Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 23:26:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean (space-contraction)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <180f1778e64eec8d$354$1238888$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <nacLK33QPu6-kSUxgE1MTKM29wU@jntp>
 <1810396c90cd5e45$3874$1234847$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <u7NvhHcfrBd_GXJLccUViHRQ17g@jntp>
 <18103c11c4399e1b$3635$1228337$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <ZmSFX2R-ovBoEMObJLiwLJMFGUQ@jntp>
 <181050bd5e899136$3636$1228337$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <gS3CnAvH7iZAR8z2fpZ16WpwAQI@jntp>
 <181154a9986e9f2f$4267$1238888$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <LKudnak0JLYu1sL6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <3mKMfwgJtRfN4V1gGsy4VLJ6a64@jntp>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 15:26:56 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3mKMfwgJtRfN4V1gGsy4VLJ6a64@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9bacnS8wHeEN-ML6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 191
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e4o2pahz1syhtReKH5BC/4ZIqhhVJDke9HycWQ8ANkwKkyGl/Y46ZTCLYm/qIdd1VUO5jMJdi1OczFf!VNt4RJbq+GtXmohbdYp2rH4VZ8Px9kz4DOm1p0uyoeC558WWeDb6Oq/0VPz1j5n17pijzeJDgrrH
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 9036

On 12/15/2024 01:39 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 15/12/2024 à 22:35, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>> On 12/15/2024 03:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> W dniu 15.12.2024 o 10:53, Python pisze:
>>>> Le 12/12/2024 à 04:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>> W dniu 11.12.2024 o 22:51, Python pisze:
>>>>>> Le 11/12/2024 à 22:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>>> W dniu 11.12.2024 o 21:56, Python pisze:
>>>>>>>> Le 11/12/2024 à 21:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks standing next to each other?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read the numbers they display and I compare them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity involved?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail:
>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>> "distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
>>>>>>>>>>> other.
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you ensure that? By assuming the
>>>>>>>>>>> condition a priori;and you can do it because
>>>>>>>>>>> you're only applying your procedure
>>>>>>>>>>> in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks  at the
>>>>>>>>> extremity of the rod - very practical
>>>>>>>>> indeed, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   This is quite
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't
>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
>>>>>>>>> Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
>>>>>>>>> immobility ? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
>>>>>>>>> Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
>>>>>>>>> such an idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the relative speed between Gdansk and Warsaw then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would have to calculate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, if you ask.
>>>>>  From wiki - Gdańsk is 54°20′51″N 18°38′43″E,
>>>>> Warsaw is 52°13′56″N 21°00′30″E.
>>>>> Assuming the average Earth radius  6368km, Gdańsk
>>>>> is 3713.3km distant from Earth axis, Warsaw is
>>>>> 3901.5km. That gives 972.1km/h and 1021.4km/h
>>>>> of linear speed. The difference is 49.3km/h.
>>>>> Good enough for you as the first estimation,
>>>>> poor stinker?
>>>>> Sure, the velocities are not quite parallel;
>>>>> the final result will be slightly bigger.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're only believing [into] a great
>>>>>>>>>>> practical procedure - because your is pumping you with gedanken
>>>>>>>>>>> fairy
>>>>>>>>>>> tales where it works fine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How could it fail if you  have never used it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given
>>>>>>>>>> practical setup
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, where, precisely, was your [method]
>>>>>>>>> applied. In practice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I asked for yours
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I asked where, precisely, was your idiocy
>>>>>>> applied. In practice.
>>>>>>> No answer? Of course,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many labs where distant events are involved and high time resolution
>>>>>> is > needed, inside CERN detectors for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The source?
>>>>
>>>> http://ttc.web.cern.ch/LEB00Sync.pdf
>>>
>>> But the document is signed "Varela, J", not
>>> "Einstein, A", poor stinker. And it's definitely
>>> far, far, far more elaborate than the "masterpiece"
>>> of your idiot guru.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's "apparent superluminal motion" then though that
>> it's said to be "illusory" isn't very scientific, vis-a-vis
>> angles, just pointing out that the Galilean or linear motion
>> as the usually given "what is in motion stays in motion",
>> holds up very well.
>>
>> Then, because the Lorentzian invariant comes into play,
>> in regards to why at all Lorentzian instead of Galilean,
>> makes for better mathematics that "attains" to, makes
>> and keeps Galilean while reflecting Lorentzian, for
>> things like moving charge in the FitzGeraldian, in
>> the linear.
>>
>> Then, for the un-linear, the rotational setting, there
>> is that it's rather more Lorentzian about the centrally-
>> symmetric, then that space-contraction-linear and the
>> space-contraction-rotational are two different things.
>>
>> So, when the sky survey definitely has examples of
>> "superluminal motion", which would be Galilean,
>> in terms of velocity addition, then this gets
>> into reasons why there's space-contraction variously,
>> since it's un-scientific to say that linear motion
>> isn't Galilean when there are examples as don't agree.
>>
>> The gyroscopic and heft make for it being rather
>> simply demonstrable space-contraction-rotational,
>> then for space-contraction-linear being different,
>> is that rotation is, if rotating, yet not in a
>> moving frame, while, the linear is a moving frame,
>> with regards to other frames, and that the space
>> moves with the frame, explaining why space-contraction
>> is real, space-contraction-linear is a thing, that's
>> mostly un-observable yet of course has for the three
>> constants of light's, charge's, and the magnetic ratio
>> after the gy-radius, what's for space-contraction-rotational,
>> that rotating frames are independent, as are linear frames.
>>
>> Of course this has to fit _all_ the data why the examples
>> of "apparent super-luminal motion" and for example that
>> "the SLAC's linear track's demonstrates waved cracks",
>> then that also the idea of putting a charged cyclotron
>> and a neutral linac together obviously offers a completely
>> simple in principle experiment to provide non-null differences
>> between the linear setting, and rotational setting, the un-linear.
>
> - This is complete gibberish
> - This is unrelated to the thread's content
>
> Are you high on drugs?
>
>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========