Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Space and spacetime
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:27:27 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <69fa87f87a751d286988ee729916d5de@www.novabbs.com>
References: <v4k05l$3agjr$3@paganini.bofh.team> <93708b1befdea8fb7c18da1b3d12630d@www.novabbs.com> <17dac4a0a98761ea$266527$441546$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <9ae2e2bf5f37a77b3e1bd160981c6fd5@www.novabbs.com> <17db1164fde32607$208349$436234$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <392fcd2a13fa911f8f6d5182fb485f7b@www.novabbs.com> <17db1a8a53f81f54$288216$441546$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <766d95371391c171627beb10f0e1ae9c@www.novabbs.com> <17db25828bda4e92$4$479221$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <57daee8da23d6ae5103795e3c9012685@www.novabbs.com> <17db37832753b835$79$484409$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <3a011479b6a372004336be3d26a210b2@www.novabbs.com> <17db5d8196a1506d$500$479221$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <ba514a642dbc509bb047ff2f3dec0bdb@www.novabbs.com> <17db6c0de7bc2553$501$479221$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="859054"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$MMGujQ0vRRvq5E660L03ROUO7JWH/9.yP9bRYA0DFCpudkZaOVZN2
Bytes: 6964
Lines: 172

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 22.06.2024 o 20:47, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > And why won't you stop your iditic dodging
> > > and answer what are the prediction of the moronic
> > > physics of your moronic guru for my example?
> > 
> > Wozzie "question" was "What does an observer going at
> > c/2 through the solar system measure as the length of
> > a day?"
> > 
> > Since the observer is not on earth, a "day" is not well
> > defined.
>
> Too bad for your idiot guru who was using
> it as the time unit. Don't you think, poor
> halfbrain?

Too bad for dishonest, stupid Wozzie-fool that he can't
articulate an unambiguous question.  His dishonesty is
underlined by his pivot to blaming Saint Albert for it.
He has this compulsion that just won't let him rest in
peace.  Science has moved on, bur autistic Wozzie is
obsessed with him.

Then he pivots to a different question:

"So, according to you and your idiot gurus - in LET
every observer, stationary in ether or not - would
observe light moving at speed c. Right?"

And I responded:
"What's the matter, mathematically-incompetent Wozzie,
can't actually USE the theory and calculate the answer
for yourself?"

> > And dishonest Wozzie projects his incompetence on others:
> > 
> > And then he pivots to a third question:
> > 
> > "Is the RELATIVISTIC formula of velocity adding a part of
> > Lorentz's ETHER theory?  Yes or no"
> > 
> > So it's become quite confusing just which question Wozzie
> > wants answered.

> May be confusing for such an idiot
> as you are, Harrie. Sure.

But not confusing to an severely autistic "information engineer"
who rejects any information he finds distasteful :-)

So he admits his inability to stick to one topic.  

> > > Only such an idiot can believe and repeat such
> > > an absurd lie.
> > 
> > So Wozzie denies that human constructs (like the constancy of the
> > speed of light) can't be tested against nature?  What is the matter
> > with this demented fool?
>
> He knows the subject, in opposition to you
> or your idiot gurus.

Wozzie doesn't "know" anything.  All he has is a limited form of
"information."  Maybe he hates Saint Albert so much because of what
he said:

“Information is not knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein

> > > But - see: 0 meridian has something in common with both The Shit
> > > of  your idiot guru and Lorontz ether theory, after all...
> > 
> > So Wozzie believes that 0 meridian is a fundamental property of
> > nature, like the speed of light? 

> Nope, you're just projecting your moronic mania
> of fundamental properties of the nature on me.

So Wozzie admits that his 0 meridian argument was a red herring, a
distraction intended to confuse.  This once again underlines his basic
dishonesty.  Whenever he calls others liars, he is projecting.

> >  This moron has gone totally off the rails.  Python, call that nurse
> NOW!
>
> See, trash - I've proven the moronic mumble
> of your idiot guru to be not even consistent

Repeating this lie ad infinitum proves the basic dishonesty of this
escapee
from an information (not knowledge) institution.

> and you can do nothing about it spsrt of
> barking, insulting and slandering.

Wozzie is projecting again, because that is exactly what he does.

> But you will do what you can for the glory of your
> moronic church - that's what it's training
> its doggies for, after all.

Wozzie needs a good dose of The One he just can't let go of:

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
-- Albert Einstein

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted
with
important matters." -- Albert Einstein


“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits”
-- Albert Einstein

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -
Albert Einstein

Speaking of the LTE:

"it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the
properties of 
homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." -- A. Einstein,
OtEoMB

That means the LTE must be of the form:

x' = Gx + Ht
t' = At + Bx

A stationary object is moving at v in another frame:

0 = Gx + Ht, Gx = - Ht = Gvt

For the case where x is stationary (at x = 0):

t' = At + Bx = At, x' = Ht = -Gvt

x'/t' = -v, therefore A = G, so

x' = G(x - t)
t' = G(t - Bx/G)

If we assume t' = t, then G = 1:

x' = x - t
t' = t

and we have the Galilean transform, but if we assume that
there is a speed that is the same in all inertial frames:

x'/t' = c = (x/t - v)/(1 + Bx/t) = (c - v)/(1 + Bc),

then B = -v/c^2 and

x' = G(x - v)
t' = G(t - vx/c^2)

All that's left is to evaluate G, which turns out to be gamma.

And, oh look!  The relativistic velocity equation was part of
the derivation of the LTE!  Whoda thought?  Certainly not
mathematically-incompetent Wozzie-fool :-))

And the only difference between the GTE and the LTE is that
there is a speed which is the same in all inertial frames which
replaces the assumption that t' = t.  So Wozzie-fool's assertion
that t' = t in the GPS disproves relativity but the LTE are just
fine is complete bool poop.