On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You keep repeating the same dogma...

I've asked you, repeatedly, to point out any error in what I have told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.

> ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...

What is "your position"? I keep asking you to tell me what exactly "your position" IS, and you never do.

The closest you have come to revealing "your position" was when you said "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). That's not a "position", it's just a silly definition of a pet name. So, if that is really "your position", then it is sheer silliness, devoid of any rational content at all.

Then, after debunking "your position" [sic], I've explained to you the actual relevant fact, which is simply that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). Do you dispute this?

> When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....

Hold on. I have pleaded with you, repeatedly, to please tell me what is contradictory in special relativity... and you always refuse. This makes it clear that you don't actually know of any contradiction, so this too has been thoroughly debunked.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 3:56:00 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You keep repeating the same dogma...
>
> I've asked you, repeatedly, to point out any error in what I have told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.
>
> > ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...
>
> What is "your position"? I keep asking you to tell me what exactly "your position" IS, and you never do.
>
> The closest you have come to revealing "your position" was when you said "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). That's not a "position", it's just a silly definition of a pet name. So, if that is really "your position", then it is sheer silliness, devoid of any rational content at all.
>
> Then, after debunking "your position" [sic], I've explained to you the actual relevant fact, which is simply that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). Do you dispute this?
>
> > When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....
>
> Hold on. I have pleaded with you, repeatedly, to please tell me what is contradictory in special relativity... and you always refuse. This makes it clear that you don't actually know of any contradiction, so this too has been thoroughly debunked.
In your dreams.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You keep repeating the same dogma...

I have asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.

> ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...

Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That's not a "position", i.e., it is not a theory or even an interpretation. It's just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all, and you've not even attempted to defend it. This debunks your statement.

By comparison, the actual relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You have never disputed this.

> When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....

I have repeatedly asked you to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the debunking of "your position" is complete.

On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 16:44:19 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:

> By comparison, the actual relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2).

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane religion TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:49:49 AM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 3:28:58 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> > > The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.
> > Again, in Euclidean space (which you specified), the inner product and dot product are synonymous, so you contradict yourself.
> >
> > You claim the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness.. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> >
> > The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v) [with the missing negative sign restored].
> > > I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source.
> > The facts I've given you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.
> >
> > > The "facts" are self-contradictory...
> >
> > Great... please tell me what's contradictory about the facts that I have carefully explained to you. [Prediction: You won't.]
> >
> > > Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis... My mind isn't closed.
> >
> > LOL.
> >
> > > Einstein using a false premise to create special relativity...
> >
> > What false premise was that? [Prediction: You will not answer.]
> >
> > > Where did you get the idea that I thought you were a representative of
> > > mainstream physics?
> >
> > You said: "Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics uses against all critics", and that I am repeating the standard "dogma", and you conceded that what I am telling you is in all the standard text books. So, yes, you are conceding that I am representing mainstream physics, which you reject. But then you also assert, based on nothing, that I'm not reliably representing mainstream physics so there's no need for you to respond to what I am telling you. You contradict yourself.
> >
> > > Your pronouncements are faulty...
> >
> > But I've asked you repeatedly to point out any fault in anything I have explained to you... and you never do. [Prediction: You never will.]
> >
> > > You didn't deny that mainstream physics gaslights critics of relativity.
> >
> > To the contrary, I've repeatedly asked you to identify any flaw in what I've been telling you. Again, you never have [and you never will]. Just check your next message, and you will see that it still contains no actually response to any of the technical points that have been made. The thorough debunking of your claims stands unchallenged.
> You're right about one thing. I never will yield to your frivolous demands. I told you, this conversation is over. You can make whatever ludicrous demands you want. There is no debating with you, as you keep repeating the same dogma over and over and then concluding that you have debunked my argument. Rather than use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction, you reiterate junk science. Of course, when I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale, you are blind. Why don't you lurk somewhere else?

Problem is that there are no contradictions in Einstein's relativity and
also relativity is a part of physics, it's no more "fairy tale" than
thermodynamics, optics, etc.

--
Jan

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 18:31:20 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

>
> Problem is that there are no contradictions in Einstein's relativity

Or, at least, poor fanatic idiot is asserting that.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:31:20 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:49:49 AM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 3:28:58 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> > > > The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.
> > > Again, in Euclidean space (which you specified), the inner product and dot product are synonymous, so you contradict yourself.
> > >
> > > You claim the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> > >
> > > The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v) [with the missing negative sign restored].
> > > > I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source.
> > > The facts I've given you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.
> > >
> > > > The "facts" are self-contradictory...
> > >
> > > Great... please tell me what's contradictory about the facts that I have carefully explained to you. [Prediction: You won't.]
> > >
> > > > Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis... My mind isn't closed.
> > >
> > > LOL.
> > >
> > > > Einstein using a false premise to create special relativity...
> > >
> > > What false premise was that? [Prediction: You will not answer.]
> > >
> > > > Where did you get the idea that I thought you were a representative of
> > > > mainstream physics?
> > >
> > > You said: "Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics uses against all critics", and that I am repeating the standard "dogma", and you conceded that what I am telling you is in all the standard text books. So, yes, you are conceding that I am representing mainstream physics, which you reject. But then you also assert, based on nothing, that I'm not reliably representing mainstream physics so there's no need for you to respond to what I am telling you. You contradict yourself.
> > >
> > > > Your pronouncements are faulty...
> > >
> > > But I've asked you repeatedly to point out any fault in anything I have explained to you... and you never do. [Prediction: You never will.]
> > >
> > > > You didn't deny that mainstream physics gaslights critics of relativity.
> > >
> > > To the contrary, I've repeatedly asked you to identify any flaw in what I've been telling you. Again, you never have [and you never will]. Just check your next message, and you will see that it still contains no actually response to any of the technical points that have been made. The thorough debunking of your claims stands unchallenged.
> > You're right about one thing. I never will yield to your frivolous demands. I told you, this conversation is over. You can make whatever ludicrous demands you want. There is no debating with you, as you keep repeating the same dogma over and over and then concluding that you have debunked my argument. Rather than use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction, you reiterate junk science. Of course, when I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale, you are blind. Why don't you lurk somewhere else?
> Problem is that there are no contradictions in Einstein's relativity and
> also relativity is a part of physics, it's no more "fairy tale" than
> thermodynamics, optics, etc.
>
> --
> Jan
Right. Just ignore the fact that every different observer moving at a different relative speed gets a different PHYSICAL measurement of the SAME object, none of which agree with the measurement by the co-moving observer. Einstein had critics when he published, and some argued that the effects of dilation and contraction were illusions. Einstein was adamant that these were actual physical shrinkages. Keep in mind that when he made these claims, he had not yet written about general relativity, and the concept of a black hole did not exist. Now, we know that it takes the overwhelming gravitational force of a black hole or neutron star to defeat the repulsive nuclear forces. Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know" that it is being observed? The observer typically has orders of magnitude less gravity associated with him than would be required to actually shrink matter. Einstein's critics were correct. The effects of relativity are geometric illusions, in the nature of gravitational lensing, or, a more down to earth example, a mirage of an oasis in the desert.. The things we observe are real physical objects, but they just aren't where we think they are. A relativistic observation is similar in that what we see is real, mathematically real, but it is not the entirety of the object.. Relative velocity rotates objects out of reality. They are completely whole and intact, but they are no longer 100% visible or measurable. Dilated and contracted rightfully refer to shrunken objects, not real portions only. If you open a door, the entirety of the door does not change. But looking through the doorway, the door appears to be narrower. That is just a trick of depth perception. It does illustrate the similar effect of length contraction.
Einstein requires that each and every observer gets their own, personal copy of reality which is independent of every other observer's, as if reality were some Java program where every new observer gets a new instance of reality. This is nonsense. It results from Einstein's use of a Newtonian measurement protocol to measure non-Newtonian distances and times. Geometry already has a procedure for comparing two arbitrary vectors. It is the dot product. The geometric interpretation (it has an algebraic interpretation, too) of the dot product is the product of the magnitudes of the two vectors, with the cosine of the included angle between them. In a relativistic scenario, this angle is not spatial. Typically, two inertial frames are aligned so that all their axes are parallel. The angle that applies to the dot product as a measurement is the phase angle defined by relative velocity, v = c sin(tilt), and acts like a rotation angle in space units. The properties of time dilation and length contraction are physical consequences of the dot product itself. By adopting the Newtonian measurement protocol, they were excluded. But since they are part of a hyperbolic rotation, they belong in the math. So, Einstein invented the concept of the whole measurement being shrunken to make up for his mistake in excluding them in the first place. If you don't examine the details, the net result of all these errors is to predict correct measurements. This superficially seems to confirm Einstein's approach. After all, a Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation, and this is a fundamental operation in hyperbolic trigonometry, which is why it is ubiquitous in all physics. In the big picture, the universe is hyperbolic. Note that the invariant Einstein Interval is nothing more than the hyperbolic magnitude, which is independent of any pure hyperbolic rotation, expressed in the coordinates of Minkowski or eigenvector spacetime: s² = c²t²-r² = (ct+r)(ct-r) = Σ*Δ.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 08:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Capizzi
<tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

>Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know" that it is being observed?

Do you also think that time dilation doesn't happen physically? If
so, how do you interpret the results of Hafele -Keating and particle
half-life experiments?

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:37:12 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein requires that each and every observer gets their own, personal copy of reality which is independent of every other observer's, as if reality were some Java program where every new observer gets a new instance of reality.

False, ignoramus, the laws of physics are invariant (when expressed properly, in their covariant form). You have been posting imbecilities , your imbecilities, for a long time.

Le 20/06/2022 à 18:27, Ricardo Jimenez a écrit :
>>Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a
>>moving observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object
>>even "know" that it is being observed?

? ? ?

> Do you also think that time dilation doesn't happen physically? If
> so, how do you interpret the results of Hafele -Keating and particle
> half-life experiments?

I am against the term dilation of durations (I prefer that of
elasticity). But to say that t'=t. No. This is no longer tenable more than
120 years after the first work on the subject.

R.H.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You keep repeating the same dogma...

I've asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.

> ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...

Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That's not a "position", i.e., it is not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all, and you've not even attempted to defend it. This debunks your statement.

By comparison, the relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You have never disputed this.

> When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....

I've repeatedly asked you to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the debunking of "your position" is complete.

> Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> that it is being observed?

Again, you are failing to distinguish between active and passive transformations. We covered this before, remember?

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:27:23 PM UTC-4, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 08:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Capizzi
> <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know" that it is being observed?
> Do you also think that time dilation doesn't happen physically? If
> so, how do you interpret the results of Hafele -Keating and particle
> half-life experiments?
There is a misunderstanding. It isn't that the time dilation doesn't happen physically. It's the fact that it doesn't happen by shrinking the duration of an interval of time. The magnitude of the time vector is always the same - it is invariant. What changes is the phase angle, because time and space vectors are complex. In addition to magnitude, they have phase angles. The phase angle is determined by the relative velocity between the target frame and the observer frame, v = c sin(phase). What we measure of both time and distance is only the cos(phase) projection of the total. Who'd have guessed? Real time is the cosine projection of complex time, and complex time is absolute, the same everywhere. But this does not matter, because aging is only a function of the real projection, which differs for every relatively moving frame.
Time is a little harder to grok than distance, because who cares about the lost time? But the math is the same for distance, and although we can only measure the real projection, there is more to the length than any moving observer can measure. This excess does not exist in Einstein's mythology, but he is stuck with the contradiction of every observer getting a different measurement of the same object. But if every observer can only measure a real projection, there is no contradiction, since projections do not have a unique value. They depend on the rotation angle, or in the case of relativity, the relative velocity that the sine of the phase angle defines.
Einstein had critics who argued that relativity made sense only if it was an illusion. But illusions don't have longer half-lives. I submit that they are indeed illusions, but illusions like gravitational lensing or a mirage of an oasis in the desert. The things we see are definitely physical objects. We can even measure them. But they aren't where we think they are. That's a geometric illusion. But with the transformation from linear velocity to phase angle, the reason every observer gets a different measurement is not that the interval physically shrank. They are all viewing an invariant magnitude (the same one reported by the co-moving observer) from a different angle. And the angle is determined by the relative motion of the observer, not because the interval shrank. Keep in mind that a Lorentz transform is a hyperbolic rotation, and a pure hyperbolic rotation does not alter the hyperbolic magnitude. What is usually overlooked is that the hyperbolic rotation angle has a real and an imaginary component. Unlike the static vectors, this relationship of complex total to real projection applies to differentials of hyperbolic angle and phase angle. A small differential in hyperbolic angle has a cosine projection, which is the corresponding small change in the phase angle. In short, dhyperbolic angle/dphase angle = γ, the Lorentz factor. In other words, dphase angle = dhyperbolic angle cos(phase)..
This accounts for the existence of a lightspeed limit, so don't mock it. It is a fact that relativistic momentum is directly proportional to invariant mass and Proper velocity. As we add energy, or momentum, to a moving object, it linearly increases the Proper velocity (which is unbounded). At the same time, the phase angle increases with the additional energy. The cosine projection of the phase angle contributes to motion along the path we can see and measure. The sine projection, being perpendicular, cannot contribute to forward velocity. As Proper velocity approaches infinity, its real, cosine projection asymptotically approaches c. Lightspeed is the same everywhere, because it is essentially the cosine of infinite Proper velocity, and infinity is the same everywhere. Technically, infinity does not have a cosine projection, but as the phase angle approaches Pi/2, the cosine approaches 0, and the cosine projection of Proper velocity approaches the indeterminate form, 0/0. Although it is indeterminate (which means it can equal anything), it is easily resolved using the theory of limits.
In addition to explaining why it exists, this geometry also explains why light is invariant with respect to relative velocity of the source or observer, and why it is not possible for a particle with mass to reach lightspeed. Everybody knows that relativistic velocity addition is non- linear. Most don't know why. It is a direct consequence of the fact that the addition of hyperbolic rotation angles is absolutely linear. Proper velocity can be represented by the following, γv = c sinh(w), where w is the rapidity, or hyperbolic rotation angle. Proper velocity is unbounded, but any finite value of w results in a finite value of Proper velocity. From the preceding paragraph, lightspeed is uniquely mapped to infinite Proper velocity. Consequently, all finite Proper velocities map to measurable velocities that are less than c. Since the sum of any two finite rapidities is another finite rapidity, there is no combination of Lorentz boosts that can reach c. And if one of the combining velocities is already c, then its rapidity is infinite, and the sum of any finite offset with infinity is the same infinity. And the same infinity maps back to the same lightspeed limit, c. And in the last case, if both velocities are c, then both rapidities are infinite. But you can no more multiply infinity by a finite constant than you can add a finite constant. The result is the same, single infinity, which maps back to the same 1c.
So, while it seems inconsistent with the experiments you cite, it isn't. And it explains far more than those experiments do about why relativity has such peculiar properties.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:35:05 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:37:12 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Einstein requires that each and every observer gets their own, personal copy of reality which is independent of every other observer's, as if reality were some Java program where every new observer gets a new instance of reality.
> False, ignoramus, the laws of physics are invariant (when expressed properly, in their covariant form). You have been posting imbecilities , your imbecilities, for a long time.
Dono is short for "Do not reply." Buh-bye.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 2:39:32 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 7:37:17 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You keep repeating the same dogma...
> I've asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.
> > ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...
> Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That's not a "position", i.e., it is not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all, and you've not even attempted to defend it. This debunks your statement.
>
> By comparison, the relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2).. We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You have never disputed this.
>
> > When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....
>
> I've repeatedly asked you to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the debunking of "your position" is complete.
> > Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> > observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> > that it is being observed?
> Again, you are failing to distinguish between active and passive transformations. We covered this before, remember?
You blathered before. While the mechanisms of active and passive transformations are different, I repeat, SO WHAT? That's a red herring, because regardless of which transformation you use, the resulting coordinates are THE SAME. When you make measurements, it is the coordinates, themselves, that matter, not the transformation that got them. You waste my time with your specious half-wit arguments.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:24:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You keep repeating the same dogma...

I have asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.

> ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...

Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That is not a "position", i..e., it is not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all, and you've not even attempted to defend it. This debunks your statement.
By comparison, the relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You've never disputed this..
> When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....
I've repeatedly asked you to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the detailed debunking of "your position" is complete.

> Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> that it is being observed?

Again, you're failing to distinguish between active and passive transformations. We covered this before, remember?

> While the mechanisms of active and passive transformations are different

Passive transformations have no mechanism, they are purely descriptive. You still have no clue as to the distinction, even though it has been clearly explained to you several times.

> I repeat, SO WHAT?

Again, your specious argument is that Lorentz invariance has no physical significance because passive transformations have no physical significance; the debunking of your argument is to point out that Lorentz invariance is manifested by active transformations, which obviously do have physical significance. So, your argument has been thoroughly debunked, as has your silly definition of “tilt” (see above).

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:22:55 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:24:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You keep repeating the same dogma...
> I have asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.
> > ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...
> Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That is not a "position", i.e., it is not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all, and you've not even attempted to defend it. This debunks your statement.
>
> By comparison, the relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2).. We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You've never disputed this.
> > When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....
> I've repeatedly asked you to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the detailed debunking of "your position" is complete.
> > Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> > observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> > that it is being observed?
> Again, you're failing to distinguish between active and passive transformations. We covered this before, remember?
> > While the mechanisms of active and passive transformations are different
> Passive transformations have no mechanism, they are purely descriptive. You still have no clue as to the distinction, even though it has been clearly explained to you several times.
>
> > I repeat, SO WHAT?
>
> Again, your specious argument is that Lorentz invariance has no physical significance because passive transformations have no physical significance; the debunking of your argument is to point out that Lorentz invariance is manifested by active transformations, which obviously do have physical significance. So, your argument has been thoroughly debunked, as has your silly definition of “tilt” (see above).
I told you before, you're talking to the wall. I refuse to submit to your silly questions, and I am amused at how full of yourself you are. You clearly just make this shit up. I do not owe you answers to your "gotcha" questions. My time is better spent responding to others.

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:24:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You keep repeating the same dogma...

I've asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.

> ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...

Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That is not a "position", i..e., it's not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all.

The relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You've never disputed this.

> When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....

I have repeatedly offered you the opportunity to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the detailed debunking of "your position" is complete.

> Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> that it is being observed?

Again, you fail to distinguish between active and passive transformations. Your argument is that Lorentz invariance has no physical significance because passive transformations have no physical significance; the debunking of your argument is to point out that Lorentz invariance is manifested by active transformations, which obviously do have physical significance. So, your argument has been thoroughly debunked, as has your silly definition of “tilt” (see above). We covered all this before, remember?

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:19:13 PM UTC-7, crank tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:35:05 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:37:12 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Einstein requires that each and every observer gets their own, personal copy of reality which is independent of every other observer's, as if reality were some Java program where every new observer gets a new instance of reality.
> > False, ignoramus, the laws of physics are invariant (when expressed properly, in their covariant form). You have been posting imbecilities , your imbecilities, for a long time.
> Dono is short for "Do not reply." Buh-bye.

Exposed you as a crank, Tom.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 9:48:18 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:19:13 PM UTC-7, crank tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:35:05 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:37:12 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Einstein requires that each and every observer gets their own, personal copy of reality which is independent of every other observer's, as if reality were some Java program where every new observer gets a new instance of reality.
> > > False, ignoramus, the laws of physics are invariant (when expressed properly, in their covariant form). You have been posting imbecilities , your imbecilities, for a long time.
> > Dono is short for "Do not reply." Buh-bye.
> Exposed you as a crank, Tom.
Dono is short for "do not reply".

On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 11:38:31 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:24:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You keep repeating the same dogma...
> I've asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.
> > ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...
> Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That is not a "position", i.e., it's not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all.
>
> The relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You've never disputed this.
> > When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale....
> I have repeatedly offered you the opportunity to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the detailed debunking of "your position" is complete.
> > Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> > observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> > that it is being observed?
> Again, you fail to distinguish between active and passive transformations.. Your argument is that Lorentz invariance has no physical significance because passive transformations have no physical significance; the debunking of your argument is to point out that Lorentz invariance is manifested by active transformations, which obviously do have physical significance. So, your argument has been thoroughly debunked, as has your silly definition of “tilt” (see above). We covered all this before, remember?
Now you're just repeating yourself. It's boring.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 11:38:31 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:24:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You keep repeating the same dogma...
> > I've asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.
> > > ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...
> > Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That is not a "position", i.e., it's not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all.
> >
> > The relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You've never disputed this.
> > > When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale...
> > I have repeatedly offered you the opportunity to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the detailed debunking of "your position" is complete.
> > > Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> > > observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> > > that it is being observed?
> > Again, you fail to distinguish between active and passive transformations. Your argument is that Lorentz invariance has no physical significance because passive transformations have no physical significance; the debunking of your argument is to point out that Lorentz invariance is manifested by active transformations, which obviously do have physical significance. So, your argument has been thoroughly debunked, as has your silly definition of “tilt” (see above). We covered all this before, remember?
> Now you're just repeating yourself. It's boring.

Relativity can be disproved only by experiment. Internally it has no
contradictions (its mathematical consistency is equivalent to that
of Euclidean geometry).

--
Jan

On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 21:51:37 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 11:38:31 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:24:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > You keep repeating the same dogma...
> > > I've asked you repeatedly to point out any error in anything I've told you, and you never have been able to find a single error.
> > > > ...use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction...
> > > Your stated position consists entirely of the assertion that "the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining tilt = invsin(v). That is not a "position", i.e., it's not a theory or even an interpretation. It is just a silly definition of a pet name, with no scientific content at all.
> > >
> > > The relevant fact is that inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). We can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v). You've never disputed this.
> > > > When I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale...
> > > I have repeatedly offered you the opportunity to tell me what is contradictory in special relativity, and you always just run away. Therefore, the falsity of your silly claim is unchallenged, and the detailed debunking of "your position" is complete.
> > > > Einstein wants us to believe that the observation of a stationary object by a moving
> > > > observer causes it to PHYSICALLY contract. First off, how does the object even "know"
> > > > that it is being observed?
> > > Again, you fail to distinguish between active and passive transformations. Your argument is that Lorentz invariance has no physical significance because passive transformations have no physical significance; the debunking of your argument is to point out that Lorentz invariance is manifested by active transformations, which obviously do have physical significance. So, your argument has been thoroughly debunked, as has your silly definition of “tilt” (see above). We covered all this before, remember?
> > Now you're just repeating yourself. It's boring.
> Relativity can be disproved only by experiment. Internally it has no
> contradictions (its mathematical consistency is equivalent to that
> of Euclidean geometry).

A lie, of course, as expected from a fanatic moron.
And it's quite easy to show that according to your
idiot guru 1 year=2 years.