[snip nonsense]
HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the
observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same
stupid remote perception,
THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
Le 23/03/2025 à 02:14, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
[snip nonsense]
HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the
observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same
stupid remote perception,
THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
Why don't you check by yourself ? Using Lorentz Transformations equations it is
quite easy to compute dx'/dt'.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 14:09:54 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 23/03/2025 à 02:14, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
[snip nonsense]
HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the
observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same
stupid remote perception,
THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
Why don't you check by yourself ? Using Lorentz Transformations
equations
it is quite easy to compute dx'/dt'.
You fail to understand that:
I was thinking about the paper the fallacious deceiver plagiarized in
1905, which is called now Special Relativity.
Many times in the past I mentally revised the first part looking for
absurd assertions, like the second postulate and independence of c with motion of the emitter, the funny kinematics that the imbecile derived
from it, his fallacious and mathematically wrong derivation of Lorentz transforms, etc.
I accept that constancy of speed of light in vacuum is a local constant. Maxwell derived it in 1865 through the values of permittivity and permeability. But Maxwell didn't say a word about the independence of
the emitter motion.
I accept the mathematical artifacts that are called Lorentz transforms,
being for me just A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY WITH NO PHYSICAL MEANING.
Lorentz sought a basis for length contraction since 1892, after
FitzGerald idea about the failure of MMX.
In 1904, Lorentz PLANTED the Gamma Factor, as well as local time,
without any explanations or references to his prior works since 1892.
But both terms came from the work of Voigt in 1887. Lorentz DISMISSED
the value of time transform as just a collateral nuisance in his pursuit
of length contraction justification.
So far, so good.
But just a while ago, a doubt struck my mind about Einstein's paper:
HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the
observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same
stupid remote perception,
THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
Shouldn't the imbecile relativists perceive speed v AFFECTED BY THE
MOTION ITSELF?
Time affected in the remote perception. Length affected in the remote perception.
But HOW COME speed v is considered to be EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH
OBSERVERS, when they perform remote sensing of speed (and it's
symmetric).
Should v be a FUNCTION of time and distance and not a universal
constant, exactly like the c speed? At least in the theoretical
framework of the fucking papers that have been written?
With this FALLACY of constancy of speed v at the same level of speed c,
all the building of SR seems to me A GIANT PILE OF CRAP, MORE THAN EVER BEFORE.
Fuck Einstein and every fucking relativist.
rhertz wrote:
I was thinking about the paper the fallacious deceiver plagiarized in
1905, which is called now Special Relativity.
Many times in the past I mentally revised the first part looking for
absurd assertions, like the second postulate and independence of c with motion of the emitter, the funny kinematics that the imbecile derived
from it, his fallacious and mathematically wrong derivation of Lorentz transforms, etc.
I accept that constancy of speed of light in vacuum is a local constant. Maxwell derived it in 1865 through the values of permittivity and permeability. But Maxwell didn't say a word about the independence of
the emitter motion.
I accept the mathematical artifacts that are called Lorentz transforms, being for me just A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY WITH NO PHYSICAL MEANING. Lorentz sought a basis for length contraction since 1892, after
FitzGerald idea about the failure of MMX.
In 1904, Lorentz PLANTED the Gamma Factor, as well as local time,
without any explanations or references to his prior works since 1892.
But both terms came from the work of Voigt in 1887. Lorentz DISMISSED
the value of time transform as just a collateral nuisance in his pursuit
of length contraction justification.
So far, so good.
But just a while ago, a doubt struck my mind about Einstein's paper:
HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the
observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same
stupid remote perception,
THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
Shouldn't the imbecile relativists perceive speed v AFFECTED BY THE
MOTION ITSELF?
Time affected in the remote perception. Length affected in the remote perception.
But HOW COME speed v is considered to be EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH OBSERVERS, when they perform remote sensing of speed (and it's
symmetric).
Should v be a FUNCTION of time and distance and not a universal
constant, exactly like the c speed? At least in the theoretical
framework of the fucking papers that have been written?
With this FALLACY of constancy of speed v at the same level of speed c,
all the building of SR seems to me A GIANT PILE OF CRAP, MORE THAN EVER BEFORE.
Fuck Einstein and every fucking relativist.
Relativity only exist...'in the mind'.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/psychological-relativity/8B0ED8B6C081AAA7A1B6BF89FC6A1DFD
there is no difference between �Psychological relativity� and
"Einstein's relativity".
Relativity does not exist 'out there'...
it exist only in the mind.
The Starmaker wrote:
rhertz wrote:
I was thinking about the paper the fallacious deceiver plagiarized in 1905, which is called now Special Relativity.
Many times in the past I mentally revised the first part looking for absurd assertions, like the second postulate and independence of c with motion of the emitter, the funny kinematics that the imbecile derived from it, his fallacious and mathematically wrong derivation of Lorentz transforms, etc.
I accept that constancy of speed of light in vacuum is a local constant. Maxwell derived it in 1865 through the values of permittivity and permeability. But Maxwell didn't say a word about the independence of
the emitter motion.
I accept the mathematical artifacts that are called Lorentz transforms, being for me just A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY WITH NO PHYSICAL MEANING. Lorentz sought a basis for length contraction since 1892, after FitzGerald idea about the failure of MMX.
In 1904, Lorentz PLANTED the Gamma Factor, as well as local time,
without any explanations or references to his prior works since 1892.
But both terms came from the work of Voigt in 1887. Lorentz DISMISSED
the value of time transform as just a collateral nuisance in his pursuit of length contraction justification.
So far, so good.
But just a while ago, a doubt struck my mind about Einstein's paper:
HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same stupid remote perception,
THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
Shouldn't the imbecile relativists perceive speed v AFFECTED BY THE MOTION ITSELF?
Time affected in the remote perception. Length affected in the remote perception.
But HOW COME speed v is considered to be EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH OBSERVERS, when they perform remote sensing of speed (and it's symmetric).
Should v be a FUNCTION of time and distance and not a universal
constant, exactly like the c speed? At least in the theoretical
framework of the fucking papers that have been written?
With this FALLACY of constancy of speed v at the same level of speed c, all the building of SR seems to me A GIANT PILE OF CRAP, MORE THAN EVER BEFORE.
Fuck Einstein and every fucking relativist.
Relativity only exist...'in the mind'.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/psychological-relativity/8B0ED8B6C081AAA7A1B6BF89FC6A1DFD
there is no difference between �Psychological relativity� and
"Einstein's relativity".
Relativity does not exist 'out there'...
it exist only in the mind.
In other words, ...
Einstein's relativity is just a physics 'model' to describe
'Psychological relativity observations', not a universal truth that
exist outside our minds.
They exist...nowhere. It's Psychological, ...it exist only in the mind.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:35:04 |
| Calls: | 9,490 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,617 |
| Messages: | 6,121,172 |