Path: ...!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 15:59:12 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <ebe353415ea822a2b9505c8fc635081c@www.novabbs.com>
References: <7f48b61d2779066c75b739a1afd4eb80@www.novabbs.com> <vd0t61$3lvnd$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="3448848"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="hWiuCAeR3KEZYJfTvV11n0qrRi6oqW/zjvEZQQGun9A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: f685b96694175b2ad43ead343ead0a9c0082fe88
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$lP/6mg.OsVZ82aZea4Prje2IEMEe.nSOq6iqL6qOuMNeAwgDRdpFO
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3486
Lines: 67

*************************************************************
The challenge is:
Show what the LT predicts the proper time of B
is perceived to be τB = T.


You are free to use as many frames of reference you might wish.


Of course I know that you are unable to meet the challenge.
You won't even try.


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


Isn't it? :-D
***********************************************************

Paul, I don't want to intellectually abuse you, so I'll explain this
thing as you were 5 y.o.

No equations needed. By the way, you didn't care to read the Wiki link
that I posted, which contains a lot of defensive arguments on this
matter.

SIMPLY PUT:

You have TWO reference frames (E and E'), which have a DIFFERENTIAL
SPEED OF v. For SR, as it was installed since 1906, the COMMON SPEED of
both frames IS IRRELEVANT (it could be 1,500 times v).

You have TWO imaginary observers at E and E' origins, pretending that
they are 100% human biological entities.



Relativism SAYS that there is TIME DILATION WITH INERTIAL MOTION, and
the choice of any reference frames is IRRELEVANT.

CHOICE ONE: You select E as the frame AT RELATIVE REST compared with E',
which is moving far away at speed v. THEN, the humanoid at E PERCEIVES
that the REMOTE TIME for the other humanoid at E' is RUNNING SLOWER THAN
HIS. So, the humanoid at E BELIEVES that the bastard at E' IS AGING MORE
SLOWLY THAN HIM.

CHOICE TWO: Adopt E' as being at RELATIVE REST. Then it's E the frame
that is moving away at !v! speed. Relativists claim that TIME DILATION
is going ON over the frame E, and now is the humanoid at E' who says: I
PERCEIVE that time at E is running slower than mine, so the bastard at E
is AGING SLOWER THAN ME!

The PARADOX, explained without using ANY STUPID FORMULA, is that both
humanoids PERCEIVE THAT THE OTHER IS AGING SLOWER.

We don't need any idiocy generated by the Lorentz toys, to involve round
trips and THE VERIFICATION that one of them has AGED MORE THAN THE
OTHER. It depends on whose reference frame the round trip is executed.

As you could read (you still can, can't you?), no mathematics is
involved in THE REASONING FROM THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS.

Only the central points of SR are applied WITH LOGIC, which I'm afraid
is an ability negated to you DUE TO YOUR DECADES LONG EXPOSURE TO THE
DOGMAS OF THE CULT OF RELATIVITY.

You CAN'T think outside the box, isn't that true?