On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 2:47:58 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Really, Tom? For an OLD physicist with a PhD, you show a very disrespectful attitude toward GREAT figures
> of physics and mathematics that BROUGHT LIGHT to the darkness of human knowledge and allowed, in the
> last 250 years TO CREATE the modern world and made possible that hundred of developers invented ALL of
> the marvels that you enjoy daily TODAY. Relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING TO THE 2022 WORLD.
>
> You write as a resented relativist, that can't find ANY VALUE in what you worked all of your professional life. Shame on you.
> > On 12/8/22 8:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> >
> > Nope. Newtonian mechanics does not explain the kinematics observed in
> > particle accelerators, or fine details observed in certain astronomical observations.
> Newtonian mechanics, developed during 200 years (until 1900) don't care and don't give a shit
> for little charged particles that move at 36,000 Km/hr or higher, in a machine POWERED by energy
> derived from DISCOVERIES in electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism from 1830 to 1930
> (include thermionic amplifiers and nascent electronics, please).

So you are finally admitting that experimental results mean nothing to you.

> Again, relativity contributed TO NOTHING OF VALUE TO THE REAL WORLD,

Of course it did, it models correctly the behaviour of elementary particles AND it
also explains the electric bills amounts for those accelerators.

If you think you know something that the big business and bank consortia that sponsor
those accelerators do not know, then by all means let them know. They'll be very happy to
do something to lower the electric bills.

> and enjoyed more than 100 years to do something.

No, it's just that you happen to understand (somewhat) this part of physics but you
cannot understand the later developments (forced on us by experimental results which
cannot be ignored, obviously, in the real world). So you feel like the new developments have
severed your contact with science and you resent that.

But you chose the wrong method to deal with this: instead of rolling up your sleeves and
doing the honest learning work, you simply decided to double down and defend plain nonsense
come hell or high water. IOW, you decided to retreat to a little private fantasyland.

This approach leads nowhere. It's a dead end for you.

> > > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> >
> > Nope. Maxwell's equations (really classical electrodynamics) do not
> > explain lasers and myriad quantum phenomena.
> Maxwell, single-handedly, brought together electricity and magnetism creating the wireline and wireless electromagnetic world.

Yes, but his equations cannot predict why the black body radiates the way it does:
Maxwell's equations predict, instead, that every object in the universe spontaneously
radiates infinite amounts of energy. They also predict that in some cases particles
start to spontaneously arbitrarily accelerate. The former is known as "the ultraviolet
catastrophe", the latter as "the runaway solutions".

The biggest problem with Maxwell's equations was that they are not observer-independent,
unlike Newtonian mechanics. This was huge because at the time all mechanical
interactions were considered to be macroscopic results of electromagnetic
interactions. This problem was not satisfactorily solved until Einstein's 1905 paper.

> His discovery was SO ADVANCED that, even with Hertz contribution 10 years after his death, the world had to wait between 20
> and 40 years (and Tesla, Edison, de Forest and many others) to start enjoying the services of a public energy grid, power generation,
> electric motors, radio links for data and then voice, long distance telephony, radio broadcasting, incipient TV broadcasting, radars, etc.).

Yeah, nice but irrelevant.

> Again, in the period described (1885 - 1930), relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING.

It contributed a model for elementary particles interactions. That's a huge deal.
You probably don't even know how Maxwell's equations are an expression of
local gauge invariance.

> Only created chaos and confusion on weak minds.

No, in your mind. Excpet that normal people with no nack for physics simply
stay away and engage in something they know they are good at instead.
But monomaniacs just persist in doing something they cannot do. And of course
they blame everyone on the planet for their plight, including inventing the most
dinosaurian conspiracy theories to explain their total failure. The classic
well-known case of this is graphomania.

> > > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside,
> > > Rutherford, Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many
> > > others: undisputed.
> > Nope. See above.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> Your disgraceful remark paints you as what you really are: a RESENTED RELATIVIST, looking for something to bitch around,
> in CONSOLATION, because DEEP INSIDE you know how sterile and worthless relativity is.

Relativity is an excellent physics theory. And there is nothing you can do about it.
The theory will never go away, just like Newton's or Maxwell's theories will never
go away.

> And about quantum physics, lasers and shit,

Ah, an expletive because here again is an instance of something you know
nothing about, so you must (obviously) yell at it, like a child.

> it emerged AFTER a period of maturation of THE WINDOW TO KNOWLEDGE that
> Thomson, Planck, Rutherford and Bohr opened in just 15 years to allow a new generation of physicist to develop quantum mechanics
> LESS THAN A DECADE after Bohr.
>
> I don't see ANY CONTRIBUTION OF RELATIVITY HERE.

Because you don't know anything about quantum theory. What you said above
is exactly like saying "I don't see any contribution of Banach spaces to mathematics".

> Ohm did more for science advancement that your imbecile deity.

No, false. Also, note that you literally cannot stop from using invective whenever
relativity or the person of Albert Einstein comes up. You are truly emotionally
disturbed. It's hard to tell if your physics-monomania is the cause or the effect
but it's very obvious in your posts.

I would see a doctor, it may be a result of something physical.

> So, keep licking your wounds, Roberts.

Stop imagining things about your opponents. It's childish. Nobody is
licking any "wounds", especially because of your idiotic posts.

> And keep telling a distorted, worthless vision of a technological world with your MUONS and
> other accelerated shit, that ARE UNRELATED TO THE REALITY PERCEIVED BY 99.99999% OF PEOPLE.

No, this is an experimental observation. You can reject it until cows come home.

Nothing and nobody will ever yield to your frustrated wishes. The only way for you
to proceed is to learn physics (if you want to get anywhere with it). That's how everyone
who understands it did it: by working honestly on it full-time for yeras/deacdes.

There is no other way. Your wishes and your ignoring observed results mean nothing.

--
Jan

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:38:37 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 5:37:52 PM UTC-3, Alan B wrote:
> > Bump
>
> Undue self entitled cretins disappear for a while from here, when their cockiness is beaten badly by FACTS.

You provided none. You only post your little private fantasies generated
by your frustrated wishes.

> Then, when things seem to settle down, come again with four-vectors, Lorentz invariance, neutrino's flavors or similar
> unable to be proven shit.

Not even wrong. Again just rejecting facts you find inconvenient because they
(apparently) exceed your capacity for understanding physics.

Just find yourself a different hobby. Must it be physics?

I cannot play piano well and I do not insist that I'm a concert pianist.
Why is it so difficult for you, presumably an adult(?), to admit that
physics is simply not something you can do?

> Even, they may get a try to quantum gravity, cosmological red-shift, sex of the angels or another
> groovy topic. Medical sciences have no cure for this pathology.

Gobbledygook. You are venting infantile frustrations, again.

> Eventually, they can claim that about another 10,000 imbeciles think alike, because they have studied and WERE FORCED
> to repeat like parrots what they were FORCED to swallow, without any chance to complain. Obey or you are out of "the club".

You are "out of the club" because you refuse to learn physics. You prefer, instead,
to fantasise that you are a misunderstood genius. This is the root cause of your
problem: you want to get something tangible without doing the work necessary to
acquire it. It will never work, you and your gobbledygook will be forever laughed at.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 10:29:30 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 2:47:58 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >
> > Really, Tom? For an OLD physicist with a PhD, you show a very disrespectful attitude toward GREAT figures
> > of physics and mathematics that BROUGHT LIGHT to the darkness of human knowledge and allowed, in the
> > last 250 years TO CREATE the modern world and made possible that hundred of developers invented ALL of
> > the marvels that you enjoy daily TODAY. Relativity CONTRIBUTED WITH NOTHING TO THE 2022 WORLD.
> >
> > You write as a resented relativist, that can't find ANY VALUE in what you worked all of your professional life. Shame on you.
> > > On 12/8/22 8:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > >
> > > Nope. Newtonian mechanics does not explain the kinematics observed in
> > > particle accelerators, or fine details observed in certain astronomical observations.
> > Newtonian mechanics, developed during 200 years (until 1900) don't care and don't give a shit
> > for little charged particles that move at 36,000 Km/hr or higher, in a machine POWERED by energy
> > derived from DISCOVERIES in electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism from 1830 to 1930
> > (include thermionic amplifiers and nascent electronics, please).
> So you are finally admitting that experimental results mean nothing to you.
> > Again, relativity contributed TO NOTHING OF VALUE TO THE REAL WORLD,
> Of course it did, it models correctly the behaviour of elementary particles AND

and in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

> Relativity is an excellent physics theory. And there is nothing you can do about it.
> The theory will never go away, just like Newton's or Maxwell's theories will never
> go away.

Or phlogiston's.

> Nothing and nobody will ever yield to your frustrated wishes. The only way for you
> to proceed is to learn physics

How dare you criticizing communism!!! have you studied
the works of comerade Lenin?

Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> t'=t

Are you sure?

J'aurais passé 40 ans de ma vie à raconter des conneries alors?

Dans quel but?

Pour les crachats?

R.H.

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 14:16:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
> > t'=t
>
> Are you sure?

Well, yes. Time is what clocks indicate.
Clocks indicate what we set them to.
And - as when setting the clocks we ignore
insane prophets screaming what we're
allegedly FORCED to - your precious
experiments don't affect it at all.

Le 21/02/2023 à 14:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 14:16:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
>> > t'=t
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> Well, yes. Time is what clocks indicate.

Yes.

The problem is that the watches do not indicate the same time.

Alors on fait quoi? ? ?

R.H.

On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 15:10:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/02/2023 à 14:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, 21 February 2023 at 14:16:45 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> >>
> >> > t'=t
> >>
> >> Are you sure?
> >
> > Well, yes. Time is what clocks indicate.
> Yes.
>
> The problem is that the watches do not indicate the same time.

They indicate what they're set to. By us. Not
by you.

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 7:47:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> metaphysics with no practical application.
>
> Newton rules, undisputed.
> Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.
>
> Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> and zero legacy.
>
> Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> more to physics (and chemistry).

Einstein made me think. It started when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special theory of relativity to us. He told us that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. So I imagined a clock in a flying airplane for the moving clock and a clock on the ground for the clock that was not moving. It was obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that the equations he was using showed that the pilot and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. When the internet was invented, I started asking scientists in sci.physics.relativity about this. They responded with insults and profanity. So I said, I need to prove this with equations. So I started with two little equations Einstein said he extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. After about twenty years of one sided discussion, I was able to see that Einstein had actually extracted the equations from the Galilean transformation equations.
x=ct, x'=ct'
x'=x-vt
ct'=ct-vt
t'=t-vt/c = t-vct/c^2 = t-vx/c^2, which is the numerator of the Lorentz equation for t', which Lorentz had obviously obtained from the Galilean transformation equations. Where he got the denominator for his equation is unclear, but the obvious error can be seen in the numerator. The equation t'=t-vx/c^2 is only true for one value of x, that is, if x is the distance light travels in time t, which is the time it takes for frame of reference S' to move a distance of vt relative to frame of reference S. For any other values of x, the equation is untrue because, supposing that t is one second, and x is one mile, then the time it takes light to travel one mile would be 1/186,000 sec, and the time it would take light to travel a distance of x' would be 1/186,000 sec minus v(1 sec)/186,000 mi/sec. The x that Einstein and Lorentz insert into the equation is not the same x unless x is the distance light travels in time t.
But there is also a t' that relates to the equation. It is found in the inverse equation.
x=x'-v't'
This shows that the pilot of the airplane gets a different speed for the airplane than the observer on the ground because his clock has a different rate. These equations work whether the clock is slower, as Einstein postulated with Special Relativity, or the clock is faster, as scientists tell us is true with a GPS satellite.
How do we determine what the clocks will read?
It has to do with the energy of the system, which is shown by distances and times. I do not personally see any need for Special Relativity, which Einstein defined as relativity in the absence of gravitation. If you have gravitation, you should be able to predict the times and velocities as they pertain to frames of reference. If we take the solar system as our model of what happens, the fastest moving planet is Mercury because it is closest to the sun and most affected by gravitation. Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second as measured by a clock on earth. As measured by a clock on Mercury, it would be going faster. Earth is moving at 20 miles per second. As measured by a clock on Mars, earth would be going slower because a clock on Mars would be faster than a clock on earth. Scientists can get their interpretation of relativity to work because if experiment does not agree with their equations, they can come up with a reason to adjust the result according to their interpretation of how the results are affected by Special Relativity as compared to General Relativity. I think that if they were using the correct equations, they would not need to adjust anything because the energy of the system explains why a clock on Mercury is slower than a clock on earth and a clock on Mars is faster than a clock on earth. But I am not going to take it any further than this. If scientists are not interested in the correct equations for relativity, let them blow themselves up using the wrong equations.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 7:47:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> > thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> > metaphysics with no practical application.
> >
> > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> > Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed..
> >
> > Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> > and zero legacy.
> >
> > Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> > more to physics (and chemistry).
> Einstein made me think. It started when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special theory of relativity to us. He told us that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving.. So I imagined a clock in a flying airplane for the moving clock and a clock on the ground for the clock that was not moving. It was obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that the equations he was using showed that the pilot and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. When the internet was invented, I started asking scientists in sci.physics.relativity about this. They responded with insults and profanity. So I said, I need to prove this with equations. So I started with two little equations Einstein said he extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. After about twenty years of one sided discussion, I was able to see that Einstein had actually extracted the equations from the Galilean transformation equations.
> x=ct, x'=ct'
> x'=x-vt
> ct'=ct-vt
> t'=t-vt/c = t-vct/c^2 = t-vx/c^2, which is the numerator of the Lorentz equation for t', which Lorentz had obviously obtained from the Galilean transformation equations. Where he got the denominator for his equation is unclear, but the obvious error can be seen in the numerator. The equation t'=t-vx/c^2 is only true for one value of x, that is, if x is the distance light travels in time t, which is the time it takes for frame of reference S' to move a distance of vt relative to frame of reference S. For any other values of x, the equation is untrue because, supposing that t is one second, and x is one mile, then the time it takes light to travel one mile would be 1/186,000 sec, and the time it would take light to travel a distance of x' would be 1/186,000 sec minus v(1 sec)/186,000 mi/sec. The x that Einstein and Lorentz insert into the equation is not the same x unless x is the distance light travels in time t.
> But there is also a t' that relates to the equation. It is found in the inverse equation.
> x=x'-v't'
> This shows that the pilot of the airplane gets a different speed for the airplane than the observer on the ground because his clock has a different rate. These equations work whether the clock is slower, as Einstein postulated with Special Relativity, or the clock is faster, as scientists tell us is true with a GPS satellite.
> How do we determine what the clocks will read?
> It has to do with the energy of the system, which is shown by distances and times. I do not personally see any need for Special Relativity, which Einstein defined as relativity in the absence of gravitation. If you have gravitation, you should be able to predict the times and velocities as they pertain to frames of reference. If we take the solar system as our model of what happens, the fastest moving planet is Mercury because it is closest to the sun and most affected by gravitation. Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second as measured by a clock on earth. As measured by a clock on Mercury, it would be going faster. Earth is moving at 20 miles per second. As measured by a clock on Mars, earth would be going slower because a clock on Mars would be faster than a clock on earth. Scientists can get their interpretation of relativity to work because if experiment does not agree with their equations, they can come up with a reason to adjust the result according to their interpretation of how the results are affected by Special Relativity as compared to General Relativity. I think that if they were using the correct equations, they would not need to adjust anything because the energy of the system explains why a clock on Mercury is slower than a clock on earth and a clock on Mars is faster than a clock on earth. But I am not going to take it any further than this. If scientists are not interested in the correct equations for relativity, let them blow themselves up using the wrong equations.

Excellent post. Congratulations.

Only one comment: Lorentz borrowed his "local time" and his "gamma factor" from Woldemar Voigt, who FOUND THEM by developing
a linear transformation between (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') domains:

x' = ax+by+cz+dt (and so on with y', z' and t').

He had four algebraic expressions with 16 unknown parameters. Then he IMPOSED that the general wave equation should be
INVARIANT expressed in (x',y',z',t') domain. After a lot of work and some assumptions, he obtained the first ever set of TRANSFORMS
between both domains. Local time emerged naturally, as well as the gamma factor.

Voigt, the FATHER of relativity, was not an imbecile cretin like Lorentz and Einstein.

In his set of transforms, TIME WAS NOT AFFECTED BY GAMMA FACTOR, nor the preferred axis of motion x.

The only influence of motion on time was his LOCAL TIME, which is what you derived from galilean transforms.

And Voigt, a distinguished German physicist, did all of this by 1887, 17 years BEFORE Lorentz.

In 1911, the cretin Lorentz met Voigt at the Solvay Conference and, after Voigt request for acknowledgement on priority, Lorentz
barely apologized ONLY for "local time". By then, Lorentz was the chaperon of Einstein and brought him to the conference.

By that epoch, Lorentz was regaining fame due to the buzz-word "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and he enjoyed many years after his
intellectual sponsor of THAT RELATIVITY in continental Europe, USA and Japan. He fulfilled his role of spineless PR person for
Einstein (mainly connecting with Eddington and establishment) until 1921, when he was a drooling senile IMBECILE.

Another sold out cretin, submitting to the force of zionist science, politics and economy.

Finally, I remark this: YOU ARE RIGHT, and all members of the relativistic herd (with such mentality) ARE FUCKING WRONG, but don't care.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:37:53 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
<a repeat of former imbecilities>.
> Excellent post. Congratulations.
Cranks unite!

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:40:55 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:37:53 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> <a repeat of former imbecilities>.
> > Excellent post. Congratulations.
> Cranks unite!
Dono

You forgot to show any mathematics to prove what you are saying.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:33:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:40:55 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:37:53 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> > <a repeat of former imbecilities>.
> > > Excellent post. Congratulations.
> > Cranks unite!
> Dono
>
> You forgot to show any mathematics to prove what you are saying.
Don't need to, you provided all the ammo thru the imbecilities that you posted yourself. Keep it up, dumbfuck!

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:37:53 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 7:47:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Only a pseudo-scientific narrative to feed Hollywood and a couple of
> > > thousands of parasites per generation, that made a living from useless
> > > metaphysics with no practical application.
> > >
> > > Newton rules, undisputed.
> > > Maxwell rules, undisputed.
> > > Faraday, Ampere, Gauss, Euler, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Tesla, Heaviside, Rutherford,
> > > Thomson, Hertz, Roegten, Fermi, Shockley and so many others: undisputed.
> > >
> > > Einstein: Hyper-hyped like The Beatles in music, food for the gullible people
> > > and zero legacy.
> > >
> > > Even the pair Schrodinger-Heisenberg (theoretical physicists) contributed
> > > more to physics (and chemistry).
> > Einstein made me think. It started when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special theory of relativity to us. He told us that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. So I imagined a clock in a flying airplane for the moving clock and a clock on the ground for the clock that was not moving. It was obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that the equations he was using showed that the pilot and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. When the internet was invented, I started asking scientists in sci.physics.relativity about this. They responded with insults and profanity. So I said, I need to prove this with equations. So I started with two little equations Einstein said he extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct and x'=ct'. After about twenty years of one sided discussion, I was able to see that Einstein had actually extracted the equations from the Galilean transformation equations.
> > x=ct, x'=ct'
> > x'=x-vt
> > ct'=ct-vt
> > t'=t-vt/c = t-vct/c^2 = t-vx/c^2, which is the numerator of the Lorentz equation for t', which Lorentz had obviously obtained from the Galilean transformation equations. Where he got the denominator for his equation is unclear, but the obvious error can be seen in the numerator. The equation t'=t-vx/c^2 is only true for one value of x, that is, if x is the distance light travels in time t, which is the time it takes for frame of reference S' to move a distance of vt relative to frame of reference S. For any other values of x, the equation is untrue because, supposing that t is one second, and x is one mile, then the time it takes light to travel one mile would be 1/186,000 sec, and the time it would take light to travel a distance of x' would be 1/186,000 sec minus v(1 sec)/186,000 mi/sec. The x that Einstein and Lorentz insert into the equation is not the same x unless x is the distance light travels in time t.
> > But there is also a t' that relates to the equation. It is found in the inverse equation.
> > x=x'-v't'
> > This shows that the pilot of the airplane gets a different speed for the airplane than the observer on the ground because his clock has a different rate. These equations work whether the clock is slower, as Einstein postulated with Special Relativity, or the clock is faster, as scientists tell us is true with a GPS satellite.
> > How do we determine what the clocks will read?
> > It has to do with the energy of the system, which is shown by distances and times. I do not personally see any need for Special Relativity, which Einstein defined as relativity in the absence of gravitation. If you have gravitation, you should be able to predict the times and velocities as they pertain to frames of reference. If we take the solar system as our model of what happens, the fastest moving planet is Mercury because it is closest to the sun and most affected by gravitation. Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second as measured by a clock on earth. As measured by a clock on Mercury, it would be going faster. Earth is moving at 20 miles per second. As measured by a clock on Mars, earth would be going slower because a clock on Mars would be faster than a clock on earth. Scientists can get their interpretation of relativity to work because if experiment does not agree with their equations, they can come up with a reason to adjust the result according to their interpretation of how the results are affected by Special Relativity as compared to General Relativity. I think that if they were using the correct equations, they would not need to adjust anything because the energy of the system explains why a clock on Mercury is slower than a clock on earth and a clock on Mars is faster than a clock on earth. But I am not going to take it any further than this. If scientists are not interested in the correct equations for relativity, let them blow themselves up using the wrong equations.
> Excellent post. Congratulations.
>
> Only one comment: Lorentz borrowed his "local time" and his "gamma factor" from Woldemar Voigt, who FOUND THEM by developing
> a linear transformation between (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') domains:
>
> x' = ax+by+cz+dt (and so on with y', z' and t').
>
> He had four algebraic expressions with 16 unknown parameters. Then he IMPOSED that the general wave equation should be
> INVARIANT expressed in (x',y',z',t') domain. After a lot of work and some assumptions, he obtained the first ever set of TRANSFORMS
> between both domains. Local time emerged naturally, as well as the gamma factor.
>
> Voigt, the FATHER of relativity, was not an imbecile cretin like Lorentz and Einstein.
>
> In his set of transforms, TIME WAS NOT AFFECTED BY GAMMA FACTOR, nor the preferred axis of motion x.
>
> The only influence of motion on time was his LOCAL TIME, which is what you derived from galilean transforms.
>
> And Voigt, a distinguished German physicist, did all of this by 1887, 17 years BEFORE Lorentz.
>
> In 1911, the cretin Lorentz met Voigt at the Solvay Conference and, after Voigt request for acknowledgement on priority, Lorentz
> barely apologized ONLY for "local time". By then, Lorentz was the chaperon of Einstein and brought him to the conference.
>
> By that epoch, Lorentz was regaining fame due to the buzz-word "Lorentz-Einstein relativity", and he enjoyed many years after his
> intellectual sponsor of THAT RELATIVITY in continental Europe, USA and Japan. He fulfilled his role of spineless PR person for
> Einstein (mainly connecting with Eddington and establishment) until 1921, when he was a drooling senile IMBECILE.
>
> Another sold out cretin, submitting to the force of zionist science, politics and economy.
>
> Finally, I remark this: YOU ARE RIGHT, and all members of the relativistic herd (with such mentality) ARE FUCKING WRONG, but don't care.

Well, here is what I have always said. If the oscillations of a cesium isotope atom are used to measure the speed of light, and the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions, then Newton or Galileo knew enough about mathematics to convert the different rates of time to use in their equations, which scientists of today seem incapable of doing. What scientists of today do is say that lengths contract, space curves, and all manner of other things happen to conform to their incorrect equations. So what they end up with is a distorted mirror image of reality which they say must be imposed on all things because they regard themselves as the most intelligent beings in existence. Going back to the example of the solar system, Newton used the idea of absolute time in his equations, which said that all clocks in the universe that were operating correctly would agree with one another. But the rate of time for a system has to be based on more than just how fast a planet is rotating, which was the first standard for measuring time. If a cesium atom in a GPS satellite is oscillating faster than a cesium atom on earth because of less gravitation, which is what scientists tell us, then all you have to do to use Newton's equations is convert one rate of time to the other before using his equations. But why would the rate of oscillations of a cesium atom on earth be the standard if the rate of oscillations on Mercury would be slower, or the rate on Mars would be faster?
It seems to me there would be a rate of time common to all planets to which the rate of oscillations of a cesium atom could be related in terms of gravitation, but it would not be the rate of oscillations of a cesium atom on earth just because that was where Einstein was.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:33:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:40:55 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:37:53 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > <a repeat of former imbecilities>.
> > > > Excellent post. Congratulations.
> > > Cranks unite!
> > Dono
> >
> > You forgot to show any mathematics to prove what you are saying.
> Don't need to, you provided all the ammo thru the imbecilities that you posted yourself. Keep it up, dumbfuck!
Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

On 2023-02-21 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 21/02/2023 à 11:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>
>> t'=t
>
> Are you sure?
>
> J'aurais passé 40 ans de ma vie à raconter des conneries alors?

Où ? Dans quelle capacité ?
>
> Dans quel but?
>
> Pour les crachats?
>
> R.H.
>

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Time for Michelson-Morley to be revisited while in low Earth orbit
>> and/or interplanetary space/Solar orbit, yes?
>
> Orbits appear sped up to an outside fast clock. But their ellipspes
> don't change...

you don't undrestand _dark matter_.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 4:37:53 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Voigt, the FATHER of relativity,

Voight was not a father of relativity. You make the standard ignoramus mistake
confusing an equation (or equations) with a theory.

> was not an imbecile cretin like Lorentz and Einstein.

You ought to see a doctor.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:18:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions,

They aren't . Stick to welding.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:44:51 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:18:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> > the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions,
> They aren't . Stick to welding.

Isn't Robert Winn the guy who joined this group many years ago by posting
that Lorentz contraction was nonsense because he had measured metal rods on
a moving truck and they were not any shorter?

--
Jan

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:49:43 AM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:44:51 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:18:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions,
> > They aren't . Stick to welding.
> Isn't Robert Winn the guy who joined this group many years ago by posting
> that Lorentz contraction was nonsense because he had measured metal rods on
> a moving truck and they were not any shorter?
>
> --
> Jan
yup

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:40:07 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 4:37:53 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > Voigt, the FATHER of relativity,
> Voight was not a father of relativity. You make the standard ignoramus mistake
> confusing an equation (or equations) with a theory.
> > was not an imbecile cretin like Lorentz and Einstein.
> You ought to see a doctor.
>
> --
> Jan

Minkowski said so!. Are you, intellectual insect, trying to contradict the assertion of the creator of spacetime, cones of light
and SR under formal tensor notation?

Who the fuck do you believe you are, microbe?

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 2:19:15 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:33:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:

<snip>

> > > You forgot to show any mathematics to prove what you are saying.
> > Don't need to, you provided all the ammo thru the imbecilities that you posted yourself. Keep it up, dumbfuck!
> Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind to make a strong statement.

You have to understand Dono. He's a self-hating jew because he failed to be like Einstein's good son, an engineer.

He turned out to be like the other Einstein's son, Eduard, a schizo like his father.

Yet NOBODY was able to post ANY REAL CONTRIBUTION from Einstein to posterity.

And 117 years passed since the imbecile "wrote" those stupid papers, most of them originated in theft, plagiarism, cynicism,
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and pseudo-philosophy, in the greatest cover up of the zionist movement to promote the Marx
or Freud of physics.

Even his Nobel, due to what his wife stole from Lenard, was a comedy act to award the imbecile with something.

It didn't matter that THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT had been discovered by many (like Hertz and his pupil Lenard in 1889)
and industrialized since 1890.

It didn't matter that Einstein didn't have a clue about what an atom was until Rutherford-Bohr.

It didn't matter that Einstein was appallingly ignorant of radio waves, spark generators and antennae, and that dreamt about
"light generators" BY 1911, being very high and sending light beams down to Earth with gh/c² red-shifting. Also proposing
variable speed of light and messing up things with the wave-particle lame description of light IN THE SAME YEAR!.

What is worth mentioning is that he CREATED 100,000+ jobs for parasites posing as scientists in a lapse of 100 years.
Einstein's Corp. is A VERY LUCRATIVE INDUSTRY OF DECEPTION, with zero production and zero accountability.

How not to love Einstein? It's like to love to a founder of a new church, which will make priests rich and protected, and gullible
people stupidly happy for having in what to believe, after the due 10% contribution to the big guy. Also, zero production and
accountability.

But the question remains: In which technology, product or service you can find the label "EINSTEIN INSIDE"?. NONE.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:18:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> > the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions,
> They aren't . Stick to welding.
They aren't? So why are scientists saying that a clock in a GPS satellite is slower than a clock on earth and has to be adjusted to be the same?

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:49:43 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:44:51 PM UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:18:08 AM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > the oscillations of a cesium atom under one set of conditions are faster or slower relative to the oscillations of another cesium atom somewhere else under a different set of conditions,
> > They aren't . Stick to welding.
> Isn't Robert Winn the guy who joined this group many years ago by posting
> that Lorentz contraction was nonsense because he had measured metal rods on
> a moving truck and they were not any shorter?
>
> --
> Jan
No, I asked if a steel beam on a moving truck would be shorter than a steel beam on a truck that was not moving. According to scientists, the Lorentz equations show that it would be by some amount. I have since completed the mathematics. Both beams would be the same length, regardless of how fast the moving beam was moving. There is no length contraction. Here are the correct equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t