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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616937 > unrolled thread

Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism.

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

Contents

  Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:31 -0700
    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:37 -0700
      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:07 -0700
      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 19:08 -0700
        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 20:34 -0700
    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 21:18 -0700
      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 01:04 -0700
        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-07 11:15 +0200
          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:24 -0700
            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:31 -0700
              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 10:21 -0700
            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 19:32 +0200
              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:39 -0500
              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 16:58 -0700
                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 18:41 -0700
                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-08 07:30 -0700
                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-08 12:26 -0700
                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-08 21:49 -0700
                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 08:47 +0200
                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-16 07:47 +0200
              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:04 -0700
                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-08 12:57 -0500
                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 11:47 -0700
                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:52 -0700
                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 21:37 -0700
            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-09 08:26 +0200
              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 12:43 +0200
                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 11:54 -0400
                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 18:25 +0200
                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:48 -0700
                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 11:14 -0700
                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 21:47 +0200
                          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:05 -0700
                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 22:57 +0200
                              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:21 -0700
                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:39 -0700
                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-10 11:37 +0200
                                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:35 -0700
                                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:37 -0700
                                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:31 -0700
                              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 16:16 -0700
                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:17 +0200
                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 21:47 +0200
                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-10 07:31 +0200
                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-10 11:37 +0200
                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-11 08:20 +0200
                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 18:19 -0400
                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-17 07:42 +0200
                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 00:53 -0700
                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 02:04 -0700
                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Booker Martos <etrs@eoaksmao.tb> - 2023-08-23 10:09 +0000
                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-23 16:33 +0000
                          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-24 02:06 +0200
                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-24 00:23 +0000
                          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:25 -0400
                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 10:31 -0700
                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:09 -0700
                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-24 21:45 +0000
                              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 15:10 -0700
                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:07 +0000
                                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 14:09 -0700
                                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Lee Mihailovich <mmhc@eoeilhll.av> - 2023-08-26 21:20 +0000
                                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:48 -0700
                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:12 +0000
                                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-08-25 14:34 +0200
                                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 15:47 +0000
                              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-25 02:03 -0400
                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-25 12:21 +0000
                                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 19:54 -0400
                                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Ryker Libman <kmki@kkrmkaik.km> - 2023-08-27 08:25 +0000
                                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 10:47 -0500
                                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Marcus Rempel <raer@rlsrmcaa.rr> - 2023-08-27 19:40 +0000
                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-26 09:13 +0200
                              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 10:44 -0400
                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 08:09 -0700
                              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 14:12 -0700
                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-31 08:35 +0200
                                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 09:19 +0200
                                    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 00:31 -0700
                                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-08 09:28 +0200
                                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 00:43 -0700
                                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-09-08 23:18 -0500
                                          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 22:16 -0700
                                          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-09 07:59 +0200
                                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 23:47 -0700
                                              Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-10 07:24 +0200
                                                Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-09-09 22:45 -0700
                                                  Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-09-10 08:01 +0200
                          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 11:07 -0700
                            Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:13 -0700
                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 11:25 +0200
                        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-30 07:52 +0200
                      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-28 12:22 -0700
    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 21:32 -0700
    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 12:28 -0700
      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-16 07:50 +0200
        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Lukas Vainberger <asag@rkarueik.ub> - 2023-08-16 11:42 +0000
    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:18 -0700
      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:57 -0700
        Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Chadrick Mahno <mdah@cacamcmm.ro> - 2023-08-09 21:59 +0000
          Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 13:18 -0700
    Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:47 -0700
      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-08-09 11:03 -0700
      Re: Eddington, Einstein and Lorentz shared the vice of plagiarism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-08-23 08:26 +0200

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#618976

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:07:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit : 
> > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> 
> > Yes, they can. Look at the Newtonian mechanics: x' = x - vt. 
> > See? Time coordinate transformed into spatial. You can invert this: 
> > t = (x - x')/v, spatial transformed into temporal. 
> > 
> >> nor temporal coordinates into time. 
> > 
> > See above. You are making stuff up as you go along. 
> > You are doing voodoo, not science.
> That's not what I'm saying. 
> I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c 
> and that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate. 

Length is not a coordinate, yes (and not only "strictly speaking").

> I also say that time is not length, nor the length of time. 

Sure.

> We therefore 
> transform x into x', and t into t', but not x into t' or t into x'. 

That doesn't follow. Think carefully about it. Forget relativity,
just think this through. It's simply false.

> To say that, depending on how you look at them, time becomes space, and 
> space becomes time, 

No, it doesn't mean that. That's the mistake you're making. (Although many
pop-sci presentations make similar silly claims for the shock value.)

--
Jan

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

#618979

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:07:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> That's not what I'm saying.
>> I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c and
>> that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate.
> 
> Length is not a coordinate, yes (and not only "strictly speaking").

not true. It's a dimension, as such, it always can be taken as a 
coordinate to represent something else. However, Smellensky is going to 
conscript military canon fodder from polakia, "as long as it takes". You 
can only dream on the money this Smellensky made. I don't give a shit, 
ukurina ukurina.

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

#619018

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:20:42 PM UTC-7, Lee Mihailovich wrote:
> JanPB wrote: 
> 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 5:07:37 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >> That's not what I'm saying. 
> >> I say that the time is, on the diagram, the length sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c and 
> >> that it is not, strictly speaking, a coordinate. 
> > 
> > Length is not a coordinate, yes (and not only "strictly speaking").
> not true. 

It is true. Get over it.

--
Jan

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

#618857

Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
> Not even wrong. Why do attempt to do something you don't
> understands the first concepts of? What's the point? What kind of
> satisfaction do you get from doodling with something with such
> incompetence?

No, it is YOU who say that there is incompetence in all my demonstrations 
and concepts.

R.H.

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

#618859

Crank and M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
> Le 25/08/2023 à 00:10, JanPB a écrit :
>> Not even wrong. Why do attempt to do something you don't
>> understands the first concepts of? What's the point? What kind of
>> satisfaction do you get from doodling with something with such
>> incompetence?
> 
> No, it is YOU who say that there is incompetence in all my 
> demonstrations and concepts.

Sure, HE said that. But, also, he is undoubtedly RIGHT.

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

#618862

Le 25/08/2023 à 14:34, Python a écrit :

>> No, it is YOU who say that there is incompetence in all my 
>> demonstrations and concepts.

> Sure, HE said that. But, also, he is undoubtedly RIGHT.

 J'explique ici ce qu'il advient de la position et de la longueur d'onde 
d'une impulsion électromagnétique monochromatique par changement de 
référentiel.

 3 petites pages.

 Tu conteste où, par exemple?

 Ou tu contestes pour le plaisir de contester.

 Tu es ridicule. C'est le comportement d'un bouffon, ça.

-----

I explain here what happens to the position and the wavelength of a 
monochromatic electromagnetic pulse by change of reference frame.

  3 small pages.

  Where are you contesting, for example?

  Or you contest for the sake of contesting.

  You're ridiculous. That's the behavior of a buffoon, that.


-----

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ntk8tpA4nIROmCHjfTcQfpW26eQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>

 R.H.  

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

#618845

On 8/24/2023 5:45 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 24/08/2023 à 19:25, Volney a écrit :
>> On 8/23/2023 12:33 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:

>>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in 
>>> Lorentz transformations".
>>>
>>> But these are not coordinates.
>>>
>>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>>>
>>> t is not a coordinate.
>>
>> You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a 
>> coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them 
>> and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. 
>> That was the breakthrough of SR.
> 
> No, spatial coordinates cannot be transformed into temporal coordinates, 
> nor temporal coordinates into time.

Yet SR does just that. A velocity changes the time coordinate into a 
distance coordinate.

> We do not change with each other by making rotations, as we can do 
> between x, y, z.

SR does just that.
> 
> Also, the time used in Lorentz transformations is not an orthonormal 
> coordinate system like x, y, and z.

It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.
> 
> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.

That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting spacial 
dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.
> 
> R.H.

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

#618858

Le 25/08/2023 à 08:03, Volney a écrit :
> It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.
>> 
>> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
> 
> That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting spacial 
> dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.
>> 

Breathe, blow!

Take baby steps!
 
It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
 
> That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting spatial
dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.

What is wrong is that you consider t as a coordinate in the proper sense, 
it is not an orthonormal coordinate, but a hypotenuse.

You then say to me: "We can convert distance into time", but what's the 
point?

It's like saying "a dog is a dog".

What does x=t/c mean?

This means that the distance traveled by light is equal to the time it 
travels by the speed of the photon.

But duration is not distance, nor the reverse.

R.H. 

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

#618996

On 8/25/2023 8:21 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 25/08/2023 à 08:03, Volney a écrit :
>> It is; it is not a spatial dimension however.
>>>
>>> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
>>
>> That's completely wrong. But if it was correct, it is converting 
>> spacial dimensions into time, which you claim is wrong.

> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.

That's not time directly, that is a hypotenuse. It could be the time 
light moves that distance, but now you are talking about a relationship 
between time and the distance (of the hypotenuse).

> What is wrong is that you consider t as a coordinate in the proper 
> sense, it is not an orthonormal coordinate, but a hypotenuse.

That sqrt(x²+y²+z²) is a hypotenuse. Time is a different coordinate.

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

#619032

Volney wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 8:21 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
> 
> That's not time directly, that is a hypotenuse. It could be the time
> light moves that distance, but now you are talking about a relationship
> between time and the distance (of the hypotenuse).

ohh yes, sure.

𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀_‘𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗽’_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿
https://rt.com/news/581891-tucker-carlson-blasts-us-ambassador-to-hungary/

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has called for the firing of US 
Ambassador to Hungary 𝗗𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻, saying the diplomat has undermined 
the interests of Americans by trying to impose an LGBTQ agenda rather than 
building stronger relations with Budapest.

wow yeah, a david pressman. Yet another 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed name, moved 
to america, most probably with his cousiness, promoting gay propaganda to 
countries which are not theirs.

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

#619051

On 8/27/2023 3:25 AM, Ryker Libman wrote:
> Volney wrote:
> 
>> On 8/25/2023 8:21 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> It's just the segment sqrt(x²+y²+z²) divided by c.
>>
>> That's not time directly, that is a hypotenuse. It could be the time
>> light moves that distance, but now you are talking about a relationship
>> between time and the distance (of the hypotenuse).
> 
> ohh yes, sure.
> 
> 𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀_‘𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗽’_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿
> https://rt.com/news/581891-tucker-carlson-blasts-us-ambassador-to-hungary/
> 
> Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has called for the firing of US
> Ambassador to Hungary 𝗗𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻, saying the diplomat has undermined
> the interests of Americans by trying to impose an LGBTQ agenda rather than
> building stronger relations with Budapest.
> 
> wow yeah, a david pressman. Yet another 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed name, moved
> to america, most probably with his cousiness, promoting gay propaganda to
> countries which are not theirs.


Fuck you Hanson.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

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

#619067

Physfitfreak wrote:

>> 𝗧𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿_𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘀𝗼𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀_‘𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗽’_𝗨𝗦_𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗿
>> https://r%74.com/news/581891-tucker-carlson-blasts-us-ambassador-to-hungary/
>> Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has called for the firing of US
>> Ambassador to Hungary 𝗗𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻, saying the diplomat has
>> undermined the interests of Americans by trying to impose an LGBTQ
>> agenda rather than building stronger relations with Budapest.
>> 
>> wow yeah, a david pressman. Yet another 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed name,
>> moved to america, most probably with his cousiness, promoting gay
>> propaganda to countries which are not theirs.
> 
> Fuck you Hanson.

you gay, you have a hole in your ass. You stupid nazi khazar with a changed name.

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

#618926

Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:

>>
>> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors
>> of concept.
>
> No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.


I think, the text is FULL of errors.

The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).


>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
>> Lorentz transformations".
>>
>> But these are not coordinates.
>>
>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>>
>> t is not a coordinate.
>
> You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a
> coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
> and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. That
> was the breakthrough of SR.


Time is not belonging to the set of numbers in euclidean space, which 
denote positions (Einstein used Euclidean space).

Time may eventually be unified to a construct called 'four-vector' and 
the space of all posiible events in spacetime.

But Einstein didn't use four-vectors in his 1905 paper.

The rotation of the time-axis into spatial dimensions was also not 
considered in his paper.

Instead time was defined as what a clock says. That clock was defined by 
Einstein as 'my watch'.

(which not a very useful definition, btw.)

TH

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

#618943

On 8/26/2023 3:13 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:
> 
>>>
>>> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors
>>> of concept.
>>
>> No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
> 
> 
> I think, the text is FULL of errors.

It's not; ALL the errors anyone has looked at are yours.
> 
> The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).

Except there aren't any.
> 
> 
>>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
>>> Lorentz transformations".
>>>
>>> But these are not coordinates.
>>>
>>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>>>
>>> t is not a coordinate.
>>
>> You miss the entire point of what made SR so important. Time is a
>> coordinate, but different from x y z. They can transform between them
>> and t, just like transforming between x and y by simple rotations. That
>> was the breakthrough of SR.
> 
> 
> Time is not belonging to the set of numbers in euclidean space, which 
> denote positions (Einstein used Euclidean space).

The whole point was the end result was non-Euclidean once time was included.
> 
> Time may eventually be unified to a construct called 'four-vector' and 
> the space of all posiible events in spacetime.

Key word: "spacetime".
> 
> But Einstein didn't use four-vectors in his 1905 paper.

The concept wasn't fully developed yet. The 1905 paper wasn't the end of 
SR development.
> 
> The rotation of the time-axis into spatial dimensions was also not 
> considered in his paper.
> 
> Instead time was defined as what a clock says. That clock was defined by 
> Einstein as 'my watch'.

And then he goes to show what the clocks (time) will say.
> 
> (which not a very useful definition, btw.)

What's a better definition that's actually real?

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

#618947

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 16:44:45 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> > Instead time was defined as what a clock says. That clock was defined by 
> > Einstein as 'my watch'.
> And then he goes to show what the clocks (time) will say.

Poor idiot never understood what a clock is and what it is for,
so no surprise that real clocks ignore his moronic prophecies.

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

#618978

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney: 
> 
> >> 
> >> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors 
> >> of concept. 
> > 
> > No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
> I think, the text is FULL of errors. 
> 
> The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).

No, it's zero. It would be good for you to stop living in
a fantasy world. It's emotionally neither healthy not, ultimately,
satisfying. One day you'll wake up with your hand in the chamber pot.

> >> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in 
> >> Lorentz transformations". 
> >> 
> >> But these are not coordinates. 
> >> 
> >> x, y, z, ARE coordinates. 

t is also a coordinate.

> >> t is not a coordinate. 

It is. If you don't understand this, you have no business "doing" physics.

The rest of your post is too confused to answer in a post that's
shorter than 20 screenfuls or so, so I'll skip it.

--
Jan

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

#619276

Am 26.08.2023 um 23:12 schrieb JanPB:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.08.2023 um 19:25 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are many errors in the theory of relativity and they are errors
>>>> of concept.
>>>
>>> No, there are no errors other than one or two instances of awkward text.
>> I think, the text is FULL of errors.
>>
>> The amount of errors is just tremendous (>400).
>
> No, it's zero. It would be good for you to stop living in
> a fantasy world. It's emotionally neither healthy not, ultimately,
> satisfying. One day you'll wake up with your hand in the chamber pot.


Well, I found about 420 parts of the text 'On the electrodynamics of 
moving bodies' which I have annoated.

These are not all errors, but also remarks about something important or 
what I had to rethink.

But most were about erros and its really hard to defend the text against 
critique.

You and others on this board had several discussions with me about my 
comments. In many cases I had to rewrite my annotations (what I did), 
but you were next to never able to disprove my critique of a certain 
part altogether.

This summed up over all to an 'error count' in the four hundreds.

Actually I have not counted them recently. Its also a little dificult, 
because some errors were commented more than once and some annotations 
cover more than one error.

But a few hundred errors is actually a lot, give or take a hundred.

Only you were not able to disprove a hundred of my comments. (You hardly 
were able to disprove ten.)



>>>> For example, I read someone who said: "The x and t coordinates in
>>>> Lorentz transformations".
>>>>
>>>> But these are not coordinates.
>>>>
>>>> x, y, z, ARE coordinates.
>
> t is also a coordinate.

Only in case of timetravel.

In all other circumstances you are bound to your local time and simply 
cannot escape.

>
>>>> t is not a coordinate.
>
> It is. If you don't understand this, you have no business "doing" physics.
>

..


TH

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

#619278

On 2023-08-31 06:35:45 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

Well,let's apply you method to your own text:

> Well, I found about 420 parts of the text

I don't know what "420 parts of the text" means. It's not a normal 
English expression.

>  'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' which I have annoated.

annotated

> 
> These are not all errors, but also remarks about something important or what

which

>  I had to rethink.
> 
> But most were about erros

errors

>  and its really hard to defend the text against critique.

criticism -- word salad, even with correction
> 
> You and others on this board had several discussions with me about my 
> comments. In many cases I had to rewrite my annotations (what I did),

which I did

>  but you were next to never able to disprove my critique

criticism

>  of a certain part altogether.

I don't know what "a certain part" means
> 
> This

What is "This"?

>  summed up over all

overall

>  to an 'error count' in the four hundreds.
> 
> Actually I have not counted them recently. Its

It's

>  also a little dificult, because some errors were commented more than 
> once and some annotations cover more than one error.
> 
> But a few hundred errors is actually a lot, give or take a hundred.
> 
> Only you were not able to disprove a hundred of my comments.

Any normal person woould get bored long before reaching 100. So it's 
not that they "were not able", more "had better things to do than"

>  (You hardly were able to disprove ten.)

That needs to be more precise if it's to mean something.

=====

Spelling errors, typos, wrong word choices, imprecision, grammatical errors!

Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your 
rather short text?



-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

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

#619279

On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your 
> rather short text? 

Anyway, your beloved Shit was not even consistent.
And that's been proven.

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

#619892

Am 31.08.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 09:19:22 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> Were your 400 "errors" less trivial than the 12 I've found in your
>> rather short text?
>
> Anyway, your beloved Shit was not even consistent.
> And that's been proven.
>

It is apparently illegal to criticise Einstein's SRT.

I have absolutely no other explanation for the behaviour of participants 
in these discussions here (and elsewhere) about this topic.

You can say whatever you like, but still proponents of Einstein reject 
everything you write without further considerations.

It's actually nonsense, what 'Athel Cornish-Bowden' wrote, because he 
didn't even quote anything from my 'annotated version of SRT', but 
totally ignored that work of mine, while complainig about typos and 
similar in my latest post.

This is how that game went for the better part of the last hundred years 
and many critics were swept under the rug (together with their critique).

So: you cannot correct SRT, because you  are requested to believe what 
you are told. Period.

Whatever Einstein actually wrote is out of the reach of common mortals 
and must not be analysed. Period.

Unfortunately I dodn't know this and assumed, that science would be a 
fair game.


TH

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

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web