Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #601587 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-02-17 15:32 -0800 |
| Last post | 2023-02-26 22:17 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 15:32 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 16:34 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 18:24 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 04:57 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 08:19 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2023-02-17 16:58 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 17:15 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-02-17 17:56 -0800
Crank Pat Dolan kisses ass to fellow crank Richard Hertz "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 18:00 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 20:42 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 23:50 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 03:50 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-18 10:31 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 04:03 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 05:09 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 05:53 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 06:09 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 06:35 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 08:56 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 19:12 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 11:59 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 14:03 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 22:13 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-25 12:48 -0800
BONGTALK (or worse) (was Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007.) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-25 16:39 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 01:13 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz repeats the same lies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 10:36 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz repeats the same lies Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 11:25 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-18 23:24 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-19 00:37 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-21 14:01 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 14:12 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 14:16 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 01:51 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz keeps "sustaining" "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 06:33 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-18 23:52 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 13:49 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-24 10:46 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-26 11:34 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-26 10:28 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-27 12:05 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-27 19:56 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:59 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 12:41 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-27 22:42 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Connie Scutese <uiin@tssccenc.ne> - 2023-02-27 21:51 +0000
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 13:50 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-27 14:04 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 14:08 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-27 23:28 +0100
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-27 18:37 -0500
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-27 17:55 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein's laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 22:57 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:58 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-26 12:16 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-27 02:24 -0500
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 00:10 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 05:06 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:16 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:42 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 10:56 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 12:38 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 13:13 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 14:36 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 22:55 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 14:08 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-28 00:42 -0500
Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 23:02 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-27 11:36 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-28 00:26 -0500
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-27 22:58 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-28 14:35 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-28 12:49 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 14:23 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-28 16:51 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 15:22 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-28 15:35 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-28 19:07 -0600
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-02-26 12:01 -0800
Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. Bubba Pagano <nuan@bappn.bb> - 2023-02-26 22:17 +0000
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 10:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <616c9267-6213-4843-b580-23c75810daedn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602404 |
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:42:13 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:16:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > How is it going to ANY PROOF of Length Contraction? > > Your above question has been answered in the past. Multiple times. You wait a few months and you ask again. Must be your dementia at work. > LENGTH CONTRACTION remains UNPROVEN. You ate shit at the time, you are eating even more shit now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 12:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <ce28b47f-182a-4b8e-b5fb-547a0551ae49n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602404 |
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 7:42:13 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:16:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > How is it going to ANY PROOF of Length Contraction? > > Your above question has been answered in the past. Multiple times. You wait a few months and you ask again. Must be your dementia at work. > No, it hasn't, imbecile. Volroney tried some ridiculous narratives, but LENGTH CONTRACTION remains UNPROVEN. > > And, being it FALSE, its companion formula for TIME DILATION is also false, an illusion, fake, not physical. Just religious shit. Nothing will change by your invoking magic incantations. > Everything to establish "Einstein's right" everywhere, isn't it? > > The messiah of your religion, Al Einstein. No, just a very good physicist who was way ahead 117 years ago of what you are today. You are simply not even wrong, and that's all there is to it. > Imbeciles group together with more force than gravitational attraction. > > You can't function among NORMAL PEOPLE. Just with cretins like you. No, you are simply an arrogant person with no capacity for doing science. It's not anything terrible. Beethoven and Rubens were not good physicists either. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 13:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <c734c7ea-6b20-4a33-98e1-09698e84481dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602417 |
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:38:51 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 7:42:13 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:16:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: > > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > How is it going to ANY PROOF of Length Contraction? > > > Your above question has been answered in the past. Multiple times. You wait a few months and you ask again. Must be your dementia at work. > > No, it hasn't, imbecile. Volroney tried some ridiculous narratives, but LENGTH CONTRACTION remains UNPROVEN. > > > > And, being it FALSE, its companion formula for TIME DILATION is also false, an illusion, fake, not physical. Just religious shit. > Nothing will change by your invoking magic incantations. > > Everything to establish "Einstein's right" everywhere, isn't it? > > > > The messiah of your religion, Al Einstein. > No, just a very good physicist who was way ahead 117 years ago of > what you are today. You are simply not even wrong, and that's > all there is to it. > > Imbeciles group together with more force than gravitational attraction. > > > > You can't function among NORMAL PEOPLE. Just with cretins like you. > No, you are simply an arrogant person with no capacity for doing science. > It's not anything terrible. Beethoven and Rubens were not good physicists > either. > > -- > Jan I did science, retarded polish. More than what you could have done in 10 of your lifetimes. Real science, theoretical and experimental, on a vast range of physics and engineering fields. And for more than 50 years. What I didn't do, as well as the hundred of professionals working with me, was PSEUDO-SCIENCE, META-PHYSICS, "applied" RELATIVITY, as if such disgusting, idiotic expression (applied relativity) could have ANY REAL SCIENTIFIC VALUE. I worked in "state of the art" projects, which pushed the limits of use of electromagnetism and newtonian mechanics. Almost all of it. My colleagues and I just laughed loudly when a cretin with 2 PhD appeared, as fresh flesh, and tried to say something about using relativity on whatever. We found EXTREME PLEASURE beating the crap out of the IMBECILE, until he entered into REASON and started to contribute with REAL PHYSICS. A time after, he apologized for being such a HUGE, INDOCTRINATED ASSHOLE. He turned into a REAL AND WORTHY PHYSICIST once the shit he was taught poured completely by his ears. It happened several times, including with a cocky MIT engineer. He turned out to be a solid contributor once THE RELATIVITY FOG in his brain dissipated. You, a worthless tensorial piece of shit, with no practical experience on your life, MATHEMATICIAN, should shut the fuck up and listen to maciej and his motto t' = t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 14:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <86efb3ed-8dae-4c83-9795-67310bb947dan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602422 |
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > I a am a retarded odious kapo. Yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 22:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <29cef045-6f14-4164-bcc3-fee7857d1504n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602434 |
On Monday, 27 February 2023 at 23:36:25 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 1:13:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > I a am a retarded odious kapo. No, he didn't. Poor idiot Dono is impudently lying, as expected from relativistic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 14:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <56dc59cb-5426-4b30-bf3a-bac6cc0fe5fdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602417 |
On Monday, 27 February 2023 at 21:38:51 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 7:42:13 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:16:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: > > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > How is it going to ANY PROOF of Length Contraction? > > > Your above question has been answered in the past. Multiple times. You wait a few months and you ask again. Must be your dementia at work. > > No, it hasn't, imbecile. Volroney tried some ridiculous narratives, but LENGTH CONTRACTION remains UNPROVEN. > > > > And, being it FALSE, its companion formula for TIME DILATION is also false, an illusion, fake, not physical. Just religious shit. > Nothing will change by your invoking magic incantations. Sure. Invoke your "proper" bullshit as much as you want, forbidden by it "improper" GPS and TAI will keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. > > Everything to establish "Einstein's right" everywhere, isn't it? > > > > The messiah of your religion, Al Einstein. > No, just a very good physicist who was way ahead 117 years ago of A mumbling inconsistently idiot mystician, rejecting common sense and basic (Euclidean) math, but worshipped by brainwashed morons like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 00:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <ttk48t$3hf52$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602404 |
On 2/27/2023 1:42 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:16:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: >> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: >> >>> How is it going to ANY PROOF of Length Contraction? >> Your above question has been answered in the past. Multiple times. You wait a few months and you ask again. Must be your dementia at work. > > No, it hasn't, imbecile. Volroney tried some ridiculous narratives, but LENGTH CONTRACTION remains UNPROVEN. > > And, being it FALSE, its companion formula for TIME DILATION is also false, an illusion, fake, not physical. Thanks for demonstrating how length contraction must be valid. Time dilation has MANY demonstrated examples. You write that if length contraction is invalid (A), then time dilation is invalid (B). A simple If A then B claim. Simple logic also states that if the statement "If A then B" is true, then the statement "If NOT B then NOT A" is also true. Logic 101. Substituting, we get "If Time dilation is true, then Length Contraction must be true". We have many examples of time dilation, so, according to you, length contraction must be valid. Welcome to the club of SR believers... > You can't function among NORMAL PEOPLE. You are projecting your own issues again...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 23:02 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Crank Richard Hertz eats shit. A lot of it |
| Message-ID | <cd53c1db-006a-4b20-98b0-90b43ff1a20en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602464 |
On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 06:42:56 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 2/27/2023 1:42 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:16:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: > >> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> > >>> How is it going to ANY PROOF of Length Contraction? > >> Your above question has been answered in the past. Multiple times. You wait a few months and you ask again. Must be your dementia at work. > > > > No, it hasn't, imbecile. Volroney tried some ridiculous narratives, but LENGTH CONTRACTION remains UNPROVEN. > > > > And, being it FALSE, its companion formula for TIME DILATION is also false, an illusion, fake, not physical. > Thanks for demonstrating how length contraction must be valid. > Time dilation has MANY demonstrated examples. > > You write that if length contraction is invalid (A), then time dilation > is invalid (B). A simple If A then B claim. Simple logic also states > that if the statement "If A then B" is true, then the statement "If NOT > B then NOT A" is also true. Logic 101. Substituting, we get "If Time > dilation is true, then Length Contraction must be true". We have many > examples of time dilation, A pity that in the meantime in the real world, forbidden nby your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 11:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <a8225d36-d312-4961-b17d-94caf0dfce81n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602367 |
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > Maxwell formulae are derived from a "black box" concept, widely used in engineering. > > This happens at the input of the BB, and this happens at the output of the BB (The BB is nature itself). > > Then, Maxwell JUST DERIVED THE TRANSFER FUNCTION OF THE "NATURE" BLACK BOX. > > He didn't think, even for an INSTANT, about reference frames or MOTION! > > But you all are FAR from understanding such clean and ABSOLUTE conception, because you all got THE RELATIVITY DISEASE! > > And try to put Einstein over Maxwell and Newton. > > A jewish thing, as I wrote before. Then, Richard Hertz, adjustments of Maxwell's equations for relative motion would not be forbidden by Maxwell? But Einstein thought he must keep the equations "invariant"- apparently meaning unaffected by relative motion. I am sure Richard Herz is not an antisemite. He must only want to make clear that he does not fear being considered one for criticizing relativity, a pseudoscience invented by many people of various ethnicities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 00:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <ttk3ag$3hco6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602367 |
On 2/27/2023 8:06 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:24:35 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: >> On 2/26/2023 3:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >> Why do you attack Maxwell and his great discovery? I thought you adored the genius Maxwell! > > I don't attack Maxwell. On the contrary, I'm defending his theory against the subtle attacks of relativists that try to connect > A TRUE GENIUS with what a parasite degenerate (AKA Albert Einstein) derived from Lorentz-Poincaré his RELATIVE relativity. [snip mouth-foaming rants] You attacked Maxwell when you wrote, in response to myself: >> A direct consequence of that is the vacuum speed of light is c >> relative to every inertial frame. > > IN YOUR DERANGED, RELATIVIST MIND, THIS MAY HAPPEN. Why not?. Relativists have no shame to affirm FALLACIES! It was Maxwell who discovered that! So you implicitly attacked Maxwell and his discovery of the constant vacuum speed of EM waves when you tried to attack "relativists" (crank word) (kook-o-meter goes DING) for believing in Maxwell's discovery. I am of the belief that, had he lived a long and healthy life, Maxwell just may have discovered SR before Einstein came along. He had both of Einstein's postulates (having discovered the reason for one of them). It would only have been a matter of not getting tangled up by the aether concept and to chew through the math the way Einstein did. > How is it going to ANY PROOF of Length Contraction? There is evidence for length contraction. > > NONE? Proofs are impossible in physics. > If Length Contraction IS NONEXISTENT IN NATURE, Not proven, so the following is irrelevant. > so is its companion formula for TIME DILATION, Besides, time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated again and again. By your logic, since there is substantial time dilation evidence, then length contraction MUST be valid. > Maxwell formulae are derived from a "black box" concept, widely used in engineering. > > This happens at the input of the BB, and this happens at the output of the BB (The BB is nature itself). > > Then, Maxwell JUST DERIVED THE TRANSFER FUNCTION OF THE "NATURE" BLACK BOX. So take a black box that takes the velocity of some object and outputs the speed of light relative to that object. That particular black box outputs "c" no matter what its input is. I think even you could design a black box which does that. > A jewish thing, as I wrote before. Damn! You just overloaded and fried yet another kook-o-meter!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-27 22:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <0cce3c90-352e-4ba9-9720-a48e9476a200n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602463 |
On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 06:26:44 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 2/27/2023 8:06 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:24:35 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > >> On 2/26/2023 3:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >> Why do you attack Maxwell and his great discovery? I thought you adored the genius Maxwell! > > > > I don't attack Maxwell. On the contrary, I'm defending his theory against the subtle attacks of relativists that try to connect > > A TRUE GENIUS with what a parasite degenerate (AKA Albert Einstein) derived from Lorentz-Poincaré his RELATIVE relativity. > [snip mouth-foaming rants] > > You attacked Maxwell when you wrote, in response to myself: > >> A direct consequence of that is the vacuum speed of light is c > >> relative to every inertial frame. > > > > IN YOUR DERANGED, RELATIVIST MIND, THIS MAY HAPPEN. Why not?. Relativists have no shame to affirm FALLACIES! > It was Maxwell who discovered that! No, stupid Mike, it wasn't. Your fabrications are funny, and "!" is not helping them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 14:35 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <jaydneMzOLUe-GP-nZ2dnZfqlJz8fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #602326 |
On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. > > How would you possibly know that? Because Einstein stated that in several places. > [... further nonsense ignored] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 12:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <38c13b2a-ce54-481d-bfb4-3f5feb98aa91n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602526 |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023, at 12:35:27 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. > > > > How would you possibly know that? > > Because Einstein stated that in several places. > > > [... further nonsense ignored] > > Tom Roberts Like where? And you still need to answer my earlier question: How can Maxwell's equations lack the means to adjust for relative velocity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 14:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <2fc051d1-0397-4e87-b6df-112b21fa62a2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602526 |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. > > > > How would you possibly know that? > > Because Einstein stated that in several places. > > > [... further nonsense ignored] > > Tom Roberts For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference. Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions? It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker. We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker. Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen. Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 16:51 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <k67ereFdjuU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #602538 |
On 2/28/2023 4:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. >>> >>> How would you possibly know that? >> >> Because Einstein stated that in several places. >> >>> [... further nonsense ignored] >> >> Tom Roberts > > For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference. > > Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions? > > It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker. > > We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker. > > Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen. > > Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O. > google "einstein's references to Maxwell's works" About 3,440,000 results At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation, where references are known to be available they should be cited.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 15:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <075bbd4e-3d90-4e48-bb79-f03688a844b6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602544 |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:51:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: > On 2/28/2023 4:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. > >>> > >>> How would you possibly know that? > >> > >> Because Einstein stated that in several places. > >> > >>> [... further nonsense ignored] > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference. > > > > Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions? > > > > It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker. > > > > We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker. > > > > Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen. > > > > Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O. > > > google "einstein's references to Maxwell's works" > > About 3,440,000 results > > At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation, > where references are known to be available they should be cited. The correct search should be "Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature", or similar. You'll be disappointed. ZERO finds, even breaking it as "Einstein" "Maxwell's equations" "laws of nature".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 15:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <d7c98c2f-371c-4c3b-bbd4-9eadec5e2b50n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #602550 |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:22:54 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > > >>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. > > >>> How would you possibly know that? > > >> Because Einstein stated that in several places. > Tom Roberts > > > > > > For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference. > > > Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions? > > > It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker. > > > Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen. > > At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation, > > where references are known to be available they should be cited. > The correct search should be "Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature", or similar. > You'll be disappointed. ZERO finds, even breaking it as "Einstein" "Maxwell's equations" "laws of nature". There is no need for Einstein's Lorentz transformations unless one must account for a missing ether wind in the Michelson-Morley Experiment with a wave theory. Please see: "Ritz, Einstein, and the Emission Hypothesis" by Alberto A. Martínez.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-28 19:07 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <k67mqsF1t66U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #602550 |
On 2/28/2023 5:22 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:51:29 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote: >> On 2/28/2023 4:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 2/26/23 2:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:34:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> In 1905 Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature. >>>>> >>>>> How would you possibly know that? >>>> >>>> Because Einstein stated that in several places. >>>> >>>>> [... further nonsense ignored] >>>> >>>> Tom Roberts >>> >>> For a person that claim to hold a PhD in physics, you SUCK with your assertions without any reference. >>> >>> Too lazy to do that, or just CAN'T BACK UP with facts your assertions? >>> >>> It's too easy to go around parroting, pretending that your comments be accepted like if coming from the supreme, absolute thinker. >>> >>> We had Bodkin for that, but he "was" a woodworker. >>> >>> Put more substance on your claims, and gain respect. LINKS or it didn't happen. >>> >>> Learn a bit from Paul Andersen's M.O. >>> >> google "einstein's references to Maxwell's works" >> >> About 3,440,000 results >> >> At the same time you're right about he etiquette of this situation, >> where references are known to be available they should be cited. > > The correct search should be "Einstein regarded Maxwell's equations as laws of nature", or similar. > > You'll be disappointed. ZERO finds, even breaking it as "Einstein" "Maxwell's equations" "laws of nature". So I asked google " dick hertz gets something right" with the expectation that I would get zero hits. But then google doesn't always live up to the premise/promise and back came "About 44,100,000 results." Of course none of them that I saw actually addressed the question, instead they focused on the name "Dick Hertz" and I'm not about to take the time to review anything beyond the first page of results. Using the exact wording you suggested by "cut n paste" I got a surprising "About 4,520,000 results." So you were as wrong as I was and probably for the same reason, google will give replies if at all possible even if it is wrong. What's left is the question whether or not you believe good etiquette requires a citation where one is available, a piece of thread drift that I introduced. Considering that I did that, are you actually content with the answer you gave?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-26 12:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <cf637001-492a-4f8f-ad9c-747f860a1cbfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #601587 |
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:32:55 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2709536 > > ******************************************************************* > "Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory. > > I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws: > > ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames. > > ▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames. > > ▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by 𝐸=√(𝑚²𝑐⁴+𝑝²𝑐²) > > . In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc², and the energy of a massless body is E = pc. > > Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity". > > ******************************************************************* > > I wonder why, also. > > And I wonder why he wasn't awarded with a second Nobel Prize for > relativity. > > After all, the Nobel Committee had plenty of time: 33 years after 1922. > If he was the greatest star in the sky of physics for the entire XX century. > > These persons were awarded twice: > > 1. Marie Curie (1903 - Physics, 1911 - Chemistry). 8 years apart. > 2. Linus Pauling (1954 - Chemistry, 1962 - Peace). 8 years apart. > 3. John Bardeen (1956 - Physics, 1972 - Physics). 16 years apart. > 4. Frederick Sanger (1958 - Chemistry, 1980 - Chemistry). 22 years apart. > > They could have given him one (Peace) for the letter to FDR, or one (physics) > for E=mc2 and the nuclear power for war/peace. > > But IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why? What reasons had the Nobel Committee > to hold the prize back? Why would he be law where he said authority is the problem? How old is science? It is more ancient than it wants to admit. Most people are a dinosaur.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bubba Pagano <nuan@bappn.bb> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-02-26 22:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why no Einstein’s laws?, asked R.W. Kadel from Berkeley Laboratory, in 2007. |
| Message-ID | <ttglq7$315ib$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #602325 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > Why would he be law where he said authority is the problem? How old is > science? It is more ancient than it wants to admit. > Most people are a dinosaur. I believe the khazar cocaine belenske is doing germon the ursula. Russians fighting the Khazarian Mafia https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/DXXrxJdE6px8 German Official： Germany should reassess relationship with the US after Nord Stream Controversy https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/e8lh6cfWU9nY the khazar cocaine best snow know to humankind belenske, scared like shit, by his people. What The Hell Is This Theater？ Nazi-Lensky's Body Double Accidentally Appears With Biden https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/ICZWwmk5RMFL democracy, what's up with Zelensky's thugs terrorizing https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/video/egCt2dIRjDvk
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web