On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:11:54 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 08-feb.-2022 om 01:38 schreef everything isalllies:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:20:22 AM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> >> Try Mozilla Thunderbird.
> >> Available in 65 languages.
> >> Runs On Windows, OSX, Linux, FreeBSD.
> >> Works like a charm.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > I installed Thunderbird, can receive all the messages from google groups. But any attempt ot reply from Thunderbird does not work, there is no valid return email address.
> > Some people on google groups suggest that Thunderbird now cant be used to respond to usnet groups.
> > Any ideas?
> Yes, many. But it's all lies.
>
> Dirk Vdm

You reveal just how pathetic you are with attitude like that.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 8:18:23 PM UTC+11, everything isalllies wrote:
At a given time of S we have the clocks paired up with the readings in the left column, and then after each clock has advanced by the time “b” they are adjacent with the neighboring clocks as shown in the second column, and so on. Here’s a span of the first two alignments.
> >
> > (2a,-2a)
> > - - - - - - (2a+b,-a+b)
> > (a,-a)
> > - - - - - - (a+b,b)
> > (0,0)
> > - - - - - - (b,a+b)
> > (-a,a)
> > - - - - - - (-a+b,2a+b)
> > (-2a,2a)
> >
> > As you can see, each clock shows an elapsed time of b from one encounter to the next, but the difference between the readings of the two consecutive clocks that it encounters is a+b, so each clock is running slow by the factor b/(a+b) compared with the readings of the clocks in the other row. As you can also see, this pattern continues indefinitely, for infinitely long rows and for arbitrarily long times.

Jezzus you are stupid.

Whats with the clocks showing positive and negative numbers?
One has a, the other has , minus a?
That's like I have two watches, both are set on midday, call it zero. Then i pass one clock with the other, as you indicate. The watches both advance to ONE. But here, in your fantastically stupid excuse for "Logical Mathematics", you have one watch going to MINUS one. Watches don't run backwards (negative) just because you move it one way and the other watch in the reverse direction.
You are playing with graphs, and thinking you are doing Physics. What a joke.

The real Math looks like this: and you can test it yourself with two stopwatches. Or draw it on a paper, if you can hold a pencil.

> > (2a, 2a)
> > - - - - - - (2a+b, 2a+b)
> > (a, a)
> > - - - - - - (a+b, a+b)
> > (0,0)
> > - - - - - - (a+b, a+b)
> > (a,a)
> > - - - - - - (2a+b, 2a+b)
> > (2a, 2a)

So don't come to me with that BS about you have debunked my claims about STR with your LOGICAL Proof.
It's nonsense, and easily demonstrable to be nonsense.

"everything isalllies" wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:11:54 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 08-feb.-2022 om 01:38 schreef everything isalllies:
>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:20:22 AM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Try Mozilla Thunderbird.
>>>> Available in 65 languages.
>>>> Runs On Windows, OSX, Linux, FreeBSD.
>>>> Works like a charm.
>>>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>> I installed Thunderbird, can receive all the messages from google groups. But any attempt ot reply from Thunderbird does not work, there is no valid return email address.
>>> Some people on google groups suggest that Thunderbird now cant be used to respond to usnet groups.
>>> Any ideas?
>> Yes, many. But it's all lies.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
>
> You reveal just how pathetic you are with attitude like that.

Why should we help a demented antisemitic crank to use Thunderbird?
Let alone helping him to understand SR (it's impossible anyway, you're
far too crazy).

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:24:21 PM UTC+11, Python wrote:
> "everything isalllies" wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:11:54 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 08-feb.-2022 om 01:38 schreef everything isalllies:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:20:22 AM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Try Mozilla Thunderbird.
> >>>> Available in 65 languages.
> >>>> Runs On Windows, OSX, Linux, FreeBSD.
> >>>> Works like a charm.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>
> >>> I installed Thunderbird, can receive all the messages from google groups. But any attempt ot reply from Thunderbird does not work, there is no valid return email address.
> >>> Some people on google groups suggest that Thunderbird now cant be used to respond to usnet groups.
> >>> Any ideas?
> >> Yes, many. But it's all lies.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> >
> > You reveal just how pathetic you are with attitude like that.
> Why should we help a demented antisemitic crank to use Thunderbird?
> Let alone helping him to understand SR (it's impossible anyway, you're
> far too crazy).

Whats this "we" talk? are you a gang or something?
Your most through guy, Townes, who presents the best attempts at a rational argument, is floundering in a mess of irrational claims right now, unable to make a decent case for Einstein.

And there nothing wrong with not liking people who want you to die. (zionist religious cranks)

But I'll find out about Thunderbird sooner or later, and your right, I don't want to feel indebted to a pissy little prick like you.
Now as I started this conservation, and you feel that way, what the hell you still here for? Why don't you bugger off, and start your own conversations?

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 1:41:15 PM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> t.
>> Textbook, dumbshit.
>>
>> Not a website written by publicists for high school kids.
>>> After all, you are an educated person, and that tpe of response befits
>>> an educated person.
>>> Ever heard of CERN? Well they have a website, where they explain shit.
>>> Here's the link:
>>> https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20fundamental%20forces,it%20has%20an%20infinite%20range.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> So CERN puts false information on its web page for the purpose of messing with kids minds.?
>

Publicists working to incite interest in what the lab does will often use
loose and inaccurate language better suited to their intended audience,
yes.

Unless you are reading content explicitly written by a named physicist for
the purposes of instruction, it’s not really worth anything.

But then again, you mouth breathers who gets their news from YouTube and
bitchute are happy with the worthless.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:

> Op 07-feb.-2022 om 11:51 schreef J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 06.02.2022 um 17:20 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Physics does not have to defend itself against people who obsess about
> >>>>> commas. What a waste of time that would be.
> >>>>>
> >>>> My critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not
> >>>> include linguistic aspects like commas or spelling errors.
> >>>>
> >>>> But as a native speaker of the German language I'm able to read the
> >>>> German version, too.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wrote in fact a liguistic critique about 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
> >>>> Körper', too, but havn't mentioned that here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein's language stile is quite 'weak', because it uses in many case
> >>>> not the best phrases possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> In a way I would think, it was not written in German, but is a
> >>>> translation, most likely from English. It could also have an origin in
> >>>> some German speaking groups in the USA, because the language is actually
> >>>> a little 'old school', like Amish or Hutterers.
> >>>>
> >>>> The language is somehow interesting, because it would allow the
> >>>> question, whether Einstein himself was actually the author.
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein was not really an artistist in language,
> >>>
> >>> You are no artistist either,
> >>
> >> Well, I can write quite well, even in English, what is a second language
> >> for me.
> >>
> >> I have actually written a few short stories, which got published (in a
> >> rather small literature magazine).
> >
> > My, you must be an artististist,
>
> ... one of the autististic kind, apparentititly.

Who could have guessed that sp.rel discussions could become titillating?

One always learns new things, even here,

Jan

On Monday, 7 February 2022 at 22:37:00 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 7 de febrero de 2022 a las 18:18:38 UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:11:19 AM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
>
> > Wonderful, except there is no such thing as "Spacetime" Its an oxymoron..
> > Other than that error, almost everything else you said is nonsensical.
> Physicists disagree with your ignorant nonsense. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>
> In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.

They surely can be used; in the meantime in the real world,
however, forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

El martes, 8 de febrero de 2022 a las 3:14:20 UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 1:46:26 PM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
>
> > It is clear you do not understand any of this: The first asterisk, iin the (x,t) graph corresponds to your example: you started walking at t=10, from the location x=0. You arrived at location x=10 at t=11 (this is the rightest asterisk). Then you turned back, arriving at x=0 at t=12. The asterisks show the world line you followed.
>
>
> > > The actual position of the object is somewhere along the x axis.
> > Sure, the object is moving from x=0 to x=10 and then back to x=0. But the time axis shows how that happened and sure enough, you can clearly see at what speed the movements occurred.
> > > So if you connect all those asterisks, you end up with VELOCITY VECTORS... The steeper the vector, the slower the velocity.
> > Actually, since v=dx/dt, the closer the asterisks are to the x axis, the higher the speed is. Usually, since the speed of light c is so fast, spacetime graphs use a different unit for c, ie light seconds, or light years.. In those cases the speed of light is denoted as c=1, so a light ray follows a path given by x=t.
> >
> > <snip more ignorant BS>

> You really need to brush up on basic high school graphing and plots of time over distances. They can only provide velocity vectors.
> That's it, nothing else.
>

The (x,t) shows two relevant informations about a moving object: 1) what was the location of the object through on the passing of time and 2) what were the object's speed and acceleration at a given time.
For instance, in the (x,t) graph below, we can see that the object moved at a constant speed in the positive direction of x. Then the object changed direction (it accelerated from +v to -v) returning to the starting point.

| t
|*
|....*
|........*
|...........*
|........*
|....*
|*_____________ x

Without using the t axis you do not have that visual information.
Note that this graph is not in anyway assuming special relativity, as it is also valid in Newtonian mechanics.

> The asterisks only mean that data corresponding to that particular time, had a specific distance along the x axis. And that the vector, (not a Path that was followed) shows the velocity. If we extend any vector, we can use that velocity vector to estimate the likely distance some one travelled, at that velocity, for any time we want.
>

If that was to be true (it is not) then you should have no problem in calculating velocities and distances in the following (x,t) graph.

| t
|...........*
|....*
|........*
|......................*
|........*
|...............*
|*_____________ x

> Or vice versa. See how long a trip would take at a specific velocity. That's what you have here. an 100% identical in every respect, plot of time and distance, giving velocity vectors.
>
> If you say its a "path", a "world line", then by measuring the lengths of the path sections, we should end up with total distance travelled, right? But that doesn't work out, not by a long shot.
>
> So what is a "worldline" anyway? What is the definition?

In the second graph above, the path or world line is the "curve" connecting all the seven asterisks.

Finally, I show you another useful characteristic of a these graphs.

Assume you have two objects (like the train and the embankment) where M is a reference point on the embankment and M' is a reference point in the train. At t=0 both M and M' are at location x=0. If M' is moving, relative to M, at speed v, how the graph helps us to visualize the situation?

| t..................t'
|..................*
|...............*
|............*
|.........*
|......*
|...*
|*_____________ x
M

Quite easy, first the train (with M') is moving to the right at speed v=x/t.
Second, we know that the t axis is the clock of M and it is located at x=0.
Third, we also know that the clock of M' moves with M' and therefore the asterisks line is t'.

This way we can analyze the relationship between TWO moving objects.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 1:41:15 PM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> t.
>> Textbook, dumbshit.
>>
>> Not a website written by publicists for high school kids.
>>> After all, you are an educated person, and that tpe of response befits
>>> an educated person.
>>> Ever heard of CERN? Well they have a website, where they explain shit.
>>> Here's the link:
>>> https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20fundamental%20forces,it%20has%20an%20infinite%20range.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> So CERN puts false information on its web page for the purpose of messing with kids minds.?
>
>
>

I notice that you still have not said how it is that you just KNOW that
gravity is a force. What’s the rational thinking that leads to that
conclusion?

Or is it just something you believe to be true without any particular
reason?

Or is it just something you saw on a website somewhere and so you believe
it to be true?

Where’s this rational logic you keep talking about?

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

Op 08-feb.-2022 om 12:24 schreef Python:
> "everything isalllies" wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:11:54 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel
>> wrote:
>>> Op 08-feb.-2022 om 01:38 schreef everything isalllies:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:20:22 AM UTC+11, Dirk Van de
>>>> moortel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Try Mozilla Thunderbird.
>>>>> Available in 65 languages.
>>>>> Runs On Windows, OSX, Linux, FreeBSD.
>>>>> Works like a charm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>
>>>> I installed Thunderbird, can receive all the messages from google
>>>> groups. But any attempt ot reply from Thunderbird does not work,
>>>> there is no valid return email address.
>>>> Some people on google groups suggest that Thunderbird now cant be
>>>> used to respond to usnet groups.
>>>> Any ideas?
>>> Yes, many. But it's all lies.
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>>
>>   You reveal just how pathetic you are with attitude like that.
>
> Why should we help a demented antisemitic crank to use Thunderbird?
> Let alone helping him to understand SR (it's impossible anyway, you're
> far too crazy).

I know exactly what's wrong with what he tried :-)

Dirk Vdm

Op 08-feb.-2022 om 13:32 schreef J. J. Lodder:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Op 07-feb.-2022 om 11:51 schreef J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 06.02.2022 um 17:20 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Physics does not have to defend itself against people who obsess about
>>>>>>> commas. What a waste of time that would be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not
>>>>>> include linguistic aspects like commas or spelling errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as a native speaker of the German language I'm able to read the
>>>>>> German version, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote in fact a liguistic critique about 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
>>>>>> Körper', too, but havn't mentioned that here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein's language stile is quite 'weak', because it uses in many case
>>>>>> not the best phrases possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a way I would think, it was not written in German, but is a
>>>>>> translation, most likely from English. It could also have an origin in
>>>>>> some German speaking groups in the USA, because the language is actually
>>>>>> a little 'old school', like Amish or Hutterers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The language is somehow interesting, because it would allow the
>>>>>> question, whether Einstein himself was actually the author.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein was not really an artistist in language,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are no artistist either,
>>>>
>>>> Well, I can write quite well, even in English, what is a second language
>>>> for me.
>>>>
>>>> I have actually written a few short stories, which got published (in a
>>>> rather small literature magazine).
>>>
>>> My, you must be an artististist,
>>
>> ... one of the autististic kind, apparentititly.
>
> Who could have guessed that sp.rel discussions could become titillating?
>
> One always learns new things, even here,
>
> Jan

Yep, s.p.rel was created specifically to keep s.p. free from
titillation amap.
That was a few decades ago. It still works as designed.

Dirk vdm

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:17:01 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>At a given time of S we have the clocks paired up with the readings in the left column, and then after each clock has advanced by the time “b” they are adjacent with the neighboring clocks as shown in the second column, and so on. Here’s a span of the first two alignments.
> >
> > (2a,-2a)
> > - - - - - - (2a+b,-a+b)
> > (a,-a)
> > - - - - - - (a+b,b)
> > (0,0)
> > - - - - - - (b,a+b)
> > (-a,a)
> > - - - - - - (-a+b,2a+b)
> > (-2a,2a)
> >
> > As you can see, each clock shows an elapsed time of b from one encounter to the next, but the difference between the readings of the two consecutive clocks that it encounters is a+b, so each clock is running slow by the factor b/(a+b) compared with the readings of the clocks in the other row. As you can also see, this pattern continues indefinitely, for infinitely long rows and for arbitrarily long times.
>
> Whats with the clocks showing positive and negative numbers?
> One has a, the other has , minus a?

Right, those times are all relative to the time 0 at the origin of all the coordinate systems. The negative values signify that the event occurs prior to that arbitrary 0 reference in terms of those coordinates. For example, an event that occurs one second prior to t=0 in terms of S has the coordinate t=-1. This is not a novel aspect of special relativity, it is how ordinary coordinate systems work, including in Galilean relativity. Duh.

> you have one watch going to MINUS one. Watches don't run backwards…

You misunderstand… none of the clocks is going backwards. As shown, each clock advances forward by an amount b between consecutive meetings with clocks of the other row. Remember, the clock whose time is designated by the left entry in parentheses is moving downward, and the clocks whose time is designated by the right entry is moving upward. For example, the top downward clock starts with the reading 2a, alongside an upward clock reading -2a. Then the downward clock reads 2a+b, when it is alongside an upward clock that reads –a+b, which previously had read –a. Understand?

> So don't come to me with that BS about you have debunked my
> claims about STR with your LOGICAL Proof.

Your claim has been logically proven false. See above. And your denial of special relativity rested on nothing but that false claim, so all your beliefs have been shown to be fallacious.

> I showed you the perfectly rational and logical video…

Nope, that video was obviously made by someone who is mentally ill. It will not help you at all to spend any of your time viewing that. The fallacy of your beliefs has been clearly explained (see above). That’s what you need to focus on.
What you were certain was logically impossible has now been shown to you, so you can see that it is indeed possible. After you’ve recovered from the shock, you should think carefully about the implications, and how this accounts for all the facts of special relativity that seemed impossible to you.

Op 08-feb.-2022 om 15:51 schreef Townes Olson:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:17:01 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> At a given time of S we have the clocks paired up with the readings in the left column, and then after each clock has advanced by the time “b” they are adjacent with the neighboring clocks as shown in the second column, and so on. Here’s a span of the first two alignments.
>>>
>>> (2a,-2a)
>>> - - - - - - (2a+b,-a+b)
>>> (a,-a)
>>> - - - - - - (a+b,b)
>>> (0,0)
>>> - - - - - - (b,a+b)
>>> (-a,a)
>>> - - - - - - (-a+b,2a+b)
>>> (-2a,2a)
>>>
>>> As you can see, each clock shows an elapsed time of b from one encounter to the next, but the difference between the readings of the two consecutive clocks that it encounters is a+b, so each clock is running slow by the factor b/(a+b) compared with the readings of the clocks in the other row. As you can also see, this pattern continues indefinitely, for infinitely long rows and for arbitrarily long times.
>>
>> Whats with the clocks showing positive and negative numbers?
>> One has a, the other has , minus a?
>
> Right, those times are all relative to the time 0 at the origin of all the coordinate systems. The negative values signify that the event occurs prior to that arbitrary 0 reference in terms of those coordinates. For example, an event that occurs one second prior to t=0 in terms of S has the coordinate t=-1. This is not a novel aspect of special relativity, it is how ordinary coordinate systems work, including in Galilean relativity. Duh.
>
>> you have one watch going to MINUS one. Watches don't run backwards…
>
> You misunderstand… none of the clocks is going backwards. As shown, each clock advances forward by an amount b between consecutive meetings with clocks of the other row. Remember, the clock whose time is designated by the left entry in parentheses is moving downward, and the clocks whose time is designated by the right entry is moving upward. For example, the top downward clock starts with the reading 2a, alongside an upward clock reading -2a. Then the downward clock reads 2a+b, when it is alongside an upward clock that reads –a+b, which previously had read –a. Understand?
>
>> So don't come to me with that BS about you have debunked my
>> claims about STR with your LOGICAL Proof.
>
> Your claim has been logically proven false. See above. And your denial of special relativity rested on nothing but that false claim, so all your beliefs have been shown to be fallacious.
>
>> I showed you the perfectly rational and logical video…
>
> Nope, that video was obviously made by someone who is mentally ill. It will not help you at all to spend any of your time viewing that. The fallacy of your beliefs has been clearly explained (see above). That’s what you need to focus on.
> What you were certain was logically impossible has now been shown to you, so you can see that it is indeed possible. After you’ve recovered from the shock, you should think carefully about the implications, and how this accounts for all the facts of special relativity that seemed impossible to you.
>

Yes, imagine that he goes, OH BOY, HAVE I BEEN WRONG ALL MY LIFE!
And realizes what a gigantic heap of time and effort he's flushed
down the toilet.
Imagine that ;-)

Dirk Vdm

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:16:23 PM UTC+11, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 1:18:38 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Wonderful, except there is no such thing as "Spacetime" Its an oxymoron.
>> How would you know? You have never even read a physics textbook! Your
>> ignorance of physics is monstrous!
>
> You mean a textbook written by believers in the nonsense of Einstein? those text books?
> It takes a special kind of fool to believe that a mathematical concept,
> "spacetime", is a real thing with real effects on Physics.
> Are you that fool? Aparently.
>

Aha. Round 1 in the “reasons why I avoid reading textbooks like the plague”
deflection game.

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:25:38 PM UTC+11, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 6:35:29 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ever heard of CERN? Well they have a website, where they explain shit.
>>> Here's the link:
>>> https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20fundamental%20forces,it%20has%20an%20infinite%20range.
>> From your very own link I read this...
>>
>> "However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not
>> part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this
>> framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory
>> used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity
>> used to describe the macro world, are difficult to fit into a single
>> framework. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible
>> in the context of the Standard Model. But luckily for particle physics,
>> when it comes to the minuscule scale of particles, the effect of gravity
>> is so weak as to be negligible. Only when matter is in bulk, at the
>> scale of the human body or of the planets for example, does the effect
>> of gravity dominate. So the Standard Model still works well despite its
>> reluctant exclusion of one of the fundamental forces."
>>
>> Your move.
>
> Yes, of course they have to delete every occurrence of the phrase,
> "Gravity is a force", because it clashes with their religious dogma that
> curved "spacetime" causes us to be pushed to the earth.

Aha. Now we’re in the Grand Conspiracy phase of what the poster calls
“rational thinking”.

> All you have proved is that believers in Einsteins are religiously
> deleting anything that contradicts their faith.
> And the funny thing is that in no way does the idea of Curved spacetime,
> actually explain or describe what Gravity is.
>
> At least Newton was wise and honest enough to simply state that he was
> not going to try to explain how it worked. unlike Einstein who lies about it.
>

Well, isn’t that special. You say you know what the cause is: a force.

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 1:46:26 PM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
>
>> It is clear you do not understand any of this: The first asterisk, iin
>> the (x,t) graph corresponds to your example: you started walking at t,
>> from the location x=0. You arrived at location x at t (this is the
>> rightest asterisk). Then you turned back, arriving at x=0 at t. The
>> asterisks show the world line you followed.
>
>
>>> The actual position of the object is somewhere along the x axis.
>> Sure, the object is moving from x=0 to x and then back to x=0. But the
>> time axis shows how that happened and sure enough, you can clearly see
>> at what speed the movements occurred.
>>> So if you connect all those asterisks, you end up with VELOCITY
>>> VECTORS... The steeper the vector, the slower the velocity.
>> Actually, since v=dx/dt, the closer the asterisks are to the x axis, the
>> higher the speed is. Usually, since the speed of light c is so fast,
>> spacetime graphs use a different unit for c, ie light seconds, or light
>> years. In those cases the speed of light is denoted as c=1, so a light
>> ray follows a path given by x=t.
>>
>> <snip more ignorant BS>
>
> You really need to brush up on basic high school graphing and plots of
> time over distances. They can only provide velocity vectors.
> That's it, nothing else.
>
> The asterisks only mean that data corresponding to that particular time,
> had a specific distance along the x axis. And that the vector, (not a
> Path that was followed) shows the velocity. If we extend any vector, we
> can use that velocity vector to estimate the likely distance some one
> travelled, at that velocity, for any time we want.
>
> Or vice versa. See how long a trip would take at a specific velocity.
> That's what you have here. an 100% identical in every respect, plot of
> time and distance, giving velocity vectors.
>
> If you say its a "path", a "world line", then by measuring the lengths of
> the path sections, we should end up with total distance travelled, right?
> But that doesn't work out, not by a long shot.
>
> So what is a "worldline" anyway? What is the definition?
>
>

LOL.

So here’s the gambit, “You obviously know nothing about physics. It’s as
plain as day that X conveys so and so, and that it cannot possibly show
what you claim it shows. While we’re at it, what does X mean?”

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

Op 08-feb.-2022 om 16:54 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 1:46:26 PM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
>>
>>> It is clear you do not understand any of this: The first asterisk, iin
>>> the (x,t) graph corresponds to your example: you started walking at t,
>>> from the location x=0. You arrived at location x at t (this is the
>>> rightest asterisk). Then you turned back, arriving at x=0 at t. The
>>> asterisks show the world line you followed.
>>
>>
>>>> The actual position of the object is somewhere along the x axis.
>>> Sure, the object is moving from x=0 to x and then back to x=0. But the
>>> time axis shows how that happened and sure enough, you can clearly see
>>> at what speed the movements occurred.
>>>> So if you connect all those asterisks, you end up with VELOCITY
>>>> VECTORS... The steeper the vector, the slower the velocity.
>>> Actually, since v=dx/dt, the closer the asterisks are to the x axis, the
>>> higher the speed is. Usually, since the speed of light c is so fast,
>>> spacetime graphs use a different unit for c, ie light seconds, or light
>>> years. In those cases the speed of light is denoted as c=1, so a light
>>> ray follows a path given by x=t.
>>>
>>> <snip more ignorant BS>
>>
>> You really need to brush up on basic high school graphing and plots of
>> time over distances. They can only provide velocity vectors.
>> That's it, nothing else.
>>
>> The asterisks only mean that data corresponding to that particular time,
>> had a specific distance along the x axis. And that the vector, (not a
>> Path that was followed) shows the velocity. If we extend any vector, we
>> can use that velocity vector to estimate the likely distance some one
>> travelled, at that velocity, for any time we want.
>>
>> Or vice versa. See how long a trip would take at a specific velocity.
>> That's what you have here. an 100% identical in every respect, plot of
>> time and distance, giving velocity vectors.
>>
>> If you say its a "path", a "world line", then by measuring the lengths of
>> the path sections, we should end up with total distance travelled, right?
>> But that doesn't work out, not by a long shot.
>>
>> So what is a "worldline" anyway? What is the definition?
>>
>>
>
> LOL.
>
> So here’s the gambit, “You obviously know nothing about physics. It’s as
> plain as day that X conveys so and so, and that it cannot possibly show
> what you claim it shows. While we’re at it, what does X mean?”

Watch Out, It Probably Is A Trap!

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 08-feb.-2022 om 16:54 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 1:46:26 PM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is clear you do not understand any of this: The first asterisk, iin
>>>> the (x,t) graph corresponds to your example: you started walking at t,
>>>> from the location x=0. You arrived at location x at t (this is the
>>>> rightest asterisk). Then you turned back, arriving at x=0 at t. The
>>>> asterisks show the world line you followed.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The actual position of the object is somewhere along the x axis.
>>>> Sure, the object is moving from x=0 to x and then back to x=0. But the
>>>> time axis shows how that happened and sure enough, you can clearly see
>>>> at what speed the movements occurred.
>>>>> So if you connect all those asterisks, you end up with VELOCITY
>>>>> VECTORS... The steeper the vector, the slower the velocity.
>>>> Actually, since v=dx/dt, the closer the asterisks are to the x axis, the
>>>> higher the speed is. Usually, since the speed of light c is so fast,
>>>> spacetime graphs use a different unit for c, ie light seconds, or light
>>>> years. In those cases the speed of light is denoted as c=1, so a light
>>>> ray follows a path given by x=t.
>>>>
>>>> <snip more ignorant BS>
>>>
>>> You really need to brush up on basic high school graphing and plots of
>>> time over distances. They can only provide velocity vectors.
>>> That's it, nothing else.
>>>
>>> The asterisks only mean that data corresponding to that particular time,
>>> had a specific distance along the x axis. And that the vector, (not a
>>> Path that was followed) shows the velocity. If we extend any vector, we
>>> can use that velocity vector to estimate the likely distance some one
>>> travelled, at that velocity, for any time we want.
>>>
>>> Or vice versa. See how long a trip would take at a specific velocity.
>>> That's what you have here. an 100% identical in every respect, plot of
>>> time and distance, giving velocity vectors.
>>>
>>> If you say its a "path", a "world line", then by measuring the lengths of
>>> the path sections, we should end up with total distance travelled, right?
>>> But that doesn't work out, not by a long shot.
>>>
>>> So what is a "worldline" anyway? What is the definition?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> So here’s the gambit, “You obviously know nothing about physics. It’s as
>> plain as day that X conveys so and so, and that it cannot possibly show
>> what you claim it shows. While we’re at it, what does X mean?”
>
> Watch Out, It Probably Is A Trap!
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

Oh, you mean the 2” x 3’ x 3’ hole in the ground, next to the sign drawn in
crayon that says “TRAPP”? The one that he thoughtfully planned for a whole
20 seconds or so?

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

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:36:44 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> MAXWELL developed his Equations based on his “MODEL”, a mental, imaginary, conceptual STORY that helped him develop his Mathematical equations, which he found were useful in the practical aspects of working with Electricity and Magnetism.
> For instance, his Model says that Electrons move in the wire but nowadays we do not believe this is an accurate way to explain current flow. Now we say its all to do with the “electric field” that surrounds the wire. Either way, these are still just MODELS, Stories that help explain things that we cant actually physically observe.
> We don’t need a MODEL of a car engine to help explain how it works, because we have real engines that we can see exactly what’s happening. No physicist is going to develop a mental Model of a Car engine where he imagines the fuel is converted to energy on the outside surface of the engine, or in some invisible “Field” surrounding the Engine block. We don’t need to because its directly evident what occurring. But with Electricity and Magnetism, and Gravity and Radiation, we dream in terms of mental Models that probably don’t have any actual counterpart in reality. But the Models can still be very useful for Mathematical calculations.
> Conversely these Models can also mislead us into drawing totally incorrect conclusions if we place ABSOLUTE faith in their perfection.
> So here we are with Maxwell having workable equations that allow the prediction of what we will actually measure in real physical experience.
> But as everyone knew, there was some issues that under certain imagined conditions, the equations that worked fine in practice, would not give predictable results in alternative applications of the same Model.
>
> The Maxwell equations were not “invariant” under all conditions.
> What did this mean? Or why did they think that there was actually this issue?
> Well, turns out its really quite easy to explain from whence the confusion arises, and it is really just a confusion as opposed to an actual problem that requires a Physics and Mathematical solution.
> To be blunt, the claimed “invariance issue” that caused Academia to overturn the perfectly solid equations of Galileo and Newton, in favor of Einstein’s version of reality, where Time, distances and Mass are now able to shrink or increase just because of someone’s relative velocity, was based on a misconception, not a fact.
>
> This can be best visualized in a Model we will now create in out minds, because the claimed issue of invariance is also just based on a similar mental model. And Einstein himself exclusively employed such mental images as models in all his life’s work.
> So my model will reveal the nature of the misconception, but express it in a way that can be easily understood by everyone.
>
> But first, lest consider Maxwells model which involved only a few objects..
> There was a magnet with its associated magnetic field, a piece of copper wire, maybe in the form of a coil, and the air surrounding these objects. Not often mentioned, but present anyway, is the very necessary central object, namely it is US, WE are the “other” component in Maxwells mental model. We are playing the part of the origin of the experiment that about to be run, using the wire and the magnet and run in the air.
> Everything we observe or imagine is relative to our point of view in Maxwell’s model.
>
> And its this exact Model that Einstein in his Paper of 1905, refers to directly.
> Einstein, Quote: “It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.
> Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.
> The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion.
> For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.
> But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet.” End Quote.
>
> We will revisit these opening sentences of Einstein later in this document, but for now, its very clear that Einstein is referring to the claimed problem that Maxwells equations were not “invariant”.
> Meaning they were only good when applied from one point of view, but not the opposite.
> Ok, that is Maxwell’s and Einstein’s mental Model, now we will use mine just to make it crystal clear what the fuss was about and why it’s a misconception, not a real problem that needs Time and Distance to warp in order to solve it.
> In my model we have also three objects and air.
> We have the observer, that’s us, me, you the reader, and we have the left hand, and the right hand held out in front, because the hands are clapping in the air.
> This creates a “field” of sound waves that radiate out from the location where the hands met.
> Now conventional logic might say that both hands were moving, but its also equally correct to say that we can imagine that the LEFT hand is to be considered as “the stationary hand” and so the motion is all being done by the RIGHT hand. This should work exactly the same, giving the exact same results on the sound wave in the air, from a Physics and Mathematical point of view according to Galilean and Newtonian Physics.
> And it’s this point of view that Maxwell took when he considered the motion of the electrons inside the wire. He derived his equations based on that point of view.
> Now some Physicists or rather Mathematicians like Lorentz and Einstein, noted that the resulting sound of the clap would radiate at a calculable velocity from the HAND that was considered as “stationary” (Left hand) and by inference that speed was also relative to the Air surrounding that “stationary” hand. The air was also stationary with respect to that Left hand.
> But when they thought about what the math would look like if they applied their same equations, but this time calculated using the moving RIGHT hand as the new “origin of the sound wave”, the results were not the same! Because in one point of view, the original “stationary” LEFT hand was also in the Air that was also “stationary”, but by swapping to the moving RIGHT hand for all calculations, they were not at liberty to also claim that now the very Air would naturally also follow to the motion of the RIGHT Hand.
> You can see immediately that the whole confusion was simply about the Maxwell equations were only applicable to “Left hand stationary model”, and not applicable to “right hand model” use.
> Now imagine that we start the same experiment, of the two hands clapping, and again label the Left hand as the stationary one. But thins time, the owner of the hands (that’s us) runs sideways, say, to the to the right. Still clapping, still imagining that his left hand is stationary, so then can Maxwells equations STILL be considered useful now?
> Well, depends on your mental model, which is based not on facts, but your beliefs about what can be considered as “stationary”. Just because you LABLE your Left Hand as the Stationary hand, is it really so? Because still, while running, I am also at liberty to claim that its my RIGHT hand that is stationary…..
> But because the effect, (the sound wave) does not depend on which hand I have decided to call stationary, sound will always only radiate outward from the location IN THE AIR, where it was first generated. It doesn’t matter at all which hand was stationary, or moving, all that mattered all this time was the Air.
> Now is the AIR actually “stationary”. No its not. First, Air has internal turbulence, that is, parts of it move differently to other parts, and then there is a bigger picture that shows that the whole Atmosphere is rotating along with the Planet Earth, which is also orbiting the Sun, so the Air is not “stationary”.
> And despite all this, Physics is very settled on matters that involve calculation and theories about Air movement, and about the travel of Sound Waves.
> So, despite having no “absolute frame of reference” for the Air in which sound waves travel, we still can do useful Physics and apply equations of Mathematicians with great accuracy for Sound waves.
> Now Sound waves and Light waves share one very important attribute. The both have finite speed.
> If we are happy to ignore the fact that we can’t locate any truly stationary reference point in the Air for sound waves, and yet still do excellent Physics, why then are some (Einstein) claiming that now it’s a massive problem if we want to consider Light and its finite speed?
>
> Do I need a fixed, absolute “location” that is attached or related to something solid in order to “do science” to do Physics and to do mathematics, with regard to several moving objects and also Light?
> Einstein says yes, we must have a fixed absolute reference point in space to be able to truly call my Left Hand “stationary”. And because we cant find that absolute origin, we can also call the right hand stationary. But as explained, that leads to the invariance of Maxwells equations.
> Now there is no equivalent of Air when it comes to Light. Light travels without any medium through a vacuum, so we can’t say that Air is the stationary object.
> But can I still do Physics and study light’s speed if I don’t have an origin from which to do measurements?
>
> In the actual Universe, there is always a great number of ways to tell if you are moving, and to measure how far and how fast you are travelling, seafarers have been doing just that for thousands of years, they use distant stars which provide a stationary background for us. (for all practical purposes, they can be considered as stationary)
> But what if we are in Einstein’s imaginary space where I am just the only object, there is no universe of stars to give any clue? Well Ill use my imaginary massless light Marker, and I place one outside my spaceship, every minute. As my marker is based on Light, has no Mass, then its not affected by the motion of my ship, (Einstein and Galileo’s postulate was that Light speed is not affected by the motion of the source, and this is correct)
> So those lights will serve as markers to show where I was in space one minute ago, two minutes ago etc. Thus I can measure my speed and direction referenced to them.
> In reality, we don’t need to do this, because the universe is full of other objects from which to gain perspective and judge speed and orientation. And it doesn’t matter if the whole Universe is spinning, or itself is travelling somewhere. Physics for Humans involves our relationships with those objects that can and do affect us, not hypothetical pretend objects that are figments of imagination.
> The meaning of all this speculation about why Maxwells equations were not invariant if we call our left hand stationary or the right hand stationary, is now clear. It all boils down to a BELIEF that for Light, and ONLY for light, we MUST establish a reference that is absolute, IF we can expect to keep Galileo’s and Newtons Physics.
>
> Should we not be able to define what the Absolute reference location is, then Einstein’s claims we must discard Newton, and embrace another belief system that involves additional Mathematics so that we get to keep Maxwells Equations, at the expense of loosing three tiny things that were core to Galileo Newton and Natural Philosophy in general, that is the belief that a Meter rule does not change with speed, that Time is the same here or there, and that Mass remains the same regardless of speed or location.
> These three things ARE PHYSICS. With rubbery stretchy rulers, warping Time periods, and Mass that changes all the time, we simply can’t have stable Physics. There remains no reliable means to take any comparative measurements.
> The NEW Physics is just a bunch of complex equations without any demonstrable counterpart in reality.
> By this I mean that I can physically demonstrate empirically using toy cars that velocities of objects relative to each other conform exactly to Newton, but never has anyone even shown as a demonstrable model using toy cars, what supposed to be happening with relative velocities when Light and objects are involved. That is, the basic principal of Einstein’s “relative addition of velocities” SHOULD be demonstrable using simple toy cars.
> The Einstein’s claim is that the car called light, always moving at a set speed, will always be measured at that same speed for ANY observer, (that’s any other toy car) regardless of that toy cars own speed, or even it direction! So that toy car will measure the approach of the car called “light” at say 100 units, while another toy car that’s moving at 20units to the first will ALSO get a reading of 100 for light, and then ALSO STILL get 100 even when that car turns 180 degrees and heads off in the opposite direction!
> I want to see how this could be possible. Demonstrated with toy cars, like can be done for every other objects that have relative motions.
> It is clearly demonstrable that Einstein’s claims for Light, is impossible for everything in the universe that moves, but not for Light, even though Light is just another thing that is moving.
> So Einstein has a special Law of Physics that only applies to Light, and it flies directly in the face of all other laws of Physics.
> And to this day, not one Physicist has even explained how this could actually be correct. Not only is it breaking all known laws of Physics, without any reason, it also defies rational analysis. In other words its an irrational claim, Irrational means its insane to think that this could be correct..
> So what have we solved with Einstein’s relativity?
> The sum total benefits amount to mathematically fiddling with Maxwells equations so that they can now be considered invariant.
> The downside is that we lost a stable rational Universe where solid things remain as expected, (and always measured) and we lost consistency of time, and of an objects Mass.
>
> So rather than simply admit that we cant locate an absolute origin and direction in Space, and also admit that this DOESN’T MATTER for actual Physics, we instead tossed out all that was good with Physics, and swapped it for a bit of extra mathematics equation that fudged the previous answers, forcing all results to have to same answer regardless of individual circumstances.
>
> So what’s more likely? That Things shrink, grow more Massive and Time warps simply on account of someone moving past another object at speed?
> Or perhaps it’s more likely that a grave misconception has been made. And that the universe is as we see it, and Newton is correct, Einstein mistaken.
>
> Please note, that every experiment ever done that claims to be supporting Einstein, can have alternative explanations, every one of them. That’s why science says that Evidence can never be considered as “Proof”.
>
>
> Now some have said that there is a big difference between a “Galilean inertial frame of reference” and a “Lorentz Inertial frame of reference”, and this is true, they are polar opposites. In fact, according to Einstein, the Galilean frame is invalid totally.
> In fact, there is no such thing in Galilean Physics, as a “translation between two observers”, because for Galileo, everything was in the one big frame, called the universe. For Galileo, it was just a matter of simple arithmetic, not any “translation”.
> According to Einstein’s STR, the ONLY possible “inertial frame of reference” that can be used in Physics is the one where “Lorentz relativity” provides the base on which all other Laws of Physics is built.
>
> So if we take that at face value, then there can be no practical application for a equation that “converts” between two observers frames of reference, if one is actually trying to use Galilean Physics rules for one observer, but Lorentz frames for the other.
> But this is the very purpose of the Lorentz transformation found in Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
> It takes measurements observed by a person in a Galilean frame of reference, and converts it into “real measurements”, by applying the Lorentz transformation equation. Those real Lorentz measurements are what the second observer will record.
>
> But as Einstein has previously stated, there can be no actual validity of any measures taken by an observer from a “Galilean Inertial frame of reference” because such incorrect views of physics is preventing any actual valid recordings of any actual measurements.
>
> The poor Galilean observer who foolishly thinks he is taking valid measurements is deluding himself, because there can exist no such reference frame that is conforming to the Galilean Laws.
> The universe can ONLY contain Lorentz relativistic inertial frames of reference.
> At ANY speed, even a snail’s pace, that motion must be in a Lorentz frame because to claim otherwise is to say that Maxwells equations are again NOT INVARIANT.
> ONLY in Lorentz relativistic frames are Maxwells equations invariant. Which according to Einstein is the one true condition of the universe.
> So there can be no use for a translation equation between a Galilean measurement to the “correct’ Lorentz measurement. Because there can exist no such thing as a Galilean frame of reference. Physics only applies in the Lorentz universe.
> In any translation between two differently moving observers, its only possible that BOTH observers are in Lorentz inertial frames, as no other possibilities frame types exist in the Lorentz/Einstein universe.
> Therefore any equation in such a Universe MUST have the Lorentz Gamma factor included for BOTH observers. But that’s like just adding a set number to the results of each observer, in other words , we can ignore it, as its done the exact same thing mathematically to both observers measurements. And thus the measures taken by both observers will always be identical anyway. A pointless exercise.
>
> I earlier mentioned that we need to comment further on Einstein’s opening sentences of his 1905 Paper. Please note what Einstein says regarding the explanation of the generation of a current in a coil and by a relatively moving magnet. (or vice versa)
> He notes that it does not matter if the left hand (magnet) moves or the right hand (coil of wire) or both move, the current still flows in the wire. His problem is in explaining how to define what “stationary “ means.
> Consider carefully to what he actually says about the “issue” he is having.
> Quote: “For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.”
> But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet..”
> Well this is quite a silly attempt to explain what is occurring here.
> Move the magnet, then that makes an electric field around the magnet? Really? That’s exactly what he claims, but this is totally incorrect.
> A moving magnet creates no such electric field.
> The Magnetic field surrounding the Magnet, (moving anywhere the magnet is moved) causes changes in the wire coil, generating an energy we know as electricity. It’s the energy of the motion converted into electric current.
> Next to make his incorrect explanation even worse, Einstein continues… “But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet..”
> Well, here we see he has no real idea about how electricity is created. Really? “no electric field arises in WHAT? In the Magnet! Now that just silly. The electric field is only associated with the wire coil, and never the Magnet. The Magnet is the object with the Magnetic field, and the wire coil has the Electric field and current flow.
> But this is the MAIN reason to claim that Maxwells Equations are not invariant?
> That’s like saying that the Left hand creates a sound wave if its stationary, and struck by the right hand, but if we keep the right hand stationary, no sound is comes from the Left hand, so “HUSTON we have a Problem”.
> The “Problem” that Einstein offers to solve does not even exist.
> The Newtonian Physics he sweeps away, was correct all along, but was replaced by a Mathematical fudge that has no direct link to reality.
>
> To recap, that condition of a Lorentz only Universe is one where Light speed remains at c regardless of the speed of the observer.
>
> And to remind the reader what was thrown out, the Galilean view was that finite speeds of objects are additive.
>
> And the provided reason to discard Galilean physics was because no one could make up their mind how to locate an imaginary origin for an imaginary frame of reference, so that they could do lots of Mathematics.
> Apparently by throwing up their hands and giving up, over having no obvious concrete origin for a frame of reference, the Physicists and Mathematicians found an acceptable solution that only provides a Math fudge for Maxwells equations, while not being based on any real observable demonstrable events in the natural universe, where we are supposed to be trying to understand Physics.
> Recall that no-one to this day, not Einstein nor anyone since, has even attempted to explain how it might actually work that a finitely moving object could possibly still be measured at the same velocity regardless of the speed or direction of the one doing the measuring, relative to that object.
> Explaining the mathematics of the Lorentz Equation is NOT explaining how such a feat could be possible. Because Mathematics can not actually “explain” anything, let alone Physics.
> Not one of the “millions” of Experiments that are routinely done that are supposed to provide supporting evidence for Relativity, is beyond critical review, and none are providing a better more accurate picture of reality than properly done Physics that is Newtonian.
> Not GPS, not Atomic Planes on Aircraft, not the Moon of IO, or star light past the sun during an eclipse, or Muons or the Large Hadron Collider, is above criticism. Always a better, far simpler explanation is available.
> Meanwhile there remains only one rational, logical and demonstrable model that covers relative velocities, and that is the Galilean/Newtonian model. And it works just fine, even without having to locate a master origin for the air that surrounds our clapping hands.
> With that ovation, I can conclude my presentation.

Am 08.02.2022 um 09:49 schrieb everything isalllies:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 6:03:47 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 07.02.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Yasmani Kabai:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One such case is the use of the article 'the' (in sigular) to adress
>>>>> the people of a country in English, while German uses the plural.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now 'My struggle' uses only the sigular form, if e.g. citizens of a
>>>>> country were meant ('DER Deutsche' for instance).
>>>>
>>>> Remember, Hitler was Austrian, is there a difference here?
>>>
>>> born in Austria, but not Austrian.
>>>
>> Austrians are usually born in Austria. Hitler was born in Braunau on the
>> Inn, which is a little town in Austria near the border to Bavaria.
>>
>> So Hitler was, of course, Austrian.
>>
>> But the person known as Hitler, was a different person, who was not
>> Austrian.
>>
>> the reason to think so were numerous.
>>
>> One reason: the origional Hitler was gay, while the 'Fuehrer' was a real
>> skirtchaser.
>>
>> The real Hitler had also protruding ears, was very skinny and wore glasses.
>>
>> The false Hitler was possibly the brother of Aldous Huxley 'Noel
>> Trevenen Huxley' and was born in England.
>>
>> The connection to the real Hitler would be Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was
>> schoolmate of the real Hitler, of the same age and also gay.
>>
>> Wittgenstein was a member of the so called 'Apostles' of Cambridge, to
>> which also Aldous Huxley belonged (together with some other characters,
>> which could be linked to the 'brave new world order').
>>
>> The other brother was Julian Huxley, who was head of Eugenics, which was
>> more or less the same thing as Naziism in Britsh clothes.
>>
>>
>> TH
> Interesting, I've not heard this before, and Ive read quite a bit. Just not what you have found.
> The Eugenics link is interesting.
> Gates is into that. They all are. They seem to be involved in the Fabian Society, which had world wide goals.
> But I doubt that Hitler was a replacement, or that the replacement was Trevenen Huxley. The family resemblance is not there.
>

Noel Trevenen Huxley is the only Huxleys of that time, from whom not
picture of any kind exists.

Not even a drawing or a cutout exists. So we have no idea, how he looked
like.

(the Huxley family was very wealthy and influential and was certainly
able to pay at least for a little drawing).

My personal guess was, that Hitler had his hear coloured, because he was
blue eyed and the children, about which I think he was the father, were
blond.

So, a little bit of black hair colour would do the trick.

My guess was, that the children of Magda Goebbels and of Winifried
Wagner were his.

The reason to think so: the husband of Winifried Wagner was gay and the
husband of Magda Goebbels was not, what you could call 'handsome'.

Since here children were all blond (like she was), we need a blond
father, too. But Joseph had black hair (and a crippled foot).

Joseph Goebbels was so unattracktive, that despite being the head of the
entire German film industry, he failed to attrakt any of his starlets
(and despite of several attempts).

And Magda LOVED Hitler, what is widely known.

So possibly her children were not from her husband.

Similar situation in the house of the Wagners. Winifrieds husband was
possibly unabel the cause pregancy, hence the well known house-friend
had to help.

(The children btw look quite a bit like Hitler.)

We have another skirt after which Hitler chased and that was a niece of
Winston Churchill.

Allegedly she got pregnant and received a child in a secret clinic in
England.

Because that pregnancy was exceptionally stupid, if Hitler was in fact
exchanged, the British were forced to withdraw her from Germany, faked a
suicide attempt and a death on an desolated island in the Western Hybrids.

It was so stupid, because the origional Hitler was gay and a child from
Hitler would be an undebatable proof, that the 'Fuehrer' was not.

TH

Am 08.02.2022 um 09:09 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> In your mind, you mixed and fusioned history. You are talking about Billy Shears, a humble double that replaced
> Paul McCartney, when he died in 1966.

Actually I have not spoken about the BEATLES, but about the nazis.

But music-industry is, nevertheless, also a realm, where sometimes
people got replaced by 'doubles' (studio musicians, who made the actual
music).

This is called 'Milli-Vanilli-effect'.

Also in the arts of writing or painting there were occasionally doubts
about the actual authorship of certain masterpieces.

TH

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 12:16:30 AM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 8 de febrero de 2022 a las 3:14:20 UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 1:46:26 PM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > It is clear you do not understand any of this: The first asterisk, iin the (x,t) graph corresponds to your example: you started walking at t=10, from the location x=0. You arrived at location x=10 at t=11 (this is the rightest asterisk). Then you turned back, arriving at x=0 at t=12. The asterisks show the world line you followed.
> >
> >
> > > > The actual position of the object is somewhere along the x axis.
> > > Sure, the object is moving from x=0 to x=10 and then back to x=0. But the time axis shows how that happened and sure enough, you can clearly see at what speed the movements occurred.
> > > > So if you connect all those asterisks, you end up with VELOCITY VECTORS... The steeper the vector, the slower the velocity.
> > > Actually, since v=dx/dt, the closer the asterisks are to the x axis, the higher the speed is. Usually, since the speed of light c is so fast, spacetime graphs use a different unit for c, ie light seconds, or light years. In those cases the speed of light is denoted as c=1, so a light ray follows a path given by x=t.
> > >
> > > <snip more ignorant BS>
>
> > You really need to brush up on basic high school graphing and plots of time over distances. They can only provide velocity vectors.
> > That's it, nothing else.
> >
> The (x,t) shows two relevant informations about a moving object: 1) what was the location of the object through on the passing of time and 2) what were the object's speed and acceleration at a given time.
> For instance, in the (x,t) graph below, we can see that the object moved at a constant speed in the positive direction of x. Then the object changed direction (it accelerated from +v to -v) returning to the starting point.
>
>
> | t
> |*
> |....*
> |........*
> |...........*
> |........*
> |....*
> |*_____________ x
>
> Without using the t axis you do not have that visual information.
> Note that this graph is not in anyway assuming special relativity, as it is also valid in Newtonian mechanics.
> > The asterisks only mean that data corresponding to that particular time, had a specific distance along the x axis. And that the vector, (not a Path that was followed) shows the velocity. If we extend any vector, we can use that velocity vector to estimate the likely distance some one travelled, at that velocity, for any time we want.
> >
> If that was to be true (it is not) then you should have no problem in calculating velocities and distances in the following (x,t) graph.
>
> | t
> |...........*
> |....*
> |........*
> |......................*
> |........*
> |...............*
> |*_____________ x
> > Or vice versa. See how long a trip would take at a specific velocity. That's what you have here. an 100% identical in every respect, plot of time and distance, giving velocity vectors.
> >
> > If you say its a "path", a "world line", then by measuring the lengths of the path sections, we should end up with total distance travelled, right? But that doesn't work out, not by a long shot.
> >
> > So what is a "worldline" anyway? What is the definition?
> In the second graph above, the path or world line is the "curve" connecting all the seven asterisks.
>
> Finally, I show you another useful characteristic of a these graphs.
>
> Assume you have two objects (like the train and the embankment) where M is a reference point on the embankment and M' is a reference point in the train. At t=0 both M and M' are at location x=0. If M' is moving, relative to M, at speed v, how the graph helps us to visualize the situation?
>
> | t..................t'
> |..................*
> |...............*
> |............*
> |.........*
> |......*
> |...*
> |*_____________ x
> M
>
> Quite easy, first the train (with M') is moving to the right at speed v=x/t.
> Second, we know that the t axis is the clock of M and it is located at x=0.
> Third, we also know that the clock of M' moves with M' and therefore the asterisks line is t'.
>
> This way we can analyze the relationship between TWO moving objects.

Great, So here you describe 3 different (slightly) possible uses of a plot of VELOCITY.
Not once did you show that you have a magic "spacetime diagram".

The ONLY information available on that graph, is the time, and the location of the object in question, fully covered by a simple time/distance plot showing the resulting velocities, accelerations, as a visible vector, whose slope helps visualize the rate of acceleration. The plot can NEVER indicate the PATH of the object. And Paths are NOT related to TIME, velocity is.

But in real science real Physics, we do have a very special magic chart to show the actual PATH, the actual world line if you like. and its called, A MAP. It still only accounts for 2 dimensions, x and y.
And you can make notes all over your PATH, showing the TIME that you were there. But the PATH remains, even if you travel it some other time, at other speeds or in reverse.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 12:44:22 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> I notice that you still have not said how it is that you just KNOW that
> gravity is a force. What’s the rational thinking that leads to that
> conclusion?
>
> Or is it just something you believe to be true without any particular
> reason?
>
> Or is it just something you saw on a website somewhere and so you believe
> it to be true?
>
> Where’s this rational logic you keep talking about?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Why would you think that Gravity is NOT a force?
Give me one good reason why you would think that.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 1:20:53 AM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> > Why should we help a demented antisemitic crank to use Thunderbird?
> > Let alone helping him to understand SR (it's impossible anyway, you're
> > far too crazy).
> I know exactly what's wrong with what he tried :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

Don't gloat to much about this.
I dot have time to bugger about with such things.
I removed Thunderbird as its not worth the effort.

On 2/8/2022 6:34 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:24:21 PM UTC+11, Python wrote:
>> "everything isalllies" wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:11:54 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> Op 08-feb.-2022 om 01:38 schreef everything isalllies:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:20:22 AM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Try Mozilla Thunderbird.
>>>>>> Available in 65 languages.
>>>>>> Runs On Windows, OSX, Linux, FreeBSD.
>>>>>> Works like a charm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>
>>>>> I installed Thunderbird, can receive all the messages from google groups. But any attempt ot reply from Thunderbird does not work, there is no valid return email address.
>>>>> Some people on google groups suggest that Thunderbird now cant be used to respond to usnet groups.
>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>> Yes, many. But it's all lies.
>>>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>>
>>> You reveal just how pathetic you are with attitude like that.
>> Why should we help a demented antisemitic crank to use Thunderbird?
>> Let alone helping him to understand SR (it's impossible anyway, you're
>> far too crazy).
>
>
> Whats this "we" talk? are you a gang or something?

There could be others who'd be willing to help a decent person get up
and running. Many use Thunderbird here.

> And there nothing wrong with not liking people who want you to die. (zionist religious cranks)

There is something wrong with not liking people because you mistakenly
believe they want you to die, when they couldn't give a flying fuck
about you.

> But I'll find out about Thunderbird sooner or later, and your right, I don't want to feel indebted to a pissy little prick like you.

Good luck. I hope it doesn't take you too long, after all, neo-Nazi
types aren't exactly known to be the sharpest tools in the shed.