LOCAL TIME FOR LORENTZ, INTRODUCED IN 1901
t' = t - vx/c² ; This is Voigt's Local Time, from 1897.
No explanations given by Voigt, Lorentz or Einstein about the
MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT vx/c². This the equivalent of NOISE in
mathematics, an undesired effect.
t' = t - vx/c² ; This is Lorentz Local Time, from 1901, presented to Poincaré.
..............
β² = c²/(c² - v²) ; Lorentz Eq. 3 (plagiarized from 1897 Voigt), and inserted without explanations on his 1904 paper.
Lorentz, since formulae 4 and 5 on his 1904 paper.
1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5
1905 MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORM
In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue) x = X - vt, inorder to get rid of ether.
t' = β (t/β² - vx/c²)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vx)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vX + v² t) = β/c² (tc² - tv² - vX + v² t) t' = β (t - vX/c²)
1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = β (t - vX/c²)
x' = β (X - vt)
Den 03.10.2024 02:55, skrev rhertz:
Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.
Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or
Voigt).
Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A
MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is
an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH
development.
Even using Minkowski, AS OF TODAY the expression:
t-vx/c²
couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.
The Lorentz transform describes SR completely.
It's meaning is that it predicts a lot of physical
consequences which are observed in the real world,
Newtonian mechanics is falsified by a number of experiments.
Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.
Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or
Voigt).
Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A
MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is
an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH development.
Even using Minkowski, AS OF TODAY the expression:
t-vx/c²
couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:44:39 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The Lorentz transform describes SR completely.
It's meaning is that it predicts a lot of physical
consequences which are observed in the real world,
and which are not predicted by Newtonian mechanics
and Galilean relativity.
SR is thoroughly tested by a innumerable experiments
and observations and is never falsified.
Newtonian mechanics is falsified by a number of experiments.
(But it is still a very useful theory as long as we know
its limitations.)
Some of the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
In a hopeless attempt to 'save' NM Richard Hertz claims:
"And about your list of historical proofs of relativity, I can make a
deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond any reasonable doubt,
that relativists are members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
because the different results are COOKED with the help of statistical
manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity."
So Richard Hertz is wrong unless all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.
Hilarious, no? 😂
And yet in another proof of your ignorance, fanaticism and brainwashing
on relativity, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT
-vx/c², EITHER WITH A PHYSICAL MEANING OR EVEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE.
That is because you're an idiot who bought the relativity package of
crap WITHOUT a mere question on its ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE.
Give an explanation about the PHYSICAL MEANING of -vx/c² in "local time"
OR shut your mouth (or equivalent).
Cornered relativistic rat.
That is because you're an idiot who bought the relativity package of
crap WITHOUT a mere question on its ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE.
Quite.
I have bought SR and the Lorentz transform with all its terms
because I know that SR is thoroughly experimentally verified.
I also know that Newtonian mechanics and the Galilean transform
without the term -vx/c² is experimentally falsified.
Do you need another 'explanation' for why the term -vx/c²
must be in the transformation which give the predictions that
are in accordance with physical measurements in the real world?
Give an explanation about the PHYSICAL MEANING of -vx/c² in "local time"
OR shut your mouth (or equivalent).
Cornered relativistic rat.
There is no "local time" in SR.
You can see what Lorentz meant by "local time" in chapter 3 here:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
Quote:
"Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton.
But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."
Only an idiot would call a term in a coordinate transform "local time".
What is the term vt? "Local position"?
And only an idiot would claim that all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 18:17:06 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 03.10.2024 22:23, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 03.10.2024 06:18, skrev rhertz:
1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5
No, this is not the Lorentz transform.
Lorentz used the Galilean transform first, and then he
"transform these formulae further by a change of variables".
It's is these two transforms together that make the Lorentz transform.
See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
He doesn't explain the "change of variables", but the purpose is clear.
To "explain" the Michelson-Morley experiment, Maxwell's equation
must be invariant. (Idea from Poincare.) So "the change of variables"
was what they had to be to achieve that purpose.
ARE YOU BECOME, FINALLY, FULL RETARDED?? SHAME ON YOU!
IT COMES DIRECTLY FROM 1904 LORENTZ PAPER:
H.A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light
1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5 (HERE IS LOCAL TIME WITH ETHER)
Making x = X - vt (Einstein did that, to get rid of ether)
t' = β (t - vX/c²)
x' = β (X - vt)
Einstein started with the second postulate, the speed of light
is invariant (the same in all inertial frames).
So Einstein didn't copy anything, but since the invariance of Maxwell's
equation follows from the invariance of the speed of light,
they ended up with the same transform.
You can see what Lorentz meant by "local time" in chapter 3 here:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
Quote:
"Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton. >> But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."
Only a blind, deaf and stupid relativist like you deny WRITTEN HISTORY!
Here is what Lorentz wrote about "local time" in his 1904 paper (p.813):
************************************
"The variabie t' may be called the "local time"; indeed, tor k = 1,
1 = 1 it becomes identical with what I have formerly understood by
this name,"
***********************************
DID YOU GET IT, IGNORANT?
Explain this:
1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)
IF
v = 11 Km/sec
x = 400 Km
γ = 1.00000000067222
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec
48.89 nanoseconds meaning WHAT?
Worse yet.
IF x' = 0, then x = vt
t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ
t' = 0.999999998655556 t (now t' run slower than t!)
Any explanations about these numerical examples of
the ridiculous results when applying SR?
Den 05.10.2024 19:32, skrev rhertz:
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec
wrong, see below
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.
You do know that the Lorentz transform is
a coordinate transformation, or don't you?
Den 05.10.2024 22:39, skrev rhertz:
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.
Quite.
I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
whatever we write.
He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
falsified.
DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!
I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.
WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
"CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.
YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.
EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.
BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.
CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.
"Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at
the beginning of his plagiarized 1905 paper.
Assertion still sustained nowadays by relativists.
So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would
dictate that a day last 86,400 seconds.
But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
mark 99,766 seconds/day.
All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it experimentally.
This link illustrates a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html
G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59
In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327
YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS
THE ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE
15,000 MILES FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY)
TO ESTIMATE THE TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.
Mudrak's 2017 formula for GNSS Galileo:
Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (aΩₑ)²]
If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r
(i.e. 10 Km), then
Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should
I explain?
Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
Your STUPID and ILLOGICAL thinking is about having bought THIS CRAP:
Hafele considered a good approximation the following INSANE
assertion:
- WE (H&K, plus the gang at USNO) considered A GOOD IDEA to think
that a good approximation is:
- Earth rotates at 459,24 m/sec (Equator level). We SUPPOSE that
USNO labs are FLOATING IN THE AIR for the duration of our eastward
trip.
- So, in a stroke of a genius, we SUPPOSED that being still for
65.42 hours (flight time + waiting in airports) at ALTITUDE 0.0Km,
we WOULD REACH USNO LABS while Earth rotates such amount
(either 0° latitude or the average 34° latitude).
- The only thing that we have to do is TO SIT COMFORTABLY, while
Earth rotates, AND in 65.42 hours we will reach USNO AGAIN
(because we departed from USNO, which MAGICALLY remained STILL
IN SPACE, without ANY MOTION. We are, by the hand of Einstein,
who slipped eastward, to finally reach USNO again.
- The only uncomfortable aspect of such adventure is that OUR ASSES
got wet, while moving over water at height ZERO, plus a lot of
bruises in our asses while moving over earth, at h=0.
- But all the pain suffered worth the sacrifice, as we COULD
THEORETICALLY compute the elapsed time τ₀ =65.42h =235.512E+12 ns.
- That such value, which we pulled out of our asses, contain errors
in the order of BILLIONS OF PARTS is irrelevant, because we proved
that Einstein was right.
As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.
As they wrote here:
QUOTE:
«The satellite’s performance is far exceeding expectations. Data
from more than 1,900 additional orbits are already available and
more are to come, which should enable us to further improve the
mission’s performance and approach its target of acquiring
measurements with a precision of 10-15. This first result is going
to shake the world of physics and will certainly lead to a revision
of alternative theories to general relativity,» said the mission’s principal investigator Pierre Touboul.
Enjoy slowly, relativists. Please don't choke on your stupidity,
as you are allowed to fail for being just humans.
And about your list of historical proofs of relativity,
I can make a deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond
any reasonable doubt, that relativists are members of a MAFFIA,
and profit from it. This is because the different results are
COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
cooking and peer complicity.
Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Where:
AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense.
Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
reference frame with that of the Earth.
2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
that the observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon. Earth
rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
anual variation of ± 11.5 degrees!!!
3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because the Earth rotates
daily.
4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the ELEVATION
of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light of the Sun (and stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERTURBATIONS. One of
the most important is the REFRACTION of the light passing through atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so, the elevation angle at noon CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
elevation in summer time.
5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in the moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from being at
90 degrees respect to the Sun.
ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 13:23:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 05.10.2024 00:16, skrev rhertz:
<snip>
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §3
Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
You will NOT find the "change of variables" transform: (l set to 1)
c²/(c²-v²) = β² Lorentz equation (3)
x' = βx, y'= y, z'= z Lorentz equation (4)
t' = t/β - βvx/c² Lorentz equation (5)
Einstein never plagiarised Lorentz's "change of variables" transform.
and you will NOT find the Galilean transform:
x' = x - vt (or x = X - vt)
so when you said:
"In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue)
x = X - vt, in order to get rid of ether."
you were LYING because you must know that it isn't true.
snip>
Sometimes your misinterpretation of the text you are reading
is hilarious! :-D
**************************************************************
LIAR + DECEIVER + FANATIC + IMBECILE <= Relativist Paul Anderson.
THE FIRST THING THAT EINSTEIN USED TO MAKE A FRAUDULENT PLAGIARISM
OF LORENTZ EQUATIONS WAS TO USE THE GALILEAN TRANSFORM x' = x - vt.
You, Paul, are beyond DISHONESTY! You are just A CROOK, either on
relativity or (I'm sure) ANYTHING ELSE YOU DID, DO AND WILL DO.
It's on your blood, fucking retarded!
READ THIS - READ THIS - READ THIS - READ THIS - READ THIS
EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!
You are A DISGRACE OF A HUMAN BEING. I CEASE ANY CONTACT SINCE NOW.
PROOF IN THE 1905 PAPER.
QUOTE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
............................................
Quoting 6th. paragraph (if you can count, beast! ............................................
If we place x' = x − vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first
define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have to express
in equations that τ is nothing else than the summary of the data of
clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to
the rule given in § 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT THAT, IMBECILE IGNORANT?
On 2024-10-03 00:55:55 +0000, rhertz said:
Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.
Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.
Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.
On 2024-10-07 08:45:14 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
Le 07/10/2024 à 10:21, Mikko a écrit :
What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions,
durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?
Mikko
A great quantum physicist was once asked the question: "Is it true
that there are only three physicists in the world who understand
quantum physics?"
He replied: "And who is the third?"
The same goes for special relativity.
No, it doesn't. Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.
Nothing makes simultaneity relative. It simpy is relative.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:22:28 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,568 |