On 26-Aug-23 9:15 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

Neither of these were the starting point for the derivation of special relativity. You do not advance your position by engaging in historical revisionism.

Sylvia.

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

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

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

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

This is not what relativity is derived from. You are fighting not
relativity in your posts but figments of your imagination.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They are not lies.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

Not even wrong. Why do you waste your time on this hobby? Can't you
devote your time to something you can be good at?

--
Jan

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

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

Contrary to the above lies of those claiming to be mathematicians, the formulas are all based on these two lies, which Einstein attributes to Maxwell's equations.

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

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:34:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

Contrary to the above lies of those claiming to be mathematicians, the formulas are all based on these two lies, which Einstein attributes to Maxwell's equations.

Gamma replaces old physics.. for instance it by math slows time and gives kinetic energy.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

One of many more than two lies. This one concerning the "derivation" of Lorentz transforms, which involve A CONCEPTUAL
VIOLATION OF INFINITESIMAL VALUES in calculus.

When the cretin applies derivates in

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former

***********************************************************
1/2 [τ(0,0,0,t) + τ(0,0,0,t + x'/(c - v) + x'/(c + v)] = τ[ (x',0,0,t + x'/(c-v)]

Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small, ***********************************************************

He LIED in plain sight, because the average wavelength of white light is 550 nm, NOT ZERO.

So, for x' being infinitesimally small, it implied that the light going forth and back on the magic mirrors HAD TO HAVE
ZERO WAVELENGTH, not an average of 0,55 micrometers.

Then, subsequent mathematical manipulations ARE FALSE, NOT VALID. Even the "thought experiment" should have had (at least)
ONE WAVELENGTH bouncing back, to PRESERVE the base equation, written just three (3) lines above:

1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁

This, alone, would serve to invalidate the entire development of § 3.

But people were, and are, IDIOTS/IGNORANT/ACCOMPLICES in the divulgation of this lame paper, starting with Planck, Wien and Froste.

Not to mention Lorentz, who made much more things of this type on his career, in particular since 1890.

But we live IN A WORLD OF LIES, DECEPTION, CORRUPTION AND CRIMES of any conceivable kind.

So, why not? Let the relativists play with these equations and further derivations, while the world of physics and astronomy is
becoming more and more rotten and deviated.

The above claim, as I wrote once, should have had established a lower limit of applicability of SR in lengths (and time as well).

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

JanPB wrote:

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

This is not what relativity is derived from. You are fighting not
relativity in your posts but figments of your imagination.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They are not lies.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

Not even wrong. Why do you waste your time on this hobby? Can't you
devote your time to something you can be good at?

--
Jan

Jan, you obvisouly have no understanding of the word..."hobby". It is not something one does
because they are good at it...it is something one does for...relaxation.

And if one does something that they are not good at...and continue, they can get good at it.


Do you have any hobbies that you're ...good at? Like collecting stamps, and putting it in a stamp album
one by one, are you good at that?



Jan is a sick person, isn't she?


The question I have that I don't know the answer to is...what kind of sickness is it?


Maybe Jan would be kind enough and tell everyone here what kind of sickness she suffers from?


Is it UpSyndrome? I sense it's someee rareee sicknesss.


Inquring minds want to know...



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:34:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

Contrary to the above lies of those claiming to be mathematicians, the formulas are all based on these two lies, which Einstein attributes to Maxwell's equations.

False. Einstein's 1905 paper is based on different postulates than the ones
you posted. This is very easily demonstrated by looking at the paper, anyone can do it easily and compare what you wrote to what's in the paper. So why do you even bother? If you need lies to sustain you so desperately, at least invent
something that's a bit harder to disprove. This one is trivial to nuke.

Also, the entire point of Einstein's paper is that he showed that Lorentz's results could be derived WITHOUT relying on Maxwell's equations. He only
quotes them to show that his postulates do not contradict them.

Again, very easy to prove that the actual facts are literally the opposite of what you claim.

--
Jan

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

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.

THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.

They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.

One of many more than two lies. This one concerning the "derivation" of Lorentz transforms, which involve A CONCEPTUAL
VIOLATION OF INFINITESIMAL VALUES in calculus.

Uh-oh, there we go again with the supposed "calculus problem" that's been popping up on this NG since 1995. I lost count how many times already.

It's amazing that people who are so completely ignorant of simple mathematics would even ever consider critiquing this (or any other) physics paper.

When the cretin applies derivates in

Your emotional insecurity and inferiority complex is showing when you
label someone who is head and shoulders above you as "cretin".

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former

***********************************************************
1/2 [τ(0,0,0,t) + τ(0,0,0,t + x'/(c - v) + x'/(c + v)] = τ[ (x',0,0,t + x'/(c-v)]

Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small, ***********************************************************

He LIED in plain sight, because the average wavelength of white light is 550 nm, NOT ZERO.

Good grief, one doesn't even know where to start with your complete ignorance. Let me count the ways:

1. In calculus, the quaint phrase "choosing infinitesimally small" means two things:

(a) the quantity in question is NEVER set to be equal to the stated limit (zero in this case),

(b) the values of the expression in question (the formulas for tau) obey a certain
precise pattern (specified exactly in the definition of the concept of limits of
functions).

None of the above involves setting the variable (here: x') to the required value (here: zero).

So, for x' being infinitesimally small, it implied that the light going forth and back on the magic mirrors HAD TO HAVE
ZERO WAVELENGTH, not an average of 0,55 micrometers.

False. You simply don't understand simple calculus. The rest of your objection is rendered useless at this point as it's based on a false assumption.

Incidentally, the formulas for x' are easily derived from the 1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁ one
by a simple piece of algebra, calculus is not needed here at all. Einstein used calculus simply because it yields the result faster than using the simple algebra.

Then, subsequent mathematical manipulations ARE FALSE, NOT VALID.

Nonsense and dreamland. Fix your emotional problems, they are bad for you.

--
Jan

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

Le 26/08/2023 à 01:15, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :

1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.

La vitesse d'un même rayon lumineux est invariante dans tous les référentiels galiléens.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?EeLVGgELaoPF3Jcmc5WLxaMmjnI@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Dans tous les référentiels accélérés aussi, d'ailleurs.

R.H.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=EeLVGgELaoPF3Jcmc5WLxaMmjnI@jntp>

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