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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662082

The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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

Thread

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

csiph-web