Relativity and the nature of light. Waves or particles?

[rhertz]

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.

c (t₁ - t₀) = c Δt₁₀ = v Δt₁₀ + x' ; PERCEIVED by observer at rest (no
speed addition).
(c - v) Δt₁₀ = x' ; Δt₁₀ = x'/(c - v) ; Mathematical time dilation
(by calculation).
c Δτ₁₀ = c (τ₁ - τ₀) = x' ; Δτ₁₀ = x'/c ; MEASURED by observer in the
moving frame

Δt₁₀ and Δτ₁₀ are different and depend on the observer location.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newton. Light behave as corpuscles (photons?). It's allowed c + v

(c + v) Δt₁₀ = v Δt₁₀ + x' ; PERCEIVED by observer at rest (addition of
velocities)
(c + v) Δt₁₀ - v Δt₁₀ = x' ; Δt₁₀ = x'/c ; No time dilation (by
calculation).
c Δτ₁₀ = x' ; Δτ₁₀ = x'/c ; MEASURED by observer in the moving frame

Δt₁₀ and Δτ₁₀ are equal for observers at rest or moving at v speed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by rhertz
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.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by rhertz
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 :-) ?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
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.

Ask them.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Completely false. The theory does not imply that 9*4 = 7.2. Moreover I
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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).

Post by Richard Hachel
No, I do not know.

I do. Most cranks are not cranky enough to not recognize your claims
as incoherent garbage.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
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 à 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.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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 à 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
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 won't reply to a French message posted on a English speaking group
(which
denotes a complete lack of respect of the audience).

Moreover I've already answered here and there.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
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?

Déjà que les grands pontes sont dépassés, alors les cranks...

Pas sur que ça me coûte beaucoup d'encre, sinon...

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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?

I didn't say that. This is not my point.

You've convinced nobody, not even cranks.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python
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.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.

So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.

So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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?***@jntp/Data.Media:2>

R.H.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.

So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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?***@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.

So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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.
R.H.

At a certain point, Stella sends a light signal to Terrence. Could you
circle in green on your drawing the event of the signal's emission and the
event of its reception, on the diagram where the x-axis = 0 represents
Terrence's position?

At a certain point, Terrence sends a light signal to Stella, who receives
it. Could you circle in blue on your drawing the event of the signal's
emission and the event of its reception, on the diagram where the x-axis =
0 represents Stella's position?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
Les cinglés sont excusables, ils sont cinglés.

So, according to you, Wozniak, Heger, etc. are mad?

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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.
R.H.

At a certain point, Stella sends a light signal to Terrence.

And then she uses The Force to bring
her lightsaber on.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Python
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

Completely false. The theory does not imply that 9*4 = 7.2. Moreover I
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.

Post by Richard Hachel
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).

I guess you and I know know different samples of French people from
those that "Dr" Hachel knows. I have _never_ heard a French person
saying anything like that.

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel
No, I do not know.

I do. Most cranks are not cranky enough to not recognize your claims
as incoherent garbage.

[rhertz]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by rhertz
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.

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).

[Richard Hachel]

Post by rhertz
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).

No, the second postulate is not false.

It is not, moreover, a postulate in the proper sense.

The postulate is anisochrony (I am currently writing a short article
which, if it is successful, which I doubt due to the construction and
blindness of my contemporaries), could be completed by other short
chapters to give a coherent whole on relativistic kinematics.

Anisochrony (relativity of simultaneity and impossibility of covering a
simple reference point with clocks synchronized WITH EACH OTHER) will then
lead by perfect deduction to the invariance of the TRANSVERSE speed of
light.

It is therefore not a postulate but the consequence of another postulate
based on the experience of a physical impossibility of exceeding c, and
which has extended to all particles and laws of physics.

As for the speed of the source, it increases the energy perceived by the
receiver, like the speed of a petanque ball on a bell will increase the
power of the sound, without the speed of the sound wave increasing.

I gave the six corresponding equations recently on this forum,
showing the relativity of the electromagnetic wavelength and frequency as
a function of α, α',and µ.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by rhertz
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.

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.

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.

[rhertz]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 9:01:08 +0000, Mikko wrote:

<snip>

Post by Mikko
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.

Post by Mikko
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).

[Mikko]

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by Mikko
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!

No, your "WRONG" is wrong.

Post by rhertz
"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 ...."

That is perfectly compatible with what I said. Nothing is said about
the nature of light.

Post by rhertz
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.

That is simply a definition. A definition does not say anything
about the nature of anything, only about the meaning of a term.

Post by rhertz
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.

True (except that an interference pattern does not tell whether the
wave is longitudinal or transverse) but not relevant. There is no
reference to that result in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
so that result is not incorporated in Speial Relativity.

Post by rhertz

Post by Mikko
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).

Irrelevant. Special relativity is the theory presented in the first part.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by 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
very obvious from your ridiculous claim that §3 is a plagiarism
of Lorentz. You can't even have read §3 properly, you have only
scrutinised the text to find "x' = x − vt", and when you found
it, you got an orgasm, shouting:
"EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!"

But you are yet again making a fool of yourself, and yet again
you are demonstrating that you are unable to read a text and
understand what you read.

See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read §3
Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former

On the first page (page 5) Einstein defines the coordinate systems.
The "stationary system" K(t,x,y,z) coordinates are Latin letters
The "moving system" k(τ,ξ,η,ζ) coordinates are Greek letters

So the Galilean transform is: ξ = x - vt

You will _not_ find this anywhere in Einstein's paper.

The x' is a point in the stationary system K, it is NOT
a coordinate in the moving system k.

So x' = x - vt is a _moving_ point in K.
And since x' is moving with the speed v, it will be stationary
relative to k.

Einstein wrote:
" We first define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t, τ(t,x',y,z)"

This is the first step in finding the functions:
τ(t,x,y,z) = β(t - (v/c²)x)
ξ(t,x,y,z) = β(x - vt)
η(t,x,y,z) = y
ζ(t,x,y,z) = z

Read the math in §3!
There is no resemblance to anything you find in Lorentz's paper.
Lorentz didn't even write the Lorentz transform in that paper!
He only used the Galilean transform first, and then the
"change of variable" transform. These two transforms together
is the Lorentz transform.

See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"For a reader who is not very skilled in mathematics,
it may not be obvious that the Lorentz transformation
is defined in that paper."

Richard Hertz is obviously in this category, because he thought
the "change of variables" transform was the Lorentz transform.
He wrote:
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5
"
----------------------------------

I will repeat it again if you repeat your ridiculous claim:
" §3 IS A PLAGIARISM OF 1904 LORENTZ PAPER!"

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by 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

Neither you are and the mumble of the idiot was not even
consistent.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
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.

SR doesn't depend on light being a wave.
The speed of light is invariant whether you model it as
a wave or a particle.
QED, which is an extremely well confirmed theory,
is based on SR, but light is a particle.

Post by rhertz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newton. Light behave as corpuscles (photons?). It's allowed c + v

The emission theory is thoroughly falsified by several experiments.

Post by rhertz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

:-D

Post by rhertz
That c+v is possible destroys relativity and cosmology, as Hubble's
results have to be RE-INTERPRETED.

https://paulba.no/div/Brightening.pdf

Post by rhertz
It's hard for relativists to accept this, as 110 years of lies with
einstenian physics COLLAPSE completely.

Since all physicists born after 1900 know that the emission theory
is falsified, you have to yet again to make a fool of yourself
by claiming that all physicists are members of a MAFFIA, and profit
from it, and their experimental results are COOKED with the help
of statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity.

:-D

[Bertietaylor]

Post by rhertz
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.
c (t₁ - t₀) = c Δt₁₀ = v Δt₁₀ + x' ; PERCEIVED by observer at rest (no
speed addition).
(c - v) Δt₁₀ = x' ; Δt₁₀ = x'/(c - v) ; Mathematical time dilation
(by calculation).
c Δτ₁₀ = c (τ₁ - τ₀) = x' ; Δτ₁₀ = x'/c ; MEASURED by observer in the
moving frame
Δt₁₀ and Δτ₁₀ are different and depend on the observer location.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newton. Light behave as corpuscles (photons?). It's allowed c + v
(c + v) Δt₁₀ = v Δt₁₀ + x' ; PERCEIVED by observer at rest (addition of
velocities)
(c + v) Δt₁₀ - v Δt₁₀ = x' ; Δt₁₀ = x'/c ; No time dilation (by
calculation).
c Δτ₁₀ = x' ; Δτ₁₀ = x'/c ; MEASURED by observer in the moving frame
Δt₁₀ and Δτ₁₀ are equal for observers at rest or moving at v speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

A very thin vertical dipole with a ground plane behind it has a gain of
12 db while as per math it should have 9db maximum.

That is possible when aether is present such that a certain cross
section provides the gain as is found from the aperture of a horn
antenna.

This proof of aether gets rid of quantum theory thus making light fully
wave motion with aether as medium.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[The Starmaker]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.

Light is a particle.


par-ti-cle


Light doesn't wave.

There are no light waves, only particles.

Where do yous people get the idea that light is acts, or behaves. or
pretends...that's it's a wave?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Starmaker: Thank you. That's a very base and stalwart stance to take!

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.

The principle of time dilation and the principle of the relativity of
simultaneity (that is to say, above all, of universal anisochrony) only
pose a problem to those who have not understood it.

But strangely, it is not those who are the most hostile to me, it is the
bigwigs of physics, who do not understand much more.

You are talking here about the experience of lightning on the rails.

Here, everyone drowns. Einstein like the others.

The two lightnings will be simultaneous for the station master, but ALSO
for the traveler.

However, this is not what Einstein says (who is wrong), nor what today's
relativists say (who still have not understood after 120 years).

It is so obvious that if the two observers cross, the photons arriving
from behind at this place, and from in front at the same place will be
simultaneous for all observers in the universe, and whatever their frame
of reference (even the most complex, rotating, transverse, accelerated,
sub-luminal, etc.).

If we place the frames of reference of each correctly, the WHOLE universe
will be in the same hyperplane of present time, very deformed in x, that
is certain, since x'=(x+vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²), but in the same hyperplane of
simultaneity.

So why are physicists not able to say it?

Because they are doing it in the abstract, and they do not say where the
origin of their frame of reference really is, and on WHAT does it base its
notion of cosmic simultaneity?

It is NOT on the observer himself, but on a point placed elsewhere, in a
fourth virtual spatial dimension is abstract.

However, this point is not part of reality, of our world.

It is this ignorance that will make us believe in the rupture of
simultaneity by change of frame of reference.

This does not exist for observers.

Certainly, for observers, there is a reciprocal rupture of chornotropy,
that is to say of the speed at which the hands of watches turn.

But that has nothing to do with the invariance of simultaneity by change
of momentarily joint observers whatever their speed or their type of frame
of reference (rotating, accelerated, Galilean, etc.)

R.H.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Richard Hachel
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.

'nuff said! :-D

[The Starmaker]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

Light, it's particle...existed BEFORE the big bang. The big bang gave
light it's mass.

Before the big bang, Light traveled without space or time...in a
straight line.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

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.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

You are right, we must be rational.
And when there is something that we do not understand, we must seek to
understand it rationally.
It is not nature and the cosmos that are not rational, nor the laws of
physics, but the mind of man.
If man were rational, he would implement the Chinese proverb: "It is
better to appear ignorant for five minutes than to remain so all your
life".
This means that when you do not understand something, you should not
hesitate to ask, even if it means appearing stupid, and to lower your
pants a little.

This is what it means to be rational.

Now, let me explain: light is neither really a wave in the sense that we
understand it in physics, nor a particle in the sense that we understand
it in kinematics.

But it takes the appearance of both states depending on how we look at it.

What is a "photon" really?

It is an instantaneous transaction of a quantum of energy between an
atomic source and an atomic receiver IN the receiver's frame of reference.

It is only the spatial anisochrony between the two ends of the path
that gives light an observable speed of c, a speed that it does not really
have (since the transfer is instantaneous for the photon and for the
receiver, but not for the transmitter whose photon leaves at c/2
"somewhere" in the future without him really knowing where (he will only
know when the event is in his hyperplane of simultaneity).

The best way to think of the photon is therefore, in relativistic physics:
instantaneous transmission in the receiver's space-time of a quantum of
energy.

This way of thinking, which is correct, is however not very intuitive.

The physicist being used to thinking: it is the source that is active, and
sends the photon, and it is the receiver that is passive.
However, it is strangely the opposite that is true.
The source is totally passive (it is only excited, heated and made capable
of transmitting) and it is the receiver that is active and snatches a
quantum from the source, and live-direct FOR HIM.

"They said things backwards".

R.H.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

R.H.: Re: "What is a "photon" really?

It is an instantaneous transaction of a quantum of energy between an
atomic source and an atomic receiver IN the receiver's frame of
reference."

I like the above description because the photon must have waves within
itself.