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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #615937 > unrolled thread

GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System.

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

Contents

  GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 20:03 -0700
    Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 07:40 -0700
      Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:46 -0700
        Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:12 -0700
          Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:27 -0700
            Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:18 -0700
            Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:32 -0700
              Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 16:29 -0700
              Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 16:49 -0700
                Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:51 -0700
                  Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:54 -0700
                    Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 19:42 -0700
                      Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 21:35 -0700
                    Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 20:01 -0700
                Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 21:27 -0700
                  Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 21:36 -0700
                    Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 22:46 -0700
                      Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 22:57 -0700
                        Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 23:29 -0700
            Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-31 10:29 -0700
              Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-31 14:09 -0500
          Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 13:44 -0700
            Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-25 15:55 -0500
              Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:01 -0700
                Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 18:50 -0700
                  Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 19:22 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-25 20:12 -0700
                      Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 10:53 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-25 20:36 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-25 20:51 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-26 06:07 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-26 10:46 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-26 10:49 -0700
                      Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-26 17:08 -0500
                        Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 19:59 -0700
                  Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 19:22 -0700
                  Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-29 14:06 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-29 14:10 -0700
                      Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:38 -0700
                        Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:29 -0700
                        Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 09:40 +0200
                          Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 02:38 -0700
                      Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-31 10:24 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:30 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism Columbus Avksentievski <ialb@ivclcsbe.cs> - 2023-07-30 09:45 +0000
          Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 12:50 -0700
      Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-24 13:39 -0700
    Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 10:00 -0700
      Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 12:09 -0700
        Re: GR affirms: Time duration is not linear at every place in the Solar System. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 12:41 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#616428

On 7/31/2023 12:29 PM, RichD wrote:
> On July 24, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>> Children are not being taught scientific method or science at all. They are
>>> being taught doctrine and blind acceptance.
>>
>> You clearly have no idea how science works. Mainstream science is not 'doctrine'
>> and no scientist accepts it blindly.
>> People are always welcome to challenge mainstream physics...
> 
> Physics, maybe ... however ...
> 
> "An attack on me is an attack on science."
> -   St. Anthony Fauci
> 
> "An attack on me is an attack on Germany."
> -  Uncle Adolf

That's th problem any time someone begins to rely on
authorities. The come in all stripes.

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

#615989

On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 9:12:11 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 7:40:52 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > On Monday, July 24, 2023 at 12:03:21 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > For instance, time duration at the surface of the Sun is 26'/year lower than 
> > > > at the surface of the Earth. 
> > > > 
> > > > At every place in the Solar System, time duration depends on the gravitational 
> > > > potential, relativists say. Then, time duration is different at every single point of 
> > > > a trajectory of a satellite sent to explore other planets. 
> > > > 
> > > > On Aug. 3, 2004, the MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) mission was launched, to place a spacecraft in orbit around Mercury for an in-depth study of the small planet. 
> > > > 
> > > > As with many other satellites, it kept time using atomic clocks, and the result 
> > > > of measurements heavily depended on the "MESSENGER time", which was 
> > > > different from Earth's time. 
> > > > 
> > > > One of the eight systems onboard, the Radio Science (RS) system used MESSENGER’s radio signals to track precisely the spacecraft’s trajectory, allowing the science team to determine Mercury’s gravity field. 
> > > > 
> > > > And the effect on time, according to relativists, has been present on every 
> > > > single satellite mission, like those sent to the Sun: 
> > > > 
> > > > - Helios 1 and 2, 1974 and 1976- 
> > > > - Ulysses, 1990. 
> > > > - Genesis, 2001. 
> > > > - Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), 1995, 
> > > > 
> > > > And to some planets: 
> > > > 
> > > > - Pioneer Venus Orbiter, 1978. 
> > > > - Mars Global Surveyor, 1996. 
> > > > - Galileo, 1989, Jupiter and its moons. 
> > > > - Cassini–Huygens, 1997, Saturn and its moons. 
> > > > 
> > > > Does anyone know what, if any, procedures were implemented to solve 
> > > > the alleged difference in time duration, as measured on any of these satellites? 
> > > > 
> > > > Differences range from about 4"/day (near Sun) and 0.1"/day (near Jupiter). 
> > > > 
> > > > These alleged differences create huge errors in 3D position and 3D velocity, 
> > > > if not corrected, isn't it? 
> > > > 
> > > > Did algorithms for compensations existed and were used? How come 
> > > > they are not in public domain? In particular when the trajectories 
> > > > calculations were purely Keplerian/Newtonian, with infinite speed of gravity. 
> > > Relativist astronomers should publish a "geocentric time map" for the Solar system, just by applying gravitational 
> > > time dilation. 
> > > 
> > > But, in this way, the assertions of GR will reach mainstream and will help gullible people to understand how stupid relativity is. 
> > Your sheer naivete is sort of charming :-) 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> Science? Not anymore. 
> 
> Children are not being taught scientific method or science at all. They are being taught doctrine and blind acceptance. They do not question. Not only that, but they scream at those who would challenge their beliefs. 
> 
> People has empowered morons, liars and thieves. Now they refuse to surrender power.
Imagine in the U.S. schools where they already teach relativity if they taught this: Kids, we know that everything, whether a particle or wave, shares the velocity of the source. Einstein discovered that light is the one exception to this rule, even though it has properties of both waves and particles. It is true that there is a Doppler shift for starlight due to relative motion, apparently demonstrating that light speed shares the velocity of the source. However, because of the Fizeau, MMX, and Sagnac experiments, we can disregard that and derive that light speed is independent of the source.

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

#616061

On 7/24/2023 3:44 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

>> People has empowered morons, liars and thieves. Now they refuse to surrender power.
> Imagine in the U.S. schools where they already teach relativity if they taught this: Kids, we know that everything, whether a particle or wave, shares the velocity of the source. Einstein discovered that light is the one exception to this rule, even though it has properties of both waves and particles. It is true that there is a Doppler shift for starlight due to relative motion, apparently demonstrating that light speed shares the velocity of the source. However, because of the Fizeau, MMX, and Sagnac experiments, we can disregard that and derive that light speed is independent of the source.

You step into the same trap as all the rest of the cranks.

The problem with the description of light falling into both
particle and wave is the fault of our understanding. Light
is what it is. The fact that we have arbitrarily defined
wave and particle light as we have is the problem, not light.

The more you attempt to define light in those terms the
further you get from the reality that we do not correctly
appreciate these topics and we use the tools we have
discovered, as inadequate as they are. I hasten to add that
for most of the human purposes discovered so far they give
us the tools we have needed.

If the human race is truly clever the rest will suddenly
fall into place. Watch this space.

P.S. You've been working on dead end problems of little
or no consequence.

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

#616067

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 5:55:19 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:

<snip>

> You step into the same trap as all the rest of the cranks. 
> 
> The problem with the description of light falling into both 
> particle and wave is the fault of our understanding. Light 
> is what it is. The fact that we have arbitrarily defined 
> wave and particle light as we have is the problem, not light. 

<snip>

And you step into the same trap as the relativists, by equating wave and particle descriptions of light,
even when they are founded on different theories: Maxwell's electromagnetism and Planck's quantum of actions.

Maxwell's equations are derived from composite interactions of electric and magnetic fields, without any reference
to their position and motion in a 3D space. They describe a point-like event in such EM field, which is self-oscillating,
self-propelled, with their electric and magnetic fields moving in quadrature with intrinsic speed c in vacuum. The classic
solution of Maxwell's equations are eigenfunctions like sinusoidal (either as sin wt or as e^(iwt)). They have been, since
their creation, extensively proven as true and are the basis of modern civilization (radio,  radar, GNSS, etc.), as long as
they are applied FAR from the source (in terms of wavelengths).

Planck's equation is derived from experimental data obtained from radiation that comes out from a black body cavity
through a small orifice, which has helped to reveal what happens inside a BBC AT REST and in thermal equilibrium.
Based on the concept that radiation inside the BBC travels within walls AS WAVES, bouncing back and forth within the
cavity, between PLANCKIAN RESONATORS (now atoms).

Planck deduced that EACH INDIVIDUAL RADIATION travelled as waves between resonators (atoms) but that WERE ABSORBED
in DISCRETE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY at each resonator, or EMITTED in the same way, with energy E = hf.

Both theories are irreconcilable one with each other, because Maxwell's waves are composed of incredible number of quantas
of energy (photons) per surface unit, while Planck's photons are INDIVIDUAL EVENTS at each atom.

But in no case, either Maxwell or Planck, wrote a single word about the MOTION of the source (actually, Planck's resonators
are STATIC in a 3D space).

So, you can't derive any hypothesis about if the waves/photons share the velocity of the source.

That was the cretinism of Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL.

So, any discussion on this matter is sterile. It's just a CONJECTURE, adopted as true by Lorentz-Poincaré.

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

#616075 — Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> 

Dumbestfuck,

Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!

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

#616077 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> >
> Dumbestfuck, 
> 
> Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!

Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams,
clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904.

Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass,
exactly as Lorentz did one year before.

The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before.

But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.

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

#616080 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > 
> > Dumbestfuck, 
> > 
> > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 
> 
> Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass, 
> exactly as Lorentz did one year before. 
> 
> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> 
> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.
Lorentz transformations were meant to account for the lack of an ether wind (Lorentz understood them to account for the null result of the MMX). Since Einstein did not have an ether, why would he want them? Adopting the second postulate would require different calculations. How do his calculations differ from Lorentz's? They are really virtually identical, aren't they?

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

#616103 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 8:12:36 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > > 
> > > Dumbestfuck, 
> > > 
> > > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck! 
> > Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> > clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 
> > 
> > Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass, 
> > exactly as Lorentz did one year before. 
> > 
> > The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> > 
> > But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.
> Lorentz transformations were meant to account for the lack of an ether wind (Lorentz understood them to account for the null result of the MMX). Since Einstein did not have an ether, why would he want them? Adopting the second postulate would require different calculations. How do his calculations differ from Lorentz's? They are really virtually identical, aren't they?

It is a lie by the world of science to hold Einstein to something he changed his belief about.
In the 1920's he said the aether was absolutely necessary as it was his space time immaterial physics.
In 1905 he thought it might be unnecessary but as of the 1920's he changed his mind.
My Zero aether... wins...

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

#616081 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > 
> > Dumbestfuck, 
> > 
> > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 
> 
> Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass, 
> exactly as Lorentz did one year before. 
> 
> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> 
> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.
Einstein needed formulas to explain how the speed of light was independent from the source when the MMX is easily explained if it is dependent on the source.

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

#616082 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > 
> > Dumbestfuck, 
> > 
> > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 
> 
> Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass, 
> exactly as Lorentz did one year before. 
> 
> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> 
> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.
"Einstein was sometimes asked to explain how his theory was any better than Lorentz’s electrodynamics, if they both used the same formulas." -[Schlafly, Roger. How Einstein Ruined Physics: Motion, Symmetry, and Revolution in Science (p. 43). Dark Buzz. Kindle Edition.]

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

#616089 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > 
> > Dumbestfuck, 
> > 
> > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 
> 
> Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass, 
> exactly as Lorentz did one year before. 
> 
> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> 
> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.
In the MMX for the beam in the direction of Earth's orbit, the formula required assuming light does not share the velocity of the source is C-V+V because the round trip averages C. Why not just Galilean C+V= C within the device?

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

#616101 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 

> > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 

> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> 
> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.
You may like this excerpt: "Einstein told the Times in 1921 that opposition to his relativity theory was entirely anti-Semitic.[137] Some of the anti-relativists did complain about Jewish conspiracies, but the German physicist Ernst Gehrcke was more typical, and he was concerned about the future of science. New Scientist magazine reports: The increasing role played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from reality. “Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural science is the science of the real,” Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went further: “This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of metaphysics.”" [-Schlafly, Roger. How Einstein Ruined Physics: Motion, Symmetry, and Revolution in Science (p. 112). Dark Buzz. Kindle Edition.]

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

#616102 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > 
> > Dumbestfuck, 
> > 
> > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 
> 
> Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass, 
> exactly as Lorentz did one year before. 
> 
> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> 
> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.
If criticism of relativity is "entirely anti-Semitic," doesn't that make relativity purely Zionism?

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

#616115 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On 7/26/2023 12:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL.
>>>>
>>> Dumbestfuck,
>>>
>>> Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
>> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams,
>> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904.
>>
>> Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass,
>> exactly as Lorentz did one year before.
>>
>> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before.
>>
>> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.

> If criticism of relativity is "entirely anti-Semitic," doesn't that make relativity purely Zionism?

Here you've passed the tipping point. Not the first time though.

Too bad.

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

#616120 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 3:09:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/26/2023 12:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> >> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> >>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> >>>> f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> >>>> 
> >>> Dumbestfuck, 
> >>> 
> >>> Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck! 
> >> Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams, 
> >> clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904. 
> >> 
> >> Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass, 
> >> exactly as Lorentz did one year before. 
> >> 
> >> The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before. 
> >> 
> >> But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history. 
> 
> > If criticism of relativity is "entirely anti-Semitic," doesn't that make relativity purely Zionism?
> Here you've passed the tipping point. Not the first time though. 
> 
> Too bad.

Orbital speeds give planets their time dilation and kinetic energy that also gives them more weight.
Gravity and motion can change time.

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

#616078 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 10:50:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> >
> Dumbestfuck, 
> 
> Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!

Anyone can probe that 2nd. postulate HAD TO be certain, so the cretin could use his stupid kinematics, light beams,
clocks and mirrors TO FORGE the derivation of the ALREADY KNOWN Lorentz transforms, since 1904.

Had he not established such idiotic postulate, he would have had to pull the Lorentz transformations out of his dirty ass,
exactly as Lorentz did one year before.

The only genuine and lone genius here is Woldemar Voigt, who derived the key elements (gamma factor, local time) 17 years before.

But relativists, as usual with anything inconvenient, CANCELED Voigt and his contributions, and buried him deep down into the history.

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

#616286 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> >
> >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> >
> Dumbestfuck, 
> 
> Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!

"Proven" is incorrect when applied to physics.  Postulates may be "confirmed"
or "refuted."  The 2nd postulate has been confirmed many, many times by the
LLRE, the GPS experience and communication with spacecraft throughout the
solar system.

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

#616287 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:06:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote: 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > 
> > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > 
> > Dumbestfuck, 
> > 
> > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!
> "Proven" is incorrect when applied to physics. Postulates may be "confirmed" 
> or "refuted." The 2nd postulate has been confirmed many, many times by the 
> LLRE, the GPS experience and communication with spacecraft throughout the 
> solar system.
While the first postulate had been absolutely, dispositively, logically, irrefutably, irrefragably and theoretically by the Big Ben Paradox.

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

#616291 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:17 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:06:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > > 
> > > Dumbestfuck, 
> > > 
> > > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck! 
> > "Proven" is incorrect when applied to physics. Postulates may be "confirmed" 
> > or "refuted." The 2nd postulate has been confirmed many, many times by the 
> > LLRE, the GPS experience and communication with spacecraft throughout the 
> > solar system.

> While the first postulate had been absolutely, dispositively, logically, irrefutably, irrefragably and theoretically by the Big Ben Paradox.

Dolan getting dressed in the morning...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMNmgO_cmwApTnY3wtFaLBuo1xSCEW0Be8VA&usqp=CAU

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

#616296 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz showcases his cretinism

On Saturday, 29 July 2023 at 23:38:43 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:10:17 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 2:06:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:01:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > >f Einstein's 2nd. Postulate (Conjecture) AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AT ALL. 
> > > > > 
> > > > Dumbestfuck, 
> > > > 
> > > > Postulates cannot be proven. Keep it up, dumbesfuck! 
> > > "Proven" is incorrect when applied to physics. Postulates may be "confirmed" 
> > > or "refuted." The 2nd postulate has been confirmed many, many times by the 
> > > LLRE, the GPS experience and communication with spacecraft throughout the 
> > > solar system. 
> 
> > While the first postulate had been absolutely, dispositively, logically, irrefutably, irrefragably and theoretically by the Big Ben Paradox.
> Dolan getting dressed in the morning... 

And the mumble of your idiot guru was inconsistent.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web