Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 20:40:29 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <1476d7a248bcd4f432541fc0ec5619ef@www.novabbs.com>
References: <7f48b61d2779066c75b739a1afd4eb80@www.novabbs.com> <vd0t61$3lvnd$1@dont-email.me> <ebe353415ea822a2b9505c8fc635081c@www.novabbs.com> <vd1ndr$3q2n3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3479667"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="hWiuCAeR3KEZYJfTvV11n0qrRi6oqW/zjvEZQQGun9A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$.wZqkWURCPFOV2.pwysTNO4rfu2358h65flsFLzDRbmeLGvsdGXmy
X-Rslight-Posting-User: f685b96694175b2ad43ead343ead0a9c0082fe88
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5135
Lines: 105

Quoting Paul being stupid, one more time. He'll never desist or give up,
because his fossilized brain CAN'T UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALS!!

********************************************************************
You claimed that the result of the "STUPID FORMULA" Lorentz transform
applied on the "twin paradox" was that each traveller will PERCEIVE that
the other has aged less than himself. Or was it opposite?
Will each traveller PERCEIVE that the other has aged more than himself?

I am looking forward to see how you will bring E and E' back together.

You will have to use the "STUPID FORMULA" to prove
that the "STUPID FORMULA" predicts what you claim it predicts.

Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.

It is much easier to claim that SR is inconsistent,
than it is to prove it.

Isn't it? 😂

--
Paul
********************************************************************

Two things:


1) About the paradox that emerges from A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Nor I,
neither you or anyone else need to use the STUPID LORENTZ FORMULAE in
order to "justify the paradox. Even LESS to imagine a method to: slowly
stop (you don't want any humanoid dead, I guess); turn back the
imaginary vehicle and slowly accelerate towards either origin of E or
E', to finally slowly stop, so the humanoids can meet face to face.


Use LOGICAL THINKING, for God's sake!!


The basis for REASONING are in the cornerstone of SR:

- ANY FRAME CAN BE CHOSEN TO BE AT RELATIVE REST, AND THEY CAN BE
SWITCHED AT WILL.

- SR asserts that the RELATIVELY MOVING FRAME,at a differential speed v,
is PERCEIVED (through the stupid Lorentz mathematics) as having TIME
DILATION with respect with the frame at relative rest frame (chosen
freely).

If you CAN'T SEE THE PARADOX in the TWO CONTEXTS described above (that
each humanoid PERCEIVE the other as aging slowly), is because you're
BRAIN DEAD, STUPID BEYOND REPAIR.

And if you need such stupid formulae to calculate HOW MUCH is the
PERCEIVED AGE DIFFERENCE, is because you like to play with the stupid
Lorentz formulae.

Give up, old man, and go out to buy a Nintendo 1984 console to play.
You'll have more satisfactions and intellectual realizations than with
this OLD GAME of relativity that CONSUMED HALF OF YOUR LIFE.



And about the second thing:

2) You ignored the second post ABOUT THE H&k FRAUD!

There you have simple mathematics to be applied (if your head still
works), in order to VERIFY HOW THIS CRETIN (HAFELE) wrote EXACTLY how he
was going to MOCK YOU, to TAKE YOU AS A GULLIBLE IMBECILE, and you'd be
happy!

I repeat FUNDAMENTALS that show the FARCE that the paper and the
experiment were:

2a) For his theoretical calculations of SR and GR parts, Hafele IMAGINED
(and nobody disputed that), that HE COULD USE A WRONG/STUPID FORMULA to
determine WHAT WAS THE THEORETICAL VALUE OF THE TIME AT THE CLOCKS IN
THE WASHINGTON USNO.

2b) He used THE GROUND SPEED OF EARTH as the speed by which he
calculated THE FLIGHT TIME, making it equivalent to a "standing still"
instance with the flying clocks resting on the ground!

2c) The graphic published in 1971, which I attached above, was the naive
attempt to fool people, as he COULDN'T then to publish NUMERIC DATA for
each segment.

2d) Only in 1972 he published the attached document with COOKED DATA,
which is HIGHLY INCONSISTENT, no matter which is the angle of approach
for you or ANYBODY ELSE used to analyze the "experiment".

Even with GROSS CALCULATIONS, it's possible to demonstrate that the
theoretical calculations (ALL OF THEM) have errors greater than 60%,
which renders the experiment USELESS. A farce, an HOAX.

And you BOUGHT ALL OF IT, because it was published and you're a gullible
stupid, posing as an amateur relativistic physicist, who knows
everything.


Do you want to discuss another hoax, like the Pound-Rebka 1960 scam?


Paul, you are not a valid competitor in terms of intellectual power.
Keep working at the garden or whatever.