On 2/16/24 3:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

No firm experimental data has achieved to confirm SR [...]

I THINK the time dilation equation has been accurately verified via measurement, hasn't it? That certainly contradicts Newtonian physics,
doesn't it?

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

On 2/16/24 3:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

No firm experimental data has achieved to confirm SR [...]

I THINK the time dilation equation has been accurately verified via measurement, hasn't it? That certainly contradicts Newtonian physics, doesn't it?

Indeed. In fact one can use it as a substitute for one of the postulates,
I believe. There's also E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), which is verified in multitudinous particle accelerators daily. And the speed of light being independent of the motion of source and receiver. Perhaps even more
important is the falsification of Newtonian physics.

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

On 2/16/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

Subject: My farewell to sci.physics.relativity, which will be closed on Feb 22, 2024.

Meanwhile, I and many others will continue to participate in sci.physics.relativity long after Feb 22. Bye!

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

Mike Fontenot wrote:

On 2/16/24 3:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

No firm experimental data has achieved to confirm SR [...]

I THINK the time dilation equation has been accurately verified via measurement, hasn't it?

You THINK because you're a brainwashed idiot.
And in the meantime in the real world forbidden
by idiots like you "improper" clocks of GPS and
TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.


That certainly contradicts Newtonian physics,

doesn't it?

Newtonian physics has never given the prediction
that no idiot will THINK it is wrong.

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

gharnagel wrote:

independent of the motion of source and receiver. Perhaps even more important is the falsification of Newtonian physics.

Only such an ignorant idiot can believe such
an impudent lie, Gary.

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

Lying Wozzie wrote:

gharnagel wrote:

the speed of light is independent of the motion of source and receiver. Perhaps even more important is the falsification of Newtonian physics.

Only such an ignorant idiot can believe such an impudent lie, Gary.

Only a self-brainwashed deluded nutjob like Wozzie-boy would post year after year after year that t' = t in the GPS proves Newtonian physics when he's
been told year after year after year that the GPS clocks have been adjusted
to run slow so they keep time with clocks on earth. Surely he knows that clocks can be adjusted, doesn't he? Well, maybe not. He IS delusional,
after all.

He's been shown the proof of this many times:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942/lrr-2003-1.pdf

Here's a bit from the link since Wozzie-fool is too lazy to look it up:

"These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects,
the system would not work."

Wozzie-crank doesn't believe anything that disagrees with his psychotic
fantasy world. He never compares his delusions with the real world so he
sits in his asylum all day ranting unconvincingly lame posts year after year after year.

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

gharnagel wrote:

Lying Wozzie wrote:

gharnagel wrote:

the speed of light is independent of the motion of source and receiver.
Perhaps even more important is the falsification of Newtonian physics.

Only such an ignorant idiot can believe such an impudent lie, Gary.

Only a self-brainwashed deluded nutjob like Wozzie-boy would post year after year after year that t' = t in the GPS proves Newtonian physics

A lie, of course, as expected from a Shit's doggie.
I was never saying that it proves something.
Oppositely, you and your fellow doggies claim and insist
that t'=t on GPS satellites proves Newtonian physics
is wrong.


when he's

been told year after year after year that the GPS clocks have been adjusted to run

Did Newton's theory, allegedly falsified by them,
somehow claim that clocks won't be adjusted, poor
halfbrain?

slow so they keep time with clocks on earth. Surely he knows that

clocks can be adjusted, doesn't he?

It was actually your idiot guru that didn't notice that.


He IS delusional,

after all.

He's been shown the proof of this many times:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942/lrr-2003-1.pdf

Here's a bit from the link since Wozzie-fool is too lazy to look it up:

"These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work."

Take this impudent lie and put it straight into
your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belongs. The
Shit is predicting no adjustment, no corrections.
If you insist otherwise, show me a quoting where
your idiot guru says anything about such things.

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

Richard Hertz:

After six years on this group, using Google, I salute you all (friends and foes).

It has been fun for me to stand as a fierce antirelativist, and engage in some serious and not than serious discussions with most of you.

I'm not a fanatic of science, even though I'm a strong supporter of technology,
but the good technology, not the commercial one that flooded the world in the last 18 years (mainly smartphones, social media SW and biased Internet sites).

Even when I learned some new things, most of the posts helped me to
enhance my belief that relativity is a pseudo-science, being mostly a cult.

No firm experimental data has achieved to confirm SR and, specially GR
since 1919. Relativism was a movement that opposed positivism in terms
of any intellectual activity, and was supported by different actors in many fields, in particular in physics.

Without a rational base for its development through the first generation of relativists, after its first 20 years, a new generation adopted it due to many
different influences, exerted from top to down. As years passed, after WWII, the establishment developed its own mechanisms to fight any questions to
it, in particular since the 60's.

Anyway, I don't care about it, as the influence of relativity has been confined
to cosmology (giving to it mathematical tools to play) and particle physics, neither of which contributed in nothing to the development of this world in 70 years.

Yet, relativity is useful as a subject to trigger supporters by contradicting any
of the dogmas it has built in. It's very entertaining to troll relativists, which
behave as snowflakes.

Anyway, Godspeed to every one of you.

The Eternal-September server (https://www.eternal-september.org/) is a
viable alternative to post to usenet. To keep it running smoothly,
consider making a modest donation.

The following simple process is all it takes to get set up to post to
usenet via eternal-september and Thunderbird.

1. Register on the Eternal-September usenet server:

https://www.eternal-september.org/RegisterNewsAccount.php?language=en

2. Download and install Thunderbird:

https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/

3. Setup Thunderbird to get and post to usenet:

Thunderbird main page -> Set up an account -> Newsgroups. You will need
the info here:

https://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=techinfo

4. View Settings for this account -> Server Settings -> Always request authentication when connecting to this server. See:

https://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=faq#Login-No-Auth

5. Newsgroups -> Manage newsgroup subscriptions:

search for and mark the groups you want to post to.

6. You should be all set to get messages and start reading and posting.


If you want to post anonymously, see my post:

Posting to Usenet via Eternal-September and Tor

which has some additional steps to enable a Tor proxy for Thunderbird.

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

Le 17/02/2024 à 00:49, Mike Fontenot a écrit :

I THINK the time dilation equation has been accurately verified via measurement, hasn't it? That certainly contradicts Newtonian physics, doesn't it?

Yes, the dilation of chronotropy has been verified experimentally and
today no longer poses a theoretical or experimental problem.
There exists, in the universe, a strange physical particularity which is
the reciprocal dilation of durations by permutation of frame of reference.
Each observer will notice that the internal mechanism of the other watch
beats more slowly.
A strange paradox will then arise: “But it’s absurd, two travelers
cannot return, each younger than the other.”
The resolution of the paradox is, however, very simple. The French (Henri Poincaré and Richard Hachel, the true fathers of special relativity),
never said: "Time passes less quickly on the other watch" but "the
internal mechanism of the other watch beats less quickly".
It's not the same thing.
It is this confusion between concepts that makes us believe we see a
paradox.
The equation for the relativity of chronotropy between frames of
reference is:
To'=To/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
The equation between the particulars in each frame of reference is: t'=t.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
It's not the same equations.
They should not be confused.
In the second case, that of individuals, we must obviously take the second equation. There is then no more problem. Terrence is 30 years old, Stella
is really 18.

R.H.

--
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Js-kpukYjMM9oFfhxEr2k_xKEcE@jntp>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

After six years on this group, using Google, I salute you all (friends and foes).

It has been fun for me to stand as a fierce antirelativist, and engage in some serious and not than serious discussions with most of you.

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you are not even capable
of arranging for your own usenet access?

Jan

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

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 17/02/2024 à 00:49, Mike Fontenot a écrit :

I THINK the time dilation equation has been accurately verified via
measurement, hasn't it? That certainly contradicts Newtonian physics,
doesn't it?

Yes, the dilation of chronotropy has been verified experimentally and
today no longer poses a theoretical or experimental problem.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper" GPS or TAI clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

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

On 2/18/2024 8:41 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 17/02/2024 à 00:49, Mike Fontenot a écrit :

I THINK the time dilation equation has been accurately verified via
measurement, hasn't it?  That certainly contradicts Newtonian physics,
doesn't it?

Yes, the dilation of chronotropy has been verified experimentally and
today no longer poses a theoretical or experimental problem.

The rate of a human heartbeat is irrelevant.

There exists, in the universe, a strange physical particularity which is
the reciprocal dilation of durations by permutation of frame of reference. Each observer will notice that the internal mechanism of the other watch beats more slowly.
A strange paradox will then arise: “But it’s absurd, two travelers
cannot return, each younger than the other.”

That involves a turnaround and return of at least one traveler. Mutual
time dilation isn't involved at the turnaround (acceleration) and it is
this that leads to the twin paradox, not mutual time dilation itself.

The resolution of the paradox is, however, very simple. The French
(Henri Poincaré and Richard Hachel, the true fathers of special
relativity),

Self awarded titles are worth how many crackpot points?

never said: "Time passes less quickly on the other watch"
but "the internal mechanism of the other watch beats less quickly".
It's not the same thing.

Which is wrong. It is a projection effect. Each watch ticks at its usual
rate.

It is this confusion between concepts that makes us believe we see a
paradox.
The equation for the relativity of chronotropy between frames of
reference is:

Medical information about the human heart rate is irrelevant.

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

Volney wrote:

is wrong. It is a projection effect. Each watch ticks at its usual

rate.

It's true for a perfect world, where every gedanken
observer is following the madness of your idiot guru,
stupid Mike.
But it's false for the real GPS.

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

Le 19/02/2024 à 19:38, Volney a écrit :

Yes, the dilation of chronotropy has been verified experimentally and
today no longer poses a theoretical or experimental problem.

The rate of a human heartbeat is irrelevant.

No connection.
When you don't like your dog, you say he has rabies.
When we don't like Hachel, we say that his terms or his words are improper
and non-compliant.
It doesn't matter, I'm strong enough to overlook this kind of bullshit
that people throw at me.
Chronotropy is the way a watch measures time.
This is an extremely important term for understanding relativistic physics where time is relative.
We like it or we don't like it.
I'll move on.

R.H.

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

Le 19/02/2024 à 19:38, Volney a écrit :

That involves a turnaround and return of at least one traveler. Mutual
time dilation isn't involved at the turnaround (acceleration) and it is
this that leads to the twin paradox, not mutual time dilation itself.

Sir, I beg you to shut up and stop talking nonsense. The U-turn has
nothing, nothing at all to do with the explanation of Langevin's paradox.
It's just dust under the rug voiced by physicists, unable to understand
what's really going on.
The time differences are mainly DURING the Galilean phases. But I don't
think you can understand it, as you seem so locked in your stupid and contradictory dogmas.

R.H.

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

Le 19/02/2024 à 19:38, Volney a écrit :

never said: "Time passes less quickly on the other watch"
but "the internal mechanism of the other watch beats less quickly".
It's not the same thing.

Which is wrong. It is a projection effect. Each watch ticks at its usual rate.

Please stop.

Les meilleures plaisanteries sont les plus courtes.

R.H.

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

Le 19/02/2024 à 19:38, Volney a écrit :

That involves a turnaround and return of at least one traveler. Mutual
time dilation isn't involved at the turnaround (acceleration) and it is this that leads to the twin paradox, not mutual time dilation itself.

Sir, I beg you to shut up and stop talking nonsense. The U-turn has
nothing, nothing at all to do with the explanation of Langevin's paradox. It's just dust under the rug voiced by physicists, unable to understand what's really going on.
The time differences are mainly DURING the Galilean phases.

Both of you are correct ... and incorrect. Suppose we have an observer, A,
at earth and another observer, B, at the point where the ship stops, before
it starts speeding back to earth:

_____________________ S --> v
A ____________________ B

The time on A's stopwatch reads tA = L/v, where L is the distance between A
and B. The time on S's stopwatch reads L'/v, where L' = L/gamma. Okay?

Now S stops instantaneously at B (he's made of sterner stuff than us humans). He now agrees with B that the distance back to A is L and not L', but his
watch still reads L'/v and B's watch still reads L/v (it's synchronized with A's watch). Half the turnaround has been completed.

So S starts back to A at velocity -v. Suddenly, the distance to A is L'
again, but A's time has changed due to the new frame S is "at rest" in.
A's position is now xA' = -L' + vt' and tA' = gamma(L'/v + vL'/c^2). You
can determine by inspection that this is NOT L/v. True, this isn't time dilation, as Volney correctly says, it's relativity of simultaneity, but
it DOES figure into the problem, so it must not be ignored if you switch frames. As David Morin says, you shouldn't switch frames unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing.

So if we don't switch frames, there is no RoS, the turnaround doesn't
matter and time dilation is just 2L/v/gamma. The problem (and the
"paradox") originates with the switch to the ship's frame and claiming
that A is in motion, but forgetting about RoS.

But I don't think you can understand it, as you seem so locked in your
stupid and contradictory dogmas.

R.H.

I'm afraid a lot of misunderstanding happens when the problem steps aren't carefully explained.

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

On 2/19/2024 2:56 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 19/02/2024 à 19:38, Volney a écrit :

Yes, the dilation of chronotropy has been verified experimentally and
today no longer poses a theoretical or experimental problem.

The rate of a human heartbeat is irrelevant.

No connection.

That's correct. You shouldn't be using medical words in relativity
discussions.

When you don't like your dog, you say he has rabies.

No, I say my dog has rabies only if he has rabies.

When we don't like Hachel, we say that his terms or his words are
improper and non-compliant.

Speaking in the third person? Your terms are improper regardless of
whether anyone likes or dislikes you.

Chronotropy is the way a watch measures time.

No it is not. It is a medical term concerning heart rate.

This is an extremely important term for understanding relativistic
physics where time is relative.

Medical terms involving the heart rate are irrelevant when discussing relativity.

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

On 2/19/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 19/02/2024 à 19:38, Volney a écrit :

never said: "Time passes less quickly on the other watch" but "the
internal mechanism of the other watch beats less quickly".
It's not the same thing.

Which is wrong. It is a projection effect. Each watch ticks at its
usual rate.

Please stop.

Stop what? I am correcting your mistake.

Les meilleures plaisanteries sont les plus courtes.

Why are you telling us never to answer an anonymous letter?

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyway, Godspeed to every one of you.

May I recommend that you play Louis Armstrong's 'Just a Gigolo',
to get in the right mood,
with particular attention to the last line?

Jan

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

Have you ever read Jeremiah Joseph Callahan's book, Euclid or Einstein: A Proof of the Parallel Theory and a Critique of Metageometry? He proves Euclid's 5th postulate and disproves non-Euclidean geometries. Now a recent author has done the same in a
more up-to-date way. He is Antonio Leon. He wrote "New Elements of Euclidean Geometry" and "Apparent Relativity." Now freely available at academia.edu.(Be sure to use his updated 2023 versions). This is a really serious science of lasting value. The non-
Euclidean geometries take as an excuse the supposed inability to prove the 5th postulate to embark on their wildly improbable and totally unproven nonsense.

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