• The truth about the Lorentz Transformation.

    From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 17 03:16:44 2024
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Tue Sep 17 09:15:14 2024
    On 2024-09-17 03:16:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.

    In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
    coordinate system to another.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 17 16:08:01 2024
    Mikko: In reality, it only applies to an ether. Otherwise, Galilean transformations apply. You are mistaken, as shown in my first comment.
    You have not replied to it. The big ego mathematicians here would reply
    that it must be used at speeds near light speed. That is not true
    without an ether.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Tue Sep 17 12:22:02 2024
    On 9/16/2024 11:16 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.

    Nope. The Lorentz Transformation is to transform measurements of events
    in one frame to another frame, as Mikko told you.

    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    The Lorentz Transformation says nothing about an ether,it is simply a transformation of events from one coordinate system to another.

    You apparently failed Relativity 101. No wonder you are confused.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 17 17:36:41 2024
    Mikko: Yes! It's a transformation of the time coordinate that is only
    necessary with an ether to save the ether from the null result.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 17 17:49:54 2024
    Volney: I'm sorry you can't understand. Historically, the Lorentz Transformation was originally and always will be a transformation of the
    time coordinate to save the ether and is utterly pointless without an
    ether.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Wed Sep 18 12:08:00 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    Volney: I'm sorry you can't understand. Historically, the Lorentz Transformation was originally and always will be a transformation of the
    time coordinate to save the ether and is utterly pointless without an
    ether.

    Historically, perhaps.
    (but Lorentz wouldn't have agreed with you)

    But all that is a thing of the past.
    Nowadays the Lorentz transform doesn't have anything to do
    with any kind of physics.
    It tells us what kind of space-time we live in,
    so all physical theories must be locally Lorentz-invariant,
    (or be wrong before they even get started)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 18 12:15:54 2024
    W dniu 18.09.2024 o 12:08, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    Volney: I'm sorry you can't understand. Historically, the Lorentz
    Transformation was originally and always will be a transformation of the
    time coordinate to save the ether and is utterly pointless without an
    ether.

    Historically, perhaps.
    (but Lorentz wouldn't have agreed with you)

    But all that is a thing of the past.
    Nowadays the Lorentz transform doesn't have anything to do
    with any kind of physics.
    It tells us what kind of space-time we live in,
    so all physical theories must be locally Lorentz-invariant,
    (or be wrong before they even get started)

    Delusions of a sick religious maniac.
    But, of course, as you're living in your
    delusions, it's true for space-time youj
    live in.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 18 16:24:49 2024
    Jan: Lorentz-invariant relative to the ether. Yes! It has nothing to do
    with physics. The math is divorced from physics and logic. Space-time
    has nothing to do with physics, science, or logic. The LT is as relevant
    as phlogiston. Sadly, you can't understand that the ether is still
    implicit in your "science."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 18 18:49:31 2024
    Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
    made.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 18 20:05:04 2024
    Jan: Yes, he would have agreed with me because he had an ether: "Lorentz
    ether theory describes a world in which light moves through a medium
    called ether, and observers that are not at rest with respect to this
    ether see everything Lorentz transformed. In some philosophical sense,
    there is a preferred reference frame: that in which the ether is at
    rest." -"Are Lorentz aether theory and special relativity fully
    equivalent?"
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/524058/are-lorentz-aether-theory-and-special-relativity-fully-equivalent#524634

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 18 21:06:10 2024
    Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 18 20:20:48 2024
    Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and appealing to "authority."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 18 21:44:09 2024
    Le 18/09/2024 à 23:06, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
    :
    Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

    I'd rather say that they are a stench in the cork.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Thu Sep 19 11:58:47 2024
    On 2024-09-17 16:08:01 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    Mikko: In reality, it only applies to an ether. Otherwise, Galilean transformations apply. You are mistaken, as shown in my first comment.
    You have not replied to it. The big ego mathematicians here would reply
    that it must be used at speeds near light speed. That is not true
    without an ether.

    We observe only one universe so with and without ether cannot be
    compared. In this universe Galileo transforations are not symmetry transforamtions of laws of nature. You may try to argue that this
    is evidence for the existence of aether.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 19 11:20:47 2024
    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 10:58, Mikko pisze:
    On 2024-09-17 16:08:01 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    Mikko: In reality, it only applies to an ether. Otherwise, Galilean
    transformations apply. You are mistaken, as shown in my first comment.
    You have not replied to it. The big ego mathematicians here would reply
    that it must be used at speeds near light speed. That is not true
    without an ether.

    We observe only one universe

    Sure you do, but we observe another, poor idiot.
    In our world "improper" clocks of GPS keep
    measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
    always did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Thu Sep 19 12:52:43 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
    made.

    Of course, they didn't disagree.
    As for ridiculous mistakes, they are all yours,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Thu Sep 19 11:58:28 2024
    On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 3:16:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    So what are you trying to say?
    (1) "We need the LT because there IS an ether."
    (2) "We don't need the LT because there is no ether."
    (3) You have no idea what you're trying to say.

    I submit that (1) and (2) are false.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 19 14:10:10 2024
    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 13:58, gharnagel pisze:
    On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 3:16:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    So what are you trying to say?
    (1) "We need the LT because there IS an ether."
    (2) "We don't need the LT because there is no ether."
    (3) You have no idea what you're trying to say.

    I submit that (1) and (2) are false.

    And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
    want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 19 13:01:34 2024
    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:10:10 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 13:58, gharnagel pisze:

    On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 3:16:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
    transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed
    more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    So what are you trying to say?
    (1) "We need the LT because there IS an ether."
    (2) "We don't need the LT because there is no ether."
    (3) You have no idea what you're trying to say.

    I submit that (1) and (2) are false.

    And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
    want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

    As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
    in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke
    his narcissistic ego. And as he is inclined to do:
    insult, slander and lie. The truth has long legs and
    overtakes Wozniak's short legs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 19 15:41:18 2024
    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:10:10 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 13:58, gharnagel pisze:

    On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 3:16:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
    transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed
    more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    So what are you trying to say?
    (1) "We need the LT because there IS an ether."
    (2) "We don't need the LT because there is no ether."
    (3) You have no idea what you're trying to say.

    I submit that (1) and (2) are false.

    And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
    want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

    As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
    in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke

    As is his usual wont, Harnagel is raving, slandering and
    insulting in a sorry attempt to deny the reality,
    where GPS clocks are in sync and their indications
    are always equal - with the precision of an acceptable
    error.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Sep 19 14:00:32 2024
    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:41:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:10:10 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
    want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

    As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
    in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke

    As is his usual wont, Harnagel is raving, slandering and
    insulting in a sorry attempt to deny the reality,
    where GPS clocks are in sync and their indications
    are always equal - with the precision of an acceptable
    error.

    The topic of this thread is special relativity. Wozniak
    horns in with off-topic baloney about GR, which is false
    anyway. He has been spanked for his lies but he is an
    impudent and incorrigible congenital liar, filling up the
    threads with irrelevant irrationality.

    “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to
    speak out and remove all doubt.” -- Abraham Lincoln

    And Wozniak has removed all doubt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 19 16:34:20 2024
    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 16:00, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:41:18 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:

    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:10:10 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
    want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

    As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
    in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke

    As is his usual wont, Harnagel is raving, slandering and
    insulting in a sorry attempt to deny the reality,
    where GPS clocks are in sync and their indications
    are always equal - with the precision of an acceptable
    error.

    The topic of this thread is special relativity.

    No, it isn't. It is "truth about the LT"
    and the truth about them is that outside
    of those delusional gedanken tales spred
    by your insane church - they are completely
    unusable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 19 16:44:50 2024
    Le 19/09/2024 à 06:16, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
    On 09/18/2024 02:44 PM, Python wrote:
    Le 18/09/2024 à 23:06, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : >>> Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

    I'd rather say that they are a stench in the cork.



    I imagine that if you don't have have three more replete
    models of continuous domains for your real analysis,
    and at least three laws of large numbers, and at least
    three models of the space 0's and 1's, and a notion of
    a continuous topology, and a teleological paradox-free
    logical theory what's yet strongly logicist and positivist,
    and real wave mechanics for QM what is like for superstrings
    or supercordes if you will or ondes, and a better way for
    Einstein to be a total field theorist, and a fall gravity
    that unites with strong nuclear and isn't merely always
    violating least action, and entropy and entropy for
    energy and the entelechy and dynamic and dunamis,
    that it might not be much of a thing, at all.

    Vintners put a lot of store in good cork.

    Like it was Dio I suppose once put it,
    "like a rainbow in the dark".


    "A-Theory"

    What is the point of posting random-generated meaningless posts?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 20 02:57:45 2024
    Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
    the LT. Our universe has no ether.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Fri Sep 20 08:47:45 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and appealing to "authority."

    If you cannot quote in a correct manner
    I will stop replying to you,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 20 08:00:05 2024
    Le 20/09/2024 à 04:57, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
    :
    Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
    the LT. Our universe has no ether.

    But there is no need for the ether for Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.

    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are of great mathematical beauty and
    obvious physical reality.

    Why do you want to give up, or not believe in these transformations?

    It is as if you were saying: "There is no pink unicorn, so I do not
    believe that 2+2 equals 4."

    Your reasoning has no substance.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 20 13:48:28 2024
    W dniu 20.09.2024 o 13:25, gharnagel pisze:
    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:34:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 16:00, gharnagel pisze:

    The topic of this thread is special relativity.

    No, it isn't.

    Yes, it is:

    It is "truth about the LT"

    which is a set of equations valid in special
    relativity.

    So are "2+2=4" "7x3=21", poor halfbrain.
    The topic of the thread is not SR, and
    Lorentz has invented his equations for
    another theory.




    Wozniak is lying again.

    and the truth about them is that outside
    of those delusional gedanken tales spred
    by your insane church - they are completely
    unusable.

    Wozniak is lying again.  SR is quite accurate
    in explaining particle accelerator results,

    And the theory of angels pushing planets
    along crystal rings was quite accurate about
    planet movements.
    Doesn't change the fact that LT are practically
    unusable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Sep 20 11:25:00 2024
    On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:34:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 19.09.2024 o 16:00, gharnagel pisze:

    The topic of this thread is special relativity.

    No, it isn't.

    Yes, it is:

    It is "truth about the LT"

    which is a set of equations valid in special
    relativity. Wozniak is lying again.

    and the truth about them is that outside
    of those delusional gedanken tales spred
    by your insane church - they are completely
    unusable.

    Wozniak is lying again. SR is quite accurate
    in explaining particle accelerator results,
    for example. Wozniak is either a congenital
    liar or he's an arrogant ignoramus.

    “Better to remain silent and be thought a
    fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
    -- Abraham Lincoln

    And Wozniak has removed all doubt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 20 16:52:55 2024
    Le 20/09/2024 à 13:48, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

    So are "2+2=4" "7x3=21", poor halfbrain.
    The topic of the thread is not SR, and
    Lorentz has invented his equations for
    another theory.

    Poincaré-Lorentz transformations do not pose any particular problems.

    They came out of the brain of the French mathematician to try to explain
    the negativity of the Michelson and Morley experiment.

    Indeed, if we take the speed of light in a vacuum, and add or subtract the speed of the Earth in space, there should be, depending on the position of
    the interferometer arms, and at six-month intervals,
    very significant variations in the interference fringes.

    However, nothing happens.

    As if the Earth were at rest in an absolute vacuum, which seems absurd.

    Physicists have correctly solved the problem by assuming that our idea of ​​"speed in absolute space" was an idea given a priori, and that in relativity, it had no meaning.

    What would this absolute frame of reference be, where things could exist
    at absolute rest?

    It does not exist, and everything exists "as a function of "something
    else" and according to a relative speed.

    It took me many years to find myself (that is to say really by myself, and
    not like the idiot who just repeats them without understanding them) the Poincaré transformations.

    I don't think they can be discussed.

    Many things can be discussed, it's true.

    But not that.

    I recall the Poincaré formulas given in positive form (which I also do)
    and in Hachel notation:
    x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
    y'=y
    z'=z
    To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
    t'=t

    These five coordinates are labels. They transpose, and vice versa by
    changing the sign that gives the reciprocal equation in perfect
    mathematics) the real world of an object in what the same object crossing
    it at speed Vo would perceive.

    Poincaré's physics and mathematics are entirely correct.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Fri Sep 20 21:02:27 2024
    Jan: Obviously, I meant "agree."

    When, where, and how did Lorentz agree with Einstein keeping the LT and discarding the Ether? He wasn't that stupid. --------------------------------------------------------
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and appealing to "authority."

    If you cannot quote in a correct manner
    I will stop replying to you,

    Jan
    ------------------------------------------------------

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Fri Sep 20 20:49:49 2024
    Jan: You lied when you said above that Lorentz agreed with Einstein that
    there was no ether. Anyone can learn this from the excellent book
    "Einstein and the Ether" by Ludwik Kostro, published in 2000.

    Lorentz did not make the mistake of employing the LT without an ether.
    Einstein took that leap.

    ******************************************************
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
    made.

    Of course, they didn't disagree.
    As for ridiculous mistakes, they are all yours,

    Jan
    *******************************************************

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 20 21:38:07 2024
    Jan: I don't have to prove parallel lines don't meet. You have to prove
    they do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 21 04:34:28 2024
    Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
    the LT, which makes them unequal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sat Sep 21 12:14:27 2024
    On 2024-09-21 04:34:28 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
    the LT, which makes them unequal.

    In situations where the difference is big enough to care about the
    Lorentz transformed coordinates give physically correct results.
    Of course you give some coordinates with any transformation but the
    laws of nature take unusual forms in the transformed coordinates.
    With Lorentz transformations the laws of the nature are the same in
    both coordinate systems.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sat Sep 21 12:09:13 2024
    On 2024-09-20 02:57:45 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
    the LT. Our universe has no ether.

    Lorentz transformations are useful. Your opinions are not.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 21 12:02:57 2024
    W dniu 21.09.2024 o 11:09, Mikko pisze:
    On 2024-09-20 02:57:45 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
    the LT. Our universe has no ether.

    Lorentz transformations are useful. Your opinions are not.

    Nope, LT are useless and so are your opinions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to rhertz on Sat Sep 21 12:24:21 2024
    I had written:

    ******************************************************************
    In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
    coordinate system to another.

    On 2024-09-21 01:07:31 +0000, rhertz said:

    But I completely disagree with your comment from above.

    The only, legitimate and not properly recognized MATHEMATICAL
    TRANSFORMATION from one coordinate system to another is the one
    performed by the great Woldemar Voigt, in 1897, more than a decade
    before Lorentz.

    Lorentz transformations are nearly the same as Voigt transfomations.
    They both are transformations from one coordinate system to another.

    At the time the transformations were presented the laws of nature
    were thought to be invariant under the change of scale (i.e., when
    all durations and distances are multiplied with the same factor and
    possibly some other quantities by some powers of the same factor).
    When the Lorentz group is extended with scale transformations the
    resulting group contains both Lorentz and Voigt transformations.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 21 12:07:20 2024
    W dniu 21.09.2024 o 11:14, Mikko pisze:
    On 2024-09-21 04:34:28 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
    the LT, which makes them unequal.

    In situations where the difference is big enough to care about the
    Lorentz transformed coordinates give physically correct results.

    In your moronic gedanken scenarios - for
    sure.
    In the meantime in the real world, however,
    forbidden by your mad church improper clocks
    of GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
    like all serious clocks always did. And even
    theoretically - LT couldn't be applied in
    the vincinity of Earth, because of gravity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 21 12:08:55 2024
    W dniu 21.09.2024 o 11:24, Mikko pisze:
    I had written:

    ******************************************************************
    In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
    coordinate system to another.

    On 2024-09-21 01:07:31 +0000, rhertz said:

    But I completely disagree with your comment from above.

    The only, legitimate and not properly recognized MATHEMATICAL
    TRANSFORMATION from one coordinate system to another is the one
    performed by the great Woldemar Voigt, in 1897, more than a decade
    before Lorentz.

    Lorentz transformations are nearly the same as Voigt transfomations.
    They both are transformations from one coordinate system to another.

    At the time the transformations were presented the laws of nature

    You keep repeating that delusional crap, but
    your alleged "laws of nature" are fabricated
    similar way to laws of god/gods, and for similar
    reasons.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sun Sep 22 22:41:34 2024
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the
    same place - they both started with the same premise.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 22 16:53:16 2024
    W dniu 22.09.2024 o 16:41, Sylvia Else pisze:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the
    same place

    A nonsense, lady - Lorentz was an aether man.
    And - even Your insane guru couldn't
    stick to such an absurd for a long time and his
    GR had to withdraw from it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sun Sep 22 20:51:51 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

    Jan: [snip]

    OK, that's it.
    No more replies to you until you learn to quote correctly,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Mon Sep 23 09:58:05 2024
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the
    same place - they both started with the same premise.

    It is where Einstein started and where Lorentz ended up
    after much toil and trouble,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 11:25:37 2024
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 09:58, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without >>> an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the
    same place - they both started with the same premise.

    It is where Einstein started

    Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
    he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
    long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
    from it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 12:05:56 2024
    Le 23/09/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 09:58, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more >>>> than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the >>> same place - they both started with the same premise.

    It is where Einstein started

    Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
    he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
    long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
    from it.


    How could you say? You refused to follow science courses as
    it is a bunch of religious political propaganda set up by
    criminals. Remember?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 12:47:46 2024
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 12:05, Python pisze:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 09:58, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse >>>>> and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed
    more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
    the
    same place - they both started with the same premise.

    It is where Einstein started

    Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
    he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
    long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
    from it.


    How could you say?

    Simply.


    You refused to follow science courses as

    Save your ravings and insults, poor stinker,
    just answer:
    "All observers measure the same speed for
    light" - is this a rule valid in your GR
    shit? No exceptions?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 13:48:24 2024
    Le 23/09/2024 à 12:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 12:05, Python pisze:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 09:58, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse >>>>>> and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed >>>>>> more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up
    in the
    same place - they both started with the same premise.

    It is where Einstein started

    Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
    he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
    long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
    from it.


    How could you say?

    Simply.


    You refused to follow science courses as

    Save your ravings and insults, poor stinker,
    just answer:
    "All observers measure the same speed for
    light" - is this a rule valid in your GR
    shit? No  exceptions?



    How could you say? You refused to follow science courses as
    it is a bunch of religious political propaganda set up by
    criminals. Remember?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 23 14:29:10 2024
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 13:48, Python pisze:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 12:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 12:05, Python pisze:
    Le 23/09/2024 à 11:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 23.09.2024 o 09:58, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
    transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be
    delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations >>>>>>> without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz >>>>>>> Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the >>>>>> Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up
    in the
    same place - they both started with the same premise.

    It is where Einstein started

    Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
    he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
    long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
    from it.


    How could you say?

    Simply.


    You refused to follow science courses as

    Save your ravings and insults, poor stinker,
    just answer:
    "All observers measure the same speed for
    light" - is this a rule valid in your GR
    shit? No  exceptions?



    How could you say?

    Simply.
    But how could a relativistic piece
    of shit ever answer a question?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 07:03:07 2024
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the
    same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated Voigt
    and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
    something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed Sep 25 14:23:18 2024
    On 25-Sept-24 1:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without >>> an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
    the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated Voigt
    and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's
    SRT.

    TH

    One can formulate the problem in different ways, and that can lead to
    different approaches to finding a solution.

    But the underlying issue was the same - the measured speed of light is independent of the motion of the person doing the measuring. Any
    analysis that correctly describes that will lead to the Lorentz
    transformation, regardless of philosophical notions about what's
    happening behind the scenes.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 09:39:26 2024
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 08:23, Sylvia Else pisze:

    But the underlying issue was the same - the measured speed of light is independent of the motion of the person doing the measuring.

    Even Your insane guru was unable to stick
    to this absurd for a long time, and his
    GR had to withdraw.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 10:33:01 2024
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without >>> an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
    the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated Voigt
    and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's
    SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Python on Wed Sep 25 12:29:44 2024
    On 2024-09-25 08:33:01 +0000, Python said:

    Le 25/09/2024 07:03, Thomas Heger a crit:
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more >>>> than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without >>>> an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
    the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
    'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated
    Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
    something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Thomas makes stuff up all the time.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 12:59:46 2024
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more >>>> than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
    the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
    'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
    motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
    something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    your idiot guru did later in his raging
    madness).





    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 13:05:53 2024
    Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse >>>>> and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed
    more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
    the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
    'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
    motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
    something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    [Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

    No he didn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 13:43:24 2024
    Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
    transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be
    delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations >>>>>>> without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz >>>>>>> Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the >>>>>> Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up
    in the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
    'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
    motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
    something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    [Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

    No he didn't.

    Yes, he did.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
    He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
    Even if not clearly enough for you
    I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

    I thought it was clear enough for anyone able to read.

    poor stinker.

    Nice signature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 13:55:44 2024
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:43, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
    transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be
    delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations >>>>>>>> without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz >>>>>>>> Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at
    the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz
    ended up in the same place - they both started with the same
    premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but >>>>>> 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
    motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
    foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    [Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

    No he didn't.

    Yes, he did.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
    He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
    Even if not clearly enough for you
    I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

    So - does his moronic church assumes EG
    true? REALLY?
    Yes, he did. He was a true idiot indeed.
    And your stinking lie has short legs,
    poor stinker.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 14:03:51 2024
    Le 25/09/2024 à 13:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:43, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
    transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be
    delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the >>>>>>>>> Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these
    equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz >>>>>>>>> Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all >>>>>>>> observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at >>>>>>>> the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz
    ended up in the same place - they both started with the same
    premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light,
    but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which >>>>>>> motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
    foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    [Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

    No he didn't.

    Yes, he did.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
    He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
    Even if not clearly enough for you
    I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

    So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
    true? REALLY?

    It does. Really.

    Wozniak all of this is far above your head. Find another hobby.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 13:26:59 2024
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse >>>>>> and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed >>>>>> more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations
    without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
    Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up
    in the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
    'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
    motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
    something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    [Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

    No he didn't.

    Yes, he did.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
    He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
    Even if not clearly enough for you, poor stinker.







    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 14:25:32 2024
    Le 25/09/2024 à 14:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 14:03, Python pisze:
    ...
    I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

    So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
    true? REALLY?

    It does. Really.

    Wozniak all of this is far above your head.

    No it is not. A fanatic piece of shit
    is lying impudently and its lies stink;
    nothing especially complicated.

    Still too complicated for you. Sure.

    The facts still are - [Einstein]
    has announced EG false

    No he didn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 14:23:35 2024
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 14:03, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 13:55, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:43, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the >>>>>>>>>> transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be >>>>>>>>>> delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the >>>>>>>>>> Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these
    equations without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz >>>>>>>>>> Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all >>>>>>>>> observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at >>>>>>>>> the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz >>>>>>>>> ended up in the same place - they both started with the same >>>>>>>>> premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, >>>>>>>> but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion,
    which motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT. >>>>>>>>
    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
    foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'. >>>>>>>>
    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    [Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

    No he didn't.

    Yes, he did.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
    He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
    Even if not clearly enough for you
    I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

    So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
    true? REALLY?

    It does. Really.

    Wozniak all of this is far above your head.

    No it is not. A fanatic piece of shit
    is lying impudently and its lies stink;
    nothing especially complicated.

    The facts still are - your idiot guru
    has announced EG false and his obedient
    worshippers have doctored evidence against
    it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 25 14:50:06 2024
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 14:25, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 14:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 14:03, Python pisze:
    ...
    I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

    So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
    true? REALLY?

    It does. Really.

    Wozniak all of this is far above your head.

    No it is not. A fanatic piece of shit
    is lying impudently and its lies stink;
    nothing especially complicated.

    Still too complicated for you. Sure.

    The facts still are -  [Einstein]
    has announced EG false

    No he didn't.

    Well, even considering the usual level
    of relativistic worshippers - you lie
    EXTREMLY impudently; not that it's
    a big surprise, of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 26 08:17:58 2024
    Am Mittwoch000025, 25.09.2024 um 10:33 schrieb Python:

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
    Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
    the same place - they both started with the same premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
    'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
    motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
    something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?


    The paper was titled 'Henri Poincare and Relativity theory' by A.A. Logunov

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408077


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 26 08:34:15 2024
    Am Mittwoch000025, 25.09.2024 um 13:43 schrieb Python:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:
    Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :
    Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
    transverse
    and longitudinal beams.
    Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be
    delayed more
    than the transverse.
    This is the difference that should have been detected by the
    Michelson-Morley experiment.
    As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations >>>>>>>> without
    an ether.
    Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz >>>>>>>> Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

    If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
    observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at
    the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz
    ended up in the same place - they both started with the same
    premise.

    As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but >>>>>> 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
    motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

    This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
    foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

    And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
    Einstein's SRT.

    You read what? Where?

    Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
    support SR - too bad for him. But he
    wrote very clearly what he thinks of
    rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
    [Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

    No he didn't.

    Yes, he did.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
    He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
    Even if not clearly enough for you
    I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

    I thought it was clear enough for anyone able to read.



    Sure, Einstein didn't.

    SRT is actually based on Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics.

    This is so, because Einstein actually wrote that.

    BUT: Euclidean geometry was wrong in this context of (SRT) relativity,
    because Euclidiean space is based on the idea of coordinates without a dependency on time.

    Iow: if you have some remote event on -say- the x-axis of Euclidian
    space, this is simultaneaous, if a connecting signal would need no time
    to reach that point.

    Euclidean space is therefore 'timeless'.

    But the space of SRT is NOT independent of time.

    To show this was the very purpose of SRT!

    To refer to Euclidean space was therefor wrong in SRT.


    TH



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