• Ehrenfest paradox

    From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 24 09:17:43 2023
    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.




    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Dec 24 13:18:32 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 25 16:26:00 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 27 02:21:53 2023
    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 27 06:39:23 2023
    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 Δy 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 Δy does
    not contract or only slightly, and that the part Δx 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.

    To me this 'paradox' is just nuts.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 28 09:04:55 2023
    Am 27.12.2023 um 06:39 schrieb Thomas Heger:
    laser gyroscopes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope

    Quote

    "Principle of operation
    According to the Sagnac effect, rotation induces a small difference
    between the time it takes light to traverse the ring in the two
    directions. This introduces a tiny separation between the frequencies of
    the counter-propagating beams, a motion of the standing wave pattern
    within the ring, and thus a beat pattern when those two beams interfere
    outside the ring. Therefore, the net shift of that interference pattern
    follows the rotation of the unit in the plane of the ring. "


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

    Quote

    "The effect is a consequence of the different times it takes right and
    left moving light beams to complete a full round trip in the
    interferometer ring. ...
    The rotation thus measured is an absolute rotation, that is, the
    platform's rotation with respect to an inertial reference frame. "

    Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 28 08:31:51 2023
    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Dec 28 13:18:00 2023
    Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 28 16:10:07 2023
    Le 28/12/2023 à 15:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    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 :
    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

    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.

    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 28 14:19:44 2023
    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 :
    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

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 28 16:16:35 2023
    Le 28/12/2023 à 16:10, Python a écrit :
    Le 28/12/2023 à 15:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :

    Chouette, revoilà Python.

    On va encore pouvoir rigoler deux minutes.

    Dis-moi, dis-moi, au lieu de faire tes attaques ad hominem à la con,
    qu'est ce que tu penses, toi, du paradoxe d'Ehrenfest?

    Tes deux neurones fonctionnent encore pour tenter une explication
    personnelle?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From wugi@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 28 22:31:43 2023
    Op 24/12/2023 om 9:17 schreef Thomas Heger:

    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.

    One can theorize on a material that doesn't elongate or shrink.
    Something must be assumed anyway. *

    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).

    Similarity to gravitation as a 'geometric' effect in GRT, I'd
    understand. It doesn't matter that different settings may produce
    opposite effects.

    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.

    I think the EP hasn't got its final conclusions yet.
    I feel that two different cases are mixed up in most descriptions.

    One, you have this large physical disk in relativistic rotation, in what
    for the rest could be simple SRT flat spacetime.
    Second, you'd have a curved GRT spacetime behaving as if it were a large rotating disk.

    And many EP "explainers" would seem to try explaining the behaviour of
    subparts of "disk 1" by studying the behaviour of small objects in "disk
    space 2".
    But certainly for disk 1, it is being observed by external flat-space
    observers on the one hand, and what happens in/to the disk itself cannot
    be described by the sole GRT equations, you'll need _constitutive
    equations_ describing the behaviour of the disk material! Like at *
    hereabove.
    Whereas, studying disk space 2 could be done straight away in a GRT
    framework I guess, but it's another problem altogether.

    Simpler cases than a solid disk can be studied by "loosening" the disk
    into a series of independent rings, even by giving those a cone shape.
    That's what I've tried to study in my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AflRNMIMLpU

    --
    guido wugi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 07:44:18 2023
    Le 28/12/2023 à 22:31, wugi a écrit :

    That's what I've tried to study in my video here:


    <http://youtu.be/AflRNMIMLpU>


    Did you personally make this video?

    R.H.

    --
    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=RklVl6ckDoLKgnz21VEpAqyvI04@jntp>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 07:42:03 2023
    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?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From wugi@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 12:51:00 2023
    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:)

    --
    guido wugi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 12:58:27 2023
    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:)

    Je déteste Ravel.

    LOL.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 14:36:01 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 13:25:29 2023
    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.

    --
    Ce message a été posté avec Nemo :<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 14:45:15 2023
    Le 29/12/2023 à 14:43, Richard Hachel a écrit :
    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.

    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 13:43:55 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 15:29:43 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Python on Fri Dec 29 16:24:58 2023
    On 2023-12-29 13:36:01 +0000, Python said:

    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


    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)?


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 16:53:54 2023
    Le 29/12/2023 à 16:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
    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)?

    He didn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Richard "Hachel" Lengrand on Fri Dec 29 20:33:18 2023
    Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
    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.

    So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:

    https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/blob/main/Hachel/divagation_lengrand.pdf

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to Idiotic crank Maciej Wozniak on Fri Dec 29 21:22:18 2023
    Idiotic crank Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    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 :
    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.
    So worth reading that you deliberately removed the link to the article:


    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?

    Still fighting with basic algebra Woz? Sad...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From wugi@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 23:59:09 2023
    Op 29/12/2023 om 14:36 schreef Python:
    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

    I must admit I can't follow your argument throughout.

    Generally what you call "apparent" quantities are poorly described in 'authoritative' SRT literature, yet they'd deserve much more attention.
    My own formulation is:
    always distinguish between
    "measuring" results (in agreement with Lorentz transform) and "watching/seeing/observational" results (light signals reaching
    observer; Doppler distortions...).

    As for the (in?)famous "space-zoom" you seem to reject, dr Hachel may
    formulate it somewhat poorly, but the effect is a true result of "observational" description of SRT/TP.
    My own approach, which seems to me the one to follow, is to be found here:

    "https://wugi.be/paratwin.htm#Relasee,%20TP-wise."
    with this animation:
    https://wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvTrav.gif
    and a bit lower in the text:
    https://wugi.be/animgif/TwinSee_ObsvTrav.gif
    Traveltwins "observation" during his own return event shown in magenta.

    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!

    More on this yet to watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WouPS_umfks&list=PL5xDSSE1qfb6zyVKJbe8POgj-8ijmh5o0&index=8
    and
    https://wugi.be/srtinterac.html
    with eg:
    https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aoacey9t1v?lang=nl
    (choose option TP4 to activate; activate parameter s)

    --
    guido wugi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to "Doctor" Richard Hachel on Sat Dec 30 11:06:45 2023
    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.

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 30 10:02:56 2023
    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 30 11:07:38 2023
    Le 30/12/2023 à 11:06, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
    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.

    LOL.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 30 17:59:25 2023
    Le 29/12/2023 à 23:59, wugi a écrit :

    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!

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 31 08:08:00 2023
    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.

    ...

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 31 09:38:32 2023
    Le 31/12/2023 à 08:04, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    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

    It must be said that a disk which does not rotate, and which moves in
    Galilean motion must be provided with Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.

    On the other hand, if it rotates on itself, otherwise moving in Galilean
    motion (for example a disk in a laboratory) the same equations for the two cases cannot be used.

    Poincaré's transformations are very clear, and say even more than we believe, since they already predict (1905) new notions like the
    relativistic spatial zoom effect, or older ones like the aberration of the position stars at the zenith.

    There are no Poincaré transformations relating to rotating frames of reference and for the moment, we are all content to say stupid things like
    "the circumference of a circle will soon become smaller than its radius".

    The worst part is that those who advocate this are real idiots, and those
    who worship them are even more idiots.

    "We must cultivate our garden"
    Voltaire.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 3 08:51:21 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 3 10:56:48 2024
    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 am convinced that for Mercury, the slight advance of its perihelion is
    due to a problem of RR, and not even of RG.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Jan 3 14:28:50 2024
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 3 18:09:26 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Jan 3 19:48:28 2024
    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.

    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.


    --
    Athel cb

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adolf =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6bel?=@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Wed Jan 3 22:21:17 2024
    On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:48:28 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

    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.

    LOL

    yes, about the size of the planck length

    adi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Jan 3 23:30:05 2024
    On 12/30/2023 12:59 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

    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.






    Why are you telling us your hovercraft is full of eels?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 4 08:23:23 2024
    Am 03.01.2024 um 11:56 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    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.

    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.

    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”.

    No?

    I mean: how would you create a rigid disk from vacuum?

    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 4 10:05:31 2024
    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Jan 4 12:00:24 2024
    Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 4 11:24:26 2024
    Le 04/01/2024 à 12:00, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
    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

    We must differentiate two things.
    The Poincaré-Lorentz transformations
    which are the correct relativistic transformations to use for Galilean
    frames, and the Hachel transformations, which are the correct
    transformations to use for rotating frames.

    It's obviously not the same thing.

    I don't think there is a "global" equation for this, since we are talking
    about very different things.

    Certainly there is a global formula, for example, for the general addition
    of relativistic speeds.

    I give this formula here.

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?wiUVEp5XYx1_Rsh2d_KuhS98JL8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    We see that the longitudinal addition formula and the transverse addition formula are included, and that for the longitudinal form:
    w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c²)
    and for the transverse form w=sqrt(v²+u²-v²u²/c²)

    But here, we are talking about a Galilean frame of reference and a
    rotating frame of reference.

    And it's not the same thing.

    R.H.

    --
    Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=wiUVEp5XYx1_Rsh2d_KuhS98JL8@jntp>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Jan 4 12:18:27 2024
    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.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 4 22:18:01 2024
    Le 04/01/2024 à 19:18, Tom Roberts a écrit :

    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

    To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.
    You don't make mashed potatoes with grated carrots.
    It's not the same thing.
    I give you here the transformations established by this good doctor Hachel
    and which are valid within the framework of the rotating frames of
    reference.
    These transformations in themselves resolve the Ehrenfest paradox.
    The unit of angular velocity used in the formulas is radian per second.

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ESr48PgdCk-rG0jc124iblSJrDQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    R.H.

    --
    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ESr48PgdCk-rG0jc124iblSJrDQ@jntp>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 5 07:26:38 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 5 12:18:35 2024
    Le 05/01/2024 à 00:07, pnalsing@gmail.com (palsing) a écrit :
    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...

    I don't mind giving them another name (hence the stupidity of the monkeys
    who invented the crakpot index. They're just idiots who want to boast
    about the dignity of others. "My enemy is a scumbag, I'm going to beat the
    shit out of him."
    But what name do I give to my transformations?

    Tout cela n'est qu'une vaste plaisanterie.

    Je n'ai pas à y prêter attention.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 5 12:33:12 2024
    Le 05/01/2024 à 07:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    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

    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Jan 5 13:54:37 2024
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    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.

    It seems to have been important to Einstein for heuristics.
    Having special relativity, it is obvious
    that something needs to be done about Newtonian gravity.

    The natural thing to do is to build a physical field theory,
    in a Lorentz-invariant way.
    'Everybody' at the time was trying to build
    relativistic theories of gravitation,
    with a 'force of gravity' derived from some physical field.
    (like electromagnetic forces)

    The Ehrenfest paradox led Einstein to believe
    that this could not be the right way,
    and that 'forces of gravity' should be gotten rid of altogether.

    And that is what he ultimately accomplished in general relativity,
    with the 'forces of gravity' becoming pseudo-forces,
    just like the centrifugal force is in Newtonian mechanics.

    BTW, all this was before Ehrenfest and Einstein had actually met IRL.
    It was all correspondence and publications.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 6 08:47:55 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 8 20:07:32 2024
    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>


    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 9 07:20:15 2024
    Am 08.01.2024 um 21:07 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    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>

    I personally regard euclidean coordinates as 'unphysical'.

    I recommend spherical coordinates instead, which are based on spherical
    angels and distance.

    Now, rotation changes -obviously- the angles, while leaving distance
    constant.

    So I have no real incentive to mess with euclidean coordinates in the
    way you do.

    Eventually I would apply SRT/Lorentz transformation upon the distance.
    But the spherical angles change anyhow with rotation.

    Possibly the circumference can also shrink, as Eherenfest assumed, if
    tangetial velocity near c is reached.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 9 12:28:21 2024
    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Jan 9 15:07:14 2024
    Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

    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.

    See 'Mission of Gravity', by Hal Clement,
    for the best you can do, planet-wise,
    (a mere 300g)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 10 09:53:16 2024
    Am 09.01.2024 um 13:28 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    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:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope

    Quote

    "A FOG provides extremely precise rotational rate information, ..."

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 10 14:05:19 2024
    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.

    The best is to take the trigonometric rotation (counterclockwise
    direction) and trigger the watches when the two axes are conjoined at 0°.

    The first idea leads to the four transformations that I gave and which are
    the same as those of Poincaré.

    The second idea (toruant reference) leads to these equations:

    <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?j8z-rzth3GJonLarx54xAWraGa8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 14 07:23:36 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 14 16:26:15 2024
    Le 14/01/2024 à 07:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    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

    Vous parlez trop d'Einstein. Ce n'est plus de la science, c'est de la religiosité.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Jan 14 18:50:43 2024
    On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 15 00:14:16 2024
    Le 15/01/2024 à 00:50, Volney a écrit :
    On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    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.

    This is both very true and at the same time very false.

    In the thoughts of the relativistic physicist, there is often the idea
    that a fact occurs at a certain present moment, but that it is only
    perceived LATER, after the signal has traveled very quickly, thanks to
    small, very muscular feet, the distance separating the source from the receiver.

    This is not how we should see things, even if this abstract thought may be interesting to ensure artificial but useful synchronizations.

    When a receiver perceives a message, he always perceives it instantly in
    the sense that the present moment of the transmitter and the receiver
    agree, coincide.

    It is in the same way that I instantly perceive this horse in this meadow,
    this moon in the sky, this galaxy in my telescope.

    And not after the photons, thanks to their little muscular feet, have
    crossed small or immense distances.

    On the other hand, the transmitter does not design an instantaneous path
    at all.

    If he could perceive the photons it emits directly, he would observe that
    these photons move away at c/2.

    This is due to the relativity of simultaneity.

    This means that we can, in an abstract way, as we do for GPS satellites or
    in Einstein's equations, use a form of simultaneity, but that this is only
    a convenient artifice.

    This is not the true notion of simultaneity which is specific to each
    observer depending on their POSITION.

    As for the relativity of chronotropy, it is something else, which is
    perfectly known to physicists around the world, and which they call time dilation. I call this in a truer and simpler way, the reciprocal dilation
    of chronotropy.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 15 00:51:16 2024
    Le 15/01/2024 à 01:17, Python a écrit :
    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...

    I did not say that the delay should be ignored.

    Why do you want me to say that the delay should be ignored?

    I said that there were two fundamental principles in special relativity.

    That is to say the whole part which deals with Galilean frames of
    reference, up to the part which deals with rotating frames of reference, including accelerated frames of reference.

    Here are these two fundamental principles: 1 Universal anisochrony.
    2. The relativity of chronotropy.

    I will not return to these two notions, because I know that you understand
    them perfectly.

    Now I never said, ever, that you could ignore things as you wish.

    If I place myself somewhere equidistant from two points A and B; I must
    know that the relativity of simultaneity is such that I will have the impression that the photon which leaves A bers B moves to c.

    On the other hand, if I place myself in B, I notice (if I am understood correctly) that the transfer is instantaneous. The present moment of A is
    the present moment of B (for B).

    I explained these things again yesterday on Richard Verret's forum.

    Your insistence on insulting other contributors is pathological and makes
    no sense.


    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 15 01:17:21 2024
    Le 15/01/2024 à 00:50, Volney a écrit :
    On 1/14/2024 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    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.


    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...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 15 08:12:00 2024
    Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 15 13:37:30 2024
    Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    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?

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Jan 15 15:42:25 2024
    On 1/15/2024 2:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am 15.01.2024 um 01:17 schrieb Python:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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?

    In the formula T3 = T1 + (T2-T1)/2 = (T1+T2)/2 where T1 is when a beam
    of light is sent and T2 is when it is returned and T3 is the time of the
    remote clock when it reflects the light, where did the 1/2 term come from?

    This is a VERY (!!!) serious error,

    No error.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 16 09:44:53 2024
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 16 09:37:37 2024
    Am 15.01.2024 um 14:37 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 15/01/2024 à 08:08, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    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.
    No

    The further away the later the signals will arive.

    But this would not have any influence on the time of the remote location.

    It is nonsense to read a 'clock' at a remote location and take the
    actual reading without compensation of the delay, caused by the finite
    speed of light.

    You NEED !!!! to add the delay, otherwise you create nonsense!

    But for unknown reasons this is not done in SRT (and many other parts of cosmology!).



    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.

    Well, that's actually ok.

    I call this principle 'subjectivism'.

    This means: time is a local phenomenon and the observer in question
    decides, which time is taken - simply by being somewhere and using the
    local time.

    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.

    This is perfectly ok.

    What is this basic reference?

    Well, we have apparently no universal clock and can only use some sort
    of time standards, which are usually based on our local environment.

    Bad luck, but that's how it is.

    To use 'universal standards' for time is simply wrong.

    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.


    what do you mean with "all the three D points of the universe".

    The universe does not provide absolute locations neither!

    So: 'location' means (like time) a place in reference to some other
    location, which is chosen as reference point.

    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.


    The 'points of a universe' (along a streigth line) are all between point
    A and point B, because 'streigth line' and 'universe' are defined that way.

    What we call 'universe' is actually a picture, which we see in the nicht
    sky.

    This picture is not real, because it is based on events, which didn't
    happen at the same time.

    Instead it is layered in time with distance.

    So, the 'real universe' is mainly invisible and we cannot tell easily,
    how it looks like and how it functions.

    Bad luck, too, but hard to overcome.

    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?

    ??


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 16 11:59:56 2024
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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
    ridiculous)
    2. Talking about delays is pointless before having defined how
    synchronizing distant co-moving clocks (couché Lengrand !)
    3. This being done (and this is the very point of paragraph I.1)
    then it is obvious that the synchronization procedure leads to
    take the propagation delay into account

    You are definitely not a member of the intended audience of this
    article i.e. honest and educated. You are dishonest and crazy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 17 07:58:03 2024
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 17 19:02:42 2024
    Le 17/01/2024 à 07:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Jan 18 00:06:12 2024
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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.

    But distance from A to B was obviously meant.

    Again, why the goofy statement about scalar products?
    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).

    Which is essentially what he wrote.

    Just an equation (and a wrong one in this case) is not a statement.

    Why would it be wrong?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 18 07:52:36 2024
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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.



    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 18 07:45:24 2024
    Am 17.01.2024 um 20:02 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    Le 17/01/2024 à 07:54, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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.
    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.

    TH


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 18 14:32:19 2024
    Le 18/01/2024 à 07:41, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    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.

    The rejection of isochrony was Einstein's most serious error. He caused
    the theory of relativity, well initiated by Henri Poincaré (a
    mathematician of genius), to drift rather than take it further.
    So there is something I don't understand.
    How is it that men teach a theory of general relativity when their special relativity is not even correct, and becomes completely false for
    accelerated frames and rotating frames?
    This amazes me.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Jan 19 11:39:17 2024
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Fri Jan 19 11:37:23 2024
    On 1/18/2024 1:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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:
    ...

    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.

    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.


    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?

    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' 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.


    More obfuscation. It is a simple beam of light going from Point A to
    Point B and back to Point A.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 20 10:39:22 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Jan 21 00:31:01 2024
    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.

    But that was, of course, not meant.

    Exactly. Why are you trying to introduce garbage?

    Actually meant was:

    2*distance (A, B)

    Exactly. Why did you bring up crap like 2*A*B, which makes no sense if A
    and B are predefined as two points?


    (with 'distancce' as name of a function with two parameters, which are
    the endpoints of a streigth line in euclidean space.

    Babble.

    In this case the function 'distance' spits out the length of the
    connecting line between two points, which are here A and B.)

    More babble.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 21 08:00:21 2024
    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.

    The closest thing to a mathematical object named 'A' would be the
    position vector of point A, because vectors are mathematical objects and
    could be multiplied.

    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.
    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 21 08:02:54 2024
    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?

    ...


    TH

    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Jan 21 13:58:34 2024
    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.

    This is standard in usual mathematics.

    Since A and B are variables,

    They are not. They are points.

    '2AB' means in long form:

    2 * A * B

    No, it means two times the distance AB.

    But that was, of course, not meant.

    Of course Einstein doesn't mean your irrelevancies.

    Actually meant was:

    2*distance (A, B)

    Or 2*AB.


    (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.)

    Gobbledygook.


    TH



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Jan 21 13:51:16 2024
    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.

    But since when is space one dimensional?

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Jan 21 14:05:37 2024
    On 1/21/2024 2:00 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    No, 2AB is what was written, meaning twice the distance AB. He never
    wrote A*B.

    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.

    And AB is the length of that line segment.

    But points cannot be put into an equation (like 2AB), because points are physical objects and equations can only deal with mathematical objects.

    Meaning that AB as the length of the line segment is obviously the
    correct one.

    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,

    You are not part of his intended audience. His audience was the educated physicists of his time. He never imagined crackpots would be arguing
    over tiny details well over 100 years later. Nor would he care.

    I had chosen the next possible mathematical
    interpretation of A and B, which is the position vector.

    Don't blame Einstein for your mistakes.

    If Einstein wanted that, he could, but had to make a statement, what he wanted instead.

    He did just that by defining A and B are points.

    Because he didn't, I'm free to interpret his text in the next plausible
    way, which leads to a wrong equation.
    ...

    Don't blame Einstein for your mistakes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 22 07:28:43 2024
    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.

    It is a very small error, but is not correct neither.

    So I took my virtuall pen and marked this equation as faulty.

    Not that small was Einstein's habit to switch between vectors and
    scalars without any notice and not to mark vectors as such at all.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 22 07:34:19 2024
    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.

    But since when is space one dimensional?

    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.

    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.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Jan 22 12:28:11 2024
    On 1/22/2024 1:28 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    This is an extremely simple case, out and back. One dimension is all
    that is needed, the distance is a simple real number.

    The length of this vector is called 'distance'.

    therefore distance(A,B) = |vect(A->B)|

    Solving problems in physics involves taking advantage of
    simplifications. If you need explanation, align the X axis with the line segment AB, and Y and Z are ignored, and the length is a simple number
    along the X axis. Any real physicist does this automatically.

    AB is not really a distance, but a shorthand for distance (used by a
    lazy physicist).

    No, AB is a simple distance between points A and B.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon Jan 22 12:40:28 2024
    On 1/22/2024 1:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    But since when is space one dimensional?

    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.

    Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
    cannot possibly become equal.

    Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off infinitely in a given direction. Like half of a mathematical line.

    Regardless, light in this problem moves along two coincident line segments.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Jan 22 19:31:26 2024
    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".


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 22 20:51:53 2024
    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.


    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 23 09:47:19 2024
    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 (not
    just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
    themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".

    I had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
    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




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 23 09:53:31 2024
    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.


    Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
    cannot possibly become equal.

    Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off 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.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Jan 23 11:23:58 2024
    On 2024-01-23 08:47:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    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.

    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.


    ..

    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 had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
    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).

    Others more expert than I am have done that.

    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


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Jan 23 11:21:16 2024
    On 2024-01-23 08:47:19 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    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.

    I've written articles in Spanish and French without using
    acomputer-based spell checker, though I've used nativespeakers to check
    the results (not just the spelling -- as easy in Spanish as it is in
    German).

    (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 (not
    just Thomas Heger -- also "Dr." Hachel, Lou, patdolan, etc.) see
    themselves as professors qualified to "correct" Einstein's "errors".

    I had written these annotations as means to pack into one file the
    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


    --
    Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
    in England until 1987.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Jan 23 11:58:58 2024
    On 1/22/2024 3:51 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
    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.

    No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
    Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are CLASSIC
    signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for admitting
    your crackpottedness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Jan 23 11:51:55 2024
    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.


    Lines are mathematical objects and rays are physical objects, hence
    cannot possibly become equal.

    Rays are also mathematical objects, they have one end point and go off
    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.

    They don't. They use simplifications and know they are simplifications. Scientists these days also calculate errors potentially induced by
    measurements and simplifications, and will publish error bars to
    indicate the quality of their analysis.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Jan 23 19:11:25 2024
    On 2024-01-23 16:58:58 +0000, Volney said:

    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,

    Isn't that what Christians do, when they worship someone who (if he
    lived at all) died at around that age?

    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.

    No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
    Einstein or claim that relativity is a "religion" or "cult" are CLASSIC
    signs of a relativity crackpot. Classic. Congratulations for admitting
    your crackpottedness.


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 23 22:11:11 2024
    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 :

    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.

    No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
    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.

    The match is perfect.

    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”.

    It's the same as "the earth is flat because otherwise the water in the
    seas would flow in a vacuum"

    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 23 23:25:56 2024
    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.

    Which would make him, judged and crucified under Pontius Pilate in April
    of the year 30, a man who was approaching 50 years old.

    A historian says: "He died already old and exhausted"

    Another testimony says "Caesar set fire to Rome in the year 66
    of our era, 33 years after Crestos, the prophet of the Christians was tortured". Which also corresponds to the year 30 of our era.

    And so on for a lot of things that I don't say here, not wanting to be responsible for epileptic seizures among sci.physics.relativity readers

    I have enough trouble just explaining things as trivial as the Langevin
    Paradox or the Ehrenfest Paradox without driving them all completely
    crazy.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Jan 24 00:55:40 2024
    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 :

    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.

    No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 24 08:10:58 2024
    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.
    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 24 08:15:30 2024
    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 the
    real world.

    And you must not confuse one with the other.
    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 24 08:33:34 2024
    Am 23.01.2024 um 23:11 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    .
    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.

    It is difficult, but possible, even if it tock quite a while.

    Just look at this

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view

    (You need to download the file, if you want to read my annotations)

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 24 08:29:51 2024
    Am 24.01.2024 um 00:25 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    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?

    Well, religion is not always very logic.

    But other than science, religion does not need to be logic, because it
    is about believes and rutuals, while science is not.


    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.

    I personally think, that Jesus didn't have the second name 'Christ'.

    Actually the person 'Jesus' was based on a myth about a Jewish prophet
    from the Jewish sect of the Essenes, who lived near the Red Sea in Qumran.

    This prophet had the title 'Mahmed' in Aramaic and no known name.

    This myth was used MUCH later by the Umayadic Caliphs to create the
    Quran (from Qumran) and the prophet 'Mohammed' (from 'Mahmed').

    The Romans used the same myth about the same prophet, to morph the
    hellenistic version of that story (with the Greek name 'IESOS') and
    fused it together with other Roman believe systems (like e.g. Mithraism)
    to form the then new religion called 'catholicism'.

    So 'Jesus' and 'Mohammed' mean actually the same jewish prophet, which
    was not cruzified.

    The special features of Jesus (being born by a virgin on 25th of
    december, for instance) stem from Mythras and Zaroastrism.

    ...

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Jan 24 09:29:52 2024
    On 2024-01-24 07:10:58 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    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.

    Yes. Most people know that. However, English changed almost beyond
    recognition in the 12th and 13th centuries, and is now very different
    from German.

    Many years ago (1970s) my first wife worked at a language school for
    adults. Many of the clients were German and Spanish businessmen. She
    said that the Spanish had very little difficulty with the grammar, but
    almost unsurmountable difficulties with the pronunciation, whereas with
    Germans it was the opposite. They insisted that English should follow
    the same rules as German and often wanted to argue on the basis of
    logic, ignoring the fact that logic is a very poor guide to how
    languages behave.

    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.

    Yes. Linguistics is also infested by crackpots. It's not just
    relativity physics and evolutionary biology in which the crackpots are
    very visible.
    ...


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Jan 24 15:47:53 2024
    On 1/24/2024 2:10 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Jan 24 21:38:12 2024
    On 1/24/2024 2:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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 the
    real world.

    And you must not confuse one with the other.
    ...
    But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by mathematics.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 25 07:36:15 2024
    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

    https://de.scribd.com/doc/56051873/Landmann-Erhard-Weltbilderschutterung

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 25 07:22:46 2024
    Am 24.01.2024 um 21:47 schrieb Volney:


    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.

    This is why english is so difficult. English has more different words
    than any other language.

    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.

    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)

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 25 07:41:49 2024
    Am 25.01.2024 um 03:38 schrieb Volney:
    On 1/24/2024 2:15 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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
    the real world.

    And you must not confuse one with the other.
    ...
    But you can simplify things so the physics problem can be solved by mathematics.

    Sure: physics uses models instead of the real world and is by such means
    able to predict certain things.

    But still these models are no real things, but human artifacts.

    They enable predictions, but are not eatable - for instance.


    Physics: I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
    apples. How many apples do I have.

    You have four apples.

    Mathematics: 2+2=4.

    How many apples has the mathematician?

    Answer: none.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 25 11:51:22 2024
    Le 25/01/2024 à 07:37, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    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

    Correct.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 25 11:48:54 2024
    Le 25/01/2024 à 03:38, Volney a écrit :

    I have a basket with two apples and a second basket with two
    apples. How many apples do I have.

    Mathematics: 2+2=4.

    This is what I have been saying for 40 years, but no one has ever wanted
    to believe me.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 27 07:43:24 2024
    Am 25.01.2024 um 12:48 schrieb Richard Hachel:

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 27 15:30:55 2024
    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.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sat Jan 27 23:12:19 2024
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 30 07:46:05 2024
    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.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue Jan 30 21:36:57 2024
    On 1/30/2024 1:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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

    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.

    But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
    Columbus was born.

    Just not by the Germans.
    Do you have no critical thinking capabilities whatsoever? Some random
    crank comes up with crapola that Mayans spoke German and you lap it up
    trying to justify such garbage?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 31 08:08:18 2024
    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.

    But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
    Columbus was born.

    Just not by the Germans.

    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.

    ...

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Jan 31 09:42:11 2024
    On 2024-01-31 07:08:18 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    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

    Assumed by whom?

    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.

    Your definition of "very likely" is weird. Is it "very likely" that the
    Aztecs learned how to make pyramids from the Egyptians, or is it more
    likely that if you want to build a very large structure then a pyramid
    is the way to go? When a small child builds a "castle" on the beach it
    will have the general structure of a pyramid: is that because small
    children have inherited building techniques from the Egyptians?

    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).

    Nothing to do with being bearded. They were called barbarians because
    they didn't speak intelligible languages but just made meaningless
    sounds like "bar bar bar". Notice that the Greeks were mostly bearded themselves in that epoch.

    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.

    Explain your mechanism for that to have happened. Do you know anything
    at all how DNA is transmitted?

    But there were stones found in South America, carved with Phoenician inscripts and symbols.

    Where, when? Pictures, please.

    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.

    Have you ever been to South America? If you have, did you fail to
    notice the large numbers of pre-Columbian people in Venezuela, the
    Guianas, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay (where Guaran is an
    official language), Chile and Brazil (not too many in Argentina and
    Uruguay)?

    Therefore it is difficult to find out, from where these people actually came.

    But that is mainly unknown.

    But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
    Columbus was born.

    Just not by the Germans.

    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.

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Jan 31 16:00:50 2024
    On 1/31/2024 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    No, to this day there are native people in that area who have facial
    features like the features of the statues. And no DNA evidence of Africans.

    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'.

    There were many Germanic tribes in the area of and near modern Germany.

    The same area is also the home of so called 'Wikings', which might be rightfully called 'Barbarians', too.

    Barbarian was a word used by both Greeks and Romans for outsiders who
    were not part of their civilization and spoke unintelligible languages.

    (because of being bearded and pludering the countires across the seas).

    No that wasn't the definition.

    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.

    North America, yes, but not Central or South America.

    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.

    It would show up unless there was little interbreeding with the locals.
    Yet natives show the Olmec facial features, but without African DNA.

    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.

    No, there are still enough people. It's just that they are poorly
    tested. Early testers did something (I don't know what) that greatly
    offended North American natives as a group so they generally don't get
    tested.

    But that is mainly unknown.

    But known is, that the continent America was well known long before
    Columbus was born.

    Just not by the Germans.

    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.

    By 'Germans' I mean Germanic tribes/those who would be speaking Germanic
    family languages. This would be limited to Vikings who were restricted
    to northeast North America.

    Germanic languages are VERY different from the Mayan family of languages.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Wed Jan 31 16:01:06 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Feb 1 12:35:16 2024
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    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.

    Yes, but there is no point in overdoing it.
    Why go on forever with feeding an automaton?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Feb 1 18:20:42 2024
    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:

    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 2 07:27:01 2024
    Am 01.02.2024 um 13:09 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    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:

    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.
    Yes, but there is no point in overdoing it.
    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.


    I had recently a related idea:

    'the bad guys' (known from all sorts of conspiracies like 9/11, 'The
    Great Reset' and so forth) must be partially be built from elitistic
    student organisation at 'Ivy League' universities.

    One (obvious) example is 'Skull and Bones'.

    But the are certainly tons of similar 'honorary societies', which teach
    their members to become snobs and to try pushing the infidels into the dust.

    These (secret) student organisations will most likely practise
    'satanistic' rituals (as kind of brainwashing method).

    In reverse: any member of such groups is suspicious, (even the other
    students of such ivy league colleges).


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Feb 2 14:55:34 2024
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    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:

    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.

    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.

    Yes, that was the one I had in mind.
    There is no point in even looking at it,

    What some of those loonies/nutters/cranks/etc. here fail to see
    is that they need to be at least somewhat amusing to get replied to,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 3 07:43:33 2024
    Am 17.01.2024 um 04:30 schrieb Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger 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.

    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
    That is a good and sufficient refutation.
    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).

    Well, it is one thing how we humans think, that nature behaves and
    another how nature thinks about the same topic.

    People make all sorts of errors and many of them are very persistent.

    But there exist certain principles about how to deal with them.

    One says:

    if something is wrong, the opposite is not necessarily true.

    Or:

    a wrong explanation does not mean, that the phenomenon explained does
    not exist.


    Therefore, an error made by Ehrenfest does not prove, that length
    contraction does not exist.


    TH




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 4 07:23:20 2024
    Am 27.01.2024 um 16:30 schrieb Richard Hachel:
    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.

    Well, yes, but not that crazy.

    In '1984' the #big brother# requested to say, that 2+2 =5.

    But usually 2+2=4.

    From this we can draw the conclusion: big brother has not finished the
    second grade in school.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 21 07:39:58 2024
    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 :

    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.

    No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
    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.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 21 09:30:40 2024
    Den 21.02.2024 07:39, skrev Thomas Heger:

    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




    One of your better, Thomas!

    Keep it up, the sky is the limit, now you have barely passed Neptune!

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 21 09:56:09 2024
    Le 21/02/2024 à 07:35, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    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.

    The word conspiracy is perhaps a bit strong, I don't know, but it's clear
    that here, seen from France, we still find a lot of weird things.

    To say that Einstein was a “genius” does not hold water. He was much
    weaker than Poincaré, the best mathematician of his time, and capable
    to write quality works for THREE SCIENCES (physics, mathematics,
    philosophy), and it's still very strange.

    I think that, like Saint Paul in Christianity, Einstein is a media
    creation, desired at a time when world wars were flourishing and European tensions were constantly growing.

    But also where Christianity began to collapse (law of 1905 in France).
    Jesus Christ had to be replaced by another prophet, and Poincaré was far
    too “serious”.

    As for errors, there are a lot of errors, not omissions, in his articles,
    proof that he perhaps did not really understand relativity (otherwise, he
    would have talked, for example, about the spatial zoom effect, given the
    right equations for accelerated frames of reference, and the right transformations for rotating frames of reference. Nothing has been done of
    all this, and I even have, today, all the difficulty in the world to
    explain how we should see the things, as people are stuck in sometimes
    absurd relativistic theological considerations.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Feb 21 17:53:27 2024
    On 2/21/2024 1:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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 :

    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.

    No, the opposite is true. Claiming scientists "deify" or "worship"
    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).

    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? Sounds like a
    touch of paranoid schizophrenia to me. But I am not a psychiatrist.>
    But some pyhsicists did that anyhow, like e.g. Herbert Dingle.

    Dingle made a mistake. His argument was t′ = γt and t = γt′ which is inconsistent for γ≠1, a contradiction in SR. But the actual claim of SR
    is that t′ = γt at x = 0, and t = γt′ at x′ = 0, which are not contradictory statements.

    Those got expelled from 'the church' and got mobbed and harrassed till
    the end of their lives.

    More of that church/religion/cult/worship crackpottery, plus that
    conspiracy theory paranoia again.

    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).

    The group sci.physics.relativity was created to divert relativity
    nonsense out of sci.physics, which was still a good place for physics discussions.

    BUT:

    even if people are mostly stupid, some are not. And a few of these few
    will bring down this plot.

    There is no 'plot', no matter what your paranoia tells you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 22 08:41:16 2024
    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.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MaciejWozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Feb 22 07:14:54 2024
    Volney wrote:



    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

    The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent.
    You've got a direct proof and your peans to his
    next-to-infinite wisdom are not changing that at
    all, stupid Mike.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 22 11:25:03 2024
    Den 22.02.2024 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:

    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.


    Good catch!

    The children in the kindergartens are brainwashed
    with popular books about relativity.
    What a shame!


    So, nobody needed to read his papers, let alone criticise them.


    Keep keeping it up!
    The sky is the limit, you have now passed Pluto and are
    far into the Kuiper Belt.

    I am sure you with a little effort can make it to Heaven
    where you may meet the God Einstein.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 22 15:02:14 2024
    Le 22/02/2024 à 08:36, Thomas Heger a écrit :

    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 is absolutely correct.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Feb 22 11:00:13 2024
    On 2/22/2024 2:41 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
    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.

    All that is the MEDIA making Einstein into a celebrity. Nothing to do
    with scientists 'worshiping' him. The media make into celebrities many
    people who happened to be born into, or married into, the right
    families, or acted well in a few movies etc. Einstein was relatively
    obscure until the 1919 eclipse observations validated GR. But to
    scientists he was just another scientist (although a good one) and
    hardly deify him.

    So, nobody needed to read his papers, let alone criticise them.

    No, reading his papers is how he became known in the first place. Being controversial, EVERYONE tried to read and criticize the papers. None
    have found more than trivial faults.

    You ignored the fact there were no errors in the SR paper and you found
    none by diverting to whining that the media glorified Einstein.

    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.

    Nope. Paranoia created conspiracy theories. Anyone who actually found a
    real flaw in the relativity papers would be almost guaranteed a Nobel
    Prize which is the holy grail to so many scientists. But scientists know
    there in no grail in the relativity papers.

    But, unfortunately, if have not found out, who is actually behind this
    plot.

    More paranoia created conspiracy theories.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?iso-8859-1?q?Gy=F6rgy_Csord=E1s?=@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Thu Feb 22 16:03:52 2024
    Thomas Heger wrote:

    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.

    𝗻𝗼𝘁, seriously. You must be born yesterday. You don't know the shit is going on right now, as we speak. You must be a gearmon, because over there
    it's forbidden to know. It's forbidden to know what is going on in the
    fucking gearmony.

    𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘂𝘀_𝗮𝗹𝗹_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝘆_𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀,_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃’𝘀_𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗳_𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗘𝗨
    With enough tanks and guns, the Ukrainian army can “destroy” Russia, Aleksey Danilov has claimed https://r%74.com/russia/592943-danilov-eu-heavy-weapons/

    "Give us all your gold too", said the Ukrainian. 🤣

    and give us more mercenaries...

    Demented. Berlin bunker 1945.

    This eccentric idiocy chief has taken the EU as the idiots they really
    are.

    Imagine being this stupid to make this statement and imagine even greater
    level of stupidity by the Western politicians who believe this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 24 09:01:23 2024
    Am 22.02.2024 um 12:16 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
    On Thursday 22 February 2024 at 11:24:23 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 22.02.2024 08:41, skrev Thomas Heger:

    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.
    Good catch!

    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.


    It's actually true, that books about relativity exist, which are meant
    to be read by kids in school.

    My own experience with SRT started actually in school.

    They had a system in German schools (long ago), when I was in the 8th
    class (roughly 14 years old).

    The best students in the class could choose a book and I was second best.

    My selection was 'Knauers Buch der moderenen Physik' (knauers' book of
    modern physics), which was a popular book about modern physics for kids.

    This book contained a part about SRT and that was the first time I heard
    about it.

    Kindergardens usually do not cover SRT (or quantum mechenics), but I'm
    actually not certain, whether or not this is true for all kindergardens.


    TH

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