Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect,

Out of two clocks, if I bring one to "over there" and bring it back, the *values* of the two clocks will (generally) differ.
This is coined "Time Dilation effect ". True Values that differ is not a psychological effect. That 0 <> 1 is not a psychological effect.
SR predicts the above mentioned values; the calculations and value obtained is not a psychological effect.
That is the use of models as used in physics: to make predictions (values) of actual experiments. Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:27:32 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> > Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect,
> Out of two clocks, if I bring one to "over there" and bring it back, the *values* of the two clocks will (generally) differ.
> This is coined "Time Dilation effect ". True Values that differ is not a psychological effect. That 0 <> 1 is not a psychological effect.
> SR predicts the above mentioned values; the calculations and value obtained is not a psychological effect.
> That is the use of models as used in physics: to make predictions (values) of actual experiments. Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.

Dear rotchm

Yes. Two clocks will differ and must differ, I agree. Why they differ? because any clock is just physical device whose movement affect by air pressure, by temperature, by radiation, by noise , by stableness of the base.

But Two clocks will not differ by Lorentz Transfer, because motion is relative. Two frame are equal . Motion can not dilate two clock physically. if motion dilate two clock physical at same extend, that means two clock still run at same pace.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Chapter Six

Jack

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:40:03 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
> Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
> Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical phenomena.

What slows down rate but force strength and speed in space...

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:46:51 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

>> ... Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.

> Yes. Two clocks will differ and must differ, I agree.

*generally* differ. There are scenarios where they can be the same. But that's irrelevant to the topic.

> Why they differ?

It doesn't matter why. I can claim that it's little fairies that set everything up that way just to fool us.
We have a model that with its calculations, predict values; that is what is important, that is physics.

> because any clock is just physical device whose movement affect by air pressure, by temperature,
> by radiation, by noise , by stableness of the base.

Those effects can be eliminated via various means. And your point here is irrelevant to the discussion.

> But Two clocks will not differ by Lorentz Transfer,

Yes they do. You are denying the results of actual experiments now; you are a reality denier.

> Motion can not dilate two clock physically.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Try to stay on topic.

When you use relativity to analyze an experiment, it correctly predicts the results displayed by the instruments.
This is an empirical fact.
How, or why, or what causes this, is irrelevant.

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:46:57 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:46:51 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
>
> >> ... Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.
> > Yes. Two clocks will differ and must differ, I agree.
> *generally* differ. There are scenarios where they can be the same. But that's irrelevant to the topic.
>

To rotchm

I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

Which one is in still and which in is in motion between A and B IS relative.. You have to keep this in your mind about empirical fact.
Jack

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

> I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
> BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated

No.

> while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

No.

Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you said.

In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor). This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.

There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should keep clear from it in your conversations.
2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:28:55 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
>
> > I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
> > BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated
> No.
> > while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.
> No.
>
> Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you said.
>
> In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
> Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor). This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.
>
> There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should keep clear from it in your conversations.
> 2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!

To rotchm

Thanks for you reply.
I have one more question:
Why is B<A? or why is not A<B?

In my opinion A=B . A and B are equal.
BTW I don't like the word. They want to use it.

Jack

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:10:49 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

> I have one more question:
> Why is B<A? or why is not ...

Because that is what the calcs (ST, LT) say.

> In my opinion A=B .

Stick to the calculations and empirics, and not your opinions.

> BTW I don't like the word. They want to use it.

[Dilated]

Not all of they want to use it. It's not because some use it at you have to.. I repeat to you, do not use that word in your conversations. And, do not listen to what they say, listen to what the math says.

On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 00:40:03 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote:
> Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect

There is no such effect. Anyone can check
GPS, the serious clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like they always did. Physicists have
only gedanken something is different.

Le 05/05/2023 à 04:28, rotchm a écrit :
> On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
>
>> I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
>> BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's
>> perspective B's clock is dilated
>
> No.
>
>> while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.
>
> No.
>
> Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you
> said.
>
> In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox
> scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
> Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor).
> This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.
>
> There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should
> keep clear from it in your conversations.
> 2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!

I am very surprised by human stupidity in general.

It's not that I'm surprised that the quasi-generality of speakers
understand nothing at all about the theory of relativity; no, no, what
surprises me is that when someone who has understood things and tries to
explain them logically and clearly everyone laughs.

R.H.

Le 05/05/2023 à 04:21, Jack Liu a écrit :
> I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
> BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's
> perspective B's clock is dilated while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.
>
> Which one is in still and which in is in motion between A and B IS relative. You
> have to keep this in your mind about empirical fact.
>
> Jack

That is not exactly correct.

I understand why, as soon as we talk about relativity, everyone goes
crazy, and why the terms used are confusing.

In fact it is not the CLOCKS whose times mutually dilate.

If so, the theory would be absurd.

But stop (I beg you) playing the monkey.

It is obviously impossible for two clocks to beat reciprocally, and
continuously beat faster than the other. It's absurd in the sense that
when they meet, one of them is younger than the other.

It's absurd!!!

It is therefore not the clocks which reciprocally beat faster than the
other, it is their bathmotropian, that is to say their chronotropy, that
is to say their internal measurement of time.

That's not what the clocks tell each other.

I beg you to understand this.

R.H.

On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 07:57:31 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 05/05/2023 à 04:28, rotchm a écrit :
> > On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
> >> BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's
> >> perspective B's clock is dilated
> >
> > No.
> >
> >> while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you
> > said.
> >
> > In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox
> > scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
> > Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor).
> > This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.
> >
> > There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should
> > keep clear from it in your conversations.
> > 2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!
> I am very surprised by human stupidity in general.
>
> It's not that I'm surprised that the quasi-generality of speakers
> understand nothing at all about the theory of relativity; no, no, what
> surprises me is that when someone who has understood things and tries to
> explain them logically and clearly everyone laughs.

There are good reason why science has organized
things this way, but if I explained them to you you would
laugh.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:08:11 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 05/05/2023 à 04:21, Jack Liu a écrit :
> > I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
> > BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's
> > perspective B's clock is dilated while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.
> >
> > Which one is in still and which in is in motion between A and B IS relative. You
> > have to keep this in your mind about empirical fact.
> >
> > Jack
> That is not exactly correct.
>
> I understand why, as soon as we talk about relativity, everyone goes
> crazy, and why the terms used are confusing.
>
> In fact it is not the CLOCKS whose times mutually dilate.
>
> If so, the theory would be absurd.
>
> But stop (I beg you) playing the monkey.
>
> It is obviously impossible for two clocks to beat reciprocally, and
> continuously beat faster than the other. It's absurd in the sense that
> when they meet, one of them is younger than the other.
>
> It's absurd!!!
>
> It is therefore not the clocks which reciprocally beat faster than the
> other, it is their bathmotropian, that is to say their chronotropy, that
> is to say their internal measurement of time.
>
> That's not what the clocks tell each other.
>
> I beg you to understand this.
>
> R.H.

Dear R.H

Thanks for your message.
I think I understand you.
I agree with you that physically two clocks could not dilate same time.
I agree with you SR is absurd for two way time dilation, unless they can be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective as the title of this posting suggested.

Jack

On 5/5/2023 2:08 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

> It is therefore not the clocks which reciprocally beat faster than the
> other, it is their bathmotropian, that is to say their chronotropy, that
> is to say their internal measurement of time.
>
> That's not what the clocks tell each other.
>
> I beg you to understand this.

Once again, you stand a better chance of people understanding you if you
don't insist on using made-up nonsense words (or French).

Volney wrote:
> On 5/5/2023 2:08 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It is therefore not the clocks which reciprocally beat faster than the
>> other, it is their bathmotropian, that is to say their chronotropy,
>> that is to say their internal measurement of time. That's not what the
>> clocks tell each other. I beg you to understand this.
>
> Once again, you stand a better chance of people understanding you if you
> don't insist on using made-up nonsense words (or French).

are you identify as a woman?

On 5/4/23 5:40 PM, Jack Liu wrote:> Time Dilation effect derived from
the Lorentz Transformation in SR is
> a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect,
> FOR OTHERS.

Hmmmm. It is "time dilation" that permits pion beams 1km long to exist
at Fermilab and CERN. So it can have real, physical effects.

Moreover, your words are ambiguous and imprecise.

A clock can be synchronized to the coordinate time of a given inertial
frame, moved relative to that frame, and then brought to rest in the
frame -- it will no longer be synchronized with coordinate time, but it
will tick at the same rate as the coordinate time. So for tick rate the
trip did not affect the clock permanently, but for displayed time it
did. Note that both tick rate and displayed time are measurable, and are
therefore physical effects.

How such a trip is modeled depends on one's approach; it
could be considered to be due to "time dilation", or it
could be considered to be due to different paths through
spacetime.

> Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving
> mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz
> transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of
> subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective physical
> phenomena.

Hmmm. The Lorentz transform relates differently-moving inertial
coordinates to each other. Nothing more.

The real impact of SR on theoretical physics is Lorentz invariance --
that is a powerful constraint on the physical theories we use to model
the world we inhabit. Note this is all MODELING the world, not "physical
phenomena" -- we are just describing what nature does.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:41:20 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/4/23 5:40 PM, Jack Liu wrote:> Time Dilation effect derived from
> the Lorentz Transformation in SR is
> > a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect,
> > FOR OTHERS.
> Hmmmm. It is "time dilation" that permits pion beams 1km long to exist
> at Fermilab and CERN.

No, poor halfbrain. Anyone can check real
clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
beams still are as they are.

Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> ...Anyone can check real
> clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
> beams still are as they are.

Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity
ever had) :

Chapter 1. Things are what they are.

End.

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:59:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > ...Anyone can check real
> > clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
> > beams still are as they are.
> Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying again to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, have you already learnt
what kinds of measurement error are there?
And what a function is? And so on?

Genious physicist Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:59:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> ...Anyone can check real
>>> clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
>>> beams still are as they are.
>> Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity
>> ever had) :
>>
>> Chapter 1. Things are what they are.
>>
>> End.

> And what a function is?

You have already forgotten? I told you yesterday.

Anyway, here is the next chapter of Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak :

Chapter 2. Experimental procedure
Step 1. Wait for the experimenters to do the job and publish
results.
Step 2. Predict that the experiments will show what was
measured by experimenters.

Chapter 3. Publish your work
Wake up at 6 a.m. (CET), piss, shit then go out of
bed. Publish profanities and lies on sci.physics.relativity
Go to sleep at 8 p.m (CET) with frustration and anger, take
pills, sleep.

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:13:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Genious physicist Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:59:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> ...Anyone can check real
> >>> clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
> >>> beams still are as they are.
> >> Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity
> >> ever had) :
> >>
> >> Chapter 1. Things are what they are.
> >>
> >> End.
> > And what a function is?
> You have already forgotten? I told you yesterday.

And your answer was wrong. Again.
Bourbaki's definition is (as expected)
basically the same what the usual one.

> Anyway, here is the next chapter of Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak :
>
> Chapter 2. Experimental procedure
> Step 1. Wait for the experimenters to do the job and publish
> results.
> Step 2. Predict that the experiments will show what was
> measured by experimenters.

This method has actually been well known in
physics at least since your idiot guru.

Great logician Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:13:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Genious physicist Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:59:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> ...Anyone can check real
>>>>> clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
>>>>> beams still are as they are.
>>>> Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity
>>>> ever had) :
>>>>
>>>> Chapter 1. Things are what they are.
>>>>
>>>> End.
>>> And what a function is?
>> You have already forgotten? I told you yesterday.
>
> And your answer was wrong. Again.
> Bourbaki's definition is (as expected)
> basically the same what the usual one.

What is wrong, Maciej? My answer? Bourbaki's one? The usual one?
What is your definition of function Maciej ?

>> Anyway, here is the next chapter of Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak :
>>
>> Chapter 2. Experimental procedure
>> Step 1. Wait for the experimenters to do the job and publish
>> results.
>> Step 2. Predict that the experiments will show what was
>> measured by experimenters.
>
> This method has actually been well known in
> physics at least since your idiot guru.

Not quite.

Don't forget to follow Chapter 3.

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:25:46 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Great logician Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:13:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >> Genious physicist Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:59:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>> Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> ...Anyone can check real
> >>>>> clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
> >>>>> beams still are as they are.
> >>>> Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity
> >>>> ever had) :
> >>>>
> >>>> Chapter 1. Things are what they are.
> >>>>
> >>>> End.
> >>> And what a function is?
> >> You have already forgotten? I told you yesterday.
> >
> > And your answer was wrong. Again.
> > Bourbaki's definition is (as expected)
> > basically the same what the usual one.
> What is wrong, Maciej? My answer?

Yes.

> What is your definition of function Maciej ?

I don't have my own, I use the ordinary
one. But in opposition to you, I'm able to use
it correctly.

Le 07/05/2023 à 18:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:25:46 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Great logician Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 18:13:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>> Genious physicist Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 17:59:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Genious engineer Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> ...Anyone can check real
>>>>>>> clocks - no time dilation exists, and pion
>>>>>>> beams still are as they are.
>>>>>> Physics 101 by Maciej Wozniak (one of the best logicians Humanity
>>>>>> ever had) :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chapter 1. Things are what they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> End.
>>>>> And what a function is?
>>>> You have already forgotten? I told you yesterday.
>>>
>>> And your answer was wrong. Again.
>>> Bourbaki's definition is (as expected)
>>> basically the same what the usual one.
>> What is wrong, Maciej? My answer?
>
> Yes.

Oh, really :-)

>> What is your definition of function Maciej ?
>
> I don't have my own, I use the ordinary
> one. But in opposition to you, I'm able to use
> it correctly.

"My" definition being the ordinary one, this is
quite weird. In your world the same definition
is correct or not according to who write it down,
isn't it? It matches with your paranoid view of
the world...

You can use a definition you don't have. You can also
nail a non-existing painting on a wall, I'm quite sure...