The truth about the Lorentz Transformation.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
and longitudinal beams.

In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
coordinate system to another.

--
Mikko

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-17 16:08:01 UTC

Mikko: In reality, it only applies to an ether. Otherwise, Galilean
transformations apply. You are mistaken, as shown in my first comment.
You have not replied to it. The big ego mathematicians here would reply
that it must be used at speeds near light speed. That is not true
without an ether.

J. J. Lodder

2024-09-18 10:08:00 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: In reality, it only applies to an ether. Otherwise, Galilean
transformations apply. You are mistaken, as shown in my first comment.
You have not replied to it. The big ego mathematicians here would reply
that it must be used at speeds near light speed. That is not true
without an ether.

And it doesn't have anything to do with phlogiston either,

Jan

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-18 16:24:49 UTC

Jan: Lorentz-invariant relative to the ether. Yes! It has nothing to do
with physics. The math is divorced from physics and logic. Space-time
has nothing to do with physics, science, or logic. The LT is as relevant
as phlogiston. Sadly, you can't understand that the ether is still
implicit in your "science."

Ross Finlayson

2024-09-18 20:14:24 UTC

And it doesn't have anything to do with phlogiston either,
Jan

Oh, how about a-diabatic, and, non-a-diabatic?

Hey have you heard that JWST roundly paint-canned inflationary cosmology?

Ross Finlayson

2024-09-18 20:33:55 UTC

And it doesn't have anything to do with phlogiston either,
Jan

Oh, how about a-diabatic, and, non-a-diabatic?
Hey have you heard that JWST roundly paint-canned inflationary cosmology?

Anybody who introduces and adds to the theory
"dark matter", why galaxies hold together, and
"dark energy", why galaxies drift apart,
instead of just noting that it falsifies the model,
actually adding un-observables which are non-scientific,
is guilty of having commited a stupid and the non-scientific.

Articles the other day, "latest cyclotron results
definitely say Higgs is on the red dot", and it's like,

https://cms.cern/news/cms-fired-shot-heavy-higgs-particles-and-gun-smoking

"Enter the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM), ...".

I.e., Higgs is on either side of the dot,
yet not exactly spot-on, ....

Then of course there's Little Higgs and
real gravitons, and Supersymmetry is alive
again three different ways.

And what those news articles are just so much
as of an asthma-inhaler or something, and it's
like, "quit huffing the fumes".

Ross Finlayson

2024-09-18 20:47:56 UTC

And it doesn't have anything to do with phlogiston either,
Jan

Oh, how about a-diabatic, and, non-a-diabatic?
Hey have you heard that JWST roundly paint-canned inflationary cosmology?

Anybody who introduces and adds to the theory
"dark matter", why galaxies hold together, and
"dark energy", why galaxies drift apart,
instead of just noting that it falsifies the model,
actually adding un-observables which are non-scientific,
is guilty of having commited a stupid and the non-scientific.
Articles the other day, "latest cyclotron results
definitely say Higgs is on the red dot", and it's like,
https://cms.cern/news/cms-fired-shot-heavy-higgs-particles-and-gun-smoking
"Enter the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM), ...".
I.e., Higgs is on either side of the dot,
yet not exactly spot-on, ....
Then of course there's Little Higgs and
real gravitons, and Supersymmetry is alive
again three different ways.
And what those news articles are just so much
as of an asthma-inhaler or something, and it's
like, "quit huffing the fumes".

It's like, "what's in the science fair this year",
and it's like, "Little Johhny demonstrated that
he could make a fire-starting kit by shorting
an alkaline or lithium battery, yet then he
started putting a fork in the socket and
the lights went out".

Then it was apparent that alkaline and lithium burn different.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-18 21:06:10 UTC

Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

Python

2024-09-18 21:44:09 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

I'd rather say that they are a stench in the cork.

Ross Finlayson

2024-09-19 04:16:50 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

I'd rather say that they are a stench in the cork.

I imagine that if you don't have have three more replete
models of continuous domains for your real analysis,
and at least three laws of large numbers, and at least
three models of the space 0's and 1's, and a notion of
a continuous topology, and a teleological paradox-free
logical theory what's yet strongly logicist and positivist,
and real wave mechanics for QM what is like for superstrings
or supercordes if you will or ondes, and a better way for
Einstein to be a total field theorist, and a fall gravity
that unites with strong nuclear and isn't merely always
violating least action, and entropy and entropy for
energy and the entelechy and dynamic and dunamis,
that it might not be much of a thing, at all.

Vintners put a lot of store in good cork.

Like it was Dio I suppose once put it,
"like a rainbow in the dark".

"A-Theory"

Python

2024-09-19 16:44:50 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

I'd rather say that they are a stench in the cork.

I imagine that if you don't have have three more replete
models of continuous domains for your real analysis,
and at least three laws of large numbers, and at least
three models of the space 0's and 1's, and a notion of
a continuous topology, and a teleological paradox-free
logical theory what's yet strongly logicist and positivist,
and real wave mechanics for QM what is like for superstrings
or supercordes if you will or ondes, and a better way for
Einstein to be a total field theorist, and a fall gravity
that unites with strong nuclear and isn't merely always
violating least action, and entropy and entropy for
energy and the entelechy and dynamic and dunamis,
that it might not be much of a thing, at all.
Vintners put a lot of store in good cork.
Like it was Dio I suppose once put it,
"like a rainbow in the dark".
"A-Theory"

What is the point of posting random-generated meaningless posts?

Ross Finlayson

2024-09-19 19:29:20 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Ross' thoughts are like a wrench in the works.

I'd rather say that they are a stench in the cork.

I imagine that if you don't have have three more replete
models of continuous domains for your real analysis,
and at least three laws of large numbers, and at least
three models of the space 0's and 1's, and a notion of
a continuous topology, and a teleological paradox-free
logical theory what's yet strongly logicist and positivist,
and real wave mechanics for QM what is like for superstrings
or supercordes if you will or ondes, and a better way for
Einstein to be a total field theorist, and a fall gravity
that unites with strong nuclear and isn't merely always
violating least action, and entropy and entropy for
energy and the entelechy and dynamic and dunamis,
that it might not be much of a thing, at all.
Vintners put a lot of store in good cork.
Like it was Dio I suppose once put it,
"like a rainbow in the dark".
"A-Theory"

What is the point of posting random-generated meaningless posts?

"Moment and Motion: the metronome and memory"

Mikko

2024-09-19 08:58:47 UTC

We observe only one universe so with and without ether cannot be
compared. In this universe Galileo transforations are not symmetry
transforamtions of laws of nature. You may try to argue that this
is evidence for the existence of aether.

--
Mikko

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-19 09:20:47 UTC

We observe only one universe

Sure you do, but we observe another, poor idiot.
In our world "improper" clocks of GPS keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-20 02:57:45 UTC

Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
the LT. Our universe has no ether.

Richard Hachel

2024-09-20 08:00:05 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
the LT. Our universe has no ether.

But there is no need for the ether for Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.

Poincaré-Lorentz transformations are of great mathematical beauty and
obvious physical reality.

Why do you want to give up, or not believe in these transformations?

It is as if you were saying: "There is no pink unicorn, so I do not
believe that 2+2 equals 4."

Your reasoning has no substance.

R.H.

Mikko

2024-09-21 09:09:13 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
the LT. Our universe has no ether.

Lorentz transformations are useful. Your opinions are not.

--
Mikko

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-21 10:02:57 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: No, I don't accept the ether. That's why I would be a fool to use
the LT. Our universe has no ether.

Lorentz transformations are useful. Your opinions are not.

Nope, LT are useless and so are your opinions.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-21 04:34:28 UTC

Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
the LT, which makes them unequal.

Ross Finlayson

2024-09-21 04:45:49 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
the LT, which makes them unequal.

This days the field theory is a gauge theory where torsions
arrive to be resolved what makes for "whatever tensors make
gauge theory" as with regards to "the real gauge, the R-gauge".

Otherwise what you got there is
what Einstein calls "spatial" and "spacial".

So, being "coordinate-free" and all is a pretty relaxed condition.
Thusly, "tensors" are "whatever works: coordinated".

Mikko

2024-09-21 09:14:27 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
the LT, which makes them unequal.

In situations where the difference is big enough to care about the
Lorentz transformed coordinates give physically correct results.
Of course you give some coordinates with any transformation but the
laws of nature take unusual forms in the transformed coordinates.
With Lorentz transformations the laws of the nature are the same in
both coordinate systems.

--
Mikko

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-21 10:07:20 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mikko: If Mr. Hertz is correct and τ = t, OR t = t', then you cannot use
the LT, which makes them unequal.

In situations where the difference is big enough to care about the
Lorentz transformed coordinates give physically correct results.

In your moronic gedanken scenarios - for
sure.
In the meantime in the real world, however,
forbidden by your mad church improper clocks
of GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did. And even
theoretically - LT couldn't be applied in
the vincinity of Earth, because of gravity.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-17 17:36:41 UTC

Mikko: Yes! It's a transformation of the time coordinate that is only
necessary with an ether to save the ether from the null result.

rhertz

2024-09-21 01:07:31 UTC

******************************************************************
In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
coordinate system to another.

--
Mikko
*****************************************************************

Mikko, through the years I learned to respect most of your opinions.

But I completely disagree with your comment from above.

The only, legitimate and not properly recognized MATHEMATICAL
TRANSFORMATION from one coordinate system to another is the one
performed by the great Woldemar Voigt, in 1897, more than a decade
before Lorentz.

He expressed the theory in the purest mathematical sense, without
introducing mirrors, light beams and else. Lorentz himself just ADOPTED
many of the Voigt's finding in his 1904, and he didn't credit Voigt.

Only in a meeting, in 1911, Voigt (a decent soul) reminded Lorentz about
his plagiarism of LOCAL TIME and LAMBDA FACTOR, for which Lorentz
apologized, in the presence of witnesses.

Voigt didn't pursuit fame and glory. He was a pure breed scientist,
highly recognized by his peers until his death, circa 1920.

KEY PROPOSALS OF VOIGT'S 1897 PAPER:

- Which is the coordinate transformation that PRESERVES THE WAVE
EQUATION?
- Is it possible that such transformation be LINEAR?
- A point in space is described by its xyzt coordinates (he introduced
4D), plus its velocity vector.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler

Here are the linear transforms that he managed:

VOIGT'S LINEAR TRANSFORMS HYPOTHESIS:

x by ξ = xm₁ + yn₁ + zp₁ - αt
y by η = xm₂ + yn₂ + zp₂ - βt
z by ζ = xm₃ + yn₃ + zp₃ - γt
t by τ = t - (ax + by + cz)

Do you recognize the coordinate transform variables (ξ, η, ζ, τ )?
They were EXACTLY THE ONES that Einstein used in his 1905 paper.
Coincidence? NOT AT ALL.

The greek symbols are not even aligned in a translation table.
Einstein READ Voigt's paper!

Voigt obtained the famous GAMMA FACTOR, which is the heart of Lorentz
transforms. Plus, he obtained the local time factor -vx/c², which
Lorentz plagiarized.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY OF VOIGT WAS:

τ = t, OR t = t'

Mikko

2024-09-21 09:24:21 UTC

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
******************************************************************
In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
coordinate system to another.

But I completely disagree with your comment from above.
The only, legitimate and not properly recognized MATHEMATICAL
TRANSFORMATION from one coordinate system to another is the one
performed by the great Woldemar Voigt, in 1897, more than a decade
before Lorentz.

Lorentz transformations are nearly the same as Voigt transfomations.
They both are transformations from one coordinate system to another.

At the time the transformations were presented the laws of nature
were thought to be invariant under the change of scale (i.e., when
all durations and distances are multiplied with the same factor and
possibly some other quantities by some powers of the same factor).
When the Lorentz group is extended with scale transformations the
resulting group contains both Lorentz and Voigt transformations.

--
Mikko

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-21 10:08:55 UTC

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
******************************************************************
In reality the Lorentz transformation is a transformation from one
coordinate system to another.

You keep repeating that delusional crap, but
your alleged "laws of nature" are fabricated
similar way to laws of god/gods, and for similar
reasons.

Volney

2024-09-17 16:22:02 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
and longitudinal beams.

Nope. The Lorentz Transformation is to transform measurements of events
in one frame to another frame, as Mikko told you.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

The Lorentz Transformation says nothing about an ether,it is simply a
transformation of events from one coordinate system to another.

You apparently failed Relativity 101. No wonder you are confused.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-17 17:49:54 UTC

Volney: I'm sorry you can't understand. Historically, the Lorentz
Transformation was originally and always will be a transformation of the
time coordinate to save the ether and is utterly pointless without an
ether.

J. J. Lodder

2024-09-18 10:08:00 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Volney: I'm sorry you can't understand. Historically, the Lorentz
Transformation was originally and always will be a transformation of the
time coordinate to save the ether and is utterly pointless without an
ether.

Historically, perhaps.
(but Lorentz wouldn't have agreed with you)

But all that is a thing of the past.
Nowadays the Lorentz transform doesn't have anything to do
with any kind of physics.
It tells us what kind of space-time we live in,
so all physical theories must be locally Lorentz-invariant,
(or be wrong before they even get started)

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-18 10:15:54 UTC

Historically, perhaps.
(but Lorentz wouldn't have agreed with you)
But all that is a thing of the past.
Nowadays the Lorentz transform doesn't have anything to do
with any kind of physics.
It tells us what kind of space-time we live in,
so all physical theories must be locally Lorentz-invariant,
(or be wrong before they even get started)

Delusions of a sick religious maniac.
But, of course, as you're living in your
delusions, it's true for space-time youj
live in.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-18 18:49:31 UTC

Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
made.

J. J. Lodder

2024-09-19 10:52:43 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
made.

Of course, they didn't disagree.
As for ridiculous mistakes, they are all yours,

Jan

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-20 20:49:49 UTC

Jan: You lied when you said above that Lorentz agreed with Einstein that
there was no ether. Anyone can learn this from the excellent book
"Einstein and the Ether" by Ludwik Kostro, published in 2000.

Lorentz did not make the mistake of employing the LT without an ether.
Einstein took that leap.

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

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: Then Lorentz would have made the same ridiculous mistake Einstein
made.

Of course, they didn't disagree.
As for ridiculous mistakes, they are all yours,

Jan
*******************************************************

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-18 20:05:04 UTC

Jan: Yes, he would have agreed with me because he had an ether: "Lorentz
ether theory describes a world in which light moves through a medium
called ether, and observers that are not at rest with respect to this
ether see everything Lorentz transformed. In some philosophical sense,
there is a preferred reference frame: that in which the ether is at
rest." -"Are Lorentz aether theory and special relativity fully
equivalent?"
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/524058/are-lorentz-aether-theory-and-special-relativity-fully-equivalent#524634

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-18 20:20:48 UTC

Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and
appealing to "authority."

J. J. Lodder

2024-09-20 06:47:45 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and
appealing to "authority."

If you cannot quote in a correct manner
I will stop replying to you,

Jan

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-20 21:02:27 UTC

Jan: Obviously, I meant "agree."

When, where, and how did Lorentz agree with Einstein keeping the LT and
discarding the Ether? He wasn't that stupid.
--------------------------------------------------------

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jan: When, where, and how did he disagree? You are making things up and
appealing to "authority."

If you cannot quote in a correct manner
I will stop replying to you,

Jan
------------------------------------------------------

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2024-09-20 21:38:07 UTC

Jan: I don't have to prove parallel lines don't meet. You have to prove
they do.

J. J. Lodder

2024-09-22 18:51:51 UTC

Jan: [snip]

OK, that's it.
No more replies to you until you learn to quote correctly,

Jan

gharnagel

2024-09-19 11:58:28 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
and longitudinal beams.
Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
than the transverse.
This is the difference that should have been detected by the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
an ether.
Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

So what are you trying to say?
(1) "We need the LT because there IS an ether."
(2) "We don't need the LT because there is no ether."
(3) You have no idea what you're trying to say.

I submit that (1) and (2) are false.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-19 12:10:10 UTC

And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

gharnagel

2024-09-19 13:01:34 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the

transverse

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
and longitudinal beams.
Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
than the transverse.
This is the difference that should have been detected by the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations

without

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
an ether.
Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke
his narcissistic ego. And as he is inclined to do:
insult, slander and lie. The truth has long legs and
overtakes Wozniak's short legs.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-19 13:41:18 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the

transverse

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
and longitudinal beams.
Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed

without

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
an ether.
Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke

As is his usual wont, Harnagel is raving, slandering and
insulting in a sorry attempt to deny the reality,
where GPS clocks are in sync and their indications
are always equal - with the precision of an acceptable
error.

gharnagel

2024-09-19 14:00:32 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke

The topic of this thread is special relativity. Wozniak
horns in with off-topic baloney about GR, which is false
anyway. He has been spanked for his lies but he is an
impudent and incorrigible congenital liar, filling up the
threads with irrelevant irrationality.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to
speak out and remove all doubt.” -- Abraham Lincoln

And Wozniak has removed all doubt.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-19 14:34:20 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
And that GPS clocks can't be real, as they don't
want to fit the delusions of your idiot guru.

As is his usual wont, Wozniak is garbling GR with SR
in a sorry attempt to get his name in print to stroke

The topic of this thread is special relativity.

No, it isn't. It is "truth about the LT"
and the truth about them is that outside
of those delusional gedanken tales spred
by your insane church - they are completely
unusable.

gharnagel

2024-09-20 11:25:00 UTC

Post by gharnagel
The topic of this thread is special relativity.

No, it isn't.
It is "truth about the LT"

which is a set of equations valid in special
relativity. Wozniak is lying again.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
and the truth about them is that outside
of those delusional gedanken tales spred
by your insane church - they are completely
unusable.

Wozniak is lying again. SR is quite accurate
in explaining particle accelerator results,
for example. Wozniak is either a congenital
liar or he's an arrogant ignoramus.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a
fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
-- Abraham Lincoln

And Wozniak has removed all doubt.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-20 11:48:28 UTC

Post by gharnagel
The topic of this thread is special relativity.

No, it isn't.
It is "truth about the LT"

which is a set of equations valid in special
relativity.

So are "2+2=4" "7x3=21", poor halfbrain.
The topic of the thread is not SR, and
Lorentz has invented his equations for
another theory.

Wozniak is lying again.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
and the truth about them is that outside
of those delusional gedanken tales spred
by your insane church - they are completely
unusable.

Wozniak is lying again. SR is quite accurate
in explaining particle accelerator results,

And the theory of angels pushing planets
along crystal rings was quite accurate about
planet movements.
Doesn't change the fact that LT are practically
unusable.

Richard Hachel

2024-09-20 16:52:55 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
So are "2+2=4" "7x3=21", poor halfbrain.
The topic of the thread is not SR, and
Lorentz has invented his equations for
another theory.

Poincaré-Lorentz transformations do not pose any particular problems.

They came out of the brain of the French mathematician to try to explain
the negativity of the Michelson and Morley experiment.

Indeed, if we take the speed of light in a vacuum, and add or subtract the
speed of the Earth in space, there should be, depending on the position of
the interferometer arms, and at six-month intervals,
very significant variations in the interference fringes.

However, nothing happens.

As if the Earth were at rest in an absolute vacuum, which seems absurd.

Physicists have correctly solved the problem by assuming that our idea of
"speed in absolute space" was an idea given a priori, and that in
relativity, it had no meaning.

What would this absolute frame of reference be, where things could exist
at absolute rest?

It does not exist, and everything exists "as a function of "something
else" and according to a relative speed.

It took me many years to find myself (that is to say really by myself, and
not like the idiot who just repeats them without understanding them) the
Poincaré transformations.

I don't think they can be discussed.

Many things can be discussed, it's true.

But not that.

I recall the Poincaré formulas given in positive form (which I also do)
and in Hachel notation:
x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
y'=y
z'=z
To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
t'=t

These five coordinates are labels. They transpose, and vice versa by
changing the sign that gives the reciprocal equation in perfect
mathematics) the real world of an object in what the same object crossing
it at speed Vo would perceive.

Poincaré's physics and mathematics are entirely correct.

R.H.

Sylvia Else

2024-09-22 14:41:34 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the
same place - they both started with the same premise.

Sylvia.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-22 14:53:16 UTC

A nonsense, lady - Lorentz was an aether man.
And - even Your insane guru couldn't
stick to such an absurd for a long time and his
GR had to withdraw from it.

J. J. Lodder

2024-09-23 07:58:05 UTC

It is where Einstein started and where Lorentz ended up
after much toil and trouble,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-23 09:25:37 UTC

It is where Einstein started

Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
from it.

Python

2024-09-23 10:05:56 UTC

It is where Einstein started

Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
from it.

How could you say? You refused to follow science courses as
it is a bunch of religious political propaganda set up by
criminals. Remember?

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-23 10:47:46 UTC

It is where Einstein started

Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
from it.

How could you say?

Simply.

Post by Python
You refused to follow science courses as

Save your ravings and insults, poor stinker,
just answer:
"All observers measure the same speed for
light" - is this a rule valid in your GR
shit? No exceptions?

Python

2024-09-23 11:48:24 UTC

It is where Einstein started

Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
from it.

How could you say?

Simply.

Post by Python
You refused to follow science courses as

Save your ravings and insults, poor stinker,
"All observers measure the same speed for
light" - is this a rule valid in your GR
shit? No exceptions?

How could you say? You refused to follow science courses as
it is a bunch of religious political propaganda set up by
criminals. Remember?

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-23 12:29:10 UTC

It is where Einstein started

Unfortunately, even with all of his madness
he was unable to stick to the idiocy for a
long time, and his GR shit had to withdraw
from it.

How could you say?

Simply.

Post by Python
You refused to follow science courses as

Save your ravings and insults, poor stinker,
"All observers measure the same speed for
light" - is this a rule valid in your GR
shit? No exceptions?

How could you say?

Simply.
But how could a relativistic piece
of shit ever answer a question?

Thomas Heger

2024-09-25 05:03:07 UTC

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but 'form
invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated Voigt
and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.

This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.

And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

TH

Sylvia Else

2024-09-25 06:23:18 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
the same place - they both started with the same premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but 'form
invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated Voigt
and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.
TH

One can formulate the problem in different ways, and that can lead to
different approaches to finding a solution.

But the underlying issue was the same - the measured speed of light is
independent of the motion of the person doing the measuring. Any
analysis that correctly describes that will lead to the Lorentz
transformation, regardless of philosophical notions about what's
happening behind the scenes.

Sylvia.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-25 07:39:26 UTC

Post by Sylvia Else
But the underlying issue was the same - the measured speed of light is
independent of the motion of the person doing the measuring.

Even Your insane guru was unable to stick
to this absurd for a long time, and his
GR had to withdraw.

Python

2024-09-25 08:33:01 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
the same place - they both started with the same premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but 'form
invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated Voigt
and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-09-25 10:29:44 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
the same place - they both started with the same premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated
Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Thomas makes stuff up all the time.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-25 10:59:46 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
the same place - they both started with the same premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
your idiot guru did later in his raging
madness).

Python

2024-09-25 11:05:53 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in
the same place - they both started with the same premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not
Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

No he didn't.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-25 11:26:59 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up
in the same place - they both started with the same premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
Even if not clearly enough for you, poor stinker.

Python

2024-09-25 11:43:24 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the
Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up
in the same place - they both started with the same premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation
something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
Even if not clearly enough for you

I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

I thought it was clear enough for anyone able to read.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.

Nice signature.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-25 11:55:44 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at
the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz
ended up in the same place - they both started with the same
premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
Even if not clearly enough for you

I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

So - does his moronic church assumes EG
true? REALLY?
Yes, he did. He was a true idiot indeed.
And your stinking lie has short legs,
poor stinker.

Python

2024-09-25 12:03:51 UTC

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
and longitudinal beams.
Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
than the transverse.
This is the difference that should have been detected by the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these
equations without
an ether.
Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at
the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz
ended up in the same place - they both started with the same
premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light,
but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
Even if not clearly enough for you

I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
true? REALLY?

It does. Really.

Wozniak all of this is far above your head. Find another hobby.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-25 12:23:35 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at
the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz
ended up in the same place - they both started with the same
premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light,
but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion,
which motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
Even if not clearly enough for you

I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
true? REALLY?

It does. Really.
Wozniak all of this is far above your head.

No it is not. A fanatic piece of shit
is lying impudently and its lies stink;
nothing especially complicated.

The facts still are - your idiot guru
has announced EG false and his obedient
worshippers have doctored evidence against
it.

Python

2024-09-25 12:25:32 UTC

...

Post by Python
I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
true? REALLY?

It does. Really.
Wozniak all of this is far above your head.

No it is not. A fanatic piece of shit
is lying impudently and its lies stink;
nothing especially complicated.

Still too complicated for you. Sure.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
The facts still are - [Einstein]
has announced EG false

No he didn't.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-09-25 12:50:06 UTC

Post by Python
...

Post by Python
I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.

So - does [Relativity] assumes EG
true? REALLY?

It does. Really.
Wozniak all of this is far above your head.

No it is not. A fanatic piece of shit
is lying impudently and its lies stink;
nothing especially complicated.

Still too complicated for you. Sure.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
The facts still are - [Einstein]
has announced EG false

No he didn't.

Well, even considering the usual level
of relativistic worshippers - you lie
EXTREMLY impudently; not that it's
a big surprise, of course.

Thomas Heger

2024-09-26 06:34:15 UTC

If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all
observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at
the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz
ended up in the same place - they both started with the same
premise.

As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but
'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which
motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that
foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.

You read what? Where?

Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
Even if not clearly enough for you

I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.
I thought it was clear enough for anyone able to read.

Sure, Einstein didn't.

SRT is actually based on Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics.

This is so, because Einstein actually wrote that.

BUT: Euclidean geometry was wrong in this context of (SRT) relativity,
because Euclidiean space is based on the idea of coordinates without a
dependency on time.

Iow: if you have some remote event on -say- the x-axis of Euclidian
space, this is simultaneaous, if a connecting signal would need no time
to reach that point.

Euclidean space is therefore 'timeless'.

But the space of SRT is NOT independent of time.

To show this was the very purpose of SRT!

To refer to Euclidean space was therefor wrong in SRT.

TH

Thomas Heger

2024-09-26 06:17:58 UTC