In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
and longitudinal beams.
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
and longitudinal beams.
Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz Transformation in this context is nonsensical.
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.
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)
Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.
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.
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
Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
made.
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.
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.
W dniu 19.09.2024 o 13:58, gharnagel pisze:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 3:16:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
transverseIn reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
moreand longitudinal beams.
Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed
withoutthan 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
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.
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:10:10 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 19.09.2024 o 13:58, gharnagel pisze:
transverse
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 3:16:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the
moreand longitudinal beams.
Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed
withoutthan 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
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
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.
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.
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"
Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and appealing to "authority."
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.
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.
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,
W dniu 19.09.2024 o 16:00, gharnagel pisze:
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.
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.
Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and appealing to "authority."
Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
made.
Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
the LT, which makes them unequal.
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.
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.
******************************************************************
In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
coordinate system to another.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Jan: [snip]
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 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
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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
But the underlying issue was the same - the measured speed of light is independent of the motion of the person doing the measuring.
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.
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?
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?
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.]
W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.
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.
Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.
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
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:I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.
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
So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
true? REALLY?
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.
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.
The facts still are - [Einstein]
has announced EG false
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:I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.
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
So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
true? REALLY?
It does. Really.
Wozniak all of this is far above your head.
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.
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?
Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.
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 thought it was clear enough for anyone able to read.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 06:57:49 |
Calls: | 7,826 |
Calls today: | 9 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,250 |
Posted today: | 1 |