Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in 1905:

γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
y' = y
z' = z

The whole set, called a group by Poincaré, was derived from simple
assertions by Lorentz, who (maybe unconciously, borrowed Voigt's γ
and local time t' = t - vx/c²).

If this GROUP has mathematical properties that make Maxwell's equations
invariant when moving from one inertial frame to any other, then each value
is mathematically related (as Minkowski stated with his idiotic spacetime).

BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE (and it was the main objective
of Lorentz's work), then the whole GROUP loses its physical meaning, if it had
one ever.

In this case, the entire set COLLAPSES, because t' expression is untenable,
as it was derived with x' in the same body of developmental framework.

Hence, to affirm that the REMAINING t' has any validity, while x' has not,
is a mathematical ABERRATION. Not to mention that physically, it was
idiotic since time zero.

So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten, fossilized and
indoctrinated brains.

But "les miserables" will not accept this, and will claim that t' still has any
value while x' is void of any meaning. Just only a mathematical construct
that has some validity in the realm of mathematics, but has ZERO VALUE
in the realm of physics and IN REAL LIFE.

Dead x', t' died also. Got it, assholes?

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:08:04 PM UTC-7, cretin crank Richard Hertz had a wet dream:

> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE

I see that you are still having the same wet dream, Dick.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in 1905:
>
> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
> y' = y
> z' = z
>
> The whole set, called a group by Poincaré, was derived from simple
> assertions by Lorentz, who (maybe unconciously, borrowed Voigt's γ
> and local time t' = t - vx/c²).
>
> If this GROUP has mathematical properties that make Maxwell's equations
> invariant when moving from one inertial frame to any other, then each value
> is mathematically related (as Minkowski stated with his idiotic spacetime).
>
> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE (and it was the main objective
> of Lorentz's work), then the whole GROUP loses its physical meaning, if it had
> one ever.
>
> In this case, the entire set COLLAPSES, because t' expression is untenable,
> as it was derived with x' in the same body of developmental framework.
>
> Hence, to affirm that the REMAINING t' has any validity, while x' has not,
> is a mathematical ABERRATION. Not to mention that physically, it was
> idiotic since time zero.
>
> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten, fossilized and
> indoctrinated brains.
>
> But "les miserables" will not accept this, and will claim that t' still has any
> value while x' is void of any meaning. Just only a mathematical construct
> that has some validity in the realm of mathematics, but has ZERO VALUE
> in the realm of physics and IN REAL LIFE.
>
> Dead x', t' died also. Got it, assholes?
>
>

Nothing but braggadocio fishing expeditions. How many of these will you try
before falling over?

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

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:19:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:08:04 PM UTC-7, cretin crank Richard Hertz had a wet dream:
> > BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE
> I see that you are still having the same wet dream, Dick.

Name one experimental comprobation that length contraction is real, Adrian::sa_ge.

And, please that it be above 10E-18 mt, the order of magnitude of the stupid spheric electron used in the 2nd. part of the 1905 paper.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, cretin crank Richard Hertz had a recurring wet dream:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:19:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:08:04 PM UTC-7, cretin crank Richard Hertz had a wet dream:
> > > BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE
> > I see that you are still having the same wet dream, Dick.
> Name one experimental comprobation that length contraction is real
>

I am not here to educate you crank, I know you are uneducatable by virtue of being a crank. I am going to say just that, there are experiments that confirm relativistic length contraction and that I am here to mock you. Mercilessly.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:42:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> I am not here to educate you crank, I know you are uneducatable by virtue of being a crank. I am going to say just that, there are experiments that confirm relativistic length contraction and that I am here to mock you. Mercilessly.

Don't worry, Adrian::sa_ge.

I understand the secrecy behind your words " I am going to say just that......"

It's the same group of experiments that proved, finally, that pigs can fly:

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

OK, understood. Your secret is safe with me, blink, blink, ;)=

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:39:26 PM UTC-7, crank POS Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:42:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I am not here to educate you crank, I know you are uneducatable by virtue of being a crank. I am going to say just that, there are experiments that confirm relativistic length contraction and that I am here to mock you. Mercilessly.

> I understand the secrecy behind your words " I am going to say just that......"

Actually, the information is easily available on the internet. You, being a crank piece of shit prefer to remain ignorant and I am more than happy to keep you that way.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 2:26:09 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:39:26 PM UTC-7, crank POS Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:42:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I am not here to educate you crank, I know you are uneducatable by virtue of being a crank. I am going to say just that, there are experiments that confirm relativistic length contraction and that I am here to mock you. Mercilessly.
> > I understand the secrecy behind your words " I am going to say just that......"
> Actually, the information is easily available on the internet. You, being a crank piece of shit prefer to remain ignorant and I am more than happy to keep you that way.

I'm not interested at all in reading your excuses for your short dick by using relativity. Blame nature, genetics,..

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 04:42:22 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-7, cretin crank Richard Hertz had a recurring wet dream:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:19:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:08:04 PM UTC-7, cretin crank Richard Hertz had a wet dream:
> > > > BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE
> > > I see that you are still having the same wet dream, Dick.
> > Name one experimental comprobation that length contraction is real
> >
> I am not here to educate you crank, I know you are uneducatable by virtue of being a crank. I am going to say just that, there are experiments that confirm relativistic length contraction and that I am here to mock you. Mercilessly.

Sure, you're here to bark and spit at the enemies
of your insane religion. As expected from a well
trained doggie.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:08:04 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in 1905:

They were not plagiarized. They were intentionally re-derived by different means.
And you can throw tantrum as much as you want but you still, 117 years later,
don't understand what your "cretin" understood back then. That's the difference
between you and him.

> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
> y' = y
> z' = z
>
> The whole set, called a group by Poincaré, was derived from simple
> assertions by Lorentz, who (maybe unconciously, borrowed Voigt's γ
> and local time t' = t - vx/c²).
>
> If this GROUP has mathematical properties that make Maxwell's equations
> invariant when moving from one inertial frame to any other, then each value
> is mathematically related (as Minkowski stated with his idiotic spacetime).

Why idiotic? And why aren't you barking at Hamilton's phase space, for
example? Or the Poinsot model?

> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE (and it was the main objective
> of Lorentz's work), then the whole GROUP loses its physical meaning, if it had
> one ever.
>
> In this case, the entire set COLLAPSES, because t' expression is untenable,

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:19:44 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 6:08:04 PM UTC-7, cretin crank Richard
>> Hertz had a wet dream:
>>> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE
>> I see that you are still having the same wet dream, Dick.
>
> Name one experimental comprobation that length contraction is real, Adrian::sa_ge.
>
> And, please that it be above 10E-18 mt, the order of magnitude of the
> stupid spheric electron used in the 2nd. part of the 1905 paper.
>
>
>
>

RHIC

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

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=CD1QbHXmurTiG4ofh4xLFUWmtqo@jntp>

Le 16/03/2022 à 02:08, Richard Hertz a écrit :
> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in
> 1905:
>
> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
> y' = y
> z' = z

Please note that the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

I've been repeating it tirelessly for decades because I'm sure I'm right.

There are two camps in the history of relativity: the relativists and the
anti-relativists.

And the two are misguided, each side seeing that the other side is talking
bullshit.

I take this opportunity to give you here the basis of the transformation,
which is that of the vision of the universe R in R' when the observer O'
(and he alone) crosses O.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?CD1QbHXmurTiG4ofh4xLFUWmtqo@jntp/Data.Media:1>

It's clarity, beauty, absolute precision.

Ensuite, cela donne ça :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?CD1QbHXmurTiG4ofh4xLFUWmtqo@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=CD1QbHXmurTiG4ofh4xLFUWmtqo@jntp>
>
>
> Le 16/03/2022 à 02:08, Richard Hertz a écrit :
>> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in
>> 1905:
>>
>> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
>> x' = γ (x - vt)
>> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
>> y' = y
>> z' = z
>
> Please note that the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
>
> I've been repeating it tirelessly for decades because I'm sure I'm right.
>
> There are two camps in the history of relativity: the relativists and the
> anti-relativists.
>
> And the two are misguided, each side seeing that the other side is talking
> bullshit.

And you seem to take the stance that you offer peace from the conflict by
offering a third position, even though you are profoundly unread on the
subject.

The silliness of your gambit is that the tussle is already over. Relativity
is thoroughly demonstrated to be correct, and anti-relativists — regardless
of stubbornness — are wrong. And because you have not aligned with
physicists, you are also wrong. Your attempt at an alternate is wrong, and
the effort is pointless.

You have said repeatedly that relativity is correct. That’s the end of the
story, period. Your secondary complaint is that Internet presentations of
relativity are not clear. There’s an easy fix for that. Steer away from
internet presentations and read a book. It’s very simple, and refusal to do
the simple thing is silly.

>
> I take this opportunity to give you here the basis of the transformation,
> which is that of the vision of the universe R in R' when the observer O'
> (and he alone) crosses O.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?CD1QbHXmurTiG4ofh4xLFUWmtqo@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> It's clarity, beauty, absolute precision.
>
> Ensuite, cela donne ça :
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?CD1QbHXmurTiG4ofh4xLFUWmtqo@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
> R.H.
> "Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
> avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
> Abbé Pierre.
>

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

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:44:38 PM UTC-7, imbecile Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 2:26:09 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 9:39:26 PM UTC-7, crank POS Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:42:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I am not here to educate you crank, I know you are uneducatable by virtue of being a crank. I am going to say just that, there are experiments that confirm relativistic length contraction and that I am here to mock you. Mercilessly.
> > > I understand the secrecy behind your words " I am going to say just that......"
> > Actually, the information is easily available on the internet. You, being a crank piece of shit prefer to remain ignorant and I am more than happy to keep you that way.
> I'm not interested at all in reading

Precisely, you are an imbecile and you wish to remain an imbecile.

> Blame nature, genetics,..

Yep, you were born this way and you wish to remain this way. I respect your wishes, Dick.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:08:04 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in 1905:
>
> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
> y' = y
> z' = z
>
> The whole set, called a group by Poincaré, was derived from simple
> assertions by Lorentz, who (maybe unconciously, borrowed Voigt's γ
> and local time t' = t - vx/c²).
>
> If this GROUP has mathematical properties that make Maxwell's equations
> invariant when moving from one inertial frame to any other, then each value
> is mathematically related (as Minkowski stated with his idiotic spacetime).
>
> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE (and it was the main objective
> of Lorentz's work), then the whole GROUP loses its physical meaning, if it had
> one ever.
>
> In this case, the entire set COLLAPSES, because t' expression is untenable,
> as it was derived with x' in the same body of developmental framework.
>
> Hence, to affirm that the REMAINING t' has any validity, while x' has not,
> is a mathematical ABERRATION. Not to mention that physically, it was
> idiotic since time zero.
>
> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten, fossilized and
> indoctrinated brains.
>
> But "les miserables" will not accept this, and will claim that t' still has any
> value while x' is void of any meaning. Just only a mathematical construct
> that has some validity in the realm of mathematics, but has ZERO VALUE
> in the realm of physics and IN REAL LIFE.
>
> Dead x', t' died also. Got it, assholes?

REPEATING MY OP FROM OCT 7, 2021 ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF SR IN THE REAL WORLD.
STILL UNCHALLENGED, EXCEPT BY Dono-Adrian-sa_ge (the schizo).

TITLE: Still t' = t and x' = x - v.t, for earthly applications. Sorry Einstein, it hurts but.....
LINK: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/mEDstFJqw0c

**********************************
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

x' = γ . (x - v.t)
t' = γ . (t - v.x/c²)
y' = y
z' = z
γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

γ = 1 for v/c < 0.3, with error lower than 0.3134%. 90,000 Km/sec is pretty
high for human applications, except at particle accelerators.

The higher velocity that humans have moved (40,000 Km/hr) is about
11.7 Km/s till now. And velocities about 1,000,000 Km/Hr, a possibility
by 2121, is only 277.8 Km/sec. So, it's fair to say that γ = 1 in our uses
on daily basis, everywhere.

It means that, for v/c < 0.3 (the same limit for E = M.c² "validity"):

x' = x - v.t (Galilean transform)
t' = t - v.x/c² (Voigt transform)
y' = y
z' = z

But, for v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr (277.8 Km/sec) and x < 407,000 Km (Moon's
apogee), v.x/c² ≈ 0.0012552, so can be discarded with 0.12% error.

It means that, for our cosmic neighborhood, it holds true that:

x' = x - v.t
t' = t
y' = y
z' = z

which are the Galilean transforms, valid for our mundane life.

Then, what is all the fuzz with SR?

For v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr and x < 407,000 Km, values that Einstein
didn't think as possible even on his dreams, relativity is USELESS.

Why 110 years of mental torture with psycho-physics, twin paradoxes,
rockets going forth and back at 0.9c, time dilation, length contraction,
simultaneity, etc, etc, etc.?

I think that all the metaphysics involved in endless discussions about
humans traveling at 1,000,000,000 Km/Hr (0.9c) or higher is ridiculous
and only poses philosophical values, with ZERO applicability.

And, regarding P = γ . M₀.v applications in particle accelerators due to
relativistic factors, it's an UNPROVEN FACT, no matter how any of you
kick hard and scream loudly.

There are OTHER POSSIBILITIES for the increase in the momentum m.v
of accelerated particles, like the difficult for their electric fields to gain
energy from ELECTRIC accelerations (not that SR has no validity there).

The same apply to the concept of KE = (γ-1) M₀c² (in MeV) applied to
determine the velocity of cosmic particles, by using

v = c . √{1 - 1/[KE/(M₀c²) + 1]²}

CONCLUSION:

For human uses, excluding accelerated particles with velocities above
90,000 Km/sec, Newton-Galileo transforms hold true withing their
domain of applicability (distance and velocities on Earth and surroundings)..

So, Newton has been ruling all the time, and this is THE REAL THING:

x' = x - v.t
t' = t
y' = y
z' = z

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

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:25:13 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz lied:

> And, regarding P = γ . M₀.v applications in particle accelerators due to
> relativistic factors, it's an UNPROVEN FACT,

You need to stop lying, Dick

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:08:04 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in 1905:
>>
>> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
>> x' = γ (x - vt)
>> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
>> y' = y
>> z' = z
>>
>> The whole set, called a group by Poincaré, was derived from simple
>> assertions by Lorentz, who (maybe unconciously, borrowed Voigt's γ
>> and local time t' = t - vx/c²).
>>
>> If this GROUP has mathematical properties that make Maxwell's equations
>> invariant when moving from one inertial frame to any other, then each value
>> is mathematically related (as Minkowski stated with his idiotic spacetime).
>>
>> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE (and it was the main objective
>> of Lorentz's work), then the whole GROUP loses its physical meaning, if it had
>> one ever.
>>
>> In this case, the entire set COLLAPSES, because t' expression is untenable,
>> as it was derived with x' in the same body of developmental framework.
>>
>> Hence, to affirm that the REMAINING t' has any validity, while x' has not,
>> is a mathematical ABERRATION. Not to mention that physically, it was
>> idiotic since time zero.
>>
>> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
>> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten, fossilized and
>> indoctrinated brains.
>>
>> But "les miserables" will not accept this, and will claim that t' still has any
>> value while x' is void of any meaning. Just only a mathematical construct
>> that has some validity in the realm of mathematics, but has ZERO VALUE
>> in the realm of physics and IN REAL LIFE.
>>
>> Dead x', t' died also. Got it, assholes?
>
> REPEATING MY OP FROM OCT 7, 2021 ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF SR IN THE REAL WORLD.

No. Fundamental science is not about real world applications.

Real world applications can often work just fine with approximate rules and
workarounds. That does not mean that the approximations and workarounds
represent truth.

Relativity is mostly NOT about real world applications. That’s why it’s
fundamental science, and maybe not of much interest to retired engineers.

> STILL UNCHALLENGED, EXCEPT BY Dono-Adrian-sa_ge (the schizo).
>
> TITLE: Still t' = t and x' = x - v.t, for earthly applications. Sorry
> Einstein, it hurts but.....
> LINK: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/mEDstFJqw0c
>
> **********************************
> From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
> x' = γ . (x - v.t)
> t' = γ . (t - v.x/c²)
> y' = y
> z' = z
> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
>
> γ = 1 for v/c < 0.3, with error lower than 0.3134%. 90,000 Km/sec is pretty
> high for human applications, except at particle accelerators.

Note “except”.

>
> The higher velocity that humans have moved (40,000 Km/hr) is about
> 11.7 Km/s till now.

Human movement has nothing to do with fundamental science. Same, human
presence has nothing to do with stellar interiors. Same with extrasolar
planets. Same with extinct species. Same with origin of life.

> And velocities about 1,000,000 Km/Hr, a possibility
> by 2121, is only 277.8 Km/sec. So, it's fair to say that γ = 1 in our uses
> on daily basis, everywhere.
>
> It means that, for v/c < 0.3 (the same limit for E = M.c² "validity"):
>
> x' = x - v.t (Galilean transform)
> t' = t - v.x/c² (Voigt transform)
> y' = y
> z' = z
>
> But, for v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr (277.8 Km/sec) and x < 407,000 Km (Moon's
> apogee), v.x/c² ≈ 0.0012552, so can be discarded with 0.12% error.
>
> It means that, for our cosmic neighborhood, it holds true that:
>
> x' = x - v.t
> t' = t
> y' = y
> z' = z
>
> which are the Galilean transforms, valid for our mundane life.
>
> Then, what is all the fuzz with SR?

Stuff other than mundane life and toasters and bridges and missile
guidance.

>
> For v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr and x < 407,000 Km, values that Einstein
> didn't think as possible even on his dreams, relativity is USELESS.
>
> Why 110 years of mental torture with psycho-physics, twin paradoxes,
> rockets going forth and back at 0.9c, time dilation, length contraction,
> simultaneity, etc, etc, etc.?

There is no mental torture. You just haven’t tried. Too lazy? Uninterested?

>
> I think that all the metaphysics involved in endless discussions about
> humans traveling at 1,000,000,000 Km/Hr (0.9c) or higher is ridiculous
> and only poses philosophical values, with ZERO applicability.

Which applicability for fundamental science is irrelevant.

>
> And, regarding P = γ . M₀.v applications in particle accelerators due to
> relativistic factors, it's an UNPROVEN FACT, no matter how any of you
> kick hard and scream loudly.
>
> There are OTHER POSSIBILITIES for the increase in the momentum m.v
> of accelerated particles, like the difficult for their electric fields to gain
> energy from ELECTRIC accelerations (not that SR has no validity there).

Great. Then YOU put those possibilities forward. So far, just empty
yammering from you.

>
> The same apply to the concept of KE = (γ-1) M₀c² (in MeV) applied to
> determine the velocity of cosmic particles, by using
>
> v = c . √{1 - 1/[KE/(M₀c²) + 1]²}
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> For human uses,

Which are irrelevant for fundamental science. It’s just not for you.

The stupid part is where you insist that if it’s not interesting to you,
then it’s not interesting at all.

> excluding accelerated particles with velocities above
> 90,000 Km/sec, Newton-Galileo transforms hold true withing their
> domain of applicability (distance and velocities on Earth and surroundings).
>
> So, Newton has been ruling all the time, and this is THE REAL THING:
>
> x' = x - v.t
> t' = t
> y' = y
> z' = z
>
> ******************************************
>
>

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

El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 14:25:13 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:08:04 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

> REPEATING MY OP FROM OCT 7, 2021 ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF SR IN THE REAL WORLD.
> STILL UNCHALLENGED, EXCEPT BY Dono-Adrian-sa_ge (the schizo).
>
> TITLE: Still t' = t and x' = x - v.t, for earthly applications. Sorry Einstein, it hurts but.....
> LINK: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/mEDstFJqw0c
>
> **********************************
> From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
> x' = γ . (x - v.t)
> t' = γ . (t - v.x/c²)
> y' = y
> z' = z
> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> γ = 1 for v/c < 0.3, with error lower than 0.3134%. 90,000 Km/sec is pretty
> high for human applications, except at particle accelerators.
>
> The higher velocity that humans have moved (40,000 Km/hr) is about
> 11.7 Km/s till now. And velocities about 1,000,000 Km/Hr, a possibility
> by 2121, is only 277.8 Km/sec. So, it's fair to say that γ = 1 in our uses
> on daily basis, everywhere.
>
> It means that, for v/c < 0.3 (the same limit for E = M.c² "validity"):
>
> x' = x - v.t (Galilean transform)
> t' = t - v.x/c² (Voigt transform)
> y' = y
> z' = z
> But, for v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr (277.8 Km/sec) and x < 407,000 Km (Moon's
> apogee), v.x/c² ≈ 0.0012552, so can be discarded with 0.12% error.
>
> It means that, for our cosmic neighborhood, it holds true that:
>
> x' = x - v.t
> t' = t
> y' = y
> z' = z
> which are the Galilean transforms, valid for our mundane life.
>
> Then, what is all the fuzz with SR?
>
> For v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr and x < 407,000 Km, values that Einstein
> didn't think as possible even on his dreams, relativity is USELESS.
>
> Why 110 years of mental torture with psycho-physics, twin paradoxes,
> rockets going forth and back at 0.9c, time dilation, length contraction,
> simultaneity, etc, etc, etc.?
>
> I think that all the metaphysics involved in endless discussions about
> humans traveling at 1,000,000,000 Km/Hr (0.9c) or higher is ridiculous
> and only poses philosophical values, with ZERO applicability.
>
> And, regarding P = γ . M₀.v applications in particle accelerators due to
> relativistic factors, it's an UNPROVEN FACT, no matter how any of you
> kick hard and scream loudly.
>
> There are OTHER POSSIBILITIES for the increase in the momentum m.v
> of accelerated particles, like the difficult for their electric fields to gain
> energy from ELECTRIC accelerations (not that SR has no validity there).
>
> The same apply to the concept of KE = (γ-1) M₀c² (in MeV) applied to
> determine the velocity of cosmic particles, by using
>
> v = c . √{1 - 1/[KE/(M₀c²) + 1]²}
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> For human uses, excluding accelerated particles with velocities above
> 90,000 Km/sec, Newton-Galileo transforms hold true withing their
> domain of applicability (distance and velocities on Earth and surroundings).
>
> So, Newton has been ruling all the time, and this is THE REAL THING:
>
> x' = x - v.t
> t' = t
> y' = y
> z' = z
> ******************************************

You have discovered what everyone knew 117 years ago: "Special Relativity reduces to Galilean Relativity for low speeds" duh!!!.

Of course you have neglected those very real applications, such as the GPS system, which need to apply relativistic corrections to their proper operation. GPS satellite's atomic clocks, as measured from the ground, gain around 38 microseconds per day (resulting from a gravitational time dilation gain of 45 microseconds per day and a kinematic time dilation loss of 7 microseconds per day). If those relativistic corrections were not applied, the location of a GPS receiver would be off by several kilometers (every day).

The GPS satellites circle the Earth at an altitude of about 20,180 km and complete two full orbits every day. Therefore, each satellite is orbiting at around 3.9 km/sec (where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) = 1,0000000000845) and, for sure, its kinematic time dilation is measurable.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation for details

Le 16/03/2022 à 19:12, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Why 110 years of mental torture with psycho-physics, twin paradoxes,
>> rockets going forth and back at 0.9c, time dilation, length contraction,
>> simultaneity, etc, etc, etc.?
>
> There is no mental torture. You just haven’t tried. Too lazy? Uninterested?

I don't know if there are "mental tortures" but there are "mental
contradictions", "mental anomalies".

There is a sort of relativist religiosity as there is a Marian
religiosity.

The problem is that when we say it, the other refuses to listen, and we
enter into the situation of the snake biting its own tail.

It's all the more complex and crazier as 80% of the theory is correct (but
poorly explained and understood).

I have long looked for teaching solutions to get everyone to agree, and
for the moment, I have only found two that unfortunately we do not want to
listen to for the first time, and that we cannot yet test. for the second.

My first criticism is theoretical, and obvious: a Langevin described in
apparent speeds is clearly absurd (Doppler effect) if we don't take all of
Hachel's theory (that's me) and its relativistic spatial zoom effect.

My second criticism is experimental. The proper time of an accelerated
object is considerably different from what relativists predict. The
predictive screens are absolutely huge.

Which can cause a serious intellectual danger, because in this case, we
will say: Tr=sqrt(2x/g) as in Newton's physics, and THEREFORE the theory
is completely false.

But no, it is not false.

I didn't say that. I said that it was misunderstood and that errors of
reasoning existed there.

So I'm telling you these things ahead of time so that when they happen,
you'll remember that I said them. It might be useful.

R.H.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:12:47 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:08:04 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in 1905:
> >>
> >> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> >> x' = γ (x - vt)
> >> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
> >> y' = y
> >> z' = z
> >>
> >> The whole set, called a group by Poincaré, was derived from simple
> >> assertions by Lorentz, who (maybe unconciously, borrowed Voigt's γ
> >> and local time t' = t - vx/c²).
> >>
> >> If this GROUP has mathematical properties that make Maxwell's equations
> >> invariant when moving from one inertial frame to any other, then each value
> >> is mathematically related (as Minkowski stated with his idiotic spacetime).
> >>
> >> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE (and it was the main objective
> >> of Lorentz's work), then the whole GROUP loses its physical meaning, if it had
> >> one ever.
> >>
> >> In this case, the entire set COLLAPSES, because t' expression is untenable,
> >> as it was derived with x' in the same body of developmental framework.
> >>
> >> Hence, to affirm that the REMAINING t' has any validity, while x' has not,
> >> is a mathematical ABERRATION. Not to mention that physically, it was
> >> idiotic since time zero.
> >>
> >> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
> >> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten, fossilized and
> >> indoctrinated brains.
> >>
> >> But "les miserables" will not accept this, and will claim that t' still has any
> >> value while x' is void of any meaning. Just only a mathematical construct
> >> that has some validity in the realm of mathematics, but has ZERO VALUE
> >> in the realm of physics and IN REAL LIFE.
> >>
> >> Dead x', t' died also. Got it, assholes?
> >
> > REPEATING MY OP FROM OCT 7, 2021 ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF SR IN THE REAL WORLD.
> No. Fundamental science is not about real world applications.
>
> Real world applications can often work just fine with approximate rules and
> workarounds. That does not mean that the approximations and workarounds
> represent truth.
>
> Relativity is mostly NOT about real world applications. That’s why it’s
> fundamental science, and maybe not of much interest to retired engineers.
> > STILL UNCHALLENGED, EXCEPT BY Dono-Adrian-sa_ge (the schizo).
> >
> > TITLE: Still t' = t and x' = x - v.t, for earthly applications. Sorry
> > Einstein, it hurts but.....
> > LINK: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/mEDstFJqw0c
> >
> > **********************************
> > From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
> >
> > x' = γ . (x - v.t)
> > t' = γ . (t - v.x/c²)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> >
> > γ = 1 for v/c < 0.3, with error lower than 0.3134%. 90,000 Km/sec is pretty
> > high for human applications, except at particle accelerators.
> Note “except”.
> >
> > The higher velocity that humans have moved (40,000 Km/hr) is about
> > 11.7 Km/s till now.
> Human movement has nothing to do with fundamental science. Same, human
> presence has nothing to do with stellar interiors. Same with extrasolar
> planets. Same with extinct species. Same with origin of life.
> > And velocities about 1,000,000 Km/Hr, a possibility
> > by 2121, is only 277.8 Km/sec. So, it's fair to say that γ = 1 in our uses
> > on daily basis, everywhere.
> >
> > It means that, for v/c < 0.3 (the same limit for E = M.c² "validity"):
> >
> > x' = x - v.t (Galilean transform)
> > t' = t - v.x/c² (Voigt transform)
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> >
> > But, for v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr (277.8 Km/sec) and x < 407,000 Km (Moon's
> > apogee), v.x/c² ≈ 0.0012552, so can be discarded with 0.12% error.
> >
> > It means that, for our cosmic neighborhood, it holds true that:
> >
> > x' = x - v.t
> > t' = t
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> >
> > which are the Galilean transforms, valid for our mundane life.
> >
> > Then, what is all the fuzz with SR?
> Stuff other than mundane life and toasters and bridges and missile
> guidance.
> >
> > For v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr and x < 407,000 Km, values that Einstein
> > didn't think as possible even on his dreams, relativity is USELESS.
> >
> > Why 110 years of mental torture with psycho-physics, twin paradoxes,
> > rockets going forth and back at 0.9c, time dilation, length contraction,
> > simultaneity, etc, etc, etc.?
> There is no mental torture. You just haven’t tried. Too lazy? Uninterested?
> >
> > I think that all the metaphysics involved in endless discussions about
> > humans traveling at 1,000,000,000 Km/Hr (0.9c) or higher is ridiculous
> > and only poses philosophical values, with ZERO applicability.
> Which applicability for fundamental science is irrelevant.
> >
> > And, regarding P = γ . M₀.v applications in particle accelerators due to
> > relativistic factors, it's an UNPROVEN FACT, no matter how any of you
> > kick hard and scream loudly.
> >
> > There are OTHER POSSIBILITIES for the increase in the momentum m.v
> > of accelerated particles, like the difficult for their electric fields to gain
> > energy from ELECTRIC accelerations (not that SR has no validity there).
> Great. Then YOU put those possibilities forward. So far, just empty
> yammering from you.
> >
> > The same apply to the concept of KE = (γ-1) M₀c² (in MeV) applied to
> > determine the velocity of cosmic particles, by using
> >
> > v = c . √{1 - 1/[KE/(M₀c²) + 1]²}
> >
> > CONCLUSION:
> >
> > For human uses,
> Which are irrelevant for fundamental science. It’s just not for you.
>
> The stupid part is where you insist that if it’s not interesting to you,
> then it’s not interesting at all.
> > excluding accelerated particles with velocities above
> > 90,000 Km/sec, Newton-Galileo transforms hold true withing their
> > domain of applicability (distance and velocities on Earth and surroundings).
> >
> > So, Newton has been ruling all the time, and this is THE REAL THING:
> >
> > x' = x - v.t
> > t' = t
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> >
> > ******************************************
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin, read my recent post about your behavior as IKEA man/Supreme Thinker..

You are really annoying. You shouldn't be so stupidly arrogant writing your thoughts as if they are FUNDAMENTAL LAWS.

You have to stop acting in this way, until it be too late. People will just ignore you, starting any given day, when they finally got tired of you.

You are not THE science, asshole.

Le 16/03/2022 à 19:49, Paparios a écrit :

> time dilation is measurable.

I don't really like that term.

I think we should use the more accurate term "time elasticity".

R.H.

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 19:49:17 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> The GPS satellites circle the Earth at an altitude of about 20,180 km and complete two full orbits every day. Therefore, each satellite is orbiting at around 3.9 km/sec (where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) = 1,0000000000845) and, for sure, its kinematic time dilation is measurable.

Sure, and time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
is t'=t; measured dilation is 0. Good bye, The Shit.

Le 16/03/2022 à 18:47, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:25:13 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz lied:
>
>> And, regarding P = γ . M₀.v applications in particle accelerators due to
>> relativistic factors, it's an UNPROVEN FACT,
>
> You need to stop lying, Dick

I think Richard Hertz is both right and wrong at the same time.

He's right when, like me, he criticizes this stupid equation resulting
from the sick brain of scientists (I'm not saying this in an insulting
way, we all have a little sick brain when it doesn't care about
ignorance).

This ABSTRACT equation means nothing, no more than a round square or a
scarlet white hue.

Of course, physicists will squeal if I tell them.

And they will say: we calculated that it worked.

Well yes, it works.

But that's not what I'm talking to them about.

That's not it.

Their blindness is total.

I am not telling them that their results will not be experimentally
correct.

They will have the same as mine and their results will be correct.

It's their equation that makes me tick: it's stupid.

She doesn't mean anything.

You don't have to write: P = γ . M₀.v

But p = m₀.[Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)]

Or else p = m₀.Vr

But write: P = γ . M₀.v , that is rediculous.

C'est laid, en plus. Oh, mon Dieu, que c'est laid!!!

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 16/03/2022 à 19:12, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>> Why 110 years of mental torture with psycho-physics, twin paradoxes,
>>> rockets going forth and back at 0.9c, time dilation, length contraction,
>>> simultaneity, etc, etc, etc.?
>>
>> There is no mental torture. You just haven’t tried. Too lazy? Uninterested?
>
> I don't know if there are "mental tortures" but there are "mental
> contradictions", "mental anomalies".

These are invariably mental misunderstandings. Usually because of trying to
learn the subject from the internet. Sound familiar?

>
> There is a sort of relativist religiosity as there is a Marian
> religiosity.
>
> The problem is that when we say it, the other refuses to listen, and we
> enter into the situation of the snake biting its own tail.
>
> It's all the more complex and crazier as 80% of the theory is correct (but
> poorly explained and understood).
>
> I have long looked for teaching solutions to get everyone to agree, and
> for the moment, I have only found two that unfortunately we do not want to
> listen to for the first time, and that we cannot yet test. for the second.
>
> My first criticism is theoretical, and obvious: a Langevin described in
> apparent speeds is clearly absurd (Doppler effect) if we don't take all of
> Hachel's theory (that's me) and its relativistic spatial zoom effect.
>
> My second criticism is experimental. The proper time of an accelerated
> object is considerably different from what relativists predict. The
> predictive screens are absolutely huge.
>
> Which can cause a serious intellectual danger, because in this case, we
> will say: Tr=sqrt(2x/g) as in Newton's physics, and THEREFORE the theory
> is completely false.
>
> But no, it is not false.
>
> I didn't say that. I said that it was misunderstood and that errors of
> reasoning existed there.
>
> So I'm telling you these things ahead of time so that when they happen,
> you'll remember that I said them. It might be useful.
>
> R.H.
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:12:47 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:08:04 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> Original Lorentz Transforms, as plagiarized and t' modified by the cretin in 1905:
>>>>
>>>> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
>>>> x' = γ (x - vt)
>>>> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
>>>> y' = y
>>>> z' = z
>>>>
>>>> The whole set, called a group by Poincaré, was derived from simple
>>>> assertions by Lorentz, who (maybe unconciously, borrowed Voigt's γ
>>>> and local time t' = t - vx/c²).
>>>>
>>>> If this GROUP has mathematical properties that make Maxwell's equations
>>>> invariant when moving from one inertial frame to any other, then each value
>>>> is mathematically related (as Minkowski stated with his idiotic spacetime).
>>>>
>>>> BUT, if x' = γ (x - vt) HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE (and it was the main objective
>>>> of Lorentz's work), then the whole GROUP loses its physical meaning, if it had
>>>> one ever.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the entire set COLLAPSES, because t' expression is untenable,
>>>> as it was derived with x' in the same body of developmental framework.
>>>>
>>>> Hence, to affirm that the REMAINING t' has any validity, while x' has not,
>>>> is a mathematical ABERRATION. Not to mention that physically, it was
>>>> idiotic since time zero.
>>>>
>>>> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
>>>> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten, fossilized and
>>>> indoctrinated brains.
>>>>
>>>> But "les miserables" will not accept this, and will claim that t' still has any
>>>> value while x' is void of any meaning. Just only a mathematical construct
>>>> that has some validity in the realm of mathematics, but has ZERO VALUE
>>>> in the realm of physics and IN REAL LIFE.
>>>>
>>>> Dead x', t' died also. Got it, assholes?
>>>
>>> REPEATING MY OP FROM OCT 7, 2021 ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF SR IN THE REAL WORLD.
>> No. Fundamental science is not about real world applications.
>>
>> Real world applications can often work just fine with approximate rules and
>> workarounds. That does not mean that the approximations and workarounds
>> represent truth.
>>
>> Relativity is mostly NOT about real world applications. That’s why it’s
>> fundamental science, and maybe not of much interest to retired engineers.
>>> STILL UNCHALLENGED, EXCEPT BY Dono-Adrian-sa_ge (the schizo).
>>>
>>> TITLE: Still t' = t and x' = x - v.t, for earthly applications. Sorry
>>> Einstein, it hurts but.....
>>> LINK: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/mEDstFJqw0c
>>>
>>> **********************************
>>> From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>>>
>>> x' = γ . (x - v.t)
>>> t' = γ . (t - v.x/c²)
>>> y' = y
>>> z' = z
>>> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
>>>
>>> γ = 1 for v/c < 0.3, with error lower than 0.3134%. 90,000 Km/sec is pretty
>>> high for human applications, except at particle accelerators.
>> Note “except”.
>>>
>>> The higher velocity that humans have moved (40,000 Km/hr) is about
>>> 11.7 Km/s till now.
>> Human movement has nothing to do with fundamental science. Same, human
>> presence has nothing to do with stellar interiors. Same with extrasolar
>> planets. Same with extinct species. Same with origin of life.
>>> And velocities about 1,000,000 Km/Hr, a possibility
>>> by 2121, is only 277.8 Km/sec. So, it's fair to say that γ = 1 in our uses
>>> on daily basis, everywhere.
>>>
>>> It means that, for v/c < 0.3 (the same limit for E = M.c² "validity"):
>>>
>>> x' = x - v.t (Galilean transform)
>>> t' = t - v.x/c² (Voigt transform)
>>> y' = y
>>> z' = z
>>>
>>> But, for v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr (277.8 Km/sec) and x < 407,000 Km (Moon's
>>> apogee), v.x/c² ≈ 0.0012552, so can be discarded with 0.12% error.
>>>
>>> It means that, for our cosmic neighborhood, it holds true that:
>>>
>>> x' = x - v.t
>>> t' = t
>>> y' = y
>>> z' = z
>>>
>>> which are the Galilean transforms, valid for our mundane life.
>>>
>>> Then, what is all the fuzz with SR?
>> Stuff other than mundane life and toasters and bridges and missile
>> guidance.
>>>
>>> For v < 1,000,000 Km/Hr and x < 407,000 Km, values that Einstein
>>> didn't think as possible even on his dreams, relativity is USELESS.
>>>
>>> Why 110 years of mental torture with psycho-physics, twin paradoxes,
>>> rockets going forth and back at 0.9c, time dilation, length contraction,
>>> simultaneity, etc, etc, etc.?
>> There is no mental torture. You just haven’t tried. Too lazy? Uninterested?
>>>
>>> I think that all the metaphysics involved in endless discussions about
>>> humans traveling at 1,000,000,000 Km/Hr (0.9c) or higher is ridiculous
>>> and only poses philosophical values, with ZERO applicability.
>> Which applicability for fundamental science is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> And, regarding P = γ . M₀.v applications in particle accelerators due to
>>> relativistic factors, it's an UNPROVEN FACT, no matter how any of you
>>> kick hard and scream loudly.
>>>
>>> There are OTHER POSSIBILITIES for the increase in the momentum m.v
>>> of accelerated particles, like the difficult for their electric fields to gain
>>> energy from ELECTRIC accelerations (not that SR has no validity there).
>> Great. Then YOU put those possibilities forward. So far, just empty
>> yammering from you.
>>>
>>> The same apply to the concept of KE = (γ-1) M₀c² (in MeV) applied to
>>> determine the velocity of cosmic particles, by using
>>>
>>> v = c . √{1 - 1/[KE/(M₀c²) + 1]²}
>>>
>>> CONCLUSION:
>>>
>>> For human uses,
>> Which are irrelevant for fundamental science. It’s just not for you.
>>
>> The stupid part is where you insist that if it’s not interesting to you,
>> then it’s not interesting at all.
>>> excluding accelerated particles with velocities above
>>> 90,000 Km/sec, Newton-Galileo transforms hold true withing their
>>> domain of applicability (distance and velocities on Earth and surroundings).
>>>
>>> So, Newton has been ruling all the time, and this is THE REAL THING:
>>>
>>> x' = x - v.t
>>> t' = t
>>> y' = y
>>> z' = z
>>>
>>> ******************************************
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin, read my recent post about your behavior as IKEA man/Supreme Thinker.

Why does understanding the difference between fundamental science and
applied science mean you slap a label on me?

If you don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of fundamental science, why is that
not your own shortcoming?

>
> You are really annoying. You shouldn't be so stupidly arrogant writing
> your thoughts as if they are FUNDAMENTAL LAWS.
>
> You have to stop acting in this way, until it be too late. People will
> just ignore you, starting any given day, when they finally got tired of you.
>
> You are not THE science, asshole.
>

Neither are you, asshole. There. Feel better to have it reflected?

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