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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662082 > unrolled thread

The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

#662082 — The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#662084

On 03/22/2025 06:14 PM, 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.


There are three different things called "c",
light's and electrostatics' and electrodynamics'.

The other ones at light arrive at from limits.
Yet, they're not the same, though they're on
the same order and a bit above and below.


"Equating" the photon and electron, or, you know,
measurements so associated with them, is a pretty
great thing and it's because of electron-physics mostly
which is due the ultraviolet catastrophe largely and
that there are yet, for examples, muon and neutrino
physics, has that electron-physics is a great,
"severe abstraction", and what happens when it's
the only idiom is that the other aspects of physics
get bent and eventually broken to it.

Then, "equating relativists", is as stupid, when for
example there are weak SR-ians which is what it seems
you're talking about, there are the other kinds, for
example when there's one "energy" yet four and more
fields cum forces, fields of potential and simple
instantaneous derivatives called forces.

Einstein long ago definitely pointed out
that "relativity of simultaneity is non-local,
and, SR is local", meaning there's always a skew
from any alternative perspective given any dynamics.


It's a continuum mechanics, ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662086

Le 23/03/2025 à 02:14, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
> [snip nonsense]

> 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?

Why don't you check by yourself ? Using Lorentz Transformations equations 
it is quite easy to compute dx'/dt'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662089

Le 23/03/2025 à 15:09, Python a écrit :
> Le 23/03/2025 à 02:14, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
>> [snip nonsense]
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Why don't you check by yourself ? Using Lorentz Transformations equations it is 
> quite easy to compute dx'/dt'.

It's not that I want to be a bit of a Pythonouille, it's that I think, 
with my enormous penis, that the story isn't that simple.
Certainly, the Lorentz transformations are correct, but only one man in 
the world is capable of interpreting them correctly.
100% of physicists learn them by heart and BELIEVE they understand them. 
I'm starting to wonder if Poincaré himself (and what a genius he was) 
understood them physically, and not just mathematically.
I don't think a single man on earth has understood the theory of 
relativity, even special, except for the good Dr. Hachel. Not even one 
other man.
What does Hachel say when he's discussing the Poincaré-Lorentz 
transformations? He says this means that when Stella returns to Earth at a 
speed of 0.8 c, she sees the Earth THREE TIMES further away than the Earth 
sees her, at the moment the Earth sees her passing at that location, at 
the level of this "I perceive the Earth" event.
It will probably take decades for physicists to understand the 
psychological mechanism I've been explaining to them for years.
Yet THIS is what the mathematical Poincré-Lorentz transformations mean. 
This fantastic relativistic spatial accordion effect that we still don't 
understand, and which makes the geniuses of relativity look like cranks.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662090

On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 14:09:54 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 23/03/2025 à 02:14, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
>> [snip nonsense]
>
>> 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?
>
> Why don't you check by yourself ? Using Lorentz Transformations
> equations
> it is quite easy to compute dx'/dt'.

You fail to understand that:

dv/dt = dv/dt' = 0

is A FUCKING POSTULATE, so this is strongly embedded into posterior
calculations.


It has the same level as this part of the second postulate in the 1905
paper:


dc/dt = dc/dt' = 0

You have to reason critically BEYOND MATHEMATICS, about the consequences
of these two postulates.

But maybe what I ask is too much for you.

Your proposal to compute dx'/dt' has no sense, because they are
equations created AFTER the postulates were used.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662092

W dniu 23.03.2025 o 16:00, rhertz pisze:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 14:09:54 +0000, Python wrote:
> 
>> Le 23/03/2025 à 02:14, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
>>> [snip nonsense]
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Why don't you check by yourself ? Using Lorentz Transformations
>> equations
>> it is quite easy to compute dx'/dt'.
> 
> You fail to understand that:

Surprised?
Python is a complete idiot. The only thing he
doesn't fail to is spitting and slandering.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662094

On 03/23/2025 07:09 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 23/03/2025 à 02:14, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
>> [snip nonsense]
>
>> 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?
>
> Why don't you check by yourself ? Using Lorentz Transformations
> equations it is quite easy to compute dx'/dt'.


Rather it's trivial to arrive at an expression thereof,
yet of course implicits in algebraic quantities lead out
of the various derivations.

There are a bunch of ways to result something "Lorentz invariant".
Then that's usually considered the minimal needful to say "models SR".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662103

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.







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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662115

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.


Did Einstein forget to tell you that???? 


He only wants to know 'what's on God's mind'.


On God's mind, not...outside. inside.



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662131

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web