On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> >
> >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.

Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
to in 1905? How was it defined?
Michael Moroney’s profile photo
Michael Moroney

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:25:01 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
> > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > >
> > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
>
> Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> to in 1905? How was it defined?
> Michael Moroney’s profile photo
> Michael Moroney

SR not consistent?

Wrong theory....

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 11:33:33 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:25:01 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >
> > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > >
> > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> >
> > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > Michael Moroney’s profile photo
> > Michael Moroney
> SR not consistent?
>
> Wrong theory....

So, what was the unit of time Einstein was referring in his famous
article? How was it defined?

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:08:06 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 11:33:33 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:25:01 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > > >
> > > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > >
> > > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > > Michael Moroney’s profile photo
> > > Michael Moroney
> > SR not consistent?
> >
> > Wrong theory....
> So, what was the unit of time Einstein was referring in his famous
> article? How was it defined?

If you ask me it's the space-time the Minkowskian 3 space + 1 time
dimension: has divergence of time-lines or world-lines, but, really
there's only chance in the stochastic sense, that, doesn't admit a
multiple-world interpretation, which is faithfully or fallingly represented
after the Minkowskian, that instead there is only a ray of time.

About "time-dilation", then, it's a projection, corresponding with
a "length-contraction", but, instead, modeled as "space contraction",
where, light fluxes at c, which is always in the "local" terms as where
of course it's "the speed of a photon in deep space a universal void".

I.e. there's always a light cone, what with respect to the perpendicular,
world-lines only join and time only slows.

(That "world-lines of overall frames besides test particles are frames".)

These days this is that "SR is local", what makes for a general framework
where space-time is global or total. This is called a "total field" theory..

Among the dangers (of, errors in interpretation) of deriving SR is defining it.
I.e. some modern theories make use of "defining it" because it works just
fine for usual application in the electrostatic like chip design, while, for
example, the cosmological here is often in terms of Lambda-CDM,
using a simplified "sub-theory of a unified field theory a local field theory".

These days there's still quite interest in Lorentz and Maxwell as,
"of the classical of vectors of their respective field theories", while,
there is a notion of that "unipotential is the real field", for whatever
and all mathematical features result so equipped a physical interpretation.
I.e., all sorts of usual modern physics in the kinetic and charge is totally
well held up: while still making for being re-written in continuous terms
under unipotential and as for a real wave-equation. (Particle, wave,
resonance/frame, ....) (And the Galilean frame, and for the optical.)

Anyways Special Relativity is what you make of it:
if not making sense of it don't go making non-sense of it.

Do the headlights precede the relativistic car?
In its inertial frame, yeah.

If anything, what you are saying is "the special relativistic
regime for the digital or electrical charge is well-defined,
in terms sufficient to support Very Large Scale Integration."

.... That light speed is an invariant in space..., that relative
velocity in space is slightly not invariant under kinetic inputs
or after "symmetry flex", ....

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 12:21:43 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:08:06 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 11:33:33 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:25:01 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > > > >
> > > > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > > >
> > > > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > > > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > > > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > > > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > > > Michael Moroney’s profile photo
> > > > Michael Moroney
> > > SR not consistent?
> > >
> > > Wrong theory....
> > So, what was the unit of time Einstein was referring in his famous
> > article? How was it defined?
> If you ask me it's the space-time the Minkowskian 3 space + 1 time
> dimension: has divergence of time-lines or world-lines, but, really
> there's only chance in the stochastic sense, that, doesn't admit a
> multiple-world interpretation, which is faithfully or fallingly represented
> after the Minkowskian, that instead there is only a ray of time.
>
> About "time-dilation", then, it's a projection, corresponding with
> a "length-contraction", but, instead, modeled as "space contraction",
> where, light fluxes at c, which is always in the "local" terms as where
> of course it's "the speed of a photon in deep space a universal void".
>
> I.e. there's always a light cone, what with respect to the perpendicular,
> world-lines only join and time only slows.
>
> (That "world-lines of overall frames besides test particles are frames".)
>
> These days this is that "SR is local", what makes for a general framework
> where space-time is global or total. This is called a "total field" theory.
>
> Among the dangers (of, errors in interpretation) of deriving SR is defining it.
> I.e. some modern theories make use of "defining it" because it works just
> fine for usual application in the electrostatic like chip design, while, for
> example, the cosmological here is often in terms of Lambda-CDM,
> using a simplified "sub-theory of a unified field theory a local field theory".
>
>
>
> These days there's still quite interest in Lorentz and Maxwell as,
> "of the classical of vectors of their respective field theories", while,
> there is a notion of that "unipotential is the real field", for whatever
> and all mathematical features result so equipped a physical interpretation.
> I.e., all sorts of usual modern physics in the kinetic and charge is totally
> well held up: while still making for being re-written in continuous terms
> under unipotential and as for a real wave-equation. (Particle, wave,
> resonance/frame, ....) (And the Galilean frame, and for the optical.)
>
>
>
> Anyways Special Relativity is what you make of it:
> if not making sense of it don't go making non-sense of it.
>
> Do the headlights precede the relativistic car?
> In its inertial frame, yeah.
>
>
> If anything, what you are saying is "the special relativistic
> regime for the digital or electrical charge is well-defined,
> in terms sufficient to support Very Large Scale Integration."
>
> ... That light speed is an invariant in space..., that relative
> velocity in space is slightly not invariant under kinetic inputs
> or after "symmetry flex", ....

See, special relativity is consistent with respect to what's
attached to it.

Don't get it wrong....

Here that "relative velocity in space is slightly not invariant"
under kinetic inputs and the usual linear impulse.

That there's always the non-linear, often canceled to zero.

That velocity at zero really means acceleration at zero....

For Lorentz and Maxwell here is as much for the commitees on
fields and the potential fields in fields. (That of course in most
usual linear terms it's in measurement what reads out in the
linear, classical perspective, as for that it's "real" as the potential
constantly results in it, while the mechanism is "real in least terms",
that the potential fields are real as about the usual linear fields
are here as for velocity.)

On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 21:21:43 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:08:06 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 11:33:33 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:25:01 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > > > >
> > > > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > > >
> > > > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > > > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > > > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > > > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > > > Michael Moroney’s profile photo
> > > > Michael Moroney
> > > SR not consistent?
> > >
> > > Wrong theory....
> > So, what was the unit of time Einstein was referring in his famous
> > article? How was it defined?
> If you ask me it's the space-time the Minkowskian 3 space + 1 time
> dimension:

UNIT OF TIME. "SECOND". How was it defined when your
idiot guru lived and mumbled?

> See, special relativity is consistent with respect to what's
attached to it.

Assertion is not a valid argument.