Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

Stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and train conductor Alice is stopped in the center of Einstein's infamous train moving relative to the station.

When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, two stones hit simultaneously, the first, a firecracker at the head of the train, and the second stone, a firecracker at the tail of the train.

Since the two sound wave fronts reach Bob simultaneously, but do not reach Alice simultaneously, the academic donkey deduces the physical nonsense that only for Bob the two stones hit the head and tail of the train simultaneously.

In reality, according to universally shared and recognized physics, and for which the speed of sound does not depend on the speed of the sound source, the two events which for Bob are simultaneous, are not for Alice, because Alice, at the center of the

train, moving forward together with the train, he first hears the sound wave front coming from the firecracker in front of the train and then the one from the firecracker behind the train.

Replace the two sound fronts with the two light fronts of the infamous 1905 article and you discover that the academic donkey mentioned above was Albert Einstein.

It seems to me that it cannot be demonstrated more clearly than this what I demonstrated and wrote in another way for the first time in the remote summer of 2019, namely that the Einsteinian relative simultaneity is the consequence of nothing less than

a systematic error, with many regards to consequential: Lorentz transformations, kinematic time dilation and kinematic length contraction.

Systematic Error (Treccani online encyclopedia): in physics, systematic errors are called those which, despite repeating the measurement several times, always occur in the same way, because they are due to imperfections of the instrument or incorrect

measurement methods.

Shall we throw Einstein, finally in 2024, off the pedestal? Or how much longer do we need to wait to free humanity's mental energies to give life to a true physical theory and not a mathematical theory like Special Relativity?

Giovanni from Italy.

Relativity has been confirmed by actual experiments with actual results.

Where are your experiments that say otherwise?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 1/19/2024 4:27 AM, Giovanni wrote:

Stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and train conductor Alice is stopped in the center of Einstein's infamous train moving relative to the station.

When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, two stones hit simultaneously, the first, a firecracker at the head of the train, and the second stone, a firecracker at the tail of the train.

Since the two sound wave fronts reach Bob simultaneously, but do not reach Alice simultaneously, the academic donkey deduces the physical nonsense that only for Bob the two stones hit the head and tail of the train simultaneously.

In reality, according to universally shared and recognized physics, and for which the speed of sound does not depend on the speed of the sound source, the two events which for Bob are simultaneous, are not for Alice, because Alice, at the center of the

train, moving forward together with the train, he first hears the sound wave front coming from the firecracker in front of the train and then the one from the firecracker behind the train.

Replace the two sound fronts with the two light fronts of the infamous 1905 article and you discover that the academic donkey mentioned above was Albert Einstein.

It seems to me that it cannot be demonstrated more clearly than this what I demonstrated and wrote in another way for the first time in the remote summer of 2019, namely that the Einsteinian relative simultaneity is the consequence of nothing less than

a systematic error, with many regards to consequential: Lorentz transformations, kinematic time dilation and kinematic length contraction.

Systematic Error (Treccani online encyclopedia): in physics, systematic errors are called those which, despite repeating the measurement several times, always occur in the same way, because they are due to imperfections of the instrument or incorrect

measurement methods.

Shall we throw Einstein, finally in 2024, off the pedestal? Or how much longer do we need to wait to free humanity's mental energies to give life to a true physical theory and not a mathematical theory like Special Relativity?

Giovanni from Italy.

Belongs in sci.physics.relativity. Followup set.

You are talking about a thought experiment and then claiming relativity
results are due to systematic measurement errors. But in a thought
experiment, there are no actual measurements, therefore no measurement
errors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

Jim Pennino wrote:
Relativity has been confirmed by actual
experiments with actual results.
Where are your experiments that say otherwise?

================================

Jim Pennino ha scritto:
La relatività è stata confermata da esperimenti reali
con risultati reali.
Dove sono i tuoi esperimenti che dicono il contrario?

================================

Special relativity is a self-referential mathematical theory.

That is, special relativity refers exclusively to itself, losing any relationship with external reality and the complexity of the problems that characterize it.

In short: special relativity is correct just like a square root is correct, and there are no, because there cannot be, experiments that are able to demonstrate that the square root is wrong.

Giovanni from Italy.

This is a steaming pile of crackpot nonsense.

The effects of special relativity can phenomenologically be derived
from the following three fundamental experiments:

Michelson–Morley experiment
Kennedy–Thorndike experiment
Ives–Stilwell experiment

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that Special Relativity
has been verified in many different ways and there are no inconsistencies within the theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

=========================

Jim Pennino wrote:
This is a steaming pile of crackpot nonsense.
The effects of special relativity can phenomenologically
be derived
from the following three fundamental experiments:
Michelson–Morley experiment
Kennedy–Thorndike experiment
Ives–Stilwell experiment
The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that
Special Relativity
has been verified in many different ways and there
are no inconsistencies
within the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

=========================

Jim Pennino ha scritto:
Questo è un mucchio fumante di sciocchezze da pazzi.
Gli effetti della relatività ristretta possono essere
derivati fenomenologicamente
dai seguenti tre esperimenti fondamentali:
Esperimento di Michelson-Morley
Esperimento Kennedy-Thorndike
Esperimento di Ives-Stilwell
La stragrande maggioranza degli scienziati concorda
sul fatto che la Relatività Speciale
è stato verificato in molti modi diversi e non ci
sono incongruenze
all'interno della teoria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

=========================

Yours is a typical dogmatic response, in fact perched on opinions to which I have already replied, opinions aggravated in their dogmatism by the fact that they avoid entering into the merits of my dispute, namely that relative simultaneity is the

consequence of an epic systematic error.

Yours is a typical reply of an ignorant crackpot.

You have no merit to your dispute because you have no experiment and
no data, crackpot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

Jim Pennino wrote:
Relativity has been confirmed by actual
experiments with actual results.
Where are your experiments that say otherwise?

================================

Jim Pennino ha scritto:
La relatività è stata confermata da esperimenti reali
con risultati reali.
Dove sono i tuoi esperimenti che dicono il contrario?

================================

Giovanni from Italy wrote:
Special relativity is a self-referential mathematical theory.
That is, special relativity refers exclusively to itself, losing
any relationship with external reality and the complexity of
the problems that characterize it.
In short: special relativity is correct just like a square root is
correct, and there are no, because there cannot be, experiments
that are able to demonstrate that the square root is wrong.
Giovanni from Italy.

================================

Giovanni dall'Italia ha scritto:
La relatività speciale è una teoria matematica autoreferenziale.
Ovvero la relatività speciale fa riferimento esclusivamente a se
stessa, perdendo ogni rapporto con la realtà esterna e la
complessità dei problemi che la caratterizzano.
Insomma: la relatività speciale è corretta come ad esempio è
corretta una radice quadrata, e non esistono, perché non possono
esistere, esperimenti che sono in grado di dimostrare che la radice
quadrata è sbagliata.
Giovanni dall'Italia.

================================

Only by getting out of the epic systematic error committed by Einstein in using a wave to measure simultaneity (which in fact turns out to be falsely relative), an epic systematic error which, I repeat, is like wanting to measure the height of a person

using a scale, is it It is possible to demonstrate that simultaneity is absolute.

Just below is the feasible measurement without Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905.

The stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and the conductor Alice is stopped in the center of the infamous Einstein train, a train in relative motion with respect to the station.

When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, two rocks hit the head and tail of the train simultaneously.

Since two electronic devices are positioned at the head of the train and at the tail of the train which re-launch the 2 stones towards Alice and obviously also towards Bob, the 2 stones end up simultaneously reaching both Bob and Alice, who in fact are

grazed by the 2 stones in the same instant.

The reason is because, according to universally shared physics, the stone coming from the head of the train travels a smaller space at a speed decreased than that of the train, while the stone coming from the tail of the train travels a greater space

at a speed this time higher than that of the train.

Well: once Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905 has disappeared, simultaneity turns out to be what it really is, that is, absolute, and in fact the 2 stones fall simultaneously at the head and tail of the train, not only for Bob, but also for Alice,

and in fact the same 2 stones not only graze Bob, but at the same moment they also graze Alice.

Giovanni from Italy.

This is ranting kook babble.

Actual experiments trump babble.

You lose, kook.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

JanPB wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject line is no.
What will happen to Einstein's theory will be exactly what
happened to Newton's and Maxwell's theories.

=========================

JanPB ha scritto:
La risposta alla domanda nell'oggetto è no.
Cosa accadrà alla teoria di Einstein sarà esattamente
ciò che è successo alle teorie di Newton e Maxwell.

=========================

Unlike Einstein, Maxwell and Newton did not make any epic systematic errors.

Giovanni from Italy.

This is just yet more arm waving kook babble.

Real experiments with real data says Einstein was correct and your thought experiment is nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

Jim Pennino wrote:
This is just yet more arm waving kook babble.
Real experiments with real data says Einstein
was correct and your thought experiment is nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

===========================================

Jim Pennino ha scritto:
Questa è solo un'altra sciocchezza che agita il braccio.
Esperimenti reali con dati reali dicono che Einstein
aveva ragione e il tuo pensiero
l'esperimento è una sciocchezza.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

===========================================

Yours is a typical dogmatic response, in fact perched on opinions to which I have already replied, opinions aggravated in their dogmatism by the fact that they avoid entering into the merits of my argued dispute, and that is, in summary, that relative

simultaneity is the consequence of an epic systematic error committed by Einstein in 1905.

Troll, your presence in this threed is as annoying as a fly on the wall, and we hate to crush you, so run away on your own also because this threed is not your thing, since you answer without arguing, like a broken record, always with the same dogmas

and the same links that everyone, and even the stones, know and have read.

Giovanni from Italy.

Yours is the typical crackpot reply of someone that fails to understand
that your thought experiments are trumped by actual experiments with real measurements and data that have been performed thousands of time in the
last 120 years since 1905 and that actual experimental results are NOT
opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

JanPB wrote:
False.
Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.
Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.

==============================

JanPB ha scritto:
Falso.
Smettila di inventare cose, non è un metodo di argomentazione valido.
Trova un hobby diverso, smettila di far perdere tempo a tutti.

==============================

I have many hobbies, and arguing about the physical nonsense of Einstein's relative simultaneity is the thing that comes easiest to me.

We electronic engineers are well aware of systematic errors. Just think that an instant after reading, about 5 years ago, the first 5 pages of Einstein's original 1905 article, I immediately identified it.

You don't represent anyone, why on earth do you speak for everyone?

Giovanni from Italy.

Yet more meaningless crackpot arm waving.

Actual experiments with actual data can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Yes, his replies to you are also dogmatic without
engaging in reasoned dispute because relativity
functions as an ideology and is defended as one by
censoring, de-platforming, and ridicule. Relativity is
not even science and has been refuted and discredited
all along by excellent scientists who have pointed out
its facile errors only to be despised by the ignorant and
pretentious. Poor relativists imagine it is intelligent!

≈≈≈================================

Laurence Clark Crossen ha scritto:
Sì, e anche le loro isposte sono dogmatiche senza impegnarsi in
una disputa ragionata perché la relatività funziona come un'ideologia
ed è difesa come tale mediante la censura, il de-platforming e il ridicolo. >> La relatività non è nemmeno scienza ed è stata da sempre confutata
e screditata da eccellenti scienziati che ne hanno sottolineato i facili
errori solo per essere disprezzati dagli ignoranti e dai pretenziosi.
I poveri relativisti immaginano che sia intelligente.

≈====================================

You are ok because you think with your brain.

But how can you not understand that the Einsteinian physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is simply a consequence of having chosen a wave as a measurement method, and in fact if instead of using the luminous wave fronts of the infamous 1905

article we use the sound wave fronts, the physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is still obtained, but not if, for example, stones are used.

Giovanni from Italy.

An update since 1905:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

Real experiments with real data trumps crackpot thought experiments.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/20/2024 5:07 AM, Giovanni wrote:

Only by getting out of the epic systematic error committed by Einstein in using a wave to measure simultaneity (which in fact turns out to be falsely relative), an epic systematic error which, I repeat, is like wanting to measure the height of a person

using a scale, is it It is possible to demonstrate that simultaneity is absolute.

You keep talking about systematic errors in a thought experiment.
Thought experiments don't have measurements, so no measurement errors, systematic or otherwise.

Regardless, SR is validated by repeated actual experiments, dismissing
actual factual data in favor of your uninformed beliefs is delusional
thinking. You realize delusional thinking is a symptom of several
serious mental health issues, don't you?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/21/2024 12:25 PM, Giovanni wrote:

But how can you not understand that the Einsteinian physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is simply a consequence of having chosen a wave as a measurement method, and in fact if instead of using the luminous wave fronts of the infamous 1905

article we use the sound wave fronts, the physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is still obtained, but not if, for example, stones are used.

The results of the thought experiment are the same whether light waves
or stones are used.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday 22 January 2024 at 02:01:09 UTC+11, Jim Pennino wrote:

Giovanni <giann...@gmail.com> wrote:

JanPB wrote:
False.
Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.
Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.

==============================

JanPB ha scritto:
Falso.
Smettila di inventare cose, non è un metodo di argomentazione valido.
Trova un hobby diverso, smettila di far perdere tempo a tutti.

==============================

I have many hobbies, and arguing about the physical nonsense of Einstein's relative simultaneity is the thing that comes easiest to me.

We electronic engineers are well aware of systematic errors. Just think that an instant after reading, about 5 years ago, the first 5 pages of Einstein's original 1905 article, I immediately identified it.

You don't represent anyone, why on earth do you speak for everyone?

Giovanni from Italy.

Yet more meaningless crackpot arm waving.

Actual experiments with actual data can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

wiki is for beginners and dilettantes. It is there to show what the establishment thinks and the establishment is Jews etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity lists 14
references to other scholarly books and papers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity lists
several hundred references to other scholarly books and papers.

Wikipedia has scholarly references to it's articles.

Crackpots have arm waving babble and utter nonsense.

Crackpots attempting to disparage Wikipedia always ignore the
references.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/19/24 01:27, Giovanni wrote:

Stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and train

conductor Alice

Hey, the speed of light is a constant.

RADAR is just one of a vast number of practical applications
of this.

The speed of light is much faster than a turtle jogging.

You do not see a lot of before and after at the same time
because of various light speeds. Hey. It is observed to
be a constant. Relativity is derived from this observation.

Often this gets confused with red and blue shift. That
is different from light speed. It is also confused with
the amounts of the increments of energy or momentum transfer
from light at different frequencies. (photons) If you
start comparing light speed with jogging turtles however
then you are just doing jibberish. A jogging turtle is
a vastly different speed. A photon is a tiny amount
of momentum or energy in comparison with noticeable speed
on a marcroscopic object. Sometimes more than one can
be transferred. Yes red and blue is different from speed
even though red or blue photons might have more or less
energy or momentum. So if you start talking about elevators
and railroads you are talking about near turtle trotting
speeds. It might be viable to shy away from comparing
apples with oranges even if some turtles might like both.

Shall we throw Einstein, finally in 2024, off the pedestal? Or how

much longer do we need to wait to free humanity's mental energies to
give life to a true physical theory and not a mathematical theory like
Special Relativity?

Well, once upon a time, I am thinking that Aristotle was
always wrong. Nonetheless, I must admit that Newton
probably never said 'friction does not exist'. There
might be a little less between planets in outer space.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/21/2024 1:02 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

wiki is for beginners and dilettantes. It is there to show what the establishment thinks and the establishment is Jews etc.

Wikipedia has scholarly references to it's articles.

Crackpots have arm waving babble and utter nonsense.

Crackpots attempting to disparage Wikipedia always ignore the
references.

The references (mandatory) are the real value of Wikipedia. While the
text can be written by anyone, the references provide the reasons. See something in Wikipedia that makes you think "What?" Chase the reference
and find out why the statement was made.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

l'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/english?authuser=0

Actual experiments performed since 1905 with actual data which show
that "Einstein's epic systematic error" is delusional nonsense can be
found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 1/21/2024 1:02 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

wiki is for beginners and dilettantes. It is there to show what the establishment thinks and the establishment is Jews etc.

Wikipedia has scholarly references to it's articles.

Crackpots have arm waving babble and utter nonsense.

Crackpots attempting to disparage Wikipedia always ignore the
references.

The references (mandatory) are the real value of Wikipedia. While the
text can be written by anyone, the references provide the reasons. See something in Wikipedia that makes you think "What?" Chase the reference
and find out why the statement was made.

Crackpots pay no attention to the refernces and just whine that they are
being misunderstood/persecuted/ignored because the entire world is out
to get them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

L'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/english?authuser=0

Einsteins epischer systematischer Fehler von 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/deutsch?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

Reality with actual experiments and data gathered over the past 120
years as opposed to crackpot delusional nonsense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

L'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/english?authuser=0

Einsteins epischer systematischer Fehler von 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/deutsch?authuser=0

L'erreur systématique épique d'Einstein de 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/fran%C3%A7ais?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

Delusional nonsense from a crackpot.

Special relativity has been verified by thousands of experiments in the
last 120 years as documented here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

The ravings of a delusional crackpot are irrelevant in the real world.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/21/2024 6:13 PM, Giovanni wrote:

L'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/english?authuser=0

Einsteins epischer systematischer Fehler von 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/deutsch?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

It doesn't matter whether you post here or create web pages, or how many languages you post it in. You still have the main problem of the
impossibility of systematic errors in thought experiments.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

L'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/english?authuser=0

Einsteins epischer systematischer Fehler von 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/deutsch?authuser=0

L'erreur systématique épique d'Einstein de 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/fran%C3%A7ais?authuser=0

El épico error sistemático de Einstein de 1905: https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/espa%C3%B1ol?authuser=0

Эпическая систематическая ошибка Эйнштейна 1905 года:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

Real experiments with real data since 1905 says Einstein was correct and
your thought experiment is nonsense no matter how many times you post
your nonsese or what languages you post it in, crackpot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Giovanni <giannifree@gmail.com> wrote:

Laurence Clark Crossen ha scritto:
Yes, I agree that light behaves, with regard to speed, like sound waves because the medium determines the speed. That means the only way we can know our Sun and Sirius are moving towards each other at 5.5 km/sec is thanks to compression waves

preserving the information. As with sound the speed of the observer has to be taken into account (and some relativists will allow this as "closing speeds") even though the speed of the ambulance doesn't impart any speed to the waves. So we don't need
relativity at all. There is no such thing as time dilation, length contraction or relativity of simultaneity. Einstein was very confused. He kept the Lorentz transformations, the only purpose for was to save the ether, and he discarded the ether! Now the
relativists here proudly employ the gamma from the LT's!

========================================

The new physical theories of motion (obviously I have mine) can wait.

First let's knock Einstein off his pedestal with the slogan:

- special relativity is just a self-referential mathematical theory, in fact relative simultaneity is simply the consequence of a systematic error (in as many languages as possible on planet Earth):

https://sites.google.com/view/einstein-systematic-error/home-page?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

Real experiments with real data since 1905 says Einstein was correct and
your thought experiment is nonsense no matter how many times you post
your nonsese or what languages you post it in, crackpot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)