As Einstein dreamed once, if a ghost observer travels mounted on a ray of
light is moving in an inertial reference frame, isn't it?

So, how relativity is applied for his sight of the motion of a particle that
moves at c-1 Km/sec?

How could special relativity be developed in such a thought experiment?

What would happen with time and lengths, as perceived by the ghost observer?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> As Einstein dreamed once, if a ghost observer travels mounted on a ray of
> light is moving in an inertial reference frame, isn't it?

Einstein, already in his gymnasium years, [1] realised that
such a ghost observer would see electric and magnetic fields
that do not obey Maxwell's equations.
An impossible situation, in other words.

> So, how relativity is applied for his sight of the motion of a particle that
> moves at c-1 Km/sec?

See Einstein 1905.

> How could special relativity be developed in such a thought experiment?

See Einstein 1905.

> What would happen with time and lengths, as perceived by the ghost observer?

See Einstein 1905.

Jan

--
[1] Gymnasium is usually translated as 'high school',
but readers here should realise that the education provided there
is far superior to what you get in an American high school.
In 1900, and still.

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:44:38 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Einstein, already in his gymnasium years, [1] realised that
> such a ghost observer would see electric and magnetic fields
> that do not obey Maxwell's equations.
> An impossible situation, in other words.

<snip>

WIKI: Albert attended a Catholic elementary school in Munich, from the age of five, for three years. At the age of eight, he was transferred to the Luitpold-Gymnasium (now known as the Albert-Einstein-Gymnasium), where he received advanced primary and secondary school education until he left the German Empire seven years later.[22]

Your devotion to worship Einstein at any cost is sad and I shouldn't have replied to you. But this is my thread, anyway.

He left Germany when he was 15 years old, when he needed two more years to complete his "high school" education (1894).

He barely could make elementary algebra, but you prefer seen him reading, understanding and thinking about Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside
by that time, when even Lorentz was grasping its meaning.

Jan, you exaggerate too much.

Plus, I clearly wrote that the reference frame IS THE RAY OF LIGHT, in this gedanken experiment, so any other speed is lower than c.

Therefore, no relativity equations could have been developed in this case. The ghost observer is mounting a vector carrying the
information of LOCAL TIME from one place to another (at the speed of light).. This crashes any mathematical attempt to play with time.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:44:38 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Einstein, already in his gymnasium years, [1] realised that
> > such a ghost observer would see electric and magnetic fields
> > that do not obey Maxwell's equations.
> > An impossible situation, in other words.
>
> <snip>
>
> WIKI: Albert attended a Catholic elementary school in Munich, from the age
> of five, for three years. At the age of eight, he was transferred to the
> Luitpold-Gymnasium (now known as the Albert-Einstein-Gymnasium), where he
> received advanced primary and secondary school education until he left the
> German Empire seven years later.

Einstein himself has said that he started thinking about this problem
(of moving with light) from age 16 onwards.
There is no reason to doubt him. (and how could we)

He will not have had a solution, at this age,
but he started thinking about it,
and he did see that there would be problems.

And 'Gymnasium years', in Germany, covered the ages of 10-18,
(and sometimes 19) before moving on to a university.

You really should know that.
You are just being contrarian without good reason,

Jan

--
A reference, especially adapted to your level:
"These ideas began growing in Einstein when, as a 16 year old, he tried
to imagine what he would see were he to ride alongside a beam of light,
moving at its same speed. Would he be able to see the edge of the beam?
Would the light beam stop at some point (looking like a light saber from
Star Wars)?" (from 'Einstein for Dummies', by Carlos I. Calle)

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:36:36 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 5:44:38 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Einstein, already in his gymnasium years, [1] realised that
> > > such a ghost observer would see electric and magnetic fields
> > > that do not obey Maxwell's equations.
> > > An impossible situation, in other words.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > WIKI: Albert attended a Catholic elementary school in Munich, from the age
> > of five, for three years. At the age of eight, he was transferred to the
> > Luitpold-Gymnasium (now known as the Albert-Einstein-Gymnasium), where he
> > received advanced primary and secondary school education until he left the
> > German Empire seven years later.
> Einstein himself has said that he started thinking about this problem
> (of moving with light) from age 16 onwards.
> There is no reason to doubt him. (and how could we)
>
> He will not have had a solution, at this age,
> but he started thinking about it,
> and he did see that there would be problems.
>
> And 'Gymnasium years', in Germany, covered the ages of 10-18,
> (and sometimes 19) before moving on to a university.
>
> You really should know that.
> You are just being contrarian without good reason,
>
> Jan
>
> --
> A reference, especially adapted to your level:
> "These ideas began growing in Einstein when, as a 16 year old, he tried
> to imagine what he would see were he to ride alongside a beam of light,
> moving at its same speed. Would he be able to see the edge of the beam?
> Would the light beam stop at some point (looking like a light saber from
> Star Wars)?" (from 'Einstein for Dummies', by Carlos I. Calle)

Read better what I wrote!

I'm saying exactly what you wrote, about the duration and avg. ages at Munich Gymnasium.
Very similar to education in Argentina, until mid '90s.

So, I wrote that HE LEFT Germany when he was 15 and needed two more years to complete that cycle, which he
could have done when he was 17.

He completed that part in Switzerland, and entered into the Polytechnic in October 1896, still being 17. He finished
the "college" in July 1900. He had shown NO INTERESTS in anything in particular and, notoriously, skipped many
classes (physics, mathematics, french, etc.). Minkowski called him "a lazy dog" (funny, isn't it?).

He was a party boy, street smart. That's all. No sign of "brilliance" at all,

Comparing him with others at his age of 21, he was an arrogant and ignorant asshole (Born, Heisenberg, Hertz, Pauli, etc.).

He wandered around for 2 years, until he settled at the Patent Office, after begging Grossman for help. A true manipulator with
very high emotional intelligence, but ZERO bias to work hard developing a scientific career. That came after several years past 1900.

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 5:15:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> As Einstein dreamed once, if a ghost observer travels mounted on a ray of
> light is moving in an inertial reference frame, isn't it?
>
> So, how relativity is applied for his sight of the motion of a particle that
> moves at c-1 Km/sec?
>
> How could special relativity be developed in such a thought experiment?
>
> What would happen with time and lengths, as perceived by the ghost observer?

An atom observer cannot reach the speed of light to ride it.
It would have its time end and infinite kinetic energy.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Monday, August 29, 2022 at 9:15:06 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

> As Einstein dreamed once, if a ghost observer travels mounted on a ray of
> light is moving in an inertial reference frame, isn't it?
>
> So, how relativity is applied for his sight of the motion of a particle that
> moves at c-1 Km/sec?
>
> How could special relativity be developed in such a thought experiment?
>
> What would happen with time and lengths, as perceived by the ghost observer?

Even if the ghost observer try to exchange data (signalling with light) to other observer that is passed by (moving at c - 1 m/sec),
information about timing couldn't reach any of them. The ghost observer riding on a ray of light, at c speed, would be completely
isolated of anything that surrounds him, in frames with relative speeds just infinitesimally lower than c.

What prevents that the reference frame of the ghost observer riding at c speed be named "the absolute frame of reference"?

And how relativity could have any chance to be developed in this context?

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> And how relativity could have any chance to be developed in this context?

Crank,

Relativity was not developed from this thought experiment. You can stop trolling.

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 1:44:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:58:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > And how relativity could have any chance to be developed in this context?
> Crank,
>
> Relativity was not developed from this thought experiment. You can stop trolling.

What's your problem with thought experiments and ghost observers?. I'm perfectly entitled to make one, in a universe void of matter
and energy, where any thought is valid.

If you censor me, then do the same with your idol and his gedanken, or any other physicist in the last 500 years.

I'm moving at "a definite velocity c (Einstein)", in what I declare that I move AS A POINT "A" IN AN INERTIAL PLATFORM AT RELATIVE REST,
which I call it THE STATIONARY SYSTEM.

I think of time as what my IMAGINARY CLOCK SHOWS.

I SEE another point B, ahead of me, ALSO MOVING at c, which has a perfect mirror pointing at me, with another ghost observer that has
another clock.

I let a ray of light depart from my point A at time tA towards the position B, which is reached at B observer's time tB.

The ray of light is reflected towards my position in the point A at time t'A.

I declare that both clocks (mine and from the other ghost observer) synchronize if:

tB - tA = t'A - tB

NOW I SOLEMNLY DECLARE, QUOTING EXACTLY WHAT EINSTEIN WROTE:

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled
what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different
places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or
“synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event is that which is given
simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of
the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time
determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'A- tA) = c

to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space."

"It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the
stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary
system we call it “the time of the stationary system.”"

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

Any problem with that?

After all, THE DEFINITE VELOCITY c is a universal constant, so c+c=c, INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF THE EMITTER/REFLECTOR.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 1:44:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> Crank, Relativity was not developed from this thought experiment. You
>> can stop trolling.
>
> What's your problem with thought experiments and ghost observers?. I'm
> perfectly entitled to make one, in a universe void of matter and energy,
> where any thought is valid.

you can't have ghost observers in relativity. Either observer, or not.

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 5:29:02 PM UTC-3, Dana Belluomi wrote:

<snip>

> you can't have ghost observers in relativity. Either observer, or not.

It's MY thought experiment, so I choose that the observer be a GHOST!

Do your own with a zombie, if you like. Mine is a ghost, which suits perfectly with the gedanken (no mass, invisible). I like that way.

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 5:03:17 PM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 5:29:02 PM UTC-3, Dana Belluomi wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > you can't have ghost observers in relativity. Either observer, or not.
> It's MY thought experiment, so I choose that the observer be a GHOST!
>
> Do your own with a zombie, if you like. Mine is a ghost, which suits perfectly with the gedanken (no mass, invisible). I like that way.

<snip>

DO NOT STROKE THE TROLLS.

You got got.

Now, report it as spam.

rotchm wrote:

>> <snip>
>> > you can't have ghost observers in relativity. Either observer, or
>> not. It's MY thought experiment, so I choose that the observer be a
>> GHOST!
>>
>> Do your own with a zombie, if you like. Mine is a ghost, which suits
>> perfectly with the gedanken (no mass, invisible). I like that way.
>
> <snip> DO NOT STROKE THE TROLLS.
> You got got.
> Now, report it as spam.

he fucks you wife in she ass first. Your putrid mother, next. Report them
both.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 5:29:02 PM UTC-3, Dana Belluomi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> you can't have ghost observers in relativity. Either observer, or not.
>
> It's MY thought experiment, so I choose that the observer be a GHOST!
>
> Do your own with a zombie, if you like. Mine is a ghost, which suits
> perfectly with the gedanken (no mass, invisible). I like that way.

if it takes a measurement as local observer, it's an observer, not a ghost
observer. Otherwise you can tell nothing about a ghost observer.

On August 30, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > As Einstein dreamed once, if a ghost observer travels mounted on a ray of
> > light is moving in an inertial reference frame, isn't it?
>
> Einstein, already in his gymnasium years, [1] realised that
> such a ghost observer would see electric and magnetic fields
> that do not obey Maxwell's equations.
> An impossible situation, in other words.

Right.

Like, in a lake, a canoe cannot propel itself at the speed of the waves, as
the paddlers would see flow fields which do not obey the Navier-Stokes
equations. An impossible situation -

> [1] Gymnasium is usually translated as 'high school',
> but readers here should realise that the education provided there
> is far superior to what you get in an American high school.
> In 1900, and still.

Only compared to state schools.
Not (non-unionized) private schools, which are as good as any.

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On August 30, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > As Einstein dreamed once, if a ghost observer travels mounted on a ray of
> > > light is moving in an inertial reference frame, isn't it?
> >
> > Einstein, already in his gymnasium years, [1] realised that
> > such a ghost observer would see electric and magnetic fields
> > that do not obey Maxwell's equations.
> > An impossible situation, in other words.
>
> Right.
>
> Like, in a lake, a canoe cannot propel itself at the speed of the waves, as
> the paddlers would see flow fields which do not obey the Navier-Stokes
> equations. An impossible situation -

Are you completely clueles about water waves
and the Navier-Stokes eqns.?
FYI, there is no such thing as -the- speed of water waves.
Water waves obey a dispersion relation.
In plainer words: the speed of a water wave
depends strongly on its wavelength.
So there is no frame in which all of the water can be at rest.

This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum)
where everything must move with c.
So if you could move with c too, so with the light,
a lightwave would consist of -stationary- E-M fields,
in that co-moving frame.
(in obvious disagreement with Maxwell's eqns.)

So either you cannot move with c, or Maxwell's equations
cannot be right under such circumstances.
Young Albert, at 16, may not have seen this as clearly as we see it now,
But he did see clearly that there was a problem there.

> > [1] Gymnasium is usually translated as 'high school',
> > but readers here should realise that the education provided there
> > is far superior to what you get in an American high school.
> > In 1900, and still.
>
> Only compared to state schools.
> Not (non-unionized) private schools, which are as good as any.

I leave you to your illusions,

Jan

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:37:37 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip water waves nonsense>

> This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum) where everything must move with c.

What you wrote here is absurd!
In vacuum, Maxwell's equations for radiating electromagnetic waves that DEPARTS from an arbitrary dipole antenna (Hertz)
are these:

∇ x B = μₒ.εₒ ∂E/∂t
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t
cₒ = 1/√(μₒ.εₒ)

which satisfy the TRAVERSAL WAVE EQUATIONS only if:

1) The medium is homogeneous, isotropic and non-dispersive,
2) The electromagnetic field is THE FAR FIELD, which begin at a distance r > 2D²/λ. Here r is the distance from the
radiator, D is the largest dimension of the radiator, and λ is the wavelength.

Maxwell's equations for the NEAR FIELD are extremely complex to solve analytically, because the electric field E and
magnetic field H = B/μₒ ARE NOT orthogonal to each other and are OUT OF PHASE. They both fall off with distance that
are POWERS OF (1/r). and the Poynting vector has radial and tangential components. In near field region, the magnetic
field is dominant, as it's proven by loop antenna meters.

Once the light wave is stable (satisfy the two EM wave equations) and travels at cₒ, moving AWAY from the radiator, the
POSITION of the radiator (antenna) is a RELATIVE POINT OF REFERENCE that is left behind at cₒ speed.

If you adopt the START of ANY ray of light (arbitrary choose from the light front wave), you can declare such POINT as
your STATIONARY REFERENCE. In that case, you would see HOW the radiator moves away from you at cₒ speed.

The fields H(r=0, t) and E(r=0, t) are still in quadrature and self-oscillating, being far from being stationary (frozen).

The EM wave equations in vacuum:

∇ × ∇ × E = - μₒεₒ ∂²E/∂t²
∇ × ∇ × H = - μₒεₒ ∂²H/∂t²

still would apply to your ray of light with reference to THE RADIATOR, which is flying away at cₒ speed.

This applies to ANY OTHER RAY OF LIGHT that is co-moving with you (with a PHASE difference), and any PARTICLE that
try to move along your path at (cₒ - 1 m/sec) is left behind.

So, you have to wonder if RELATIVITY can be applied IN REVERSE, when computing time and lengths between you (at the
tip of the ray of light) and the mentioned TEST PARTICLE.

Does einstenian relativity BREAK?

> So if you could move with c too, so with the light, a lightwave would consist of -stationary- E-M fields,
> in that co-moving frame (in obvious disagreement with Maxwell's eqns.)

WRONG. READ ABOVE.

> So either you cannot move with c, or Maxwell's equations cannot be right under such circumstances.

WRONG. READ ABOVE.

> Young Albert, at 16, may not have seen this as clearly as we see it now,
> But he did see clearly that there was a problem there.

At age 16, he was a tramp wandering the streets of Bern, Switzerland.
........
> I leave you to your illusions,

On the contrary, I leave you to your illusions/delusions.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:37:37 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip water waves nonsense>
>
> > This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum) where
> > everything must move with c.
> >
> What you wrote here is absurd!
> In vacuum, Maxwell's equations for radiating electromagnetic waves that
> DEPARTS from an arbitrary dipole antenna (Hertz) are these:
[snip irrelevancies about near fields]

> So, you have to wonder if RELATIVITY can be applied IN REVERSE, when
> computing time and lengths between you (at the tip of the ray of light)
> and the mentioned TEST PARTICLE.
>
> Does einstenian relativity BREAK?

We were talking about a pre-relativity though experiment.
It says that Maxwell's eqations can't be right
for someone who moves with a light wave.

Einstein saw that while still of high school age,
and he kept thinking and worrying about it
until he had the 1905 solution,

Jan

On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:41:16 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:37:37 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > <snip water waves nonsense>
> >
> > > This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum) where
> > > everything must move with c.
> > >
> > What you wrote here is absurd!
> > In vacuum, Maxwell's equations for radiating electromagnetic waves that
> > DEPARTS from an arbitrary dipole antenna (Hertz) are these:
> [snip irrelevancies about near fields]
> > So, you have to wonder if RELATIVITY can be applied IN REVERSE, when
> > computing time and lengths between you (at the tip of the ray of light)
> > and the mentioned TEST PARTICLE.
> >
> > Does einstenian relativity BREAK?
> We were talking about a pre-relativity though experiment.
> It says that Maxwell's eqations can't be right
> for someone who moves with a light wave.
>
> Einstein saw that while still of high school age,
> and he kept thinking and worrying about it
> until he had the 1905 solution,
>
> Jan

Read my previous post CAREFULLY!

You failed to understand how Maxwell's equations were CORRECTLY applied for a solution that is REALISTIC, and happens
every time in outer space for the last 65 years (Sputnik satellite).

Everyone here REPEATEDLY writes about light, speed of light and a LOT OF SHIT, but they FAIL TO UNDERSTAND that LIGHT
(in any of its manifestations) HAVE A SOURCE!!

I used a VALID presentation about HOW Maxwell's equations work IN A REAL ENVIRONMENT in outer space. I presented
the general equations that are verified FAR AWAY from the source of light, but if it's necessary, I can include Maxwell's equations
right at the source (antenna) and NEAR surroundings.

It's CLEARLY VISIBLE that my proposal of having the tip of the ray of light as an ABSOLUTE REFERENCE shows that relativity
CAN'T BE DEVELOPED in reverse.

Don't blame me if you don't get it, and KEEP INSISTING that Einstein saw ANYTHING at the age of 16.

He was a drooling self-entitled imbecile by then, a characteristic that conserved during his entire life. He FAILED to pass an
elementary test, at that age, in order to be admitted in a Swiss High School. He had to STUDY THOROUGHLY for one year
to overcome such obstacle, and get admitted at a SECOND ORDER RANK Polytechnic (where he barely took 12 courses,
and FAILED WITH ZERO DEGREE in one of them).

Your efforts to paint Einstein as some kind of wonderteen are very LAME!. He was an inept young person, who did his best
while selling himself!

Today, he would have been an excellent salesman of JUNK bonds at any hedge fund, or selling used cars.

Again: Read my previous post CAREFULLY. It has NO ERRORS.

On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 4:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> It's CLEARLY VISIBLE that my proposal of having the tip of the ray of light as an ABSOLUTE REFERENCE is my personal imbecility

Yep.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:41:16 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:37:37 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip water waves nonsense>
> > >
> > > > This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum) where
> > > > everything must move with c.
> > > >
> > > What you wrote here is absurd!
> > > In vacuum, Maxwell's equations for radiating electromagnetic waves that
> > > DEPARTS from an arbitrary dipole antenna (Hertz) are these:
> > [snip irrelevancies about near fields]
> > > So, you have to wonder if RELATIVITY can be applied IN REVERSE, when
> > > computing time and lengths between you (at the tip of the ray of light)
> > > and the mentioned TEST PARTICLE.
> > >
> > > Does einstenian relativity BREAK?
> > We were talking about a pre-relativity though experiment.
> > It says that Maxwell's eqations can't be right
> > for someone who moves with a light wave.
> >
> > Einstein saw that while still of high school age,
> > and he kept thinking and worrying about it
> > until he had the 1905 solution,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Read my previous post CAREFULLY!
>
> You failed to understand how Maxwell's equations were CORRECTLY applied
> for a solution that is REALISTIC, and happens every time in outer space
> for the last 65 years (Sputnik satellite).
>
> Everyone here REPEATEDLY writes about light, speed of light and a LOT OF
> SHIT, but they FAIL TO UNDERSTAND that LIGHT (in any of its
> manifestations) HAVE A SOURCE!!

Repeating and capitalising doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
Maxwell's equations have vacuum solutions,
in particular running waves that propagate with speed c.

Now if you could move with these waves at speed c
you would see EM fields that do not satisfy Maxwell's equations.
This is a paradox, and young Einstein saw that well before 1900.
He solved the problem once and for all in 1905.

He was 125 years ahead of you,

Jan
(who cannot make it any simpler than this)

On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 14:06:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:41:16 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:37:37 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip water waves nonsense>
> > > >
> > > > > This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum) where
> > > > > everything must move with c.
> > > > >
> > > > What you wrote here is absurd!
> > > > In vacuum, Maxwell's equations for radiating electromagnetic waves that
> > > > DEPARTS from an arbitrary dipole antenna (Hertz) are these:
> > > [snip irrelevancies about near fields]
> > > > So, you have to wonder if RELATIVITY can be applied IN REVERSE, when
> > > > computing time and lengths between you (at the tip of the ray of light)
> > > > and the mentioned TEST PARTICLE.
> > > >
> > > > Does einstenian relativity BREAK?
> > > We were talking about a pre-relativity though experiment.
> > > It says that Maxwell's eqations can't be right
> > > for someone who moves with a light wave.
> > >
> > > Einstein saw that while still of high school age,
> > > and he kept thinking and worrying about it
> > > until he had the 1905 solution,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Read my previous post CAREFULLY!
> >
> > You failed to understand how Maxwell's equations were CORRECTLY applied
> > for a solution that is REALISTIC, and happens every time in outer space
> > for the last 65 years (Sputnik satellite).
> >
> > Everyone here REPEATEDLY writes about light, speed of light and a LOT OF
> > SHIT, but they FAIL TO UNDERSTAND that LIGHT (in any of its
> > manifestations) HAVE A SOURCE!!
> Repeating and capitalising doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
> Maxwell's equations have vacuum solutions,
> in particular running waves that propagate with speed c.
>
> Now if you could move with these waves at speed c
> you would see EM fields that do not satisfy Maxwell's equations.
> This is a paradox, and young Einstein saw that well before 1900.
> He solved the problem once and for all in 1905.
>
> He was 125 years ahead of you,

And ahead of GPS clocks, keeping measuring t'=t, just
like all seriouis clocks always did.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> You failed to understand how Maxwell's equations were CORRECTLY applied
> for a solution that is REALISTIC, and happens every time in outer space
> for the last 65 years (Sputnik satellite).

sure, watch big protest in Prague, the corrupt mainstream media are not
talking about. Nazi nato shit and ukraine, people are suffering. Get out
of *nazi_nato* and *EU*. It's useless and *costs_you_big_money* and
welfare. The nazi nonexistent "uKraine" gets more from *nazi_nato* and
*EU* than you ever will get as *paying* member in those corrupt terrorist
organizations. They are delivering big weapons and bombs to kill Russians.

Prague protests EU, ‘incompetent sellouts.’ Biden, $11.7B for “Ukraine”.
Siemens confusion. Update 1 https://youtu.be/QezcI5wyC9o

On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 5:31:31 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 14:06:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:41:16 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:37:37 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip water waves nonsense>
> > > > >
> > > > > > This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum) where
> > > > > > everything must move with c.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What you wrote here is absurd!
> > > > > In vacuum, Maxwell's equations for radiating electromagnetic waves that
> > > > > DEPARTS from an arbitrary dipole antenna (Hertz) are these:
> > > > [snip irrelevancies about near fields]
> > > > > So, you have to wonder if RELATIVITY can be applied IN REVERSE, when
> > > > > computing time and lengths between you (at the tip of the ray of light)
> > > > > and the mentioned TEST PARTICLE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does einstenian relativity BREAK?
> > > > We were talking about a pre-relativity though experiment.
> > > > It says that Maxwell's eqations can't be right
> > > > for someone who moves with a light wave.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein saw that while still of high school age,
> > > > and he kept thinking and worrying about it
> > > > until he had the 1905 solution,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Read my previous post CAREFULLY!
> > >
> > > You failed to understand how Maxwell's equations were CORRECTLY applied
> > > for a solution that is REALISTIC, and happens every time in outer space
> > > for the last 65 years (Sputnik satellite).
> > >
> > > Everyone here REPEATEDLY writes about light, speed of light and a LOT OF
> > > SHIT, but they FAIL TO UNDERSTAND that LIGHT (in any of its
> > > manifestations) HAVE A SOURCE!!
> > Repeating and capitalising doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
> > Maxwell's equations have vacuum solutions,
> > in particular running waves that propagate with speed c.
> >
> > Now if you could move with these waves at speed c
> > you would see EM fields that do not satisfy Maxwell's equations.
> > This is a paradox, and young Einstein saw that well before 1900.
> > He solved the problem once and for all in 1905.
> >
> > He was 125 years ahead of you,
> And ahead of GPS clocks, keeping measuring t'=t, just
> like all seriouis clocks always did.

How can time end twice at a BH?

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 01:43:18 UTC+2, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 5:31:31 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 14:06:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 5:41:16 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 4:37:37 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip water waves nonsense>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This contrasts strongly with Maxwell's eqns, (in vacuum) where
> > > > > > > everything must move with c.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What you wrote here is absurd!
> > > > > > In vacuum, Maxwell's equations for radiating electromagnetic waves that
> > > > > > DEPARTS from an arbitrary dipole antenna (Hertz) are these:
> > > > > [snip irrelevancies about near fields]
> > > > > > So, you have to wonder if RELATIVITY can be applied IN REVERSE, when
> > > > > > computing time and lengths between you (at the tip of the ray of light)
> > > > > > and the mentioned TEST PARTICLE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does einstenian relativity BREAK?
> > > > > We were talking about a pre-relativity though experiment.
> > > > > It says that Maxwell's eqations can't be right
> > > > > for someone who moves with a light wave.
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein saw that while still of high school age,
> > > > > and he kept thinking and worrying about it
> > > > > until he had the 1905 solution,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Read my previous post CAREFULLY!
> > > >
> > > > You failed to understand how Maxwell's equations were CORRECTLY applied
> > > > for a solution that is REALISTIC, and happens every time in outer space
> > > > for the last 65 years (Sputnik satellite).
> > > >
> > > > Everyone here REPEATEDLY writes about light, speed of light and a LOT OF
> > > > SHIT, but they FAIL TO UNDERSTAND that LIGHT (in any of its
> > > > manifestations) HAVE A SOURCE!!
> > > Repeating and capitalising doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
> > > Maxwell's equations have vacuum solutions,
> > > in particular running waves that propagate with speed c.
> > >
> > > Now if you could move with these waves at speed c
> > > you would see EM fields that do not satisfy Maxwell's equations.
> > > This is a paradox, and young Einstein saw that well before 1900.
> > > He solved the problem once and for all in 1905.
> > >
> > > He was 125 years ahead of you,
> > And ahead of GPS clocks, keeping measuring t'=t, just
> > like all seriouis clocks always did.
> How can time end twice at a BH?

Paper is patient.