I dare to relativists to explain local time: t-vx/c²

[rhertz]

Originally, local time was FOUND by Voigt in 1887. Here is the link:

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

Go to equations 8 and 10.

Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or
Voigt).


Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A
MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is
an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH
development.


Even using Minkowski, AS OF TODAY the expression:


t-vx/c²


couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.


Can anyone here give it a try?

BTW: For Voigt and his sound waves plus Doppler effect, it had a
meaning.

If you want to verify why it's a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT, read Einstein's
1905 paper, on

§ 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

From fifth equation plus the resourceful use of x' = x - vt (Galileo)



Good luck, relativists.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.
Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or
Voigt).
Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A
MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is
an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH
development.
t-vx/c²
couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.
Can anyone here give it a try?
BTW: For Voigt and his sound waves plus Doppler effect, it had a
meaning.
If you want to verify why it's a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT, read Einstein's
1905 paper, on
§ 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
From fifth equation plus the resourceful use of x' = x - vt (Galileo)
Good luck, relativists.

I think it gets involved as even things like
the difference between numbering and counting,
or for example, what result dimensionless quantities,
and in the linear are simple not dimensioned quantities,
yet in the angular result dimensioned then dimensionless,
and so on, about quantities and derivations, what reflect
that the very laws of motion, those being rest/rest
motion/motion equal/opposite then f=ma then gravity tossed in,
are underdefined, and such notions as "infinitely-many higher
orders of acceleration", clearly and obviously and according
to all the usual consideration of who-moves-who what _must_
be non-zero, yet _must_ be vanishing, has that then
there's that mechanics is under-defined.

Dis-placement and di-stance are two different things.


Numbering and counting are two different things.


So, then local time as just counting ticks or beats
of the clock, has whatever clock is closest is "local".
Yet, in physics there are theories where every point
in space-time has one, so, then getting into the
perceived receipt of continuous information, has
that time is _always_ an extended quantity.


Then, relativity, after absolutism, is just fine,
Einstein has a particularly relativity of motion
as that's what he figures changes the most, that
in the _severe abstraction_ of theory and the
_mechanical reduction_ of theory that relativity
itself the idea is quite most usual as "this is
the place I've chosen to stand and try this lever",
where "the place" is an ideal and "to stand" means
to let out what would otherwise be ideals in all
the absolute, helps explain that there are wider
ideals like a clock-hypothesis, and while it took
a while and some still haven't heard, Einstein at
least himself already arrived at "SR is local"
with respect to "SR is spacial, not spatial, and
the L-principle", and with regards to Einstein's
bridge and Einstein's second-most famous mass-energy
formula, why at least Einstein left "the brief theory
Einstein's relativity theory, a relativity theory
in a theory of absolutes", sort of simply.


Here your usual notion of "proper time" is almost
entirely acoustic, pretty much Doppler. I.e.,
that's right after the Galilean and perspective
and parallax, it's pretty much just parallax,
then for something like a "peripheral parallax",
as with regards to the optical, light in the angular.

[rhertz]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 2:19:13 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

<snip my OP, for clarity>

Post by Ross Finlayson
I think it gets involved as even things like
the difference between numbering and counting,
or for example, what result dimensionless quantities,
and in the linear are simple not dimensioned quantities,
yet in the angular result dimensioned then dimensionless,
and so on, about quantities and derivations, what reflect
that the very laws of motion, those being rest/rest
motion/motion equal/opposite then f=ma then gravity tossed in,
are underdefined, and such notions as "infinitely-many higher
orders of acceleration", clearly and obviously and according
to all the usual consideration of who-moves-who what _must_
be non-zero, yet _must_ be vanishing, has that then
there's that mechanics is under-defined.
Dis-placement and di-stance are two different things.
Numbering and counting are two different things.
So, then local time as just counting ticks or beats
of the clock, has whatever clock is closest is "local".
Yet, in physics there are theories where every point
in space-time has one, so, then getting into the
perceived receipt of continuous information, has
that time is _always_ an extended quantity.
Then, relativity, after absolutism, is just fine,
Einstein has a particularly relativity of motion
as that's what he figures changes the most, that
in the _severe abstraction_ of theory and the
_mechanical reduction_ of theory that relativity
itself the idea is quite most usual as "this is
the place I've chosen to stand and try this lever",
where "the place" is an ideal and "to stand" means
to let out what would otherwise be ideals in all
the absolute, helps explain that there are wider
ideals like a clock-hypothesis, and while it took
a while and some still haven't heard, Einstein at
least himself already arrived at "SR is local"
with respect to "SR is spacial, not spatial, and
the L-principle", and with regards to Einstein's
bridge and Einstein's second-most famous mass-energy
formula, why at least Einstein left "the brief theory
Einstein's relativity theory, a relativity theory
in a theory of absolutes", sort of simply.
Here your usual notion of "proper time" is almost
entirely acoustic, pretty much Doppler. I.e.,
that's right after the Galilean and perspective
and parallax, it's pretty much just parallax,
then for something like a "peripheral parallax",
as with regards to the optical, light in the angular.

I'm sorry, but you didn't explain anything. It's mostly gobbledygook.

Here is the sequence of how such ARTIFACT appeared with the years.

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


LOCAL TIME FOR LORENTZ, INTRODUCED IN 1901

t' = t - vx/c² ; This is Voigt's Local Time, from 1897.
No explanations given by Voigt, Lorentz or Einstein about the
MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT vx/c². This the equivalent of NOISE in
mathematics, an undesired effect.

t' = t - vx/c² ; This is Lorentz Local Time, from 1901, presented to
Poincaré.
..............

β² = c²/(c² - v²) ; Lorentz Eq. 3 (plagiarized from 1897 Voigt), and
inserted without explanations on his 1904 paper.

Lorentz, since formulae 4 and 5 on his 1904 paper.

1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS

x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5


1905 MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS

In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue) x = X - vt, in
order to get rid of ether.

t' = β (t/β² - vx/c²)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vx)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vX + v² t) = β/c² (tc² - tv² - vX + v² t)
t' = β (t - vX/c²)

1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = β (t - vX/c²)
x' = β (X - vt)

You may recognize the later formulae as the "modern" Lorentz transforms.


In order to understand how the ARTIFACT vx/c² appeared on this history,
you HAVE TO READ the original 1897 Voigt's paper. I put a link on the
OP.


You'll be disappointed to learn that the linear transformations that
Voigt proposed at the beginning of his paper produces, after his
manipulations, the appearance of such ARTIFACT in the expression of t'.

Voigt didn't provide any justification for it. Actually, he wrote that
he was "enchanted" with the beauty of the transforms.


NO EXPLANATIONS ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME t' = t - vx/c² EXISTS AS OF TODAY.
ACTUALLY, THERE ARE MANY ATTEMPTS WRITTEN IN THE LAST CENTURY, MANY
INVOKING A ROLE OF MINKOWSKI'S SPACETIME, AND OTHERS MERELY
PHILOSOPHICAL OR METAPHYSICAL.

But, as it's a BYPRODUCT of SR, its presence (most of the time dismissed
in calculations) remain UNQUESTIONED. Because IF SUCH TERM DO NOT EXIST,
THEN THE ENTIRE MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE OF SR COLLAPSES.

To understand my above assertion, you have to read carefully the
mathematical derivation performed by Einstein in 1905, and you'll
CONFIRM that the appearance of such a term is IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID, even
when it means NOTHING.

Read here what Lorentz considered for "local time" use, which was
(somehow) validated by Poincaré, who was his mathematical "tutor" for
many years, which Lorentz acknowledged in writing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
LOCAL TIME FOR LORENTZ, INTRODUCED IN 1901
t' = t - vx/c² ;  This is Voigt's Local Time, from 1897.
No explanations given by Voigt, Lorentz or Einstein about the
MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT vx/c².  This the equivalent of NOISE in
mathematics, an undesired effect.
t' = t - vx/c² ;  This is Lorentz Local Time, from 1901, presented to
Poincaré.
..............
β² = c²/(c² - v²)  ; Lorentz Eq. 3 (plagiarized from 1897 Voigt), and
inserted without explanations on his 1904 paper.
Lorentz, since formulae 4 and 5 on his 1904 paper.
1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x  ;  Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ;  Lorentz Eq. 5

No, this is not the Lorentz transform.
Lorentz used the Galilean transform first, and then he
"transform these formulae further by a change of variables".

It's is these two transforms together that make the Lorentz transform.
See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf

He doesn't explain the "change of variables", but the purpose is clear.
To "explain" the Michelson-Morley experiment, Maxwell's equation
must be invariant. (Idea from Poincare.) So "the change of variables"
was what they had to be to achieve that purpose.

Post by rhertz
1905 MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORM

In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue)  x = X - vt, in

order to get rid of ether.

Lorent's had got rid of the ether, without realising it.
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
Se chapter 3.

The LT transform say that it is impossible to measure the speed
of the ether because the speed of the ether is without physical
consequences.

Einstein started with the second postulate, the speed of light
is invariant (the same in all inertial frames).

So Einstein didn't copy anything, but since the invariance of Maxwell's
equation follows from the invariance of the speed of light,
they ended up with the same transform.

Post by rhertz
t' = β (t/β² - vx/c²)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vx)
t' = β/c² (t (c² - v²) - vX + v² t) = β/c² (tc² - tv² - vX + v² t)
t' = β (t - vX/c²)

??? :-D

Post by rhertz
1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = β (t - vX/c²)
x' = β (X - vt)

It is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform.

[rhertz]

Explain this:

1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)

IF

v = 11 Km/sec
x = 400 Km

γ = 1.00000000067222


t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec

48.89 nanoseconds meaning WHAT?





Worse yet.

IF x' = 0, then x = vt

t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ

t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ

t' = 0.999999998655556 t (now t' run slower than t!)

Any explanations about these numerical examples of
the ridiculous results when applying SR?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by rhertz
1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)

Attention.
I have always said, against Einstein's advice, that the theory of
relativity was mathematically very simple, but that it was full of
non-obvious concepts and frequent traps.
All the mathematical tools of special relativity are in the baggage of an
average 16-year-old student.
What is missing today is mainly semantics.
It is not Minkowski, Grossmann or Lorentz who are missing,
but Hugo, Dante, or Shakespeare.
That is to say, people who know how to say things and explain them.

Post by rhertz
IF
v = 11 Km/sec
x = 400 Km
γ = 1.00000000067222
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec
48.89 nanoseconds meaning WHAT?

Vo=11000m/s
x'=400 kms.
γ = 1.00000000067222
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec
(je ne vérifie pas le calcul mais si cela est correct, cela veut dire que
l'événement e1 qui s'est produit en x, s'est produit, pour l'observateur
O,
à 400km, et il y a To=1333333 ns.

Vo=0.0000366666c

C'est ça que ça veut dire.

Passons à la distance notée par O' qui est x'.
x'=(x-Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) Attention To négatif, e1 s'est produit
"avant".
Je ne fais pas le calcul, mais e1 s'est produit légèrement plus loin que
pour x.
Et aussi légèrement plus loin dans le passé puisque To'=x'/c

Post by rhertz
Worse yet.
IF x' = 0, then x = vt

If x=0 then x'=0 and To=0 and To'=0, this is the moment when the watches
are triggered.

Post by rhertz
t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ
t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ
t' = 0.999999998655556 t (now t' run slower than t!)
Any explanations about these numerical examples of
the ridiculous results when applying SR?

If x=0 then x'=0 and To=0 and To'=0 , this is the moment when we trigger
the watches.

Before the crossing, the watches that are coming towards us always turn
reciprocally faster.

Once the crossing has taken place, the watches that are moving away always
turn reciprocally slower than ours. This is a simple relativistic Doppler
effect (to which we must not forget to add the gamma effect of reciprocal
expansion of the internal mechanisms).

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel
All the mathematical tools of special relativity are in the baggage
of an average 16-year-old student.
What is missing today is mainly semantics.

The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
and legths. The semantics of those are well understood by almost
everybody.

When relativity is used it is necessary to add whatever is needed
for the particular use. Often that includes electromagnetics. The
concepts of electromagnetics are not that generally known but are
well understood by many. Special Relativity does not require any
semantics other than what the topic area requires anyway.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
What is missing today is mainly semantics.

The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
and legths. The semantics of those are well understood by almost
everybody.

You are lying.

You are lying in good faith, and that is why you are respectable.

But you are lying.

Of course your sentence "The core theory of relativity is about times,
positions, durations
and legths " is correct, but the following " The semantics of those are
well understood by almost
everybody." is no longer correct.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel
What is missing today is mainly semantics.

The core theory of relativity is about times, positions, durations
and legths. The semantics of those are well understood by almost
everybody.

You are lying.
You are lying in good faith, and that is why you are respectable.
But you are lying.
Of course your sentence "The core theory of relativity is about times,
positions, durations
and legths " is correct, but the following " The semantics of those are
well understood by almost
everybody." is no longer correct.

What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions,
durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko
What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions,
durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?
Mikko

A great quantum physicist was once asked the question: "Is it true that
there are only three physicists in the world who understand quantum
physics?"
He replied: "And who is the third?"
The same goes for special relativity.
But worse.
If I were asked if it is true that only three people in the world
understand SR, I would be obliged to ask and who are the other two?

There are necessarily things that physicists or fans do not understand, I
see it very well when I post messages, and everyone is flying at fifteen
miles.

SR is rotten with errors and misunderstandings, and many repeat things
without understanding them, or even understanding them backwards.

If I ask a question like:
"What makes the notion of simultaneity relative? Is it the position? Is it
the speed?"

100% of the 569,874 people questioned will throw themselves on the ground
holding their sides, because the question will make them laugh so much.

They will all answer: speed!

That's wrong. It's the position.

Romeo on this bench, Juliet on that other one do NOT have the same
hyperplane of simultaneity.

On the other hand, a rocket crossing the earth at relativistic speed
(Vo=0.95c for example) apprehends exactly the same universe of
simultaneity.

By saying things backwards, physicists show that they have understood
nothing at all.

And by throwing themselves on the ground holding their sides with
laughter, they show that not only are they stupid, but they are arrogant.

Their problem is that they do not know how to interpret Lorentz
transformations, and do not understand the geometry of space-time
(Minkowski was wrong, his "block" does not exist.

A very simple proof that it does not fit.

What is the apparent speed of a rocket moving towards me at speed Vo =
0.8c? As in the Langevin traveler.
Answer: Vapp = 4c

What is the proper duration of Stella's return trip in the Langevin?
9 years.

This means that during nine years of her proper time, Stella will see the
earth come back to her, with an apparent speed of 4c.

In elementary school, we learn that then, the apparent path is x = Vapp.Tr

Except that this is a distance of 36 ly which drives you crazy, and
requires the psychiatric hospitalization of the 569874 people interviewed.

With their contraction distances that are totally misunderstood (if that
were all) physicists all over the world, arrogant as they are, placed on
the tray of a scale and me alone on the other, do not carry the weight.

But they will never admit it.

Examples that SR is true, but totally misunderstood because of people like
Einstein or Minkowski abound.

But I have been repeating it tirelessly for 40 years, the problem is
human, almost psychiatric or religious: we do not want to see.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions,
durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?
Mikko

A great quantum physicist was once asked the question: "Is it true that
there are only three physicists in the world who understand quantum
physics?"
He replied: "And who is the third?"
The same goes for special relativity.

No, it doesn't. Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.
But it is not self-evident. It is not understood by those who have not
learned it. Some people simpy find it too uninteresting.

Post by Richard Hachel
But worse.
If I were asked if it is true that only three people in the world
understand SR, I would be obliged to ask and who are the other two?
There are necessarily things that physicists or fans do not understand,
I see it very well when I post messages, and everyone is flying at
fifteen miles.
SR is rotten with errors and misunderstandings,

SR is often misunderstood by those who have not properly sutied it but
there are no misunderstanding in SR itself.

Post by Richard Hachel
and many repeat things without understanding them, or even
understanding them backwards.
"What makes the notion of simultaneity relative? Is it the position? Is
it the speed?"

Nothing makes simultaneity relative. It simpy is relative.

Post by Richard Hachel
100% of the 569,874 people questioned will throw themselves on the
ground holding their sides, because the question will make them laugh
so much.
They will all answer: speed!
That's wrong. It's the position.
Romeo on this bench, Juliet on that other one do NOT have the same
hyperplane of simultaneity.

That is an error in your understanding, not in SR itself.

Post by Richard Hachel
On the other hand, a rocket crossing the earth at relativistic speed
(Vo=0.95c for example) apprehends exactly the same universe of
simultaneity.
By saying things backwards, physicists show that they have understood
nothing at all.
And by throwing themselves on the ground holding their sides with
laughter, they show that not only are they stupid, but they are arrogant.
Their problem is that they do not know how to interpret Lorentz
transformations, and do not understand the geometry of space-time
(Minkowski was wrong, his "block" does not exist.
A very simple proof that it does not fit.
What is the apparent speed of a rocket moving towards me at speed Vo =
0.8c? As in the Langevin traveler.
Answer: Vapp = 4c
What is the proper duration of Stella's return trip in the Langevin?
9 years.
This means that during nine years of her proper time, Stella will see
the earth come back to her, with an apparent speed of 4c.
In elementary school, we learn that then, the apparent path is x = Vapp.Tr
Except that this is a distance of 36 ly which drives you crazy, and
requires the psychiatric hospitalization of the 569874 people
interviewed.
With their contraction distances that are totally misunderstood (if
that were all) physicists all over the world, arrogant as they are,
placed on the tray of a scale and me alone on the other, do not carry
the weight.
But they will never admit it.
Examples that SR is true, but totally misunderstood because of people
like Einstein or Minkowski abound.
But I have been repeating it tirelessly for 40 years, the problem is
human, almost psychiatric or religious: we do not want to see.

None of the above is evidence about understanding of semantics of times,
positions, durations or legths. Whether other things are understood is
not relevant.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
What evdence there is to show that the semantics of times. positions,
durations and lengths is not well understood by almost everybody?
Mikko

A great quantum physicist was once asked the question: "Is it true
that there are only three physicists in the world who understand
quantum physics?"
He replied: "And who is the third?"
The same goes for special relativity.

No, it doesn't. Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.

And not even consistent. You've got
a proof, all you can do about it
is pretending you didn't notice.

Post by Mikko
Nothing makes simultaneity relative. It simpy is relative.

No it is not. Anyone can check
GPS, that's where nad lies of your
mad bunch end.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko
Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.
But it is not self-evident. It is not understood by those who have not
learned it. Some people simpy find it too uninteresting.

Absolutely not.

I studied it for forty years, and if at first it is a bit hard, we say to
ourselves that, perhaps, it is not a lack of intelligence on the part of
the reader.

But, no. It is an intellectual fraud.

Not everything, obviously, Dr. Hachel is NOT anti-relativist, quite the
contrary.

But he has the fault of pointing out the lie of physicists, who say they
understand but do not understand, and worse, of proving it.

For example, the first major proof is that of the contraction of
distances, I am told that if I move at v=0.8c, a distance of 12 ly will
appear to measure 7.2 ly.

This is a lie by omission, because I am not told which observer will see
this.

Implied "all the observers of my frame of reference".

However, this is false and mathematically stupid if we pursue the idea.

How can an observer see a body moving on 7.2 ly that is coming towards him
with a relativistic apparent speed of 4c and during a proper time of 9
years?

No one has ever been able to answer me, except with insults, whining, and
bullshit.

Same thing when I explained the radial contraction of a rotating disk and
gave the logical equations that go with the concept.
They wanted to explain to me that it was false, but without being able to
represent what a seven-year-old child would SEE, observing a disk of 1
meter in diameter placed frontally in front of him and rotating with a
relativistic angular speed, a circumference that contracts (which is true)
and an invariant radius (which is false).

No, no, we must not say: "physicists are intelligent, they understand what
they are saying". It is false. They just understand the mathematical
operations, but without understanding that what they write is physically
wrong, even ridiculous.

R.H.

[Mikko]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko
Special Relativity is fairly simple and easy to understand.
But it is not self-evident. It is not understood by those who have not
learned it. Some people simpy find it too uninteresting.

Absolutely not.
I studied it for forty years, and if at first it is a bit hard, we say
to ourselves that, perhaps, it is not a lack of intelligence on the
part of the reader.

Indeed, often the cause is not a lack of intelligence but a lack of
motivation. It helps if the reader can choose the best material or
teacher but the reader's ability to do so may be limited. Evaluation
of the material or a teacher is only possible when one no longer
needs it. So ultimately all resposibility falls on the reader's side.

Post by Richard Hachel
But, no. It is an intellectual fraud.

No, Special Realtivity is not. Only yours is.

Post by Richard Hachel
Not everything, obviously, Dr. Hachel is NOT anti-relativist, quite the
contrary.

That does not really matter as long as Dr. Hachel cannot express his
wisdom (if there is any) in Common Language.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)
IF
v = 11 Km/sec
x = 400 Km
γ = 1.00000000067222

γ = 1.00000000067315 ≈ 1.000000000673

Post by rhertz
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec

wrong, see below

Post by rhertz
48.89 nanoseconds meaning WHAT?

That your calculation is wrong.


You do know that the Lorentz transform is
a coordinate transformation, or don't you?

If the coordinates of an event are x = 400 km, t = t seconds
in the un-primed frame, then the coordinates of the event
in the primed frame are:
t' = (1.00000000067315⋅t - 48.96e-9) second
x' = (400000.0002692 - 11000.0000074⋅t) meter

Note that t is a number you failed to define.

Post by rhertz
Worse yet.

Is anything bad?

Post by rhertz
IF x' = 0, then x = vt
t' = γ (t - vx/c²) = γ (t - v²/c² t) = t/γ

Or generally:
if x' is constant then dt'/dt = 1/γ
if x is constant then dt/dt' = 1/γ

A clock which is stationary in a frame of reference will
be measured to run slow in a frame of reference which is
moving relative to the clock.

Post by rhertz
t' = 0.999999998655556 t (now t' run slower than t!)

Yes, because the clock is stationary in the primed frame.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Post by rhertz
Any explanations about these numerical examples of
the ridiculous results when applying SR?

There are no ridiculous results.

That Richard Hertz finds SR to be ridiculous doesn't
change the fact that SR is thoroughly experimentally
tested and never is falsified.

Some of the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

That Richard Hertz find SR to be ridiculous does however have
the consequence that he has to claim that all physicist born
after 1900 are frauds and member of a MAFFIA.
If they were not, Richard Hertz would be wrong, which
according to Richard Hertz is impossible.

Hilarious, no? :-D

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)
IF
v = 11 Km/sec
x = 400 Km
γ = 1.00000000067222

γ = 1.00000000067315 ≈ 1.000000000673

Post by rhertz
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec

wrong, see below

Post by rhertz
48.89 nanoseconds meaning WHAT?

That your calculation is wrong.
You do know that the Lorentz transform is
a coordinate transformation, or don't you?
If the coordinates of an event are x = 400 km, t = t seconds
in the un-primed frame, then the coordinates of the event
t' = (1.00000000067315⋅t - 48.96e-9) second
x' = (400000.0002692 - 11000.0000074⋅t) meter
Note that t is a number you failed to define.

<snip>

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?


YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN  BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.

Quite.
I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
whatever we write.

He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
falsified.

Case closed.

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN  BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.

Quite.
I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
whatever we write.
He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
falsified.
Case closed.

DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!

I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.

WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
"CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.

YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.

EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.


BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.

CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.

Quite.
I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
whatever we write.
He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
falsified.
Case closed.

DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!
I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.
WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
"CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.
YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.
EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.
BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.
CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.

Local time is just any two clocks at "relative rest",
"relative rest" is mostly as good as "absolute rest",
though as with regards to that there's a usual nominal
non-zero gravitational wave passing through.

I.e. that there is "absolute rest" at all is inherent
in there being a "rest frame", where every thing is in
its own rest frame and whether that's a rotating frame,
that rotating frames are independent, then as with
regards to whether or not there's, "0 m/s", is that
anything that moves around in a room is eventual
plus then minus thus through zero of at least each
of the axial directions, and in close enough proximity
to it is more or less attached, as with regards to
thusly sharing a common frame, that any kind of
shared frame kind of is a "rest" frame together,
except with regards to whether the orbit is
a closed curve that it results togetherness
or an open curve where it is not so.


So, in a given room, all the clocks are at relative rest.

[rhertz]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.

Quite.
I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
whatever we write.
He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
falsified.
Case closed.

DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!
I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.
WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
"CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.
YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.
EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.
BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.
CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.

Local time is just any two clocks at "relative rest",
"relative rest" is mostly as good as "absolute rest",
though as with regards to that there's a usual nominal
non-zero gravitational wave passing through.
I.e. that there is "absolute rest" at all is inherent
in there being a "rest frame", where every thing is in
its own rest frame and whether that's a rotating frame,
that rotating frames are independent, then as with
regards to whether or not there's, "0 m/s", is that
anything that moves around in a room is eventual
plus then minus thus through zero of at least each
of the axial directions, and in close enough proximity
to it is more or less attached, as with regards to
thusly sharing a common frame, that any kind of
shared frame kind of is a "rest" frame together,
except with regards to whether the orbit is
a closed curve that it results togetherness
or an open curve where it is not so.
So, in a given room, all the clocks are at relative rest.

1905 EINSTEIN'S MODIFIED LORENTZ TRANSFORMS

t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
x' = γ (x - vt)


I'm sorry, Ross, but I disagree.

If the clocks are at RELATIVE REST, their relative speed v=0.

This only factor makes Voigt and Lorentz "local time" to dissapear.

Then, it results that (being relative speed v = 0), that


t' = t
x' x


I've been searching rather thoroughly about "local time" explanations on
paper of physicists for the last century and, even not an exhaustive
search, it results that there are MANY explanations (either
mathematical, physical or metaphysical) on this matter.

The most used mathematic argument is to explain it through Minkowski's
spacetime. Other explanations are WEIRD.

The FACT is that, as of today, such term explanation is absent from the
realm of physics.

I sustain that such term (first derived by Voigt, then used by Lorentz
since 1892) is a mere MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. That is: just mathematical
NOISE or an undesired byproduct of 4D linear transformations of x,y,z,t.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!
I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.
WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
"CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.
YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.
EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.
BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.
CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.

Well shouted, Richard.

Nobody can illustrate the stupidity of Richard Hertz better
than you, Richard.

Since you ask so nicely, I will remind you of other
cases when you have made a fool of yourself without my help:

| Den 02.10.2024 19:33, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> "Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at
|> the beginning of his plagiarized 1905 paper.
|> Assertion still sustained nowadays by relativists.
|> So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would
|> dictate that a day last 86,400 seconds.
|> But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
|> 86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
|> mark 99,766 seconds/day.
|> All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it
|> experimentally.
|>


| Den 28.09.2024 04:34, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> This link illustrates a bit:
|> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
|>
|> Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²
|>
|> https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html
|>
|> G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
|> M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
|> R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
|>
|> Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59
|>
|> In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327
|>


|Den 27.09.2024 22:13, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS
|> THE ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE
|> 15,000 MILES FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY)
|> TO ESTIMATE THE TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.
|>


| Den 27.09.2024 00:27, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Mudrak's 2017 formula for GNSS Galileo:
|>
|> Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (aΩₑ)²]
|>
|> If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r
|> (i.e. 10 Km), then
|>
|> Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
|>
|> Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
|>
|> Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should
|> I explain?
|> Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
|>

| Den 27.09.2024 02:47, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Your STUPID and ILLOGICAL thinking is about having bought THIS CRAP:
|> Hafele considered a good approximation the following INSANE
|> assertion:
|>
|> - WE (H&K, plus the gang at USNO) considered A GOOD IDEA to think
|> that a good approximation is:
|>
|> - Earth rotates at 459,24 m/sec (Equator level). We SUPPOSE that
|> USNO labs are FLOATING IN THE AIR for the duration of our eastward
|> trip.
|>
|> - So, in a stroke of a genius, we SUPPOSED that being still for
|> 65.42 hours (flight time + waiting in airports) at ALTITUDE 0.0Km,
|> we WOULD REACH USNO LABS while Earth rotates such amount
|> (either 0° latitude or the average 34° latitude).
|>
|> - The only thing that we have to do is TO SIT COMFORTABLY, while
|> Earth rotates, AND in 65.42 hours we will reach USNO AGAIN
|> (because we departed from USNO, which MAGICALLY remained STILL
|> IN SPACE, without ANY MOTION. We are, by the hand of Einstein,
|> who slipped eastward, to finally reach USNO again.
|>
|> - The only uncomfortable aspect of such adventure is that OUR ASSES
|> got wet, while moving over water at height ZERO, plus a lot of
|> bruises in our asses while moving over earth, at h=0.
|>
|> - But all the pain suffered worth the sacrifice, as we COULD
|> THEORETICALLY compute the elapsed time τ₀ =65.42h =235.512E+12 ns.
|>
|> - That such value, which we pulled out of our asses, contain errors
|> in the order of BILLIONS OF PARTS is irrelevant, because we proved
|> that Einstein was right.
|>


| Den 15.09.2024 03:26, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
|> since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
|> BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.
|>
|> As they wrote here:
|>
|>
https://www.oca.eu/en/news-lagrange/1363-first-results-from-microscope-satellite-confirm-albert-einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-with-unprecedented-precision
|>
|> QUOTE:
|> «The satellite’s performance is far exceeding expectations. Data
|> from more than 1,900 additional orbits are already available and
|> more are to come, which should enable us to further improve the
|> mission’s performance and approach its target of acquiring
|> measurements with a precision of 10-15. This first result is going
|> to shake the world of physics and will certainly lead to a revision
|> of alternative theories to general relativity,» said the mission’s
|> principal investigator Pierre Touboul.
|>
|> Enjoy slowly, relativists. Please don't choke on your stupidity,
|> as you are allowed to fail for being just humans.
|>

| Den 13.09.2024 19:32, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> And about your list of historical proofs of relativity,
|> I can make a deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond
|> any reasonable doubt, that relativists are members of a MAFFIA,
|> and profit from it. This is because the different results are
|> COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
|> cooking and peer complicity.
|>


| Den 10.09.2024 03:19, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
|>>
|>> GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
|>> by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
|>>
|>> θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
|>>
|>> Where:
|>> AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
|>> φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
|>> c = speed of light in vacuum
|>> G = Gravitational constant
|>> M = solar mass
|>>
|>
|> Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
|> what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense.
|>
|> Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
|>
|> 1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
|> reference frame with that of the Earth.
|>
|> 2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
|> that the observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the
|> position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
|> the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
|> time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon. Earth
|> rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
|> anual variation of ± 11.5 degrees!!!
|>
|> 3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial
|> coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because the Earth rotates
|> daily.
|>
|> 4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the ELEVATION
|> of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light of the Sun (and
|> stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERTURBATIONS. One of
|> the most important is the REFRACTION of the light passing through
|> atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so, the elevation angle at noon
|> CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
|> elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
|> locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
|> elevation in summer time.
|>
|> 5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in the
|> moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from being at
|> 90 degrees respect to the Sun.
|>
|> ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
|>

Make my day, Richard.
Say that you don't understand why you made a fool of yourself
in any of the quotations above.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXPLANATION ABOUT
THE 49 nsec THAT APPEAR DUE TO THE vx/c² FACTOR OF THE LOCAL TIME?.
OR WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TIME IN  BOTH FRAMES (NOT RELATED
TO THE GAMMA FACTO OF TIME DILATION) FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPEED AND
POSITION?
YOU WRITE, WRITE AND WRITE BUT CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE FACT THAT YOU
DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LOCAL TIME. YOU (AND OTHERS) CAN'T JUST EXPLAIN
IT.

Quite.
I and others write and write but Richard Hertz understand nothing
whatever we write.
He can only repeat over and over that SR is nonsense,
and that all physicist born after 1900 are frauds since
they claim that SR is experimentally verified and never
falsified.

On the other hand - you and your fellow
idiots can only repeat that crap of alleged
"verification" and "confirmations".
And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by the idiots "improper" clocks
keep measuring improper t'=t in improper
seconds.
And asking you some detailed questions
only results with a stream of insults
and slanders, or plonking.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
t' ≈ t - 48.89 nsec

wrong, see below

t' = 1.00000000067315⋅t second - 48.96 ns

or 48.89 ns, doesn't matter, this is not the problem

The point is that this can be written:
t' = (1 + 0.673e-9)t - 48.96 ns
If t = 100, we get
t' = 100 seconds + 67.3 ns - 48.96 ns = t + 18.34 ns

You can't set
t' = (1 + 0.673e-9)t - 48.89 ns ≈ t - 48.89 ns

unless t is _very_ small.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You do know that the Lorentz transform is
a coordinate transformation, or don't you?

You surely don't, poor halfbrain, that's
where your babble of proper time/coordinate
time comes from.

[The Starmaker]

"local time" means "present time".
you know, like anyone asking..."What time is it now?"
You have the Past, the Present, and the Future.
we are in the Present.
The Now.
the Here and Now.
so you know what time is it over here now??? it's party time!
I dare to relativists to explain party time!

What you people son't understand is that there is only ONE

only ONE

frame of reference

that matters, ...


Albert Einstein's frame of reference!


Your frame of reference don't count, it's...irrevelant.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

In other words, local time is Einstein's Time.


He OWNS local time.

That means Time Here, There, and Now is all local time, which in
Einstein's time he called it ...present time.

Present Times is either here or there (what yous call local time).

But, you are not allowed to THINK of Time ...everywhere.


Everywhere is beyond Einstein's Time.


You are not allowed to cross that red line.

Just as yous are not allowed to THINK before the big bang...


Yous don't have the ...permission.


i don't need permission.


The Big Bang is the creation of Time, Space and the earth (mass
particles you call...rocks)

Before the Big Bang, Energy existed.


The big bang is Energy creations of Mass.

E=M (omit the =/equal sign)

(notice how scientists hide the specific symbol that represents
"create".)

Yous are not allowed to THINK ...create.



But the fact is, Energy created Mass.

and in the creation process of mass, energy became part of mass.

So you can now say E=M.



But ...before...it was just...E.

And where did E come from? The very first E?? It popped IN.


Yous call it...the quantum effect.


Yes, 'quantum' came before the big bang.


But I don't know where it popped IN from..


i haven't given it much thought...

give me time.


Imagine, all you see is blackness and all of a sudden
a single particle of light shows up.

This happened trillions of years before the big bang.

The big bang was that single particle of light that grew into
a giant ball that finally exploded when it ran out of space.

Maybe i can do a text to image online...

Post by The Starmaker

"local time" means "present time".
you know, like anyone asking..."What time is it now?"
You have the Past, the Present, and the Future.
we are in the Present.
The Now.
the Here and Now.
so you know what time is it over here now??? it's party time!
I dare to relativists to explain party time!

What you people son't understand is that there is only ONE
only ONE
frame of reference
that matters, ...
Albert Einstein's frame of reference!
Your frame of reference don't count, it's...irrevelant.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

This works for people who get 'create' convullsions

(Before the big bang)
E

(during the big bang)
E (->) M

(after the big bang)
E=M

Post by The Starmaker
In other words, local time is Einstein's Time.
He OWNS local time.
That means Time Here, There, and Now is all local time, which in
Einstein's time he called it ...present time.
Present Times is either here or there (what yous call local time).
But, you are not allowed to THINK of Time ...everywhere.
Everywhere is beyond Einstein's Time.
You are not allowed to cross that red line.
Just as yous are not allowed to THINK before the big bang...
Yous don't have the ...permission.
i don't need permission.
The Big Bang is the creation of Time, Space and the earth (mass
particles you call...rocks)
Before the Big Bang, Energy existed.
The big bang is Energy creations of Mass.
E=M (omit the =/equal sign)
(notice how scientists hide the specific symbol that represents
"create".)
Yous are not allowed to THINK ...create.
But the fact is, Energy created Mass.
and in the creation process of mass, energy became part of mass.
So you can now say E=M.
But ...before...it was just...E.
And where did E come from? The very first E?? It popped IN.
Yous call it...the quantum effect.
Yes, 'quantum' came before the big bang.
But I don't know where it popped IN from..
i haven't given it much thought...
give me time.
Imagine, all you see is blackness and all of a sudden
a single particle of light shows up.
This happened trillions of years before the big bang.
The big bang was that single particle of light that grew into
a giant ball that finally exploded when it ran out of space.
Maybe i can do a text to image online...

Post by The Starmaker

"local time" means "present time".
you know, like anyone asking..."What time is it now?"
You have the Past, the Present, and the Future.
we are in the Present.
The Now.
the Here and Now.
so you know what time is it over here now??? it's party time!
I dare to relativists to explain party time!

What you people son't understand is that there is only ONE
only ONE
frame of reference
that matters, ...
Albert Einstein's frame of reference!
Your frame of reference don't count, it's...irrevelant.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.
Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or
Voigt).
Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A
MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is
an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH
development.
t-vx/c²
couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.

The Lorentz transform describes SR completely.
It's meaning is that it predicts a lot of physical
consequences which are observed in the real world,
and which are not predicted by Newtonian mechanics
and Galilean relativity.

SR is thoroughly tested by a innumerable experiments
and observations and is never falsified.

Newtonian mechanics is falsified by a number of experiments.
(But it is still a very useful theory as long as we know
its limitations.)

Some of the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

In a hopeless attempt to 'save' NM Richard Hertz claims:
"And about your list of historical proofs of relativity, I can make a
deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond any reasonable doubt,
that relativists are members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
because the different results are COOKED with the help of statistical
manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity."

So Richard Hertz is wrong unless all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.

Hilarious, no? :-D

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.
Einstein "borrowed" Lorentz local time, without crediting him (or
Voigt).
Efforts have been made extensively, in the last century, to GIVE A
MEANING to what is, without any doubt, a MATHEMATICAL ARTIFACT. This is
an undesired outcome of THE INTRINSIC FAILURES EMBEDDED INTO SR MATH
development.
t-vx/c²
couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.

The Lorentz transform describes SR completely.
It's meaning is that it predicts a lot of physical
consequences which are observed in the real world,

And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your mad church "improper" clocks keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Newtonian mechanics is falsified by a number of experiments.

A lie, of course.

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
t-vx/c²
couldn't be EXPLAINED AS IF IT POSSESSES THE MEREST PHYSICAL MEANING.

The Lorentz transform describes SR completely.
It's meaning is that it predicts a lot of physical
consequences which are observed in the real world,
and which are not predicted by Newtonian mechanics
and Galilean relativity.
SR is thoroughly tested by a innumerable experiments
and observations and is never falsified.

<snip>

And yet in another proof of your ignorance, fanaticism and brainwashing
on relativity, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT
-vx/c², EITHER WITH A PHYSICAL MEANING OR EVEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE.

That is because you're an idiot who bought the relativity package of
crap WITHOUT a mere question on its ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE.

Give an explanation about the PHYSICAL MEANING of -vx/c² in "local time"
OR shut your mouth (or equivalent).

Cornered relativistic rat.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The Lorentz transform describes SR completely.
It's meaning is that it predicts a lot of physical
consequences which are observed in the real world,
and which are not predicted by Newtonian mechanics
and Galilean relativity.
SR is thoroughly tested by a innumerable experiments
and observations and is never falsified.
Newtonian mechanics is falsified by a number of experiments.
(But it is still a very useful theory as long as we know
its limitations.)
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
"And about your list of historical proofs of relativity, I can make a
deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond any reasonable doubt,
that relativists are members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
because the different results are COOKED with the help of statistical
manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity."
So Richard Hertz is wrong unless all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.
Hilarious, no? 😂

And yet in another proof of your ignorance, fanaticism and brainwashing
on relativity, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT
-vx/c², EITHER WITH A PHYSICAL MEANING OR EVEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE.

A coordinate transform is:
t' = at + bx
x' = ct + dx

Do you think that the term "b" has another EXPLANATION,
EITHER WITH A PHYSICAL MEANING OR EVEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE,
than the terms a, c and d?

Post by rhertz
That is because you're an idiot who bought the relativity package of
crap WITHOUT a mere question on its ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE.

Quite.
I have bought SR and the Lorentz transform with all its terms
because I know that SR is thoroughly experimentally verified.

I also know that Newtonian mechanics and the Galilean transform
without the term -vx/c² is experimentally falsified.

Do you need another 'explanation' for why the term -vx/c²
must be in the transformation which give the predictions that
are in accordance with physical measurements in the real world?

Post by rhertz
Give an explanation about the PHYSICAL MEANING of -vx/c² in "local time"
OR shut your mouth (or equivalent).
Cornered relativistic rat.

There is no "local time" in SR.

You can see what Lorentz meant by "local time" in chapter 3 here:

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

Quote:
"Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton.
But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."

Only an idiot would call a term in a coordinate transform "local time".
What is the term vt? "Local position"?

And only an idiot would claim that all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.

Don't you agree, Richard? :-D

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
That is because you're an idiot who bought the relativity package of
crap WITHOUT a mere question on its ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE.

Quite.
I have bought SR and the Lorentz transform with all its terms
because I know that SR is thoroughly experimentally verified.

Sure, some idiots has asserted and you
bought that.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I also know that Newtonian mechanics and the Galilean transform
without the term -vx/c² is experimentally falsified.

And again.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Do you need another 'explanation' for why the term  -vx/c²
must be in the transformation which give the predictions that
are in accordance with physical measurements in the real world?

Post by rhertz
Give an explanation about the PHYSICAL MEANING of -vx/c² in "local time"
OR shut your mouth (or equivalent).
Cornered relativistic rat.

There is no "local time" in SR.
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
 the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton.
 But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
 and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
 The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."
Only an idiot would call a term in a coordinate transform "local time".
What is the term vt? "Local position"?
And only an idiot would claim that all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.

They're for sure too stupid for that.
They're just repeating what they were
brainwashed by a fraud.

[rhertz]

<snip>
--------------------------------------------------------

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
t' = at + bx
x' = ct + dx
Do you think that the term "b" has another EXPLANATION,
EITHER WITH A PHYSICAL MEANING OR EVEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE,
than the terms a, c and d?

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

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

Here are the linear transforms that Voigt managed:

VOIGT'S LINEAR TRANSFORMS HYPOTHESIS (Equations 2:

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)

ARE YOU SO STUPID THAT CONFOUND INITIAL HYPOTHESIS WITH RESULTS?

This is the original Voigt's LOCAL TIME. Learn it for once, idiot.

τ = t - χ/ω² (x α₁ + y β₁ + z γ₁) , Equation 13


Voigt used full 3D for waves propagation, hence the components x,y,z.

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

<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
There is no "local time" in SR.

ARE YOU BECOME, FINALLY, FULL RETARDED?? SHAME ON YOU!

This is the result of Einstein's plagiarism of Voigt and Lorentz, page 7
of the 1921 English translation:

τ = Φ(v) β (t - vx/c²) ; Φ(v) = 1 and β is the current γ factor.

AND THAT IS THE INFAMOUS LORENTZ LOCAL TIME!
Really, you are becoming more and more stupid with the years!

------------------------------------------------------------
IT COMES DIRECTLY FROM 1904 LORENTZ PAPER:

H.A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light

1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS


x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5 (HERE IS LOCAL TIME WITH ETHER)


Making x = X - vt (Einstein did that, to get rid of ether)

t' = β (t - vX/c²)
x' = β (X - vt)

THE SAME CRAP THAT EINSTEIN USED ONE YEAR LATER.

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

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton.
But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."
Only an idiot would call a term in a coordinate transform "local time".
What is the term vt? "Local position"?
And only an idiot would claim that all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.
Don't you agree, Richard? :-D

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

Only a blind, deaf and stupid relativist like you deny WRITTEN HISTORY!


Here is what Lorentz wrote about "local time" in his 1904 paper (p.813):

************************************
"The variabie t' may be called the "local time"; indeed, tor k = 1,
1 = 1 it becomes identical with what I have formerly understood by
this name,"

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

DID YOU GET IT, IGNORANT?


GTFO!

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5

No, this is not the Lorentz transform.
Lorentz used the Galilean transform first, and then he
"transform these formulae further by a change of variables".
It's is these two transforms together that make the Lorentz transform.
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
He doesn't explain the "change of variables", but the purpose is clear.
To "explain" the Michelson-Morley experiment, Maxwell's equation
must be invariant. (Idea from Poincare.) So "the change of variables"
was what they had to be to achieve that purpose.

ARE YOU BECOME, FINALLY, FULL RETARDED?? SHAME ON YOU!
H.A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light
1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5 (HERE IS LOCAL TIME WITH ETHER)

Quite. Directly from Lorentz.
It is the "change of variables" transform, which is not
the Lorentz transform.

Post by rhertz
Making x = X - vt (Einstein did that, to get rid of ether)

No, Einstein never used the Galilean transform, but Lorentz did.
As I told you above:
Lorentz used the Galilean transform _first_, and then he
"transform these formulae further by a change of variables".

Post by rhertz
t' = β (t - vX/c²)
x' = β (X - vt)

See:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Einstein started with the second postulate, the speed of light
is invariant (the same in all inertial frames).
So Einstein didn't copy anything, but since the invariance of Maxwell's
equation follows from the invariance of the speed of light,
they ended up with the same transform.

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

You will NOT find the "change of variables" transform: (l set to 1)
c²/(c²-v²) = β² Lorentz equation (3)
x' = βx, y'= y, z'= z Lorentz equation (4)
t' = t/β - βvx/c² Lorentz equation (5)

Einstein never plagiarised Lorentz's "change of variables" transform.

and you will NOT find the Galilean transform:
x' = x - vt (or x = X - vt)

so when you said:
"In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue)
x = X - vt, in order to get rid of ether."
you were LYING because you must know that it isn't true.

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
"Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
  the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton.
  But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
  and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
  The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."

I wrote: "Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’"

Post by rhertz
Only a blind, deaf and stupid relativist like you deny WRITTEN HISTORY!
************************************
"The variabie t' may be called the "local time"; indeed, tor k = 1,
1 = 1 it becomes identical with what I have formerly understood by
this name,"
***********************************
DID YOU GET IT, IGNORANT?

Sometimes your misinterpretation of the text you are reading
is hilarious! :-D

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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
You will NOT find the "change of variables" transform: (l set to 1)
c²/(c²-v²) = β² Lorentz equation (3)
x' = βx, y'= y, z'= z Lorentz equation (4)
t' = t/β - βvx/c² Lorentz equation (5)
Einstein never plagiarised Lorentz's "change of variables" transform.
x' = x - vt (or x = X - vt)
"In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue)
x = X - vt, in order to get rid of ether."
you were LYING because you must know that it isn't true.
snip>
Sometimes your misinterpretation of the text you are reading
is hilarious! :-D

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

LIAR + DECEIVER + FANATIC + IMBECILE <= Relativist Paul Anderson.

THE FIRST THING THAT EINSTEIN USED TO MAKE A FRAUDULENT PLAGIARISM
OF LORENTZ EQUATIONS WAS TO USE THE GALILEAN TRANSFORM x' = x - vt.

You, Paul, are beyond DISHONESTY! You are just A CROOK, either on
relativity or (I'm sure) ANYTHING ELSE YOU DID, DO AND WILL DO.

It's on your blood, fucking retarded!


READ THIS - READ THIS - READ THIS - READ THIS - READ THIS

EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!

You are A DISGRACE OF A HUMAN BEING. I CEASE ANY CONTACT SINCE NOW.



PROOF IN THE 1905 PAPER.


QUOTE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 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

............................................
Quoting 6th. paragraph (if you can count, beast!
............................................

If we place x' = x − vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first
define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have to express
in equations that τ is nothing else than the summary of the data of
clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to
the rule given in § 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

GOT THAT, IMBECILE IGNORANT?

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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
You will NOT find the "change of variables" transform: (l set to 1)
  c²/(c²-v²) = β²         Lorentz equation (3)
  x' = βx, y'= y, z'= z   Lorentz equation (4)
  t' = t/β - βvx/c²       Lorentz equation (5)
Einstein never plagiarised Lorentz's "change of variables" transform.
x' = x - vt (or x = X - vt)
"In 1905, Einstein introduced (TRICK, out of the blue)
  x = X - vt, in order to get rid of ether."
you were LYING because you must know that it isn't true.
snip>
Sometimes your misinterpretation of the text you are reading
is hilarious! :-D

Indeed. And you did it _again_! HILARIOUS! :-D

Post by rhertz
**************************************************************
LIAR + DECEIVER + FANATIC + IMBECILE <= Relativist Paul Anderson.
THE FIRST THING THAT EINSTEIN USED TO MAKE A FRAUDULENT PLAGIARISM
OF LORENTZ EQUATIONS WAS TO USE THE GALILEAN TRANSFORM x' = x - vt.
You, Paul, are beyond DISHONESTY! You are just A CROOK, either on
relativity or (I'm sure) ANYTHING ELSE YOU DID, DO AND WILL DO.
It's on your blood, fucking retarded!
READ THIS - READ THIS  - READ THIS - READ THIS - READ THIS
EINSTEIN USED GALILEAN TRANSFORM TO DERIVE LORENTZ WITHOUT ETHER!!
You are A DISGRACE OF A HUMAN BEING. I CEASE ANY CONTACT SINCE NOW.
PROOF IN THE 1905 PAPER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 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
............................................
Quoting 6th. paragraph (if you can count, beast!
............................................
If we place x' = x − vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first
define τ as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we have to express
in equations that τ is nothing else than the summary of the data of
clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to
the rule given in § 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GOT THAT, IMBECILE IGNORANT?

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.

I could leave it at that, but since you are such a nice person,
I will explain.

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.

And as you quoted above:
" 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.
" 1904 ORIGINAL LORENTZ TRANSFORMS
x' = β x ; Lorentz Eq. 4
t' = t/β - β vx/c² ; Lorentz Eq. 5
"

-----------

Remember that x', like any symbol, may have different meaning
in different texts. :-D

You have a lot in common with Dilbert:

https://paulba.no/pdf/Dilbert.pdf

[rhertz]

<snip>

Post by rhertz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 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
............................................
Quoting 6th. paragraph (if you can count, beast!
............................................
If we place x' = x − vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the
system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.

THIS ^^^^^ (This is THE KEY OF THE TRICK, IMBECILE!!)


QUOTING THIS PART OF YOUR LAST POST:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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,Ο,η,ζ) coordinates are Greek letters
So the Galilean transform is: Ο = 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul, I feel very sorry for your idiocy. I hope that, at least, you
don't suffer knowing that YOU ARE AN IMBECILE ILLITERATE.

I won't explain, point by point, WHY YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARDED. I just
drew a figure that CONTAINS ALL THE IMPORTANT ASSERTIONS OF THE OTHER
RETARDED WHO, LIKE A SNEAKY SNAKE, SHOVE GALILEO'S TRANSFORM INTO THE
MAIN EXPLANATION, PRIOR TO THE ABERRANT MATHEMATICS THAT FOLLOWS (YES,
HORRIBLE USE OF TAYLOR, BUT MAKING A FATAL MISTAKE).


I END THIS POST WITH THE DESCRIPTION WRITTEN BEFORE THE WRONG MATH:

QUOTE:
************************************************************
"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time τ₀ along
the X-axis to x', and at the time τ₁ be reflected thence to the origin
of the coordinates, arriving there at the time τ₂; we then must have

1/2 (τ₀ + τ₂) = τ₁,

or,by inserting the arguments of the function  and applying the
principle of the..............
***********************************************************

NOW, IMBECILE, STUDY THE ABOVE TEXT (MINE) AND ANALYZE CAREFULLY THE
DETAILED DIAGRAM, WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE RELEVANT ITEMS THAT TORTURE YOU
(BECAUSE YOU EITHER LIE OR ARE JUST AN IDIOT (I BET ON THE LAST ONE)).


I don't want to discuss this any longer, because YOU ARE NOT A WORTHY
RIVAL FOR ME. Keep collecting crappy papers, and be happy.

[Thomas Heger]

"local time" means "present time".

No, that's wrong.

'Local time' means 'the direction of the timeline at a certain spot' and
what I would call 'rythm of causality'.

If our world is actually a subspace of something with higher dimensions,
than which features would we assume for such a 'super-space'???

My own guess was this:

there exists 'a something', which is named 'spacetime' in context of
relativity.

We humans and all the other stuff we see are what I called 'timelike
stable patterns' (in spacetime).

These are kind of 'structures' and the hole thing was therefore named
'structured spacetime'.

I have written this longish 'book' (actually it is a presentation) about
this idea:


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

From this I would draw the conclusion:

this 'superspace' follows certain mathematical rules, which also apply
to bi-quaternions and a mathematical construct called 'clifford-algebra
Cl_3.

Why this is so, I have no idea.

Anyhow:

as this a complex valued space, we can rotate axes and the angle of
ration the axis of time determins a certain context, which I call 'time
domain'.

This is depending on the axis of time, hence time MUST be local.

'Present time' is only a certain spot on that axis of time, which we
call 'now'.

This point 'drags' in a way the hyperplane of the present with it.

This hyperplane of the present is actually a 3d-space, which we usually
call 'euclidean space'.

This Euclidean space is therefore 'relative', as well as all of its content.


TH


...

[The Starmaker]

Post by Thomas Heger

"local time" means "present time".

No, that's wrong.
'Local time' means 'the direction of the timeline at a certain spot' and
what I would call 'rythm of causality'.
If our world is actually a subspace of something with higher dimensions,
than which features would we assume for such a 'super-space'???
there exists 'a something', which is named 'spacetime' in context of
relativity.
We humans and all the other stuff we see are what I called 'timelike
stable patterns' (in spacetime).
These are kind of 'structures' and the hole thing was therefore named
'structured spacetime'.
I have written this longish 'book' (actually it is a presentation) about
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
this 'superspace' follows certain mathematical rules, which also apply
to bi-quaternions and a mathematical construct called 'clifford-algebra
Cl_3.
Why this is so, I have no idea.
as this a complex valued space, we can rotate axes and the angle of
ration the axis of time determins a certain context, which I call 'time
domain'.
This is depending on the axis of time, hence time MUST be local.
'Present time' is only a certain spot on that axis of time, which we
call 'now'.
This point 'drags' in a way the hyperplane of the present with it.
This hyperplane of the present is actually a 3d-space, which we usually
call 'euclidean space'.
This Euclidean space is therefore 'relative', as well as all of its content.
TH
...

You can Upload your 'book' here:

https://blog.google/technology/ai/notebooklm-audio-overviews/

[The Starmaker]

Post by Thomas Heger

"local time" means "present time".

No, that's wrong.
'Local time' means 'the direction of the timeline at a certain spot' and
what I would call 'rythm of causality'.
If our world is actually a subspace of something with higher dimensions,
than which features would we assume for such a 'super-space'???
there exists 'a something', which is named 'spacetime' in context of
relativity.
We humans and all the other stuff we see are what I called 'timelike
stable patterns' (in spacetime).
These are kind of 'structures' and the hole thing was therefore named
'structured spacetime'.
I have written this longish 'book' (actually it is a presentation) about
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
this 'superspace' follows certain mathematical rules, which also apply
to bi-quaternions and a mathematical construct called 'clifford-algebra
Cl_3.
Why this is so, I have no idea.
as this a complex valued space, we can rotate axes and the angle of
ration the axis of time determins a certain context, which I call 'time
domain'.
This is depending on the axis of time, hence time MUST be local.
'Present time' is only a certain spot on that axis of time, which we
call 'now'.
This point 'drags' in a way the hyperplane of the present with it.
This hyperplane of the present is actually a 3d-space, which we usually
call 'euclidean space'.
This Euclidean space is therefore 'relative', as well as all of its content.
TH
...

ALL yous people..here,
seem to have lost
one important
component
of
"local time"...

and that is..

Dosen't "local time" REQUIRE a...clock?


Come on, local time requires a clock to
even be considered local time!




And Richard Hertz seems to have come down with a case of...monomanical.

[Mikko]

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.

Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

[Thomas Heger]

Post by Mikko

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.
Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

What is more interesting than Hendrik Lorentz, that is Einstein's 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

I have found similarities to Heinrich Herth and his book 'Über die
elektrische Kraft'.

But Voigt's text was seemingly a source, too.

Have not checked that yet, but the equations look somehow similar.

Also form, style, variable names and overall structure look quite
familiar for me.

TH

[Mikko]

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.
Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

What is more interesting than Hendrik Lorentz, that is Einstein's 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

No "local time" there so irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.
Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

What is more interesting than Hendrik Lorentz, that is Einstein's 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

No "local time" there so irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

Que pensait Henri Poincaré lorsqu'il écrivait « heure locale » ?
Que pensait Albert Eisntein ?
Que pensais Minkowski, Lorentz?
On ne le sait pas... Parlaient-il de la relativité des chronotropies par
changement de repère inertiel ?
Parlaient-il de la relativité de la notion d'hyperplan de temps présent
dans un même repère ?
Il semblerait qu'ils parleraient à tous du premier concept.
Qui est vrai.
Les deux sont vrais.
Mais alors ils ont menti par omission. Ils n'ont pas parlé du principe de
base, qui est, justement le deuxième concept.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Principle_of_Doppler
Go to equations 8 and 10.
Lorentz "borrowed" Voigt's local time, without crediting him.

Lirentz' local time is not the same as Voigt's.
Local time is the isometric coordinate time of an isometric
coordinate system. An important aspect to understand about
it is that it is not local. It is valid for the region where
the coordinate system is valid. At the time Voigt, Larmor and
Lorentz presented their transformations it was assumed that
the entire Universe could be covered with one such system.

What is more interesting than Hendrik Lorentz, that is Einstein's 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.

No "local time" there so irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.

Que pensait Henri Poincaré lorsqu'il écrivait « heure locale » ?
Que pensait Albert Eisntein ?
Que pensais Minkowski, Lorentz?
On ne le sait pas...

*You* do not know.

If you had take time to read what these people actually wrote you
would know.

How come you didn't, if you pretend to think about the question for
ages?