Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan
Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan
Coward, coward!
R.H.
Le 25/12/2023 à 17:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan
Coward, coward!
R.H.
For me, no matter how many times I tossed the problem around for
decades, it always ended up that both the circumference AND the radius contracted.
Let's take for example a point A which passes at the top of the record
at 12 o'clock position.
It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its
entire velocity vector is practically in "x".
But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
Galilean frame of reference.
This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
this small Δy does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is
low compared to the tangential speed.
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part Δy does
not contract or only slightly, and that the part Δx contracts greatly at relativistic speed.
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards.
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
case.
laser gyroscopes
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.
Am 27.12.2023 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 25/12/2023 17:26, Richard Hachel a crit :
Le 24/12/2023 13:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a crit : >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan
Coward, coward!
R.H.
For me, no matter how many times I tossed the problem around for
decades, it always ended up that both the circumference AND the radius contracted.
Let's take for example a point A which passes at the top of the record
at 12 o'clock position.
It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its
entire velocity vector is practically in "x".
But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
Galilean frame of reference.
Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.
This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
this small ?y does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is
low compared to the tangential speed.
Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at relativistic speed.
If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards.
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this case.
I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.
Le 28/12/2023 à 13:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 27.12.2023 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 25/12/2023 à 17:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :écrit :
Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a
recordThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Hi NGIt was evident then, and it should be evident now,
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates. >>> >>>
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan
Coward, coward!
R.H.
For me, no matter how many times I tossed the problem around for
decades, it always ended up that both the circumference AND the radius >>> > contracted.
Let's take for example a point A which passes at the top of the
at 12 o'clock position.
It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its
entire velocity vector is practically in "x".
But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
Galilean frame of reference.
Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.
This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that >>> > this small ?y does not undergo any obvious contraction, as itsspeed is
low compared to the tangential speed.
Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which >>> has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?ydoes
not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contractsgreatly at
relativistic speed.
If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely >>> high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions >>> are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviatedinwards.
this
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in
case.
I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.
Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
(not even with extreme idealisations)
To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.
Jan
When physicists don't know how to answer, they say "It's not Euclidean geometry." But they don't know how to clearly explain what it is.
If we talk to them about the Ehrenfest paradox, they don't know how to answer.
If we ask them who Doctor Hachel is, they say "We don't know this
gentleman."
If we talk to them about universal anisochrony, and the relativity of chronotropy, they hold their noses.
If we clearly explain to them how we solve the Langevin paradox, they
scream like pigs being slaughtered.
If we talk to them about the spatial zoom effect, they have an epileptic seizure.
All this is not very serious.
Relativist theorists are the shame of science just as Pauline Christians
and fundamentalist Muslims are the shame of religion.
R.H.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 27.12.2023 um 03:21 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 25/12/2023 à 17:26, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 24/12/2023 à 13:18, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : >> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
Jan
Coward, coward!
R.H.
For me, no matter how many times I tossed the problem around for
decades, it always ended up that both the circumference AND the radius
contracted.
Let's take for example a point A which passes at the top of the record >> > at 12 o'clock position.
It has practically zero velocity in "y" at this instant, and its
entire velocity vector is practically in "x".
But we are in a rotating frame of reference, and not in a purely
Galilean frame of reference.
Sure, a rotating frame of reference is not inertial.
The reason: rotation is causing acceleration and that is measurable
without any reference.
So, rotation is 'absolute', while inertial movement is 'relative'.
We know this 'absoluteness' from the realm of missile guidence or
satelite control.
They use laser gyroscopes, which can detect very small rotations.
For rotation you don't need to see a reference point, because rotation
causes acceleration. And acceleration is not inertial.
This mini component in y still exists, and it should be noted that
this small ?y does not undergo any obvious contraction, as its speed is
low compared to the tangential speed.
Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does >> > not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at >> > relativistic speed.
If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards. >> >
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
case.
I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.
Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It makes it obvious that you can not deal with the situation
in simple-minded and ad-hoc ways.
(not even with extreme idealisations)
To Einstein it pointed the way to the need for non-Euclidean geometry.
Jan
Le 28/12/2023 à 15:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
Also the rigid disk itself would ecounter 'length elongation' (radius
gets longer), because the centrifugal acceleration tends to tear the
disk apart.
But neither of these effects were mentioned, while the similarity to gravitation assumed.
But as far as I know, gravitation pulls into the opposite direction
(towards the center).
And: the observer could not possibly regard his rotating disk as at
rest, because he had trouble to stay on his feet and on the disk, if
that disk rotates.
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
That's what I've tried to study in my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not understand
the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom which no one
ever talks about but which is essential to fully understanding the
Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
Le 29/12/2023 à 14:36, Python a écrit :
Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
understanding the Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp
http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp
Le jour où tu m'en remontreras, il est pas encore venu. LOL.
Je suis le meilleur théoricien de la cinématique relativiste, et
j'attends toujours qu'on vienne m'expliquer où sont mes erreurs.
A côté, t'euh qu'un guignol !
Un bouffon !
R.H.
Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not understand
the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom which no one
ever talks about but which is essential to fully understanding the
Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
understanding the Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
That's a good article, well worth reading.
Le 29/12/2023 14:25, Richard Hachel a crit:
Le 29/12/2023 12:51, wugi a crit :
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 22:31, wugi a crit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
understanding the Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
understanding the Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
That's a good article, well worth reading. Do you have any idea where Mr Hachel obtained his "doctorate" (not in Medicine, but in something
relevant to science)?
Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
understanding the Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
That's a good article, well worth reading.
Sure.
R.H.
On Friday 29 December 2023 at 20:33:21 UTC+1, Python wrote:
Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:
On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom >>>>>> which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
understanding the Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
That's a good article, well worth reading.
Sure.
R.H.
Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read
definition 9 and learnt what a function is?
Do you already know that a function has, by
definition, "for any element of the domain" clause?
Le 29/12/2023 à 14:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 29/12/2023 à 12:51, wugi a écrit :
Op 29/12/2023 om 8:42 schreef Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :
That's what I've tried to study in my video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU
Did you personally make this video?
Yes of course. (apart from the music:)
I draw very badly, but the main thing is there.
I have always found it very surprising that physicists do not
understand the reasoning, and especially the reality of space-zoom
which no one ever talks about but which is essential to fully
understanding the Langevin paradox.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
R.H.
https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf
Le 29/12/2023 à 20:33, Python a écrit :
Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
incompetence and hypocrisy.
People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.
LOL.
People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.
Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies, incompetence and hypocrisy.
People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.
On 2023-12-30 10:02:56 +0000, "Doctor" Richard Hachel said:
Le 29/12/2023 à 20:33, Python a écrit :
Everyone knows why you did so, Richard: because it exposes your lies,
incompetence and hypocrisy.
People notice you know? Not only on fr.sci.physique, also here.
LOL.
People especially notice that you are a puppet, a buffoon.
We all know who is the buffoon here, and it isn't Python.
Notice that in traveltwin's outbound trip the hometwin seems to recede
more slowly, and in the homebound trip to approach more rapidly. Since
both trips take the same (half) time, this means that hometwin is seen
going less far in the first half, and coming back from farther away in
the second half. So, some kind of "space-zoom" must have happened at traveltwin's very return event! Rememember that traveltwin swaps between
two different inertial states at this event. Each state represents a different physical state of traveltwin, making him perceive *different distances* for the same (hometwin's) event!
Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does >>> not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at >>> relativistic speed.
If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards. >>>
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
case.
I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.
Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It's total nonsense to declare a rotating FoR as equivalent to an
inertial FoR.
And it would be realy insane to assume, that an observer on a rotating
disk rotating with tangential velocity in the realm of SRT (like say 0.5
c) would not notice this rotation.
Therefore I have not the faintest idea, what Einstein's/Ehrenfest's
point actually was.
...
TH
Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.
There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
speed of 0.8c.
These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be
used. For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection
becomes appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the
face of the simple Ehrenfest paradox.
Am 28.12.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.
There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
speed of 0.8c.
I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with tangential velocity of 0.8 c.
That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.
This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for all possible rigid materials)
These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be
used. For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz
transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection
becomes appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the
face of the simple Ehrenfest paradox.
How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of nonsense.
TH
On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 4:18:36?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
Hi NG
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
is that special relativity by itself
is not adequate to deal with the situation.
That's all there is to it,
The original question was about the centrifugal
forces experienced by the observers on the disc. The assumption of the thought experiment described in Wikipedia is those forces do not affect
the disc or the observers. It's just an idealisation, like assuming friction doesn't exist, etc.
As for the observers' experience of the disc, it actually describes not
"the" disc but of a certain quotient space (in the topological sense),
namely the spacetime R^3,1 divided by the worldlines of the disc's
material points(*). It's the standard confusion (and the root cause of the paradox) to assume that that quotient space can be equipped with a
"sensible" time coordinate and the result embedded isometrically in R^3,1. The discontinuity of the time coordinate introduced by slowly moving
clocks is known as the Sagnac effect and is another can of worms (see
decades of discussions on this NG).
(*)imagine a surface made of infinitesimal spacelike patches Lorentz- -orthogonal to the worldlines passing through them. If one uses the differential-geometric ideas to figure out its geometry, it'll turn out
to be negatively curved.
Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess. Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest
paradox (except me).
I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but human.
Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein,
and be worshiped like a demi-God.
I find this behavior stupid.
Look at how Henri Poincaré behaves, the greatest mathematician of all
time, who, very humble,
corrects the Hendrik Lorentz transformations, and gives them the name
Lorentz transformations. Look at this man who posed E=mc² in 1902, and
who said in 1905: "Mr. Einstein says interesting things" even though
Einstein never, anywhere quotes Poincaré.
Eisntein will one day confess (too late, some would say) his lie, and
say: "I had read all of Poincaré, and I was captivated by this man's writings."
Today, after having studied the theory of relativity for forty years, I believe I am authorized to talk a little about it, because I master everything, from Galilean frames of reference to accelerated frames of reference, from the Langevin paradox to the Ehrenfest paradox, from
rotating disk to the relativity of lengths, distances, electromagnetic frequencies, moments and durations.
And what I have to say is this. Eisntein was wrong when he said that
special relativity was difficult, but that there was no trap. The
opposite is true. It's very easy, and it doesn't require anything other
than squares, square roots, sines and cosines. Once I had to use a
tengente, and once I had to use an integral, and again, it's not
absolutely necessary to write the entire song.
There is absolutely no need to resort to abstract and, above all, false non-Euclidean geometries.
If you ask a child to stand in front of a disk and ask him what he
sees, he will say: "I see a disk."
If you spin it at a low angular velocity, it will continue to say: "I
see a spinning disk."
If you spin it at a relativistic speed, it will always say that it sees
a disk, and it will point out that the disk is behaving strangely. But
it will still be a record. The child will never say that he sees "a non-Euclidean thing in the shape of an inverted horse's saddle, or
other madness invented by relativistic physicists incapable of
correctly resolving the paradox and giving the transformations relating
to the rotating frames of reference like Poincaré 'had done for the
Galilean frames of reference.
I have the correct transformations for relativistic rotating frames,
and it's ultimately very simple. No paradox, no difficulty, nothing
more than angular velocities, circumferences, square roots, a sine, and
a cosine.
And what the child will see, he will describe with great simplicity and confidence.
R.H.
On 2024-01-03 18:09:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest
paradox (except me).
I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but human. >>
Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein,
"Dr." Richard Hachel seems to be an example. A _very_ little Albert Einstein.
Ce qu'il fait bien comprendre, c'est que la théorie de la relativité
n'est pas une pure invention imaginée par Henri Poincaré et Hendrik Lorentz.
Ces gens là n'étaient pas des bandits, des voyous, des crétins.
Ils avaient fort bien compris que quelque chose clochait.
Le plus grand mathématicien de son époque, Henri Poincaré va alors découvrir la formule d'équivalence masse-énergie E=mc², et donner à son ami Lorentz, les transformations correctes que Lorentz cherchait depuis
des années.
Tout cela sera plagié par Albert Einstein (copiste au bureau des brevets
de Berne : LOL).
Ce qu'il manquait, à Henri Poincaré, c'était la dernière pointe (comme on dit aux échecs). Il n'a pas eu le dernier coup de génie (Docteur
Hachel copyrights) de visualiser l'effet zoom spatial.
Seul moi a eu le coup de génie de décoder le problème à la perfection. Le reste, n'est que haine, jalousie, conneries (Jean-Pierre Messager copyriths) qui voue au docteur Hachel, une haine maladive.
Personne n'est jamais parvenu à expliquer le paradoxe de Langevin mieux
que moi.
Et tout est là.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp
http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp
La clé du problème est l'effet zoom spatial : D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
C'est d'une beauté et d'une logique infinie.
Merci de votre écoute.
R.H.
Le 03/01/2024 à 08:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am 28.12.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.
There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
speed of 0.8c.
I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with
tangential velocity of 0.8 c.
That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.
This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for
all possible rigid materials)
These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be
used. For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz
transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection
becomes appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the
face of the simple Ehrenfest paradox.
How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of
nonsense.
TH
This is not nonsense.
There can only be one physics in the world.
If we can imagine a hyperrigid disk, why not?
Furthermore, we don't have to go at speeds of 0.8c.
Small relativistic effects can already be measured before.
Finally, let's not forget the planets, which revolve around their sun,
and sometimes even faster than Mercury (we found a large planet rotating
very close and very quickly around its sun).
And there, no need for a “full disk”.
I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.
For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from, say,
very tough steel.
How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
Well, REALLY fast!
c~=300,000,000 m/s
v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.
Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.
Am 28.12.2023 um 13:18 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
Sure.
But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which >> has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does >>> not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at >>> relativistic speed.
If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely >> high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions >> are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
(more likely: that disk will break)
The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards. >>>
This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this >>> case.
I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
to say.
Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
It's total nonsense to declare a rotating FoR as equivalent to an
inertial FoR.
And it would be realy insane to assume, that an observer on a rotating
disk rotating with tangential velocity in the realm of SRT (like say 0.5
c) would not notice this rotation.
Therefore I have not the faintest idea, what Einstein's/Ehrenfest's
point actually was.
Ehrenfest's original point was
that there are severe problems with 'Born rigid motion',
as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
when you try to extend the concept to rotations,
(so a more general approach is needed)
Jan
Ehrenfest's original point was that there are severe problems with
'Born rigid motion', as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
when you try to extend the concept to rotations, (so a more general
approach is needed)
Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.
Tom Roberts
Le 04/01/2024 à 08:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.
For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from,
say, very tough steel.
How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
Well, REALLY fast!
c~=300,000,000 m/s
v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.
Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.
This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.
I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk.
Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also transformations for rotating frames of reference.
I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we
talk about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk
about the Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.
The problem remains human.
I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.
In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.
Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.
Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
aim of enslaving humanity.
The idea is not stupid.
But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
to be a moron.
Richard Hachel wrote:
To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...
Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the Crackpot Index...
Am 04.01.2024 um 11:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 04/01/2024 à 08:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.
For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from,
say, very tough steel.
How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
Well, REALLY fast!
c~=300,000,000 m/s
v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.
Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.
This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.
I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk. >>
Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a
Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also
transformations for rotating frames of reference.
I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we
talk about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk
about the Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.
The problem remains human.
I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.
In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.
Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.
Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
aim of enslaving humanity.
The idea is not stupid.
But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
to be a moron.
I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).
This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly) 'Elite'
has managed to connect with these beings.
Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also the elite of this 'otherworld'.
In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out of
good.
This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
create mess out of order.
The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but toxic
for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
hence more and more satanic.
So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
TH
On 1/4/24 5:00 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ehrenfest's original point was that there are severe problems with
'Born rigid motion', as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
when you try to extend the concept to rotations, (so a more general approach is needed)
Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.
I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).
This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly)
'Elite' has managed to connect with these beings.
Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also
the elite of this 'otherworld'.
In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out
of good.
This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
create mess out of order.
The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but
toxic for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
hence more and more satanic.
So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
TH
We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine “Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”. You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.
Am 05.01.2024 um 13:33 schrieb Richard Hachel:
I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).
This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly)
'Elite' has managed to connect with these beings.
Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also
the elite of this 'otherworld'.
In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out
of good.
This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
create mess out of order.
The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but
toxic for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
hence more and more satanic.
So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
TH
We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
“Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”. >> You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.
It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.
It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.
The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys with reverted time only the predictable future is good.
So: make future more unpredictable!
E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than required.
This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to do something useful.
Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law, but
will make timetravel harder than it already is.
Another method is even simpler:
in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
regard the result as order of God.
Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
not really deserve that.
This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
world, which would disallow timetravel.
Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
your realm.
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.
Sure, but timetravelers care about them.
TH
Le 06/01/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am 05.01.2024 um 13:33 schrieb Richard Hachel:
I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).
This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly)
'Elite' has managed to connect with these beings.
Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also
the elite of this 'otherworld'.
In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out
of good.
This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to >>>> create mess out of order.
The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but
toxic for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable, >>>> hence more and more satanic.
So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
TH
We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
“Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”. >>> You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.
It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.
It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.
The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys
with reverted time only the predictable future is good.
So: make future more unpredictable!
E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than
required.
This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to
do something useful.
Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law,
but will make timetravel harder than it already is.
Another method is even simpler:
in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
regard the result as order of God.
Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
not really deserve that.
This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
world, which would disallow timetravel.
Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
your realm.
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.
Sure, but timetravelers care about them.
TH
In fact, I gave the relativistic transformations which seemed correct to
me for the resolution of the paradox, and we see that precisely, with
these transformations the paradox does not exist.
I see with semi-surprise that no one denies or confirms these transformations.
Could it be false?
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?xVWFx0j8enEmyTfxa5f0R-lFg-M@jntp/Data.Media:1>
But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
speed is reached.
TH
But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet, roating
at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long before such a
speed is reached.
Le 09/01/2024 à 07:16, Thomas Heger a écrit :
But no observer could measure the shrinking of a - say- planet,
roating at such a pace, because he would be shot into space long
before such a speed is reached.
TH
You are right, and although I am certain of my entire theory (it holds together too well from A to Z, without paradoxes, and always
experimentally proven on what it was possible to do, we cannot run a
disk at such speeds, nor even a planet.
BUT...
You can make a planet rotate very quickly around its sun, and this is
the case with Mercury.
The circumference of the orbit of Mercury, and the contraction of C and
R of this orbit present in my equations must be verified.
I'm not an astrophysicist, but they can do it easily.
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and eventually
the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but contains
no accelerations.)
As evidence I quote:
Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
contains no accelerations.)
As evidence I quote:
For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
you trigger the watches.
Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
contains no accelerations.)
As evidence I quote:
For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
you trigger the watches.
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
remote clock.
But Einstein didn't do that (or even mentioned the delay!).
...
TH
Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
contains no accelerations.)
As evidence I quote:
For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and
you trigger the watches.
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
remote clock.
On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
contains no accelerations.)
As evidence I quote:
For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and >>> you trigger the watches.
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very fast. >>
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel from
the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
remote clock.
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the local
clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to get from
the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 10.01.2024 um 15:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
Le 10/01/2024 à 09:49, Thomas Heger a écrit :
I'm not attacking relativity per se.
Possibly the example of the rotating disk has some merits and
eventually the predicted effect do in fact occur.
I'm actually attacking the idea, that rotating FoRs are equivalent to
non-rotating FoRs.
Rotation is actually measurable, because it involves acceleration and
that is measurable without external refence points.
(Inertial motion is not measurable without refence points, but
contains no accelerations.)
As evidence I quote:
For inertial movements, you simply need to have two points O and O'
which intersect, and you trigger the watches.
For rotating movements, you need to have a ray that crosses another, and >>> you trigger the watches.
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this difference
and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at the
remote clock.
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the local
clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to get from
the remote clock to the local clock.
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
the remote clock.
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
per se.
This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
this would be:
measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be able
to reject it.
But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless public.
TH
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
the remote clock.
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
This is a VERY (!!!) serious error,
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very >>>>> fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at
the remote clock.
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to
get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be
ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?
Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :No
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
This is a VERY (!!!) serious error, because Einstein also made efforts
to compensate the delay by adjusting the tick-rate of the remote clock
or by adjusting the time of the clock or the time of the remote system
per se.
This was all wrong, while the correct solution was never mentioned.
this would be:
measure the delay and add it to the reading od the remote clock.
This solution is so simple and obvious, that hardly anybody will be
able to reject it.
But instead of a simple and obvious solution a pompouse nonsense was
produced and forcefully shuffled into the minds of the defenseless
public.
TH
The problem of synchronization is a problem of temporal reference.
We will say: "This event occurred at five o'clock" but what does that mean? This means that, for example, we placed in various places in a city, at
noon, all kinds of watches which we artificially set to noon, and that
at a crossroads, an accident occurred. when the small hand of a watch
was on five and the big hand on twelve.
In relativity, things are less simple because the time depends on the location of the observer in relation to the event. The further away from
the event, the greater the anisochrony will be.
What is important to understand is that synchronization, useful for subsequent discussions, can therefore only be done for a single
observer, and that it is always on a previously chosen observer that the watches are synchronized.
This is similar to choosing the Greenwich meridian to determine the geographic position of an event.
By convention, you need a base. If I say that the event occurred at 43°14'27", I know by definition that it is relative to the Greenwich meridian. Everything is only relative to something.
If I now take GPS synchronization, and if I correctly understand the
theory of relativity, I will first realize that it is absolutely
impossible to synchronize even two watches in the universe. Each will
advance on the other by a value delta_t=x/c.
However, the GPS works. For what?
Because we took, for GPS, as we did for Greenwich, a basic reference.
What is this basic reference?
It is an abstract point, located in a hypothetical fourth spatial
dimension, placed very far from all the three D points of the universe,
but equidistant from each of them.
That's GPS.
But àa b absolutely does not mean that between them, all the points of a universe, even a fixed one, "coexist absolutely at the same instant, and
that the notion of universal anisochrony does not exist.
On the contrary, it is the basis of our world, and it is even possible
that our world could not exist without it?
Would the notion of energy, and therefore of life, precisely, exist
without universal anisochrony?
Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It >>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very >>>>>> fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel >>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no >>>>>> deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at >>>>>> the remote clock.
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to >>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be >>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional physicist?
...
Besides of this:
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It >>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is >>>>>>> very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look >>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel >>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no >>>>>>> deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at >>>>>>> the remote clock.
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to >>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of >>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay >>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be >>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single >>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional
physicist?
...
Besides of this:
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
Am 16.01.2024 um 11:59 schrieb Python:
Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It >>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the >>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to >>>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se. >>>>>>>>
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is >>>>>>>> very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look >>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel >>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no >>>>>>>> deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at >>>>>>>> the remote clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of >>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay >>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be >>>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single >>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means? >>>> Where does the 2 come from?
That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:
2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.
The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.
You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the delay.
But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
the entire text.
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional
physicist?
...
Besides of this:
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!
so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.
It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B was meant.
Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.
If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
product of two position vectors A and B.
Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points, because points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like e.g. you cannot multiply an egg with an apople).
So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.
Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation of
2AB.
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
...
TH
Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It >>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is very >>>>>> fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look
seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel >>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no >>>>>> deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at >>>>>> the remote clock.
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to >>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of
paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be >>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts from
A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A and
a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Besides of this:
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of
the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
On 1/16/2024 3:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It >>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se.
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is >>>>>>> very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look >>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel >>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no >>>>>>> deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at >>>>>>> the remote clock.
local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a signal to >>>>>> get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of >>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay >>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay should be >>>>> ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single >>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
used the scalar products, those are distances.
Le 17/01/2024 à 07:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :One point is:
Am 16.01.2024 um 11:59 schrieb Python:
Le 16/01/2024 à 09:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se. >>>>>>>>>
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is >>>>>>>>> very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look >>>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to >>>>>>>>> travel
from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is
seemingly no
deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at >>>>>>>>> the remote clock.
works. It
takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the >>>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a
signal to
get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of >>>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the >>>>>>> idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that
delay
is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay
should be
ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a
single
word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
means?
Where does the 2 come from?
That equation has a different form in Einstein's text:
2AB/(t'_A - t_A )= c
It's no big deal, of course, but quotes should be verbatim.
The difference is: Einstein meant c and not the delay with this equation.
You changed the order of terms and concluded, that Einstein meant the
delay.
But there is no evidence at all, that Einstein even considered the
delay, because the word 'delay' or something equivalent is missing in
the entire text.
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
But distance from A to B was obviously meant.
Is it to hard to require a line on top of AB from a professional
physicist?
...
Besides of this:
Einstein had to have written: this term 2AB/c means e.g. 'the delay of >>>> the signal from A towards B, reflected there and reaching the origin
again' (or something equivalent).
Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.
1. The equation is NOT wrong (and your remark about notation AB is
Formal requirements are also valid for geniusses!
so: Einstein had to make clear, what he meant with 2AB.
It is obvious from the context, that twice the distance from A to B
was meant.
Such distances have actually a common notation, (which I cannot easily
replicate in ASCII), but has a line on top of AB.
If no such line is present, then AB must be interpreted as scalar
product of two position vectors A and B.
Actually A and B denote points. But you cannot multiply points,
because points are physical entities, which cannot be multiplied (like
e.g. you cannot multiply an egg with an apople).
So A and B must be interpreted as position vectors.
Vectors can be multiplied, hence that would be a valid interpretation
of 2AB.
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
...
TH
It is clear that the distance 2AB is worth twice AB.
Let's stay reasonable.
Einstein correctly measures Euclid's ametric.
But where Einstein makes a dramatic error (I know that I am attacking a
God, and that it is not nice) is when he believes that t(AB)=t(BA) for
all observers of the frame . He is completely unaware, it seems, of the notion of spatial anisochrony like all physicists today.
Certainly, if I place myself at a point placed equidistant from A and B,
for example on the perpendicular which passes through M in the middle of
AB, I would have t(AB)=t(BA) like Eisntein says it.
But not if I'm in A, and not if I'm in B.
It is this difficulty that physicists today do not seem to understand,
due to their abstract religious belief in a “plan of present time”.
Although I have explained to them how the RR has worked for 40 years,
and why many things are wrong with their geometry, they are absolutely incapable of questioning or even listening without seeking to humiliate
or even threaten death.
It's simply incredible and worthy of the greatest Hollywood films.
R.H.
One point is:
the time for travel from A to B is not t(AB)
You could, of course, reduce the notation of t_B - t_A to t(AB).
But I'm actually against such short hands.
second point
Einstein actually assumed t(AB)=t(BA), but didn't mention the requirements.
Which are:
Euclidean space
'isochrony'
stationary situation (neither A nor B shall move)
This is especially interesting, because Einstein actually dealt with
movement in subsequent chapters and rejected absolute (Euclidean) space
and isochrony.
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
Am 18.01.2024 um 06:06 schrieb Volney:
On 1/16/2024 3:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 21:42 schrieb Volney:
On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
...
That's exactly how Einstein's clock synchronization method works. It >>>>>>> takes into account the time it takes for a signal to get from the >>>>>>> local clock to the remote clock and the time it takes for a
A major error of Einstein and SRT is the use of watches per se. >>>>>>>>
The problem is, that light has finite velocity, even if light is >>>>>>>> very
fast.
But this finite velocity of light would make remote watches look >>>>>>>> seemingly too late (by the time the signals of light take to travel >>>>>>>> from the watch to the observer).
Now it would be a VERY (!!!) stupid idea to compensate this
difference and adjust one of the clocks, that there is seemingly no >>>>>>>> deleay.
Instead the delay had to be measured and added to the time seen at >>>>>>>> the remote clock.
signal to
get from the remote clock to the local clock.
This has been shown to Thomas several times, his misunderstanding of >>>>>> paragraph I.1 of Einstein paper is abysmal. He's sticking on the
idiotic claim that if delay is not mentioned then it means that delay >>>>>> is ignored... Ironically enough Hachel's claim is that delay
should be
ignored... Cranks are insufferable...
This is wrong, because Einstein didn't mention the delay with a single >>>>> word anywhere in 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'!!!
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term means? >>>> Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
used the scalar products, those are distances.
What do you mean are distances?
'A' is actually a character from the ASCII-character set and was used by Einstein in this context as name of a point.
This point is not a distance (otherwise it would not be named 'point').
Possibly you mean 'Euclidean coordinates'.
But such coordinates are not distances neither, but actually vectors
with three components.
Eventually you had spherical coordinates in mind and mean the distance
of that point towards the origin of the coordinate system.
Well, that's not really bad, but would still require two additional
angles, which were missing in your interpretation.
On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
And why do you claim that?
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
And why do you claim that?
Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
variables in an equation.
This is standard in usual mathematics.
Since A and B are variables, '2AB' means in long form:
2 * A * B
But that was, of course, not meant.
Actually meant was:
2*distance (A, B)
(with 'distancce' as name of a function with two parameters, which are
the endpoints of a streigth line in euclidean space.
In this case the function 'distance' spits out the length of the
connecting line between two points, which are here A and B.)
On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:That was meant, but not written.
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
And why do you claim that?
Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
variables in an equation.
No, it is also a common way to indicate the distance between two points
A and B, as long as they were previously identified as being points,
which Einstein did.
This is standard in usual mathematics.
One standard.
Since A and B are variables, '2AB' means in long form:
2 * A * B
No, it means twice the distance between points A and B.
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
used the scalar products, those are distances.
What do you mean are distances?
As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one dimensional light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
And why do you claim that?
Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
variables in an equation.
This is standard in usual mathematics.
Since A and B are variables,
'2AB' means in long form:
2 * A * B
But that was, of course, not meant.
Actually meant was:
2*distance (A, B)
(with 'distancce' as name of a function with two parameters, which are
the endpoints of a streigth line in euclidean space.
In this case the function 'distance' spits out the length of the
connecting line between two points, which are here A and B.)
TH
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Volney:
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term
means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts
from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again.
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A
and a position vector B is not a distance.
Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never
used the scalar products, those are distances.
What do you mean are distances?
As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one dimensional
light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
A and B were defined as points in space.
But since when is space one dimensional?
Am 21.01.2024 um 06:31 schrieb Volney:
On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
And why do you claim that?
Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
variables in an equation.
No, it is also a common way to indicate the distance between two points
A and B, as long as they were previously identified as being points,
which Einstein did.
This is standard in usual mathematics.
One standard.
Since A and B are variables, '2AB' means in long form:
2 * A * B
No, it means twice the distance between points A and B.
That was meant, but not written.
The real name is actually 'line segment':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment
this is the part of a streigth line through A and B, which is between A
and B.
A and B are symbols, which were used as names of points by Einstein.
But points cannot be put into an equation (like 2AB), because points are physical objects and equations can only deal with mathematical objects.
Since Einstein didn't say that often, how his symbols had to be
interpreted, he left it essentially to the reader to make sense out of
his text.
Since I'm a reader, too,
I had chosen the next possible mathematical
interpretation of A and B, which is the position vector.
If Einstein wanted that, he could, but had to make a statement, what he wanted instead.
Because he didn't, I'm free to interpret his text in the next plausible
way, which leads to a wrong equation.
...
On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
And why do you claim that?
Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
variables in an equation.
A and B are points, not variables. AB is the distance between A and B.
On 1/21/2024 2:02 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Volney:
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term >>>>>>> means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts >>>>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again. >>>>>>
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A >>>>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never >>>>> used the scalar products, those are distances.
What do you mean are distances?
As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one dimensional >>> light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
A and B were defined as points in space.
And AB is the distance from A to B.
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
But since when is space one dimensional?
one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
Am 21.01.2024 um 19:58 schrieb Volney:
On 1/20/2024 4:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:39 schrieb Volney:
On 1/17/2024 1:58 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
But 2AB is not twice the distance from A to B.
And why do you claim that?
Multiplication is assumed, if no operator is present between two
variables in an equation.
A and B are points, not variables. AB is the distance between A and B.
Sure.
But usually the path from A to B is a vector.
The length of this vector is called 'distance'.
therefore distance(A,B) = |vect(A->B)|
AB is not really a distance, but a shorthand for distance (used by a
lazy physicist).
I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who had
to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert Einstein in
this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
Am 21.01.2024 um 19:51 schrieb Volney:
On 1/21/2024 2:02 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.01.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Volney:
In the formula TA' = TA + 2AB/c, what do you think the AB/c term >>>>>>>> means?
Where does the 2 come from?
I know, of course, what that equation means.
A is a point in space and B is a point in space. The signal starts >>>>>>> from A in direction of B, gets reflected there and reaches A again. >>>>>>>
2AB/c is incorrect, because a scalar-product of a position vector A >>>>>>> and a position vector B is not a distance.
Why did you write such a goofball statement like that? Einstein never >>>>>> used the scalar products, those are distances.
What do you mean are distances?
As Einstein stated, AB is the distance from A to B and BA is the
distance from B to A. Since he was discussing the simple one
dimensional
light beam from A to B and back, there's absolutely no reason for
obfuscation like scalar products and position vectors.
A and B were defined as points in space.
And AB is the distance from A to B.
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
But since when is space one dimensional?
one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
I know what you mean, of course.
But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one dimension' is nonsense.
Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).
A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is not
a one-dimensional line.
Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
cannot possibly become equal.
I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who had
to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert Einstein in
this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in flames, repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were looked at by anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect, your own mistake
or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes by you (saying
segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary complication
where a simple distance between two points becomes vector analysis. I
would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has every single one
of those mistakes of yours.
This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
On 2024-01-22 17:28:11 +0000, Volney said:
I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who
had to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert
Einstein in this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in
flames, repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were
looked at by anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect,
your own mistake or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes
by you (saying segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary
complication where a simple distance between two points becomes vector
analysis. I would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has
every single one of those mistakes of yours.
This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.
Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
spelling error that any German speaker might make).
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
I know what you mean, of course.
But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
dimension' is nonsense.
Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
See my other reply I just posted.
Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).
A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
not a one-dimensional line.
It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off infinitely in a given direction. Like half of a mathematical line.
Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
cannot possibly become equal.
Am 22.01.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-01-22 17:28:11 +0000, Volney said:
I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who
had to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert
Einstein in this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in
flames, repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were
looked at by anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect,
your own mistake or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes
by you (saying segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary
complication where a simple distance between two points becomes vector
analysis. I would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has
every single one of those mistakes of yours.
This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.
Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
spelling error that any German speaker might make).
Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the assistence of a spell-checker.
(Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.
But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite correct.
..
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (notI had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
arguments against those of the regular 'Dono'.
He had attacked me and call me (like you ) 'crackpot' or similar.
I had dared to say, that Einstein's text is full of errors.
Since Dono didn't believe me, I had to mark all the (400+) errors in it.
In case you like to defend Einstein's text, you simply need to disprove
my 400+ comments (or at least a few).
But you will most likely fail, because most tries to disprove any of my arguments failed sofar.
Not all, because I made some errors, too.
But since I had removed my own errors and polished the annotations a
bit, you will have a hard time to find anything fault in them.
I case you like to try that anyhow, you would make me quite happy.
So: here comes the text of Einstein with my annotations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
You need to download it to your own computer, because google does not
show the annotations in the online version.
If you find any error, then please let me know.
TH
Am 22.01.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2024-01-22 17:28:11 +0000, Volney said:
I had ciriticised this, because I had the role of a professor, who
had to write corrections for the homework of a student (Albert
Einstein in this case) and have a policy of formal striktness.
Remember, that stupidity of your "corrections" was shot down in
flames, repeatedly. Only a few of your zillion "corrections" were
looked at by anyone, but every single one was either not incorrect,
your own mistake or lack of understanding, weird terminology mistakes
by you (saying segment AB must be A*B for example) or an unnecessary
complication where a simple distance between two points becomes vector
analysis. I would say your overcomplication of the AB distance has
every single one of those mistakes of yours.
This paper has been examined under a microscope, both by cranks and
actual physicists. The only real "mistake" was saying a clock at the
equator ran slower than a clock at the north pole, and that's because
Einstein hadn't discovered GR yet. And there's some awkward language,
which, if I recall, you didn't even notice.
Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role
of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
spelling error that any German speaker might make).
Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the assistence of a spell-checker.
(Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right. But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite correct.
..
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (notI had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
arguments against those of the regular 'Dono'.
He had attacked me and call me (like you ) 'crackpot' or similar.
I had dared to say, that Einstein's text is full of errors.
Since Dono didn't believe me, I had to mark all the (400+) errors in it.
In case you like to defend Einstein's text, you simply need to disprove
my 400+ comments (or at least a few).
But you will most likely fail, because most tries to disprove any of my arguments failed sofar.
Not all, because I made some errors, too.
But since I had removed my own errors and polished the annotations a
bit, you will have a hard time to find anything fault in them.
I case you like to try that anyhow, you would make me quite happy.
So: here comes the text of Einstein with my annotations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view
You need to download it to your own computer, because google does not
show the annotations in the online version.
If you find any error, then please let me know.
TH
Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world,
I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
You are, you, a crackpot.
Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in
one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z
axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
I know what you mean, of course.
But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
dimension' is nonsense.
Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
See my other reply I just posted.
Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time).
A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
not a one-dimensional line.
It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not a
ray.
This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
the universe is actually one-dimensional.
Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the real world.
Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off
Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
cannot possibly become equal.
infinitely in a given direction. Like half of a mathematical line.
I wonder how physicists could survive in the real world, if they confuse
real objects and mathematical objects.
On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 22/01/2024 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a crit :
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
years old,
a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world, I believeNo, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
You are, you, a crackpot.
Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are CLASSIC
signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for admitting
your crackpottedness.
On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots (not
just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".
I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only 27
years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the world,
I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
You are, you, a crackpot.
Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are CLASSIC
signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for admitting
your crackpottedness.
Isn't that what Christians do, when they worship someone who (if he
lived at all) died at around that age?
Le 23/01/2024 à 17:58, Volney a écrit :
On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots
(not just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.)
see themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's
"errors".
I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only
27 years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the
world, I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
You are, you, a crackpot.
Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are
CLASSIC signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for
admitting your crackpottedness.
Einstein is not a scientist, but a prophet.
It is also very interesting to note this incredible coincidence.
1905: separation of Church and State. The state finds itself without christian God.
1905: a new prophet appears on the world scene.
However, it is not difficult to dismantle the theory of relativity, even
in front of the world's biggest pundits.
I mean logically, scientifically, mathematically.
But then we will be confronted with a huge religious problem.
Physicists will immediately behave like religious fundamentalists and
how many times have I heard: “If our prophet was wrong, we would know it”.
The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.
Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountableWhat errors?
task.
Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role >>> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince
every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
spelling error that any German speaker might make).
Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
assistence of a spell-checker.
(Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.
No maybe about it. It is plain wrong.
But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite
correct.
Not correct _at all_. English is not German.
On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in >>>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z >>>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
I know what you mean, of course.
But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
dimension' is nonsense.
Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension.
See my other reply I just posted.
Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore time). >>>>
A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is
not a one-dimensional line.
It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not
a ray.
So use a ray then.
(actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A and B)
This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
the universe is actually one-dimensional.
A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
for the mathematical analysis of the problem.
Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
real world.
Once again, they are simplifications.
The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.
Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable
task.
Le 23/01/2024 à 19:11, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
Isn't that what Christians do, when they worship someone who (if he
lived at all) died at around that age?
Not exactly.
It is attested that Jesus Christ was born during the reign of King Herod
the Great.
Some exegetes speak (and I tend to follow them as a learned theologian)
of a birth in Bethlehem around -17 BC.
Am 23.01.2024 um 11:23 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
...
Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the role >>>> of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince >>>> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
spelling error that any German speaker might make).
Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
assistence of a spell-checker.
(Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.
No maybe about it. It is plain wrong.
Well, yes, but do you really want to insist on commas?
Usually I would give foreigners a little benefit in their use of the language, because it is usually difficult to learn a second language
and therefore rude to requirre perfect spelling from a stranger.
But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite
correct.
Not correct _at all_. English is not German.
English has actually German roots, too.
German is more or less a very big family of languages and also includes languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss, Italian, Russian and
Romanian Germans.
Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
by the Mayas.
...
Am 23.01.2024 um 11:23 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
...
Not surprising in someone who hasn't understood yet not to set off a
defining clause with a comma in English (unlike German): "I had the
role
of a professor, who had to write corrections for the homework". I wince >>>> every time I see one of Thomas Heger's incorrect commas. I don't
complain about "ciriticised" (obviously a typo) or "striktness" (a
spelling error that any German speaker might make).
Well, I would like to see YOU writing in a second language without the
assistence of a spell-checker.
(Unfortunately there are no more updates available for this version of
thunderbird, which is the last one, that runs under Windows VISTA).
So, try some German and let me correct your posts in my own language.
In case of commas: well, yes, maybe you are right.
No maybe about it. It is plain wrong.
Well, yes, but do you really want to insist on commas?
Usually I would give foreigners a little benefit in their use of the language, because it is usually difficult to learn a second language and therefore rude to requirre perfect spelling from a stranger.
But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite
correct.
Not correct _at all_. English is not German.
English has actually German roots, too.
German is more or less a very big family of languages and also includes languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss,
Italian, Russian and
Romanian Germans.
Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken by
the Mayas.
Am 23.01.2024 um 17:51 schrieb Volney:
On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything happens in >>>>>> one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y and Z >>>>>> axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
I know what you mean, of course.
But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one
dimension' is nonsense.
Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension. >>>>
See my other reply I just posted.
Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore
time).
A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is >>>>> not a one-dimensional line.
It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not
a ray.
So use a ray then.
(actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A
and B)
This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
the universe is actually one-dimensional.
A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
for the mathematical analysis of the problem.
I mean 'ray in the real world' with 'ray', of course.
In geomoetry you have also a construct called 'ray', but that cannot be produced by a torch, for instance.
Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
real world.
Once again, they are simplifications.
Mathematical objects belong to mathematics and real world objects to theBut you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by mathematics.
real world.
And you must not confuse one with the other.
...
Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance languages.
Russia is a country and has a population, which speaks mainly but not
only Russian.
Some Russians speak German, for instance.
The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
languages.
Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
by the Mayas.
That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS,
I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
stupid that was.
The is a guy, who wrote, that a very ancient form of Old-German was the
root of all languages on the planet.
(Sorry, but I forgot the name of that guy)
But I use mostly 'comma-logic' from German, even if that is not quite >>>> correct.
Not correct _at all_. English is not German.
English has actually German roots, too.
But it's quite different now. In addition to centuries of separation,
English was heavily influenced by the Norman Invasion, with lots of old French influences.
German is more or less a very big family of languages and also
includes languages from the nehterlands or the Swiss,
The Swiss have multiple languages. German is one, but French, Italian
and Romansh are Romance languages, derived from Latin, not German.
Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance languages.
The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
languages.
Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
by the Mayas.
That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS,
I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
stupid that was.
On 1/24/2024 2:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.01.2024 um 17:51 schrieb Volney:But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by mathematics.
On 1/23/2024 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 22.01.2024 um 18:40 schrieb Volney:
Since the light goes from A to B and back to A, everything
happens in
one dimension. Define the X axis as along the AB axis and the Y
and Z
axes can be ignored as irrelevant.
I know what you mean, of course.
But you're nevertheless wrong, because 'everything happens in one >>>>>> dimension' is nonsense.
Since 'everything' in this part of the paper is light along a line
segment going out and back, everything there IS in just one dimension. >>>>>
See my other reply I just posted.
Actually 'everything happens in three dimensions' (if you ignore
time).
A ray of light could be approximated by a single line, but simply is >>>>>> not a one-dimensional line.
It's not an approximation. It is a simplification.
Sure, but the line is an approximate simplification of a ray, but not
a ray.
So use a ray then.
(actually for this part we use a line segment, one with endpoints A
and B)
This line belongs to a different realm than a ray, because nothing in
the universe is actually one-dimensional.
A line and a ray are both 1 dimensional mathematical objects, as is a
line segment. As a simplification (not an approximation) they are used
for the mathematical analysis of the problem.
I mean 'ray in the real world' with 'ray', of course.
In geomoetry you have also a construct called 'ray', but that cannot
be produced by a torch, for instance.
Lines, circles, squares and so forth are simply non-existent in the
real world.
Once again, they are simplifications.
Mathematical objects belong to mathematics and real world objects to
the real world.
And you must not confuse one with the other.
...
Physics: I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
apples. How many apples do I have.
Mathematics: 2+2=4.
Am 25.01.2024 um 03:38 schrieb Volney:
I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
apples. How many apples do I have.
You have four apples.
TH
I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
apples. How many apples do I have.
Mathematics: 2+2=4.
Mathematics: 2+2=4.
This is what I have been saying for 40 years, but no one has ever wanted
to believe me.
Mathematics: 2+2=4.
This is what I have been saying for 40 years, but no one has ever wanted
to believe me.
I pretty certain, that there wasn't that much resistence to this equation.
TH
Am 25.01.2024 um 07:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance
languages.
Russia is a country and has a population, which speaks mainly but not
only Russian.
Some Russians speak German, for instance.
The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
languages.
Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken
by the Mayas.
That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that BS, >>> I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how
stupid that was.
The is a guy, who wrote, that a very ancient form of Old-German was the
root of all languages on the planet.
(Sorry, but I forgot the name of that guy)
https://zeitfuerdich.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/maya-althochdeutsch.pdf
The name is Eduard Landmann
On 1/25/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 25.01.2024 um 07:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance
languages.
Russia is a country and has a population, which speaks mainly but not
only Russian.
Some Russians speak German, for instance.
That's true for every country, especially one the size of Russia.
(Russia tries to suppress languages other than Russian, however)
The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
languages.
Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken >>>>> by the Mayas.
That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that
BS,
I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how >>>> stupid that was.
The is a guy, who wrote, that a very ancient form of Old-German was the
root of all languages on the planet.
(Sorry, but I forgot the name of that guy)
https://zeitfuerdich.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/maya-althochdeutsch.pdf
The name is Eduard Landmann
It doesn't matter what his name is. It is absurd. Mayans had no contact
with Germans since some time after the conquistadors arrived. The Mayan languages (many of them) descended from a common proto-Mayan language
4-5000 years ago, well before any form of German existed. Probably just Indo-European 5000 years ago. I mean it should be blazingly obvious
since there was no contact between Mayans and Germans until relatively recently, why would you believe something that ridiculous?
Am 28.01.2024 um 05:12 schrieb Volney:
On 1/25/2024 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 25.01.2024 um 07:22 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Italian, Russian and Romanian Germans.
Russian is a Slavic language. Romanian and Italian are Romance
languages.
Russia is a country and has a population, which speaks mainly but not
only Russian.
Some Russians speak German, for instance.
That's true for every country, especially one the size of Russia.
(Russia tries to suppress languages other than Russian, however)
The best you can do is state all these languages are Indo-European
languages.
Some historians also say, that a very early form of German was spoken >>>>>> by the Mayas.
That is completely absurd. None of the native languages are even
Indo-European, much less German-based. The last time you stated that >>>>> BS,
I even asked my niece (PhD in linguistics) and she just laughed at how >>>>> stupid that was.
The is a guy, who wrote, that a very ancient form of Old-German was the >>>> root of all languages on the planet.
(Sorry, but I forgot the name of that guy)
https://zeitfuerdich.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/maya-althochdeutsch.pdf >>>
The name is Eduard Landmann
It doesn't matter what his name is. It is absurd. Mayans had no contact
with Germans since some time after the conquistadors arrived. The Mayan
languages (many of them) descended from a common proto-Mayan language
4-5000 years ago, well before any form of German existed. Probably just
Indo-European 5000 years ago. I mean it should be blazingly obvious
since there was no contact between Mayans and Germans until relatively
recently, why would you believe something that ridiculous?
It is assumed, that the so called 'Olmec' were actually Africans
and
that the Phoenicians established trade routes to south America several thousand years BC.
Therefore German speaking sailors many thousand years ago were also a possibility.
Possibly some tribes of the Wikings spoke German and sailed across the Atlantic and further south.
There they dominated the culture and influenced that way the language of
the native people.
Also North American tribes seemingly had roots in Europe.
But that is mainly unknown.
But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
Columbus was born.
The name is Eduard Landmann
It doesn't matter what his name is. It is absurd. Mayans had no contact
with Germans since some time after the conquistadors arrived. The Mayan
languages (many of them) descended from a common proto-Mayan language
4-5000 years ago, well before any form of German existed. Probably just
Indo-European 5000 years ago. I mean it should be blazingly obvious
since there was no contact between Mayans and Germans until relatively
recently, why would you believe something that ridiculous?
It is assumed, that the so called 'Olmec' were actually Africans
Pretty dumb assumption. No DNA evidence of Africans in South American natives, for one. And Africans aren't Germans.
and that the Phoenicians established trade routes to south America
several thousand years BC.
Again, no DNA evidence. Nor were Phoenicians Germans.
Therefore German speaking sailors many thousand years ago were also a
possibility.
The Germans weren't much more than barbarians thousands of years ago.
Nor were they known for seafaring until more modern times.
Possibly some tribes of the Wikings spoke German and sailed across the
Atlantic and further south.
Possibly the moon is made of green cheese.
There they dominated the culture and influenced that way the language
of the native people.
Yet Mayan languages are a completely separate language family with no
German influence whatsoever. Nor is there German DNA in Central/South American natives.
Also North American tribes seemingly had roots in Europe.
North American DNA is poorly understood with insufficient sampling, NA natives are, in general, reluctant to participate in DNA samples.
But that is mainly unknown.Just not by the Germans.
But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
Columbus was born.
Am 31.01.2024 um 03:36 schrieb Volney:
The name is Eduard Landmann
It doesn't matter what his name is. It is absurd. Mayans had no contact >>>> with Germans since some time after the conquistadors arrived. The Mayan >>>> languages (many of them) descended from a common proto-Mayan language
4-5000 years ago, well before any form of German existed. Probably just >>>> Indo-European 5000 years ago. I mean it should be blazingly obvious
since there was no contact between Mayans and Germans until relatively >>>> recently, why would you believe something that ridiculous?
It is assumed, that the so called 'Olmec' were actually Africans
Pretty dumb assumption. No DNA evidence of Africans in South American
natives, for one. And Africans aren't Germans.
The Olmecs build use HUGE stone-portraits, which resemble the people in Africa.
Therefore it is very likely, that these people had actually African origin.
and that the Phoenicians established trade routes to south America
several thousand years BC.
Again, no DNA evidence. Nor were Phoenicians Germans.
Therefore German speaking sailors many thousand years ago were also a
possibility.
The Germans weren't much more than barbarians thousands of years ago.
Nor were they known for seafaring until more modern times.
Whom the Romans called 'Germanes' were actually tribes called 'Cimbern'
and 'Teutones'.
These tribes settled in northern Denmark and not in the area today
called 'Germany'.
The same area is also the home of so called 'Wikings', which might be rightfully called 'Barbarians', too.
(because of being bearded and pludering the countires across the seas).
Possibly some tribes of the Wikings spoke German and sailed across the
Atlantic and further south.
Possibly the moon is made of green cheese.
Well, wen regard it as established fact, that Wikings have been in
North America long befor Columbus.
There they dominated the culture and influenced that way the language
of the native people.
Yet Mayan languages are a completely separate language family with no
German influence whatsoever. Nor is there German DNA in Central/South
American natives.
Well, DNA from people living thousands of years ago may have eventually
got lost.
But there were stones found in South America, carved with Phoenician inscripts and symbols.
So, also Phoenician travels across the Atlantic is widely believed to
have happend.
Also North American tribes seemingly had roots in Europe.
North American DNA is poorly understood with insufficient sampling, NA
natives are, in general, reluctant to participate in DNA samples.
Also the number of these native people is vastly reduced due to colonisation.
Therefore it is difficult to find out, from where these people actually came.
But that is mainly unknown.Just not by the Germans.
But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
Columbus was born.
You confuse 'Germans' and 'Germanes'.
'Germans' means actually current Germany and its citizens and
'Germanes' was the name, that ancient Romans gave to tribes, which had
not settled in the country today called 'Germany' but in Denmark.
In ancient times the North Sea was called 'Mare Germanicum' and meant
the sea along the north of Denmark.
Am 31.01.2024 um 03:36 schrieb Volney:
The name is Eduard Landmann
It doesn't matter what his name is. It is absurd. Mayans had no contact >>>> with Germans since some time after the conquistadors arrived. The Mayan >>>> languages (many of them) descended from a common proto-Mayan language
4-5000 years ago, well before any form of German existed. Probably just >>>> Indo-European 5000 years ago. I mean it should be blazingly obvious
since there was no contact between Mayans and Germans until relatively >>>> recently, why would you believe something that ridiculous?
It is assumed, that the so called 'Olmec' were actually Africans
Pretty dumb assumption. No DNA evidence of Africans in South American
natives, for one. And Africans aren't Germans.
The Olmecs build use HUGE stone-portraits, which resemble the people in Africa.
Therefore it is very likely, that these people had actually African origin.
and that the Phoenicians established trade routes to south America
several thousand years BC.
Again, no DNA evidence. Nor were Phoenicians Germans.
Therefore German speaking sailors many thousand years ago were also a
possibility.
The Germans weren't much more than barbarians thousands of years ago.
Nor were they known for seafaring until more modern times.
Whom the Romans called 'Germanes' were actually tribes called 'Cimbern'
and 'Teutones'.
These tribes settled in northern Denmark and not in the area today
called 'Germany'.
The same area is also the home of so called 'Wikings', which might be rightfully called 'Barbarians', too.
(because of being bearded and pludering the countires across the seas).
Possibly some tribes of the Wikings spoke German and sailed across the
Atlantic and further south.
Possibly the moon is made of green cheese.
Well, wen regard it as established fact, that Wikings have been in North America long befor Columbus.
There they dominated the culture and influenced that way the language
of the native people.
Yet Mayan languages are a completely separate language family with no
German influence whatsoever. Nor is there German DNA in Central/South
American natives.
Well, DNA from people living thousands of years ago may have eventually
got lost.
Also North American tribes seemingly had roots in Europe.
North American DNA is poorly understood with insufficient sampling, NA
natives are, in general, reluctant to participate in DNA samples.
Also the number of these native people is vastly reduced due to
colonisation.
Therefore it is difficult to find out, from where these people actually
came.
But that is mainly unknown.Just not by the Germans.
But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
Columbus was born.
You confuse 'Germans' and 'Germanes'.
'Germans' means actually current Germany and its citizens and 'Germanes'
was the name, that ancient Romans gave to tribes, which had not settled
in the country today called 'Germany' but in Denmark.
In ancient times the North Sea was called 'Mare Germanicum' and meant
the sea along the north of Denmark.
It's hopeless, Volney, you'll never convince him that the moon is not,
in fact, made of green cheese.
On 1/31/2024 3:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
It's hopeless, Volney, you'll never convince him that the moon is not,
in fact, made of green cheese.
I know. But often I like to argue with cranks for the sake of arguing
with cranks.
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 1/31/2024 3:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
I know. But often I like to argue with cranks for the sake of arguing
It's hopeless, Volney, you'll never convince him that the moon is not,
in fact, made of green cheese.
with cranks.
Yes, but there is no point in overdoing it.
Why go on forever with feeding an automaton?
On Thursday 1 February 2024 at 12:35:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 1/31/2024 3:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Yes, but there is no point in overdoing it.
I know. But often I like to argue with cranks for the sake of arguing
It's hopeless, Volney, you'll never convince him that the moon is not, >>>> in fact, made of green cheese.
with cranks.
Why go on forever with feeding an automaton?
Come on, Jan, it's simple, can be comprehended even
by such an idiot. Your mad ideology is training you to
bark at the infidels, so you do.
On 2/1/2024 6:35 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 1/31/2024 3:42 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
I know. But often I like to argue with cranks for the sake of arguing
It's hopeless, Volney, you'll never convince him that the moon is not, >>> in fact, made of green cheese.
with cranks.
Yes, but there is no point in overdoing it.
Why go on forever with feeding an automaton?
I just do it until I get bored with them/their ideas, or I find where
their mental infinite loop gets stuck or whatever. For example the
janitor, he has everything backwards mentally and won't get unstuck, so
I really don't bother with him much anymore.
On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
Hi NGThat is a good and sufficient refutation.
I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
Also the rigid disk itself would ecounter 'length elongation' (radius
gets longer), because the centrifugal acceleration tends to tear the
disk apart.
But neither of these effects were mentioned, while the similarity to
gravitation assumed.
But as far as I know, gravitation pulls into the opposite direction
(towards the center).
And: the observer could not possibly regard his rotating disk as at
rest, because he had trouble to stay on his feet and on the disk, if
that disk rotates.
TH
Also,
Refutation:
1. If there were (and it did not involve every layer of the disc contracting), then the pi ratio of radius to circumference would no longer exist.
2. Then, it would no longer be a circle.
3. Therefore, length contraction is again disproven by proving to be self-contradictory nonsense.
There is no such thing as length contraction.
This is all any intelligent and (self-) educated person needs to know to be a real scientist instead of a fool (relativist).
Le 27/01/2024 à 07:39, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Mathematics: 2+2=4.
This is what I have been saying for 40 years, but no one has ever wanted >>> to believe me.
I pretty certain, that there wasn't that much resistence to this
equation.
TH
Yes, you know people are crazy.
On 1/23/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 23/01/2024 à 17:58, Volney a écrit :
On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots
(not just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.)
see themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's
"errors".
I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only
27 years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the
world, I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach.
You are, you, a crackpot.
Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are
CLASSIC signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for
admitting your crackpottedness.
Einstein is not a scientist, but a prophet.
There you go again, proving to us that you are a full-blown crackpot.
Or maybe just a bit less than full-blown crackpot since you wrote
'prophet' and not 'god'.
It is also very interesting to note this incredible coincidence.
1905: separation of Church and State. The state finds itself without
christian God.
Separation of church and state is from the United States Bill of Rights, 1789, not 1905. And probably elsewhere as a concept before that.
1905: a new prophet appears on the world scene.
There you go, firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot.
However, it is not difficult to dismantle the theory of relativity,
even in front of the world's biggest pundits.
I mean logically, scientifically, mathematically.
Mathematically consistent, fully supported scientifically. And quite
logical when going through the relativity papers.
But then we will be confronted with a huge religious problem.
Physicists will immediately behave like religious fundamentalists and
how many times have I heard: “If our prophet was wrong, we would know
it”.
Which "physicist" even uses the word "prophet"? None?
The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit
plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.
Where?
What errors?
Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable
task.
Einstein's 1905 paper is FULL of errors (I have counted 428 errors).
The number is so extremely large and the type of errors range from
serious to stupid, that I would not believe for a second, that Max
Planck took it for real.
I personally think, this particular paper and the subsequent
'deification' of Einstein were part of a plot.
This plot was apparently meant to derail physics in general and bring
members of a certain hidden 'club' into a better position within the competion for fame and money in the scientific community.
So, it will be by no means allowed to criticise this paper (or the
author) for all physicists, who want stay in office or profession.
But some pyhsicists did that anyhow, like e.g. Herbert Dingle.
Those got expelled from 'the church' and got mobbed and harrassed till
the end of their lives.
Also this particular group of the UseNet apperently serves the same
purpose and absorbs all sorts of critique, which flows in year after
year without any effect whatever.
This shall go on for all time being (according to plan).
BUT:
even if people are mostly stupid, some are not. And a few of these few
will bring down this plot.
TH
Einstein's 1905 paper is FULL of errors (I have counted 428 errors).
The number is so extremely large and the type of errors range from
serious to stupid, that I would not believe for a second, that Max
Planck took it for real.
I personally think, this particular paper and the subsequent
'deification' of Einstein were part of a plot.
This plot was apparently meant to derail physics in general and bring
members of a certain hidden 'club' into a better position within the competion for fame and money in the scientific community.
So, it will be by no means allowed to criticise this paper (or the
author) for all physicists, who want stay in office or profession.
But some pyhsicists did that anyhow, like e.g. Herbert Dingle.
Those got expelled from 'the church' and got mobbed and harrassed till
the end of their lives.
Also this particular group of the UseNet apperently serves the same
purpose and absorbs all sorts of critique, which flows in year after
year without any effect whatever.
This shall go on for all time being (according to plan).
BUT:
even if people are mostly stupid, some are not. And a few of these few
will bring down this plot.
Am 24.01.2024 um 06:55 schrieb Volney:
On 1/23/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 23/01/2024 à 17:58, Volney a écrit :
On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 22/01/2024 à 19:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
As for the whole sentence, I am continually amazed that crackpots
(not just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.)
see themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's
"errors".
I think you're the weirdo. To deify a man as you do, when he is only >>>>> 27 years old, a common copyist of the greatest mathematician in the
world, I believe that one must not have an intellect beyond reproach. >>>>>
You are, you, a crackpot.
Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are
CLASSIC signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for
admitting your crackpottedness.
Einstein is not a scientist, but a prophet.
There you go again, proving to us that you are a full-blown crackpot.
Or maybe just a bit less than full-blown crackpot since you wrote
'prophet' and not 'god'.
It is also very interesting to note this incredible coincidence.
1905: separation of Church and State. The state finds itself without
christian God.
Separation of church and state is from the United States Bill of Rights,
1789, not 1905. And probably elsewhere as a concept before that.
1905: a new prophet appears on the world scene.
There you go, firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot.
However, it is not difficult to dismantle the theory of relativity,
even in front of the world's biggest pundits.
I mean logically, scientifically, mathematically.
Mathematically consistent, fully supported scientifically. And quite
logical when going through the relativity papers.
But then we will be confronted with a huge religious problem.
Physicists will immediately behave like religious fundamentalists and
how many times have I heard: “If our prophet was wrong, we would know
it”.
Which "physicist" even uses the word "prophet"? None?
The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit
plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.
Where?
Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable
task.
What errors?
Einstein's 1905 paper is FULL of errors (I have counted 428 errors).
The number is so extremely large and the type of errors range from
serious to stupid, that I would not believe for a second, that Max
Planck took it for real.
I personally think, this particular paper and the subsequent
'deification' of Einstein were part of a plot.
This plot was apparently meant to derail physics in general and bring
members of a certain hidden 'club' into a better position within the competion for fame and money in the scientific community.
So, it will be by no means allowed to criticise this paper (or the
author) for all physicists, who want stay in office or profession.
But some pyhsicists did that anyhow, like e.g. Herbert Dingle.
Those got expelled from 'the church' and got mobbed and harrassed till
the end of their lives.
Also this particular group of the UseNet apperently serves the same
purpose and absorbs all sorts of critique, which flows in year after
year without any effect whatever.
This shall go on for all time being (according to plan).
BUT:
even if people are mostly stupid, some are not. And a few of these few
will bring down this plot.
Physicists will immediately behave like religious fundamentalists and
how many times have I heard: “If our prophet was wrong, we would know >>>> it”.
Which "physicist" even uses the word "prophet"? None?
The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit
plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.
Where?
Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable >>>> task.
What errors?
Einstein's 1905 paper is FULL of errors (I have counted 428 errors).
Now you are back to 'finding errors' in Einstein's paper and not the translation?
The number is so extremely large and the type of errors range from
serious to stupid, that I would not believe for a second, that Max
Planck took it for real.
No, the number is zero errors, and you ignored my request to post the
most obvious, egregious, stupidest error in that paper, in order to show
you actually found one valid error.
I personally think, this particular paper and the subsequent
'deification' of Einstein were part of a plot.
Since there was no 'deification' of Einstein and no errors, there's
obviously no plot. And since you now claim 'deification' of Einstein,
you now are back to your higher rating on the crackpot scale, instead of merely calling him a 'prophet'.
This plot was apparently meant to derail physics in general and bring
members of a certain hidden 'club' into a better position within the
competion for fame and money in the scientific community.
So, it will be by no means allowed to criticise this paper (or the
author) for all physicists, who want stay in office or profession.
Plot? 'Hidden club'? Not allowed to criticize the paper?
Einstein's 1905 paper is FULL of errors (I have counted 428 errors).
Now you are back to 'finding errors' in Einstein's paper and not the translation?
The number is so extremely large and the type of errors range from
serious to stupid, that I would not believe for a second, that Max
Planck took it for real.
No, the number is zero errors
Einstein was made kind of 'pop star of physics'.
This required coordinated efforts of large parts of the mainstream media
of that time.
But his fame was NOT caused by his paper(-s), because almost nobody had
read them and those who did had critisised them.
This fact alone would be sufficiant to raise eyebrows and be sceptical
about the narrative.
But it went far further than simple fame and presence in the media.
Einstein's face was printed on stamps, posters and money. TV-shows,
schools and kindergardens were named after him.
So, Einstein was efficiently 'deified'.
But still nobody read his papers.
This was actually unnecessary, because popular versions of his theories
were writen and printed into tons of very nice books with pritty
pictures for TV-shows, schools and kindergardens.
So, nobody needed to read his papers, let alone criticise them.
Sure it was, since Einstein was made kind of 'pop star of physics'.
This required coordinated efforts of large parts of the mainstream media
of that time.
But his fame was NOT caused by his paper(-s), because almost nobody had
read them and those who did had critisised them.
This fact alone would be sufficiant to raise eyebrows and be sceptical
about the narrative.
But it went far further than simple fame and presence in the media.
Einstein's face was printed on stamps, posters and money. TV-shows,
schools and kindergardens were named after him.
So, Einstein was efficiently 'deified'.
But still nobody read his papers.
This was actually unnecessary, because popular versions of his theories
were writen and printed into tons of very nice books with pritty
pictures for TV-shows, schools and kindergardens.
So, nobody needed to read his papers, let alone criticise them.
Am 21.02.2024 um 23:53 schrieb Volney:
Physicists will immediately behave like religious fundamentalists and >>>>> how many times have I heard: “If our prophet was wrong, we would know >>>>> it”.
Which "physicist" even uses the word "prophet"? None?
The problem is that, with the theory wonderfully tinged with bullshit >>>>> plastering, even the world's greatest physicists are getting caught.
Where?
Wanting to explain where the errors are then becomes an insurmountable >>>>> task.
What errors?
Einstein's 1905 paper is FULL of errors (I have counted 428 errors).
Now you are back to 'finding errors' in Einstein's paper and not the
translation?
The number is so extremely large and the type of errors range from
serious to stupid, that I would not believe for a second, that Max
Planck took it for real.
No, the number is zero errors, and you ignored my request to post the
most obvious, egregious, stupidest error in that paper, in order to show
you actually found one valid error.
I personally think, this particular paper and the subsequent
'deification' of Einstein were part of a plot.
Since there was no 'deification' of Einstein and no errors, there's
obviously no plot. And since you now claim 'deification' of Einstein,
you now are back to your higher rating on the crackpot scale, instead of
merely calling him a 'prophet'.
Sure it was, since Einstein was made kind of 'pop star of physics'.
This required coordinated efforts of large parts of the mainstream media
of that time.
But his fame was NOT caused by his paper(-s), because almost nobody had
read them and those who did had critisised them.
This fact alone would be sufficiant to raise eyebrows and be sceptical
about the narrative.
But it went far further than simple fame and presence in the media.
Einstein's face was printed on stamps, posters and money. TV-shows,
schools and kindergardens were named after him.
So, Einstein was efficiently 'deified'.
But still nobody read his papers.
This was actually unnecessary, because popular versions of his theories
were writen and printed into tons of very nice books with pritty
pictures for TV-shows, schools and kindergardens.
So, nobody needed to read his papers, let alone criticise them.
This plot was apparently meant to derail physics in general and bring
members of a certain hidden 'club' into a better position within the
competion for fame and money in the scientific community.
So, it will be by no means allowed to criticise this paper (or the
author) for all physicists, who want stay in office or profession.
Plot? 'Hidden club'? Not allowed to criticize the paper?
Well, yes, sounds like that.
But, unfortunately, if have not found out, who is actually behind this
plot.
Am 21.02.2024 um 23:53 schrieb Volney:
So, it will be by no means allowed to criticise this paper (or the
author) for all physicists, who want stay in office or profession.
Plot? 'Hidden club'? Not allowed to criticize the paper?
Well, yes, sounds like that. But, unfortunately, if have not found out,
who is actually behind this plot.
On Thursday 22 February 2024 at 11:24:23 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 22.02.2024 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:
Good catch!
Einstein was made kind of 'pop star of physics'.
This required coordinated efforts of large parts of the mainstream media >>> of that time.
But his fame was NOT caused by his paper(-s), because almost nobody had
read them and those who did had critisised them.
This fact alone would be sufficiant to raise eyebrows and be sceptical
about the narrative.
But it went far further than simple fame and presence in the media.
Einstein's face was printed on stamps, posters and money. TV-shows,
schools and kindergardens were named after him.
So, Einstein was efficiently 'deified'.
But still nobody read his papers.
This was actually unnecessary, because popular versions of his theories
were writen and printed into tons of very nice books with pritty
pictures for TV-shows, schools and kindergardens.
The children in the kindergartens are brainwashed
with popular books about relativity.
What a shame!
Right, poor fanatic halfbrain. A shame. Though The
Shit is rather starting its job in the middle of primary
school.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:47:15 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,461 |
