On July 5, RichD wrote:
>>> Physical principles, like conservation of momentum or Galileo's
>>> principle of relativity are distillations of the most solidly confirmed
>>> observational facts.
>
>> So, Galileo formulated his principle of relativity, on the "solidly
>> confirmed observational facts" of his experiments on objects
>> moving at .1 c?
>
> Make the same comment about conservation of momentum. Understand?

?
I accept the challenge - Galileo formulated the law of momentum
conservation on rolling balls colliding at .1 c?

And your point is... you have no point.

>>> What is length? It is the spatial distance between the leading and
>>> trailing ends of the object *at the same time*, meaning the same value
>>> of the time coordinate. But we are not referring to arbitrary coordinate
>>> systems, we are referring to systems in terms of which the equations of
>>> Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit. Now, we obviously
>>> get different values of length in terms of mutually skewed temporal
>>> foliations (exercise),
>
>> NOTHING IS OBVIOUS UNTIL EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED.
>
> If your brain can't grasp that by offsetting separate clocks we get *by definition*, a different
> distance between front and back of a moving object at the same time readings of the clocks, then
> your brain just isn’t capable of scientific thought. *Think* about it. This is not an empirical point,
> it is a matter of understanding the very operational meanings of the terms...

You're babbling.

Here's operational:
Given Einstein's grid of observers and clocks. A missile speeds
through the grid.
Al: "I'm @ x=3, it's 6 o'clock, I see the front of the missile."
Bob: "I'm @ x=5, it's 6 o'clock, I see the rear of the missile."

missile length: 2 meters
That isn't so hard, is it?
n.b. This is a THEORY-FREE experiment.

But that's not really the main point. THINK: these questions of
distance don't arise in Newton's model, with absolute universal time.

The complications of skewed temporal planes, and simultaneity, arise
only in Einstein's model - which is exactly the bone of contention!
You can't reference them in a debate regarding its validity.

One can't ASSUME a theory is valid, then use that assumption to
prove its validity! It's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
For the Nth time: a theory is accepted AFTER its observational
predictions have been verified. And, for the Nth time, no one has
measured the length of high speed rods. (except within the fantasy
land of your sophistries)

This has been patiently explained several times, but apparently hasn't
sunk in. If you could formulate specific questions, we might clear up
your confusion.

>>>> The arms of an interferometer are moving, relative to some reference frame
>>>> and coordinate system? Explain, please.
>
>>> Explain that Michelson's interferometer is moving in terms of some system of coordinates?
>
>> Yes, the interferometer is moving... RELATIVE TO THE FRAME OF THE SUN!
>> You call this an empirical test of length contraction.
>
> Again, there's no such thing as a theory-free observation,
> and all observations are carried out and interpreted within the relevant conceptual context,
> which everyone (other than sophomoric nitwits) knows is necessary to avoid solipsism and bridge
> the gap between our raw sense impressions (distinguished from ideas) and observational meaning.

theory-free observation... relevant conceptual context... raw sense
impressions ... observational meaning... what are you, a french philosopher?

Michaelson measured phase shift, on earth. Not length, seen from the sun.

Do the terms 'illusion' and 'hallucination' mean anything to you?

> We are not all 14-year-old boys. Grow up.

https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

>> I urge you to acquaint yourself with the subject you are talking about....
>> preferably before you talk about it.
>
> Displaying infantile echoalia does nothing to help your case.

uh huh
In other words, you gag on your own medicine. Which is human
nature, I haven't yet met anyone who can swallow his medicine.

At least you get credit for an original reply, though less
pungent than you think -

--
Rich

On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 2:54:30 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>>>> Physical principles, like conservation of momentum or Galileo's
>>>> principle of relativity are distillations of the most solidly confirmed
>>>> observational facts.
>>
>>> So, Galileo formulated his principle of relativity, on the "solidly
>>> confirmed observational facts" of his experiments on objects
>>> moving at .1 c?
>>
>> Make the same comment about conservation of momentum. Understand?
>
> I accept the challenge - Galileo formulated the law of momentum
> conservation on rolling balls colliding at .1 c? And your point is... ?

The point is that you’re now denying the conservation of momentum, as well as the principle of relativity, and thereby all of physics, so length contraction is the least of your worries. And your denial of the very foundation of physics has no rational basis, it is nothing but juvenile “Hey, bro, did ya ever think that maybe everything we know is wrong?” “Wow, deep thoughts, man”.

Adults know that you can evade any rational discourse by espousing boundless opportunistic skepticism, but that is trivial, pointless, and intellectually devoid of value. Ask yourself, when you began by denying the empirical basis of length contraction, did you really intend to base your position on denial of the conservation of momentum? If so, then you are sort of “burying the lead” there.

If you would start out saying saying “I deny conservation of momentum, I deny the principle of relativity, and I deny length contraction”, well, that third item is redundant and fairly insignificant to the first two. If you really deny the first two, then all of science goes out the window, so complaining about length contraction is silly.

> > … by offsetting separate clocks we get *by definition*, a different distance
> > between front and back of a moving object at the same time readings of the
> > clocks… *Think* about it. This is not an empirical point, it is a matter of
> > understanding the very operational meanings of the terms...
>
> You're babbling.

Not at all. The above paragraph expresses what you most need to grasp, if you are ever going to make any progress.

> This is a THEORY-FREE experiment.

Nope. Look more closely. There is no such thing as a theory-free experiment. This is well known, not to mention obvious to any sentient being.

> The complications of skewed temporal planes, and simultaneity, arise
> only in Einstein's model - which is exactly the bone of contention!

The point is that the skew of inertial simultaneity is a direct logical consequence of the inertia of energy, which is as firmly established empirically as anything can ever be. This is not a bone of contention… other than among people (like yourself) who don’t understand the logical implication.

> Do the terms 'illusion' and 'hallucination' mean anything to you?

Yes... as do the terms “ignorant nitwit” and “sophomoric dolt”.

> > Displaying infantile echoalia does nothing to help your case.
>
> In other words, you gag on your own medicine.

No, my point is that displaying infantile echoalia does nothing to help your case. It is one of the most tell-tale signs of crackpotism. It is exhibited compulsively by nearly every crackpot in this newsgroup. The crackpot always thinks the situation is symmetrical.

Le 08/07/2022 à 01:59, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> No, my point is that displaying infantile echoalia does nothing to help your
> case. It is one of the most tell-tale signs of crackpotism. It is exhibited
> compulsively by nearly every crackpot in this newsgroup. The crackpot always
> thinks the situation is symmetrical.

The situation is symmetrical.
There is no privileged frame of reference, and therefore always and
everywhere the situation will be symmetrical.
If a body moves away from me at 0.6c, then on its side, it sees me moving
away at 0.6c.

It is in this that a paradox will intervene in the result of the classic
Langevin.

The earthly brother will be 30 years old, the star brother will be 18
years old.

(Vo=0.8c, D=12ly).

And there is a real paradox here.

The paradox bursts even more in the face, if the inutuluse the reciprocal
apparent speeds.

Everything collapses, nothing holds together.

We then put the problem under the carpet (as we are currently doing with
the Ukrainian problem, we are not going to the bottom of things).

We then come to a crazy conclusion when we realize that the cranks don't
understand anything about it, and say that there is no elasticity of time
and distance; but let physicists understand no more, for they say that
there is a contraction of distances and a dilation of time.
Both are wrong.

That's what I haven't stopped telling you for thirty years.

You are all wrong.

And by not listening to why I tell you that you are all wrong, you are
just as stupid and above all arrogant, because the problem is purely
human.

If he weren't purely human, you'd all be saying, "Doctor, sit down and
explain to us your temporo-spatial geometry, and why you say you're the
only one with internal aperfection and external perfection. , and why, we,
scientists like crnaks, we do not have there one nor the other.

But don't dream.

A man remains a man, and a navel remains a navel.

Cranks and scientists will therefore continue to fight like madmen,
although they are both wrong and both right.

R.H.

On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 5:26:09 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> If a body moves away from me at 0.6c, then on its side, it sees me moving
> away at 0.6c.

Talking about “seeing” is ambiguous. A correct statement is: If a body is moving directly away from you at speed 0.6c in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system in which you are at rest, then you are moving directly away from the body at 0.6c in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system in which the body is at rest.
> It is in this that a paradox will intervene in the result of the classic
> Langevin.

First, it isn’t due to Langevin, since Einstein had previously explained different aging of living organisms. The only thing Langevin contributed was calling them twins. Second, there is no paradox to anyone who actually understands the situation.

> The earthly brother will be 30 years old, the star brother will be 18 years old.
> (Vo=0.8c, D=12ly). And there is a real paradox here.

No, for two brothers, each moving at speed v in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest, they each age at the rate dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. There is nothing paradoxical about this. Do you understand?

Le 08/07/2022 à 06:18, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 5:26:09 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> If a body moves away from me at 0.6c, then on its side, it sees me moving
>> away at 0.6c.
>
> Talking about “seeing” is ambiguous. A correct statement is: If a body is
> moving directly away from you at speed 0.6c in terms of the standard inertial
> coordinate system in which you are at rest, then you are moving directly away from
> the body at 0.6c in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system in which the
> body is at rest.
>
>> It is in this that a paradox will intervene in the result of the classic
>> Langevin.
>
> First, it isn’t due to Langevin, since Einstein had previously explained
> different aging of living organisms. The only thing Langevin contributed was
> calling them twins. Second, there is no paradox to anyone who actually
> understands the situation.
>
>> The earthly brother will be 30 years old, the star brother will be 18 years old.
>>
>> (Vo=0.8c, D=12ly). And there is a real paradox here.
>
> No, for two brothers, each moving at speed v in terms of the inertial
> coordinates in which the other is at rest, they each age at the rate dtau/dt =
> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other
> is at rest. There is nothing paradoxical about this. Do you understand?

Scientists say there is no paradox.

It is however paradoxical that two watches which reciprocally beat faster
than the opposite watch can both note the same time, or both find
themselves older than the other.

It's stupid.

So there is a paradox.

To understand this paradox, he has Dr. Hachel read with calm and interest.

Do not shower it with hatred, threats, or insults as has been done for
decades.

This behavior is not scientific.

You have to know how to listen to people.

In the case of the Langevin twins, Richard Hachel posed a standard
problem.

We take two twins, and we put them at birth in two different situations.

One will stay on earth, the other will go off into the stars (for example
around Tau-Ceti D=12ly) at the constant speed of Vo=0.8c (240000 km/s).

The student taking his exam is then asked to calculate the noted time for
the journey for the earthly brother.

The student answers that the time observed in the terrestrial frame will
be: To=2x/Vo

That's 30 years.

He is then asked for the time measured in the reference frame of the
rocket, and as the student has learned the rule of relativistic
chronotropy from Hachel, he deduces that the brother will return aged 18.

So far, so good.

Afterwards, everything goes wrong.

Hachel is going to explain what is happening for the duration of the trip
and for each brother.

Something that no scientist in the world has ever done correctly.

There, everything becomes only hatred and jealousy.

It's sordid.

R.H.

El viernes, 8 de julio de 2022 a las 7:09:30 UTC-4, Richard Hachel escribió:

> Scientists say there is no paradox.
>
> It is however paradoxical that two watches which reciprocally beat faster
> than the opposite watch can both note the same time, or both find
> themselves older than the other.
>
> It's stupid.
>
> So there is a paradox.

Sometimes it is useful to refer to a similar situation to understand what it is a path through spacetime.

a) Take two identical cars A and B (both with *identical tachometers* measuring the distance each car goes by).

b) Both cars are directed to go from Chicago to New York, but using different highways (ie different paths).

c) When cars A and B reunite, their tachometers show DIFFERENT path distances (car A went for 1000 miles, while car B went for 1200 miles).

How all this relates to the "twin paradox"?

a') Well, in the "twin paradox" both twins A and B are provided with *identical clocks* measuring the elapsed time of the trip.

b') One twin B is directed to go to Proxima Centaury and back. Twin A remains at Earth. It is clear that the paths through spacetime of the twins are different. This difference on the paths is given by the interval relation ( ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2). Note that this relation is similar to the Pythagorean theorem, but with a minus sign.

c') When both twins A and B reunite, their clocks show DIFFERENT elapsed times. This is due to twin A having dx=0 as he did not move.

See https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html for more details and graphs

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 4:09:30 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > For two brothers, each moving at speed v in terms of the inertial
> > coordinates in which the other is at rest, they each age at the rate dtau/dt =
> > sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other
> > is at rest. There is nothing paradoxical about this. Do you understand?
>
> Scientists say there is no paradox. It is however paradoxical that two
> watches which reciprocally beat faster than the opposite watch can
> both note the same time, or both find themselves older than the other.
> So there is a paradox.

You've made a mistake of reasoning. In terms of any standard system x,t of inertial coordinates (with units so c=1), the elapsed proper time along any path that moves an incremental distance dx in the incremental time dt is simply sqrt(dt^2 – dx^2), and standard inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t’=(t-vx)g, x’=(x-vt)g, where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). That is all.

This implies that two relatively moving clocks each run slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest, and it also implies that the total elapsed times on two clocks that separate and reunite can be different, depending on the inertial characteristics of their paths. If you think there is something paradoxical or contradictory about this, go ahead and point it out. Do not just say “it is stupid”, point out an actual contradiction. You can’t, because there isn’t one.

On 2022-07-08 11:09:27 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> It is however paradoxical that two watches which reciprocally beat
> faster than the opposite watch can both note the same time, or both
> find themselves older than the other.

Is it paradoxical that two similar rods, touching each other at one
end, each reach in its direction farther than the other?

> It's stupid.

You may say so but nature does not care.

Mikko

Le 08/07/2022 à 15:09, Paparios a écrit :
> Sometimes it is useful to refer to a similar situation to understand what it is
> a path through spacetime.
>
> a) Take two identical cars A and B (both with *identical tachometers* measuring
> the distance each car goes by).
>
> b) Both cars are directed to go from Chicago to New York, but using different
> highways (ie different paths).
>
> c) When cars A and B reunite, their tachometers show DIFFERENT path distances
> (car A went for 1000 miles, while car B went for 1200 miles).
>
> How all this relates to the "twin paradox"?
>
> a') Well, in the "twin paradox" both twins A and B are provided with *identical
> clocks* measuring the elapsed time of the trip.
>
> b') One twin B is directed to go to Proxima Centaury and back. Twin A remains at
> Earth. It is clear that the paths through spacetime of the twins are different.
> This difference on the paths is given by the interval relation ( ds^2 = c^2dt^2 -
> dx^2). Note that this relation is similar to the Pythagorean theorem, but with a
> minus sign.
>
> c') When both twins A and B reunite, their clocks show DIFFERENT elapsed times.
> This is due to twin A having dx=0 as he did not move.

Yeah, really think I don't know all that?

You really think that when I say that we observe the universe live-live, I
do not know that they will answer me no, and that they will tell me that
the speed of light is 2.998.10 ^8m/s, and that we know it, and that we
have measured it?

Sir, sir, I beg you to understand one thing.

I am not a moron even if my posts can sometimes seem in total
contradiction with the things commonly accepted.

I beg you to believe that the things that are explained to me, in general,
I know them as well as you.

And that's not what I'm talking about.

I tell you once again, there is a paradox, a real paradox, that is to say
something true, but difficult to understand.

Cranks are wrong in saying that atheory is wrong because there is a
paradox, but scientists are also wrong in saying that there is a paradox,
but in explaining it badly, even in an absurd way. As scientists explain
the paradox, the apparent velocities are no longer reciprocal, which is
inconsistent and absurd with the very idea of ​​relativistic
covariance.

I'm the only one in the world who doesn't make this mistake.

In my description, the views are symmetrical, and yet in the end, the
twins are not the same age.

The cranks say the twins will be the same age. They are wrong.

Scientists explain the paradox incomprehensibly in apparent speeds (what
we actually see in telescopes).

Both are wrong.

I explained a hundred times how it worked.

I alone is consistent. Totally.

And only I can bring the scientists and the cranks together.

Without me, you won't be able to do anything but insult and denigrate each
other.

And in another hundred years? ? ?

R.H.

Le 08/07/2022 à 15:36, Mikko a écrit :
> Is it paradoxical that two similar rods, touching each other at one
> end, each reach in its direction farther than the other?
>
>> It's stupid.
>
> You may say so but nature does not care.

No, nature does not care.

If you tell me: "There are round squares", I will tell you that it is
stupid.

And that nature does not care.

A theory cannot be contradictory in nature.

You can't say the situation is symmetrical, and when the twins come back,
they're the same age.

Or else you have to do like me.

Explain clearly why it is symmetrical, and why the twins are not the same
age.

I blame the cranks for believing that the twins will be the same age, and
the scientists for very poorly explaining why.

R.H.

Le 08/07/2022 à 15:32, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> Do not just say “it is stupid”, point out an actual contradiction. You
> can’t, because there isn’t one.

I've told you a thousand times.

We can show the contradiction by practicing according to the mode of
apparent velocities.

That is to say quite simply, what we see, physically in telescopes.

I've been saying that for years.

We will then realize two things:
1. taking chronotropy into account is no longer enough. We must also take
into account the effects of universal anisochrony.
2. Taking into account the relativistic elasticity of distances and
lengths. It is necessary to believe that the distances or the lengths
contract systematically. Depending on the direction taken, it is not
necessarily a contraction that will occur. This is why I speak of the
elasticity of times, lengths, and distances. Elasticity can be applied in
both directions: stretching or contracting.

I repeat: for times as well as for distances.

R.H.

On 7/7/2022 4:27 PM, RichD wrote:
> On July 6, Volney wrote:
>>> The Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty
>>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
>>> of the EMITTING body."
>>
>> That's part of the abstract, not the second postulate, but no matter.
>> It's quite obvious it means the receiver/observer (in this case the
>> front of the car) will receive the photon at c, regardless of the motion
>> or lack thereof of the photon's source (radar gun).
>
> Not so obvious, to the novice ...
>
>>> It says NOTHING about what a receiving body will
>>> see or measure.
>>
>> It implies an observer observing the light at c, but that's just what an
>> abstract states.
>> The second postulate makes it clear, the light is always observed moving
>> at c in the single frame introduced at that point, the observer's frame,
>> which he calls the stationary frame.
>
> Yes, it implies that light speed is constant with respect to any
> inertial observer... but only when combined with the first postulate.
> Which is not so obvious; i.e. if various observers measure
> varying speeds, that violates the first postulate.
>
> Einstein was admirably parsimonious in his writing. He didn't spell
> this out, he left it as an exercise (his readership were professional physicists).
>
> Ed Lake's misconception isn't unique, it's shared by generations of physics
> students; ""Einstein only mentions the EMITTING body!"
>
Ed's misinterpretation is actually useless. It's just Newtonian/Galilean
mechanics. For example, consider this statement: "a bullet is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity b which is
independent of the state of motion of the FIRING gun." Meaning a shooter
will always see the fired bullet moving at speed b, regardless of
whether he fired it while on the ground or from a moving train. Nothing
is mentioned about a bullet fired forward from a moving train moves at a
speed b+t. Ed's interpretation is just Newtonian mechanics, and the
Second Postulate isn't even worth bothering with. If Einstein actually
meant what Ed claims, Einstein's paper would be nothing more than a
repetition of Newtonian mechanics.

What makes the ACTUAL second postulate special is that the RECEIVER or
observer will observe the light as moving at c regardless of the motion
of the source. As if all bullets move at b, regardless of whether fired
by a stationary shooter or one on board a train, and in the train case,
whether the shooter aims forward or backward. THAT is different from
expectations.

Le 08/07/2022 à 15:32, Stan Fultoni a écrit :

> You can’t, because there isn’t one.

I can easily.

Let's take things slowly.

The traveler will go around Tau-Ceti (12ly).

This makes a round trip at 240,000 km/s, or 0.8c.
The journey will last 30 years for the earthly brother.

What don't you understand there?

From the earth, the twin will watch his brother, in his super-telescope.

On the outward journey, he will see it move at an apparent speed of
0.4444c, on the return trip, he will see it come back towards him with an
apparent speed of 4c.

What don't you understand in there? ? ?

Do you need an explanation?

You can ask me, and I will answer.

R.H.

Le 08/07/2022 à 15:09, Paparios a écrit :

> See https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html for more details and
> graphs

J'avais déjà répondu à ça il y a très, très longtemps.

J'avais montré ce qui se passait "réellement", si l'on prenait en compte
une anisochronie réelle,
et le fait que l'espace est un mollusque de référence.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?eIrsaXu5zP9Fijgp4xNMepOsV1U@jntp/Data.Media:1>

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?eIrsaXu5zP9Fijgp4xNMepOsV1U@jntp/Data.Media:2>

C'est d'une parfaite beauté théorique.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=eIrsaXu5zP9Fijgp4xNMepOsV1U@jntp>

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas.
Il n'y a pas que de la violence avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre.

On 7/8/2022 10:24 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 08/07/2022 à 15:36, Mikko a écrit :
>> Is it paradoxical that two similar rods, touching each other at one
>> end, each reach in its direction farther than the other?
>>
>>> It's stupid.
>>
>> You may say so but nature does not care.
>
> No, nature does not care.
>
> If you tell me: "There are round squares", I will tell you that it is
> stupid.
>
> And that nature does not care.
>
> A theory cannot be contradictory in nature.
>
> You can't say the situation is symmetrical, and when the twins come
> back, they're the same age.
>
> Or else you have to do like me.
>
> Explain clearly why it is symmetrical, and why the twins are not the
> same age.
>
> I blame the cranks for believing that the twins will be the same age,
> and the scientists for very poorly explaining why.
>
Is it contradictory to say that a car traveling due east on a straight
road (assume they exist) for 40 miles, then due north for 30 miles will
arrive at the destination with an odometer reading of 70 miles, while a
second car traveling in a straight line (and along the hypotenuse of a
triangle) will arrive at the exact same destination with an odometer
reading of 50 miles?

On 7/8/2022 9:09 AM, Paparios wrote:

> Sometimes it is useful to refer to a similar situation to understand what it is a path through spacetime.
>
> a) Take two identical cars A and B (both with *identical tachometers* measuring the distance each car goes by).
>You meant odometers, not tachometers, of course. The rest is correct.

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:44:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 08/07/2022 à 15:32, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> > You can’t, because there isn’t one.
> I can easily.
>
> Let's take things slowly.
>
> The traveler will go around Tau-Ceti (12ly).
>
> This makes a round trip at 240,000 km/s, or 0.8c.
> The journey will last 30 years for the earthly brother.
>
> What don't you understand there?
>
> From the earth, the twin will watch his brother, in his super-telescope.
>
> On the outward journey, he will see it move at an apparent speed of
> 0.4444c, on the return trip, he will see it come back towards him with an
> apparent speed of 4c.
>
> What don't you understand in there? ? ?
>
> Do you need an explanation?
>
> You can ask me, and I will answer.
>
> R.H.

Nope, one big crank: king.

Anyways with space contraction they meet according to their world-lines,
and all the world-lines between them or what is the paths of the path integral.

For example they will observe each other with respect to Doppler, then if they know
the expected "difference in velocity" or "acceleration" will also have accurate
"readings of the clocks", i.e., they are not in "Schroedinger's cat box" the entire time
but rather at each time interval, the cat reads out the time.

Sum-of-histories, and path integral, works out to 1.0 for main travel.

(The surrounds' other way.)

Here that the relativistic mass is as so, is still that the distance reached,
is as of classical velocities.

To go so far away, the object takes more reaction or input to reach nearer
light speed, "acceleration", that it so travels in the time, i.e. this is that the
_distance_ at any point from the origin, is according to classical velocities.

What it is going against with light speed is the frame its surrounds. I.e.,
the observer is either a "point" or the "surrounds", where the point watches
the travel and the surrounds follows the travel.

So it seems in explaining space contraction, according to the linear velocity
and inputs, and mass-energy equivalence, about acceleration, and a stopwatch
and the surrounds, about the extra path in the path integral, that would be
any "difference" in the path traveled of the twins with respect to each other.

I.e., this is still computing, a, ..., "time difference", but much smaller for return
paths in the escape and return, while adding up over time in rotations, the angular.

I.e. this is having simple different "orbital", angular, and "linear", linear,
paths and return paths, to compute the time differences, that it only works
out that according to the the immediate surrounds of the both and "returning
to the frame", is before any input, simply leaving or approaching, or parallel
then in matching, angular.

That "the linear paths are little angular paths" and vice versa, these are
of course all path-connected. The path integral always has a linear path
component and angular path component, for what according to the moment
in potential is fall, for gradient and descent.

Here for example is that the Earth slipping through its reference frame and
surrounds from where its from to where it's going, the entire orbit is its surrounds,
while at the same time, it is only its face to the Sun.

The Earth-Sun-Moon system is itself almost completely remarkable. When I learned
that lunar calendrics were tidal, then for example observing frames joining as the
other way in the orbit on the Moon, when the Moon was all dusted over some years
ago that was very interesting, as well the eclipses for example the Earth eclipsing
the Moon, is that Earth's lop-sided large Moon is pretty close, for both the
LaGrange points with least to keep up and also the centroids, that the "center-of-mass"
of a frame is of its containing frames. (The center of the frame.)

While the signal leaving slows according to Doppler, keep in mind that it
comes rushing back, that it results that when the twins re-unite is one of
two cases: they come to rest together or they pass. Where they meet or
the closest distance they pass, their clocks (and times) are the same.

I.e. the traveling twin can return with an image as of the classical distance
away, according to that being the same time.

But, their world-lines either meet or pass, given the velocity for example
at Doppler - the world-lines meet or pass.

On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 9:21:50 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 8:33:29 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:31:53 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 10:50:47 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:08:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 2:21:28 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 7/5/2022 4:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A photon is a moving electromagnetic charge. When you have lots of
> > > > > > > > > > photons, you have a greater electromagnetic charge.
> > > > > > > > > Idjit. Photons have NO charge! You didn't even understand what you
> > > > > > > > > copied-and-pasted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Photons are virtual moments in magnetic fields which have energy.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These are electronic photons, though.
> > > > > > > As opposed to quarkonic photons?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, quarks are part of hadrons, these are leptops.
> > > > > Some of your detectors need retuning,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > > When I bother to think about leptons,
> > > > after hadrons, is that I am not abusing the language.
> > > >
> > > > If I could understand, say, a laboratory,
> > > > and, electricity arrives in the form of a contact,
> > > > then this "solid insulating ilght" and
> > > > "vacuum insulating current" is power semiconductors.
> > > >
> > > > Then under the current detector, if you mention it,
> > > > it is re-tuning the detector or antenna, no I really
> > > > made the point of having the photon as both a hadron,
> > > > and a lepton, and ....
> > > >
> > > > Then I expect in these terms that the photonic, cicrcuits,
> > > > and electronic, circuits, in what results "build a board
> > > > and apply contact", is that matter-of-fact I do expect that
> > > > in those terms.
> > > >
> > > > "Photonic leptons", or "'lectrons", now why I have
> > > > these are only "photo-leptons".
> > > >
> > > > So, to be sure, if I just automatiically ascribe all photon's
> > > > properties in leptons, it should be about same.
> > > >
> > > > But, I won't, because without explaining that, again,
> > > > now that I just discovered it according to grammar,
> > > > then I would have to constantly retract why I said
> > > > "photons should be called leptons instead of hadrons".
> > > >
> > > > Or that the radiant or infra-red is baryonic,
> > > > but radio is leptonic or electro-weak,
> > > > it's at least electro.
> > > >
> > > > "Or baryons."
> > > >
> > > > Here photon is "anything at about the wavefront with c,
> > > > for example a significant percentage of c in a constant image,
> > > > massless, chargeless, particles".
> > > >
> > > > That's though plasma, usual background ether, background plasma ether.
> > > >
> > > > Now I am staring at it all wrong.
> > > >
> > > > No, I meant leptons.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what I thought I typed, ..., sure it was 'leptons".
> > > >
> > > > Alright then "photons are defined hadrons".
> > > >
> > > > The systolic at c or pump, here notice this is optical, thermo, radio front,
> > > > that is a point in area terms and a contact. Hadronic and leptonic.
> > > >
> > > > "Photons"
> > > >
> > > > So, yeah, no, I meant leptons.
> > > "The known force carrier bosons all have spin = 1 and are therefore vector bosons.
> > > The hypothetical graviton has spin = 2 and is a tensor boson;
> > > it is unknown whether it is a gauge boson as well."
> > > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#Overview
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, these are spinless, too, massless, chargeless, spinless, photons.
> > >
> > > "Photo-leptons: spinless photons"
> > >
> > > "The other three leptons are neutrinos, ...".
> > >
> > > Now I am getting into it.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Quark hadronics"
> > >
> > > What the theory leaves out according to units is particles, in a
> > > usual enough sense, that the values, in the particles, are
> > > dynamical, in the particles.
> > >
> > > Or "according to the dimensional analysis these are still both
> > > photons, in area or current terms, and leptons, neutrinos, ...".
> > >
> > > When dynamical, ....
> > >
> > > Reading the Wiki, that's just that for the current terms, sure
> > > "the photon's erased inside the diagram, so it can be called
> > > a photon according to the diagram that dynamics gives it,
> > > it's current in electron-volts", is for because "photons are
> > > massless, these leptons couldn't be massy or electrons, at all".
> > >
> > > I.e. they are definitely what you'd expect, when "photons"
> > > are what are under the dynamics, the point here is that
> > > "the photon is a very inclusive particle". As are neutrinos,
> > > in a Dirac positronic sea.
> > >
> > > "These leptons couldn't be massy or charged, at all".
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, as "particle" that constitutes, energy, the photon,
> > > that travels only and exactly at the bradyonic/tachyonic
> > > speed, results that traveling image besides hologram
> > > includes a radiant component.
> > >
> > > I suppose then that's rays.
> > >
> > > Rays, here is this "radiant component" included, which are
> > > waves, result particles in current in effect.
> > >
> > > Here this is basically that "photons like electrons are used to
> > > define current in effect, which in space terms is space current",
> > > also, "photons are frequency/wavelength numbers of a result
> > > that according to electron gap, is the ratio of a quantum energy
> > > level, that sums to a finite number".
> > >
> > > The photons in the various are as various, when it's as "according
> > > to the theory these particles could only be photons not the
> > > plasma or rays or power, that was called particles again that
> > > massless and c could only be photons".
> > >
> > > Here I'm making the point whether area and current terms,
> > > and particle terms, making sure they are defined, because
> > > elementary theory really only has very few particles.
> > >
> > > "Photons"
> > Ha, "photo-hadrons", "photo-leptons", "spinless, empty photons", just like
> > the SI redefinition of units went I called all these what would be anti or
> > partner or virtual particles, "photons".
> >
> > So, that's in STR, in a way.
> >
> > Then, the photon is the massless, chargless, spinless, ..., particle
> > that moves at the speed of light, in electron-volts, and either in
> > current, or, instead, under quantum mechanics, either electromagnetic
> > and radio, or radiant and blazing, or optical and laser.
> >
> > "Photons"
> >
> > Then about quantum numbers in their field occupation, here is that some
> > of what are "could only be photons, must at least be virtual photons", have
> > diagrams besides arithmetic in the quantum numbers, why there are the
> > "dash less particles" that according to diagrams, are leptons, hadrons, and
> > so on, in "few elementary particles".
> >
> > Ha, "photons".
> >
> > The few elementary particles though more dimensionless proportionality,
> > results still in all the terms in their dimensions, why quantization or "seesaw"
> > under supersymmetry result in those dimensional terms, what are beyond
> > experiment, in terms what according to the theory are "photons".
> >
> > Which like white holes and for gravitons in the virtual always exist everywhere,
> > in a Dirac positronic sea.
> > At least then all of GR, SR, QM, also now brane theory, can be put together,
> > in what results few units, and linearly of course exactly one.
> >
> > Well, alright then, now I added three particles photohadrons, photoleptons,
> > lessphotons, they are simply virtual "particles" not much even needing a
> > theory, just following out definition in "quantum mechanics" and "the standard
> > model".
> >
> > In STR, "STR's photons", next to "STR's electrons".
> >
> > That in these other theories are "not STR's photons".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics#Processes
>
> Mostly it seems "potentials is in Yukawa".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen%E2%80%93Olesen_vortex
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_equation#Weyl_spinors
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-current#Physical_interpretation
>
> Basically "insulator physics" for current, is variously where
> again it's following not just super-symmetry, but isotropy,
> what is in terms of kinetics a Dirac positronic sea.
>
> (If rather "the old Quantum Mechanics".)
>
> Then, some "invariance bars" for "symmetry flex", this "seesaw" type
> approach, it's courtesy geometry what it results "gross error" or "gross
> precision", up over a bar of invariance, with the quasi-invariance,
> up after usual "quantization, linearisation and small-angle-approximation,
> seesaw, ..., renormalizability concerns".
>
>
> I try to keep this simple with "unified field theory: fall gravity unites,
> charge mediates, atom is real graviton", here that there are at least
> three photonic interfaces (some say "fields") and for each of those
> the stimulated interfaces, of charged and pumped particles, what
> make for parallel and bulk, transport. (Here that parallel transport
> is molecular as it were while bulk transport is current.)
>
> Ah, then excuse me there, it's important I be read as correct.

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 8:50:16 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:44:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 08/07/2022 à 15:32, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> > > You can’t, because there isn’t one.
> > I can easily.
> >
> > Let's take things slowly.
> >
> > The traveler will go around Tau-Ceti (12ly).
> >
> > This makes a round trip at 240,000 km/s, or 0.8c.
> > The journey will last 30 years for the earthly brother.
> >
> > What don't you understand there?
> >
> > From the earth, the twin will watch his brother, in his super-telescope..
> >
> > On the outward journey, he will see it move at an apparent speed of
> > 0.4444c, on the return trip, he will see it come back towards him with an
> > apparent speed of 4c.
> >
> > What don't you understand in there? ? ?
> >
> > Do you need an explanation?
> >
> > You can ask me, and I will answer.
> >
> > R.H.
> Nope, one big crank: king.
>
> Anyways with space contraction they meet according to their world-lines,
> and all the world-lines between them or what is the paths of the path integral.
>
> For example they will observe each other with respect to Doppler, then if they know
> the expected "difference in velocity" or "acceleration" will also have accurate
> "readings of the clocks", i.e., they are not in "Schroedinger's cat box" the entire time
> but rather at each time interval, the cat reads out the time.
>
> Sum-of-histories, and path integral, works out to 1.0 for main travel.
>
> (The surrounds' other way.)
>
>
>
> Here that the relativistic mass is as so, is still that the distance reached,
> is as of classical velocities.
>
> To go so far away, the object takes more reaction or input to reach nearer
> light speed, "acceleration", that it so travels in the time, i.e. this is that the
> _distance_ at any point from the origin, is according to classical velocities.
>
> What it is going against with light speed is the frame its surrounds. I.e..,
> the observer is either a "point" or the "surrounds", where the point watches
> the travel and the surrounds follows the travel.
>
> So it seems in explaining space contraction, according to the linear velocity
> and inputs, and mass-energy equivalence, about acceleration, and a stopwatch
> and the surrounds, about the extra path in the path integral, that would be
> any "difference" in the path traveled of the twins with respect to each other.
>
> I.e., this is still computing, a, ..., "time difference", but much smaller for return
> paths in the escape and return, while adding up over time in rotations, the angular.
>
> I.e. this is having simple different "orbital", angular, and "linear", linear,
> paths and return paths, to compute the time differences, that it only works
> out that according to the the immediate surrounds of the both and "returning
> to the frame", is before any input, simply leaving or approaching, or parallel
> then in matching, angular.
>
> That "the linear paths are little angular paths" and vice versa, these are
> of course all path-connected. The path integral always has a linear path
> component and angular path component, for what according to the moment
> in potential is fall, for gradient and descent.
>
> Here for example is that the Earth slipping through its reference frame and
> surrounds from where its from to where it's going, the entire orbit is its surrounds,
> while at the same time, it is only its face to the Sun.
>
>
> The Earth-Sun-Moon system is itself almost completely remarkable. When I learned
> that lunar calendrics were tidal, then for example observing frames joining as the
> other way in the orbit on the Moon, when the Moon was all dusted over some years
> ago that was very interesting, as well the eclipses for example the Earth eclipsing
> the Moon, is that Earth's lop-sided large Moon is pretty close, for both the
> LaGrange points with least to keep up and also the centroids, that the "center-of-mass"
> of a frame is of its containing frames. (The center of the frame.)
>
> While the signal leaving slows according to Doppler, keep in mind that it
> comes rushing back, that it results that when the twins re-unite is one of
> two cases: they come to rest together or they pass. Where they meet or
> the closest distance they pass, their clocks (and times) are the same.
>
> I.e. the traveling twin can return with an image as of the classical distance
> away, according to that being the same time.
>
> But, their world-lines either meet or pass, given the velocity for example
> at Doppler - the world-lines meet or pass.

There are both the twins that part and twins never met:
what when they meet, there's also that each is its own twin,
twins start at the same time.

This, "clocks only slow", ..., is that they still meet in whatever
is the least time they meet. I.e. when clocks meet and one is
slow, then they both proceed at the same time, for example
whether the one is stopped, unobservable, the other same,
observable.

The passer sees the past and the frozen moment in time forever,
the meeter sees the past and arrives at the same time.

About conservation of momentum it's key that internal
moments and momentum make for besides the contrived,
mechanics, also what is the open system, why "it's still
conservation of momentum, but this kinetic is both the
impulse and the background, it's still conservation and
invariance but by the extended terms the open systems".

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/search?q=conservation%20author%3AFinlayson

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 9:08:24 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 8:50:16 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:44:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > Le 08/07/2022 à 15:32, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> > > > You can’t, because there isn’t one.
> > > I can easily.
> > >
> > > Let's take things slowly.
> > >
> > > The traveler will go around Tau-Ceti (12ly).
> > >
> > > This makes a round trip at 240,000 km/s, or 0.8c.
> > > The journey will last 30 years for the earthly brother.
> > >
> > > What don't you understand there?
> > >
> > > From the earth, the twin will watch his brother, in his super-telescope.
> > >
> > > On the outward journey, he will see it move at an apparent speed of
> > > 0.4444c, on the return trip, he will see it come back towards him with an
> > > apparent speed of 4c.
> > >
> > > What don't you understand in there? ? ?
> > >
> > > Do you need an explanation?
> > >
> > > You can ask me, and I will answer.
> > >
> > > R.H.
> > Nope, one big crank: king.
> >
> > Anyways with space contraction they meet according to their world-lines,
> > and all the world-lines between them or what is the paths of the path integral.
> >
> > For example they will observe each other with respect to Doppler, then if they know
> > the expected "difference in velocity" or "acceleration" will also have accurate
> > "readings of the clocks", i.e., they are not in "Schroedinger's cat box" the entire time
> > but rather at each time interval, the cat reads out the time.
> >
> > Sum-of-histories, and path integral, works out to 1.0 for main travel.
> >
> > (The surrounds' other way.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Here that the relativistic mass is as so, is still that the distance reached,
> > is as of classical velocities.
> >
> > To go so far away, the object takes more reaction or input to reach nearer
> > light speed, "acceleration", that it so travels in the time, i.e. this is that the
> > _distance_ at any point from the origin, is according to classical velocities.
> >
> > What it is going against with light speed is the frame its surrounds. I..e.,
> > the observer is either a "point" or the "surrounds", where the point watches
> > the travel and the surrounds follows the travel.
> >
> > So it seems in explaining space contraction, according to the linear velocity
> > and inputs, and mass-energy equivalence, about acceleration, and a stopwatch
> > and the surrounds, about the extra path in the path integral, that would be
> > any "difference" in the path traveled of the twins with respect to each other.
> >
> > I.e., this is still computing, a, ..., "time difference", but much smaller for return
> > paths in the escape and return, while adding up over time in rotations, the angular.
> >
> > I.e. this is having simple different "orbital", angular, and "linear", linear,
> > paths and return paths, to compute the time differences, that it only works
> > out that according to the the immediate surrounds of the both and "returning
> > to the frame", is before any input, simply leaving or approaching, or parallel
> > then in matching, angular.
> >
> > That "the linear paths are little angular paths" and vice versa, these are
> > of course all path-connected. The path integral always has a linear path
> > component and angular path component, for what according to the moment
> > in potential is fall, for gradient and descent.
> >
> > Here for example is that the Earth slipping through its reference frame and
> > surrounds from where its from to where it's going, the entire orbit is its surrounds,
> > while at the same time, it is only its face to the Sun.
> >
> >
> > The Earth-Sun-Moon system is itself almost completely remarkable. When I learned
> > that lunar calendrics were tidal, then for example observing frames joining as the
> > other way in the orbit on the Moon, when the Moon was all dusted over some years
> > ago that was very interesting, as well the eclipses for example the Earth eclipsing
> > the Moon, is that Earth's lop-sided large Moon is pretty close, for both the
> > LaGrange points with least to keep up and also the centroids, that the "center-of-mass"
> > of a frame is of its containing frames. (The center of the frame.)
> >
> > While the signal leaving slows according to Doppler, keep in mind that it
> > comes rushing back, that it results that when the twins re-unite is one of
> > two cases: they come to rest together or they pass. Where they meet or
> > the closest distance they pass, their clocks (and times) are the same.
> >
> > I.e. the traveling twin can return with an image as of the classical distance
> > away, according to that being the same time.
> >
> > But, their world-lines either meet or pass, given the velocity for example
> > at Doppler - the world-lines meet or pass.
> There are both the twins that part and twins never met:
> what when they meet, there's also that each is its own twin,
> twins start at the same time.
>
> This, "clocks only slow", ..., is that they still meet in whatever
> is the least time they meet. I.e. when clocks meet and one is
> slow, then they both proceed at the same time, for example
> whether the one is stopped, unobservable, the other same,
> observable.
>
> The passer sees the past and the frozen moment in time forever,
> the meeter sees the past and arrives at the same time.
>
> About conservation of momentum it's key that internal
> moments and momentum make for besides the contrived,
> mechanics, also what is the open system, why "it's still
> conservation of momentum, but this kinetic is both the
> impulse and the background, it's still conservation and
> invariance but by the extended terms the open systems".
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/search?q=conservation%20author%3AFinlayson

Consider for example Ed's thread "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light".

"Then, does this really have anything to do with "Variable Time
and Variable Speed of Light"? No, it doesn't. Light's speed is
an invariant and a clock hypothesis is usual. "

Le 08/07/2022 à 17:12, Volney a écrit :
> Is it contradictory to say that a car traveling due east on a straight
> road (assume they exist) for 40 miles, then due north for 30 miles will
> arrive at the destination with an odometer reading of 70 miles, while a
> second car traveling in a straight line (and along the hypotenuse of a
> triangle) will arrive at the exact same destination with an odometer
> reading of 50 miles?

No, it's not contradictory, of course.

But that's not what I want to talk about.

What I mean is that there are on earth today, three currents of thought.

The first current is that of opponents to the theory of relativity, and
who may have reasons that I understand. These people, I respect them, they
are not child murderers, they are not thugs. They think (like me) that
something is wrong, and they throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The second are the scientists. They have a major problem, their
"certainties" make them arrogant.
The third current of thought is mine, it consists in trying to understand
what I am saying and to see if what I am describing are really natural
things. It goes without saying that I feel quite alone. I believe in the
theory of relativity, of course, but I affirm that on certain concepts, it
is not clear, even false.

For example, if I ask a Newtonian, how far is the earth just after the
U-turn, he will tell me "12ly".

If I ask a relativist, he'll tell me, in a very arrogant way, that I'm
stupid, that I'm fat, and that everyone knows she's at 7.2ly.

Both are wrong and spit on me.

And this is how one shoots down one of the finest theories to come out of
a human mind.

While being very happy with himself.

The answer, of course, is going to drive anyone who reads it crazy, making
them even more arrogant and crazier. The earth is then at 36 ly. Distance
it will cover during 9 years of the traveller's own time.

At apparent speed of 4c.

I don't even understand how this can cause problems for people who have
nevertheless completed higher scientific studies.

R.H.

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:44:19 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> The traveler will go around Tau-Ceti (12ly).
> This makes a round trip at 240,000 km/s, or 0.8c.
> The journey will last 30 years for the earthly brother.

That is consistent with what I said. You claimed to be able to find a contradiction in what I said, but then you just repeat what I said. You have not pointed out a contradiction.

> From the earth, the twin will watch his brother, in his super-telescope.
> On the outward journey, he will see it move at an apparent speed of
> 0.4444c, on the return trip, he will see it come back towards him with an
> apparent speed of 4c.

No, you already stipulated that the rocketing twin (outbound and inbound) is moving at speed 0.8c in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the earth twin is at rest. This can be confirmed by a radar speed gun, which shows that the rocketing twin is moving at 0.8c.

You see, you did not find any contradiction. In order to find a contradiction in what I said, you must address what I said: In terms of any standard system x,t of inertial coordinates (with units so c=1), the elapsed proper time along any path that moves an incremental distance dx in the incremental time dt is simply sqrt(dt^2 – dx^2), and standard inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t’=(t-vx)g, x’=(x-vt)g, where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). That is all.

This implies that two relatively moving clocks each run slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest, and also that the total elapsed times on two clocks that separate and reunite can be different, depending on the inertial characteristics of their paths. If you think there is something paradoxical or contradictory about this, go ahead and point it out. Do not just say “it is stupid”, point out an actual contradiction. You can’t, because there isn’t one.

On July 8, RichD wrote:
>>>> The Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty
>>>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
>>>> of the EMITTING body."
>
>>> It's quite obvious it means the receiver/observer (in this case the
>>> front of the car) will receive the photon at c, regardless of the motion
>>> or lack thereof of the photon's source (radar gun).
>
>> Yes, it implies that light speed is constant with respect to any
>> inertial observer... but only when combined with the first postulate.
>> Which is not so obvious; i.e. if various observers measure
>> varying speeds, that violates the first postulate.
>
> Ed's misinterpretation is actually useless. It's just Newtonian/Galilean
> mechanics. For example, consider this statement: "a bullet is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity b which is
> independent of the state of motion of the FIRING gun."

Instead of bullets, let's consider only waves and optics, which
clarifies the issue.

> What makes the ACTUAL second postulate special is that the RECEIVER or
> observer will observe the light as moving at c regardless of the motion
> of the source.

You have to consider the postulates in tandem. It's a
mistake to consider the second in isolation.

Let's isolate the second postulate: "... state of motion of the
emitter" becomes ambiguous. State of motion... relative to
what? Relative to the receiver, isn't tautological. It could mean,
relative to the ether (waves, you know).

Without the first postulate, an ether might be the correct model.
In which case, emitter's velocity is defined RELATIVE TO THE
ETHER. And observers in various states of motion (relative to
the ether), would see different laws of optics. Which is
permissible... sans the first postulate.

Then light waves would be analogous to water waves in a
lake. Which is Ed's concept -

So you need to consider them as an inseparable pair.

--
Rich

On 2022-07-08 21:56:42 +0000, RichD said:

> Instead of bullets, let's consider only waves and optics, which
> clarifies the issue.

Ed Lake already said that there are no waves in optics. What more
clarification you want?

Mikko

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 4:56:44 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On July 8, RichD wrote:
> >>>> The Second Postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty
> >>>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
> >>>> of the EMITTING body."
> >
> >>> It's quite obvious it means the receiver/observer (in this case the
> >>> front of the car) will receive the photon at c, regardless of the motion
> >>> or lack thereof of the photon's source (radar gun).

WRONG! It says the EMITTER always EMITS light at c. Einstein's Second
Postulate says absolutely NOTHING about what a RECEIVER/OBSERVER will see.

> >
> >> Yes, it implies that light speed is constant with respect to any
> >> inertial observer... but only when combined with the first postulate.
> >> Which is not so obvious; i.e. if various observers measure
> >> varying speeds, that violates the first postulate.

Only if you do not understand TIME DILATION. The First and Second
postulate only APPEAR "irreconcilable." When you understand Time
Dilation you will see that they are reconcilable. The purpose of Einstein's
paper is to explain time dilation. Here's how Einstein explained it in plain
words:

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at
one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

A CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR TICKS SLOWER THAN A CLOCK AT ONE OF
THE POLES BECAUSE THE CLOCK AT THE EQUATOR IS MOVING FASTER.
IT'S CALLED "VELOCITY TIME DILATION."

> >
> > Ed's misinterpretation is actually useless. It's just Newtonian/Galilean
> > mechanics. For example, consider this statement: "a bullet is always
> > propagated in empty space with a definite velocity b which is
> > independent of the state of motion of the FIRING gun."

That is nonsense, of course. The faster a gun moves, the faster a bullet
fired from the gun will move.
> Instead of bullets, let's consider only waves and optics, which
> clarifies the issue.
> > What makes the ACTUAL second postulate special is that the RECEIVER or
> > observer will observe the light as moving at c regardless of the motion
> > of the source.

Nonsense. A RECEIVER or observer will observe light as moving at c+v if
the receiver is moving toward the emitter at speed v, and at c-v if the receiver
is moving away from the emitter at speed v. Many experiments demonstrate this.
Here's a list of such experiments: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

> You have to consider the postulates in tandem. It's a
> mistake to consider the second in isolation.

If you want to understand how light works, you CAN look at the Second Postulate
in isolation. If you want to understand how TIME works, you need to look at
BOTH postulates together.

>
> Let's isolate the second postulate: "... state of motion of the
> emitter" becomes ambiguous. State of motion... relative to
> what? Relative to the receiver, isn't tautological. It could mean,
> relative to the ether (waves, you know).

All light is emitted from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE. It's equivalent
to having an ether, but the ether isn't needed. When a star (or any object)
emits light, it emits it from a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE. The light travels
in a straight line from that point, while the emitter can travel in any direction.
When we look at a star, we see it located at the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE
where it was when it emitted the light. And we KNOW the star may actually
now be trillions of miles away from that spot.

>
> Without the first postulate, an ether might be the correct model.
> In which case, emitter's velocity is defined RELATIVE TO THE
> ETHER. And observers in various states of motion (relative to
> the ether), would see different laws of optics. Which is
> permissible... sans the first postulate.

The ether can be viewed as "stationary points in space."

>
> Then light waves would be analogous to water waves in a
> lake. Which is Ed's concept -

No, it is NOT. I've stated HUNDREDS of times that light consists of
PHOTONS which have oscillating electric and magnetic fields which
give the photon "wave-like" properties. Those oscillations are
NOTHING like waves in a lake. A MOVING OBJECT with an electric field
which oscillates 35 billion times per second can be viewed as waves
arriving 35 billion times per second if you do not understand what is
actually happening.

Ed