It's hard for relativists to accept this, as 110 years of lies with einstenian physics COLLAPSE completely.
Le 15/10/2024 à 22:52, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
It's hard for relativists to accept this, as 110 years of lies with
einstenian physics COLLAPSE completely.
It's not 110 years, but 120 years.
And I won't use the word lie.
Misinterpretation of the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations, which we might not
have found until decades later without Poincaré...
It's not that the theory of relativity is wrong, it's that it's so badly taught
that, on some points, it's downright horrible, and even completely wrong.
"A terrible thing has happened, and everything is nothing but falsifications, but men like it that way".
Word of God to the prophet I don't know who...
R.H.
On a French group you pretend not to care about convincing your
fellow cranks. Given that you've never convince even a SINGLE one .
Here you are desperately trying to do so. Repeatedly.
How come :-) ?
You must have noticed that the OP is based on the Point 2 of the 1905 Einstein's paper. I didn't even go with Point 3, where Lorentz
transforms are wrongfully developed.
So, the question in the OP is pointing exactly at the CORE of SR. If at
such early part of the paper, the hypothesis of the 2nd. Postulate IS
WRONG, then the entire relativity collapses. Goodbye time dilation,
length contraction, relativistic mass of electrons, E=mc2, spacetime and
the entire body of GEOMETRY posing as physics, which is general
relativity.
Just proving that the 2nd. Postulate IS FALSE, and that the speed of
light depends on the speed of the emitter IS ENOUGH.
Don't make things more complex than what they really are. Just ONE
initial hypothesis (2nd. Postulate) is all what's needed to make the
entire body of relativity A PILE OF CRAP (which is already, due to
highly dubious and CONTESTED experiments in the last 75 years).
Le 16/10/2024 à 01:31, Python a écrit :
On a French group you pretend not to care about convincing your
fellow cranks. Given that you've never convince even a SINGLE one .
Here you are desperately trying to do so. Repeatedly.
How come :-) ?
I don't know.
We have to ask them.
Why are you so crazy?
But if you ask a Pauline to explain grace to us by the substantiation of Jesus
Christ, he won't know; and he'll either act like a monkey and answer that it's a
mystery and that those who tickle mysteries go to hell.
If you ask a Muslim if he's sane to believe in a God of love and peace who demands to disgorge Jews and Christians and to beat his wife, he'll take out his
knife.
If you ask a physicist, even a Nobel Prize winner, why his relativistic system
doesn't hold up, and enters into absurdity and contradiction if we multiply a time
by a speed and the result in distance is like 9*4=7.2; he'll become mean, very
mean, and will demand "eradication of the crank", if not its physical or professional elimination.
If you ask many French people what they think or thought about Saddam Hussein,
Putin, they will tell you that "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy who wanted to invade
the world by throwing white powder on it to make it die en masse", "that it was
good to bomb Iraq en masse and kill 500,000 children because it was worth it",
"That the Russians invaded the Russian-speaking territories of Crimea and Donbas
to eat babies cooked alive in Vodka, and that Russia must be atomized because they
are bad guys who do not want to give their resources of the soil and the subsoil
(the largest in the world in all)".
No, I do not know.
Completely false. The theory does not imply that 9*4 = 7.2
I do. Most cranks are not cranky enough to not recognize your claims
as incoherent garbage.
Le 17/10/2024 à 15:23, Python a écrit :
I do. Most cranks are not cranky enough to not recognize your claims
as incoherent garbage.
Il faut que j'attende l'avis des cranks pour publier ce que j'ai à dire?
Le 17/10/2024 à 15:23, Python a écrit :
Completely false. The theory does not imply that 9*4 = 7.2
Bien sur que si.
Prenons juste le retour, mais on peut le faire avec l'aller si tu veux, c'est
pareil.
Quel est le temps propre de Stella?
Tout le monde affirme que tau=9 ans.
Tr=9ans, chez Hachel, c'est pareil.
A quelle vitesse voit-elle la terre revenir vers elle?
A la même vitesse apparente que la réciproque pour Terrence Vapp=4c.
Tu peux pousser de grands cris ça n'y changera rien.
On va dire, ça ne cadre plus, il y a un paradoxe, et pareil pour l'aller d'ailleurs.
Comment tu places D=Vapp.Tr ?
C'est absurde si tu poses x=7.2 et non 36 au retour, et 4 Ã l'aller.
Bref si tu te contente de l'équation fausse de la contraction absolue des longueurs et des distances, et non de leur élasticité relative.
La véritable équation est inscrite dans le marbre et sur les fondements de l'univers :
Et c'est pas l'=l.sqrt(1-v²/c²)
C'est juste pour un observateur neutre et transversal ça.
Ca n'a pas à intervenir (au risque de commettre une bourde énorme) dans un Langevin où les deux protagoniste s'éloignent puis reviennent en ligne droite.
Encore que tu puisses imaginer un gigantesque cercle, puis faire l'intégration
de tous les segments
selon l'angle µ variant à chaque instant.
Ca revient au même.
R.H.
I didn't say that. This is not my point.
You've convinced nobody, not even cranks.
Le 17/10/2024 à 18:05, Python a écrit :
I didn't say that. This is not my point.
You've convinced nobody, not even cranks.
Ne pas convaincre les cinglés n'est pas une preuve d'erreur scientifique.
Ne pas convaincre les grands pontes de la physique moderne non plus, d'ailleurs.
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.
Les autres le sont moins, ils sont malhonnêtes.
Dans un monde normalement constitué, on devrait dire "Monsieur, ce que vous dites est intéressant, et, en effet, beaucoup de choses paraissent davantage logiques à la façon dont vous les traitez".
Or, les réponses sont plutôt du style, depuis quarante ans (et pas qu'en science relativiste, d'ailleurs, mais aussi en criminologie, en théologie, en
politologie) : "Monsieur, vous nous empêchez de tourner en rond, et cela est très déplaisant"
Ca se passe comme ça, chez Mac Donald's.
Le 17/10/2024 à 18:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 17/10/2024 à 18:05, Python a écrit :
I didn't say that. This is not my point.
You've convinced nobody, not even cranks.
Ne pas convaincre les cinglés n'est pas une preuve d'erreur scientifique. >>
Ne pas convaincre les grands pontes de la physique moderne non plus, d'ailleurs.
I didn't say that it is a proof, but a sing.
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.
So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?
Les autres le sont moins, ils sont malhonnêtes.
No we are not. We spotted flaws in *your* claims. This is
the opposite of dishonesty.
You have shown, repeatedly, dishonest behavior. Including
faking quotes of living and deceased people.
Dans un monde normalement constitué, on devrait dire "Monsieur, ce que vous >> dites est intéressant, et, en effet, beaucoup de choses paraissent davantage
logiques à la façon dont vous les traitez".
Or, les réponses sont plutôt du style, depuis quarante ans (et pas qu'en >> science relativiste, d'ailleurs, mais aussi en criminologie, en théologie, en
politologie) : "Monsieur, vous nous empêchez de tourner en rond, et cela est très
déplaisant"
Ca se passe comme ça, chez Mac Donald's.
Not at all. Your claims are contradictory, ill-founded, in contradiction with experiments. You may not like it, but people are allowed to point this to you.
You egomania is pathetically pathological. You are not a genius, Richard.
You are a crook with mental illness and delusions of grandeur, an infantile behavior and very low integrity. That you've been exercising medicine is frightening.
Le 17/10/2024 à 18:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 17/10/2024 à 18:05, Python a écrit :
I didn't say that. This is not my point.
You've convinced nobody, not even cranks.
Ne pas convaincre les cinglés n'est pas une preuve d'erreur scientifique. >>
Ne pas convaincre les grands pontes de la physique moderne non plus, d'ailleurs.
I didn't say that it is a proof, but a sing.
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.
So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?
Les autres le sont moins, ils sont malhonnêtes.
No we are not. We spotted flaws in *your* claims. This is
the opposite of dishonesty.
You have shown, repeatedly, dishonest behavior. Including
faking quotes of living and deceased people.
Dans un monde normalement constitué, on devrait dire "Monsieur, ce que vous >> dites est intéressant, et, en effet, beaucoup de choses paraissent davantage
logiques à la façon dont vous les traitez".
Or, les réponses sont plutôt du style, depuis quarante ans (et pas qu'en >> science relativiste, d'ailleurs, mais aussi en criminologie, en théologie, en
politologie) : "Monsieur, vous nous empêchez de tourner en rond, et cela est très
déplaisant"
Ca se passe comme ça, chez Mac Donald's.
Not at all. Your claims are contradictory, ill-founded, in contradiction with experiments. You may not like it, but people are allowed to point this to you.
You egomania is pathetically pathological. You are not a genius, Richard.
You are a crook with mental illness and delusions of grandeur, an infantile behavior and very low integrity. That you've been exercising medicine is frightening.
Le 17/10/2024 à 22:44, Python a écrit :
Le 17/10/2024 à 18:15, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
Le 17/10/2024 à 18:05, Python a écrit :
I didn't say that. This is not my point.
You've convinced nobody, not even cranks.
Ne pas convaincre les cinglés n'est pas une preuve d'erreur scientifique. >>>
Ne pas convaincre les grands pontes de la physique moderne non plus, d'ailleurs.
I didn't say that it is a proof, but a sing.
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.
So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?
Les autres le sont moins, ils sont malhonnêtes.
No we are not. We spotted flaws in *your* claims. This is
the opposite of dishonesty.
You have shown, repeatedly, dishonest behavior. Including
faking quotes of living and deceased people.
Dans un monde normalement constitué, on devrait dire "Monsieur, ce que vous
dites est intéressant, et, en effet, beaucoup de choses paraissent davantage
logiques à la façon dont vous les traitez".
Or, les réponses sont plutôt du style, depuis quarante ans (et pas qu'en >>> science relativiste, d'ailleurs, mais aussi en criminologie, en théologie, en
politologie) : "Monsieur, vous nous empêchez de tourner en rond, et cela est très
déplaisant"
Ca se passe comme ça, chez Mac Donald's.
Not at all. Your claims are contradictory, ill-founded, in contradiction with
experiments. You may not like it, but people are allowed to point this to
you.
You egomania is pathetically pathological. You are not a genius, Richard.
You are a crook with mental illness and delusions of grandeur, an infantile >> behavior and very low integrity. That you've been exercising medicine is
frightening.
I answered your question by placing electromagnetic beeps in blue sent by Terrence to his sister Stella.
We see perfect logic there.
If you don't know how to do it for Stella (according to your request in green)
I'll do it for you.
But don't come and tell me that you understand the theory of relativity and that
I'm an idiot.
I'll put the correspondences in blue for Terrence and the drawing that goes with
it.
I'll put the drawing for Stella, it's up to you to place the correspondences in
green, and to show me that you are the second man in the history of humanity to
master the principle.
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?Q1lfKIOEsSOc7vC0SmfM9lr_4og@jntp/Data.Media:1>
R.H.
Mr. Hertz:
"That c+v is possible destroys relativity and cosmology, as Hubble's
results have to be RE-INTERPRETED."
Light cannot behave as a particle in a medium such as the atmosphere
because its speed is constrained to that of the medium like sound. It
cannot act like a wave in a vacuum without a medium. Somehow, it must do both. That Sirius and the Sun are moving at 5.5 km/sec towards each
other can only be known this way. When the light in space encounters interstellar gas, it is slowed to the speed of light in gas, forming compression waves saving the information of the relative motion of 5.5 km/sec.
Einstein's train and lightning experiment claiming the bolt ahead is
seen simultaneously as the one behind is an irrational denial of
relative motion. He presumes time dilation to conclude it in a
surreptitious petitio principii.
Richard Hachel: Re: "The two lightnings will be simultaneous for the
station master, but ALSO for the traveler." Sound is constrained to one
speed in the atmosphere. The person walking towards the ambulance will
hear the siren at S + 3 mph. You are denying that. You are making an irrational denial of relative motion, as shown by the analogy to sound.
Le 22/10/2024 à 22:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:
Richard Hachel: Re: "The two lightnings will be simultaneous for the station master, but ALSO for the traveler." Sound is constrained to one speed in the atmosphere. The person walking towards the ambulance will
hear the siren at S + 3 mph. You are denying that. You are making an irrational denial of relative motion, as shown by the analogy to sound.
You are making a mistake by equating sound and light.
They are not the same physical principle of propagation.
Sound propagates in a medium, and depends on the quality of this medium.
Light propagates in "nothing at all", or rather, does not propagate.
Sound has a medium: air.
Light has no medium, and it was a mistake to look for something that could support its propagation.
Light is an instantaneous transaction of energy between two atoms, so we cannot really talk about "propagation" which requires a speed, that is to
say a ratio of distance over time.
The question is what gives light an aspect of propagation when there is no propagation? What gives it a wave-like appearance, when there is no wave? What gives it the appearance of a particle when there is no particle.
If you think about it, what the photon seems to be surfing on is not an ether, it is not something metric, it is not something compact.
It is simply universal enisochrony.
In short, the photon does not exist, but seems to exist, and if we had to propose something on which it surfs, it would be spatial anisochornia.
In short, it surfs on time.
By crossing space, it crosses time for the observer who studies it, and
thus gives an impression of speed, of surfing on "this time".
But this is only an illusion. Between the two atoms, between here and
there, there is nothing at all; not the slightest existence.
When the quantum leaves the atom, it is already instantly at the level of
an atom of the receiver.
Niet, ether.
R.H.
Mr. Hertz: Everyone must be compelled to accept that light has a wave-particle duality, so it is impossible to understand it as one or
the other. The speed of light in a vacuum would have to be added to the emitter, just as a particle would. It must form compression waves in a
medium because it is constrained to the speed of the medium, such as air
or intergalactic gas. As with sound, the speed of light must be combined
with that of the observer as long as we are rational.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:17:42 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,606 |