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 Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

412 views

Skip to first unread message

Apr 16, 2023, 7:48:53 PM4/16/23

to

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?

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?

Apr 16, 2023, 7:56:23 PM4/16/23

to

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

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

You convinced everybody

<Or am I a cretin?

Both

Apr 16, 2023, 8:56:11 PM4/16/23

to

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

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.

Apr 16, 2023, 9:54:48 PM4/16/23

to

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.

Apr 16, 2023, 9:58:13 PM4/16/23

to

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.

Apr 16, 2023, 10:07:22 PM4/16/23

to

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!

Apr 16, 2023, 11:30:36 PM4/16/23

to

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.
>

> 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.

by tB - tA = t'A - tB.

> 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?

--

Jan

Apr 17, 2023, 3:35:21 AM4/17/23

to

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.

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.

Apr 17, 2023, 9:03:59 AM4/17/23

to

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.

Apr 17, 2023, 10:19:01 AM4/17/23

to

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

> I just want to prove that I am a cretin

You did that, many times over

Apr 17, 2023, 10:45:02 AM4/17/23

to

These are technical details, it could be argued. Are they real? I could not find any reference.

Apr 17, 2023, 11:18:14 AM4/17/23

to

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.

Apr 17, 2023, 11:26:43 AM4/17/23

to

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:18:14 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

>you tried this cretinism before<

>you tried this cretinism before<

Apr 17, 2023, 12:35:48 PM4/17/23

to

--

Jan

Apr 17, 2023, 6:18:01 PM4/17/23

to

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

Apr 17, 2023, 8:00:16 PM4/17/23

to

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
> 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.

>

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.

Apr 17, 2023, 9:52:25 PM4/17/23

to

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.

<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.

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.

Apr 17, 2023, 9:55:32 PM4/17/23

to

Apr 17, 2023, 11:19:42 PM4/17/23

to

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
> 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.

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

Apr 17, 2023, 11:21:00 PM4/17/23

to

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
>

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

cannot write "Einstein", you have to write "imbecile". Do you really think

you are getting anything done here?

--

Jan

Apr 17, 2023, 11:38:55 PM4/17/23

to

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

Apr 18, 2023, 1:41:15 AM4/18/23

to

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.
> 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.

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

told you this but you don't feel quite normal.

--

Jan

Apr 18, 2023, 2:41:40 AM4/18/23

to

of discussions become stupid as shown above.

Apr 18, 2023, 4:16:45 AM4/18/23

to

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
> 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.

"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?

Apr 18, 2023, 4:54:26 AM4/18/23

to

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,
> I'll make a new effort to prove how stupid is the entire 1905

> Einstein's manifesto.

Mikko

Apr 18, 2023, 5:33:58 AM4/18/23

to

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.

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.

Apr 18, 2023, 6:32:57 AM4/18/23

to

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 !
> On 17-Apr-23 9:48 am, Richard Hertz wrote:

>> tB - tA = t'A - tB

>>

>> is absolutely FALSE,

>> 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.

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.

Apr 18, 2023, 8:55:42 AM4/18/23

to

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.

Apr 18, 2023, 11:21:50 AM4/18/23

to

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.
> 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.

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

Apr 18, 2023, 11:41:02 AM4/18/23

to

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).

Apr 18, 2023, 12:18:33 PM4/18/23

to

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,
> 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.

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%.)

Apr 18, 2023, 1:41:29 PM4/18/23

to

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?

Apr 18, 2023, 1:42:39 PM4/18/23

to

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.
> 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.

> 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.

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.

--

Jan

Apr 18, 2023, 4:02:34 PM4/18/23

to

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".
> 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.

Apr 18, 2023, 7:48:37 PM4/18/23

to

misses the point.

Sylvia.

Apr 20, 2023, 3:05:11 AM4/20/23

to

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,

> 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
> study specific STEM fields.

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.

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.

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.

Mikko

Apr 20, 2023, 7:18:22 AM4/20/23

to

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

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

>

> 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.

>

> 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
> 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.

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

Apr 20, 2023, 7:36:38 AM4/20/23

to

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
> 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.

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.

ingenious mathematical description of a hypothetical universe in which

light always moves at c. Very impressive ScFi...!

Apr 20, 2023, 8:54:19 AM4/20/23

to

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.

> >

...
> 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!
> ingenious mathematical description of a hypothetical universe in which

> light always moves at c. Very impressive ScFi...!

> --

> -- lover of truth

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

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

Apr 20, 2023, 9:03:08 AM4/20/23

to

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.

<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.

Apr 20, 2023, 9:14:43 AM4/20/23

to

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
> 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!

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!!!"

Apr 20, 2023, 9:41:53 AM4/20/23

to

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
> Time dilation does not occur.

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

Apr 20, 2023, 9:44:53 AM4/20/23

to

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.
> Oh but time dilation has been proved by thought experiment!

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

Apr 20, 2023, 9:47:36 AM4/20/23

to

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.
> 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.

>

> 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?
> 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 where the cosmic muons come from?

>

> But Tom knows better, isn't it?

Than you? That's plainly obvious!
> But Tom knows better, isn't it?

Apr 20, 2023, 10:03:33 AM4/20/23

to

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
> Without "time

> dilation" they would experience essentially 100% loss.

assertion of a brainwashed halfbrain?

Apr 20, 2023, 2:21:18 PM4/20/23

to

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
> 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%.

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?

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

Apr 20, 2023, 3:07:00 PM4/20/23

to

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

Apr 20, 2023, 10:43:35 PM4/20/23

to

to describe the theory completely and coherently.

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

Apr 21, 2023, 9:12:43 AM4/21/23

to

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
> 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.)

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.

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