Le 21/06/2022 à 19:26, Mikko a écrit :
> ...
>> and the speed of light is the highest
>> speed that is possible, which means all other speeds can be viewed
>> as a percentage of the speed of light.
>
> The "which means" is not right. Even if something could move faster
> than light its speed could be expressed as a percentage of the speed
> of light: "The particle we found moved at 105% of c."
>
> What makes it possible and sensible to express speeds as a percentage
> of light speed is that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in
> every place, at all times, and for all observers.
>
> Mikko

What must be understood when we speak of exceeding the speed of light is
that we are not saying a physical impossibility, but a theoretical
absurdity.

It's like asking a child to find a natural number between 3 and 4.

This is what must be understood, and unfortunately, all nations combined,
I am not sure that it is perceived as that.

R.H.

On 6/21/2022 12:10 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 21/06/2022 à 16:22, Volney a écrit :
>
>>> Which of Peter or Paul moves faster between Paris and Marseille?
>>>
>>> Peter takes five hours, Paul takes seven hours.
>>>
>>> Peter moved the fastest.
>>
>> Not necessarily. What if Paul took a longer route at a higher speed?
>
> On voit les dégâts causés dans les forums anglo-saxons par des fous qui
> reprochent qu'on n'y parle pas assez anglo-saxons.
>
> Si c'est pour parler en anglais, je veux bien.
>
> Mais là, je préfère parler la langue de mes ancêtres.
>

Well, what if Paul took a longer route which was a high speed
freeway/autoroute and Peter took back country farm roads that went in a
straight line to Marseille?

On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 23:21:44 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 6/20/2022 11:01 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 15:48:42 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >> On 6/20/2022 1:57 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 21:11:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time between events, as measured by two clocks.
> >>>>> And, as anyone can check in GPS, it doesn't exist. Common sense
> >>>>> was warning your idiot guru.
> >>>> So, you are saying that all the experiments are wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> GPS demonstrates that time dilation DOES exist. They have to
> >>>> BUILD a clock that ticks at an INCORRECT rate
> >>>
> >>> It's nothing but your opinion that the rate is INCORRECT,
> >>> and obviously GPS staff is not sharing it. Neither I do.
> >> So janitor, if the definition of a second is exactly 9,192,631,770
> >> cycles of a certain Cs frequency, [setting a GPS satellite clock to 9,192,631,774.1 cycles per tick is not an incorrect setting?]
> >
> > Then, stupid Mike, anyone can write another definition.
>
> But nobody will use that.

Sorry, trash - exactly opposite. Nobody is using
your idiocy. Even you and your gurus are not THAT
stupid, you're only stupid enough to praise it.
Stupidity is never infinite, Giant Guru was mistaken
about that as well.

> > But there is no need for that, because the definition
> > making the rate 9,192,631,774.1 correct [in a GPS
> > satellite] has been written for centuries.
>
> There were GPS satellites centuries ago, janitor?

No, the definition was. Learn to read stupid Mike;
of course, it may be hard for an idiot unable to
distinguish between t and T.

> Meanwhile, ISO decided the second was 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles,
[..]

> This was clearly demonstrated way back in 1977. A satellite was launched
> with a switch set to "Newton",

Not to any "Newton", but to your ISO and its nonsensical
9,192,631,770 Cs cycles, stupid Mike. Of course it didn't
work. Common sense was warning your idiot gurus.

On 2022-06-21 14:17:21 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 4:35:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>
> (snip repetitive arguments)
>
>>> You have one mathematical model to explain light when it seems to travel
>>> as a wave, and you have a different mathematical model to explain light
>>> when it seems to travel as a particle. THAT IS
>>> STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> You may think it's stupid, but that was found through experiment.
>> There are some properties of light which cannot be explained by the wave
>> model, and other properties which cannot be explained by the photon
>> model. Again, that was found by experiment. Like it or not, light has
>> properties of both.
>
> YES, THAT'S MY POINT! You can only visualize light as TWO DIFFERENT
> MODELS. In reality, light is NOT two different models. IN REALITY, light
> consists of photons that have oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

The best theory of light and related things is QED but it is not very
visual. It isn't computationally simple, either. Therefore people prefer
to use simple theories whenever their results are close enough. One of
such approximate theories is ray optics, which is used for eyeglasses,
microscopes, and other instruments with lenses or mirrors. Another one
is Maxwell's electrodynamics which is used for radios, radars, and other
RF devices. But their usefulnes is limited to situations where the difference
from QED is not important.

Mikko

On 2022-06-21 14:37:08 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> Because you create artificial "reference systems" PRIMARILY forpurposes
> of doing mathematics.

Reference systems are needed if one needs to say something about specific
places. If someone calls you and asks "Where are you?" you cannot answer
unless there is a referene system that both the caller and you know.

Mikko

On 2022-06-19 16:10:17 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Here is another link:
http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html

Mikko

On 2022-06-21 21:21:43 +0000, Volney said:

> Unless "anyone" is ISO, the organization which standardizes such things,
> so a second in a lab in Japan is the same as the second in the US.

The highest authority is not ISO but CIPM, and the next highest BIMP.

Mikko

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-21 21:21:43 +0000, Volney said:
>
> > Unless "anyone" is ISO, the organization which standardizes such things,
> > so a second in a lab in Japan is the same as the second in the US.
> The highest authority is not ISO but CIPM, and the next highest BIMP.
>
> Mikko

No it's NIST CODATA.

On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 09:34:15 UTC+2, Al Coe wrote:

> It's important to keep in mind that any statement such as "they are just talking mathematical nonsense" is not a substantive comment, i.e., it has no cognitive content. The meaning and physical significance of inertial reference systems has been thoroughly understood for over 400 years, and indeed it forms the basis of the principle of relativity, which consists of the assertion that all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple form when expressed in terms of any standard inertial reference system. The entire Scientific Revolution, beginning in the 1600s and continuing until today, was based on that insight.

And, after 400 years, it's really time to end this mystical nonsense.
In the world we inhabit there is a significant difference between a
gedanken rocket and Sun or Earth; that a physicist isn't understanding
it won't make it disappear, sorry.

On 2022-06-23 01:14:29 +0000, Ross A. Finlayson said:

> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-06-21 21:21:43 +0000, Volney said:
>>
>>> Unless "anyone" is ISO, the organization which standardizes such things,
>>> so a second in a lab in Japan is the same as the second in the US.
>> The highest authority is not ISO but CIPM, and the next highest BIMP.
>>
>> Mikko
>
> No it's NIST CODATA.

Maybe somewhere but definitely not elsewhere.

Mikko

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:43:49 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-23 01:14:29 +0000, Ross A. Finlayson said:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:09:23 AM UTC-7, Mikko wrote:
> >> On 2022-06-21 21:21:43 +0000, Volney said:
> >>
> >>> Unless "anyone" is ISO, the organization which standardizes such things,
> >>> so a second in a lab in Japan is the same as the second in the US.
> >> The highest authority is not ISO but CIPM, and the next highest BIMP.
> >>
> >> Mikko
> >
> > No it's NIST CODATA.
> Maybe somewhere but definitely not elsewhere.
>
> Mikko

Sure that's fair. About the recent SI redefinition, I think it's from a reading of
STR that, makes things simple for the digital electronics, but makes dimensionless
what are actually some derivative quantities.

NIST CODATA though is the latest constants according to the latest science.

I still think that "SR follows from GR, and SR is local", not the other
way around about "new-ish STR, ...".

That is to say I don't think the latest SI re-definition is necessarily,
...., "fundamental", and that physicists should know that,
even if electrical engineers thusly have less to care.

The NIST CODATA is pretty great, it regularly shrinks the
constants over time, in their, "running constants", which should
surprise people that it's not just that "the constants" are more
preceise over time, actually that they diminish according to
regime and configuration of energy and experiment.

On June 22, Mikko wrote:
> > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
> Here is another link:
> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html

Which one tests length contraction?

--
Rich

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:50:48 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On June 22, Mikko wrote:
> > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> >
> > Here is another link:
> > http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> Which one tests length contraction?
>
> --
> Rich

None of them. As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.

Ed

El viernes, 24 de junio de 2022 a las 15:57:05 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:50:48 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> > On June 22, Mikko wrote:
> > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > >
> > > Here is another link:
> > > http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> > Which one tests length contraction?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> None of them. As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.
>

Actually, if time dilation which is a property of Special Relativity (coming as a consequence of the Lorentz Transformation Equations), then length contraction (also a consequence of the LTE) should also be valid. In other words, you can't have time dilation without having length contraction.

On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 21:57:05 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:50:48 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> > On June 22, Mikko wrote:
> > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > >
> > > Here is another link:
> > > http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> > Which one tests length contraction?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
>
> None of them. As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.

Time dilation, as we observe for the fast muon
is seen by the muon as length contraction.
It's two sides of the same coin,

Jan
(see my Mr. Tompkins posting)

On June 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
>
>>> Which one tests length contraction?
>
>> As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
>> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.
>
> Time dilation, as we observe for the fast muon
> is seen by the muon as length contraction.

Has anyone asked the muon what he sees?

--
Rich

On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 22:40:52 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:50:48 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> > > On June 22, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > > >
> > > > Here is another link:
> > > > http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> > > Which one tests length contraction?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> >
> > None of them. As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
> > by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.
> Time dilation, as we observe for the fast muon

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

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 02:50:28 UTC+2, RichD wrote:
> On June 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> >
> >>> Which one tests length contraction?
> >
> >> As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
> >> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.
> >
> > Time dilation, as we observe for the fast muon
> > is seen by the muon as length contraction.
> Has anyone asked the muon what he sees?

Do you suggest that muons can be cranks
not seeing the wisdom of Giant Guru? A nonsense;
how could a muon be a crank?

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On June 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> >
> >>> Which one tests length contraction?
> >
> >> As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
> >> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.
> >
> > Time dilation, as we observe for the fast muon
> > is seen by the muon as length contraction.
>
> Has anyone asked the muon what he sees?

Muons can't speak,

Jan
(who can play dumb too)

On 2022-06-24 18:50:45 +0000, RichD said:

> On June 22, Mikko wrote:
>>> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>>
>> Here is another link:
>> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
>
> Which one tests length contraction?

So far no experiment has directly tested length contraction. It is not
that easy to measure the length of an moving object.

There are indirect confirmations. For example, the null result of
Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be explained with time dilation
but can be explained with length contraction. Likewise, length
contraction can explain the magnetic field around an electric current
but time diation can't.

More generally, if length contraction is not true then Special and
General Relativities aren't, either. But in that case there should
be other deviations besides length contraction, and none is observed.
That is another indirect confirmation of length contraction.

Indirect confirmations are less convincing than direct ones as there
is always a possibility that the confirming results follow from some
unknown effects even when no such explanations are known.

Mikko

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 10:23:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On June 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >>>> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> > >
> > >>> Which one tests length contraction?
> > >
> > >> As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
> > >> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.
> > >
> > > Time dilation, as we observe for the fast muon
> > > is seen by the muon as length contraction.
> >
> > Has anyone asked the muon what he sees?
> Muons can't speak,

If they could they would say that our Giant Guru was
ingenious and praise his infinite wisdom, no doubt.
Or they would be stupid cranks if they didn't.

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 11:18:03 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-06-24 18:50:45 +0000, RichD said:
>
> > On June 22, Mikko wrote:
> >>> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> >>
> >> Here is another link:
> >> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
> >
> > Which one tests length contraction?
> So far no experiment has directly tested length contraction. It is not
> that easy to measure the length of an moving object.
>
> There are indirect confirmations. For example, the null result of

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

On June 24, Paparios wrote:
>>>> http://sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/experiments.html
>
>>> Which one tests length contraction?
>
>> As far as I know, length contraction has never been confirmed
>> by any experiment. The experiments just confirm time dilation.
>
> Actually, if time dilation which is a property of Special Relativity (coming as a consequence
> of the Lorentz Transformation Equations), then length contraction (also a consequence of the LTE)
> should also be valid. In other words, you can't have time dilation without having length contraction.

If I need a sofa for my living room, I pull out my tape measure, and measure
the length of the room. Then in the furniture store, I measure the length of the sofa.

I don't invent fairy tales about the half life of sofas, based on their speed, seen
from various frames, then derive their length from that. I MEASURE THE SOFA!

Your argument is unscience and unlogical. One doesn't invent a theory, then
deduce the outcome of experiments which HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED,
then congratulate oneself for confirming the theory.

--
Rich

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 1:26:16 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:

> Your argument is unscience and unlogical. One doesn't invent a theory, then
> deduce the outcome of experiments which HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED,
> then congratulate oneself for confirming the theory.

Perhaps you should take a relativity course before you start lecturing about why it is incorrect... just a thought...