Relativity has made living complicated for gullible idiots, when you ask them
what time is it.

A solution, given the current capabilities of technology, is to use a wearable
dual display wristwatch, both TAI synchronized.

In one screen, you have Galilean time.

In the screen next to this, you have Lorentz time, adjusted by current speed v
of YOU.

You measure speed v by different means available.

Then, if somebody asks you what time is it, you say: "Lorentz or Galilean", so
everyone is happy.

I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 11:46:44 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Relativity has made living complicated for gullible idiots, when you ask them
> what time is it.
>
> A solution, given the current capabilities of technology, is to use a wearable
> dual display wristwatch, both TAI synchronized.
>
> In one screen, you have Galilean time.
>
> In the screen next to this, you have Lorentz time, adjusted by current speed v
> of YOU.
>
> You measure speed v by different means available.
>
> Then, if somebody asks you what time is it, you say: "Lorentz or Galilean", so
> everyone is happy.
>
> I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.

∆tᴳ = ∆tᵀᴬᴵ

∆tᴸ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) ∆tᵀᴬᴵ

After all, it only is required that the watch compute 1/√(1 - v²/c²) and be fed with the speed v. Just a formula
applied to make relativists happy.

The watch has a log with time duration at any given speed, since it was synchronized at the start of any journey by setting tᴳ = tᴸ = tᵀᴬᴵ.

And, maybe, can communicate both readings periodically to any control center, so they can check it.

On May 26, Richard Hertz wrote:
> In one screen, you have Galilean time.
> In the screen next to this, you have Lorentz time, adjusted by
> current speed v of YOU.
> You measure speed v by different means available.
> Then, if somebody asks you what time is it, you say: "Lorentz or Galilean", so
> everyone is happy.

"Bring the ship to a halt, Mr. Chekov."
"Relative to what, Kapitan?"

> I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.

Starfleet Command. (and captain's log)

--
Rich

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:10:44 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:

<snip>

> "Bring the ship to a halt, Mr. Chekov."
> "Relative to what, Kapitan?"
> > I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.
> Starfleet Command. (and captain's log)

Most, if not everyone, knows that when the USS Enterprise catapults away at warp speed, it leaves behind streaks of light from the surrounding stars, because warp speed is faster than the speed of light. Warp boost 1 = c, while Warp N = N.c.

Also, its position is relative to the exact center of the Milky Way (3D), and this is shared by every ship in the fleet. So, the position of
any ship is known at any station in the 100 million stellar system of this galaxy. USS Enterprise never abandoned the Milky Way and,
as it's almost flat, it has been divided in quadrants to make things easier..

Time is measured, in day units as a Stardate is a five-digit number followed by a decimal point and one more digit. Example: "46254.7".

USS Enterprise uses subspace communications, where the speed of signals is infinite, because signals use space tunneling.

Lorentz was remembered as an imbecile, along with his partner Einstein, who pestered physics for the XX century and 30 years of
XXI century, after which Global AI Coordination was used to put things in place, as Newton meant.

But relativists will not agree with the above facts.

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:35:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:10:44 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > "Bring the ship to a halt, Mr. Chekov."
> > "Relative to what, Kapitan?"
> > > I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.
> > Starfleet Command. (and captain's log)
> Most, if not everyone, knows that when the USS Enterprise catapults away at warp speed, it leaves behind streaks of light from the surrounding stars, because warp speed is faster than the speed of light. Warp boost 1 = c, while Warp N = N.c.
>
> Also, its position is relative to the exact center of the Milky Way (3D), and this is shared by every ship in the fleet. So, the position of
> any ship is known at any station in the 100 million stellar system of this galaxy. USS Enterprise never abandoned the Milky Way and,
> as it's almost flat, it has been divided in quadrants to make things easier.
>
> Time is measured, in day units as a Stardate is a five-digit number followed by a decimal point and one more digit. Example: "46254.7".
>
> USS Enterprise uses subspace communications, where the speed of signals is infinite, because signals use space tunneling.
>
> Lorentz was remembered as an imbecile, along with his partner Einstein, who pestered physics for the XX century and 30 years of
> XXI century, after which Global AI Coordination was used to put things in place, as Newton meant.
>
> But relativists will not agree with the above facts.

I forgot to add that transmissions are based on quantum entanglement, the source of which is continuously being synchronized.

This is the basis of instant subspace communications.

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:46:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Relativity has made living complicated for gullible idiots, when you ask them
> what time is it.
>
> A solution, given the current capabilities of technology, is to use a wearable
> dual display wristwatch, both TAI synchronized.
>
> In one screen, you have Galilean time.
>
> In the screen next to this, you have Lorentz time, adjusted by current speed v
> of YOU.
>
> You measure speed v by different means available.
>
> Then, if somebody asks you what time is it, you say: "Lorentz or Galilean", so
> everyone is happy.
>
> I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.
I care because it doesn't have the slightest validity at any velocity. It's not as if relative velocity changes the time rate at all.

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:35:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:10:44 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > "Bring the ship to a halt, Mr. Chekov."
> > > "Relative to what, Kapitan?"
> > > > I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.
> > > Starfleet Command. (and captain's log)
> > Most, if not everyone, knows that when the USS Enterprise catapults away at warp speed, it leaves behind streaks of light from the surrounding stars, because warp speed is faster than the speed of light. Warp boost 1 = c, while Warp N = N.c.
> >
> > Also, its position is relative to the exact center of the Milky Way (3D), and this is shared by every ship in the fleet. So, the position of
> > any ship is known at any station in the 100 million stellar system of this galaxy. USS Enterprise never abandoned the Milky Way and,
> > as it's almost flat, it has been divided in quadrants to make things easier.
> >
> > Time is measured, in day units as a Stardate is a five-digit number followed by a decimal point and one more digit. Example: "46254.7".
> >
> > USS Enterprise uses subspace communications, where the speed of signals is infinite, because signals use space tunneling.
> >
> > Lorentz was remembered as an imbecile, along with his partner Einstein, who pestered physics for the XX century and 30 years of
> > XXI century, after which Global AI Coordination was used to put things in place, as Newton meant.
> >
> > But relativists will not agree with the above facts.
> I forgot to add that transmissions are based on quantum entanglement, the source of which is continuously being synchronized.
>
> This is the basis of instant subspace communications.
I forgot to add we should thoroughly expunge relativity if we are to free Big Science from pseudoscience.

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:46:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Relativity has made living complicated for gullible idiots, when you ask them
> what time is it.
>
> A solution, given the current capabilities of technology, is to use a wearable
> dual display wristwatch, both TAI synchronized.
>
> In one screen, you have Galilean time.
>
> In the screen next to this, you have Lorentz time, adjusted by current speed v
> of YOU.
>
> You measure speed v by different means available.
>
> Then, if somebody asks you what time is it, you say: "Lorentz or Galilean", so
> everyone is happy.
>
> I wonder how many will care about Lorentz time.
"It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.

Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :

> "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing Gravity:
> New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.

There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
it one day.

R.H.

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
>
> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing Gravity:
> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> it one day.
>
> R.H.
If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
>
> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing Gravity:
> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> it one day.
>
> R.H.
BTW you did not comprehend Van Flandern's comment. Relativity is mere math posing as physics. It's a physics question so the math is only a description of the physics.

Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
>>
>> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
>> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
>> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
>> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
>> Gravity:
>> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
>> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
>> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
>> it one day.
>>
>> R.H.
> If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?

That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
beauty (experimental evidence). But I have this reservation that I affirm
that this theory is so badly explained, so badly understood, so twisted by
men that we arrive at false equations and false concepts. I am not even
talking about Langevin's paradox in apparent velocities (which collapses
the current theory) and the certain equations relating to accelerated
frames of reference which are completely false (proper times,
instantaneous observable velocities and observable time segments).

Nota Bene : Je ne comprends pas votre dernière question portant sur la
gravité et la vitesse de la lumière.

R.H.

R.H.

On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 12:02:06 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> >>
> >> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> >> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> >> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> >> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
> >> Gravity:
> >> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> >> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> >> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> >> it one day.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> > If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> > discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
> That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
> theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
> beauty (experimental evidence).

But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:02:06 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> >>
> >> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> >> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> >> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> >> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
> >> Gravity:
> >> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> >> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> >> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> >> it one day.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> > If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> > discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
> That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
> theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
> beauty (experimental evidence). But I have this reservation that I affirm
> that this theory is so badly explained, so badly understood, so twisted by
> men that we arrive at false equations and false concepts. I am not even
> talking about Langevin's paradox in apparent velocities (which collapses
> the current theory) and the certain equations relating to accelerated
> frames of reference which are completely false (proper times,
> instantaneous observable velocities and observable time segments).
>
> Nota Bene : Je ne comprends pas votre dernière question portant sur la
> gravité et la vitesse de la lumière.
>
> R.H.
>
> R.H.
"Nota Bene: I don't understand your last question about gravity and the speed of light." Einstein's gravity is supposed to move at the speed of light instead of the instantaneous speed of Newton. Tom Van Flandern's articles on "Speed of gravity."

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:02:44 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> >
> > > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> > > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> > > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> > > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing Gravity:
> > > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> > There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> > would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> > it one day.
> >
> > R.H.
> If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
Kookfight

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:43:32 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 12:02:06 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> > >> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> > >> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> > >> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
> > >> Gravity:
> > >> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> > >> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> > >> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> > >> it one day.
> > >>
> > >> R.H.
> > > If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> > > discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
> > That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
> > theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
> > beauty (experimental evidence).
> But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
> measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
We are taught that relativity is paradoxical, meaning that the inconsistencies are only apparent to the uninformed and thoughtless. That is not at all true. It is thoroughly illogical from its foundations. The fundamental concepts are logically fallacious, so nothing but illogical nonsense can follow from them. Ad hoc reasoning involves making exceptions to rules without proving them, so ad hoc concepts are self-contradictory as everything that follows from them. Time dilation and length contraction are purely ad hoc. Lorentz understood this and maintained that only proper time is real. It was Einstein who asserted that ad hoc dilated time is real. The only thing consistent is the math. So is the math of cooked books in a corrupt business. It all adds up neatly. It is just not true. Math is a language relativists lie with. There are thousands of critics of relativity like you who see major flaws and want to keep the rest. Thomas Phipps was an accomplished scientist who thought length contraction was nonsense yet kept time dilation. Al Foos, an amateur on this forum with strong science education, insists time dilation is nonsense, while length contraction provides him with his gravity theory. Tom Van Flandern, like many critics of relativity, rejects special relativity and keeps Lorentzian relativity. Many keep the ether, so they are still relativists having to save the ether wind from the null result. There would have to be ether winds on Earth's surface as surely as there are winds on the equator. Experiments cannot prove an illogical theory because such a theory does not make predictions.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:43:32 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 28 May 2023 at 12:02:06 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> > >> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> > >> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> > >> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
> > >> Gravity:
> > >> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> > >> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> > >> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> > >> it one day.
> > >>
> > >> R.H.
> > > If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> > > discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
> > That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
> > theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
> > beauty (experimental evidence).
> But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
> by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
> measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.
So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan). It is more parsimonious to suppose they moved faster or lived longer than that time dilated. Since time itself is a comparison of rates of change, changing the units of measure does not change anything. If every process of change changed to a different rate in unison on a spaceship moving close to the speed of light what could cause that? The cause of time dilation is unknown. Time dilation has never been proven at all.

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:02:06 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> >>
> >> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> >> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> >> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> >> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
> >> Gravity:
> >> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> >> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> >> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> >> it one day.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> > If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> > discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
> That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
> theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
> beauty (experimental evidence). But I have this reservation that I affirm
> that this theory is so badly explained, so badly understood, so twisted by
> men that we arrive at false equations and false concepts. I am not even
> talking about Langevin's paradox in apparent velocities (which collapses
> the current theory) and the certain equations relating to accelerated
> frames of reference which are completely false (proper times,
> instantaneous observable velocities and observable time segments).
>
> Nota Bene : Je ne comprends pas votre dernière question portant sur la
> gravité et la vitesse de la lumière.
>
> R.H.
>
> R.H.
We are taught that relativity is paradoxical, meaning that the inconsistencies are only apparent to the uninformed and thoughtless. That is not at all true. It is thoroughly illogical from its foundations. The fundamental concepts are logically fallacious, so nothing but illogical nonsense can follow from them. Ad hoc reasoning involves making exceptions to rules without proving them, so ad hoc concepts are self-contradictory as everything that follows from them. Time dilation and length contraction are purely ad hoc. Lorentz understood this and maintained that only proper time is real. It was Einstein who asserted that ad hoc dilated time is real. The only thing consistent is the math. So is the math of cooked books in a corrupt business. It all adds up neatly. It is just not true. Math is a language relativists lie with. There are thousands of critics of relativity like you who see major flaws and want to keep the rest. Thomas Phipps was an accomplished scientist who thought length contraction was nonsense yet kept time dilation. Al Foos, an amateur on this forum with strong science education, insists time dilation is nonsense, while length contraction provides him with his gravity theory. Tom Van Flandern, like many critics of relativity, rejects special relativity and keeps Lorentzian relativity. Many keep the ether, so they are still relativists having to save the ether wind from the null result. There would have to be ether winds on Earth's surface as surely as there are winds on the equator. Experiments cannot prove an illogical theory because such a theory does not make predictions.

So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan). It is more parsimonious to suppose they moved faster or lived longer than that time dilated. Since time itself is a comparison of rates of change, changing the units of measure does not change anything. If every process of change changed to a different rate in unison on a spaceship moving close to the speed of light what could cause that? The cause of time dilation is unknown. Time dilation has never been proven at all.

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 1:47:15 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:02:06 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > >>
> > >> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> > >> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> > >> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> > >> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
> > >> Gravity:
> > >> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> > >> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> > >> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> > >> it one day.
> > >>
> > >> R.H.
> > > If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> > > discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
> > That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
> > theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
> > beauty (experimental evidence). But I have this reservation that I affirm
> > that this theory is so badly explained, so badly understood, so twisted by
> > men that we arrive at false equations and false concepts. I am not even
> > talking about Langevin's paradox in apparent velocities (which collapses
> > the current theory) and the certain equations relating to accelerated
> > frames of reference which are completely false (proper times,
> > instantaneous observable velocities and observable time segments).
> >
> > Nota Bene : Je ne comprends pas votre dernière question portant sur la
> > gravité et la vitesse de la lumière.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> > R.H.
> We are taught that relativity is paradoxical, meaning that the inconsistencies are only apparent to the uninformed and thoughtless. That is not at all true. It is thoroughly illogical from its foundations. The fundamental concepts are logically fallacious, so nothing but illogical nonsense can follow from them. Ad hoc reasoning involves making exceptions to rules without proving them, so ad hoc concepts are self-contradictory as everything that follows from them. Time dilation and length contraction are purely ad hoc. Lorentz understood this and maintained that only proper time is real. It was Einstein who asserted that ad hoc dilated time is real. The only thing consistent is the math. So is the math of cooked books in a corrupt business.. It all adds up neatly. It is just not true. Math is a language relativists lie with. There are thousands of critics of relativity like you who see major flaws and want to keep the rest. Thomas Phipps was an accomplished scientist who thought length contraction was nonsense yet kept time dilation. Al Foos, an amateur on this forum with strong science education, insists time dilation is nonsense, while length contraction provides him with his gravity theory. Tom Van Flandern, like many critics of relativity, rejects special relativity and keeps Lorentzian relativity. Many keep the ether, so they are still relativists having to save the ether wind from the null result.. There would have to be ether winds on Earth's surface as surely as there are winds on the equator. Experiments cannot prove an illogical theory because such a theory does not make predictions.

THERE ARE COSMIC MUONS AND LABORATORY GENERATED MUONS, BEING THE DECAY TIME OF THE LAST SETTLED TO 2.2 uSEC.

In the lab, a very strong magnetic force is induced on them, so they spiral down to their extinction. Nothing like this happens in nature.

But the equal behavior assertion IS AS RIGGED AS THE VALUE OF THE USD OR THE VALUES OF STOCKS IN WS. AND THIS HAPPENS
BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAKES A LOT OF PROFIT ON THESE FIXINGS, WHILE MOST ARE JUST COWS CHEWING GRASS IN THE HERD.

PEOPLE ARE, 99.99% OF THEM, GULLIBLE IMBECILES WHO WANT ORDER IN CHAOS. IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFICULT WORLD TO LIVE AT
IF 100 BOOKS HAVE 100 DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS FOR EVENTS IN PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY OR ANY OTHER FIELD.

SO, CRETINS IN CHARGE, WORKING IN A COMPLEX LAYERED STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN STATES AND AT
SUPRANATIONAL LEVELS (LIKE ONU, ISO, WHO, WTO, INTL. SOCIETIES OF SCIENCE) ALL AGREE TO HAVE THE SAME NARRATIVE,
IN THE WESTERN DOMINATED WORLD.

NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND: COLLUSION FOR "PEACE OF MIND". AND THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.

BUT WITHIN GREEDY CORPORATIONS, WHERE THE PRIVATIZED SCIENCE EXISTS FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS, A DIFFERENT TRUTH EXIST.

> So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan). It is more parsimonious to suppose they moved faster or lived longer than that time dilated. Since time itself is a comparison of rates of change, changing the units of measure does not change anything. If every process of change changed to a different rate in unison on a spaceship moving close to the speed of light what could cause that? The cause of time dilation is unknown. Time dilation has never been proven at all.

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 1:47:15 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 3:02:06 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > Le 28/05/2023 à 01:02, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > > > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > > >> Le 27/05/2023 à 22:20, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> > > >>
> > > >> > "It has only recently been appreciated that SR may be a valid mathematical
> > > >> > theory in agreement with most experimental evidence, yet still be an invalid
> > > >> > theory of physics. This is because an infinite number of theories that are
> > > >> > mathematically equivalent to SR exist." - Tom Van Flandern p. 95 Pushing
> > > >> Gravity:
> > > >> > New Perspectives On Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation c.2002.
> > > >> There can only be one valid theory. Mine is so simple and obvious that it
> > > >> would be very strange for it to be false, or for predictions to contradict
> > > >> it one day.
> > > >>
> > > >> R.H.
> > > > If I'm not mistaken, you are a dyed in the wool relativist. If you do not
> > > > discard it completely you are deluded. Does your gravity go the speed of light?
> > > That's right, I'm a relativist, and I'm absolutely certain that this
> > > theory has both internal beauty (theoretical consistency) and external
> > > beauty (experimental evidence). But I have this reservation that I affirm
> > > that this theory is so badly explained, so badly understood, so twisted by
> > > men that we arrive at false equations and false concepts. I am not even
> > > talking about Langevin's paradox in apparent velocities (which collapses
> > > the current theory) and the certain equations relating to accelerated
> > > frames of reference which are completely false (proper times,
> > > instantaneous observable velocities and observable time segments).
> > >
> > > Nota Bene : Je ne comprends pas votre dernière question portant sur la
> > > gravité et la vitesse de la lumière.
> > >
> > > R.H.
> > >
> > > R.H.
> > We are taught that relativity is paradoxical, meaning that the inconsistencies are only apparent to the uninformed and thoughtless. That is not at all true. It is thoroughly illogical from its foundations. The fundamental concepts are logically fallacious, so nothing but illogical nonsense can follow from them. Ad hoc reasoning involves making exceptions to rules without proving them, so ad hoc concepts are self-contradictory as everything that follows from them. Time dilation and length contraction are purely ad hoc. Lorentz understood this and maintained that only proper time is real. It was Einstein who asserted that ad hoc dilated time is real. The only thing consistent is the math. So is the math of cooked books in a corrupt business. It all adds up neatly. It is just not true. Math is a language relativists lie with. There are thousands of critics of relativity like you who see major flaws and want to keep the rest. Thomas Phipps was an accomplished scientist who thought length contraction was nonsense yet kept time dilation.. Al Foos, an amateur on this forum with strong science education, insists time dilation is nonsense, while length contraction provides him with his gravity theory. Tom Van Flandern, like many critics of relativity, rejects special relativity and keeps Lorentzian relativity. Many keep the ether, so they are still relativists having to save the ether wind from the null result. There would have to be ether winds on Earth's surface as surely as there are winds on the equator. Experiments cannot prove an illogical theory because such a theory does not make predictions.
> THERE ARE COSMIC MUONS AND LABORATORY GENERATED MUONS, BEING THE DECAY TIME OF THE LAST SETTLED TO 2.2 uSEC.
>
> In the lab, a very strong magnetic force is induced on them, so they spiral down to their extinction. Nothing like this happens in nature.
>
> But the equal behavior assertion IS AS RIGGED AS THE VALUE OF THE USD OR THE VALUES OF STOCKS IN WS. AND THIS HAPPENS
> BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAKES A LOT OF PROFIT ON THESE FIXINGS, WHILE MOST ARE JUST COWS CHEWING GRASS IN THE HERD.
>
> PEOPLE ARE, 99.99% OF THEM, GULLIBLE IMBECILES WHO WANT ORDER IN CHAOS. IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFICULT WORLD TO LIVE AT
> IF 100 BOOKS HAVE 100 DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS FOR EVENTS IN PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY OR ANY OTHER FIELD.
>
> SO, CRETINS IN CHARGE, WORKING IN A COMPLEX LAYERED STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN STATES AND AT
> SUPRANATIONAL LEVELS (LIKE ONU, ISO, WHO, WTO, INTL. SOCIETIES OF SCIENCE) ALL AGREE TO HAVE THE SAME NARRATIVE,
> IN THE WESTERN DOMINATED WORLD.
>
> NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND: COLLUSION FOR "PEACE OF MIND". AND THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.
>
> BUT WITHIN GREEDY CORPORATIONS, WHERE THE PRIVATIZED SCIENCE EXISTS FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS, A DIFFERENT TRUTH EXIST.
> > So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan). It is more parsimonious to suppose they moved faster or lived longer than that time dilated. Since time itself is a comparison of rates of change, changing the units of measure does not change anything. If every process of change changed to a different rate in unison on a spaceship moving close to the speed of light what could cause that? The cause of time dilation is unknown. Time dilation has never been proven at all.
Yes, most people have no idea of the wide differences of opinions among serious scientists. Yes, relativity functions as a boondoggle for getting government research grants. Anthropogenic global warming is another boondoggle. Early in the twentieth century, Arrhenius was disproven by two different scientists in two different ways. In the middle of that century, it was taken up again without overturning their cases against it. I had occasion to study historical hyperinflations a bit when as a security guard, I had a lot of time to read. I don't think that rigging the U.S. dollar has much effect against the forces of the global economic market. What happens is the U.S. provides the service of a global exchange and reserve currency, and when it no longer serves that function, trillions of dollars will return to the U..S., causing hyperinflation. In the meantime, the dollar just has to out-compete the other currencies, most of which inflate more. Clearly, muons live longer in nature without any ad hoc time dilation.

On 5/28/2023 1:04 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation

Nothing is proven in physics, only disproven.

> because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan).

Yes. And we have the extraordinary evidence. We have plenty of examples
of particle beams etc. moving much farther than their lifetimes allow.

> It is more parsimonious to suppose they moved faster

So we measured their speeds. It is always ~c.

> or lived longer than that time dilated.

Caused by what? (hint: time dilation).

> Since time itself is a comparison of rates of change, changing the units of measure does not change anything.

??? Nobody is changing any units.

> If every process of change changed to a different rate in unison on a spaceship moving close to the speed of light what could cause that?

???

> The cause of time dilation is unknown. Time dilation has never been proven at all.

It has been measured, however. Nothing is proven in physics, only
disproven. The muons are merely one example of time dilation being measured.

On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 20:13:25 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 5/28/2023 1:04 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation
> Nothing is proven in physics, only disproven.
> > because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan).
> Yes. And we have the extraordinary evidence. We have plenty of examples
> of particle beams etc. moving much farther than their lifetimes allow.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep
measuring improper t'=t in improper seconds.

> > The cause of time dilation is unknown. Time dilation has never been proven at all.
> It has been measured, however.

In some wet dreams of some brainwashed morons,
like you, stupid Mike.

On 2023-05-29 17:18:55 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> THERE ARE COSMIC MUONS AND LABORATORY GENERATED MUONS, BEING THE DECAY
> TIME OF THE LAST SETTLED TO 2.2 uSEC.
>
> In the lab, a very strong magnetic force is induced on them, so they
> spiral down to their extinction. Nothing like this happens in nature.
>
> But the equal behavior assertion IS AS RIGGED AS THE VALUE OF THE USD
> OR THE VALUES OF STOCKS IN WS. AND THIS HAPPENS
> BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAKES A LOT OF PROFIT ON THESE FIXINGS, WHILE MOST
> ARE JUST COWS CHEWING GRASS IN THE HERD.
>
> PEOPLE ARE, 99.99% OF THEM, GULLIBLE IMBECILES WHO WANT ORDER IN CHAOS.
> IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFICULT WORLD TO LIVE AT
> IF 100 BOOKS HAVE 100 DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS FOR EVENTS IN PHYSICS,
> CHEMISTRY OR ANY OTHER FIELD.
>
> SO, CRETINS IN CHARGE, WORKING IN A COMPLEX LAYERED STRUCTURE OF
> ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN STATES AND ATSUPRANATIONAL LEVELS (LIKE ONU, ISO,
> WHO, WTO, INTL. SOCIETIES OF SCIENCE) ALL AGREE TO HAVE THE SAME
> NARRATIVE,
> IN THE WESTERN DOMINATED WORLD.
>
> NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND: COLLUSION FOR "PEACE OF MIND". AND
> THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.
>
> BUT WITHIN GREEDY CORPORATIONS, WHERE THE PRIVATIZED SCIENCE EXISTS FOR
> THE LAST 100 YEARS, A DIFFERENT TRUTH EXIST.

Do you think that shouting makes your message more convincing? It
doesn't for me: when I see whole paragraphs shouted I just skip ahead.
>
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 5/28/23 11:04 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at
> a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to
> claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation because
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan).

No physicist is attempting to "prove time dilation". Your complaint here
merely shows how little you know about science in general and physics in
particular.

Note that "time dilation" is the name given to the physical phenomenon
that permits unstable particles moving with speed approaching c relative
to the lab, to travel much further in the lab than lifetime*speed would
predict. (That is a poor name, which is why I always put it in "scare
quotes".)

> It is more parsimonious to suppose they moved faster or lived longer
> than that time dilated.

Only in your fantasy world. In the world we inhabit, it is VASTLY more
parsimonious to apply our best models of physics to the measurements.
This shows that the lifetime measured in the lab tracks very accurately
with the prediction of SR for its variation with speed wrt the lab.

> [... more nonsense] >Time dilation has never been proven at all

Of course not! Nothing can ever be "proven" in physics. But the
underlying theory, Special Relativity, is among the best-tested theories
we have today.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 06:38:41 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/28/23 11:04 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > So when muons are still present after their expected life is over at
> > a greater distance than their expected speed could allow, you want to
> > claim time dilation. That does not prove time dilation because
> > extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (-Carl Sagan).
> No physicist is attempting to "prove time dilation". Your complaint here
> merely shows how little you know about science in general and physics in
> particular.
>
> Note that "time dilation" is the name given to the physical phenomenon
> that permits unstable particles moving with speed approaching c relative
> to the lab, to travel much further in the lab than lifetime*speed would
> predict. (That is a poor name, which is why I always put it in "scare
> quotes".)

That is a poor name, indeed, and, of course, the
initial concept was different; in the delusions
of your idiot guru time dilation was described
as some difference in clock indications.