• Crank Richard Hertz fails relativity 101

From Dono.@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Nov 9 07:58:44 2023
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.

No, they are not , dumbestfuck

You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Nov 9 08:57:05 2023
On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.
No, they are not , dumbestfuck

You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

As a matter of fact, the vertical light clock commonly associated with Langevin's
name was actually introduced by Lewis and Tolman https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity,_and_Non-Newtonian_Mechanics

Langevin used a *horizontal* light clock to perform .a novel derivation of the LT
http://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~sano/hssj/pdf/Cuvaj_C-1972-Langevin_Relativity-JSHS-No_10-pp113-142.pdf
His demonstration is rather nice. since it employs a significantly "weaker"
set of starting postulates than Einstein's original set.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Nov 9 09:30:22 2023
On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:58:46 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.
No, they are not , dumbestfuck

You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

At the end of my OP, I asked: "WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?"

In the length contraction issue, as v nears c and AB shrinks, the observer at rest PERCEIVES that tA ticks faster and faster, due to
the invariance of c. Meanwhile, a co-moving observer register that the count of 1 us ticks in tA are NORMAL.

In the limit of v = c, the observer at rest PERCEIVES an infinite difference between tK and tA. For 1us in tK, he perceives infinite ticks in tA,
but a digital display of tA (digital domain kills analog domain), there IS NOT a difference between tK and tA.

So, the observer at rest CAN'T EXPLAIN the difference between his Lorentz calculations and the TRUE COUNT shown in the remote digital display.

Relativity is a flawed pseudo-science.

Explain that, smart ass.

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