On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:32:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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 me. I am a self-hating jew and a kapo

On 2/21/2023 10:37 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-3, Robert Winn wrote:
[snip]

> Excellent post. Congratulations.

It's a kꙫꙫk lovefest! Is this where baby kooks come from?

> He [Voigt] 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.

So close but not quite. His equations are all off by a factor of 1/γ!
Because of this, his equation is not symmetrical, that is if you derive
the primed variables from the unprimed, and then derive the unprimed
variables from the primed, you should get the original values back. But
you don't, the derived unprimed variables differ from the primed
variables by a factor of 1/γ². Too bad. To be fair, everyone at the time
believed in the aether, so maybe that was expected with aether theories.
>
> Voigt, the FATHER of relativity, was not an imbecile cretin like Richard Hertz.

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

Unfortunately, the y and z values were , when they shouldn't be.
>
> The only influence of motion on time was his LOCAL TIME, which is what you derived from galilean transforms.

Maybe this was his mistake. Using one transform to partially create his
new one.

> 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.

Lorentz stated that he didn't know of Voigt's work. If he did, he said,
he wouldn't have derived his own from scratch.

Of course, Richard Hertz, who conjures up all sorts of evil in the minds
of people (that he doesn't like) and pretends it is true, will claim,
without evidence, of course, that Lorentz stole Voigt's work.

Einstein's contribution was showing that Lorentz's equations could be
derived only from a constant speed of light and the principle of
relativity. Also that any sort of aether didn't contribute to the outcome.

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

There is the conspiracy theory that all cranks have lurking, to explain
everything. Especially conspiracies that THE JOOOOZZ DID IT!

Crank Robert Winn wrote:
> 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?

this is not what they are saying.

On 2/21/2023 3:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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?

Voigt screwed up. His equations were _almost_ correct except they were
all off by a factor of γ. So he was not the father of relativity. Maybe
he pulled out too soon.

On 2/21/2023 2:09 PM, Dono. wrote:
> 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

He also declared length contraction being invalid since he has no use
for it while welding metal.

On 2/21/2023 4:55 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> 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?

A clock on a GPS satellite is seen as running fast (not slow) on earth,
but local to a GPS satellite the clock runs at its normal rate. Thing
is, nobody is there and everyone is on earth, therefore not local to it,
so everyone (on earth) would see the clock running fast.

A train blowing its horn while speeding toward a station will be heard
as a higher pitch to someone at the station due to Doppler effect. But
local to the horn (that is, on the train), the horn is at its correct pitch.

(yeah I know it's a bad comparison, audio Doppler effect vs. GR effects
on a signal, but I remember who I am dealing with so it needs dumbing down)

On 2/21/2023 11:52 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 2:09 PM, Dono. wrote:
>> 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
>
> He also declared length contraction being invalid since he has no use
> for it while welding metal.

He's not even a legitimate welder because there is a use for "stitch
welding" in order to reduce deformations and it is clear to me he
isn't versed in the finer points.

On 2/22/2023 12:02 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 4:55 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
>> 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 cond

itions,
>>> 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?
>
> A clock on a GPS satellite is seen as running fast (not slow) on earth,
> but local to a GPS satellite the clock runs at its normal rate. Thing
> is, nobody is there and everyone is on earth, therefore not local to it,
> so everyone (on earth) would see the clock running fast.
>
> A train blowing its horn while speeding toward a station will be heard
> as a higher pitch to someone at the station due to Doppler effect. But
> local to the horn (that is, on the train), the horn is at its correct
> pitch.
>
> (yeah I know it's a bad comparison, audio Doppler effect vs. GR effects
> on a signal, but I remember who I am dealing with so it needs dumbing down)

The problem is, of course, that these topics cannot be dumbed down
enough for most of these readers to understand the principles correctly.

Just look at the current correspondence between Starmaker and myself.
The problems manifest easily because a "little bit of knowledge is
dangerous." People like Starmaker live in a world oblivious to both
relativity and non-linearity. Classic entry level crank stuff.

On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 07:02:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 4:55 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > 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?
> A clock on a GPS satellite is seen as running fast (not slow) on earth,
> but local to a GPS satellite the clock runs at its normal rate.

No, stupid Mike, sorry, it runs 9 192 631 774 instead
9 192 631 770.
Of course, when launched it was adjusted to the
wannabe standards of your bunch of idiots. It didn't work
(common sense was warning you) so it was switched to
Newton mode.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:25:54 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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?

It's simply false that whoever was the first to write an equation was
the creator of the theory using it.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:40:10 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 11:52 PM, Volney wrote:
> > On 2/21/2023 2:09 PM, Dono. wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > He also declared length contraction being invalid since he has no use
> > for it while welding metal.
> He's not even a legitimate welder because there is a use for "stitch
> welding" in order to reduce deformations and it is clear to me he
> isn't versed in the finer points.
See, whodat, even scientists can get something right once in a while. I never have taken the test to be certified as a welder. When I was working for a steel fabrication company, I made handrails, and in Arizona you do not need to be certified to make handrails because they are not structural. You have to be certified to weld on structural steel. Now most of what I weld is farm machinery. You do not need to be certified to weld farm machinery. All you have to do is make sure your welds are good because if they are not, farmers will not want to have you weld on their machinery. Welding is sort of like relativity. With relativity, all you have to do is make sure your equations work.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 12:24:14 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 07:02:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> > On 2/21/2023 4:55 PM, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > 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?
> > A clock on a GPS satellite is seen as running fast (not slow) on earth,
> > but local to a GPS satellite the clock runs at its normal rate.
> No, stupid Mike, sorry, it runs 9 192 631 774 instead
> 9 192 631 770.
> Of course, when launched it was adjusted to the
> wannabe standards of your bunch of idiots. It didn't work
> (common sense was warning you) so it was switched to
> Newton mode.
Thank you, that is correct. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster. It is the kind of mistake I make when I have to converse with Einstein disciples. When I am not talking to Einstein disciples I can keep it correct because I refer it to the solar system. The planet Mercury is moving the fastest because it is under the greatest gravitation. The planet Mercury has the slowest clock. The outer planets have faster clocks because they are less affected by gravitation. They are also moving slower. So the solar system seems to indicate to me that there is a set of equations that would describe the rates of all these clocks without having to adjust by saying, This part of the rate of the clock is computed by Special Relativity, and this party is computed by General Relativity because experiment shows that the actual rate of the clock is between what is computed by each theory. I don't see the need for Special Relativity. Mercury is the fastest planet because it is closest to the sun. Special relativity says that a faster moving planet would have a slower clock. General Relativity says that more gravitation causes a slower clock. Pluto would have the fastest clock. It is moving the slowest and has the least gravitational attraction to the sun. A slower moving planet would have a faster clock than Mercury. A planet further from the sun would have a faster clock than Mercury.
Now there is one further thing that has to be considered, which is the Principle of Equivalence. If a satellite the size of a basketball is put in orbit around the sun at the same distance as Mercury, it would travel in its orbit at the same speed as Mercury, as could be proven by its distance from Mercury if it was orbiting in the same plane. But what about the time of a clock in the satellite?
Would it be the same time as the time of a clock on Mercury?
Or we could consider a baseball put in orbit around the earth at the distance of the moon from earth. The principle of equivalence shows that the moon and the baseball are orbiting earth at the same speed, but would a cesium atom on the moon have the same rate of transitions as a cesium atom on the baseball?
How does the mass of an orbiting planet or satellite affect the rate of transitions of cesium atoms, since scientists say that the rate of transitions of cesium atoms is the
measurement for time. It would seem to me that the orbiting body with the greatest mass would have the slowest clock.
If Jupiter was at the distance from the sun that Mercury is, would its clock be slower than Mercury's?
Or does the only thing that determines the rate of the clock be the distance from the sun the way Newton's equations show?
In any event, scientists do not answer these questions. They never answer actual questions about relativity.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:52:25 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 2/21/2023 2:09 PM, Dono. wrote:
> > 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
> He also declared length contraction being invalid since he has no use
> for it while welding metal.
Well, actually, I have no use for it when considering relativity. I keep distances as they actually are. That way I do not end up with twins that have different ages, poles that are moving at high speed through barns with the doors of the barn closed, attempts to reach the nearest star, or trillion dollar particle accelerators the way scientists do. I can keep what I do within the realm of reality. That is not to say I do not make mistakes. The difference between my mistakes and the mistakes made by scientists is that my mistakes are easy to correct.

On February 21, JanPB wrote:
>>> Yes, it's an obvious Einstein Derangement Syndrome. Strangely enough,
>>> high IQ offers no protection against this sort of mental pathogen.
>
>> Au contraire, it makes some people more vulnerable.
>> They think that they can think.
>
> Yes, this became VERY obvious during the pandemic and also during Trump's
> presidency. A FAPP mass hysteria on both coasts of the US which is where
> the US intelligentsia resides. Future sociologists will have a field day studying
> this phenomenon. I haven't seen such a thing even in the communist Poland.

Did you follow the latest fiasco?
https://pen.org/press-release/student-disruption-of-a-judges-speech-at-stanford-u-deserved-a-forceful-defense-of-free-speech-by-the-administration-says-pen-america/

Especially the behavior of the administrator/rabble rouser,
the supposed adult in the room.

Look at the bastardized language they employ. Orwell's "1984"
plumbed this in depth: Newspeak. It was inspired by soviet
russia, and they recognized themselves, banning his books.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Now:
SPEECH IS VIOLENCE
VIOLENCE IS SPEECH
--
Rich

The Atomic Bomb

(see 1905 paper)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-8, 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).

His genius lead to a better understanding.
He went away from his Nobel light particle.
The world did not like that.
He was the first of his kind.

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Atomic Bomb

Actually his work led to hundreds of things such as paper towels,
lasers, the GNSS systems, nuclear reactors, photocells, and many, many
more that can be found by a Google search, but this isn't a real
question, you just want to rant your kook world view.

Jim Pennino wrote:
>
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > The Atomic Bomb
>
> Actually his work led to hundreds of things such as paper towels,
> lasers, the GNSS systems, nuclear reactors, photocells, and many, many
> more that can be found by a Google search, but this isn't a real
> question, you just want to rant your kook world view.

I don't see any paper towels in this picture
https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jim Pennino wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > The Atomic Bomb
>>
>> Actually his work led to hundreds of things such as paper towels,
>> lasers, the GNSS systems, nuclear reactors, photocells, and many, many
>> more that can be found by a Google search, but this isn't a real
>> question, you just want to rant your kook world view.
>
> I don't see any paper towels in this picture
> https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
So what, you are an idiot.

His first article published was an analyses of wicking, which was the
basic groundwork for making absorbent paper.

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 6:31:05 PM UTC-3, Jim Pennino wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> >>
> >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> > The Atomic Bomb
> >>
> >> Actually his work led to hundreds of things such as paper towels,
> >> lasers, the GNSS systems, nuclear reactors, photocells, and many, many
> >> more that can be found by a Google search, but this isn't a real
> >> question, you just want to rant your kook world view.
> >
> > I don't see any paper towels in this picture
> > https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg
> So what, you are an idiot.
>
> His first article published was an analyses of wicking, which was the
> basic groundwork for making absorbent paper.

He invented the suppository too, and became addict to it.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:00:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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.
The biggest delusion of relativists is that Einstein and relativity had anything to do with the atomic bomb. Rutherford and Soddy had nothing but contempt for relativity.