Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> 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.
>

Terminology is not the issue.

And inventing your own jargon is not of value to anyone.

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

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:49:17 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> 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

Paparios, you just can't prove that this thing is real on any kind of GNSS.

You, even when an EE, are writing from the basis of BORROWED KNOWLEDGE. Actually, you bougth the whole SR/GR package,
which is only METAPHYSICS.

* SR didn't prove to be certain at any instance in the last 118 years (Lorentz was first).
* SR failed catasthropically on his main objective, which was to justify MMX with length contraction.
* SR is a failed philosophy about nature behavior UNDER the observation of HUMANS, not any other species OR AI/robots.
* SR can be coherent in the realm of mathematics, but poses NO VALUE in the realm of physics (AKA description of nature's behavior).
* SR poses the same value for society as psychology (pseudo-science) or Marx social economy (Utophy).
* SR opened the door for relativists to have A CULT LIKE vision of reality, disconnected from the real things.
* SR has being left only with the crappy concept of TIME DILATION, as LENGTH CONTRACTION has been dismissed as non physical.
* SR has no applicability on real life, except on particle physics, which is a DEGENERATE branch of physics that collapses on itself,
under the burden of almost infinite outcomes of the play of crashing charged particles and analyzing the debris.
* SR can't find the way to be applied to NON CHARGED particles. So let me know when "scientists" get neutrons at 0.999995 c.

I could keep going for hours, in particular if I start with the imaginative mathematical conception of GR. But mathematics is not physics,
and the 5 million possible solutions of GR set of equations are just MATHEMATICAL solutions without physical meaning.

*GR applications on Mercury and starlight deflection by the Sun ARE FALSE, and are twisted interpretations of GR equations.

For instance, and about the 43 arcsec/100 years advance of Mercury's perihelion, I write this:

- CALL ME when GR be applied to the REAL MOTION OF MERCURY, which is not an ellipse. No mathematics exists, as of today,
to describe the spiral motion of Mercury (per orbit), which IS NOT ELLIPTICAL as it never closes the orbital path. Instead, the
entire orbital path IS CHANGING Km after Km, so the simplistic approach of a modified Hamiltonian IS INCORRECT.

- To assing the entire amount of missing 43" to Mercury alone IS INCORRECT and originated on a POOR MODELING of the effects
of the N-Body problem, from Le Verrier (1847) until these days.

NO INSTITUTION, and even less not a single person, has been able to compute the INTEGRATED EFFECT of each planet (and the
Sun) on the advance of Mercury's perihelion. So, the 43" IS A MYTH, and has been preserved in that way since Newcomb.

Nobody wants to get involved in the real problem, because it's extremely complex (even with supercomputers) and have NO VALUE.

Le 16/03/2022 à 20:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Terminology is not the issue.
>
> And inventing your own jargon is not of value to anyone.

To understand things well, you have to define them well.

Time dilation means that proper time can expand.

It is necessary by imprecision, because that implies obviously, that it
cannot contract.

This is what all the books dealing with relativity say.

To > Tr

However, this is theoretically false if we apply the right theory and the
right equation.

To=Tr/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) is wrong.

More precisely, it is only valid for a transverse observer.

The real equation (and dear Odd, you will immediately understand why I am
talking about elasticity and not dilation) is:
To=Tr(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)

So the observable time may actually be shorter.

This is what explains, as I have already said, Langevin's paradox, where
the subject returning at high speed sees the terrestrial clock rotating
incredibly faster than his own, while his chronotropy remains unchanged
(the two watches each admit that their own chronotropy is reciprocal).

You have to make the effort to understand what I am explaining.

And not refer me to books that I know, without yourself understanding what
ME, I am saying, and that you apparently don't know, since you criticize
me without understanding.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 16/03/2022 à 20:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Terminology is not the issue.
>>
>> And inventing your own jargon is not of value to anyone.
>
> To understand things well, you have to define them well.
>
> Time dilation means that proper time can expand.

No. Once again, just because you don’t know what terms like “proper time”
mean is not a reason to invent your own terms you like better. Try a book.

>
> It is necessary by imprecision, because that implies obviously, that it
> cannot contract.
>
> This is what all the books dealing with relativity say.
>
> To > Tr
>
> However, this is theoretically false if we apply the right theory and the
> right equation.
>
> To=Tr/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) is wrong.
>
> More precisely, it is only valid for a transverse observer.
>
> The real equation (and dear Odd, you will immediately understand why I am
> talking about elasticity and not dilation) is:
> To=Tr(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>
> So the observable time may actually be shorter.
>
> This is what explains, as I have already said, Langevin's paradox, where
> the subject returning at high speed sees the terrestrial clock rotating
> incredibly faster than his own, while his chronotropy remains unchanged
> (the two watches each admit that their own chronotropy is reciprocal).
>
> You have to make the effort to understand what I am explaining.
>
> And not refer me to books that I know, without yourself understanding what
> ME, I am saying, and that you apparently don't know, since you criticize
> me without understanding.
>
> R.H.
>

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

El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 16:34:41 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 3:49:17 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > 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

> Paparios, you just can't prove that this thing is real on any kind of GNSS.
>

Once again, you have re-discovered what everyone knew 117 years ago: "Special Relativity reduces to Galilean Relativity for low speeds" duh!!!.

Of course, nobody needs Special Relativity to verify that his clock inside a 100 km/hr moving car, will not experience a measurable time dilation (compared with a clock stationary on the ground).

> You, even when an EE, are writing from the basis of BORROWED KNOWLEDGE. Actually, you bougth the whole SR/GR package,
> which is only METAPHYSICS.
>

Wrong.... Special Relativity and General Relativity (the same as Newtonian Mechanics) are physical models which are verified through experiments. Up until today no experiment has falsified the predictions of Special Relativity or General Relativity. On the contrary Newtonian Mechanics, while quite useful at low speeds and low gravity, has been falsified in several experiments.

> * SR didn't prove to be certain at any instance in the last 118 years (Lorentz was first).

Nonsense. SR has not been falsified in any of the miriad of experiments performed since its inception.

> * SR failed catasthropically on his main objective, which was to justify MMX with length contraction.

Nonsense

> * SR is a failed philosophy about nature behavior UNDER the observation of HUMANS, not any other species OR AI/robots.

More nonsense. SR/GR are physical models, built bottom up from some very basic and strong principles.

> * SR can be coherent in the realm of mathematics, but poses NO VALUE in the realm of physics (AKA description of nature's behavior).

Again, more nonsense. As any physical model does, SR/GR uses mathematics to describe the model behavior. There is no physics model which does not use mathematics.

> * SR poses the same value for society as psychology (pseudo-science) or Marx social economy (Utophy).
> * SR opened the door for relativists to have A CULT LIKE vision of reality, disconnected from the real things.

This two are not even wrong BS.

> * SR has being left only with the crappy concept of TIME DILATION, as LENGTH CONTRACTION has been dismissed as non physical.

Both SR and GR are physical models which are based in geometric relationships observed in Nature. Both time dilation and length contraction are results from those geometric relationships.

> * SR has no applicability on real life, except on particle physics, which is a DEGENERATE branch of physics that collapses on itself,
> under the burden of almost infinite outcomes of the play of crashing charged particles and analyzing the debris.
> * SR can't find the way to be applied to NON CHARGED particles. So let me know when "scientists" get neutrons at 0.999995 c.
>

It is amazing (and also quite funny) the amount of nonsense you can produce in a single post. Keep up the good job of making a fool of yourself.

<SNIP> more nonsense.

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

And in 1960s they made phone calls to the moon.

On March 15, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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.
> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten brains.

It's true, length contraction has not been confirmed.
We cannot measure the lengths of rods moving at high speed.

A theory's tentative correctness is determined by its
predictions. Relativity has never been contradicted by
any of the limited domain tests that have been performed.
Can you cite any such?

If you object to the length contraction aspect, you're
free to devise your own theory of mechanics, which
excludes such an effect, but still must be consistent
with all experiments to date,

I suspect that may be logically impossible. It would be
byzantine, to say the least.

What's your take on Occam's razor? Einstein was certainly
an adherent.

--
Rich

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:09:34 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 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.

Not even wrong. Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:35:16 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 16/03/2022 à 20:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> > Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Terminology is not the issue.
> >
> > And inventing your own jargon is not of value to anyone.
> To understand things well, you have to define them well.
>
> Time dilation means that proper time can expand.

No, proper time does not expand (or contract).

> It is necessary by imprecision, because that implies obviously, that it
> cannot contract.

Again, proper time neither can expand nor contract.

> This is what all the books dealing with relativity say.
>
> To > Tr
>
> However, this is theoretically false if we apply the right theory and the
> right equation.

You don't understand the theory. Consider a different hobby.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 9:08:36 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> On March 15, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > 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.
> > So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
> > has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten brains.
>
> It's true, length contraction has not been confirmed.
> We cannot measure the lengths of rods moving at high speed.
>
> A theory's tentative correctness is determined by its
> predictions. Relativity has never been contradicted by
> any of the limited domain tests that have been performed.
> Can you cite any such?
>
> If you object to the length contraction aspect, you're
> free to devise your own theory of mechanics, which
> excludes such an effect, but still must be consistent
> with all experiments to date,
>
> I suspect that may be logically impossible. It would be
> byzantine, to say the least.
>
> What's your take on Occam's razor? Einstein was certainly
> an adherent.
>
> --
> Rich

Any movie, theater, art or literature critic has not/had not ever any duty to re-write the play to make it better.

The role of a critic is to criticize, within his domain of criticism, which is THE OTHER SIDE of the maker views.

So, I can criticize without any obligation to make a better work. IN PARTICULAR, when I think that the object under
criticism HAD NEVER BE DEVELOPED because of its contents of retarded, metaphysical, hallugenosic ideas.

I remember that, 25 years ago, at an art exposition in Mexico, a DOG was tortured and killed as an expression of art.

If I apply Occam's razor to such disgusting, depravated action to figure if it's art or not, the answer is quite evident.

That time is not what believed it was and that length is not what we believed it was for 10,000 years is enough for me.
Nobody, in the history of mankind previously to such infame 1905 paper, dared to mess with time. Not even Lorentz,
the responsible for the entire body of special relativity. He dismissed his expression of time as posing no physical value
and being only an auxiliary, casual development of the set of transforms.

But the cretin, in 1905, saw an opportunity to make the waters muddy, exactly in the same degenerate way that Picasso
started to mess up with paints. It's not a coincidence that both admired each other, and that Picasso said that Einstein
inspired him to paint his melting clocks.

Degeneracy of thought for a couple of cretins with nothing to lose and much to gain. Then, the einstenians and picassians
elevated those assholes to the rol of stars in the dawn of a new millennia. Occam's Razor. Heaviside view this clearly.

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On March 15, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> 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.
>> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
>> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten brains.
>
> It's true, length contraction has not been confirmed.

Not true.

> We cannot measure the lengths of rods moving at high speed.

True because t not necessary.

>
> A theory's tentative correctness is determined by its
> predictions. Relativity has never been contradicted by
> any of the limited domain tests that have been performed.
> Can you cite any such?
>
> If you object to the length contraction aspect, you're
> free to devise your own theory of mechanics, which
> excludes such an effect, but still must be consistent
> with all experiments to date,
>
> I suspect that may be logically impossible. It would be
> byzantine, to say the least.
>
> What's your take on Occam's razor? Einstein was certainly
> an adherent.
>
> --
> Rich
>

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

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:43:50 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 9:08:36 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> > On March 15, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
> > > has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten brains.
> >
> > It's true, length contraction has not been confirmed.
> > We cannot measure the lengths of rods moving at high speed.
> >
> > A theory's tentative correctness is determined by its
> > predictions. Relativity has never been contradicted by
> > any of the limited domain tests that have been performed.
> > Can you cite any such?
> >
> > If you object to the length contraction aspect, you're
> > free to devise your own theory of mechanics, which
> > excludes such an effect, but still must be consistent
> > with all experiments to date,
> >
> > I suspect that may be logically impossible. It would be
> > byzantine, to say the least.
> >
> > What's your take on Occam's razor? Einstein was certainly
> > an adherent.
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> Any movie, theater, art or literature critic has not/had not ever any duty to re-write the play to make it better.
>
> The role of a critic is to criticize, within his domain of criticism, which is THE OTHER SIDE of the maker views.
>
> So, I can criticize without any obligation to make a better work. IN PARTICULAR, when I think that the object under
> criticism HAD NEVER BE DEVELOPED because of its contents of retarded, metaphysical, hallugenosic ideas.

No, you simply don't understand the theory.

Don't waste your time on this.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 11:52:41 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > We cannot measure the lengths of rods moving at high speed.
> True because t not necessary.

Use your imagination, please!

Replace the light beam at the "Einstein's train" with monocromatic light (say a green laser at exactly 550 nm).

Make the distance between mirrors 10 wavelengths exactly: 5.5 micrometers.

Make arrangements so part of the laser beam on the A side of the moving frame can escape toward the origin of E frame.

Calibrate the system so at t= t' = 0, the wavelength is measured as 550nm at the resting frame.

Now let things flow at v speed. The source and the splitter is located on the A side of the fucking train.

Tell me if the ghost observer (a micromidget onboard) still measure that the length of the wagon is exactly 10 wavelengths.

Then explain why the observer at rest perceive a red-shifting of the light that escapes from A side towards E frame origin.

And question yourself if the ghost observer at the "Einstein's train" still measure the length as being 5.5 micrometers.

Then, EXPLAIN how come the observer at rest concludes that there are two wavelengths present (coming out and within the wagon).

Of course, it's only a thought experiment, but it's funny. Isn't it?

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 20:22:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> And inventing your own jargon is not of value to anyone.

What a pity you weren't there in 1905 to inform
your idiot guru, Bod.

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 21:40:37 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> Both SR and GR are physical models which are based in geometric relationships observed in Nature. Both time dilation and length contraction are results from those geometric relationships.

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.

Op 17-mrt.-2022 om 01:08 schreef RichD:
> On March 15, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> 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.
>> So, for relativists, to affirm that time dilation exists while length contraction
>> has been proven IMPOSSIBLE only is possible in their rotten brains.
>
> It's true, length contraction has not been confirmed.

The predictions that RichD and Richard Hertz splatter to goo
on the pavement when we let go of them from a tall building,
has not been confirmed.

Dirk Vdm