Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:

.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation

(2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)

******************************************************************************

(2')                  hᴾf1 = hᴾf2 (1 + gh/c²)

(2'')                 E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = hᴾf2 gh/c²

hᴾ: Planck's constant

S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.

Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c². It meant that the photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.

By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

---------------

Let's count pulses.

We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.

After one day the ground clock will show τ₁ = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N₁ = 0.864e15 cycles.

The clock on the ground will have received:
N₂ = N₁⋅(1+g⋅h/c²) = N₁⋅(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
τ₂ = 86400 s + 0.2 ns

After one year τ₂ - τ₁ = 78.2 ns

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

W dniu 18.12.2024 o 14:48, Paul B. Andersen pisze:

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

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

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:

.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)

***************************************************************************

(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)


(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?


h?: Planck's constant

S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
z origin.

Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.

By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time. >> By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the >> EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks >> just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

---------------

Let's count pulses.

We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.

After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.

The clock on the ground will have received:
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns

After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS.

Nonsense. Most GR textbooks (see MTW for example)
give a derivation of the Newtonian limit of GR.
And for all practical purposes the Newtonian limit is adequate.
(excepting only neutron stars and black holes)
[snip the same nonsense in more words]

Jan

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

W dniu 18.12.2024 o 22:37, J. J. Lodder pisze:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:

.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 >>>> relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such >>>> that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)

***************************************************************************

(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)


(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?


h?: Planck's constant

S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the >>>> z origin.

Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.

By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time. >>>> By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the >>>> EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of >>>> EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at >>>> 9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency >>>> that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks >>>> just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

---------------

Let's count pulses.

We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.

After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.

The clock on the ground will have received:
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns

After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.

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

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:37:54 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:

.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2 >>>> toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 >>>> relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such >>>> that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)

*********************************************************************** >>>>
(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)


(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?


h?: Planck's constant

S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the >>>> z origin.

Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the >>>> photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.

By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time. >>>> By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the >>>> EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of >>>> EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at >>>> 9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency >>>> that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks >>>> just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

---------------

Let's count pulses.

We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.

After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.

The clock on the ground will have received:
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns

After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)

Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Jan

[snip more of the same garbage]

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

W dniu 20.12.2024 o 01:49, rhertz pisze:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip previous posts>

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT >>>>> IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

? You can't be so ignorant or fanatic!

Of course he can. Why not?

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

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

This deserves a DEEP READING by all, relativists or not:

https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity

Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
J�rgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?

Jan

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

Den 18.12.2024 18:40, skrev rhertz:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:

(2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)

******************************************************************************

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einsteins last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

No.

Read my paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

My "comment" is based on the General Theory of Relativity.

According to a good approximation of the Schwarzschild  metric
the gravitational term is:

f1 = f2⋅(1 + (GM/c²R)⋅(h/(R+h)) (1)

where R is the radius of the Earth
and h is the altitude of the source of f2.


If h = R, we get:

According to Einstein 1915 (GR):
f1 = f2(1 + 3.48e-10)

(f1-f2)/f2 = Δf/f2 = 3.48e-10

According to Einstein 1911:
f1 = f2(1 + gh/c²) = f2(1 + 6.96e-10)

Δf/f2 = 6.96e-10, twice the 1915 prediction.@@

The 1915 (GR) prediction is, as you know, thoroughly experimentally
confirmed.

So Einstein's 1911 equation doesn't work for h = R!

------------

If h = 22.56 m we get:

According to Einstein 1915 (GR):
f1 = f2(1 + 2.46695e-10)

Δf/f2 = 2.46695e-10

According to Einstein 1911:
f1 = f2(1 + 2.46696e-10)

Δf/f2 = 2.46696e-10

So with this small height of the tower the difference is negligible.

-------------

Let us see how the approximation is calculated:

We start with equation (1)

Δf/f2 = (GM/c²R)⋅(h/(R+h)) = ((GM/R²)⋅h/c²)⋅(1/(1+h/R))

g = GM/R²

Δf/f2 = (g⋅h/c²)⋅(1/(1+h/R))

Note that the difference between the 1915 and the 1911 prediction
is the factor (1/(1+h/R)).

When h/R << 1 we can set h/R ≈ 0 and Δf/f2 ≈ g⋅h/c²


Now you can read my "comment":


The point is:
If it is a gravitational frequency shift, the inevitable consequence
is that the clock on the top of the tower measure longer proper time
than the clock om the ground.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:28:45 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/17/2024 11:50 AM, rhertz wrote:

EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on
the Propagation of Light

***********************************************************************
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
........................................
We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S2
to S1 from a system K0, which is free of acceleration.
..................
Therefore by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at
S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is
related to E2; to a rst approximation, by the equation:

(1) E1 = E2 (1 + gh/c²)

By our assumption exactly the same relation holds if the same process
takes place in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is provided
with a gravitational field.

In this case we may replace by the potential gh of the gravitation
vector in S2, if the arbitrary constant of ɸ in S1 is set to zero. We
then have the equation:

(1a) E1 = E2 + E2 ɸ/c²

This equation expresses the energy law for the process under
observation. The energy E1 arriving at S1 is greater than the energy E2,
measured by the same means, which was emitted from S2, the excess being
the potential energy of the mass E2/c² in the gravitational field. This
shows that in order to satisfy the energy principle we have to ascribe
to the energy E, before its emission from S2, a potential energy, due to
gravity, which corresponds to the (GRAVITATIONAL) MASS E/c².
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c²)

******************************************************************************



Since 1911, and for more than 100 years, Eq (2) has remained under the
form Δf/f₀ = gh/c² or equivalent, before or after the 1917
Schwarzschild-Hilbert solution in GR.

1911, Einstein: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (light has mass E/c², asserted
Einstein)

1959, Pound-Rebka: Δf/f₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with light having >> mass?)

1971, Hafele-Keating: Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² (Is Einstein right with GR time >> dilation?)

2015, Mudrak et. all: Δf/f₀ = GMₑ/c² [(a - r)/(ar) + J₂/2] ≈ gh/c² (if
a ≈ r)





ALL OF THE AB0VE CRAP IS FALSE, AND CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE 1907-1911
PERIOD, WHEN THE RETARDED TRIED TO INCORPORATE GRAVITY TO SR.

BY 1915-1917, THE SCHWARZSCHILS-HILBERT PARTICULAR SOLUTION EMERGED,
WITH A VERY SPECIFIC CONTEXT FOR APPLICABILITY. IN PARTICULAR, THE SUN
WAS MODELED AS A
NON-ROTATING POINT-LIKE MASS, WITH MERCURY AS A MASSLESS TEST PARTICLE.

YET, RELATIVISTIC MORONS INSIST ON APPLYING IT TO EVERYTHING ABOVE THE
EARTH'S SURFACE. EITHER MOVING OR STATIC. BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMORAL
SOLD-OUTS, THAT SAW A COW TO BE MILKED TO ITS DEATH, WHILE THEY'RE
PROFITING IN MANY WAYS.

THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE OF RELATIVISM IS USED BY PARASITES TO HAVE A NICE AND
UNACCOUNTABLE WAY OF LIVING. THEY ALSO RELY ON AMATEURS FOLLOWERS OF THE
CULT, TO SPREAD THEIR SHIT, TRUSTING IN THEIR BORN IMBECILITY AS
GULLIBLE CRETINS.

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

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

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:56:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

This deserves a DEEP READING by all, relativists or not:


https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity

Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
J�rgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?

Jan

Read it again, fanatic.

You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
What is it that you don't understand about:
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues,
acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (F�lsing,
1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of
Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====

Jan

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

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

It used to be said "at one point only three people
in the world understood Relativity Theory, ...."

Now, one of them's usually assumed to be Einstein.

Don't be silly, it was a joke. In full, something like:

Journalist: Professor Eddington, is it true that there are only three
people in the world who understand relativity?
Eddington: Hesitates, does'n answer.
Journalist: Why are you hesitating?
Eddington: Not hesitating, I was just thinking who might be the third.

Jan

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

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:28:45 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/17/2024 11:50 AM, rhertz wrote:

EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on >> the Propagation of Light

[snip]

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

Until Lorentz made it respectable,
by deriving it from his electron theory.
So it is usually called Lorentz contraction these days,
(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald)

Jan

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

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 22:36:45 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:56:48 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

This deserves a DEEP READING by all, relativists or not:


https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einstein-and-hilberts-relativity

Einstein and Hilbert's Relativity Race
Who generalized relativity first, Einstein or Hilbert?
J�rgen Veisdal
Jul 03, 2021

So the answer is once again Einstein.
Why am I not surprised?

Jan

Read it again, fanatic.

You have serious problem with text comprehension. Dyslexia or denial?

The problem seems to be entirely yours.
What is it that you don't understand about:
=====
It is indisputable that Hilbert, like all of his other colleagues, acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory (F�lsing, 1993). This is confirmed in many places, even on the first page of Hilbert's publication. (in the conclusion of your ref.)
=====

Jan

[snip a no answer, and another ton of irrelevant text]

You are trying to change the subject.
Why can't you just admit to having been wrong?
And that you tried to mislead by quote mining,
selective paraphrasing, and by omitting the conclusion?

Do you really believe after all you have done here
that anyone will believe you on your word,
without having a look at the sources?

Jan

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

XPost: fr.sci.physique

Le 21/12/2024 à 11:01, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:28:45 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/17/2024 11:50 AM, rhertz wrote:

EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on >> >> the Propagation of Light

[snip]

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

Until Lorentz made it respectable,
by deriving it from his electron theory.
So it is usually called Lorentz contraction these days,
(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald)

Jan

Attention. Dilatation des temps et contraction des longueurs sont des
termes usuels, mais ce sont des termes impropres par manque de précision.


Ce qui se dilate n'est pas le temps.

Ce qui se contracte n'est pas les longueurs ou les distances.

On respire, on souffle, cela évitera de faire un malaise que le docteur
Hachel parle.

Ce qui se dilate, c'est la chronotropie (c'est à dire le mécanisme
interne des montres) ; ce qui se contracte, c'est la métrique
référentielle.

Ce n'est pas la même chose. Parler de temps mesurer sur les montres, ou
de longueurs et distances mesurées, c'est AUTRE CHOSE.

On respire, on souffle.

Nous allons maintenant prendre le contrôle de votre écran d'ordinateur
pour vous expliquer quelque chose de très simple.

Si une fusée longue de trente mètres s'approche de nous à vitesse
Vo=0.8c (deux cent quarante mille kilomètres pas seconde) et qu'elle nous envoie deux bips séparés, dans sont temps propre d'une seconde,
il va y avoir dilatation de la longueur de la fusée, qui mesurera
réellement 90 mètres dans MON référentiel (un référentiel
relativiste ne peut être que propre, et ponctuel) ; et il y aura une contraction du temps réelle, car l'intervalle entre les deux bips sera
pour moi de 0.333 secondes.

Il y aura donc, dans ce cas présent, une contraction des temps et une dilatation des longueurs.

On respire, on souffle, en espérant ne pas faire un malaise.

J'enfonce le clou. Ces phénomènes sont réels. Ils font partie de MON
réel.

Pour bien comprendre les choses, il faut introduire l'effet Doppler longitudinal relativiste, et considérer que cet effet est aussi vrai et
aussi réel que l'autre (effet Doppler interne : facteur de Lorentz).

Les deux équations correctes, vous les connaissez, je les ai données
depuis longtemps.

Elles sont universelles.

To=Tr.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

L'=L.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

Attention, il faut appliquer cela aux distances aussi (une longueur est
une distance entre deux extrémité).

D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)

On respire on souffle, on va encore faire un malaise, mais il faut dire
les choses.

Si une fusée fonce directement sur la distance terre-lune à 0.8c, cette distance n'est plus, pour elle,
d'environ 300 000 kms.

Mais elle n'est pas contractée (ne pas confondre contraction de la trame
et mesure), elle est dilatée de trois fois.

Neuf cent mille kilomètres.

Nous vous rendons le contrôle de votre écran d'ordinateur.

Vous pouvez continuer d'y inscrire les bêtises habituelles quand vous
parler de SR.

R.H.

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

Den 21.12.2024 16:38, skrev rhertz:

Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.

This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 14:25 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 21.12.2024 16:38, skrev rhertz:

Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.

This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Most Nazis are certainly dead now, because the Nazi empire is gone for
almost eighty years.

Many Nazis went to Argentina, however, but mainly in the 40th and 50th.

This included Hitler himself (allegedly) together with 'Eva Braun'
(cover name of Unity Mitford) and their children.

Whether or not they had anything to do with Zionism I cannot say.


TH

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

On 2024-12-23 08:54:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 14:25 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 21.12.2024 16:38, skrev rhertz:

Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.

This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Most Nazis are certainly dead now, because the Nazi empire is gone for
almost eighty years.

Many Nazis went to Argentina, however, but mainly in the 40th and 50th.

This included Hitler himself (allegedly) together with 'Eva Braun'
(cover name of Unity Mitford) and their children.

Good grief. You're even more of a crackpot than I already thought.

Whether or not they had anything to do with Zionism I cannot say.

TH

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

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

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:

On 2024-12-23 08:54:11 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Am Sonntag000022, 22.12.2024 um 14:25 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 21.12.2024 16:38, skrev rhertz:

Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll >>> find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.

This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Most Nazis are certainly dead now, because the Nazi empire is gone for almost eighty years.

Many Nazis went to Argentina, however, but mainly in the 40th and 50th.

This included Hitler himself (allegedly) together with 'Eva Braun'
(cover name of Unity Mitford) and their children.

Good grief. You're even more of a crackpot than I already thought.

How many cracks between a pot and a nut?

Jan

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

W dniu 27.12.2024 o 09:20, Physfitfreak pisze:

On 12/21/2024 4:01 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

It used to be said "at one point only three people
in the world understood Relativity Theory, ...."

Now, one of them's usually assumed to be Einstein.

Don't be silly, it was a joke. In full, something like:

Journalist: Professor Eddington, is it true that there are only three
people in the world who understand relativity?
Eddington: Hesitates, does'n answer.
Journalist: Why are you hesitating?
Eddington: Not hesitating, I was just thinking who might be the third.

Jan

No, it was a little more involved. There were no "journalist". It was
another physicist who in a scientific gathering where Eddington was
present had claimed only three persons in the world understood
relativity (in his mind implying himself and Einstein and Eddington),
and then tells Eddington he should know who the third one is. When
Eddington did not answer, he told Eddington, "Don't be shy, tell us who
the third one is."

To which, Eddington had responded, "Oh, no, I was just wondering who the third one might be," thus kicking the other physicist out of the
supposed "three".

Poor, arrogant idiots playing some demigods...

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

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:37:54 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:

.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2 >>>>>> toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 >>>>>> relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such >>>>>> that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)

*********************************************************************** >>>>>>
(2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)


(2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?


h?: Planck's constant

S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the >>>>>> z origin.

Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h, >>>>>> under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the >>>>>> photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.

By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time. >>>>>> By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the >>>>>> EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of >>>>>> EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at >>>>>> 9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency >>>>>> that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same >>>>>> formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks >>>>>> just COUNT pulses.

Forget the 1911 paper.

Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.

What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

---------------

Let's count pulses.

We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.

After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.

The clock on the ground will have received:
N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns

After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT >>>> IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)

Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Jan

[snip more of the same garbage]

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?

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

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?

Albert Einstein was a myth.

A pure media creation.

R.H.

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

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:01:16 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:28:45 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/17/2024 11:50 AM, rhertz wrote:

EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on >>>> the Propagation of Light

[snip]

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

Until Lorentz made it respectable,
by deriving it from his electron theory.
So it is usually called Lorentz contraction these days,
(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald)

Jan

It's still ad hoc fiction because nothing can cause all lengths to
change in unison when all materials are different, least of all relative motion.

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

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?

Albert Einstein was a myth.

A pure media creation.

R.H.

If I were Emperor Titus when the Israelites were fiercely rebelling, and considering he had Philo and Josephus in his court, I would have had
them publish some pacificist propaganda.

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

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?

Albert Einstein was a myth.

A pure media creation.

R.H.

Unfortunately Einstein was a historical person.

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

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?

Albert Einstein was a myth.

A pure media creation.

R.H.

Even Jesus is a myth. Joseph Atwill pointed out that bit about Titus in
his book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus." But
the best case against an historical Jesus is by Richard Carrier and his
talks are on YouTube.

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

Le 28/12/2024 à 02:34, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?

Albert Einstein was a myth.

A pure media creation.

R.H.

Unfortunately Einstein was a historical person.

Absolutely, Einstein was a historical person.

But his personal genius was a myth.

R.H.

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

Le 28/12/2024 à 02:32, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Even Jesus is a myth. Joseph Atwill pointed out that bit about Titus in
his book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus." But
the best case against an historical Jesus is by Richard Carrier and his
talks are on YouTube.

No, Jesus is not a myth, he existed in the sense that it is certain that a
man came and that his doctrine made a great noise.
In addition, it is attested by historians: "There were disciples of
Chretos, but Caesar accused them of having set fire to Rome. This fire
occurred 33 years after the death of John the Baptist".

This sentence is simply incredible, because it reveals two of the immense secrets that history has hidden from us.

Two enormous secrets.

So no, Jesus is not a myth, simply his story was astonishingly disfigured (according to the prophecy of Isaiah).

On the other hand, Paul is a myth. He is just a poor guy suffering from
verbal logirrhea, using a lot of abstract and incomprehensible terms to introduce a ridiculous and unjust theory of redeeming bastards by the
blood of a righteous man.

In this sense, Saint Paul was indeed the Antichrist predicted by Jesus
Christ, to preach things that betrayed his teaching.

We had the same thing with Albert Einstein the day when, subjugated by
Hanri Poincaré, he became completely crazy.

With the blessing of the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons, too happy to "pay
for the French"

R.H.

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

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 2:21:30 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 28/12/2024 à 02:34, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >>> :

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the >>>> Field Equations?

Albert Einstein was a myth.

A pure media creation.

R.H.

Unfortunately Einstein was a historical person.

Absolutely, Einstein was a historical person.

But his personal genius was a myth.

R.H.

Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
credulous...

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

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 3:22:42 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/27/2024 05:32 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:37:46 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 27/12/2024 à 23:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >>> :

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the >>>> Field Equations?

Albert Einstein was a myth.

A pure media creation.

R.H.

Even Jesus is a myth. Joseph Atwill pointed out that bit about Titus in
his book, "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus." But
the best case against an historical Jesus is by Richard Carrier and his
talks are on YouTube.

Judas was many figures in the time of circa the
times of Jesus and 60-75 A.D. up to the fall of
the Second Temple and only hundreds of years
later the Rabbinical.

It's usually recognized that Jesus was definitely
a historical figure. And is, ....

That's is as easily seen through as the interpolation in Josephus.
Carrier is an excellent scholar who has published his refutation of the
alleged historicity of Jesus in scholarly venues.

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

Le 28/12/2024 à 14:18, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 28/12/2024 à 04:40, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :

Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly
addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
credulous...

Yes, there are some pretty incredible things about human naivety. People believe
anything, and apart from gigantic lights (not my doing but the immense stupidity
of others) like me, you make them swallow what you want.
The biggest snakes being that Einstein was not a copyist, that Saint Paul translated Jesus Christ, that the Titanic hit an iceberg, that some Bedouins attacked America with butter knives on September 11, that it is good to vaccinate
populations with an untested vaccine, which does not cure, does not protect, and
does not prevent contamination, etc...
I even have the impression that over the centuries the problem is getting worse
and that we have gone from the methodical doubt of Descartes to the yes-man belief
of Jean-Pierre Messager.

Not following demented conspirationist demented claims about 9/11, the
Titanic or Covid vaccines (no surprise that you don't practice as a M.D. anymore!) is definitely not being a "yes-man".

Almost all your claims are non sequitur or without any kind of interest
(like Saint Paul and Jesus), off-topic when it comes to relativity or
provably WRONG (the so-called plagiarism of Einstein, his lack of ability
in math, etc. are lies debunked for ages).

On the other hand, believing whatever is popping out of your silly brain, without any kind of self-exigence) IS being a "yes-man". You are such a
kind of person, as much cranks down here.

Moreover, all your claims about SR has been proven WRONG. And you ALWAYS
fly away, whining, when it is recalled to you, Richard.

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

Le 28/12/2024 à 04:40, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
credulous...

Yes, there are some pretty incredible things about human naivety. People believe anything, and apart from gigantic lights (not my doing but the
immense stupidity of others) like me, you make them swallow what you want.
The biggest snakes being that Einstein was not a copyist, that Saint Paul translated Jesus Christ, that the Titanic hit an iceberg, that some
Bedouins attacked America with butter knives on September 11, that it is
good to vaccinate populations with an untested vaccine, which does not
cure, does not protect, and does not prevent contamination, etc...
I even have the impression that over the centuries the problem is getting
worse and that we have gone from the methodical doubt of Descartes to the yes-man belief of Jean-Pierre Messager.

R.H.

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

Le 28/12/2024 à 14:55, Python a écrit :

Not following demented conspirationist demented claims about 9/11, the Titanic
or Covid vaccines (no surprise that you don't practice as a M.D. anymore!) is definitely not being a "yes-man".

Almost all your claims are non sequitur or without any kind of interest (like Saint Paul and Jesus), off-topic when it comes to relativity or provably WRONG
(the so-called plagiarism of Einstein, his lack of ability in math, etc. are lies
debunked for ages).

On the other hand, believing whatever is popping out of your silly brain, without any kind of self-exigence) IS being a "yes-man". You are such a kind of
person, as much cranks down here.

Moreover, all your claims about SR has been proven WRONG. And you ALWAYS fly away, whining, when it is recalled to you, Richard.

All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of them.
I put some examples, and I will put some, in my book "Principles of
Special Relativity".
Physicists are not at my level and telling them this does not lead to
healthy thinking in them, which should say: "Sir, sit down, we are going
to hear you, and tell us where we are wrong, and why you claim to be much stronger than us", but rather "Get lost, you poor fool, you have the IQ of
a bull".
It is not scientific, especially when, like them, we try to explain the Langevin paradox by the Doppler effect, when it only magnifies it since we obtain, in their case, non-reciprocal apparent speeds, which is frankly contradictory.
It should be noted that I raise this paradox, like that of Erhenfest, and
that of Andromeda. They continue to tell their lies and fantasies.
Don't distort things by putting them upside down.
Thanks, Jean-Pierre.

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

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 16:34:52 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:25:55 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 21.12.2024 16:38, skrev rhertz:

Take any current activity and trace where are the roots of them. You'll
find
a Zionist hand controlling everything.

This is happening in Argentina RIGHT NOW.

So all the 300 Nazi fugitives who fled to Argentina are dead,
and the Zionists have taken over?

Your comment is beyond stupidity. Operation Paperclip took place not
only in the US, but in England, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. Those who
came here in U-boats were mostly soldiers, who got shelter in Cordoba,
where they founded a now famous town that celebrates Oktoberfest, and
receive now more than 100,000 visitors each year.

The nazi scumb (less than 50) came here with false passports and
identities after 1945.

I'm talking about the Jews that came here in two immigration waves from
1880 to 1910. The POOR ONES went to different provinces (Tucuman, Entre
Rios, Misiones, Corrientes, Mendoza, etc.) and solidly established as merchants or industrialist, founding small companies, many of which
still exist.

The RICH and VERY REACH came from Belgium and other Europeans countries
and created GIGANTIC corporations that still exist. Some examples:

- Bunge & Born: Came to Argentina from Belgium by 1905, and founded
several companies, mostly focused on trade with Europe and food manufacturing. By 1970, this group OWNED more than 60 companies covering almost every activity. Molinos Rio de la Plata was a food giant that
had/has a share market of 60%. By 1970, 40% of the international trade
in grains and other commodities was dominated by them.
They managed up to 11% of the Argentinian GDP in the 70's.

- Werthein family: Arrived from Russia in 1904, and created an empire
that covered many industries, finance, banking, agriculture,
communications and services. Today, one Werthein is the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, priorizing relations with US and Israel.

- Elsztain family: one of the most wealthy families in Argentina. Cover almost every conceivable activity, and dominate the real state business
in the country.

- Galperin and Kazah family: Just one of their companies (Mercado Libre) dominates the online commerce and electronic banking. It has expanded to
17 countries in LA and USA, and competes with Amazon.

The net worth of these four families alone is far above 90 billion USD.

Many other families of Jewish origin control banking, finances,
industry, airports, communications and services. In total, they control
more than 85% of the international trade of Argentina, in collusion with
US and European firms like: Dreyfuss, Cargill, Mosanto, etc.

When Einstein came to Argentina in 1925, due to his fundraising travels,
he was received as a king, and spent a month here, MOSTLY hosted by Jewish/Zionist rich families in La Plata, Rosario, Cordoba, etc. The
amount of money that he brought out of Argentina is undisclosed, but
it's estimated that only his trips to US were more financially
redituable.

In contrast, many German nationalist families established in Argentina,
prior to WWI, and also created empires here. Having strong ties with
Siemens, Osram, AG Telefunken, etc., they settled mostly in Cordoba.

Basically, NO ANTISEMITISM existed/exist in Argentina. In Tucuman, jews
and syrian-lebanese has been establishing there since 1890, and still
live IN PEACE. These were the POOR ones, but still managed to drive
Northern Provinces economies to a privileged place.

The problem with Zionism in Argentina started to appear about 35 years
ago, when new capital entered into Argentina from vulture hedge funds
like Black Rock or due to Soros, who injected (and retired) more than
500,000 million USD in the bond market, owned almost exclusively by Jews (locals and from abroad).

So, Argentina is basically owned by the Jews, either in finances,
banking, external debt. Agriculture, communications and most industries
and energy companies.

Every single politician here is OWNED by the Jewish mob. Nobody can
escape.

The current president is an enthusiast defender of Israel and US (only
these two), wants to convert to Judaism, and rejects any liaison with
any other country. Supports Ukraine, invited Zelensky to his
inauguration as President and sold the only warfare manufacturer to a US firm, to manufacture arms for NATO.

It's common that "TV journalists" have two flags on their desk, while airing: Argentina and Israel.

This is evolving exponentially since December 10, 2023.

Meanwhile, most of Argentinians are poor, making about USD 500/month.
It's a country for only 15% of the 45 million inhabitants. And things
are getting worse day after day. By now, cost of living here is far
higher than Europe or US, and tourism plummeted 50% in just ONE YEAR.

I like Iguazu National Park Argentina. My Windows gives me a photo of waterfalls there. Argentina has chosen the right side of the conflict.
As an Iranian Mullah recently said, maybe it's not a good idea to keep
shouting death to America all the time [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29TwkxO4vgk @50 seconds]. Russia pulled
its air force and fleet from its bases in Syria, leaving Iran undefended
from the coming U.S. regime change. Putin's Russia is wasted and dying
for a peace treaty. Russia won't be able to engage in a major aggression
for another 30 years demographically. After this confrontation between
China and its allies against the U.S. and its allies ends, there should
be renewed prosperity.

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

Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/21/2024 4:01 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

It used to be said "at one point only three people
in the world understood Relativity Theory, ...."

Now, one of them's usually assumed to be Einstein.

Don't be silly, it was a joke. In full, something like:

Journalist: Professor Eddington, is it true that there are only three people in the world who understand relativity?
Eddington: Hesitates, does'n answer.
Journalist: Why are you hesitating?
Eddington: Not hesitating, I was just thinking who might be the third.

Jan

No, it was a little more involved.

Not really more involved, it never happened.
It was a joke that circulated widely at the time.
Your version is as good as mine.

There were no "journalist". It was
another physicist who in a scientific gathering where Eddington was
present had claimed only three persons in the world understood
relativity (in his mind implying himself and Einstein and Eddington),
and then tells Eddington he should know who the third one is. When
Eddington did not answer, he told Eddington, "Don't be shy, tell us who
the third one is."

To which, Eddington had responded, "Oh, no, I was just wondering who the third one might be," thus kicking the other physicist out of the
supposed "three".

John Waller, in his book: Einstein's Luck_
The Truth behind Some of the Greatest Scientific Discoveries
has this to say on it:
====
By 1919, Eddington had also acquired enormous credibility because he
was such a fine expositor of general relativity.
He grasped its implications with a flair that could not but inspire
confidence. Such was his standing in this new scientific area that the following apocryphal story had wide currency.
Eddington's fellow physicist Ludwig Silberstein remarks, 'Professor
Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity'. After a longish pause, he continues, 'Don't be
modest Eddington', to which the latter replies, 'On the contrary, I am
trying to think who the third person is!'
The story is entirely mythical, but it is as illuminating as it is
amusing.
=====

It was a joke of course.
General relativity was widely understood,
among those who mattered,

Jan

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

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:01:16 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:28:45 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/17/2024 11:50 AM, rhertz wrote:

EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on >>>> the Propagation of Light

[snip]

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

Until Lorentz made it respectable,
by deriving it from his electron theory.
So it is usually called Lorentz contraction these days,
(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald)

Jan

It's still ad hoc fiction because nothing can cause all lengths to
change in unison when all materials are different, least of all relative motion.

There are no physical length changes,

Jan

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

Am Samstag000028, 28.12.2024 um 14:55 schrieb Python:

Le 28/12/2024 à 14:18, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :

Le 28/12/2024 à 04:40, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :

Yes, he was a charlatan and fraud who stole his field equations and
didn't understand anything about the subjects his "theories" allegedly
addressed. His stupidity is so incredible and his followers so
credulous...

Yes, there are some pretty incredible things about human naivety.
People believe anything, and apart from gigantic lights (not my doing
but the immense stupidity of others) like me, you make them swallow
what you want.
The biggest snakes being that Einstein was not a copyist, that Saint
Paul translated Jesus Christ, that the Titanic hit an iceberg, that
some Bedouins attacked America with butter knives on September 11,
that it is good to vaccinate populations with an untested vaccine,
which does not cure, does not protect, and does not prevent
contamination, etc...
I even have the impression that over the centuries the problem is
getting worse and that we have gone from the methodical doubt of
Descartes to the yes-man belief of Jean-Pierre Messager.

Not following demented conspirationist demented claims about 9/11, the Titanic or Covid vaccines (no surprise that you don't practice as a M.D. anymore!) is definitely not being a "yes-man".

As 'conspirationist' I can write something about all of these topics.

E.g. look at these two pictures


https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:WTC_Sphere_-_1979_-_1.jpg


https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160721/financial-district/koenig-sphere-moving-wtc-liberty-park-port-authority-says/

Both show the sculpture 'The Sphere', which stood next to the
North-tower of the WTC.

Both pictures were taken from almost the same location and pointing
into the same direction.

But one was taken a day after the event and the first some years earlier.

Now you can clearly see the effect:

Since the 'Sphere' stood upon its pedestal after the event, we can
safely assume, the WTC-plaza and the street-level was still intact.

This would exclude a lot of debris in subterranean levels.

There was some, but not that much. The Mall below the WTC-Plaza was
mainly intakt, the windows of the shops there were not broken, the
clothes were hanging on their coat hangers and even glasses were
standing on the shelves in a hardware store.

Nothing was broken there, no rubble and no seismic activity was measurable.

That was, at least, astonishing, since a million tons of steel and
concretion had fallen from great height upon that WTC-Plaza.

Now look at those picture from above again and try to estimate, how much
rubble made it finally to the ground.

I would say: a lot, but FAR less than a million tons.

The pile of rubble only reached half of the height of the former lobby,
while it had to be at least ten to twelve storey high.

IOW: an enormous amount of debris went missing, while the components of
the twin towers were still in free fall.

This is quite unusual, since usually debris of large buildings is not
blown away.

So: where did all these materials go?




...


TH

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

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:01:16 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:28:45 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/17/2024 11:50 AM, rhertz wrote:

EXCERPTS FROM EINSTEIN'S 1911 PAPER: On the Influence of Gravitation on >>>> the Propagation of Light

[snip]

Actually space-contraction after motion was arrived
at long before that, where what you're looking at
is ten different things mashed into a muddy wad,
and what you're looking at is what _you're_ seeing.

Length contraction was one of the first proposed solutions for saving
the ether from the MMX, and was the first discarded as ad hoc nonsense,
and rightly so.

Until Lorentz made it respectable,
by deriving it from his electron theory.
So it is usually called Lorentz contraction these days,
(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald)

Jan

It's still ad hoc fiction because nothing can cause all lengths to
change in unison when all materials are different, least of all relative motion.

No actual length change of any material object is involved,
nothing but coordinate differences,

Jan

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

Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:

All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of
them.

If that is true, the following statement of yours
must be true:

| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:

The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second in the laboratory

frame

but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.

This is called time dilation.

The above is equivalent to saying:

"While the proton runs once around the circuit in the laboratory frame,
the same proton runs 6933 times around the circuit in the proton frame.
This is called time dilation"

Do you still claim that this statement of yours is
experimentally proven?

:-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:37:54 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT >>>> IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.

Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.

Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)

I retract this. The 'modified date' should have been there,
but we don't know why it wasn't.
And nobody thought it important, at the time.
Einstein and Hilbert had agreed among themselves
that the field equations were Einstein's, and only Einstein's.
Hilbert never claimed otherwise.

Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,

Jan

[snip more of the same garbage]

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math,

Reference please?

who did he credit for the Field Equations?

Himself of course, and with good reason.
Ater all, he was he one who found them,

Jan

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

Le 29/12/2024 à 14:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:

All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of
them.

If that is true, the following statement of yours
must be true:

| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:

The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second in the laboratory

frame

but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.

This is called time dilation.

The above is equivalent to saying:

"While the proton runs once around the circuit in the laboratory frame,
the same proton runs 6933 times around the circuit in the proton frame.
This is called time dilation"

Do you still claim that this statement of yours is
experimentally proven?

:-D

Please do not use violence against me.

I never said that and your words are violent and stupid to try to have a
hold.

You make me say: "When a proton makes one turn of the experimental system,
it does it 6933 times". That's stupid.

That's not what I said.

I explained hundreds (or thousands of times) that time was relative, and
that in particular, the chronotropy of durations was different when
changing the frame of reference.

And that what is measured in one nanosecond for a particle could be
measured as 6933 nanoseconds for a clock in the laboratory.

I said that for it, it turned 6933 times faster.

I never said that it turned 6933 times in the system while we saw it turn
once.

That's absurd.

You are the one who is absurd and telling stupid things that I did not say
for the sole purpose of destroying an enemy who wants to help you write
more coherent and true pdfs.

I remind you that the way you integrate carrots and turnips is
mathematically correct, but physically wrong.

R.H.

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

Den 29.12.2024 19:17, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 29/12/2024 à 14:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:

All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of
them.

If that is true, the following statement of yours
must be true:

For lurkers: this is about the LHC.

| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:

The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second in the

laboratory frame

but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.

This is called time dilation.

The above is equivalent to saying:

"While the proton runs once around the circuit in the laboratory frame,
  the same proton runs 6933 times around the circuit in the proton frame. >>   This is called time dilation"

Do you still claim that this statement of yours is
experimentally proven?

:-D

Please do not use violence against me.

I never said that and your words are violent and stupid to try to have a hold.

You make me say: "When a proton makes one turn of the experimental
system, it does it 6933 times". That's stupid.

That's not what I said.

Let's first look at the correct numbers:

Measured in the lab frame:
---------------------------
v = 0.9999999896*c γ = 6933

The length of the ring is L = 26659 m
The proton will go once around ring in the time:

τ = L/v = 8.89248531e-05 s ≈ 88.92 μs

The proton will go around the ring 1/τ times per second.

N = 1/τ ≈ 11246 times/s (≈ 11.25 thousand times per second)

Measured in the rest frame of the proton: ------------------------------------------
Length of the tube in which the proton is moving:
(circumference of the ring)

L' = L/γ

Speed of the tube relative to the proton:
v' = 0.9999999896*c

Proper time of the photon to go around the ring
τ' = L'/v' = L/γv = τ/γ = 1.28249e-8 s ≈ 12.824 ns

A point in the ring will pass the proton 1/τ' times per second.

N' = 1/τ' ≈ 77973167 times/s (≈ 78 millions time per second)

---------------

A correct statement would be:
In the laboratory frame the proton moves around the ring
11.25 thousand times per second.
In the rest frame of the proton a point in the ring will pass
the proton 78 millions time per second.

--------------------------

Let's look at the background for your statement quoted above:

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

Are you claiming that the real speed of the protons in the LHC is
Vr = 6927⋅c ?

Absolutely.

That's what I said.

| Den 27.03.2024 07:23, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 26/03/2024 à 21:45, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

You are claiming that the protons are going around the ≈ 27 km ring
≈ 78 million times per second.
The real value is ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.

CERN physicists are doing their job.
We have accustomed them to working at classic relativistic speed.
So it makes sense that they find the speed they expect.
I tell them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second,

The point is that you claimed that the _real_ speed of the proton
in the LHC moved 6933 faster than the physicist at CERN said.

The CERN physicists say that a proton runs around the circuit
11.25 thousand times per second, but "I [Richard Hachel] tell
them that the proton rotates 78 million times per second."

=================================================
You claim the proton is moving around the circuit
78 million times per second in the lab frame. =================================================

And that what is measured in one nanosecond for a particle could be
measured as 6933 nanoseconds for a clock in the laboratory.

Quite.
When the proton move once around the circuit,
the duration of the journey will be measured to last
τ ≈ 88.92 μs in the lab frame,
while the duration of the same journey will be measured to last
τ' ≈ 12.824 ns in the rest frame of the proton.

I said that for it, it turned 6933 times faster.

And that is your absolute idiotic claim.

In the rest frame of the proton, its speed is zero,
and the speed of the tube in which the proton is moving is
0.9999999896*c.

You said the proton moved 6933 times faster than
0.9999999896*c = 6932 c which is ridiculous.

Adding "in the proton frame" only makes it worse, because
the proton doesn't move at all in the proton frame.

I never said that it turned 6933 times in the system while we saw it
turn once.

You said it turned 6933 times while the CERN physicists said it turned once.

That's absurd.

Indeed.

You are the one who is absurd and telling stupid things that I did not
say for the sole purpose of destroying an enemy who wants to help you
write more coherent and true pdfs.

I remind you that the way you integrate carrots and turnips is
mathematically correct, but physically wrong.

R.H.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Den 29.12.2024 19:17, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 29/12/2024 à 14:27, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 28.12.2024 15:18, skrev Richard Hachel:

All my statements have been experimentally proven to be true. All of
them.

If that is true, the following statement of yours
must be true:

| Den 24.07.2024 00:19, skrev Richard Hachel:

The proton rotates 11.25 thousand times per second

in the laboratory frame

but 78 million times per second in the proton frame.

This is called time dilation.

We can express the whole thing much simpler.
See my other post for the data.


While the proton has made ≈ 11.25 thousand turns around the ring,
the proton will have aged 144.2 μs
and the lab clock will have advanced 1 second.
This is called time dilation.

OR

While the proton has made ≈ 78 million turns around the ring,
the proton will have aged 1 second
and the lab clock will have advanced 6933 seconds.
This is called time dilation.

Does your statement express the same as my statements above?

Hint: the proton doesn't "rotate 78 million times in the proton frame."
It "rotates" 78 million times around the ring in the lab.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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