On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:32:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:58:58 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > 2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
> > > precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
> > > Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
> > >
> > > tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5
> JanPB wrote:
> > This has been raised here many, many times by amateur relativity opponents. There is nothing wrong with those formulas. As is
> > common, hobbyists who did not spend the time needed to learn the subject get "stuck" on the mere formal similarity of certain
> > formulas and from that they infer all sorts of weird things (the classic example is attempting to claim Einstein "stole" a formula
> > from Voigt, etc. etc. For some reason they never claim that Schwarzschild "stole" a formula from Laplace. But I digress.)
> Bodkin wrote:
> > On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything
> > in any frame. It is purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.
> JanPB and Bodkin agree: This is NOT CHEATING. It's just that I don't understand. THE FORMULAE ARE RIGHT.
> I'm the IDIOT who think it's wrong while millions of persons agreed with the formulae for 115 years. It's OK for Einstein
> to measure time using velocities c+v and c-v. He's inventing his relativity. You are not allowed to do it. Only him.
>
> I witness a 100% Stockholm Syndrome for two persons whose MINDS were sequestered for so long. They love the sequester.
>
> *********************
> > > "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate,
> > > and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
> > > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> JanPB wrote:
> > That's irrelevant in the context of the formulas under discussion. The presence of "c + v" and "c - v" comes from mere adding/subtracting
> > velocity vectors within a single coordinate system. This is how adding velocity vectors works in general.
> Bodkin wrote:
> > On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything
> > in any frame. It is purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.
> ************************
> > > Also, by using such fallacy, not only Lorentz transforms are "derived" but, in "§ 5. The Composition of Velocities", formulae explicitly
> > > forbidding any velocity above c is allowed (Page 12):
> > >
> > > V = v + w/(1 + v.w/c²)
> JanPB wrote:
> > You are confused here. The so-called "relativistic velocity addition" refers specifically to adding two velocities as measured by two
> > (usually different) observers. OTOH the formulas on page 5 simply count certain velocities within a single coordinate system (observer).
> Bodkin wrote:
> > In the expression v’ = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2), the quantity v’ is the measurable speed of an object as observed in the primed frame,
> > where v is its measurable velocity in the unprimed frame.
> ****************
> > > This equation forces that addition of velocities NEVER are higher than c.
> JanPB wrote: "Yes but it's a different thing."
>
> Bodkin wrote: "There is no physics assertion anywhere that says you may not form an algebraic combination of speeds
> that might exceed c, under any circumstances."
> *****************
>
> CONCLUSION: JanPB and Bodkin AGREE when the issue is to defend Einstein's manipulations (fallacies)

They are neither manipulations nor fallacies. This is high school mathematics.

> but DISAGREE
> when they write about the correct interpretation of Einstein's developments in SR, like addition of velocities.

No, we agree. Both Odd and I are saying that the appearance of "c + v" and "c - v" is due to
simple algebra on velocities as measured by a *single* observer.

> Obviously, any of them interpret SR under their own preconceptions. I don't imagine the outcome of a discussion about GR.
>
> And, NONE proved me wrong.

Because we did not go through the calculation in detail. Einstein doesn't do that
either because he is writing to the professional audience who can supply the
details very quickly. Here are the details:

Light leaves (moving) A at tA, gets reflected from (moving) B at tB, and hits A again at t'A.
Both A and B are moving with speed v, so light (according to the "stationary" system) leaves
at A and hits the mirror at B + v(tB - tA).

Recall the definition of velocity (for objects measured at two spatially separated points)
given in the second postulate:

velocity = (light path)/(time interval)

(where "time interval" presumes the sync defined in part 1). We write the above equation
for the light leaving A at tA and hitting the mirror B + v(tB - tA) at tB:

c = (rAB + v(tB - tA))/(tB - tA)

Therefore:

c(tB - tA) = rAB + v(tB - tA)

or:

(c - v)(tB - tA) = rAB

i.e.,

tB - tA = rAB/(c - v)

As you can see, c - v is simply a result of algebraic rearrangement of terms,
it does not refer to any object whose measured speed (by any observer)
is c - v.

If you get stuck on simple things like this, how can you decipher things
like part 7 in Electrodynamical Part ("Theory of Doppler's Principle and of
Aberration")? Einstein is skipping a lot of details there. How can you
post ANYTHING pointing to any "errors" in this paper under those
circumstances?

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 11:42:15 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> No, we agree. Both Odd and I are saying that the appearance of "c + v" and "c - v" is due to
> simple algebra on velocities as measured by a *single* observer.

In the meantime in the real world - GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 6:45:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.
> RETARDED suit better for you, at any case. This is another fallacy used by the cretin that you adore.

What cretin? You can't follow a simple algebra in the paper and you call
the author "cretin"? In what universe is this a normal behaviour?

> It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
>
> Literal excerpt:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
>
> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
> ...........
> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
> that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
> synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
>
> ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
> moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
>
> let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration
> the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
>
> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> End of literal excerpt
>
> Now, read this with much care, Dono:
>
> 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?

Read my post that explains this in full detail. Yes, they are measured by the
"stationary" observer.

> 2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light

No. This is incorrect.

> (pulse, photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.

Still wrong.

> This violates the 2nd. postulate,

Therefore, not applicable.

> by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Again, N/A.

> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a velocity (c - v) but only c.

He does measure it c. The appearance of "c - v" and "c + v" comes from
elsewhere. Read my other post with all the algebraic details and *the source*
of that equation to begin with.

> 3) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c + v) for the light (pulse, photon or whatever you want) COMING FROM the mirror.

Incorrect.

> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Therefore, N/A.

Do you REALLY think, even for a second, that this kind of error would not
have been caught IMMEDIATELY, already by the Annalen der Physik editors?

Why do you assume that anything that creates a conceptual difficulty
for YOU must necessarily create the same difficulty for anyone else?

It diodn't occur to you that perhaps you simply have no knack for that
sort of thing and others do?

Just change your hobby. This one will be a source of endless frustration for
you and will forever keep you imprisoned behind tall fantasy walls.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 11:49:42 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 6:45:49 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.
> > RETARDED suit better for you, at any case. This is another fallacy used by the cretin that you adore.
> What cretin? You can't follow a simple algebra in the paper and you call
> the author "cretin"? In what universe is this a normal behaviour?
> > It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
> >
> > Literal excerpt:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
> >
> > The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> > principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
> > ...........
> > We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
> > that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
> > synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
> >
> > ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
> > moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
> >
> > let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration
> > the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
> >
> > tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > End of literal excerpt
> >
> > Now, read this with much care, Dono:
> >
> > 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?
> Read my post that explains this in full detail. Yes, they are measured by the
> "stationary" observer.

By "stationary" GEDANKEN observer, only.
In the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:58:58 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> 2) The fallacy of using c+v as argument, being that such expression is
>>> precisely what is STATED AS IMPOSSIBLE in the 1905 paper "On the
>>> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
>>>
>>> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v) , in Page 5
>
> JanPB wrote:
>> This has been raised here many, many times by amateur relativity
>> opponents. There is nothing wrong with those formulas. As is
>> common, hobbyists who did not spend the time needed to learn the subject
>> get "stuck" on the mere formal similarity of certain
>> formulas and from that they infer all sorts of weird things (the classic
>> example is attempting to claim Einstein "stole" a formula
>> from Voigt, etc. etc. For some reason they never claim that
>> Schwarzschild "stole" a formula from Laplace. But I digress.)
>
> Bodkin wrote:
>> On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator
>> does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything
>> in any frame. It is purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.
>
> JanPB and Bodkin agree: This is NOT CHEATING. It's just that I don't
> understand. THE FORMULAE ARE RIGHT.
> I'm the IDIOT who think it's wrong while millions of persons agreed with
> the formulae for 115 years. It's OK for Einstein
> to measure time using velocities c+v and c-v. He's inventing his
> relativity. You are not allowed to do it. Only him.

Can’t you read? I just explained this to you. He’s NOT measuring time using
velocities c+v and c-v. There is no object that has a measurable speed of
c+v or c-v.

You are *certainly* “allowed” to combine c and v to come up with a quantity
that has value greater than c. It’s just a quantity that is not
attributable to the measurable speed of any object in any frame.

If you can’t recognize the physical meaning of terms in an equation, then
there’s no point discussing physics with you.

>
> I witness a 100% Stockholm Syndrome for two persons whose MINDS were
> sequestered for so long. They love the sequester.
>
> *********************
>
>>> "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
>>> called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate,
>>> and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
>>> irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated
>>> in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
>>> state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> JanPB wrote:
>> That's irrelevant in the context of the formulas under discussion. The
>> presence of "c + v" and "c - v" comes from mere adding/subtracting
>> velocity vectors within a single coordinate system. This is how adding
>> velocity vectors works in general.
>
> Bodkin wrote:
>> On the other hand, in the expression t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), the denominator
>> does not correspond to the measurable speed of anything
>> in any frame. It is purely the algebraic combination of two measured speeds.

Exactly. Can you not read?

>
> ************************
>
>>> Also, by using such fallacy, not only Lorentz transforms are "derived"
>>> but, in "§ 5. The Composition of Velocities", formulae explicitly
>>> forbidding any velocity above c is allowed (Page 12):
>>>
>>> V = v + w/(1 + v.w/c²)
>
> JanPB wrote:
>> You are confused here. The so-called "relativistic velocity addition"
>> refers specifically to adding two velocities as measured by two
>> (usually different) observers. OTOH the formulas on page 5 simply count
>> certain velocities within a single coordinate system (observer).
>
> Bodkin wrote:
>> In the expression v’ = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2), the quantity v’ is the
>> measurable speed of an object as observed in the primed frame,
>> where v is its measurable velocity in the unprimed frame.

Exactly. Can you not read?

>
> ****************
>
>>> This equation forces that addition of velocities NEVER are higher than c.
>
> JanPB wrote: "Yes but it's a different thing."
>
> Bodkin wrote: "There is no physics assertion anywhere that says you may
> not form an algebraic combination of speeds
> that might exceed c, under any circumstances."
>
> *****************
>
> CONCLUSION: JanPB and Bodkin AGREE when the issue is to defend Einstein's
> manipulations (fallacies) but DISAGREE
> when they write about the correct interpretation of Einstein's
> developments in SR, like addition of velocities.

No, we agree. If you cannot understand what we say, then you might as well
just be talking to yourself.

>
> Obviously, any of them interpret SR under their own preconceptions. I
> don't imagine the outcome of a discussion about GR.
>
> And, NONE proved me wrong.

If you don’t understand what people say to you, then of course you’re going
to remain unconvinced. A smoked turkey leg can remain unconvinced, but so
what?

> Either "straw man" or "ad-hominem attack" fallacies are used to divert the subject.
> Both are incoherent on their own, but together they get a high
> correlation. Interesting paradox.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 2:18:21 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Bodkin, I replied most of your post within my reply to JanPB. This part is what was left:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (γ - 1) ≈ 1/2 L/c² . v²
>>>
>>> The fallacy is behind the fact that he never introduced E₀ = M₀c², the
>>> energy at rest of the body with M₀ at rest, before the light
>>> was turned on. He, instead, used the energy E₀ and the C.A. that
>>>
>>> E₁ = E₀ - L -----> M₁ = M₀ - L
>>>
>>> and doing that is a sophism, PLUS Circular Argument. Besides, the fact
>>> that the result applies only for v << c is ignored since this paper.
>>>
>>> CONCLUSION: The results of the paper are WRONG, because the
>>> transformation of mass into energy is introduced
>>> (disguised) as hypothesis, which is precisely what is pretended to be demonstrated.
>
>> Not so. There is no circularity here.
>> What he showed is that there is a CHANGE in mass that is associated with
>> the energy released in the light.
>
>> There is no other principle invoked other than conservation of energy.
>> One can then REASONABLY INFER that there is energy content
>> associated with mass, and that taking the mass to zero would set that
>> energy scale to zero as well. You don’t have to assume the
>> absolute scale in order to argue the change.
>
> Bodkin, do you EVER READ WHAT YOU WROTE before posting? So, to justify
> Einstein, you REASONABLY INFER what was in his mind?

It’s simply following what he is trying to convey. That’s the point of
communication. You cannot follow what Einstein is trying to convey? What’s
wrong with you?

> Are you insane? This is another sophism, Supreme Thinker. You can't
> infer without any sustainable proof of your inference!
>
>
>> Furthermore, you are one of many amateurs and hacks who make the mistake
>> of claiming that Einstein is presenting a PROOF
>> of E=mc^2 in this paper. He is not.
>
> Well, now you are taking me for an IDIOT that can buy your smelly fish.
> He asserted that a relationship between matter and energy
> exists by connecting his poor attempt with lost mass being L/c².

Yes, as I said, that is a testable hypothesis that is consistent with the
hypothesis of relativity. That’s not a proof. Experiment provides the
validation of the hypothesis, not his original argument. Do you not know
how science works?

> He also made calculations extending this to 1 gramme of matter,
> and SUGESTS, in the final part of his paper:
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the
> body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that
> we are led to the MORE GENERAL CONCLUSION that
> the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy
> changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by
> L/9 × 10²⁰, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."
>
> NOTE: Clearly states that changes in mass and energy ARE RELATED by the
> expression M = L/c². Are you blind?

That’s the testable hypothesis. Do you not know how to read a scientific
paper?

>
>
> "It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable
> to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be
> successfully put to the test."

Exactly. He’s just followed up his testable hypothesis with a suggestion of
how to test it quantitatively. Do you not know how science works?

>
> NOTE: Clearly show his IGNORANCE on the nascent field of radioactivity.
> He didn't even had a clue about what an atom was or what
> Alpha and Beta radiation were (discovered by Rutherford between 1899
> and 1902, along with their decays).
>
>
> "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia
> between the emitting and absorbing bodies."
>
> NOTE: Here, clearly states that mass can be teleported as energy
> between two bodies. I WONDER: why there is so much ignorance
> between relativists, who live with borrowed narratives, either from
> books, papers or films OR (as ancient tribes) by the "mouth to ear"
> method to share information across people and ages.
>
>
>
> Bodkin, even your eloquent prose and rhetoric can't help you from the
> truth: Relativity was built with fallacies upon fallacies, and is false.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing
>> (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front
>> closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.
>
> RETARDED suit better for you, at any case. This is another fallacy used
> by the cretin that you adore.
>
> It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
>
> Literal excerpt:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
>
> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
> ...........
> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
> that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
> synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
>
> ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
> moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
>
> let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time
> t'A. Taking into consideration
> the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
>
> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> End of literal excerpt
>
> Now, read this with much care, Dono:
>
> 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE
> OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?

That’s correct. That’s a measurement of time.

>
> 2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light (pulse,
> photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.

No, that’s nonsense. The speeds c-v and c+v are not the measurable
velocities of any object in any frame. The fact that you don’t know how to
parse the physical meaning of terms in equations suggests that you should
perhaps develop some basic skills before taking on the study of physics any
further.

The rest of your nonsense went unread, as you made a mistake so early on.

By the way, you’re going to say that pointing this out to you does not
constitute any proof that you are wrong. OK, so you’re blind or obstinate
or mentally ill — which do you want to be known as?

> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a
> velocity (c - v) but only c.
>
> 3) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c + v) for the light (pulse,
> photon or whatever you want) COMING FROM the mirror.
> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a
> velocity (c + v) but only c.
>
> 4) Without the fallacies introduced in 1), the result of the equations should have been:
>
> tB − tA = rAB/c and t'A − tB = rAB/c
>
> and, with this, the derivation of Lorentz transforms is impossible,
> because he would have been unable to get (c − v) . (c + v),
> by which the quadratic term (c² − v²) is obtained.
>
> No Lorentz transform, no Einstein's SR.
>
> He HAD TO get the quadratic term (c² − v²) in order to keep going in the
> SR paper. So he CHEATED! Is it clear or not?
>
> Einstein's SR is a lame copy of Lorentz SR, without the ether. It's a
> variation of Poincaré SR. A plagiarism through and through.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing
>>> (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front
>>> closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.
>>
>> RETARDED suit better for you, at any case. This is another fallacy used
>> by the cretin that you adore.
>>
>> It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
>>
>> Literal excerpt:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
>>
>> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
>> principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
>> ...........
>> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
>> that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
>> synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
>>
>> ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
>> moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
>>
>> let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time
>> t'A. Taking into consideration
>> the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
>>
>> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> End of literal excerpt
>>
>> Now, read this with much care, Dono:
>>
>> 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE
>> OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?
>
> That’s correct. That’s a measurement of time.
>
>>
>> 2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light (pulse,
>> photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.
>
> No, that’s nonsense. The speeds c-v and c+v are not the measurable
> velocities of any object in any frame. The fact that you don’t know how to
> parse the physical meaning of terms in equations suggests that you should
> perhaps develop some basic skills before taking on the study of physics any
> further.
>
> The rest of your nonsense went unread, as you made a mistake so early on.
>
> By the way, you’re going to say that pointing this out to you does not
> constitute any proof that you are wrong. OK, so you’re blind or obstinate
> or mentally ill — which do you want to be known as?

And on that point, just consider the sheer volume of words you have put out
in recent months, devoted to this kind of “fun” or “hobby”. You say you
take pleasure from poking jabs at physicists and in particular Einstein,
just to stir the pot. You say that a good portion of what you say is said
purely in jest, just to stir the pot and induce reactions.

But the outcome of all that energy, all that time, on your part is that you
are perceived as either blind or obstinate or mentally ill. That is a real
perception, by the way.

And so if you are fine with that outcome, then you are successful in your
hobby.

>
>> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always
>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
>> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a
>> velocity (c - v) but only c.
>>
>> 3) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c + v) for the light (pulse,
>> photon or whatever you want) COMING FROM the mirror.
>> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always
>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
>> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a
>> velocity (c + v) but only c.
>>
>> 4) Without the fallacies introduced in 1), the result of the equations should have been:
>>
>> tB − tA = rAB/c and t'A − tB = rAB/c
>>
>> and, with this, the derivation of Lorentz transforms is impossible,
>> because he would have been unable to get (c − v) . (c + v),
>> by which the quadratic term (c² − v²) is obtained.
>>
>> No Lorentz transform, no Einstein's SR.
>>
>> He HAD TO get the quadratic term (c² − v²) in order to keep going in the
>> SR paper. So he CHEATED! Is it clear or not?
>>
>> Einstein's SR is a lame copy of Lorentz SR, without the ether. It's a
>> variation of Poincaré SR. A plagiarism through and through.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing
>>>> (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front
>>>> closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.
>>>
>>> RETARDED suit better for you, at any case. This is another fallacy used
>>> by the cretin that you adore.
>>>
>>> It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
>>>
>>> Literal excerpt:
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
>>>
>>> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
>>> principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
>>> ...........
>>> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
>>> that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
>>> synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
>>>
>>> ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
>>> moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
>>>
>>> let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time
>>> t'A. Taking into consideration
>>> the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
>>>
>>> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> End of literal excerpt
>>>
>>> Now, read this with much care, Dono:
>>>
>>> 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE
>>> OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?
>>
>> That’s correct. That’s a measurement of time.
>>
>>>
>>> 2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light (pulse,
>>> photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.
>>
>> No, that’s nonsense. The speeds c-v and c+v are not the measurable
>> velocities of any object in any frame. The fact that you don’t know how to
>> parse the physical meaning of terms in equations suggests that you should
>> perhaps develop some basic skills before taking on the study of physics any
>> further.
>>
>> The rest of your nonsense went unread, as you made a mistake so early on.
>>
>> By the way, you’re going to say that pointing this out to you does not
>> constitute any proof that you are wrong. OK, so you’re blind or obstinate
>> or mentally ill — which do you want to be known as?
>
> And on that point, just consider the sheer volume of words you have put out
> in recent months, devoted to this kind of “fun” or “hobby”. You say you
> take pleasure from poking jabs at physicists and in particular Einstein,
> just to stir the pot. You say that a good portion of what you say is said
> purely in jest, just to stir the pot and induce reactions.
>
> But the outcome of all that energy, all that time, on your part is that you
> are perceived as either blind or obstinate or mentally ill. That is a real
> perception, by the way.
>
> And so if you are fine with that outcome, then you are successful in your
> hobby.

I’ll remark that there is an 85-year-old Ken Seto, who has been regarded
for the last two decades or more as either blind or obstinate or mentally
ill. His desire was to leave some sort of lasting mark with his name
attached to it. Notice that he’s been decreasing in posting volume rather
precipitously as his decline accelerates. Have you thought of him at any
time during the last week or so? Has he vanished in your mind until the
moment I mentioned him? What does that say about the energy he spent
chasing his desire?

>
>>
>>> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always
>>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
>>> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>>> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a
>>> velocity (c - v) but only c.
>>>
>>> 3) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c + v) for the light (pulse,
>>> photon or whatever you want) COMING FROM the mirror.
>>> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always
>>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
>>> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>>> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a
>>> velocity (c + v) but only c.
>>>
>>> 4) Without the fallacies introduced in 1), the result of the equations should have been:
>>>
>>> tB − tA = rAB/c and t'A − tB = rAB/c
>>>
>>> and, with this, the derivation of Lorentz transforms is impossible,
>>> because he would have been unable to get (c − v) . (c + v),
>>> by which the quadratic term (c² − v²) is obtained.
>>>
>>> No Lorentz transform, no Einstein's SR.
>>>
>>> He HAD TO get the quadratic term (c² − v²) in order to keep going in the
>>> SR paper. So he CHEATED! Is it clear or not?
>>>
>>> Einstein's SR is a lame copy of Lorentz SR, without the ether. It's a
>>> variation of Poincaré SR. A plagiarism through and through.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 14:47:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 2:18:21 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Bodkin, I replied most of your post within my reply to JanPB. This part is what was left:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> H₀ − E₀ − (H₁ − E₁) = L . (γ - 1) ≈ 1/2 L/c² . v²
> >>>
> >>> The fallacy is behind the fact that he never introduced E₀ = M₀c², the
> >>> energy at rest of the body with M₀ at rest, before the light
> >>> was turned on. He, instead, used the energy E₀ and the C.A. that
> >>>
> >>> E₁ = E₀ - L -----> M₁ = M₀ - L
> >>>
> >>> and doing that is a sophism, PLUS Circular Argument. Besides, the fact
> >>> that the result applies only for v << c is ignored since this paper.
> >>>
> >>> CONCLUSION: The results of the paper are WRONG, because the
> >>> transformation of mass into energy is introduced
> >>> (disguised) as hypothesis, which is precisely what is pretended to be demonstrated.
> >
> >> Not so. There is no circularity here.
> >> What he showed is that there is a CHANGE in mass that is associated with
> >> the energy released in the light.
> >
> >> There is no other principle invoked other than conservation of energy.
> >> One can then REASONABLY INFER that there is energy content
> >> associated with mass, and that taking the mass to zero would set that
> >> energy scale to zero as well. You don’t have to assume the
> >> absolute scale in order to argue the change.
> >
> > Bodkin, do you EVER READ WHAT YOU WROTE before posting? So, to justify
> > Einstein, you REASONABLY INFER what was in his mind?
> It’s simply following what he is trying to convey. That’s the point of
> communication. You cannot follow what Einstein is trying to convey? What’s
> wrong with you?
> > Are you insane? This is another sophism, Supreme Thinker. You can't
> > infer without any sustainable proof of your inference!
> >
> >
> >> Furthermore, you are one of many amateurs and hacks who make the mistake
> >> of claiming that Einstein is presenting a PROOF
> >> of E=mc^2 in this paper. He is not.
> >
> > Well, now you are taking me for an IDIOT that can buy your smelly fish.
> > He asserted that a relationship between matter and energy
> > exists by connecting his poor attempt with lost mass being L/c².
> Yes, as I said, that is a testable hypothesis that is consistent with the
> hypothesis of relativity. That’s not a proof. Experiment provides the
> validation of the hypothesis, not his original argument.

In the meantime in the real world GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

> Do you not know
> how science works?

Sure - an insane crazie wave his arms and screams "We're FORCED!!!!!"
And woodworkers listen.

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 14:47:30 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> IMBECILE is more appropriate to describe you. c+v and c-v are closing
> >> (separation) speeds. They represent the speed that the light front
> >> closes to (separates from) the end of the rod in his paper.
> >
> > RETARDED suit better for you, at any case. This is another fallacy used
> > by the cretin that you adore.
> >
> > It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
> >
> > Literal excerpt:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
> >
> > The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> > principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
> > ...........
> > We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
> > that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
> > synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
> >
> > ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
> > moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
> >
> > let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time
> > t'A. Taking into consideration
> > the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
> >
> > tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > End of literal excerpt
> >
> > Now, read this with much care, Dono:
> >
> > 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE
> > OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?
> That’s correct. That’s a measurement of time.
> >
> > 2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light (pulse,
> > photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.
> No, that’s nonsense. The speeds c-v and c+v are not the measurable
> velocities of any object in any frame. The fact that you don’t know how to
> parse the physical meaning of terms in equations suggests that you should
> perhaps develop some basic skills before taking on the study of physics any
> further.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On 05.Oct.2021, JanPB wrote:

>> CONCLUSION: JanPB and Bodkin AGREE when the issue is to defend
>> Einstein's manipulations (fallacies)
>
> They are neither manipulations nor fallacies. This is high school
> mathematics.

except is used thereafter in tensors and everything. Give me a break.

in america for instance, the CDC, a deeply evil private org, is using
Fluoridated water mostly in black communities, to keep their IQ low. The
same in Europe, ie in czech and polish communities. They have
concentration layers right now.

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 9:56:04 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> I’ll remark that there is an 85-year-old Ken Seto, who has been regarded for
> the last two decades or more as either blind or obstinate or mentally ill..

> His desire was to leave some sort of lasting mark with his name attached to it.

> Notice that he’s been decreasing in posting volume rather precipitously as his decline accelerates.

What I really notice here is your rather smooth pleasure thinking about the futility of doings in the life
of others, except you and others who you particularly select to join your lame vision of earthly life.

As a "free thinker" you yet fail to synthesize the meaning of life, being biased by your understanding
that life purpose is to produce something with which everyone is pleased/satisfied. Your judgement
of others makes you feel capable to capture the true persona in one or two paragraphs. That seems
to be your greatest purpose in life: to judge others.

But, as any human and its flaws, you are blinded by the filters of your perception as well as your own
fault of character. It seems to me that you have to start your journey of introspection and accept what
you are doing wrong as something that is "allowed" to do, because you are a human too. Maybe, if
you can do such deep analysis of your right and wrong aspects, you will STOP using derogatory terms
like "mental illness", "blind obstinate", "crazy old demented", "near his end", etc.

You are particularly biased to believe that SENILITY is the final stage for everyone, and I believe that
your fear of such a thing developing on you is the cause on your projection on others actions. That
fear is probably the major cause for you posting here as an absolute owner of truth, a supreme thinker
who's above almost everyone, and a know-it-all.

Live and let live, Bodkin. Senility will catch you anyways, if your DNA has this feature encrypted and, no
matter how hard you try with your mental gymnastic, if you are going to have it then you are going to have it.

Meanwhile, you had to show more respect to other elder members of this forum. Remember that KARMA is a bitch.

As for me and my actions here, don't rush to judge me. You don't know my truths, not even close.

You might be surprised if you know who really I am. I hope that, not even for a second, you bought what I told
about me, as if I were some kind of "retarded naive" who come here to tell everyone who he is, how he thinks
and what purposes have/had in life.

And this apply to almost everyone here, even if you "parse" and "correlate" every post that's stored here. It requires
coherence to maintain a virtual image and persona in the anonymous web for years. Sometimes, GLITCHES happen
which make easy to unmask some members, like Dono, you and some others. Others don't feel that need of
getting a "shield" as is the case of Tom, Paul and Dirk (and JanPB, even when he negates it).

Conclusion: Stop judging people and stop using "ad hominem" attacks to disqualify. Focus on the topic and
content, and don't be frustrated if it doesn't match your belief. Just think that your opinion is worth the same
as other's opinions, because there is not an absolute truth. Be flexible and think outside of the mental barrier
that 100 or 200 books imposed to you (because you wanted or because you can't avoid it to happen).

Now, re-read the essence of my posts about fallacies, etc., and come into reason without bias. Then, reply.

Den 05.10.2021 03:45, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
>
> Literal excerpt:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
>
> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
> ...........
> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
> that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
> synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
>
> ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
> moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
>
> let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration
> the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
>
> tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> End of literal excerpt
>
> Now, read this with much care, Dono:
>
> 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?
>
> 2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light (pulse, photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.
> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a velocity (c - v) but only c.
>
> 3) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c + v) for the light (pulse, photon or whatever you want) COMING FROM the mirror.
> This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a velocity (c + v) but only c.
>
> 4) Without the fallacies introduced in 1), the result of the equations should have been:
>
> tB − tA = rAB/c and t'A − tB = rAB/c
>
> and, with this, the derivation of Lorentz transforms is impossible, because he would have been unable to get (c − v) . (c + v),
> by which the quadratic term (c² − v²) is obtained.
>
> No Lorentz transform, no Einstein's SR.
>
> He HAD TO get the quadratic term (c² − v²) in order to keep going in the SR paper. So he CHEATED! Is it clear or not?

The noble art of missing the point. :-D

§ 2 in Einstein's paper is
a simple demonstration of the FACT that 'relativity of simultaneity'
is an inevitable consequence of the invariance of the speed of light.

If two clocks A and B are synchronous in one frame of reference
where the speed of light is c, then they can't be synchronous in
a frame where the clocks are moving _if the speed of light is c
also in this frame_.

This fact should be obvious for any moderately intelligent person.

Naive cranks often seem to believe that § 2. is meant to PROVE that
the speed of light is invariant, so it must be wrong, because cranks
KNOW that the speed of light NOT is invariant.

Whether or not the speed of light is invariant can only be tested
by real experiments in the real world.

Here is some of the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

You will of course ignore this.
Experimental evidence has no place in your world, has it? :-D

https://paulba.no/div/RelativityOfSimultaneity.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 21:09:28 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.10.2021 03:45, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >
> > It's right there, at plain sight, Dono The Kinematics fan. The FALLACY is in:
> >
> > Literal excerpt:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
> >
> > The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the
> > principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.
> > ...........
> > We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and
> > that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the
> > synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time⁴ tA
> >
> > ⁴ “Time” here denotes “time of the stationary system” and also “position of hands of the
> > moving clock situated at the place under discussion.”
> >
> > let it be reflected at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration
> > the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that
> >
> > tB − tA = rAB/(c − v) and t'A − tB = rAB/(c + v)
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > End of literal excerpt
> >
> > Now, read this with much care, Dono:
> >
> > 1) The footnote ⁴ CLEARLY STATES that tA, t'A and tB are measured BY THE OBSERVER AT REST! Any doubt with this?
> >
> > 2) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c - v) for the light (pulse, photon or whatever you want) going TOWARD the mirror.
> > This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> > of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> > In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a velocity (c - v) but only c.
> >
> > 3) The observer AT REST measure velocities (c + v) for the light (pulse, photon or whatever you want) COMING FROM the mirror.
> > This violates the 2nd. postulate, by which "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> > of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> > In this case, the observer at rest shouldn't have measured a velocity (c + v) but only c.
> >
> > 4) Without the fallacies introduced in 1), the result of the equations should have been:
> >
> > tB − tA = rAB/c and t'A − tB = rAB/c
> >
> > and, with this, the derivation of Lorentz transforms is impossible, because he would have been unable to get (c − v) . (c + v),
> > by which the quadratic term (c² − v²) is obtained.
> >
> > No Lorentz transform, no Einstein's SR.
> >
> > He HAD TO get the quadratic term (c² − v²) in order to keep going in the SR paper. So he CHEATED! Is it clear or not?
> The noble art of missing the point. :-D
>
> § 2 in Einstein's paper is
> a simple demonstration of the FACT that 'relativity of simultaneity'
> is an inevitable consequence of the invariance of the speed of light.

Sure; the invariance of the speed of light in inertial frames, i.e. nowhere..
In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like serious clocks always did.

> Whether or not the speed of light is invariant can only be tested
> by real experiments in the real world.
>
> Here is some of the experimental evidence:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> You will of course ignore this.
> Experimental evidence has no place in your world, has it? :-D

Right, poor halfbrain. Our world is real, and it's a bit
complicated.

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 4:09:28 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> The noble art of missing the point. :-D
>
> § 2 in Einstein's paper is
> a simple demonstration of the FACT that 'relativity of simultaneity'
> is an inevitable consequence of the invariance of the speed of light.
>
> If two clocks A and B are synchronous in one frame of reference
> where the speed of light is c, then they can't be synchronous in
> a frame where the clocks are moving _if the speed of light is c
> also in this frame_.
>
> This fact should be obvious for any moderately intelligent person.
>
> Naive cranks often seem to believe that § 2. is meant to PROVE that
> the speed of light is invariant, so it must be wrong, because cranks
> KNOW that the speed of light NOT is invariant.
>
> Whether or not the speed of light is invariant can only be tested
> by real experiments in the real world.

<snip>

Paul:

1) I have no problem accepting that the speed of light in vacuum is constant and isotropic.
But I only believe that this is true in our cosmic neighborhood, because we don't have the means
to prove it right or wrong away from our Solar System.

2) I also believe that this value only can be obtained by averaging a round trip in short distances (like
in a lab. This is because any experiment involving high distances prevent the one-way measurement
due to the simple fact that what is being measured is also involved in the way that communications
should take place to bring results to one end or the other. That is, synchronization using EM waves
to convey information corrupts the outcome of the experiment because "c" is the target to be measured
and also "c" is the velocity at which the maximum speed results can be communicated.

That is: the delay x/c involved in the information transfer appears twice: as a target and as a vehicle to
convey information. The larger "x" is, the larger the delay involved and the difficulties to synchronize
emitter and receptor, so the result is (IMO) not reliable.

3) I don't know if the speed of light is affected by gravity. Einstein seemed to have a problem with this
concept, so in 1911 published the first formula for c being affected by gravitational potentials.

It helped him to introduce c retardation under the gravity of the Sun, to prove (in a fallacious way) the
deflection of light due to gravity in 1911 (same result as von Soldner, 100 years before) and to double
that value in 1915, alleging additional effects due to alleged curvature of space due to Sun's gravitational
field.

Since the, light deflection due to Sun's gravity stuck with a simple formula:

Deflection angle = 1.75"/(R/Rs) , where Rs is the Sun's radius.

But, as Eddington and colleagues, whom wrote a detailed report of the expeditions (42 pages)
mentioned that such effect could be explained by a refraction index of 1.00004, which they stated
as being impossible to happen, due to impositions on composition of solar atmosphere.

4) I resent the use of "crank" or "crackpot" for being RACIST. Applied to "a person who holds an unshakable
belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false" it also can be applied to religion, politics,
gender perception, sexuality, belief on his race, art, philosophy, mathematics, humor, diets, etc.

It's widely discriminatory and a defense mechanism for persons who can't accept dissent, with the childish
expectations that their belief will be reassured by neglecting minorities rights.

I don't like the use of these words, because they hold a classism embedded, as with royalties thinking
that those beneath them are worthless and undeserving.

See? Not a crank, just a person that don't like to follow the mainstream because of its forced
impositions to free thoughts, even when the current (and poor) mathematics supporting it points
in one direction. Mathematics is not a language, just a mechanism. And when I say poor it's because
it only has been around for 300 years and still can't describe nature (algebra, geometry, basic and
advanced calculus, matrix, quaternions, vector algebra, tensor algebra, binary algebra, etc.).

What is neglected today can be accepted tomorrow, as knowledge evolves (always does).

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 9:56:04 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I’ll remark that there is an 85-year-old Ken Seto, who has been regarded for
>> the last two decades or more as either blind or obstinate or mentally ill.
>
>> His desire was to leave some sort of lasting mark with his name attached to it.
>
>> Notice that he’s been decreasing in posting volume rather precipitously
>> as his decline accelerates.
>
> What I really notice here is your rather smooth pleasure thinking about
> the futility of doings in the life
> of others, except you and others who you particularly select to join your
> lame vision of earthly life.

There are people who pick up woodworking as a hobby. There are also other
people who whittle. The people who do woodworking not only amuse themselves
and fill time, but they usually end up with some usable object as a
product. The people who whittle end up with a dull knife, a lot of
shavings, and a short, sharp stick, which they then throw away.

You say live and let live and let those who whittle whittle without
judgment. That’s fine. It’s nevertheless an unambiguous observation that
whittlers end up with less useful things as an outcome.

>
> As a "free thinker" you yet fail to synthesize the meaning of life, being
> biased by your understanding
> that life purpose is to produce something with which everyone is
> pleased/satisfied. Your judgement
> of others makes you feel capable to capture the true persona in one or
> two paragraphs. That seems
> to be your greatest purpose in life: to judge others.
>
> But, as any human and its flaws, you are blinded by the filters of your
> perception as well as your own
> fault of character.

Doesn’t it seem ironic to you that you accuse me of being judgmental while
stating that I am blinded by faults of character. Is this an example of the
blind advising the blind?

> It seems to me that you have to start your journey of introspection and accept what
> you are doing wrong as something that is "allowed" to do, because you are
> a human too. Maybe, if
> you can do such deep analysis of your right and wrong aspects, you will
> STOP using derogatory terms
> like "mental illness", "blind obstinate", "crazy old demented", "near his end", etc.

Mental illness is no more a derogatory characterization than having
appendicitis. It does say, perhaps this is something you should not leave
unaddressed. Neither is saying someone is old and near the end of life a
derogatory statement; it is a factual observation.

>
> You are particularly biased to believe that SENILITY is the final stage
> for everyone, and I believe that
> your fear of such a thing developing on you is the cause on your
> projection on others actions.

No, I don’t believe that is the end state for everyone. However, there are
some people here who are in obvious decline. Someone who was once an
engineer but who can no longer do 3rd grade arithmetic is in obvious
decline, and there is no point in politely pretending it isn’t so.

> That
> fear is probably the major cause for you posting here as an absolute
> owner of truth, a supreme thinker
> who's above almost everyone, and a know-it-all.

I think you should look at that statement in light of your own caution to
me about not trying to read other people’s character traits.

>
> Live and let live, Bodkin. Senility will catch you anyways, if your DNA
> has this feature encrypted and, no
> matter how hard you try with your mental gymnastic, if you are going to
> have it then you are going to have it.
>
> Meanwhile, you had to show more respect to other elder members of this
> forum. Remember that KARMA is a bitch.
>
> As for me and my actions here, don't rush to judge me. You don't know my
> truths, not even close.

I only judge you as you choose to present yourself here. That may be a
caricature of your own making, and that is what I have to comment on.
Whether it represents the “real you” is irrelevant, as you CHOOSE the
persona to have people react to.

If you present yourself as being uneducated about quantum mechanics, when
you are in fact deeply familiar with it but are masking it, then the way
you will be reacted to is as someone uneducated about quantum mechanics.
This is by YOUR design and intent.

>
> You might be surprised if you know who really I am. I hope that, not even
> for a second, you bought what I told
> about me, as if I were some kind of "retarded naive" who come here to
> tell everyone who he is, how he thinks
> and what purposes have/had in life.
>
> And this apply to almost everyone here, even if you "parse" and
> "correlate" every post that's stored here. It requires
> coherence to maintain a virtual image and persona in the anonymous web
> for years. Sometimes, GLITCHES happen
> which make easy to unmask some members, like Dono, you and some others.
> Others don't feel that need of
> getting a "shield" as is the case of Tom, Paul and Dirk (and JanPB, even
> when he negates it).
>
> Conclusion: Stop judging people and stop using "ad hominem" attacks to disqualify.

I have a very simple standard, which you may consider unfair. There are
informed opinions and uninformed opinions, and they are not of equal value.
It is completely appropriate and sensible to judge them on that basis,
simply for the sake of separating signal from noise. And so it is useful
and sensible to determine whether the opinion holder is informed, or
presents themselves as informed. If they exhibit themselves as uninformed,
then others have the right to regard their opinion as less valuable.

Examples of this are your rather idiotic (whether honestly believed or just
an artfully fabricated appearance of a) claim that (c+v) should not appear
in any algebraic expression because it would imply an object’s speed is
greater than c in some frame.

> Focus on the topic and
> content, and don't be frustrated if it doesn't match your belief. Just
> think that your opinion is worth the same
> as other's opinions, because there is not an absolute truth. Be flexible
> and think outside of the mental barrier
> that 100 or 200 books imposed to you (because you wanted or because you
> can't avoid it to happen).
>
> Now, re-read the essence of my posts about fallacies, etc., and come into
> reason without bias. Then, reply.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz whined:

> 4) I resent the use of "crank" or "crackpot" for being RACIST.

Yet, you are a crank. You were at 17, you are at 67 and you will die a crank.

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 23:03:23 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have a very simple standard, which you may consider unfair. There are
> informed opinions and uninformed opinions, and they are not of equal value.

That's right, poor halfbrain, and your opinion is the former.

On Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 00:23:22 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 1:44:47 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz whined:
> > 4) I resent the use of "crank" or "crackpot" for being RACIST.
> Yet, you are a crank. You were at 17, you are at 67 and you will die a crank.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks will keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 6:03:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> I have a very simple standard, which you may consider unfair. There are
> informed opinions and uninformed opinions, and they are not of equal value.
> It is completely appropriate and sensible to judge them on that basis,
> simply for the sake of separating signal from noise. And so it is useful
> and sensible to determine whether the opinion holder is informed, or
> presents themselves as informed. If they exhibit themselves as uninformed,
> then others have the right to regard their opinion as less valuable.
>
> Examples of this are your rather idiotic (whether honestly believed or just
> an artfully fabricated appearance of a) claim that (c+v) should not appear
> in any algebraic expression because it would imply an object’s speed is
> greater than c in some frame.

Too cocky for my taste. A true opinionated, who transcended from chopping wood to supreme thinker in 8 years.

Bodkin, I wonder how did you managed to make quantum leaps in your alleged knowledge between 2013 and now.

I just want to share some posts showing your evolution here:

******************
BODKIN, THE WELL VERSED IN ORIGINAL PAPERS ON RELATIVITY

bod...@gmail.com
Sep 12, 2013, 12:52:53 PM
On 9/12/2013 10:24 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
> Einstein did not set up the problem with an equator or mountains.

Yes, he did. It's in his original paper on special relativity, written in 1905.
Perhaps you should read what he wrote before you make claims about what
he did or did not set up.

-------------------------------------------------

BODKIN, HAVING A BREAKDOWN 2 MONTHS LATER (ON RELATIVITY)

bod...@gmail.com
Nov 12, 2013, 2:43:47 PM
I get confused when trying to think about things this way, so I try to
boil things down to simple elements I can understand. So I don't worry
about trying to follow the beam itself and try to figure out what it's
doing. What I do is simply say, OK, let's let there be some kind of LED
flash or bell that goes "ding" when the light leaves or arrives. So
there's a ding/flash when the light leaves the source, another
ding/flash when the light arrives at the mirror, and another ding/flash
when the light arrives back down at the source again. I'll just assume
that the light traveled in some straight path between the places/times
where the dings/flashes happened.

--------------------------------------------------
BODKIN, REGAINING CONFIDENCE 2 DAYS LATER (ON RELATIVITY)

bod...@gmail.com
Nov 17, 2014, 12:07:02 PM
It's not true that the use of SR requires absence of gravity. All it
requires is EITHER of two things:

1. The gravitational effects are too small to be detected in that
particular laboratory set-up with the precision in hand.
2. The laboratory is in free-fall.

As an example of this, the particles in an accelerator's interaction
cross-over region are in free-fall, and so SR can be applied there
without hesitation.

--------------------------------------------------

BODKIN, THE AMATEUR TRYING TO GRASP PHYSICS BY READING (2015)

bod...@gmail.com
Jun 10, 2015, 10:59:18 AM

I think you should either abandon your reliance on your memory or check
facts. I've never put myself out as a "retired old bugger", and in fact
I've stated explicitly that I'm in my early 30s. I do in fact own both
hammers and chisels, but I've never stated it. And I've always stated
that I'm an amateur interested in physics and have read a fair amount
about it.

--------------------------------------------------

BODKIN, THE AMATEUR ANTHROPOLOGIST (2015)

bodk...@gmail.com
Jul 18, 2015, 1:31:07 PM

Evolution is not trial and error.

-------------------------------------------

BODKIN, THE AMATEUR TRYING TO GRASP GENERAL RELATIVITY (2018)

bod...@gmail.com
Mar 14, 2018, 3:07:37 PM

> With the (-,+,+,+) signature, ds² is negative.

It is negative for timelike intervals, not for spacelike intervals. Obviously.

> To normal people, one would ask WTF when the distance

What’s the connection? ds^2 is not a distance. There is no distance that’s
negative when ds^2 is negative. Again, you have a bad habit of looking at
math and then just fabricating what you think the terms mean.

*******************************************

Bodkin, repent!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 6:03:23 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I have a very simple standard, which you may consider unfair. There are
>> informed opinions and uninformed opinions, and they are not of equal value.
>> It is completely appropriate and sensible to judge them on that basis,
>> simply for the sake of separating signal from noise. And so it is useful
>> and sensible to determine whether the opinion holder is informed, or
>> presents themselves as informed. If they exhibit themselves as uninformed,
>> then others have the right to regard their opinion as less valuable.
>>
>> Examples of this are your rather idiotic (whether honestly believed or just
>> an artfully fabricated appearance of a) claim that (c+v) should not appear
>> in any algebraic expression because it would imply an object’s speed is
>> greater than c in some frame.
>
> Too cocky for my taste.

And yet you have no problem claiming to judge relativity, despite knowing
little about it and despite having your persistent errors — one after
another — pointed out to you. Too cocky for my taste.

> A true opinionated, who transcended from chopping wood to supreme thinker in 8 years.
>
> Bodkin, I wonder how did you managed to make quantum leaps in your
> alleged knowledge between 2013 and now.

What quantum leaps? I think in the samples from my posts below there is a
pattern of consistency, if anything.

You seem to think that I *started* learning physics in 2013, and that part
of that learning came from posting on Usenet. Maybe that’s your style, to
jump into discussions to learn a subject you know nothing about, but it’s
not mine.

I’ve been reading physics since the age of 21. I was 31 in 2013. I had read
40 textbooks in physics before I made a single post on Usenet, and I’ve
read about 45 more since then — not to mention other popularizations,
biographies, histories, and related subjects like the philosophy of
physics. Unlike you, I decided to NOT post on Usenet until I knew something
about the subject.

Everyone has their own style, I get that. Some folks’ styles are less
useful and productive than others’.

>
> I just want to share some posts showing your evolution here:
>
>
>
> ******************
> BODKIN, THE WELL VERSED IN ORIGINAL PAPERS ON RELATIVITY
>
> bod...@gmail.com
> Sep 12, 2013, 12:52:53 PM
>
> On 9/12/2013 10:24 AM, Robert Winn wrote:
>> Einstein did not set up the problem with an equator or mountains.
>
> Yes, he did. It's in his original paper on special relativity, written in 1905.
> Perhaps you should read what he wrote before you make claims about what
> he did or did not set up.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> BODKIN, HAVING A BREAKDOWN 2 MONTHS LATER (ON RELATIVITY)
>
> bod...@gmail.com
> Nov 12, 2013, 2:43:47 PM
>
> I get confused when trying to think about things this way, so I try to
> boil things down to simple elements I can understand. So I don't worry
> about trying to follow the beam itself and try to figure out what it's
> doing. What I do is simply say, OK, let's let there be some kind of LED
> flash or bell that goes "ding" when the light leaves or arrives. So
> there's a ding/flash when the light leaves the source, another
> ding/flash when the light arrives at the mirror, and another ding/flash
> when the light arrives back down at the source again. I'll just assume
> that the light traveled in some straight path between the places/times
> where the dings/flashes happened.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> BODKIN, REGAINING CONFIDENCE 2 DAYS LATER (ON RELATIVITY)

Nov 17, 2014 - Nov 12, 2013 = 2 days?

Or are the titles just extracted from some little compendium you’ve saved
up about little old me?

>
> bod...@gmail.com
> Nov 17, 2014, 12:07:02 PM
>
> It's not true that the use of SR requires absence of gravity. All it
> requires is EITHER of two things:
>
> 1. The gravitational effects are too small to be detected in that
> particular laboratory set-up with the precision in hand.
> 2. The laboratory is in free-fall.
>
> As an example of this, the particles in an accelerator's interaction
> cross-over region are in free-fall, and so SR can be applied there
> without hesitation.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> BODKIN, THE AMATEUR TRYING TO GRASP PHYSICS BY READING (2015)
>
> bod...@gmail.com
> Jun 10, 2015, 10:59:18 AM
>
> I think you should either abandon your reliance on your memory or check
> facts. I've never put myself out as a "retired old bugger", and in fact
> I've stated explicitly that I'm in my early 30s. I do in fact own both
> hammers and chisels, but I've never stated it. And I've always stated
> that I'm an amateur interested in physics and have read a fair amount
> about it.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> BODKIN, THE AMATEUR ANTHROPOLOGIST (2015)
>
> bodk...@gmail.com
> Jul 18, 2015, 1:31:07 PM
>
> Evolution is not trial and error.
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> BODKIN, THE AMATEUR TRYING TO GRASP GENERAL RELATIVITY (2018)
>
> bod...@gmail.com
> Mar 14, 2018, 3:07:37 PM
>
>> With the (-,+,+,+) signature, ds² is negative.
>
> It is negative for timelike intervals, not for spacelike intervals. Obviously.
>
>> To normal people, one would ask WTF when the distance
>
> What’s the connection? ds^2 is not a distance. There is no distance that’s
> negative when ds^2 is negative. Again, you have a bad habit of looking at
> math and then just fabricating what you think the terms mean.
>
> *******************************************
>
> Bodkin, repent!
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 15:24:44 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> I’ve been reading physics since the age of 21. I was 31 in 2013. I had read
> 40 textbooks in physics before I made a single post on Usenet, and I’ve
> read about 45 more since then — not to mention other popularizations,
> biographies, histories, and related subjects like the philosophy of
> physics.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks kept
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Richard Hertz wrote:
....
> BODKIN, THE AMATEUR TRYING TO GRASP GENERAL RELATIVITY (2018)
>
> bod...@gmail.com
> Mar 14, 2018, 3:07:37 PM
>
>> With the (-,+,+,+) signature, ds² is negative.
>
> It is negative for timelike intervals, not for spacelike intervals. Obviously.
>
>> To normal people, one would ask WTF when the distance
>
> What’s the connection? ds^2 is not a distance. There is no distance that’s
> negative when ds^2 is negative. Again, you have a bad habit of looking at
> math and then just fabricating what you think the terms mean.
>
> *******************************************
>
> Bodkin, repent!

Richard, you'd better study what is a positive-definite and a
non positive-definite bilinear form instead of making (again)
a fool of yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_quadratic_form

On Wednesday, 6 October 2021 at 17:01:51 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> ...
> > BODKIN, THE AMATEUR TRYING TO GRASP GENERAL RELATIVITY (2018)
> >
> > bod...@gmail.com
> > Mar 14, 2018, 3:07:37 PM
> >
> >> With the (-,+,+,+) signature, ds² is negative.
> >
> > It is negative for timelike intervals, not for spacelike intervals. Obviously.
> >
> >> To normal people, one would ask WTF when the distance
> >
> > What’s the connection? ds^2 is not a distance. There is no distance that’s
> > negative when ds^2 is negative. Again, you have a bad habit of looking at
> > math and then just fabricating what you think the terms mean.
> >
> > *******************************************
> >
> > Bodkin, repent!
> Richard, you'd better study what is a positive-definite and a
> non positive-definite bilinear form instead of making (again)
> a fool of yourself.

And - have you already learnt what sqrt function is?