In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

1. Time dilation:
The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. clock time is dilatable because a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

2. Length contraction:
There is no material contraction. The material length of a meter stick remains the same length in all frames. In order to make his P2 viable Einstein invented Light-path-contraction (LPL). LPL: the distance light must travel to cover the material
length of a moving mater stick.

3. An SR observer wrongly assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. In real life, he doesn't know if the clock moving wrt him is running slow or fast. That's why SR is an incomplete theory.
Also that's why I invented IRT. IRT is a complete theory of relativity.
In real life an SR observer doesn't know if the moving clock is accumulating, clock seconds at a slower rate or faster rate and the LPL of a moving meter stick is shorter the LPL of the observer's meter stick. That means that SR is an incomplete
incomplete theory of relativity. That's why we should we should adopt IRT to replace the incomplete SRT.

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

Mostly - insane maniacs waving their arms
and screaming that we're FORCED to their
BEST WAY.

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

You can move yourself while sharing the Earth's rotation.
Clouds do. The Earth does not rotate under cloud
stillness... atmospheric winds would be created
everywhere... and they are not...

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

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates. I would
tell you to study his SR paper to see how he did that, but the math is
far too advanced for you, since it's not third grade level math.

The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.

Assertions are not evidence of anything, Stupid Ken.

clock time is dilatable because a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

Assertions are not evidence of anything, Stupid Ken.

2. Length contraction:

Stupid Ken, length contraction was also derived from the two SR postulates.

There is no material contraction.

That's because it's a geometric projection, Stupid Ken.

3. An SR observer wrongly assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest

How could he do that since SR doesn't even have the concept of absolute
rest or absolute motion? That's why it's called _relativity_, because everything is relative and there is no absolute motion or absolute time.

and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.

How do you explain the fact that A sees B's clock running slow and B
sees A's clock running slow?

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

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:23:17 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

1. Time dilation:

No, it was the other way around. Here is a summary of Einstein's
1905 paper as far as the usual kinematic effects are concerned.
Read it VERY CAREFULLY because what Einstein does in his paper is NOT
exactly how this stuff is derived in modern textbooks (the modern
approach produces very efficiently the same theory, of course,
but its pedagogy is IMHO vastly inferior to Einstein's).

So here is the order of the concepts in Einstein's paper:

(1) Choose an arbitrary system of coordinates such that objects
not acted upon by forces move uniformly in straight lines. Denote
this system by "K",

(2) Note that according to the past experiments by Fizeau (the 1850s)
the speed of light around closed polygonal paths is equal to c.
Those speed measurements do not involve any clock synchronisation
problem because the paths are *closed*,

(3) Synchronise the clocks of system K using the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" convention,

(4) Using this convention, we can state what "speed" (of any object)
means: distance/(time difference), where the denominator is defined
using the convention in step (3) above. In particular, in agreement with
the well-known observations, we postulate that this kind of speed
measurement performed on ANY ray of light will always yield c WHEN
MEASURED IN THE SYSTEM K ONLY(*),
regardless of HOW the light source is moving (within K) and
regardless WHERE or WHEN the measurement is being made.
Note that this postulate is consistent with Fizeau's closed loops,

(*)this is where Einstein's derivation differs from the modern textbook
one: the latter assume the second postulate holds in ALL inertial
systems from the get-go. This happens to be logically fine but it's
a pedagogical horror. It's been horror enough to prompt various
physicists into suggesting abandoning it, e.g. John Bell. I fully
agree with the idea of nuking this disaster which has managed to
totally confuse generations of students, despite its formal
correctness (Exhibit B: this newsgroup),

(5) Now introduce another system, call it k, which moves at some
speed wrt K along the x-axis in the positive-x direction (say). Let's synchronise its clocks using the same type of criterion as in K. NOTE:
we do NOT assume that light rays have speed c in this moving
system!! The reason is that we don't even know yet if it can be done
without a contradiction,

(5 1/2) At this point Einstein notices that the clocks in K do not
appear in sync according to k when the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" is used.
As a corollary to this (Einstein does not mention it but it's an obvious conclusion), Fizeau's results would be FALSE if the moving system
k used K's clocks. So this is nudging in the direction that, as Einstein
put it much later, "it's time itself that's suspect",

(6) Calculate the transformation of coordinates between K and k,
assuming the transformation is linear. It turns out the sync criterion
"tB - tA = tA' - tB" is enough to derive it and the resulting
formula is exactly the same as the one in Lorentz's paper. It's only
at THIS point that "time dilation" etc. make their appearance,

(7) Now that we have the explicit formula, we can CALCULATE
(and NOT postulate!) the speed of light in the system k. It turns
out that when you plug in the Lorentz transformation where needed,
you end up with the same quantity c. So in Einstein's approach
what is described in modern textbooks as "the second postulate"
appears on the scene only now, in "step (7)".

The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.

Well, yeah, maybe, maybe not. Give me a good argument that you are
in fact God, then I'll pay attention to your assertions.

clock time is dilatable because a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

Not even wrong. Nonsense.

--
Jan

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

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:58:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:23:17 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

1. Time dilation:

No, it was the other way around. Here is a summary of Einstein's
1905 paper as far as the usual kinematic effects are concerned.
Read it VERY CAREFULLY because what Einstein does in his paper is NOT exactly how this stuff is derived in modern textbooks (the modern
approach produces very efficiently the same theory, of course,
but its pedagogy is IMHO vastly inferior to Einstein's).

So here is the order of the concepts in Einstein's paper:

(1) Choose an arbitrary system of coordinates such that objects
not acted upon by forces move uniformly in straight lines. Denote
this system by "K",

(2) Note that according to the past experiments by Fizeau (the 1850s)
the speed of light around closed polygonal paths is equal to c.
Those speed measurements do not involve any clock synchronisation
problem because the paths are *closed*,

(3) Synchronise the clocks of system K using the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" convention,

(4) Using this convention, we can state what "speed" (of any object)
means: distance/(time difference), where the denominator is defined
using the convention in step (3) above. In particular, in agreement with
the well-known observations, we postulate that this kind of speed measurement performed on ANY ray of light will always yield c WHEN
MEASURED IN THE SYSTEM K ONLY(*),
regardless of HOW the light source is moving (within K) and
regardless WHERE or WHEN the measurement is being made.
Note that this postulate is consistent with Fizeau's closed loops,

(*)this is where Einstein's derivation differs from the modern textbook
one: the latter assume the second postulate holds in ALL inertial
systems from the get-go. This happens to be logically fine but it's
a pedagogical horror. It's been horror enough to prompt various
physicists into suggesting abandoning it, e.g. John Bell. I fully
agree with the idea of nuking this disaster which has managed to
totally confuse generations of students, despite its formal
correctness (Exhibit B: this newsgroup),

(5) Now introduce another system, call it k, which moves at some
speed wrt K along the x-axis in the positive-x direction (say). Let's synchronise its clocks using the same type of criterion as in K. NOTE:
we do NOT assume that light rays have speed c in this moving
system!! The reason is that we don't even know yet if it can be done
without a contradiction,

(5 1/2) At this point Einstein notices that the clocks in K do not
appear in sync according to k when the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" is used.
As a corollary to this (Einstein does not mention it but it's an obvious conclusion), Fizeau's results would be FALSE if the moving system
k used K's clocks. So this is nudging in the direction that, as Einstein
put it much later, "it's time itself that's suspect",

(6) Calculate the transformation of coordinates between K and k,
assuming the transformation is linear. It turns out the sync criterion
"tB - tA = tA' - tB" is enough to derive it and the resulting
formula is exactly the same as the one in Lorentz's paper. It's only
at THIS point that "time dilation" etc. make their appearance,

(7) Now that we have the explicit formula, we can CALCULATE
(and NOT postulate!) the speed of light in the system k. It turns
out that when you plug in the Lorentz transformation where needed,
you end up with the same quantity c. So in Einstein's approach
what is described in modern textbooks as "the second postulate"
appears on the scene only now, in "step (7)".

The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.

Well, yeah, maybe, maybe not. Give me a good argument that you are
in fact God, then I'll pay attention to your assertions.

clock time is dilatable because a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

Not even wrong. Nonsense.

--
Jan

Einstein had a problem with his time. Big Ben showed light has to travel more distance
creating a slow rate appearance moving away. But there is slow time rate primary
from speed in space. Einstein had to deal with time in those two ways.

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

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates. I would tell you to study his SR paper to see how he did that, but the math

Stupid Mike, when the postulates are wrong , everything he derived using them are wrong.
is , ,

far too advanced for you, since it's not third grade level math.

The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.

Assertions are not evidence of anything, Stupid Ken.

clock time is dilatable because a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

Assertions are not evidence of anything, Stupid Ken.

2. Length contraction:

Stupid Ken, length contraction was also derived from the two SR postulates.

There is no material contraction.

That's because it's a geometric projection, Stupid Ken.

3. An SR observer wrongly assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest

How could he do that since SR doesn't even have the concept of absolute
rest or absolute motion? That's why it's called _relativity_, because everything is relative and there is no absolute motion or absolute time.

and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.

How do you explain the fact that A sees B's clock running slow and B
sees A's clock running slow?

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

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates.

Stupid Mike, the SR postulates are wrong. So Anything derived from the SR postulates are also wrong

I would
tell you to study his SR paper to see how he did that, but the math is
far too advanced for you, since it's not third grade level math.

The only time exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.

Assertions are not evidence of anything, Stupid Ken.

clock time is dilatable because a clock second will contain a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

Assertions are not evidence of anything, Stupid Ken.

2. Length contraction:

Stupid Ken, length contraction was also derived from the two SR postulates.

There is no material contraction.

That's because it's a geometric projection, Stupid Ken.

3. An SR observer wrongly assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest

How could he do that since SR doesn't even have the concept of absolute
rest or absolute motion? That's why it's called _relativity_, because everything is relative and there is no absolute motion or absolute time.

and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.

How do you explain the fact that A sees B's clock running slow and B
sees A's clock running slow?

Why do I need to explain your assertions?????
Besides, your assertion is against the natural laws of physics.

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

Le 03/09/2023 à 15:50, Ken Seto a écrit :

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates. I would
tell you to study his SR paper to see how he did that, but the math

Stupid Mike, when the postulates are wrong , everything he derived using them are wrong.
is , ,

far too advanced for you, since it's not third grade level math.

It is not the postulates that are false, but what we do with them.

The same goes for Poincaré transformations.

It was all great.

But we made it Minkowski's 4D space-time: a ridiculous thing.

We have the same thing in France with the Fifth Constitution written by
Charles de Gaulle in 1958.

A magnificent thing.

We have to see what Sarkozy, Hollande and Macron have done with it.

R.H.

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

On 9/3/2023 9:50 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates. I would
tell you to study his SR paper to see how he did that, but the math

Stupid Mike, when the postulates are wrong , everything he derived using them are wrong.

Stupid Ken, your assertion, without evidence, that the postulates are
wrong, is worthless.

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

On 9/3/2023 10:04 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates.

Stupid Mike, the SR postulates are wrong. So Anything derived from the SR postulates are also wrong

Your assertion, without evidence, that the postulates are wrong is
meaningless.

and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.

How do you explain the fact that A sees B's clock running slow and B
sees A's clock running slow?

Why do I need to explain your assertions?????

It is not an assertion, Stupid Ken. Einstein derived that in his famous
SR paper. Just follow its math and see why. Oh wait...

Besides, your assertion is against the natural laws of physics.

How can it be an against "the natural laws of physics" if it's derived
from physics in the first place? Besides, it is not an assertion (it is derived), and it's not mine as Einstein derived it long before I was born.

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

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 17:49:00 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

Stupid Ken, your assertion, without evidence, that the postulates are
wrong, is worthless.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion. But your assertions, without evidence,
are worthless.

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

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 17:54:55 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

On 9/3/2023 10:04 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates.

Stupid Mike, the SR postulates are wrong. So Anything derived from the SR postulates are also wrong

Your assertion, without evidence, that the postulates are wrong is meaningless.

and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.

How do you explain the fact that A sees B's clock running slow and B
sees A's clock running slow?

Why do I need to explain your assertions?????

It is not an assertion, Stupid Ken. Einstein derived that in his famous
SR paper. Just follow its math

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your
idiot guru had to announce its oldest, very important part
false, as it didn't want to cooperate with his insane
postulates.

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

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 11:49:00 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 9/3/2023 9:50 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates. I would >> tell you to study his SR paper to see how he did that, but the math

Stupid Mike, when the postulates are wrong , everything he derived using them are wrong.

Stupid Ken, your assertion, without evidence, that the postulates are
wrong, is worthless.

The speed of every thing(including light) is observer dependent.

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

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 11:54:55 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 9/3/2023 10:04 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:09:39 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

On 8/31/2023 11:23 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

In order to make his constant light postulate viable Einstein invented the following:

No, he didn't, Stupid Ken. You lie, Stupid Ken. Why do you lie?

1. Time dilation:

Stupid Ken, time dilation was _derived_ from the two postulates.

Stupid Mike, the SR postulates are wrong. So Anything derived from the SR postulates are also wrong

Your assertion, without evidence, that the postulates are wrong is meaningless.

and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.

How do you explain the fact that A sees B's clock running slow and B
sees A's clock running slow?

Why do I need to explain your assertions?????

It is not an assertion, Stupid Ken. Einstein derived that in his famous
SR paper. Just follow its math and see why. Oh wait...

Besides, your assertion is against the natural laws of physics.

How can it be an against "the natural laws of physics" if it's derived
from physics in the first place? Besides, it is not an assertion (it is derived), and it's not mine as Einstein derived it long before I was born.

The speed of anything is observer dependent. When Einstein posited the speed of light is constant in all frames then it is a postulate against the natural laws of physics.

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