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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580430

Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul.

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 16/03/2022 à 20:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 16/03/2022 à 19:49, Paparios a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> time dilation is measurable.
>>> 
>>> I don't really like that term.
>>> 
>>> I think we should use the more accurate term "time elasticity".
>>> 
>>> R.H. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Terminology is not the issue. 
>> 
>> And inventing your own jargon is not of value to anyone. 
> 
> To understand things well, you have to define them well.
> 
> Time dilation means that proper time can expand.

No. Once again, just because you don’t know what terms like “proper time”
mean is not a reason to invent your own terms you like better. Try a book. 

> 
> It is necessary by imprecision, because that implies obviously, that it 
> cannot contract.
> 
> This is what all the books dealing with relativity say.
> 
> To > Tr
> 
> However, this is theoretically false if we apply the right theory and the 
> right equation.
> 
> To=Tr/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) is wrong.
> 
> More precisely, it is only valid for a transverse observer.
> 
> The real equation (and dear Odd, you will immediately understand why I am 
> talking about elasticity and not dilation) is:
> To=Tr(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> 
> So the observable time may actually be shorter.
> 
> This is what explains, as I have already said, Langevin's paradox, where 
> the subject returning at high speed sees the terrestrial clock rotating 
> incredibly faster than his own, while his chronotropy remains unchanged 
> (the two watches each admit that their own chronotropy is reciprocal).
> 
> You have to make the effort to understand what I am explaining.
> 
> And not refer me to books that I know, without yourself understanding what 
> ME, I am saying, and that you apparently don't know, since you criticize 
> me without understanding.
> 
> R.H. 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Thread

Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 18:08 -0700
  Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 18:19 -0700
    Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 20:38 -0700
      Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 20:42 -0700
        Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 21:39 -0700
          Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 22:26 -0700
            Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 22:44 -0700
              Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 08:34 -0700
        Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 23:22 -0700
      Re: Cretin CRank Richard Hertz has a recurring wet dream Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:16 +0000
  Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 01:20 +0000
  Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 01:01 -0700
  Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry  foul. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-16 12:46 +0000
    Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 13:09 +0000
  Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:25 -0700
    Lying POS Richard Hertz eats shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:47 -0700
      Re: Lying POS Richard Hertz eats shit Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-16 19:09 +0000
        Re: Lying POS Richard Hertz eats shit JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 17:39 -0700
    Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 18:12 +0000
      Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry  foul. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-16 18:52 +0000
        Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 19:18 +0000
      Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 11:54 -0700
        Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 19:22 +0000
    Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-16 11:49 -0700
      Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry  foul. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-16 18:57 +0000
        Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 19:22 +0000
          Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry  foul. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-16 19:35 +0000
            Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 20:07 +0000
            Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 17:42 -0700
          Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 22:15 -0700
      Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 12:06 -0700
      Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 12:34 -0700
        Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-16 13:40 -0700
          Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 22:16 -0700
  Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Brand Evora <bev@erbnm.as> - 2022-03-16 20:56 +0000
  Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-16 17:08 -0700
    Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 18:43 -0700
      Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:16 -0700
    Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 02:52 +0000
      Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 22:14 -0700
    Re: Lorentz transforms are dead on arrival. No x', then no t'. Now cry foul. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-17 20:35 +0100

csiph-web