On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 12:23:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:
> Consider a clock in a flying airplane. Einstein says this about that clock.

Who cares what E said. Focus on what SR (the math) says.

> "The time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, a slightly larger time.

SR (the math) does not say that.
Try again.

On Sunday 10 December 2023 at 15:30:03 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 12:23:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Consider a clock in a flying airplane. Einstein says this about that clock.
> Who cares what E said. Focus on what SR (the math) says.

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that
your idiot guru had to announce what it said false,
as it didn't want to fit his madness.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 12:23:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Consider a clock in a flying airplane. Einstein says this about that clock.
> Who cares what E said. Focus on what SR (the math) says.
> > "The time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, a slightly larger time.
> SR (the math) does not say that.
> Try again.
I am not saying it. Einstein said it. As I interpret Lorentz's equations, if t' is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds, then t would be 1 + vx/c^2 seconds, also a somewhat larger time than t, if we took the time in S to be one second, which was what Einstein seemed to be doing. But we can look at Lorentz's equation for t' and see that t' would be somewhat less time than t, meaning that a clock in S' is ticking slower than a clock in S. So it is a slower clock according to Einstein's interpretation, just not slow according to the value he gave.
In any event, the correct way to show the time of a slower clock would be to use a set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity to show the time and velocity according to the slower clock.
x = x' -(-vt/n')n'
where n' is the time of the slower clock, and -vt/n' is the velocity of S relative to S'.
So if scientists are saying that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving or that a clock in a GPS satellite is faster than a clock on earth because of the difference in gravitation, then the Galilean transformation equations show this just fine, and there is no need for a length contraction, curved space, or any of the other things that so excite scientists of today.

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:11:29 PM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:

> I am not saying it. Einstein said it.

As I said, who cares what he said.
Its what SR says that is 'important'.

> As I interpret Lorentz's equations,

There are no other interpretations. SR is clear on the meanings of the symbols & formulas.

> if t' is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds,

No. t and t' represent *values* on the specified clocks. That is what SR says.

> ... if we took the time in S to be one second,

A meaningless sentence. Again, the parameters t & t' represent *values* on the given clocks.

> ... But we can look at Lorentz's equation for t' and see that t' would be somewhat less time than t,
> meaning that a clock in S' is ticking slower than a clock in S.

No. If t' < t then t' is *less* that t. Its that simple.
Stated differently, t' has a lesser value than t.
No unnecessary concepts as 'slowing down' in SR.

Restart your whole arguments based an what SR says, no what other people say.
Try to be clear and succinct.

On Wednesday 13 December 2023 at 04:50:17 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:11:29 PM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> > I am not saying it. Einstein said it.
> As I said, who cares what he said.
> Its what SR says that is 'important'.

Wrong, poor idiot, as usual. The importance
of The Shit is fabricated, just like its rockets
and cloccks and cars and barns and bugs
and rivets.

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:48:26 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:

> Here is what I have been trying to explain to people. The Lorentz equations
> show that if there is a clock in an airplane that is slower than a clock on the ground,

The clock on the airplane is not slower. Its a clock and does what it does.
No need to attach other words or features to it.

> then, according to those equations, the pilot of the airplane gets the
> same speed for the airplane as an observer on the ground

Correct, and as confirmed by actual exp's.

> Any experiment that can be conducted will show that if the pilot of the airplane
> has a slower clock,

he does not have a slower clock. And the concepts of 'slow' is irrelevant and not necessary.
Its not part of SR. Keep the language simple and concise; dont use unnecessary and undefined terms.

And btw, I suggest you dont respond to Maciej . Hes just a troll and has nothing smart to say.
He is in my kill file and I only see his posts through replies as you have done.

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:43:14 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:

> It is not an argument from me, it is a quote from Einstein's book, Relativity, the Special and
> General Theory, page 44.

Im not interested in what others said or interpreted SR. Im interested in what SR says.

> Einstein's statement is somewhat ambiguous

Yes, and which is why I dont care what people say about SR, but rather what SR says.

> There is another interpretation of these equations, which is called Lorentz ether theory,
> and was the original interpretation of H.A. Lorentz. Lorentz

Yes, in the beginning of LET, the parameters were ill defined and their operational meanings were ambiguous.
Poincare came along and cleared all that up. As with SR, t is the value on the given clock. That simple.

rotchm wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:48:26 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:
>
>> Here is what I have been trying to explain to people. The Lorentz
>> equations show that if there is a clock in an airplane that is slower
>> than a clock on the ground,
>
> The clock on the airplane is not slower. Its a clock and does what it
> does. No need to attach other words or features to it.
> [quoted text muted]

"does what is does" 𝗶𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, fucking stupid. Watch this
𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_wanker, a "𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗼𝗿" above those 6_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, or below those
millions, since 𝘀𝗼_𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗼𝗿𝘀, it confuses people. If 𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗮𝗿𝗲 a survivor,
how can it be you are dead 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲??

𝗣𝗼𝗼𝗿_𝗛𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘆𝘄𝗲𝗶𝗿𝗱𝗼_𝗦𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴_𝗜𝘀_𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗮𝘁_𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗛𝗲'𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/6MmKJyb2UbAa

rotchm wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:43:14 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:
>> It is not an argument from me, it is a quote from Einstein's book,
>> Relativity, the Special and General Theory, page 44.
>
> Im not interested in 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 said or interpreted SR. Im interested
> in what SR says.

are you calling Einstine "𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀"?? You mean, all the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 of
america, and Palestine, are NOT "𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗼𝗿𝘀"?? Above those 6_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, or below
those millions, which confuses people. If 𝘆𝗼𝘂_𝗮𝗿𝗲 a survivor, how can it be
you are dead 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲??

𝗣𝗼𝗼𝗿_𝗛𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘆𝘄𝗲𝗶𝗿𝗱𝗼_𝗦𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗯𝗲𝗿𝗴_𝗜𝘀_𝗦𝗵𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗮𝘁_𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗛𝗲'𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/6MmKJyb2UbAa

On Wednesday 13 December 2023 at 19:41:53 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:48:26 AM UTC-5, Robert Winn wrote:
>
> > Here is what I have been trying to explain to people. The Lorentz equations
> > show that if there is a clock in an airplane that is slower than a clock on the ground,
> The clock on the airplane is not slower. Its a clock and does what it does.
> No need to attach other words or features to it.

Anyone can check GPS, some clocks are slower
and run at 9192631770 while others are faster
and run at 9192631774. That's where the lies of
your bunch of idiots end.