Part II of Einstein's 1905 SR HOAX: Why fanatic relativists are just stupid.

[Richard Hertz]

It's said that the devil is in the details.

I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.

My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English
translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.

So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.

Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by

tB - tA = t'A - tB

is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.

To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the
concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.

1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most
elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum
at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).

2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the
elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.

3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more
precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.

REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"

1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.

2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both
values are securely stored for further analysis.

3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY
regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.

Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.

To complete one entire oscillation, so c₀ = λ₀f₀ is verified, time τ is

τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ , OR light fails to be regenerated at B. Let's settle with τ = λ₀/c₀.

Translating [tB - tA = t'A - tB] using the above NEWS, we have

10λ₀/c₀ - tA = 20λ₀/c₀ - 10λ₀/c₀, which is a pretty equality if we use tA=0.

Only that it IS NOT TRUE. Assuming, for simplicity, that tA = 0, the real
value of t'A is

t'A = 2 tB + τ (and τ IS NOT REGISTERED BY THE CLOCK AT THE POINT B).

t'A = 20λ₀/c₀ + λ₀/c₀ = 21 λ₀/c₀

And, CLEARLY, tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB because 10 λ₀/c₀ ≠ 11 λ₀/c₀.

Now, relativists will cry foul and claim that distance BA be much greater
than 5500 nm, so τ = λ₀/c₀ can be DISMISSED, buried deeply in the pit of shame.

Is it clear, now, why fanatic brainless relativists are just STUPID?

Or are they cretin hypocrites?

[Dono.]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:48:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid I am

You convinced everybody

<Or am I a cretin?

Both

[rotchm]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 7:48:53 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's said that the devil is in the details.

How about this: forget what Einstein said or wrote or how *he* developed relativity.
Consider just the theory, the model.
Or in a simplistic case, consider the set of inertial frames related by the Lorentz transformations.
These correctly predict the results of experiments, and that is all we need. No mumbo jumbo of what Einstein said or did.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

There's a thought! I support your idea 100%.

So looks like I have been wasting my time talking about what Einstein said.

The model is about preserving the equations for the transmission of electromagnetic waves across differently moving frames of reference. However the model cannot be right since it conflicts with Quantum Theory.

When Earth makes spaceships that can travel at near the speed of light, or through wormholes, then this will all be moot.

Remember to take on enough oxygen for your calculations, and enough food, for onboard the ship he sees himself eating meals at the normal rate.

[Richard Hertz]

I just want to prove that Einstein's derivation of Lorentz transforms is completely wrong, and is full of deceptions, circular thoughts,
fallacies and abuse of calculus.

This thread focus just on the first part of his 1905 manifesto, and serves me well to show the HORRIBLE ACCUMULATION of
wrongdoings, fallacies and misconceptions in the following two points. The rest of the paper is Poincaré (point 4), and Lorentz
(either through blatant plagiarism or in disguise).

I can't accept the position of fanatic relativists that, instead of concede when something is wrong, still defend it and call others imbeciles
or "not even wrong".

Plus, I find these threads entertaining.

[Richard Hertz]

The problem is that THE ONLY ONE who derived Lorentz transforms in a legitimate way (using linear transformations) was
Woldemar Voigt, in 1887. Lorentz just borrowed and planted, out of the blue, Voigt's q factor (gamma factor) and local time.

In modern times, Lorentz transforms have been derived, AS PURE MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENT, AS MANY OTHERS.

Still, it INFECTED PHYSICS and HAVE NO PHYSICAL MEANING NOR THEY WERE PROVEN, no matter what relativists say.

If length contraction is "mathematically temporary" and physically idiotic and unproven, so is its companion time dilation.

One being false, both are false. SOME modern physics accommodated to this nonsense, but the majority of the building of
modern physics just ignore Lorentz and relativity. FACT!

[JanPB]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:48:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> It's said that the devil is in the details.
>
> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
>
> My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English
> translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
> any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
> any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
>
> So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
> it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
>
> Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
> is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
>
> tB - tA = t'A - tB
>
> is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.

Neither is F=ma applied to point masses.

> To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the
> concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
>
> 1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most
> elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
> with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum
> at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
>
> 2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the
> elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
>
> 3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
> that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more
> precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
> laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.

What are you talking about. The clocks are simply set to synchronise
by tB - tA = t'A - tB.

> REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
>
> 1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.

Who cares.

> 2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both
> values are securely stored for further analysis.
>
> 3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY
> regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
>
> Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
> to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.

Who cares.

> To complete one entire oscillation, so c₀ = λ₀f₀ is verified, time τ is
>
> τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ , OR light fails to be regenerated at B. Let's settle with τ = λ₀/c₀.
>
> Translating [tB - tA = t'A - tB] using the above NEWS, we have
>
> 10λ₀/c₀ - tA = 20λ₀/c₀ - 10λ₀/c₀, which is a pretty equality if we use tA=0.
>
> Only that it IS NOT TRUE. Assuming, for simplicity, that tA = 0, the real
> value of t'A is
>
> t'A = 2 tB + τ (and τ IS NOT REGISTERED BY THE CLOCK AT THE POINT B).
>
> t'A = 20λ₀/c₀ + λ₀/c₀ = 21 λ₀/c₀
>
> And, CLEARLY, tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB because 10 λ₀/c₀ ≠ 11 λ₀/c₀.
>
> Now, relativists will cry foul and claim that distance BA be much greater
> than 5500 nm, so τ = λ₀/c₀ can be DISMISSED, buried deeply in the pit of shame.
>
> Is it clear, now, why fanatic brainless relativists are just STUPID?
>
> Or are they cretin hypocrites?

There is something wrong with you.

--
Jan

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Look at the measurement of moving rods, for example. Using a thoughtless experiment:

Let's use an analogy. You are a ray of light and there is a train on the tracks which is the rod, moving past you left to right.

The train is speeding past you. The moment the rear of the train passes you, moving slower than you will, you start off and run after the train (having driven a stake in the ground to anchor the tape) with the tape unraveling. The train, which is normally 50 metres long, you measure as 51 metres long because of the time you take to get to the front of the train.

As soon as you reach the front of the train you turn around and run back to the rear of the strain. You measure the length of the train to be now 41 meters long.

The average length of the train is calculated to be 41+51 /2 = 47.5 meters long.

Please add clocks and stuff to elaborate on this, use this as a basis.

[Richard Hertz]

There is something with you, actually.

I wrote this thread with enough details so anybody could understand it, with elementary reasoning.

The time required for light to be regenerated at B is not included in t'A, and is NOT REGISTERED BY ANY MEANS ON tB.

Even Einstein could have imagined that in 1905, that the time τ required for the reflection of light was not included.

In small distances, τ is HIGHLY RELEVANT. At any case, the equation for synchronism

tB - tA = t'A - tB , is FALSE.

The correct one is


tB - tA = t'A + τ - tB, which makes Einstein's definition of synchronism INVALID, because the original definition IS FALSE.




Now, go to get medical attention. You need to be tuned up, because your brain is out of sync, relativist.

[Dono.]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:58:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I just want to prove that I am a cretin

You did that, many times over

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

So you are saying that there is a delay in regenerating the light signal and that cause an asymmetry.
These are technical details, it could be argued. Are they real? I could not find any reference.

[Richard Hertz]

Of course that you will not find references about the delay in the absorption/emission of photons by atoms in the mirror.

It would CRASH the fucking relativity ON THE SPOT.

That's why that I AFFIRM that SR applied on small lengths, lower than 1 meter, CAN'T BE APPLIED. All the formulae developed
in 100 years are INVALID.

If you want to find out more about this ELEMENTARY CONCEPT, just think about this:

1) The photons that departed from A are reflected on a mirror at the B side by quantum processes:
1a) The photon is absorbed by an atom in the mirror, which confers unstable additional energy E = hf to this atom. This energy
is usually absorbed by the electrons in outer orbitals, not the one close to the atom's nucleus.
1b) The energized electron, which absorbed extra energy E = hf, has to decay to its ground state. It's mandatory.
1c) To decay to its former state, the electron emits a new photon (regeneration) which is ALMOST a clone of the absorbed one.
1d) The photon travels back to the A side, but the clock in B IS UNAWARE of the delay τ of the photon's regeneration. It only timed
the arrival time of the photon.

2) The process of absorption/emission takes time (τ), which is EQUAL OR HIGHER than the photon's duration λ₀/c₀, BECAUSE
the transition of the electron HAS TO COMPLETE one period of the "ray of light" (λ₀/c₀), in order that the carried energy h/T₀
be delivered.

3) The time τ IS NOT REGISTERED by the clock timing tB, which is the time of arrival of the photon. The time τ is only sensed in
the side A, where instead of t'A = 2 tB + tA, the actual reading is:

t'A = 2 tB + tA + τ


In large distances, you probably would dismiss τ, but not if BA < 1 meter, OR YOU ARE CHEATING.

[Dono.]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:18:14 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>you tried this cretinism before<

[JanPB]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

No, imbecile. You are the cretin ignorant that make others be ashamed of reading your comments.

Relativistic disease caught by a fanatic, limited lowlife: no possible cure.

[Sylvia Else]

On 17-Apr-23 9:48 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's said that the devil is in the details.
>
> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
>
> My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English
> translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
> any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
> any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
>
> So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
> it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
>
> Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
> is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
>
> tB - tA = t'A - tB
>
> is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
>

It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks
synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his
definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then
claiming that the definition is false.

Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden
of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
not so much of a problem in 1905.

Sylvia.

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks
> synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
> the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his
> definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then
> claiming that the definition is false.
>
> Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden
> of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
> not so much of a problem in 1905.
>
> Sylvia.

Obviously, you are not too picky, but most of the time resented when you reply my posts. I don't care.

I made a living with concepts like synchronism, and know about it VOLUMES more than you possibly could.

Synchronism: of events that occur at the same time or rate.
Synchronism: What happens with clocks when people synchronize their watches, making sure that all their watches show the same time.

Domain of applicability of the word synchronism: Any 3D space (spherical shape) where the most distant objects within it
can operate IN SYNC, but the time (t = Distance/c) is IRRELEVANT and can be dismissed, in comparison with time durations
that emerge from any action within such domain (no less than 1 ppb being acceptable TO ME).

For instance, in measures involving 1 second, differences lower than 1 nanosec can be dismissed.

I have shown that the roundtrip of a photon (550 nm) in a distance BA of 5500 nm creates AN ERROR of 5% in Einstein's formula

tB - tA = t'A - tB, because there is a delay τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ in the process of absorption/reflection in the mirror at B, so t'A = 2 tB - tA + τ

tB - tA = 10 λ₀/c₀
t'A - tB ≥ 11 λ₀/c₀

Even when every 1-way trip last 18.3 femtosec, the aditional delay of 1.83 femtosec CAN'T BE IGNORED (5% error).

Maybe you want to use BA = 10,000 λ₀ = 5.5 mm, with a roundtrip time of 36.7 picosec, to reduce the error to 0.05%.

Or use distances > 5 m, so the error can be reduced to < 0.00005% (50 ppm).

When you'll be satisfied with the concept of synchronism between clocks in A and B?

When the formula is applied to BA in the range of mm, in the range of mt, or in the range of Km?

PLUS: It was VERY STUPID for Einstein, the clerk wannabe physicist, to claim that SYNCHRONISM involved the idea of
UNIVERSAL TIME t, everywhere!

And that he demanded that simultaneity was attached to the above demand, with clocks MOVING at v speed!


The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± BA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.

If you, Sylvia, disagree with the above concepts of mine, then it's for me a proof that we are so intellectually distant that
any further interaction has no use for me.

[Richard Hertz]

CORRECTION: The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± ΔBA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.

[JanPB]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:52:25 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks
> > synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
> > the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his
> > definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then
> > claiming that the definition is false.
> >
> > Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden
> > of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
> > not so much of a problem in 1905.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Obviously, you are not too picky, but most of the time resented when you reply my posts. I don't care.
>
> I made a living with concepts like synchronism, and know about it VOLUMES more than you possibly could.

No. You are a physics ignoramus. What you wrote above about
the impossibility to verify "tB - tA = t'A - tB" is simply idiotic.
By the same argument Newton's mechanics is nonsense because
it relies on the impossibility of verification of "F=ma" for
point masses (which do not exist).

Pick a different hobby. Why must it be physics? Something wrong
with your profession? Just stick to it, it seems to serve you well.
Leave physics to people who can handle it. You cannot.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:55:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> CORRECTION: The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± ΔBA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.

Your monomania and mental magic thinking disorder strikes again: you
cannot write "Einstein", you have to write "imbecile". Do you really think
you are getting anything done here?

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

Because he was an imbecile, but a one-eyed imbecile in a land of blind people.

You could be the good twin brother, but with glaucoma in your only working eye, and a little more retarded.

[JanPB]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:21:00 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:55:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > CORRECTION: The imbecile didn't introduce the correction ± ΔBA/c₀ to the clock at B, being that BA is increasing constantly.
> > Your monomania and mental magic thinking disorder strikes again: you
> > cannot write "Einstein", you have to write "imbecile". Do you really think
> > you are getting anything done here?
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Because he was an imbecile, but a one-eyed imbecile in a land of blind people.

The above sentence means you are emotionally disturbed.

> You could be the good twin brother, but with glaucoma in your only working eye, and a little more retarded.

Something is not quite right with you, mentally. Perhaps nobody
told you this but you don't feel quite normal.

--
Jan

[whodat]

How would he know? And how would you know? After a while these sorts
of discussions become stupid as shown above.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 02:00:16 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17-Apr-23 9:48 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > It's said that the devil is in the details.
> >
> > I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
> >
> > My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English
> > translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
> > any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
> > any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
> >
> > So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
> > it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
> >
> > Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
> > is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
> >
> > tB - tA = t'A - tB
> >
> > is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
> >
> It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks
> synchronizing.
> Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
> the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his
> definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then
> claiming that the definition is false.

I'm claiming "pears grow on a willow tree". I define
"willow tree" as a tree pears grow on. Just to
prevent cranks from claiming that willow is
a different tree, one without pears. Am I not
ingenious?

[Mikko]

On 2023-04-16 23:48:52 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905
> Einstein's manifesto.

So you want to study history and not physics,

Mikko

[Jack Liu]

your way seems so complicated.

Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the moving clock running slower. Calculations using simple junior high school level algebra are sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock running faster.

No clock physically goes slower or faster. The time dilation in the special relativity along with time contraction (that should be added) are not objective physical permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of physics.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 18/04/2023 à 02:00, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> On 17-Apr-23 9:48 am, Richard Hertz wrote:

>> tB - tA = t'A - tB
>>
>> is absolutely FALSE,

Absolutly !

>> and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.

Yes and no.

This is obviously impossible with classical experiments, since we will
always have 2AB/(ta'-ta)=c

But if you look closely at Alain Aspect's experiments, you will notice
that instantaneous transmissions of information exist from the RECEIVER to
the source, which seems incredible.

The doubt is removed if we consider that the speed of light is infinite in
the reference frame of the receiver, and that it is worth 0.5c in the
reference frame of the source.

And that it is c for a neutral transverse observer.

This is what I have always said, and this is absolutely obvious if we
understand the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations well.

This live-live view of the world for an observer allows the reciprocal
zoom-spatial effect to be included in the theory and offers a theory of
great experimental logic and great theoretical beauty.

>>
> It's just a definition of what he means when he talks about clocks
> synchronizing. Perhaps he should have said that clocks perwaffle when
> the test is met. That might have prevented cranks from replacing his
> definition by their own notions of what synchronizing means, and then
> claiming that the definition is false.
>
> Of course, for the rest of us it would have created an additional burden
> of trying to remember what "perwaffle" means, and perhaps cranks were
> not so much of a problem in 1905.

The problem is that the definition is wrong.

You can synchronize on ONE POINT of the repository.

But all the points of this frame of reference will disagree with each
other on the notion of simultaneity.

I am amazed that we still do not manage to understand that the notion of
absolute present time is an abstraction.

What's happening to you scientists?

> Sylvia.

R.H.

[Richard Hertz]

Studying the history behind STEM development is as important as to study specific STEM fields.

It gives you insights about the evolution of human knowledge, like what was disruptive and what was incremental in the timeline.

But it requires having curiosity, coherence and much more time than learn basic physics from Resnick-Hallyday and claim that
you're knowledgeable. It's your choice.

I've proven many, many times, the advantage of studying both in a sequence: first, hard facts written in a technical book. Then,
details of the struggle behind any advance.

This has been my choice.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
> No clock physically goes slower or faster.

... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.

> The time dilation in the special relativity along with time
> contraction (that should be added) are not objective physical
> permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's
> psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of
> physics.

Not true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines
at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The
"time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well. (Without
"time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
be essentially 100%.)

You have A LOT to learn about basic physics before you can sensibly
write about it. What you write around here is wrong in essentially all
details.

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hertz]

Actually, you are the one to have A LOT to forget about your indoctrination.

In your thick skull and fossilized brain, you persist (as with muons) to believ e that the
enviroments at CERN and Fermilab equal to those in outer space.

You, conveniently, forget the EXTREME electric and magnetic fields under which the
experiments are conducted, the EXTREME accelerations and decelerations, and the
interfering effect of intermediate and terminal instrumentation.

Yet, you believe that accelerating particles to the point of tens of GeV mimics what happens in nature.

But, well, this is what intellect bought to have some comfort when facing THE UNKNOWN through lame models.

Also, the act to fit data to equations has been perfected after a century of cretinism.

I stay with true SCIENTISTS of the XIX centuries. They worked in science for pleasure, not for money or privileges
when they ARE LET TO PLAY with billions $ mega-instruments. Read something about Balmer, Franhouser, Thomson
or Rutherford (the last one of a unique era).

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 17:21:50 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
> > No clock physically goes slower or faster.
> ... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
> > The time dilation in the special relativity along with time
> > contraction (that should be added) are not objective physical
> > permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's
> > psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of
> > physics.
> Not true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines
> at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The
> "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well.

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

> (Without
> "time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
> be essentially 100%.)

Some experimental evidence that they would be?

[Richard Hertz]

Curiously, time ago he mentioned a loss of ONLY 10%.

Maybe, if they increase the dial to confer some TeV, 1% or lower losses in the pion's rain will be obtained.

Anyway, I understood that pions generated in the upper atmosphere only lasted 26 ns (in a reference frame
in which they are at rest), when cosmic rays hit N or O nucleus, which ejected pions at 0.99c.

This represents a length of 7.8 METERS, not Km.

But Tom knows better, isn't it?

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:41:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:21:50 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > No clock physically goes slower or faster.
> > ... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
> > > The time dilation in the special relativity along with time
> > > contraction (that should be added) are not objective physical
> > > permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's
> > > psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of
> > > physics.
> > Not true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines
> > at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The
> > "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well. (Without
> > "time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
> > be essentially 100%.)
> >
> > You have A LOT to learn about basic physics before you can sensibly
> > write about it. What you write around here is wrong in essentially all
> > details.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
>
> Actually, you are the one to have A LOT to forget about your indoctrination.

He just told you the exeperimental results.

> In your thick skull and fossilized brain, you persist (as with muons) to believ e that the
> enviroments at CERN and Fermilab equal to those in outer space.

Ah, grasping at straws now: making stuffup to match a preconceived idea.
Give it up, man. It will never work.

> You, conveniently, forget the EXTREME electric and magnetic fields under which the
> experiments are conducted, the EXTREME accelerations and decelerations, and the
> interfering effect of intermediate and terminal instrumentation.

Making up stuff. Just pick another hobby.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 19:42:39 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:41:02 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:21:50 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
> > > > No clock physically goes slower or faster.
> > > ... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
> > > > The time dilation in the special relativity along with time
> > > > contraction (that should be added) are not objective physical
> > > > permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's
> > > > psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of
> > > > physics.
> > > Not true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines
> > > at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The
> > > "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well. (Without
> > > "time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
> > > be essentially 100%.)
> > >
> > > You have A LOT to learn about basic physics before you can sensibly
> > > write about it. What you write around here is wrong in essentially all
> > > details.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> >
> > Actually, you are the one to have A LOT to forget about your indoctrination.
> He just told you the exeperimental results.

Sure, sure. It is an experimental result that "would be".

[Sylvia Else]

It's difficult to know how to reply to an insane rant that entirely
misses the point.

Sylvia.

[Mikko]

On 2023-04-18 12:55:40 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:54:26 AM UTC-3, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-04-16 23:48:52 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>> > I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905
>> > Einstein's manifesto.
>> So you want to study history and not physics,

> Studying the history behind STEM development is as important as to
> study specific STEM fields.

The kind of importance is so different that one cannot really say that
one is as important as the other.

> It gives you insights about the evolution of human knowledge, like what
> was disruptive and what was incremental in the timeline.

And what had no immediate effect. But one needs to consider a broader
context in order to understand causes and consequences.

> But it requires having curiosity, coherence and much more time than
> learn basic physics from Resnick-Hallyday and claim that
> you're knowledgeable. It's your choice.

Indeed. One needs to know much more that just physics in order to understand
the history of physics. But one also needs to know physics and mathematics.

> I've proven many, many times, the advantage of studying both in a
> sequence: first, hard facts written in a technical book. Then,details
> of the struggle behind any advance.

> This has been my choice.

However, it seems that you have not yet studied enough.

Mikko

[Jane]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz wrote:

> It's said that the devil is in the details.
>

> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's
> manifesto.
>

> My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923
> English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any
> failure in logic,
> any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my
> credits to any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is
> true.
>
> So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate,
> because it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant
> of nature.

Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't know
how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to supporting
SR 100%. Constnt lighht speed certainly does not follow Maxwell's
treatment. They derive a value for the universal constant c, which is also
the speed of an E-field disturbance relative to its source, its only
reference. Everything in SR is consistent with P2 so you will never
disprove SR while you accept P2.
The constancy of light speed has never been even remotely proved to be
correct, so why accept it? All speeds are frame dependent by definition.
Maybe you are really a closet Etherist.

> Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of
> Simultaneity"
> is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
>
> tB - tA = t'A - tB
>
> is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.

--
-- lover of truth

[Jane]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 02:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Liu wrote:

> your way seems so complicated.
>
> Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the moving clock
> running slower. Calculations using simple junior high school level
> algebra are sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving
> clock running faster.

If you could see a 'big clock in the sky' approaching you, it would appear
to run fast by the linear Doppler expression, not the quadratic 'gamma'.

> No clock physically goes slower or faster. The time dilation in the
> special relativity along with time contraction (that should be added)
> are not objective physical permanent changes, but only temporary changes
> in the observer's psychological perspective. That is theory of
> perspective rather of physics.

Time dilation does not occur. It is an imaginary bi-product of very
ingenious mathematical description of a hypothetical universe in which
light always moves at c. Very impressive ScFi...!

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:36:38 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 02:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Liu wrote:
>
> > your way seems so complicated.
> >

...

> Time dilation does not occur. It is an imaginary bi-product of very
> ingenious mathematical description of a hypothetical universe in which
> light always moves at c. Very impressive ScFi...!
> --
> -- lover of truth

Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!

Why do we need real experiments if thought experiments are so good?

Why did we need (not me personally) but experimental verification?

[rotchm]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:18:22 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

<snip>

How can we take you seriously when you can't even solve a simple High School math or physics test.
I told you, stop posting here since you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly in this news group.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 14:54:19 UTC+2, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:36:38 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 02:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Liu wrote:
> >
> > > your way seems so complicated.
> > >
> ...
> > Time dilation does not occur. It is an imaginary bi-product of very
> > ingenious mathematical description of a hypothetical universe in which
> > light always moves at c. Very impressive ScFi...!
> > --
> > -- lover of truth
> Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!

But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by physicists GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

BTW, only gurus of lower rank say about being proven
in physics, on he higher levels of initiation the
song is different. Something like "THE BEST WAY!!!"

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/20/23 6:36 AM, Jane wrote:
> Time dilation does not occur.

And yet high-energy pion beams at CERN and Fermilab traverse their
kilometer-long beamlines with only a few percent loss. Without "time
dilation" they would experience essentially 100% loss.

Stop making stuff up and pretending it is true -- that is useless. You
REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experimental results that
support our current theories and refute older ones.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/20/23 7:54 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!

Nonsense! Thought experiments can only show what was put into them.

But real experiments support Special Relativity, and have never refuted
it. They have refuted competing theories by Newton, Ritz, and many
others.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experiments that support
our current theories and have refuted older ones.

Tom Roberts

[Volney]

On 4/18/2023 1:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:18:33 PM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 17:21:50 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 4/18/23 4:33 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
>>>> No clock physically goes slower or faster.
>>> ... due to "time dilation" -- yes. But not for the reason you seem to think.
>>>> The time dilation in the special relativity along with time
>>>> contraction (that should be added) are not objective physical
>>>> permanent changes, but only temporary changes in the observer's
>>>> psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of
>>>> physics.
>>> Not true. High-energy pion beams traversing the kilometer-long beamlines
>>> at Fermilab and CERN arrive at the end with only a few percent loss. The
>>> "time dilation" of their decay models this extremely well.
>> In the meantime in the real world, however,
>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper clocks
>> keep measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
>>> (Without
>>> "time dilation", or if it were purely "psychological", the losses would
>>> be essentially 100%.)
>> Some experimental evidence that they would be?
>
> Curiously, time ago he mentioned a loss of ONLY 10%.
>
> Maybe, if they increase the dial to confer some TeV, 1% or lower losses in the pion's rain will be obtained.

Sounds like a good experiment! Push time dilation to the max.

>
> Anyway, I understood that pions generated in the upper atmosphere only lasted 26 ns (in a reference frame
> in which they are at rest), when cosmic rays hit N or O nucleus, which ejected pions at 0.99c.
>
> This represents a length of 7.8 METERS, not Km.

Do you even know the difference between pions and muons?
Do you even know where the cosmic muons come from?

>
> But Tom knows better, isn't it?

Than you? That's plainly obvious!

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 15:41:53 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:


> Without "time
> dilation" they would experience essentially 100% loss.

Any experimental evidence for that, or just some
assertion of a brainwashed halfbrain?

[JanPB]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:18:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > It's said that the devil is in the details.
> >
> > I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's
> > manifesto.
> >
> > My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923
> > English translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any
> > failure in logic,
> > any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my
> > credits to any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is
> > true.
> >
> > So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate,
> > because it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant
> > of nature.
>
> Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't know
> how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to supporting
> SR 100%.

Actually, no. Read carefully what Einstein's P2 says: that the speed of light
is independent of the motion of the light source *in a certain one, fixed,
system* (called "stationary" to distinguish it from the others).

You need to add to it another assumption which Einstein makes in the
next section: in a "moving" system (k) the time it takes light to go from
A to B is equal to that from B to A. Note that it is NOT assumed for such
"moving" systems that 2AB/([absorption k-time] - [emission k-time]) = c.
(IOW, the full import of P2 for "moving" systems is NOT assumed.)

Einstein instead noticed that from such simple spatial and temporal
considerations ALONE one could derive the Lorentz transformation,
without ever referring to Maxwell's equations.

This one fact was probably (I'm guessing) THE reason Einstein decided
to publish the paper. It just seemed vastly improbable that this possibility
would be a coincidence.

And then he PROVES (using the just-derived Lorentz transformation,
still with the phi(v) factor undetermined) that the speed of light in
"moving" systems must therefore be also c.

> Constnt lighht speed certainly does not follow Maxwell's
> treatment. They derive a value for the universal constant c, which is also
> the speed of an E-field disturbance relative to its source, its only
> reference. Everything in SR is consistent with P2 so you will never
> disprove SR while you accept P2.
> The constancy of light speed has never been even remotely proved to be
> correct, so why accept it?

The reason you are saying this without any pause is that your education
in physics is *extremely* narrow. This is a common amateur failing: you
don't have the faintest idea how your objections to SR influence other,
sometimes seemingly unrelated, phenomena.

--
Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

The 'gehan' entity is clearly incapable of that.
Instead it seeks to verbally integrate
verbal descriptions of physics
into a verbaly coherent whole.

It will never succeed,
(and will go on asking)

Jan

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

The verbal descriptions of physics, with basic algebra, as found in the books written by Einstein then, are simply not sufficient
to describe the theory completely and coherently.

Maybe Albert Einsteins biggest mistake was writing that book. Don't you agree?

[Jane]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:21:16 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:18:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

>>
>> Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't
>> know how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to
>> supporting SR 100%.
>
> Actually, no. Read carefully what Einstein's P2 says: that the speed of
> light is independent of the motion of the light source *in a certain
> one, fixed, system* (called "stationary" to distinguish it from the
> others).
>
> You need to add to it another assumption which Einstein makes in the
> next section: in a "moving" system (k) the time it takes light to go
> from A to B is equal to that from B to A. Note that it is NOT assumed
> for such "moving" systems that 2AB/([absorption k-time] - [emission
> k-time]) = c. (IOW, the full import of P2 for "moving" systems is NOT
> assumed.)

He simply defines one system as 'stationary' for convenience. It is just a
way of defining a frame. Then he reckoned that because the stationary
observer calculated the opposite OW transit times to be different in the
moving frame, the moving clocks must be out of synch in that frame because
they violated P2.. Pure nonsense...but entirely consistent with P2.

> Einstein instead noticed that from such simple spatial and temporal
> considerations ALONE one could derive the Lorentz transformation,
> without ever referring to Maxwell's equations.
>
> This one fact was probably (I'm guessing) THE reason Einstein decided to
> publish the paper. It just seemed vastly improbable that this
> possibility would be a coincidence.
>
> And then he PROVES (using the just-derived Lorentz transformation,
> still with the phi(v) factor undetermined) that the speed of light in
> "moving" systems must therefore be also c.

That sounds like circular logic to me.
The fact is, Einstein began his theory with Lorentz's conclusion, solved a
few equations and... surprise surprise....came up with the LTs. That's why
SR is just LET back to front....but there is one big difference. Lorentz
had an ether to ensure source speed independence. SR has no such defined
mechanism...it was simply stated as a postulate...and so it is obvious that
Einstein assumed the Ether existed but did not have to mention it. He
needed the ether to unify all light speeds so that observer independence
would follow after the LTs were applied.

>> Constant light speed certainly does not follow Maxwell's treatment.

>> They derive a value for the universal constant c, which is also the
>> speed of an E-field disturbance relative to its source, its only
>> reference. Everything in SR is consistent with P2 so you will never
>> disprove SR while you accept P2.
> The constancy of light speed has never been even remotely proved to be
>> correct, so why accept it?
>
> The reason you are saying this without any pause is that your education
> in physics is *extremely* narrow. This is a common amateur failing: you
> don't have the faintest idea how your objections to SR influence other,
> sometimes seemingly unrelated, phenomena.

You have not stated anything that refutes my statement. If one accepts P2,
one is effectively accepting all of SR.

[Dono.]

Einstein didn't write for hardened cranks. Like you, Gehan.

[Jane]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:44:41 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/20/23 7:54 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!
>
> Nonsense! Thought experiments can only show what was put into them.

The whole of SR was a thought experiment.

> But real experiments support Special Relativity, and have never refuted
> it. They have refuted competing theories by Newton, Ritz, and many
> others.

That's really funny. Have another look at Michelson's 1913 moving mirror
experiment. It was a blatant fake...clearly concocted to prop up Einstein
when it actually fully supports Ritz and refutes Einstein. Being so
inexperienced you probably do not know that if the travel times of his two
interferometer beams were not equal, the fringe pattern would continue to
move during periods of constant rotation. That is not what happens in that
kind of setup. It only moves during angular acceleration... yet Michelson's
whole argument was based on travel times, not wave number differences. His
experiment was wrongly interpreted and clearly proved SR wrong. In fact it
would not work at all at high speeds in light did not reflect from the
mirror at c+2v because the returning flashes would not coincide. This is
all basic physics so check it yourself if you don't believe me.
About 90% of claimed supporting evidence for Einstein over Newton involves
interferometry and similarly incorrect reasoning. It assumes light can be
regarded as a 'traveling oscillator, which is clearly not the case. If the
correct analysis is used, that based on differences in numbers of
wavelengths, Newton and Ritz invariably come out on top.

> You REALLY need to learn basic physics, and the experiments that support
> our current theories and have refuted older ones.

You seem to repeat that statement at the end of all your posts. I could
train my pet parrot to do something similar. Maybe you do it in desperation
because you know deep down that you 'religion' has no experimental
verification whatsoever?

> Tom Roberts

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Ahh so we are getting to the heart of the problem.

Am I the only one who disagrees with Einstein? Some of the others are: the inventor of the Atomic clock, and the Professor wrote a textbook on Relativity and then turned a crank.

I go though life trusting my reasoning, not anyone else, that is not responsible.

The book was written for the public educated in the best way they could over 100 years ago, so nice to know we are overpaying for out
textbooks.

Albert Einstein achieved a great many things in his lifetime, for which he needs to be respected. He went through incredible hardship, just read his story. He was, unlike what we were taught in school, not a failure. He was a brilliant mathematician by all accounts.

He made mistakes. Google Einsteins Mistakes.

I stand with the Nobel Committee who rejected his Special Relativity Paper for the Nobel prize.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:12:43 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:21:16 -0700 (PDT), JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:18:22 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Richard you know intuitively that SR is nonsense but you really don't
> >> know how to go about refuting it. Agreeing with P2 is tantamount to
> >> supporting SR 100%.
> >
> > Actually, no. Read carefully what Einstein's P2 says: that the speed of
> > light is independent of the motion of the light source *in a certain
> > one, fixed, system* (called "stationary" to distinguish it from the
> > others).
> >

...

Could you clearly state what you think P2 really says, and what it does not say?

Here is a quotation:

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport
of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status
of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body."

After which I hope you do not mind troubling you with some questions because there is an absolute silence many times when I ask questions that I think will be embarrassing to answer. ChatGPT has no such ego problems. Self contradictions are allowed.

[Richard Hertz]

Write this quote completely. It starts after line 16 of the 1923 English translation:


"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has
already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good.[1]

We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
“Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another
postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is

independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates
suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics
of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies."

"[1] The preceding memoir by Lorentz was not at this time known to the author."

What the cretin wrote is a sophism, a pseudo-philosophy based on fallacies and deceptions.

He's anticipating that he will contradict all known laws of physics, in particular the addition
of velocities because the cretin wanted to install that Maxwell's theory applied only to
stationary bodies (false), and that he's going to fuck the galilean relativity,

His deceiving sophism: "another postulate, which is ONLY APPARENTLY irreconcilable with the former"

Then, he's telling that his relativity challenges galilean relativity, where t' = t and x' = x -vt, established for centuries,
even when it's also PERCEPTUAL.

Then, he will mess with your mind by connecting "current kinematics" with Maxwell's electromagnetism.

That's what Voigt did, 17 years before, in the only honest and clean development to obtain the demands, in a linear
transformation, so the general wave equation can be transported from one domain to over other one in motion.

With the simple use of algebra, no parroting, and logical assumptions, Voigt obtained the Gamma factor and Local Time.

But only Minkowski acknowledged Voigt in 1908 as the father of relativity. Voigt was alive by then, and was highly respected.

For Voigt, his 1887 paper was just another one, as he didn't intend to challenge Newton or found a new scientific religion.

The cretin, ignored by the physics community since he graduated in 1900 until 1911, just wanted fame, glory, money and revenge.

[Dono.]

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> Am I the only one who disagrees with Einstein?

No there are many other cranks in this forum: "Jane", Dick Hertz, Pat Dolan.
The forum was created specifically for the likes of the above.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 4:48:53 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's said that the devil is in the details.
>
> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
>
> My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English
> translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
> any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
> any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
>
> So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate, because
> it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature.
>

> Now, I want to show that what is written in "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
> is PLAIN WRONG, and that the definition of synchronism given by
>
> tB - tA = t'A - tB
>
> is absolutely FALSE, and IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY.
>

> To do that, I resort to knowledge that didn't exist in 1905, and use the
> concept that relativity can be applied to any magnitude of spatial domains.
>
> 1) I resort to claim that the ray of light going between A and B is the most
> elementary form of light: a single waveform, self-propelled, self-oscillating,
> with electric and magnetic fields in quadrature, which travel through vacuum
> at the absolute speed c₀ = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) (Maxwell).
>
> 2) Also, I claim that such self-propagating POINT OF ENERGY verify the
> elementary equation for non dispersive waves: c₀ = λ₀f₀.
>
> 3) I'll use Einstein's concept of synchronysm in the micro world, by defining
> that the distance between A and B (BA) is EXACTLY 10 λ₀. To be more
> precise, λ₀ = 550 nm (green light), which can be provided by any industrial
> laser for about $2,000, having very good accuraty and stability.
>
> REENACTMENT OF "§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity"
>
> 1) Points A and B are separated by 10λ₀ = 5,500 nm.
>
> 2) A ray of light departs from A at time tA and reaches B in time tB. Both
> values are securely stored for further analysis.
>
> 3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY
> regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.
>
> Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
> to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ.
>
> To complete one entire oscillation, so c₀ = λ₀f₀ is verified, time τ is
>
> τ ≥ λ₀/c₀ , OR light fails to be regenerated at B. Let's settle with τ = λ₀/c₀.
>
> Translating [tB - tA = t'A - tB] using the above NEWS, we have
>
> 10λ₀/c₀ - tA = 20λ₀/c₀ - 10λ₀/c₀, which is a pretty equality if we use tA=0.
>
> Only that it IS NOT TRUE. Assuming, for simplicity, that tA = 0, the real
> value of t'A is
>
> t'A = 2 tB + τ (and τ IS NOT REGISTERED BY THE CLOCK AT THE POINT B).
>
> t'A = 20λ₀/c₀ + λ₀/c₀ = 21 λ₀/c₀
>
> And, CLEARLY, tB - tA ≠ t'A - tB because 10 λ₀/c₀ ≠ 11 λ₀/c₀.
>
> Now, relativists will cry foul and claim that distance BA be much greater
> than 5500 nm, so τ = λ₀/c₀ can be DISMISSED, buried deeply in the pit of shame.
>
> Is it clear, now, why fanatic brainless relativists are just STUPID?
>
> Or are they cretin hypocrites?
You said: "So far, I only found that I agree completely with the second postulate because

it is pure Maxwell applied to motion. The speed c is a constant of nature. "

There is a difference between the constant of the speed of light and whether or not it shares the velocity of its source and whether or not it is subject to additive velocity. The second postulate denies these. That is completely illogical. Everything in nature is subject to these two factors. The constant of the speed of light is one thing and the constancy is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity and a denial of relative/additive velocity. Jane is right. You cannot disprove SR accepting P2!

You said: "3) Once the ray of light reaches B, it's ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY
regenerated and emitted toward A, which is reached at time t'A.

Now, with XXI century knowledge, the ray of light (photon) requires TIME
to be regenerated in the B mirror. This time (no pun intended) is τ."

That would be negligible in the MMX.

You said: "Also, regarding circular logic like your example of racism, in enters into the realm of the pseudo-logic of sophism, in which Einstein
was an expert as a fallacious deceiver.

Sophism: a clever but false or fallacious argument, used deliberately to deceive."

I am not interested in defending Einstein's character, only focusing more on the ideas. However, remember Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I think that logic and honesty go hand in hand, reinforcing each other. It's hard to see ad hoc logic as honest or non sequiturs as honest, but they are not necessarily dishonest.

You said: "I can't accept the position of fanatic relativists that, instead of concede when something is wrong, still defend it and call others imbeciles or "not even wrong.""

The problem of creating a steelman of relativity is nearly impossible since it's all complete nonsense.

[Jane]

What do you want to know?

P1 restates Newtonian relativity.
P2 says that OWLS will always have the value c. no matter what.

Is that hard to understand?

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

No, so the question is, do we accept P2 as interpreted without question?

Come to think of it, P1 could be recursive, that is, addition law of addition of velocities holds true in all frames. Including sub-frames.

[Jane]

I suppose so. but do you mean Newton's addition rule of Einstein's

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Newton's, because that is what Einstein used.

If there is a law of physics that says time slows in the moving frame of reference, then for that moving frame, the rule should also apply,
that is time slows down in the other frame of reference.

According to the 'first postulate' time dilation should be mutual. There are no favored frames of reference.

This has been said before, but has it been proposed as an application of the first postulate?

[Dono.]

Kookfight

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

> Kookfight

Clock fight?

[JanPB]

In a certain fixed system (only *one* system, not universally (not yet)).
An aetherist reading the paper in 1905 would mentally earmark this
fixed system as the one in which "Maxwell's equations hold good".
Of course Einstein does not say that as he is about to demonstrate that
the Lorentz transformation can be derived without referring to
either aether or Maxwell's equations.

The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in
the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is
equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light
speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.

This derivation is somewhat different from the one typically shown
in textbooks (the textbook derivations are not wrong but use
a stronger set of hypotheses which tend to look bizarre or at
best thinly justified to many students).

> Is that hard to understand?

Apparently :-)

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in
> the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is
> equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light
> speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.

Imbecile, OWLS has never been proven because it's physically impossible, due to the need of connected clocks,
which imply another 1-Way link back to the origin.

And TWLS IS NOT PROVEN, except for conformist relativists like you.

TWLS measurements ignore the delay to reflect light, and still have the same problem than OWLS measurements.

But, what to expect from amateur relativists like you, retarded polish.

[Jack Liu]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> It's said that the devil is in the details.
>
> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
>
> My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English
> translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
> any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
> any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.

Hi Richard

We must admit that your research is very detailed and profound, you spend a lot of energy, and you are quite patient. Regarding this topic, I think Einstein only studied outbound motion, not inbound motion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view


I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

Jack

[Richard Hertz]

It's quite long. I'll read it and will make, eventually, some comments next week.

[Jack Liu]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 6:28:37 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> >
> > I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
> >
> > Jack
> It's quite long. I'll read it and will make, eventually, some comments next week.

I appreciate your willing to comments.
Sorry it is quite long, haha. However, at very beginning, just focus on the idea of the " incoming moving object" in Chapter 7; Einstein's moving object was just only outgoing moving object.

moving in different direction cause different time effect. I think incoming moving cause time contraction, instead of dilation. I also derived new Lorenz transformation and new Lorenz factor for this opposite moving in Chapter 7.

Thanks

[JanPB]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in
> > the moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is
> > equal to that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light
> > speed is c in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
>
> Imbecile, OWLS has never been proven

Do you even READ the posts you are responding to? Are you able
to comprehend the written text at all?

The part I quoted from Einstein is NOT about proving anything
experimentally. It's about a consequence of a certain definition.

> because it's physically impossible, due to the need of connected clocks,
> which imply another 1-Way link back to the origin.

Irrelevant, not even wrong.

> And TWLS IS NOT PROVEN, except for conformist relativists like you.

Irrelevant. N/A.

> TWLS measurements ignore the delay to reflect light, and still have the same problem than OWLS measurements.
>
> But, what to expect from amateur relativists like you, retarded polish.

Irrelevant. You don't even understand what people are discussing here.

Change your hobby. You simply cannot do this.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:36:29 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > It's said that the devil is in the details.
> >
> > I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905 Einstein's manifesto.
> >
> > My method of analysis is quite simple and honest: I take the 1923 English
> > translation of the 1905 manifest, and try hard to identify any failure in logic,
> > any fallacy and any deceiving wording. Also, I put on the table my credits to
> > any assertion that I believe, by heart and mind, that is true.
> Hi Richard
>
> We must admit that your research is very detailed and profound, you spend a lot of energy, and you are quite patient. Regarding this topic, I think Einstein only studied outbound motion, not inbound motion.

Nonsense.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

It's quite simple, JanPB. Don't torture yourself anymore.

I'll save a lot of time since now, when replying anything from me:

I think that you are so full of crap that NOTHING that you write here, concerning any science except mathematics,
is worthless and a product of a fanatic indoctrinated mind, highly biased toward relativity that reject anything outside
the thin shell where your thoughts take shelter.

So, I directly call you imbecile or the like, regardless whatever shit do you write here.

So, don't bother to reply to me. Just ignore it, as I do with your shit.

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:36:29 PM UTC-3, Jack Liu wrote:

Jack, I've read your book and find it interesting, in particular Chapter 1 and your further considerations about the nonsense
of SR. In particular, these comments:

The absolute time proposed by Sir Newton flows forward eternally and independently, without any interference from external physical factors, and is not affected by observers. Its existence is independent of the changes of things. Whatever matter exists in the universe, no matter how it moves, it has no effect on time itself. Newton said: The order and direction of time are based on time itself, and do not depend on certain physical movements or changes in the physical environment.
.............................
Contrary to Newton's concept of independent and uniform time, in Einstein's theory, time does not operate independently, it is affected by physical factors. In Einstein's theory, time also does not pass uniformly, and its pace changes
.............................
According to Sir Newton's expression: Absolute time is pure and real time. It is mathematical time; it is the only time; it is not directly perceivable; it is inferred time. Relative time is time that can be perceived, or directly read, such as the numbers displayed on a clock. Absolute time is independent of external physical conditions and advances uniformly;
.............................
That is said, while ancient engineer worked on clock and adjusted the clock with new level of gravitation, Einstein worked on “TIME”. Einstein pointed out that TIME was dilated by stronger gravitation. However, afterward, Einstein abandoned this dilated time, and adjusted his personal watch to real time, which is not affected by gravitation at all. Einstein himself in real life still trusted absolute time instead of relative time.
.............................

Regarding your development of a new transform, in the point (page 136): Lorenz-Jack Transformation, Direct Way

I've found mathematical errors in your equations, from 2 to 11.

I agree with 1a and 1b. They are linear transformations in a unidimensional space, which is a subset of what Voigt did in 1887:

Voigt, in 1887, used the following linear transformation. NOTE how Voigt a four dimensional relationship and NEGATIVE time
18 years before Einstein. With this transform, Voigt proved that the 3D wave equation was INVARIANT under a general linear
transformation of "spacetime".

ξ = xm₁ + yn₁ + zp₁ − αt
η = xm₂ + yn₂ + zp₂ − βt
ζ = xm₃ + yn₃ + zp₃ - γt
τ = t − (ax + by + cz)

Voigt found that the INVARIANCE required a transform factor q² = 1/(1 - χ²/ω²), the famous γ, PLUS τ = t − χ/ω² (xα₁ + yβ₁ + zγ₁) , the famous local time, NOT AFFECTED BY q.

Your equations 1a and 1b are expressed (in Voigt's terminology), as:

ξ = x' = xm₁ − αt (1a)
τ = t' = t − ax (1b)

But Voigt had a purpose to propose such linear transformations: to find out what is required for the general wave equation be
invariant under such transformations, because galilean transforms failed to verify that.

Your proposal, and further equations, lack any purpose other than to change Lorentz transforms. And this is something that has not
a physical sense (like Voigt's work had), but just a mathematical purpose to challenge Lorentz.

Your comment following (1b) contains a basic error, making x = vt for x'=0. Actually, for (1a), x = - b/a t. This implies that v = - b/a,
which solved one incognito and compromise further developments from e

"When an object in S moves at a uniform speed in the direction of the negative X axis from the origin, there is x=vt for any time t; When the object is at the origin in the S' reference frame, substitute x'=0 into (1a)"

[Richard Hertz]

Continuing, as I posted involuntarily without finishing;

** and compromise further developments from eq. 2 to eq. 11.

Plus, if you want to analyze the inbound motion, you have to find another way to synchronize S and S', because you wrote: "At the initial moment t=t'=0, the origins of the two coordinate systems coincide."

You are forcing the synchronism in the einstenian way, but later want to analyze transforms by making S' to move over the negative
x axis, but without considering the sign minus (-), which spoil the mathematical development.

If you try again, with more precision, maybe you will reach to some point. Synchronize S' being it far away in the negative axis, then make it come to x = 0, to see if basic equations change.

Don't forget a physical purpose for your transforms, as Voigt did.

This is as far as I can come for now.

[JanPB]

Haha, you wish :-)

Depending on my mood, I'll keep pointing out errors if you make them.

> I'll save a lot of time since now, when replying anything from me:
>
> I think that you are so full of crap that NOTHING that you write here, concerning any science except mathematics,
> is worthless and a product of a fanatic indoctrinated mind, highly biased toward relativity that reject anything outside
> the thin shell where your thoughts take shelter.

Nonsense. You are fantasising about people who disagree with you again.
Correcting mistakes is not a sign of any indoctrination, get real. Unless in
your book telling the truth is "indoctrination".

> So, I directly call you imbecile or the like, regardless whatever shit do you write here.

Yes, because I destroy your idiocies and your ego gets bruised.

> So, don't bother to reply to me. Just ignore it, as I do with your shit.

I will reply whenever I feel like it. You are free to leave this group if
you don't want to hear from people who are telling you that so far you
had nothing to say about relativity of any value.

--
Jan

[Jane]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:13:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:45:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
m, not universally (not
> yet)).
> An aetherist reading the paper in 1905 would mentally earmark this fixed
> system as the one in which "Maxwell's equations hold good".
> Of course Einstein does not say that as he is about to demonstrate that
> the Lorentz transformation can be derived without referring to either
> aether or Maxwell's equations.
>
> The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in the
> moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is equal to
> that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c
> in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.

I don't knnow where you got this idea. Einstein clearly calculoated that
the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving
system. Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.

> This derivation is somewhat different from the one typically shown in
> textbooks (the textbook derivations are not wrong but use a stronger set
> of hypotheses which tend to look bizarre or at best thinly justified to
> many students).
>
>> Is that hard to understand?
>
> Apparently :-)





--

-- lover of truth

[Dono.]

Kookfight

[Dono.]

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> I don't knnow where you got this idea. Einstein clearly calculoated that
> the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving
> system. Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.

Crank,

c+v and c-v are closing speeds. You are too stupid to recognize that

[JanPB]

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:13:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:45:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:55:32 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> m, not universally (not
> > yet)).
> > An aetherist reading the paper in 1905 would mentally earmark this fixed
> > system as the one in which "Maxwell's equations hold good".
> > Of course Einstein does not say that as he is about to demonstrate that
> > the Lorentz transformation can be derived without referring to either
> > aether or Maxwell's equations.
> >
> > The universality is PROVED later from another assumption: that in the
> > moving system the time it takes the light to go from A to B is equal to
> > that of going from B to A. It is NOT assumed that the light speed is c
> > in that moving system. Again, this is later PROVED.
>
> I don't knnow where you got this idea.

From Einstein's paper (p. 46 of the Dover edition, after he says "we have
not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light ia compatible with the principle of relativity".
IOW, that P2 holds not only for that one system fixed in the beginning
of Section 1 (p.38).

> Einstein clearly calculoated that
> the light would take different times, AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving
> system.

Different times, yes. Only that.

> Only his postulate said th speeds should be the same.

P2 only says the speeds are the same AND equal to c in a certain
single, fixed, system. In other systems it's only assumed the AB-BA
times are equal. It's later PROVED that that speed is also c in other
systems.

--
Jan

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

It is certainly beginning to look like that. It appears we have to switch off reason during
some of the relativistic calculations, reason is compressed, reason is contracted.

Light going from A to B, let's say, between the walls of a moving train.

For a train at rest, AB/t = c

============[A_____________B]=============


Suppose the train was moving. Then we would have, in the track frame, if the train is moving with velocity v,
the velocity of light, if we use Newtonian physics, to be (AB+vt)/t. Calculated, not reality. Thought experiment
if you like.

For a ray of light from B to A, we will have to have the velocity of light (AB-vt)/t.

This is of course, assuming that the source has an effect on the velocity of light,
boosting it forwards in the firsts case, and dragging it backwards in the second case.

The second postulate says this does not happen.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Listen to them carefully. According to them
- it's YOU that are FORCED to make it real,
because it's THE BEST WAY.

Your choice. Your choice of clocks, your choice
of measurement methods, your choice of your claims.
The Shit is just trying to ensure that your choice
will be right.

[Jane]

Well you should dig up Einstein and tell him. They are his figures.

[Dono.]

Imbecile

These are expressions equally valid in Galileian and Special relativity. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

[Jane]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 18:43:46 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 5:29:13 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 11:13:09 -0700, JanPB wrote:

>

>> Einstein clearly calculated that the light would take different times,

>> AB/c+v and AB/c-v in the moving system.
>
> Different times, yes. Only that.

I will try to explain. Einstein expected his audience to be reasonably
intelligent rather than consisting of people like you and DONO who seem
to share the same brain cell.
His calculated times were referenced to the stationary clocks. The moving
clocks were synched to the stationary ones. Einstein, with great wisdom,
then convinced himself that if A an B were used by the MOVING OBSERVER to
measure OWLS, they would determine it to be different in the two
directions. Since that was not permitted by P2, Einstein had to either
claim that A and B were out of sync in the moving frame or say goodbye
to his whole theory..

Does that help? ...or do you see the senselessness of Einstein's idea.

Use light source attached to the moving frame and you might even discover
the inherent logical impossibility..

>> Only his postulate said the speeds should be the same.

>
> P2 only says the speeds are the same AND equal to c in a certain single,
> fixed, system. In other systems it's only assumed the AB-BA times are
> equal. It's later PROVED that that speed is also c in other systems.

Never directly proved in 117 years.

[Dono.]

On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.

Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.

[Jane]

Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
clocks)'.

[Dono.]

You just added lying to your imbecility.

[whodat]

On 4/27/2023 11:04 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:24:23 -0700, Dono. wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>>> The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
>>
>> Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
>
> Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot...

It wouldn't make any difference as he's lost his mind.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Yes! I noticed that. How is it possible that the moving rod and its clocks are both in synchronization with stationary clocks (whereaver they may be?)

Page 4:

#####
We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are
placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say
that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary
system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore
“synchronous in the stationary system.”
#####


This is crying out for a diagram in 3D which I may just do.

[Jane]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:17:06 -0700 (PDT), Dono. wrote:


>> > On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> >>The moving clocks were synched to the stationary ones.
>> >
>> > Bzzt, this is known to be impossible.
>> Well you had better dig the eminent gentleman up yet again and tell him
>> in no uncertain terms that he was a complete idiot... It is written in
>> plain black and white, in paragraph 2 that, with his method 'the moving
>> clocks are now in synch in the stationary frame (with the stationary
>> clocks)'.
>
>
> You just added lying to your imbecility.

Really? Pleasse explain. Have you not read his paper?

[Jane]

Yes, good idea. Draw a line of clocks C representing those in the
stationary system. Then draw a pair, A and B, connected by a rod and which
move along the C clocks, adjusting their rates and readings to those of the
C clocks as they go. I gather that was what Einstein's had in mind.

....and thank you for confirming that Dono is just a braindead waste of
time and space.

[Python]

You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
*different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
considered.

[Dono.]

Yes, I did. This is how I know your posts are a mix of lies and idiocies.

[Richard Hertz]

WEAK, GULLIBLE AND RETARDED MINDS LIKE YOURS, PHYTON, ARE EASILY CONFUSED
BY THE GOBBLEDYGOOK OF THE MASTER SERPENT, THE COBRA EINSTEIN.
READ CAREFULLY §1 AND §2. MAYBE (BUT I DOUBT IT), YOU'LL REALIZE THE SOPHISM,
THE DECEPTIONS BY WHICH THE CRETIN DID YOU (MANY TIMES, AND YOU LIKED IT).

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM §2. TRANSLATE IT TO FRENCH, IMBECILE.

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

We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed
which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say
that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary
system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore
“synchronous in the stationary system.”

We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for
the synchronization of two clocks.
***************************************

YOU'RE THE EPITOME OF A RETARDED RELATIVIST, CLOSE TO DONO AND JANPB.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Is this setup correct?

BTW he does not think length contraction exists. He is just the messenger.

https://askuswhatever.com/episodes/episode-7-2-einstein-synchronization/

[Python]

Richard Hertz wrote:
...

>> You misunderstood the setup. The rod is moving wrt the observer (i.e.
>> the "stationary frame" but not the clocks. At any time the clocks
>> considered at both ends are "the clocks of the stationary system" i.e.
>> they are at rest in this system. They are not moving with the rod,
>> *different* clocks, all at rest in the "stationary system", are to be
>> considered.
>
> WEAK, GULLIBLE AND RETARDED MINDS LIKE YOURS, PHYTON, ARE EASILY CONFUSED
> BY THE GOBBLEDYGOOK OF THE MASTER SERPENT, THE COBRA EINSTEIN.
> READ CAREFULLY §1 AND §2. MAYBE (BUT I DOUBT IT), YOU'LL REALIZE THE SOPHISM,
> THE DECEPTIONS BY WHICH THE CRETIN DID YOU (MANY TIMES, AND YOU LIKED IT).
>
> THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM §2. TRANSLATE IT TO FRENCH, IMBECILE.

Calm down Richard, or take your pills.

> ***************************************
> We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed
> which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say
> that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary
> system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore
> “synchronous in the stationary system.”
> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
> that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for
> the synchronization of two clocks.
> ***************************************

It is explicitly written there that the clocks considered are at rest
in the stationary system. At any time the clocks at both ends are also
at rest in the stationary system. This implies that they are not the
same clocks at any time and that they are not moving with the rod.

[Python]

This text is highly confused, almost nothing is right there.

This, for instance, is 100% FALSE:

"according to Einstein, light travels at speed c within some frame (in
our example, in the master of the universe’s frame), but is moving at
speed c minus v relative to another frame"

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.

[Python]

You are confused too.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Again you can't give a substantive reply. how is it confused to assert that all velocities are additive?

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:51:59 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:

Einstein was confused. Relativity is confused. It is full of countless logical fallacies. Einstein frequently engaged in illogical statements, including circular reasoning, ad hoc fallacy, and nonsequiturs. Relativists are endlessly practicing ad verrecundium or appeal to authority.

[Richard Hachel]

Le 28/04/2023 à 17:51, Python a écrit :

> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> Correct. Einstein denied additive velocities for light. All velocities are
>> additive. Therefore, Einstein was illogical as all hell.
>
> You are confused too.

It's when you see some posts like this that you understand the incredible
damage you can cause by insulting everyone, and by spoiling the debates.

All my equations, all my concepts are logical and easy to understand.

But instead of advertising it, you've been spitting on it for decades.

That's crazy.

And today what do we notice?

That even on big American forums poor guys don't even know the general
addition law of relativistic speeds, and are very close to saying that if
a train is traveling at v, and send a signal to c in front of it, the
signal will move to w=v+c

But you should cry, Jean-Pierre.


Bon, je remets mon équation pour la 567° fois ici.

Je sens que j'ai pas fini de la reposter encore et encore.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?R7b6omhEcqSYGEqaKkspnH-QZsE@jntp/Data.Media:1>


R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=R7b6omhEcqSYGEqaKkspnH-QZsE@jntp>