Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 02:51:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean (space-contraction,
 charge mass)
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>
 <9bacnS8wHeEN-ML6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <QPWcnVQxYu-V7cL6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 18:52:50 -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: <QPWcnVQxYu-V7cL6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Wtydnb1zKKVQCML6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 1220
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Sw8Z9Od1jM1HUrieETbDFIZ5I5oXIlvPgM2yPZJuSGFSbLghyBBvXt54QIDhSjpx6NNLsZ8NQ+qhLGx!P7dSsC1dDwTMSu260S1zmSQG5MXzLFwZko0gn1PdzCwwYolpwbu8P4UZdZflMT09EIQc3fTCovtS
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

On 12/15/2024 04:11 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 12/15/2024 03:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========