Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

344 views

Skip to first unread message

Message has been deleted

Apr 19, 2023, 1:42:56 AM4/19/23

to

On 19-Apr-23 3:24 pm, xip14 wrote:

> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

>

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.

>

> V = v + w

>

> V = 60 + 40 = 100

>

> We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.

>

> Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2

>

> 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.

>

> Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.

>

> Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.

>

> 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”

>

> Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.

>

> Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.

>

> Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.

>

> The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?

>

It really isn't clear what you're trying to say, but I think what you're

getting at is that Einstein somehow modified the addition rule.

The true situation is that there was never a valid reason to think that

velocities would combine by addition, and special relativity tells us

that they do not. So Einstein isn't modifying the addition rule, he's

saying that the addition rule is not what you should use to combine

velocities. Instead you should use a rule that, for small velocities, is

very similar to the addition rule, but for larger velocities is nothing

like it.

Sylvia.

> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

>

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.

>

> V = v + w

>

> V = 60 + 40 = 100

>

> We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.

>

> Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2

>

> 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.

>

> Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.

>

> Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.

>

> 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”

>

> Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.

>

> Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.

>

> Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.

>

> The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?

>

It really isn't clear what you're trying to say, but I think what you're

getting at is that Einstein somehow modified the addition rule.

The true situation is that there was never a valid reason to think that

velocities would combine by addition, and special relativity tells us

that they do not. So Einstein isn't modifying the addition rule, he's

saying that the addition rule is not what you should use to combine

velocities. Instead you should use a rule that, for small velocities, is

very similar to the addition rule, but for larger velocities is nothing

like it.

Sylvia.

Apr 19, 2023, 2:34:18 AM4/19/23

to

follow THE BEST WAY we're FORCED to. And we can

ignore them. We do and we will.

Apr 19, 2023, 2:35:56 AM4/19/23

to

Sylvia.

Apr 19, 2023, 2:50:52 AM4/19/23

to

> > ignore them. We do and we will.

> >

> And if you're dealing with high velocities, you'll get the wrong answer.

I don't feel the urge to have my answers blessed by
> >

> And if you're dealing with high velocities, you'll get the wrong answer.

Your insane gurus; I prefer them to be reliable and usable

(some criteria they have no clue about).

Apr 19, 2023, 4:29:17 AM4/19/23

to

Den 19.04.2023 07:24, skrev xip14:

> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

>

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer.
> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

>

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

It is Lorentz transformation of the velocity v

in one inertial frame to the velocity V in another

frame of reference moving with the speed w relative

to the former.

https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf

Chapter 3 p.3

>

><snip nonsense>

--

Paul

https://paulba.no

Apr 19, 2023, 5:06:36 AM4/19/23

to

On Wednesday, 19 April 2023 at 10:29:17 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 19.04.2023 07:24, skrev xip14:

> > Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

> >

> > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

> >

> > Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

> The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer.

No.
> Den 19.04.2023 07:24, skrev xip14:

> > Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

> >

> > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

> >

> > Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

> The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer.

> It is Lorentz transformation of the velocity v

> in one inertial frame to the velocity V in another

> frame of reference moving with the speed w relative

> to the former.

are reflecting the reality?

Apr 19, 2023, 5:40:52 AM4/19/23

to

1851, would be in error, then. Congratulations - more than 180 years

after the event, and you'd still be getting it wrong.

Sylvia.

Apr 19, 2023, 5:54:13 AM4/19/23

to

what happened almost 200 years ago. And

whatever You imagine, describing this result

with GT is no way any real problem.. Samely as

any other result You have.

Message has been deleted

Apr 19, 2023, 6:22:28 PM4/19/23

to

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:25:01 PM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:

> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

>

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.

>

> V = v + w

>

> V = 60 + 40 = 100

>

> We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.

>

> Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2

>

> 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.

>

> Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.

>

> Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.

>

> 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”

>

> Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.

>

> Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.

>

> Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.

>

> The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?

You can only add to your own velocity.
> Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

>

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.

>

> V = v + w

>

> V = 60 + 40 = 100

>

> We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.

>

> Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2

>

> 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.

>

> Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.

>

> Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.

>

> 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”

>

> Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

>

> Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.

>

> Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1

>

> We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.

>

> Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.

>

> The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?

Frames have their own motion obeying light speed in space.

Individual frames obey the speed limit "converging

or diverging in space" below 2c.

There are two levels.

Mitchell Raemsch

Apr 19, 2023, 6:45:23 PM4/19/23

to

Le 19/04/2023 à 07:25, xip14 a écrit :

> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?JQL4PSAnOl8zUAIxhmmN8WU8IuQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>
> Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=JQL4PSAnOl8zUAIxhmmN8WU8IuQ@jntp>

R.H.

Message has been deleted

Apr 20, 2023, 2:37:57 AM4/20/23

to

On 4/19/2023 6:43 AM, xip14 wrote:

> I got into this answering a question of February 9 on Stackexchange.

>

> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/749402/velocity-addition-in-special-relativity

>

> Stack’s numbers come directly from Paul A. Tipler vol 3, which is why I answered the question.

>

> A train is on the track with speed v = 0.8c. A rifle on the train fires off a bullet with speed w = 0.8c, speed judged on the moving train deck, not on the ground.

>

> v = 0.8c and w = 0.8c

>

> Velocity V or V ′ ( prime ) is bullet velocity as judged on the ground.

>

> Classical velocity addition: V = v + w

>

> Classical: V = 0.8c + 0.8c = 1.6c

>

> Relativistic addition: V ′ ( prime ) = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> Relativity: V ′ = ( 0.8c + 0.8c ) / ( 1 + 0.8c × 0.8c /c² )

>

> V ′ = 1.6c / ( 1 + 0.64 )

>

> V ′ = 1.6c / 1.64

>

> V ′ = 0.98c

>

> My answer on Stack is circuitous. Revised:

>

> Bullet speed is to be judged on the ground. Granted, this bullet speed is V ′ = 0.98c, not V = 1.6c. What is train-on-ground speed?

Since the speed of the train was already defined to be 0.8c, why are you

even asking this?

>

> Symmetric addition: V ′ = 0.8c /1.64 + 0.8c /1.64 ≈ 0.49c + 0.49c = 0.98c

What the hell is this? Make up your own physics day? And why are you

using a mixture of nonrelativistic speed addition and the relativistic

speed combination formulas?

>

> Train-on-ground speed: 0.49c

>

> Asymmetric addition: V ′ = 0.8c + 0.8c / 4.444 = 0.8c + 0.18c = 0.98c

More make-up-your-own-physics?

>

> Train-on-ground speed: 0.8c

>

> Which is it?

Since you started off with train-on-ground speed: 0.8c, I'd say 0.8c.

And shitcan those bizarre attempts at physics.

> I got into this answering a question of February 9 on Stackexchange.

>

> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/749402/velocity-addition-in-special-relativity

>

> Stack’s numbers come directly from Paul A. Tipler vol 3, which is why I answered the question.

>

> A train is on the track with speed v = 0.8c. A rifle on the train fires off a bullet with speed w = 0.8c, speed judged on the moving train deck, not on the ground.

>

> v = 0.8c and w = 0.8c

>

> Velocity V or V ′ ( prime ) is bullet velocity as judged on the ground.

>

> Classical velocity addition: V = v + w

>

> Classical: V = 0.8c + 0.8c = 1.6c

>

> Relativistic addition: V ′ ( prime ) = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> Relativity: V ′ = ( 0.8c + 0.8c ) / ( 1 + 0.8c × 0.8c /c² )

>

> V ′ = 1.6c / ( 1 + 0.64 )

>

> V ′ = 1.6c / 1.64

>

> V ′ = 0.98c

>

> My answer on Stack is circuitous. Revised:

>

> Bullet speed is to be judged on the ground. Granted, this bullet speed is V ′ = 0.98c, not V = 1.6c. What is train-on-ground speed?

Since the speed of the train was already defined to be 0.8c, why are you

even asking this?

>

> Symmetric addition: V ′ = 0.8c /1.64 + 0.8c /1.64 ≈ 0.49c + 0.49c = 0.98c

What the hell is this? Make up your own physics day? And why are you

using a mixture of nonrelativistic speed addition and the relativistic

speed combination formulas?

>

> Train-on-ground speed: 0.49c

>

> Asymmetric addition: V ′ = 0.8c + 0.8c / 4.444 = 0.8c + 0.18c = 0.98c

More make-up-your-own-physics?

>

> Train-on-ground speed: 0.8c

>

> Which is it?

Since you started off with train-on-ground speed: 0.8c, I'd say 0.8c.

And shitcan those bizarre attempts at physics.

Apr 20, 2023, 5:24:35 AM4/20/23

to

Le 19/04/2023 à 11:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> And aren't you asserting that these transformations

> are reflecting the reality?

Poincaré-Lorentz transformations reflect the reality of things.
> And aren't you asserting that these transformations

> are reflecting the reality?

They lead to an equation called general addition of velocities

(relativistic or not).

If we take an addition of longitudinal velocities, we get:

w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c²)

If we take an addition of transverse velocities, we obtain:

w=sqrt(v²+u²-v²u²/c²)

And so on, if we take the right formula.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ncEkajjMLN0vt4CIU-2YXxP9ZzU@jntp/Data.Media:1>

Note that it also works for small measurable speeds in our everyday world.

Good day to all.

R.H.

Apr 20, 2023, 5:29:20 AM4/20/23

to

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 11:24:35 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 19/04/2023 à 11:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

>

> > And aren't you asserting that these transformations

> > are reflecting the reality?

> Poincaré-Lorentz transformations reflect the reality of things.

Not quite, but enough to make Paul's
> Le 19/04/2023 à 11:06, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

>

> > And aren't you asserting that these transformations

> > are reflecting the reality?

> Poincaré-Lorentz transformations reflect the reality of things.

"The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer."

mistaken.
Apr 20, 2023, 5:40:49 AM4/20/23

to

Le 20/04/2023 à 11:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> Not quite, but enough to make Paul's

> "The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer."

> mistaken.

No, only the speed addition formula is correct, but in addition, there is
> Not quite, but enough to make Paul's

> "The "velocity addition formula" is a misnomer."

> mistaken.

no language error by Paul.

It is indeed an addition of speeds, except that this addition is not

simple.

We add a speed phenomenon to another speed phenomenon with a very precise

law.

I validate the equation, and I validate the term that I used (so on that,

I am 100% in agreement with Paul).

R.H.

Message has been deleted

Apr 20, 2023, 6:44:56 AM4/20/23

to

Le 20/04/2023 à 12:28, xip14 a écrit :

> Einstein 1905: It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for

> benighted purblind and myopic?

If the universe is covariant, the effects must be symmetric.

What an observer sees from the end of his relativistic telescope, the

other opposite must see the same effects.

That's how I was able to solve the Langevin paradox that no one had ever

solved before me.

It's a pity that the whole universe refuses to listen to me on everything.

For a long time I believed in an anomaly, but no, the fact that people

don't listen to me is one of the most beautiful things about healing.

This discredits all those who show off by believing themselves to be

geniuses because they invariably repeat the recitations they learned at

school, and who spit on everything around them.

This gives evidence of their incapacity.

R.H.

> Einstein 1905: It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for

> the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.

>

> Why is it worthy of remark? What is symmetrical? Is Einstein blinkered
>

> benighted purblind and myopic?

If the universe is covariant, the effects must be symmetric.

What an observer sees from the end of his relativistic telescope, the

other opposite must see the same effects.

That's how I was able to solve the Langevin paradox that no one had ever

solved before me.

It's a pity that the whole universe refuses to listen to me on everything.

For a long time I believed in an anomaly, but no, the fact that people

don't listen to me is one of the most beautiful things about healing.

This discredits all those who show off by believing themselves to be

geniuses because they invariably repeat the recitations they learned at

school, and who spit on everything around them.

This gives evidence of their incapacity.

R.H.

Message has been deleted

Apr 20, 2023, 10:28:51 AM4/20/23

to

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:24:09 AM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:

> Stackexchange couldn’t deal with it and I was given the boot.

They don't suffer cretins like you much

> Stackexchange couldn’t deal with it and I was given the boot.

They don't suffer cretins like you much

Message has been deleted

May 11, 2023, 5:05:40 PM5/11/23

to

xip14 wrote:

> Classical: 2 + 3 = 5 Relativity: 2 + 3 = 4

> The initial post here is sort of indirect. I did a more direct version

> on a google blog.

so true indeed. One more proof the putina is a traitor. How come the

fucking nazi uKrain still have

- national television

- largee oil/diesel storage tanks

- railways

- electricity

- etc

well known that the capitalist america *_bombed_the_national_television_*

in Yugoslavia as the first thing, to avoid mobilization etc!! What is

going on here??

Huh UA's Podolyak Says If More Arms Not Given To Ukraine Terrorist Attacks

In Europe Will Occur

https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/6EonnutUVT3r

> Classical: 2 + 3 = 5 Relativity: 2 + 3 = 4

> The initial post here is sort of indirect. I did a more direct version

> on a google blog.

so true indeed. One more proof the putina is a traitor. How come the

fucking nazi uKrain still have

- national television

- largee oil/diesel storage tanks

- railways

- electricity

- etc

well known that the capitalist america *_bombed_the_national_television_*

in Yugoslavia as the first thing, to avoid mobilization etc!! What is

going on here??

Huh UA's Podolyak Says If More Arms Not Given To Ukraine Terrorist Attacks

In Europe Will Occur

https://bi%74%63%68ute.com/video/6EonnutUVT3r

Message has been deleted

May 13, 2023, 9:09:20 AM5/13/23

to

Don't answer.

May 13, 2023, 1:13:45 PM5/13/23

to

May 13, 2023, 1:45:15 PM5/13/23

to

Interesting comment Mitch. Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that something no longer “appears shorter.” Slowing down will not restore proper time - slowing down will not bring back lost time. The clock’s face-time is forever lost, even though normal tick rate returns.

Hmm...

+++++++++

We have time dilation and Lorentz Contraction.

Einstein deals with these in EDoMB-1905-Section §4:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The moving clock is slow and the moving meter stick is short.

Time equation shown: t′ = t / gamma ( gamma > 1 and t′ < t )

Length equation not shown : x′ = x / gamma

After a duration, a moving clock has face-time value less than face-time of the stationary clock.

A moving meter stick has value 1 just like the stationary item has value 1: 1 = 1

But from the point of view of the stationary stick, the moving stick “appears shorter” even though it maintains value 1.

Hmm...

+++++++++

We have time dilation and Lorentz Contraction.

Einstein deals with these in EDoMB-1905-Section §4:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The moving clock is slow and the moving meter stick is short.

Time equation shown: t′ = t / gamma ( gamma > 1 and t′ < t )

Length equation not shown : x′ = x / gamma

After a duration, a moving clock has face-time value less than face-time of the stationary clock.

A moving meter stick has value 1 just like the stationary item has value 1: 1 = 1

But from the point of view of the stationary stick, the moving stick “appears shorter” even though it maintains value 1.

May 13, 2023, 3:57:27 PM5/13/23

to

Le 13/05/2023 à 19:45, xip14 a écrit :

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

What bothers me the most in this article is the very strange definition of

the notion of simultaneity.

VI don't accept it at all.

At first, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but in the end, a lot of things

become absurd and contradictory, and then falsehoods appear in equations

and concepts.

Everything comes from there and only from there.

I will try to rewrite this small paragraph correctly in order to show how

it should be done and why.

Don't shout, friends...

R.H.

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

What bothers me the most in this article is the very strange definition of

the notion of simultaneity.

VI don't accept it at all.

At first, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but in the end, a lot of things

become absurd and contradictory, and then falsehoods appear in equations

and concepts.

Everything comes from there and only from there.

I will try to rewrite this small paragraph correctly in order to show how

it should be done and why.

Don't shout, friends...

R.H.

May 13, 2023, 4:53:16 PM5/13/23

to

xip14 wrote:

> The suitcase model I put here initially wasn’t much good so I deleted

> it. Likewise Einstein 1905. The sombitch saw clearly that he had a

> problem. A shade tree mechanic beatin on iron.

the gay actor zelenske, afraid like hell to go back in ukronazia.

Zelensky rejects Pope’s mediation offer

https://%72%74.com/r%75%73%73ia/576234-zelensky-rejects-pope-mediator/

Russia understands that any peace talks will not be held “with Zelensky,

who is a dirty *_cocaine_puppet_in_the_hands_of_the_West_*, but directly

with his masters,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier

this month.

> The suitcase model I put here initially wasn’t much good so I deleted

> it. Likewise Einstein 1905. The sombitch saw clearly that he had a

> problem. A shade tree mechanic beatin on iron.

the gay actor zelenske, afraid like hell to go back in ukronazia.

Zelensky rejects Pope’s mediation offer

https://%72%74.com/r%75%73%73ia/576234-zelensky-rejects-pope-mediator/

Russia understands that any peace talks will not be held “with Zelensky,

who is a dirty *_cocaine_puppet_in_the_hands_of_the_West_*, but directly

with his masters,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier

this month.

May 13, 2023, 7:01:20 PM5/13/23

to

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 13/05/2023 à 19:45, xip14 a écrit :

>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> What bothers me the most in this article is the very strange definition

> of the notion of simultaneity. VI don't accept it at all.

There is a big show happening in Germany/Berlin - zelenske will arrive by
> Le 13/05/2023 à 19:45, xip14 a écrit :

>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

>

> What bothers me the most in this article is the very strange definition

> of the notion of simultaneity. VI don't accept it at all.

a plane accompanied by three Euro Fighters. Bizarr!

May 13, 2023, 7:45:10 PM5/13/23

to

May 13, 2023, 9:13:02 PM5/13/23

to

add to itself.

May 14, 2023, 5:57:59 AM5/14/23

to

Poorly phrased.

Rephrased:

Length: Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that an object does not now “appear shorter.”

Time: After a duration, slowing down does not recover the moving clock’s lost time represented by t′ < t. That face-time on the once-moving clock is forever lost.

Compare: The now-non-moving clock has the same SIZE as a stationary clock, but it does not show the same TIME as a stationary clock, even though the slowed clock now has the same tick-rate as the stationary clock.

Rephrased:

Length: Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that an object does not now “appear shorter.”

Time: After a duration, slowing down does not recover the moving clock’s lost time represented by t′ < t. That face-time on the once-moving clock is forever lost.

Compare: The now-non-moving clock has the same SIZE as a stationary clock, but it does not show the same TIME as a stationary clock, even though the slowed clock now has the same tick-rate as the stationary clock.

May 14, 2023, 10:49:46 AM5/14/23

to

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 1:42:56 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 19-Apr-23 3:24 pm, xip14 wrote:

> On 19-Apr-23 3:24 pm, xip14 wrote:

> > Einstein EDoMB-1905-Section §5:

> >

> > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

> >

> > Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

> >

> >

> > https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

> >

> > Addition of velocity, 1905: V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

> >

> > A suitcase version: Two suitcases of weights v = 60 lbs and w = 40 lbs make up a sum of designated V.

> >

> >

> > V = v + w

> >

> >

> > V = 60 + 40 = 100

> >

> > We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.

> >

> > Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2

> >

> > 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.

> >

> > Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.

> >

> > Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.

> >

> > 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

> >

> > Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”

> >

> > Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

> >

> > We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.

> >

> > Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1

> >

> > We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.

> >

> > Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.

> >

> > The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?

> >

>

> >

> > We learn from airline regulation that total luggage weight can be no greater than 50. The sum ( v + w ) can be divided by a number between 1 and 2 inclusive, the divisor being a version of ( 1 + vw/c² ). A new left-hand-side sum ( call it V ′ prime ) is reduced accordingly, to a value no greater than 50.

> >

> > Equation: V ′ = ( v + w ) / 2

> >

> > 50 = ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > The equation is a left ← to ← right assignment operator. The sum of weights 60 + 40 on the right-hand-side is divided by 2 and the new value 50 is assigned to weight variable V ′ on the left-hand-side.

> >

> > Assignment: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > The quotient ( 60 + 40 ) / 2 is identical in value to 60 / 2 + 40 / 2. When this equality is shown as an equation, it is an identity and the physical situations are irrelevant.

> >

> > Identity: 60 / 2 + 40 / 2 ≡ ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > Einstein suggests that the assignment operator can be reconfigured so that division by 2 on the right-hand-side is the phenomenon 60 / 2 + 40 / 2.

> >

> > 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

> >

> > Quote: “It is worthy of remark that v and w enter into the expression for the resultant velocity in a symmetrical manner.”

> >

> > Original: 50 ← ( 60 + 40 ) / 2

> >

> > Symmetric: 50 ← 60 / 2 + 40 / 2

> >

> > We get V ′ = 50 by cutting each suitcase weight in half.

> >

> > Asymmetric: 50 ← 60 / 6 + 40 / 1

> >

> > We get V ′ = 50 by cutting the heavy suitcase with divisor 6, leaving the lesser suitcase with divisor 1, unchanged.

> >

> > Einstein is telling us how to repack our bags: divide each by 2. Do the airlines tell us how to repack our bags? No. Just cut total luggage weight in half.

> >

> > The symmetric and asymmetric divisions are equal as values; also equal to the original. But the symmetric and asymmetric divisions are not identical physical situations. What governs that choice? The airlines don’t care. EDoMB does care. Why is the symmetric chosen? Why does the symmetric take precedence over the asymmetric?

> >

>

> It really isn't clear what you're trying to say, but I think what you're

> getting at is that Einstein somehow modified the addition rule.

>

> The true situation is that there was never a valid reason to think that

> velocities would combine by addition, and special relativity tells us

> that they do not. So Einstein isn't modifying the addition rule, he's

> saying that the addition rule is not what you should use to combine

> velocities. Instead you should use a rule that, for small velocities, is

> very similar to the addition rule, but for larger velocities is nothing

> like it.

>

> Sylvia.
> getting at is that Einstein somehow modified the addition rule.

>

> The true situation is that there was never a valid reason to think that

> velocities would combine by addition, and special relativity tells us

> that they do not. So Einstein isn't modifying the addition rule, he's

> saying that the addition rule is not what you should use to combine

> velocities. Instead you should use a rule that, for small velocities, is

> very similar to the addition rule, but for larger velocities is nothing

> like it.

>

This OP's problem, as well as many others, is the confusion created by Cartesian coordinates. There is a false claim that the preferred coordinate system is rectilinear, because of the symmetric way it handles location. Then velocities add like they do in a vector space. This works well enough for small velocities, but the universe prefers hyperbolic coordinates. In hyperbolic trigonometry, it is not velocities that add, but hyperbolic angles, what physics calls Lorentz boosts. It is easily verified that the boost of the product of two Lorentz transformations is the sum of the boosts of the individual factors. The conversion of this identity from hyperbolic trigonometry to Cartesian coordinates introduces correction terms that make it appear that velocity addition is non-linear. Conversely, extrapolating linear velocity addition to hyperbolic coordinates introduces errors that contradict fundamental trigonometric identities.

Newton's physics and linear velocity addition are only valid for velocities that are very small compared to c. The preponderance of the physical evidence shows that both break down at high velocities. The properties of a rectilinear vector space do not apply anymore. However, the properties of hyperbolic trigonometry do apply, and in the limit of very small velocities, they can be approximated by Newtonian physics and linear velocity addition. The relativistic velocity addition rule is not a correction to Newtonian velocity addition. Newtonian velocity addition is a corruption of hyperbolic trigonometry. It is an accident of history that Newton came first. But it was an approximation when he discovered it, and it is still an approximation, now.

Formally, there is a differential equation that analytically relates a hyperbolic angle to a circular angle. This is a mathematical equality, which is valid without any experimental data. The fact that the results of the math are in 100% agreement with all experimental data is sufficient reason to accept that this math represents physical reality, too. The equation is dw/dθ = γ, or its reciprocal, dθ/dw = 1/γ. The hyperbolic angle is w, the circular angle is θ and γ is the Lorentz factor. Using the empirical definition of γ, it is straightforward to show that sec(θ) = γ, simply by expressing velocity in polar coordinates, v = c sin(θ). The differential equation can then be written dθ = cos(θ) dw. From the geometric definition of a hyperbolic angle, it is easy to show that the composition of hyperbolic angles is by linear addition. We have already noted that the boost of the product of two Lorentz transformations is the sum of the boosts of the factors. This is a consequence of the fact that a Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation, and a boost is a hyperbolic angle. The hyperbolic angle is defined as an area, and an area under a hyperbola is a definite integral. All definite integrals, where they exist, are subject to rules about the limits of integration. Specifically, if A and C are the limits of integration and B is a point between them, the integral from A to C is equal the the sum of the integral from A to B and the integral from B to C. Since each integral is a boost, w, the process can be compacted to w3 = w1+w2, linear addition. This property of linear addition also applies to increments of w. Near θ = 0, some approximations are allowed, the same implicit approximations that define Newtonian velocity addition. The cos(θ) is approximately 1, the sin(θ) ≈ θ and dθ ≈ dw. In light of these approximations, the addition of small circular angles is also linear, as is the addition of sine projections of these small angles. Since velocity in polar coordinates is c sin(θ), velocity addition is linear, as an approximation. This is Newtonian physics. But when the hyperbolic angle is large, the approximations break down. Only the original identity holds, w3 = w1+w2. Since v3 = c sin(θ3) = c tanh(w3), an identity from the gudermannian function, θ3 = gd(w3), v3 = c tanh(w1+w2). Then, v3 = c(tanh(w1)+tanh(w2))/(1+tanh(w1)tanh(w2)) = ((c tanh(w1))+(c tanh(w2)))/(1+(c tanh(w1))(c tanh(w2))/c²) = (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c²). Both Newtonian and relativistic velocity addition are derived from the same differential equation, and one is an approximation that only applies at low velocities.

As this is pure math, no experiment can refute the proof. The agreement of the results with all experimental data, however, gives us a great deal of confidence that this math represents physical reality. And you will note that there were no light rays or clocks or gedankens or observers involved. No matter how elaborate the model, it must agree with the rigorous mathematics. The math agrees with the numbers, and according to physics, that's good enough.

May 14, 2023, 5:29:52 PM5/14/23

to

Le 14/05/2023 à 11:57, xip14 a écrit :

> Length: Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that an object

> does not now “appear shorter.”

That's right.
> Length: Slowing down will restore proper length, in the sense that an object

> does not now “appear shorter.”

>

> Time: After a duration, slowing down does not recover the moving clock’s lost

> time represented by t′ < t.

That's right.
> Time: After a duration, slowing down does not recover the moving clock’s lost

> time represented by t′ < t.

> That face-time on the once-moving clock is forever lost.

> Compare: The now-non-moving clock has the same SIZE as a stationary clock, but

> it does not show the same TIME as a stationary clock, even though the slowed clock

> now has the same tick-rate as the stationary clock.

R.H.

May 15, 2023, 12:17:34 PM5/15/23

to

They can only give motion to themselves.

Mitchell Raemsch

Message has been deleted

May 24, 2023, 10:26:15 AM5/24/23

to

xip14 wrote:

> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² ) Einstein EDoMB 1905 Section §5

sure, but do anyone know in which country Zelenskshit is at this moment.

He really isn't in a hurry to return to the country he wants to steal, it

seems. He lets others to steal that country for him. Which is too hot

right now for him. Khinzal maybe anytime to arrive to Kiev and get the

zelenskshit to bandera, or for be taken *_from_behind_* by a russian bear.

the later, we know he likes it. He asked the bidona for more money,

*_for_him_*, if the bidona wants him to return to kiev. Dangerous time for

this gay actor motherfucker. That's what happen playing "president" for

*_the_thieves_and_whores_* of the *_collective_west_*.

the shit zelenskshit *_sold_that_country_already_ten_times_*. Amazing

those big capitalists came for stealing, not realizing that country is

sold already ten times, before them.

General Valery Zaluzhny was the only person in Ukraine with whom Russia

could do business post Ukraine war. We should not be surprised if we come

to know of Ukrainian hand behind the missile attack on General Zaluzhny.

Zelensky is afraid that he may be toppled by General Valery Zaluzhny and

wants to get rid of him.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if it turned out Zelensky and

his cadre of Nazi goons leaked the information regarding his whereabouts,

directly or indirectly, for the Russians to act upon. Considering that

according to several reports, the US is getting quite fed up with Zelensky

and was hoping to get someone more sober to replace him, Zaluzhny, and

that the British preferred ultra-fanatic rabid Nazis to remain in power, i

wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised either if the British arranged for

the information to be leaked. The point is that alternatives to Zelensky

now are no more. This means that for all practical purposes, Ukraine will

need to be completely denazified. There won't be any peace or frozen

conflict of anything for that matter. Ukraine will just cease to exist.

The only question left unanswered is if Poland is going to intervene,

because NATO for sure won't intervene if Poland gets into the fray. Expect

the British to entice further conflict. Their economical prosperity relies

on destroying the European continent.

> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² ) Einstein EDoMB 1905 Section §5

sure, but do anyone know in which country Zelenskshit is at this moment.

He really isn't in a hurry to return to the country he wants to steal, it

seems. He lets others to steal that country for him. Which is too hot

right now for him. Khinzal maybe anytime to arrive to Kiev and get the

zelenskshit to bandera, or for be taken *_from_behind_* by a russian bear.

the later, we know he likes it. He asked the bidona for more money,

*_for_him_*, if the bidona wants him to return to kiev. Dangerous time for

this gay actor motherfucker. That's what happen playing "president" for

*_the_thieves_and_whores_* of the *_collective_west_*.

the shit zelenskshit *_sold_that_country_already_ten_times_*. Amazing

those big capitalists came for stealing, not realizing that country is

sold already ten times, before them.

General Valery Zaluzhny was the only person in Ukraine with whom Russia

could do business post Ukraine war. We should not be surprised if we come

to know of Ukrainian hand behind the missile attack on General Zaluzhny.

Zelensky is afraid that he may be toppled by General Valery Zaluzhny and

wants to get rid of him.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if it turned out Zelensky and

his cadre of Nazi goons leaked the information regarding his whereabouts,

directly or indirectly, for the Russians to act upon. Considering that

according to several reports, the US is getting quite fed up with Zelensky

and was hoping to get someone more sober to replace him, Zaluzhny, and

that the British preferred ultra-fanatic rabid Nazis to remain in power, i

wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised either if the British arranged for

the information to be leaked. The point is that alternatives to Zelensky

now are no more. This means that for all practical purposes, Ukraine will

need to be completely denazified. There won't be any peace or frozen

conflict of anything for that matter. Ukraine will just cease to exist.

The only question left unanswered is if Poland is going to intervene,

because NATO for sure won't intervene if Poland gets into the fray. Expect

the British to entice further conflict. Their economical prosperity relies

on destroying the European continent.

May 24, 2023, 12:13:49 PM5/24/23

to

Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :

> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

? ? ?
> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?

Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?

Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça

remarquablement juste et beau.

Venant de lui, on devrait quand même apprécier.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ioe3fdRLkBsWw_Br-IGvfJ0Xgh0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

On remarquera que si µ=0° alors on a bien w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c²)

R.H.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ioe3fdRLkBsWw_Br-IGvfJ0Xgh0@jntp>

May 24, 2023, 12:18:17 PM5/24/23

to

Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

> Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :

>

>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>

>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> ? ? ?

> Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?

> Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?

> Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça remarquablement

> juste et beau.

Because it is pointless. In ANY case you always can change
> Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :

>

>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>

>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> ? ? ?

> Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?

> Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?

> Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça remarquablement

> juste et beau.

x into X = x * cos mu without loss of generality (same

for (x,y), it just involves a euclidean rotation).

Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity in

order, imho, to brag : "Look ! I know trigonometry!"(*) and/or

to add ways for you to introduce confusion.

You are disingenuous.

(*) even if thirty years ago you pretended to reinvent

trigonometry with "hachelian" sines and cosines. Did

you forget that ?

May 24, 2023, 12:39:16 PM5/24/23

to

Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :

> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,
> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

et l'équation sera toujours juste.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?q9mhTkmJKcZBHAqgqP1eI5_GVHM@jntp/Data.Media:1>

> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity

Ton agressivité tourne au ridicule.

On dirait un petit garçon qui n'a pas eu le gâteau aux framboises

promis par maman.

R.H.

May 24, 2023, 12:46:11 PM5/24/23

to

Le 24/05/2023 à 18:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :

> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :

>> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>

>>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,

> et l'équation sera toujours juste.

POINTLESS, rideau de fumée, frime à deux balle "oh moi Lengrand je
> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :

>> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>

>>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,

> et l'équation sera toujours juste.

sais écrire cos mu".

Et ta prétention à inventer des cosinus et sinus "hachéliens" il y a

plus de trente ans, on en parle, blaireau ?

>> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity

>

> Bon maintenant, t'arrêtes Python.

>

> Ton agressivité tourne au ridicule.

Rien d'agressif, just un fait constaté souvent.

Le charlatans dans ton genre adoorent introduire des

complexités inutiles à la fois pour se la jouer et

pour pouvoir introduire des confusions par la suite.

May 24, 2023, 12:46:17 PM5/24/23

to

Le 24/05/2023 à 18:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :

> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :

>> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>

>>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,

> et l'équation sera toujours juste.

> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:18, Python a écrit :

>> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>

>>>> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

>>>> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

>

> On peut donner l'équation générale, avec touts vitesses et tout angle,

> et l'équation sera toujours juste.

POINTLESS, rideau de fumée, frime à deux balle "oh moi Lengrand je

sais écrire cos mu".

Et ta prétention à inventer des cosinus et sinus "hachéliens" il y a

plus de trente ans, on en parle, blaireau ?

sais écrire cos mu".

Et ta prétention à inventer des cosinus et sinus "hachéliens" il y a

plus de trente ans, on en parle, blaireau ?

>> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity

>

> Bon maintenant, t'arrêtes Python.

>

> Ton agressivité tourne au ridicule.

>

> Bon maintenant, t'arrêtes Python.

>

> Ton agressivité tourne au ridicule.

May 24, 2023, 1:31:19 PM5/24/23

to

On Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 18:18:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:

> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

> > Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :

> >

> >> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

> >

> >> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

> >

> > ? ? ?

> > Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?

> > Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?

> > Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça remarquablement

> > juste et beau.

> Because it is pointless. In ANY case you always can change

> x into X = x * cos mu without loss of generality (same

> for (x,y), it just involves a euclidean rotation).

>

> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity in

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> Le 24/05/2023 à 18:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :

> > Le 24/05/2023 à 13:08, xip14 a écrit :

> >

> >> This post was originally the velocity-addition-formula.

> >

> >> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

> >

> > ? ? ?

> > Pourquoi se limiter toujours à la transformation longitudinale?

> > Pourquoi ne pas proposer l'addition générale?

> > Elle est pourtant très belle, et même Python a trouvé ça remarquablement

> > juste et beau.

> Because it is pointless. In ANY case you always can change

> x into X = x * cos mu without loss of generality (same

> for (x,y), it just involves a euclidean rotation).

>

> Cranks of your kind love to add pointless complexity in

and trying again to pretend he knows something.

Tell me, poor stinker, have you already read

definition 9 and learnt what a function is?

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Jun 9, 2023, 4:34:48 AM6/9/23

to

Den 09.06.2023 02:16, skrev xip14:

> Start out at x = 0 with a pocket watch reading t = 0 and walk 10 meters in 10 seconds, ie, walking speed 1 meter per second. When you reach x = 10 your watch reads t = 10.

>

> Now your buddy, Walker-B, walks along side, double file. His pocket watch runs slowly. Every one of your seconds is only half of his, or, equivalently, the duration of his 1 second is 2 of your seconds. Time dilation. t′ = t / 2.

>

> Like you, Walker-B starts out at x = 0 at time t = t′ = 0. Because his clock is slow by a factor of 2, he arrives at x = 10 at time t′ = 5 ( his watch reads 5 seconds ).

>

> If he covers 10 meters in 5 seconds, he is going twice as fast as you: 2 meters per second.

>

> Alternatively, tell him when he starts out to go 1 meter every second on his clock. He then arrives at x = 5 when his time is t′ = 5. That’s 1 meter per second, just like your speed. However Walker-B’s arrival at x = 5 occurs when you arrive at x = 10. Half the distance in the same time: half as fast, 0.5 meters per second.

>

> Is he going twice as fast or half as fast?

You and your friend are sitting side by side in a train.

When the train starts, you reset your clocks.

When the train has travelled 100 km, your clock

shows 1 hour, while your friend's clock shows 2 hours.

What was the speed of the train?

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

> Start out at x = 0 with a pocket watch reading t = 0 and walk 10 meters in 10 seconds, ie, walking speed 1 meter per second. When you reach x = 10 your watch reads t = 10.

>

> Now your buddy, Walker-B, walks along side, double file. His pocket watch runs slowly. Every one of your seconds is only half of his, or, equivalently, the duration of his 1 second is 2 of your seconds. Time dilation. t′ = t / 2.

>

> Like you, Walker-B starts out at x = 0 at time t = t′ = 0. Because his clock is slow by a factor of 2, he arrives at x = 10 at time t′ = 5 ( his watch reads 5 seconds ).

>

> If he covers 10 meters in 5 seconds, he is going twice as fast as you: 2 meters per second.

>

> Alternatively, tell him when he starts out to go 1 meter every second on his clock. He then arrives at x = 5 when his time is t′ = 5. That’s 1 meter per second, just like your speed. However Walker-B’s arrival at x = 5 occurs when you arrive at x = 10. Half the distance in the same time: half as fast, 0.5 meters per second.

>

> Is he going twice as fast or half as fast?

You and your friend are sitting side by side in a train.

When the train starts, you reset your clocks.

When the train has travelled 100 km, your clock

shows 1 hour, while your friend's clock shows 2 hours.

What was the speed of the train?

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

Jun 9, 2023, 5:26:07 AM6/9/23

to

Le 09/06/2023 à 10:34, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

> You and your friend are sitting side by side in a train.

> When the train starts, you reset your clocks.

> When the train has travelled 100 km, your clock

> shows 1 hour, while your friend's clock shows 2 hours.

> What was the speed of the train?

? ? ?
> You and your friend are sitting side by side in a train.

> When the train starts, you reset your clocks.

> When the train has travelled 100 km, your clock

> shows 1 hour, while your friend's clock shows 2 hours.

> What was the speed of the train?

R.H.

Jun 9, 2023, 6:49:26 AM6/9/23

to

travel 100 km when it's still right below our asses,

could it?

Jun 10, 2023, 8:06:18 AM6/10/23

to

xip14 wrote:

> Start out at x = 0 with a pocket watch reading t = 0 and walk 10 meters in

> 10 seconds,

According to whom?
> Start out at x = 0 with a pocket watch reading t = 0 and walk 10 meters in

> 10 seconds,

> ie, walking speed 1 meter per second.

> When you reach x = 10 your watch reads t = 10.

> Now your buddy, Walker-B, walks along side, double file.

reference frame.

> His pocket watch runs slowly.

> Every one of your seconds is only half of his, or, equivalently, the

> duration of his 1 second is 2 of your seconds. Time dilation.

For that to happen (γ ≈ 2), Walker-B would have to move at the speed

v ≈ 0.8667 c *relative to you*. Evidently they are not doing that,

they are moving *alongside* you.

You have developed a misconceptions about (special) relativity from the

unfortunate (and wrong) pop-sci statement “moving clocks run slow”.

That is NOT what special relativity says. Instead, it says:

*Less* *proper* time *elapses* in inertial reference frames that are in

motion *relative to* the inertial reference frame which defines proper time

(by measuring it with clocks *at rest* in *that* frame).

This is a simple consequence of the Lorentz transformation between inertial

reference frames (which we know – as has been proved by Lorentz/Poincaré and

Einstein independently – has to be used, as a consequence of the constancy

of c):

t = γ (t' − v/c² x'), γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²)

⇒ Δt = γ (Δt' + v/c² Δx').

The "moving" clocks are at rest in their inertial frame:

Δx' = 0

⇒ Δt = γ Δt'

⇔ Δt' = Δt/γ < Δt.

Or using the Minkowski metric, γ and "time dilation" jump out more naturally:

−c² dτ² = η_ab dx^a dx^b; [η]_ab = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1), x⁰ := ct, (x^i) = x⃗.

⇔ dτ² = −1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b

⇔ dτ = √(−1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b) = 1/c √(−η_ab dx^a dx^b)

⇔ dτ/dt = 1/c √(η_aa dx^a/dt dx^a/dt) = 1/c √(c² − v⃗²) = √(1 − v⃗²/c²)

= 1/γ

⇒ Δτ = ∫_W dt/γ = Δt/γ.

It then *appears* (superficially) to be so that clocks in *relative* motion

run _slower_ than at *relative* rest. But that is NOT so; they simply

measure *less* *elapsed* *proper* time because actually less proper time

elapses where they are.

> Alternatively, tell him when he starts out to go 1 meter every second on

> his clock.

length) are not the same. He will measure your meters to be length

contracted in the direction of his motion as for him – who rightfully

considers himself at rest – everything else is moving (relative to him).

--

PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2

Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Jun 10, 2023, 8:25:53 AM6/10/23

to

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Or using the Minkowski metric, γ and "time dilation" jump out more naturally:

>

> −c² dτ² = η_ab dx^a dx^b; [η]_ab = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1), x⁰ := ct, (x^i) = x⃗.

>

> ⇔ dτ² = −1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b

>

> ⇔ dτ = √(−1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b) = 1/c √(−η_ab dx^a dx^b)

>

> ⇔ dτ/dt = 1/c √(η_aa dx^a/dt dx^a/dt) = 1/c √(c² − v⃗²) = √(1 − v⃗²/c²)

^
> Or using the Minkowski metric, γ and "time dilation" jump out more naturally:

>

> −c² dτ² = η_ab dx^a dx^b; [η]_ab = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1), x⁰ := ct, (x^i) = x⃗.

>

> ⇔ dτ² = −1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b

>

> ⇔ dτ = √(−1/c² η_ab dx^a dx^b) = 1/c √(−η_ab dx^a dx^b)

>

> ⇔ dτ/dt = 1/c √(η_aa dx^a/dt dx^a/dt) = 1/c √(c² − v⃗²) = √(1 − v⃗²/c²)

> = 1/γ

I forgot a minus sign there, but the rest is correct.

> ⇒ Δτ = ∫_W dt/γ = Δt/γ.

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Jul 12, 2023, 6:18:56 PM7/12/23

to

xip14 wrote:

> Same subject: Velocity Addition Formula

> But shorter and focused narrowly on one obvious aspect of the problem.

> No Lorentz Transforms.

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

Furious Vaxxed Blame Unvaccinated For Health Consequences:

*_‘Why_Didn’t_You_Do_More_To_Warn_Us?’_* July 12, 2023 Baxter Dmitry 3

As the vaccinated continue to grapple with the disastrous consequences of

the mRNA vaccine roll-out, one question is becoming more common: Why did

the unvaccinated population not play a more proactive role in alerting the

[…]

Russia Says That The *_US_Has_Just_Confessed_To_Imminent_War_Crimes_* In

Ukraine July 12, 2023 Niamh Harris 7

Statements made by National Security Council spokesman John Kirby show

that the US has ‘confessed to war crimes’, according to the Kremlin.

During an interview with ABC, Kirby was defending President Biden’s

approval of cluster […]

Russia: *_‘Biblical_World_War_III_Is_Approaching_* – The Final Battle

Between Good and Evil’ July 12, 2023 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 5

Russia has issued an urgent warning to humanity: World War III is fast

approaching which will be apocalyptic in nature and will result in a final

battle between good and evil. According to Deputy Chairman […]

*_Biden_Reveals_Sensitive_US_Military_Information_* On Live TV

July 12, 2023 Niamh Harris 2

The US President has come under fire after making another ‘gaffe’ in which

he revealed sensitive military information during a recent live TV

interview Joe Biden’s slip was in regard to the United States’ munitions

[…]

RFK Jr:

*_CIA_Orchestrated_COVID_Lab_Leak_as_Part_of_WEF’s_Depopulation_Agenda_*

July 12, 2023 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 2

Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has accused the CIA

of orchestrating the COVID-19 lab leak in Wuhan as part of the WEF’s

depopulation agenda for humanity. According to Kennedy Jr., “the CIA was

[…]

> Same subject: Velocity Addition Formula

> But shorter and focused narrowly on one obvious aspect of the problem.

> No Lorentz Transforms.

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

Furious Vaxxed Blame Unvaccinated For Health Consequences:

*_‘Why_Didn’t_You_Do_More_To_Warn_Us?’_* July 12, 2023 Baxter Dmitry 3

As the vaccinated continue to grapple with the disastrous consequences of

the mRNA vaccine roll-out, one question is becoming more common: Why did

the unvaccinated population not play a more proactive role in alerting the

[…]

Russia Says That The *_US_Has_Just_Confessed_To_Imminent_War_Crimes_* In

Ukraine July 12, 2023 Niamh Harris 7

Statements made by National Security Council spokesman John Kirby show

that the US has ‘confessed to war crimes’, according to the Kremlin.

During an interview with ABC, Kirby was defending President Biden’s

approval of cluster […]

Russia: *_‘Biblical_World_War_III_Is_Approaching_* – The Final Battle

Between Good and Evil’ July 12, 2023 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 5

Russia has issued an urgent warning to humanity: World War III is fast

approaching which will be apocalyptic in nature and will result in a final

battle between good and evil. According to Deputy Chairman […]

*_Biden_Reveals_Sensitive_US_Military_Information_* On Live TV

July 12, 2023 Niamh Harris 2

The US President has come under fire after making another ‘gaffe’ in which

he revealed sensitive military information during a recent live TV

interview Joe Biden’s slip was in regard to the United States’ munitions

[…]

RFK Jr:

*_CIA_Orchestrated_COVID_Lab_Leak_as_Part_of_WEF’s_Depopulation_Agenda_*

July 12, 2023 Sean Adl-Tabatabai 2

Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has accused the CIA

of orchestrating the COVID-19 lab leak in Wuhan as part of the WEF’s

depopulation agenda for humanity. According to Kennedy Jr., “the CIA was

[…]

Jul 12, 2023, 6:45:49 PM7/12/23

to

xip14 wrote:

> Same subject: Velocity Addition Formula But shorter and focused narrowly

> an one obvious aspect of the problem.
> Same subject: Velocity Addition Formula But shorter and focused narrowly

*_Zelensky_responds_to_NATO_demand_for_‘gratitude’_*

The Ukrainian leader changed his tune after Western leaders told him to

“cool down,” Bloomberg reported

https://%72t.com/news/579619-nato-zelensky-gratitude-weapons/

Western leaders are not following any rules, denying NATO membership to

the Ukraine. No, Western leaders simply are now, too afraid to cross any

more of Russia's "Red lines" and are now distancing themselves from the

Ukraine, now that their project in the Ukraine has failed. Western leaders

are pretending that NATO operates on some kind of *_"rules_based_order"_*

when *_in_fact_NATO_is_a_lawless_and_violent_monster_*.

“I think the American people do deserve a degree of gratitude from the

United States government [sic] for their willingness to step up, and from

the rest of the world as well,” Sullivan said" Willingness? More like

*_helplessness_to_stop_it_*.

elensky's khazar goy *_version_of_grateful_is_sacrificing_* 750,000

Ukrainian *_christian_men_to_NATO_*. Khazar goys always take, never give.

His wife *_wears_clothes_my_wife_cannot_afford_*, but this fool does not

own a suit? Really - he cannot put on a dress shirt and a tie? What does

he think, he looks cool in his tight t-shirt? I the pictures where he met

the NATO terrorists yesterday he had a stupid T-shirt on and I was

wondering if he is trying to look desperate and poor - not able to buy a

suit, yet *_his_khazar_goy_wife_dresses_as_if_she_is_the_queen_*. Idiot

West totally underestimate Russia. In their colonial, exceptionalism mind

always is greed, *_looting_and_disrespect_for_other_people_*. They become

*_Arian_supreme_race_* and this cancer will destroy them from inside their

guts.

The generous west can replace weapons by other weapons, but how can they

replace the blood of the dead and wounded ukrainians who fought

*_to_'protect_western_values'_*? More money? More promises? More lies?

https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/files/2023.07/l/64af16ed85f5405704503746.jpg

Jul 12, 2023, 7:41:40 PM7/12/23

to

markus...@gmail.com wrote:

> This isn't the most incoherent ramble I've seen. Congratulations 🎉

good *_it_isn't_*, you braindead retard.

If I were Zelensky and this British punk Wallace gave me that look I see

in that picture and demanded gratitude, I would call Putin and say

Vladimir, I am sorry, can we patch it up and kick some British “aazz”? In

perfect Russian with emphasis on well aimed profanities. And I am sure

Vlad would say: “It’s about time you jerk.

He should have figured out along time ago that he is nothing but a a

doormat. He is along in the picture, says alot. This gnome should

dissapear from the surface of this globe.

Dance little monkey, dance.

I was interested in Sullivan's comment that 'the American people do

deserve a degree of gratitude...for their willingness to step up'. Were

the American people asked if they wanted to go into Ukraine, were they

invited to the discussion, were they even consulted before you (Sullivan)

suggested that billions of their money was given to a clown and his

corrupt oligarchs, to wage a war they can't and therefore won't win.

Zelinsky needs to spend more time sitting on Biden’s lap

There's no honor among thieves.

Hey West, you made the khazar goy gay actor Zelensky to think he is a GOD,

so he acts like one. You should bow down to him every time he enters a

room or when you meet him. You know *_he_is_pissed_at_his_wife_* because

*_everyone_would_talk_to_her_but_left_him_alone_*.

https://%72t.com/news/579619-nato-zelensky-gratitude-weapons/

good *_it_isn't_*, you braindead retard.

If I were Zelensky and this British punk Wallace gave me that look I see

in that picture and demanded gratitude, I would call Putin and say

Vladimir, I am sorry, can we patch it up and kick some British “aazz”? In

perfect Russian with emphasis on well aimed profanities. And I am sure

Vlad would say: “It’s about time you jerk.

He should have figured out along time ago that he is nothing but a a

doormat. He is along in the picture, says alot. This gnome should

dissapear from the surface of this globe.

Dance little monkey, dance.

I was interested in Sullivan's comment that 'the American people do

deserve a degree of gratitude...for their willingness to step up'. Were

the American people asked if they wanted to go into Ukraine, were they

invited to the discussion, were they even consulted before you (Sullivan)

suggested that billions of their money was given to a clown and his

corrupt oligarchs, to wage a war they can't and therefore won't win.

Zelinsky needs to spend more time sitting on Biden’s lap

There's no honor among thieves.

Hey West, you made the khazar goy gay actor Zelensky to think he is a GOD,

so he acts like one. You should bow down to him every time he enters a

room or when you meet him. You know *_he_is_pissed_at_his_wife_* because

*_everyone_would_talk_to_her_but_left_him_alone_*.

https://%72t.com/news/579619-nato-zelensky-gratitude-weapons/

Jul 12, 2023, 8:08:51 PM7/12/23

to

markus...@gmail.com wrote:

> European Russians are Aryan. What's your point

the khazar goy gay actor zelenske is an Arian?? you fucking retard.

*_Russia_should_stop_attacking_Russia_* – Biden

https://%72t.com/news/579622-biden-russia-gaffe-nato/

It is true, the Ukraine is Russia. Kiev was Russia's original capitol.

Odessa was built by Catherine the Great, of Russia. That's the one thing I

like about sociopaths with dementia, it's like they took a truth serum.

It's like when Bush Jr. said that "the terrorists will never stop trying

to destroy America, and neither will we".

This guy has more glitches than Windows ME.

Talk about a cluster bomb already! Junior is trying to pick up the pieces!

Are you reading the headlines of these losers?

This thing is a walking anus.

He said it again "A country cannot be allowed to take their neighbors

territory by force".. remind him of Texas and the other 12 states, Lavrov.

the khazar goy gay actor zelenske is an Arian?? you fucking retard.

*_Russia_should_stop_attacking_Russia_* – Biden

https://%72t.com/news/579622-biden-russia-gaffe-nato/

It is true, the Ukraine is Russia. Kiev was Russia's original capitol.

Odessa was built by Catherine the Great, of Russia. That's the one thing I

like about sociopaths with dementia, it's like they took a truth serum.

It's like when Bush Jr. said that "the terrorists will never stop trying

to destroy America, and neither will we".

This guy has more glitches than Windows ME.

Talk about a cluster bomb already! Junior is trying to pick up the pieces!

Are you reading the headlines of these losers?

This thing is a walking anus.

He said it again "A country cannot be allowed to take their neighbors

territory by force".. remind him of Texas and the other 12 states, Lavrov.

Message has been deleted

Jul 26, 2023, 1:58:29 PM7/26/23

to

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 10:36:04 AM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:

> Doing time dilation and Lorentz Contraction, the Lorentz Transforms have a stationary observer. To do the velocity addition formula, the LT’s must put an observer in motion. The LT’s cannot put an observer in motion. A simple two-stage rocket is a good model of v-a-f, and does not require an observer-in-motion. Excessive speed is apparent at the stationary launch pad. The LT’s cannot do the two-stage rocket.

>

> Einstein 1905 Section §5, quote: “Worthy of remark.”

>

> Umpteenth version of the blog:

>

> https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

If you accelerate toward something you will feel a weight that it does not.

You are moving toward it you are not causing it to move.

Your real weighted motion always creates an equal and opposite

appearance that doesn't have weight.

> Doing time dilation and Lorentz Contraction, the Lorentz Transforms have a stationary observer. To do the velocity addition formula, the LT’s must put an observer in motion. The LT’s cannot put an observer in motion. A simple two-stage rocket is a good model of v-a-f, and does not require an observer-in-motion. Excessive speed is apparent at the stationary launch pad. The LT’s cannot do the two-stage rocket.

>

> Einstein 1905 Section §5, quote: “Worthy of remark.”

>

> Umpteenth version of the blog:

>

> https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

If you accelerate toward something you will feel a weight that it does not.

You are moving toward it you are not causing it to move.

Your real weighted motion always creates an equal and opposite

appearance that doesn't have weight.

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Aug 7, 2023, 1:29:57 PM8/7/23

to

On 8/6/23 1:37 PM, xip14 wrote:

> https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,

so your claim "Einstein erred" is hopelessly naive -- YOU erred.

Tom Roberts

> https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,

so your claim "Einstein erred" is hopelessly naive -- YOU erred.

Tom Roberts

Aug 7, 2023, 1:56:00 PM8/7/23

to

On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 19:29:57 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/6/23 1:37 PM, xip14 wrote:

> > https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

>

> That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,

And that we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
> On 8/6/23 1:37 PM, xip14 wrote:

> > https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

>

> That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Aug 11, 2023, 12:49:35 PM8/11/23