Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662131

Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > rhertz wrote:
> > >
> > > I was thinking about the paper the fallacious deceiver plagiarized in
> > > 1905, which is called now Special Relativity.
> > >
> > > Many times in the past I mentally revised the first part looking for
> > > absurd assertions, like the second postulate and independence of c with
> > > motion of the emitter, the funny kinematics that the imbecile derived
> > > from it, his fallacious and mathematically wrong derivation of Lorentz
> > > transforms, etc.
> > >
> > > I accept that constancy of speed of light in vacuum is a local constant.
> > > Maxwell derived it in 1865 through the values of permittivity and
> > > permeability. But Maxwell didn't say a word about the independence of
> > > the emitter motion.
> > >
> > > I accept the mathematical artifacts that are called Lorentz transforms,
> > > being for me just A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY WITH NO PHYSICAL MEANING.
> > > Lorentz sought a basis for length contraction since 1892, after
> > > FitzGerald idea about the failure of MMX.
> > >
> > > In 1904, Lorentz PLANTED the Gamma Factor, as well as local time,
> > > without any explanations or references to his prior works since 1892.
> > > But both terms came from the work of Voigt in 1887. Lorentz DISMISSED
> > > the value of time transform as just a collateral nuisance in his pursuit
> > > of length contraction justification.
> > >
> > > So far, so good.
> > >
> > > But just a while ago, a doubt struck my mind about Einstein's paper:
> > >
> > > HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the
> > > observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same
> > > stupid remote perception,
> > > THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
> > >
> > > Shouldn't the imbecile relativists perceive speed v AFFECTED BY THE
> > > MOTION ITSELF?
> > >
> > > Time affected in the remote perception. Length affected in the remote
> > > perception.
> > >
> > > But HOW COME speed v is considered to be EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH
> > > OBSERVERS, when they perform remote sensing of speed (and it's
> > > symmetric).
> > >
> > > Should v be a FUNCTION of time and distance and not a universal
> > > constant, exactly like the c speed? At least in the theoretical
> > > framework of the fucking papers that have been written?
> > >
> > > With this FALLACY of constancy of speed v at the same level of speed c,
> > > all the building of SR seems to me A GIANT PILE OF CRAP, MORE THAN EVER
> > > BEFORE.
> > >
> > > Fuck Einstein and every fucking relativist.
> >
> > Relativity only exist...'in the mind'.
> >
> > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/psychological-relativity/8B0ED8B6C081AAA7A1B6BF89FC6A1DFD
> >
> > there is no difference between “Psychological relativity” and
> > "Einstein's relativity".
> >
> > Relativity does not exist 'out there'...
> >
> > it exist only in the mind.
> 
> In other words, ...
> 
> Einstein's relativity is just a physics 'model' to describe
> 'Psychological relativity observations', not a universal truth that
> exist outside our minds.
> 
> They exist...nowhere. It's Psychological, ...it exist only in the mind.


Furthermore, the laws of physics...doesn't exist!


There are no laws of physics...out there. 



it exist only in the mind.




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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-23 01:14 +0000
  Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 19:39 -0700
  Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-03-23 14:09 +0000
    Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2025-03-23 14:54 +0000
    Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-03-23 15:00 +0000
      Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-03-23 16:13 +0100
    Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-03-23 08:22 -0700
  Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-23 15:26 -0700
    Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-23 23:12 -0700
      Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-03-25 00:25 -0700

csiph-web