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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614404 > unrolled thread

If relativity was easy to understand

Started bywhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
First post2023-07-03 16:41 -0500
Last post2023-07-14 12:49 -0500
Articles 13 on this page of 113 — 27 participants

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

Contents

  If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 14:48 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:10 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 20:11 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:22 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:38 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 22:10 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 23:54 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:05 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 07:38 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Dominique Antonopoulos <oino@pueisese.uo> - 2023-07-04 15:27 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:56 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 19:41 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:53 -0400
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:57 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 16:59 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-03 18:44 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 19:59 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:06 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:03 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:07 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 20:58 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-04 00:42 -0400
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:08 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:09 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:07 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy Baldomero Pefanis <emls@rilaffne.lo> - 2023-07-03 22:39 +0000
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-07 08:05 +0200
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Bubba Konstantatos <bosb@sbbtotab.ts> - 2023-07-07 11:30 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-08 07:23 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 10:30 -0400
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:21 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Cash Adamidis <sida@sshsicih.ac> - 2023-07-08 22:52 +0000
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 17:11 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Mikell Michalaras <ella@llrilkhe.ah> - 2023-07-09 11:28 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-09 08:17 +0200
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Michael Eatros <rore@aiaeieee.lt> - 2023-07-09 11:53 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 23:42 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-04 14:26 +0000
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:34 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 09:56 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 13:22 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 15:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:13 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:46 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:53 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:57 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:04 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:11 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:57 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 17:12 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 21:06 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 18:15 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 19:21 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy Johnthan Totolos <aoto@holashno.on> - 2023-07-05 17:32 +0000
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-04 20:38 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:31 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 22:52 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 01:25 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-05 13:27 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-05 15:49 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:14 -0700
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-05 09:33 -0400
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:35 +0200
                      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:34 -0700
                        Re: If relativity was easy Stefhen Antonopoulos <slsn@spoolneo.eu> - 2023-07-05 17:46 +0000
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:16 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 09:26 -0700
                    Re: If relativity was easy Delma Haritopoulos <popp@ralroomo.lo> - 2023-07-05 17:14 +0000
                  Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 17:41 +0200
                    Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-05 14:21 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 21:55 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 09:36 +0200
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 00:58 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:12 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 15:41 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:13 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 16:36 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:38 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 18:44 -0500
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-11 22:35 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 22:19 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:35 -0700
              Re: If relativity was easy to understand Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-13 13:46 -0500
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-13 13:12 -0700
                Re: If relativity was easy to understand "erkd...@gmail.com" <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 23:49 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-04 16:41 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-04 18:52 -0500
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 10:47 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 01:57 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 03:27 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:44 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-06 10:29 +0200
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 10:47 -0700
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:12 +0200
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-05 15:49 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 15:59 -0700
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 20:03 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 00:56 -0500
            Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:58 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-05 23:39 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 22:04 -0700
    Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-13 16:51 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 19:38 -0500
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:40 -0700
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-07-14 07:19 +0200
      Re: If relativity was easy to understand Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-14 11:27 +0000
        Re: If relativity was easy to understand Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-14 10:33 -0700
          Re: If relativity was easy to understand whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-14 12:49 -0500

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

#614538

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-05 15:59 -0700
Message-ID<33f613b3-b4c1-4381-9385-e57afbbac1e1n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614537
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 3 de julio de 2023 a las 17:42:00 UTC-4, whodat escribió: 
> > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> The fact is, the Special Relativity model is quite easy to understand (it uses mostly basic algebra). There are some very good tools to understand the model: 
> 
> 1) A remarkable good class from professor Susskind (ten lectures). See at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4&list=PL9YY-u_YWqQSSCltKKjimXhISmTUsAOuO 
> 
> 2) A good book (there are several good ones). I use the book "The Classical Theory of Fields" by Landau and Lifshitz (available at http://www.elegio.it/mc2/LandauLifshitz_TheClassicalTheoryOfFields_text.pdf). That book covers both SR and GR and most of the nonsense talking around here is very well addressed in the first 20 pages of chapter 1.
Big Ben Paradox solution please.

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

#614539

FromPaul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-05 20:03 -0700
Message-ID<acfa98fb-190d-4b63-89cb-98b7353806d0n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614538
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 3:59:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:

> Big Ben Paradox solution please.

Asked and answered... did you miss it?

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

#614550

Fromwhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date2023-07-06 00:56 -0500
Message-ID<kgn3cvF9503U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#614539
On 7/5/2023 10:03 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 3:59:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> 
>> Big Ben Paradox solution please.
> 
> Asked and answered... did you miss it?

I'll bet he doesn't understand that the telescope he uses in his
model "paradox" is a sort of a time machine. What he sees through
his telescope is in the past, not in the now. I don't care much
about the past.

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

#614551

FromMaciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-05 22:58 -0700
Message-ID<c7f58d6a-8c40-411b-92d7-b8e292c64f10n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614550
On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 07:56:50 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 7/5/2023 10:03 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 3:59:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > 
> >> Big Ben Paradox solution please. 
> > 
> > Asked and answered... did you miss it?
> I'll bet he doesn't understand that the telescope he uses in his 
> model "paradox" is a sort of a time machine. 

Telescope as "a sort of time machine". Well,
well, no surprise he doesn't understand.

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

#614553

Frompatdolan <patdolan@comcast.net>
Date2023-07-05 23:39 -0700
Message-ID<13adc7dc-b7b3-4999-b230-917faa39c6b1n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614539
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 8:03:53 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 3:59:24 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> 
> > Big Ben Paradox solution please.
> Asked and answered... did you miss it?
Yes, I missed it.  Give it to us again.  Or give us a link.  
(Why do I suspect I need not hold my breath)

Pappy, Jan(s), Prokary, Pyth, AC-mainly-in-error, Volney. What's with all the second stringers?  Hell, even the water boy, Paul Alsing, is now taking a turn at bat.  Meanwhile all the heavy hitters--Silvia, rotchm, Tom Roberts, Legion, Paul B. Anderson, Dirk---are hiding out in the clubhouse.  Wait a minute.  I take Legion back.  He will just hit us with a word wall that is devoid of any cogency & coherence.  The fellow simply doesn't know how to make a point in a few words.  No matter the subject matter, it never takes more than just a few words.  Wittgenstein taught the world that.  Gay old Ludwig would have sided with me against Albert, given the chance to hear about the BBP.

Use less words, Legion.  Use less words.

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

#614546

FromMaciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-05 22:04 -0700
Message-ID<ade6e421-fd55-41de-9d99-92936cfffbf1n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614537
On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 00:49:24 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 3 de julio de 2023 a las 17:42:00 UTC-4, whodat escribió: 
> > If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> The fact is, the Special Relativity model is quite easy to understand (it uses mostly basic algebra). There are some very good tools to understand the model: 

Sure it is quite primitive and easy to understand, a pity 
that your idiot guru has made it obviously inconsistent.

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

#615191

FromLaurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date2023-07-13 16:51 -0700
Message-ID<fb3dff70-3d7e-469e-a3f4-32fd55a7e17bn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#614404
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
If relativity was easy to understand, it would be rational. It's not easy to understand because it is irrational.

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

#615196

Fromwhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date2023-07-13 19:38 -0500
Message-ID<khbjooFjam9U3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#615191
On 7/13/2023 6:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.

> If relativity was easy to understand, it would be rational. 
> It's not easy to understand because it is irrational.

Nice, you don't understand how or why it works so it must be
irrational. That's just another self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can live with your inability to understand relativity,
can you?

In short, the world does not require your acceptance of
relativity and all that entails. Your communication here
is a consequence of applying relativity to real world
problems. Skepticism is usually good. But not always.

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

#615220

FromMaciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date2023-07-13 21:40 -0700
Message-ID<1e91856b-5f97-4639-83f4-5fcd0b2e842cn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#615196
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 02:38:53 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 7/13/2023 6:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> >> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. 
> 
> > If relativity was easy to understand, it would be rational. 
> > It's not easy to understand because it is irrational.
> Nice, you don't understand how or why it works so it must be 
> irrational. 

Nice, you're a deeply believing fanatic idiot so every
infidel must not understand.

> In short, the world does not require your acceptance of 
> relativity and all that entails. Your communication here 
> is a consequence of applying relativity to real world 
> problems. 

Sorry, poor halfbrain, even idiots like you are not
stupid enough to apply your mad schema
to real world problems.


Skepticism is usually good. But not always.

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

#615223

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2023-07-14 07:19 +0200
Message-ID<khc459Flvf1U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#615191
Am 14.07.2023 um 01:51 schrieb Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> If relativity was easy to understand, it would be rational. It's not easy to understand because it is irrational.
>

Relativity was a 'hot topic' at that time.

E.g. Poincare wrote about the electron and Lorentz about length 
contraction. Also Langvin and others wrote about relativity.

They were all dealing with the interpretation of similar problems, but 
found slightly different solutions.

Einstein's solution of 1905 is now commonly called SRT and regarded as 
valid, but only in the local realm and without acceleration or gravity.

The other solutions are mostly forgotten.


TH

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

#615240

FromRichard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr>
Date2023-07-14 11:27 +0000
Message-ID<biMZHXw-N4cC5IsVdHoEqWQNCOI@jntp>
In reply to#615191
Le 14/07/2023 à 01:51, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
> If relativity was easy to understand, it would be rational. It's not easy to 
> understand because it is irrational.

 Très mal expliquée dans les bases, et fausses quand on va plus en 
profondeur (référentiels accélérés). 

 Mais je rappelle : les bases sont justes. Tout ce que disait Poincaré 
était juste.

 C'est Einstein qui a foutu la merde. 

 R.H.

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

#615269

FromLaurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com>
Date2023-07-14 10:33 -0700
Message-ID<5e55453a-cf4a-45a3-8ad2-9dd07fa8642bn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#615240
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:27:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 14/07/2023 à 01:51, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit : 
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: 
> >> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks. 
> > If relativity was easy to understand, it would be rational. It's not easy to 
> > understand because it is irrational.
> Très mal expliquée dans les bases, et fausses quand on va plus en 
> profondeur (référentiels accélérés). 
> 
> Mais je rappelle : les bases sont justes. Tout ce que disait Poincaré 
> était juste. 
> 
> C'est Einstein qui a foutu la merde. 
> 
> R.H.
Translated Babylon: "Very poorly explained in the bases, and false when we go deeper (accelerated referentials). But let me remind you: the basics are right. Everything Poincaré said was right. It was Einstein who screwed up the shit." Poincare also applied time dilation and length contraction, changing the time and length in the speed formula to keep the light speed the same. That is pseudoscientific nonsense.

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

#615273

Fromwhodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Date2023-07-14 12:49 -0500
Message-ID<khdg50Fspe6U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#615269
On 7/14/2023 12:33 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:27:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 14/07/2023 à 01:51, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
>>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:42:00 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>>>> If relativity was easy to understand we probably wouldn't have cranks.
>>> If relativity was easy to understand, it would be rational. It's not easy to
>>> understand because it is irrational.
>> Très mal expliquée dans les bases, et fausses quand on va plus en
>> profondeur (référentiels accélérés).
>>
>> Mais je rappelle : les bases sont justes. Tout ce que disait Poincaré
>> était juste.
>>
>> C'est Einstein qui a foutu la merde.
>>
>> R.H.
> Translated Babylon: "Very poorly explained in the bases, and false when we go deeper (accelerated referentials). But let me remind you: the basics are right. Everything Poincaré said was right. It was Einstein who screwed up the shit." Poincare also applied time dilation and length contraction, changing the time and length in the speed formula to keep the light speed the same. That is pseudoscientific nonsense.

Thanks for stating your opinions. Where's the beef?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

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

csiph-web