

    --
    Jan
    He still had the same formulas.
    Yes but those formulas (which happened to be the same) were derived by Einstein using methods that did not assume ether. So in Einstein's paper the
    formulas are not "ether wind formulas".

    It happens frequently that the same formula can be derived by different means. For example, the Sagnac delay formula looks the same (except for the time dilation factor) whether derived by Galilean or relativistic means,
    the Schwarzschild radius formula can be derived by Newtonian methods
    (as was done by Laplace), etc.

    I'm surprised that such obvious points would require elucidation.
    This is an accepted fact.
    Yes but they are derived completely differently and without using ether. Hence, they are not "ether wind derived" in Einstein's 1905 paper. They only happen to be the same but in principle Einstein's method could
    have yielded a different formula.
    Lorentz necessarily included one for saving the ether from the null result.
    Yes. And Einstein did no such thing, he derived a formula (which ended up being the same) from certain fundamental kinematical considerations only.
    Your responses are pointless. It is stupid to keep using the same ether wind formula without an ether,
    In Einstein's paper the Lorentz transformation is not "kept", it's derived.
    And it's not "ether wind formula" because ether is not used in the derivation.

    You are being misled by the formal identity of the transformation in Lorentz and Einstein's theories. It's like saying that Schwarzschild's formula for his radius was a "Newtonian mechanics formula" (hence inconsistent) simply because the same formula can be derived that way.
    which is undeniably what Einstein did.
    Einstein did not use ether in his derivation, so there is no "ether wind" in
    it. The fact that his formula ends up being the same as Lorentz's is,
    from the general perspective, merely a coincidence.

    All of the above is basic science, I find it amazing that this sort of thing can be considered a debatable point by an adult employing just common sense logic and mundane life experience.

    --
    Jan
    It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing.

    You miss the point: the formula in Einstein's paper is derived without
    assuming ether, by completely different means than Lorentz's method.
    The fact that the formula Einstein obtains ends up looking as Lorentz's
    does not mean its derivation uses the same assumptions. This is
    elementary logic.

    Again, the formula for the Schwarzschild radius (obtained from his
    metric in GR) is identical to a formula Laplace obtained by simple
    Newtonian considerations regarding light's "escape velocity".
    According to your illogic, Schwarzschild used Newtonian mechanics
    to derive his formula, hence it's "incorrect" because "Newtonian
    gravity is mathematically incompatible with GR".

    Your claim is logical nonsense.

    Amazing, you can't understand that.

    There is nothing to "understand" in nonsense.

    The point is, there is no use for it without an ether.

    What "it" are you talking about? The Lorentz transformation? Of course
    there is an obvious use of it without ether. You are deteriorating.

    Therefore that is ridiculous of relativity. Relativity is utterly ridiculous. There is no other purpose for it.

    Not even wrong. Also an infantile tantrum.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Aug 26 15:51:53 2023
    On 8/25/23 10:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    [equations of LET and equations of SR] It is exactly the same formula
    and does exactly the same thing.

    Nope. In LET, the Lorentz transform describes the transform from the
    ether rest frame to a moving frame. In SR the Lorentz transform
    describes the transform from ANY inertial frame to ANY inertial frame.

    Apparently you cannot tell the difference between "the ether rest frame"
    and "any inertial frame". How stupid.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Aug 26 13:56:11 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 11:11:59 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 8:27:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    a.) Lorentz formulated his transformation formulas to save the ether from the null result.

    That's a Procrustean way of putting it but at least not entirely incorrect.

    b.) Einstein discarded the ether yet kept the formulas which no longer had any purpose.

    There is no "yet" here. Einstein discarded ether and derived certain formulas without
    using it. Those formulas happen to be the same as Lorentz's. This sort of thing happens in life sometimes. It doesn't imply a causal link. Get over it.

    c.) That they have no purpose is clear because the calculation for the ether wind is entirely different from any calculation Einstein would need for his second postulate.

    There is no ether (let alone ether wind) in Einstein's derivation.

    "Relativists
    are the best logicians but only as long as the logic supports their weird theory. The
    minute logic appears to confront their weird theory;

    You can stop right here because the last sentence (and thus the rest of the quoted remark) assumes a falsehood: that logic appears to confront
    relativity.

    they turn themselves into the
    weirdest thinkers and overthrow even the most straight forward logic.

    False. You merely don't understand this theory. Get over it and move on.
    It's not the end of the world. For example, I don't understand Chinese,
    yet I'm perfectly capable of staying away from Chinese Internet forums and
    I don't post there how stupid the Chinese language is. Amazing, innit?

    Try behaving like an adult sometime, you may like it, actually. Those
    incessant childish fantasies only make you look like a flake.

    Another trait
    of relativists is that they can be both stupid and intelligent at the same time just like
    the Schrodinger’s

    It's spelled "Schroedinger". You cannot just remove the Umlaut, it's bad for your complexion.

    cat which is both dead and alive at the same time.(So relativists
    while arguing for relativity are actually proving the quantum theory!)" - "Photon clock and the maya of time dilation"

    Gobbledygook.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Aug 26 13:57:57 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:52:07 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/25/23 10:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    [equations of LET and equations of SR] It is exactly the same formula
    and does exactly the same thing.
    Nope. In LET, the Lorentz transform describes the transform from the
    ether rest frame to a moving frame. In SR the Lorentz transform
    describes the transform from ANY inertial frame to ANY inertial frame.

    Something tells me this explanation will go way over somebody's head.

    Apparently you cannot tell the difference between "the ether rest frame"
    and "any inertial frame". How stupid.

    I think the root problem with Laurence is both much deeper and much simpler.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Aug 26 15:00:52 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:57:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:52:07 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/25/23 10:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    [equations of LET and equations of SR] It is exactly the same formula and does exactly the same thing.
    Nope. In LET, the Lorentz transform describes the transform from the
    ether rest frame to a moving frame. In SR the Lorentz transform
    describes the transform from ANY inertial frame to ANY inertial frame.
    Something tells me this explanation will go way over somebody's head.
    Apparently you cannot tell the difference between "the ether rest frame" and "any inertial frame". How stupid.
    I think the root problem with Laurence is both much deeper and much simpler.

    --
    Jan

    Einstein didn't need relativity. He proposed an alternative motion theory
    as an addendum paper in 1905. Closing velocity theory does not
    have the contradictions relativity has. Einstein is going to win not by relativity but by his alternative.

    Mitchell Raemsch

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