This is a comparison of einstenian and newtonian kinematics. In the
moving frame, the distance (0, x') is measured from an observer at the
origin of the frame at rest.
CASE: Light moving from 0 to x' in the moving frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Einstein SR. Light behave as wave, and c is the maximun speed.
This is a comparison of einstenian and newtonian kinematics. In the
moving frame, the distance (0, x') is measured from an observer at the
origin of the frame at rest.
CASE: Light moving from 0 to x' in the moving frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Einstein SR. Light behave as wave, and c is the maximun speed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newton. Light behave as corpuscles (photons?). It's allowed c + v
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In astronomy (Cassini, others), there are evidences that radar-ranging experiments with Venus and Mars, the speed of light is added to the
speed v (between Earth and these planets). Known since 1965.
That c+v is possible destroys relativity and cosmology, as Hubble's
results have to be RE-INTERPRETED.
It's hard for relativists to accept this, as 110 years of lies with einstenian physics COLLAPSE completely.
Le 16/10/2024 à 14:38, Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
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.
Unrelated.
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.
Unrelated.
If you ask a physicist, even a Nobel Prize winner, why his relativisticCompletely false. The theory does not imply that 9*4 = 7.2. Moreover I
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.
have shown why proper_time * apparent_speed =/= distance. This is not
calling for "eradication of the
crank [you]". A sound answer is not a call to assassination. You have a
very thin skin.
Like your fellow crook Donald J. Trump by the way.
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)".
Unrelated (and a bunch of lies, a huge majority of French people won't
say that).
No, I do not know.
I do. Most cranks are not cranky enough to not recognize your claims
as incoherent garbage.
Le 17/10/2024 à 23:19, Richard Hachel a écrit :
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.
At a certain point, Stella sends a light signal to Terrence.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 9:01:08 +0000, Mikko wrote:
<snip>
Special Relativity means the theory presented in the first part of
Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". That theory
says nothing about the nature of light. The only property of light
is its speed.
WRONG!
Read this part of "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times":
"Let a ray of light depart from A at the time4 tA, let it be reflected
at B at the time tB, and reach A again at the time t'A. Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we
find that ...."
Definition of RAY OF LIGHT (used for 300 years):
The light traveling in any one direction in a straight line is called a
ray of light. A group of light rays given out from a source is called a
beam of light.
In 1817, English physicist Thomas Young (1773 to 1829) calculated
light's wavelength from an interference pattern, thereby not only
figuring out that the wavelength is 1 μm or less, but also having a
handle on the truth that light is a transverse wave.
The second part of the article shows that the theory presented in the
first part is compatible with Maxwell's equations so that the two
theories can be used together, which is demomstrated by solving some
problems that way.
The second part is A BLATANT PLAGIARISM OF 1904 LORENTZ PAPER!. Even the addition of velocities was plagiarized from Poincaré (1905).
The second part is A BLATANT PLAGIARISM OF 1904 LORENTZ PAPER!. Even the addition of velocities was plagiarized from Poincaré (1905).
Den 17.10.2024 03:29, skrev rhertz:
The second part is A BLATANT PLAGIARISM OF 1904 LORENTZ PAPER!. Even the
addition of velocities was plagiarized from Poincaré (1905).
You have not understood anything of Einstein's text, which is
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:53:03 |
| Calls: | 9,665 |
| Files: | 13,712 |
| Messages: | 6,167,660 |