Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[exchemist]

I've told you twice, but now you're making me behave as I don't want to, due to your stupid affirmation that I don't understand something.

 

I understand EVERYTHING about what I post. If NOT, then I shut up and just read others.

 

You should follow my advice and, later, go back to high-school. Once finished, go to any college to learn something right, like MATH!

 

Make a correction at the damm formula in your signature, because IT IS WRONG! Learn math, ffs!

 

Last time I try this with you. Read and compare this formula with your term. Take your time, and then correct it. It offends my intelligence!

 

Something you need to know here. Doublesox is on the autistic spectrum, can't do maths and has difficulty handling criticism. :) I have had him on Ignore for a while. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by exchemist

[rhertz]

Don't try and insult me by making equations big and fat and bold just to suit your desire to find some fault with relativity... besides this equation has nothing to do with the ''2c'' problem you lot are struggling with.

 

Well, this is the last time I answer you, because you let me wordless.

 

I don't know where did you get that I'm involved in something like "the 2c problem". I don't even know what you are writing about.

 

I just used this thread to post a disection of the first pages from Einstein's 1905 paper, showing that it doesn't worth to go further

than the first and full of fallacies nine pages: § 1, § 2 and  § 3 (from the 1926 english translation of his paper, publicly available).

 

If you are the "math wizard" that you claim to be, I dare you that you prove here (for everybody to learn about it), that his

derivation of Lorentz Transforms at his section § 3 is correct and that he doesn't perform a fraudulent derivation in page 6.

 

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in

Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former

 

Go ahead, genius, prove it right. I'll give a month, even a year if you need it.

[Dubbelosix]

Good and if you don't remember why we were talking about the 2c issue, then you clearly are not focused enough to be challenged in a conversation.

 

 

Well, this is the last time I answer you, ....

[rhertz]

A few things are becoming apparent here... Exchemist has always hated me, since the sciforum days, he envies how far I have come by almost a self-education whilst you prance about stating things about physics whilst accepting you are not even a mathematical physicist. You sir, are becoming a contradiction of your own facts.

 

I have the utter respect for self-education. I consider myself being such a person.

 

Only thinking about Heaviside, Faraday and Tesla and what they achieved is for me more than enough regarding this particular topic.

These are only a few examples, of course they were geniuses which nor you and I are, but still my respect to self-education is the highest.

 

Even more, I consider that being self-taught gives you the freedom to explore anything you want. You just have to ignore others downplaying you.

 

In this particular discussion between you and me, I'm telling that your signature's formula is wrong. As simple as that.

 

You can, either, analyze why and correct it or keep sustaining that you didn't make a mistake.

 

Whatever you do in the future about this issue has a value for you, not for me. I'm not being paid for trying to help someone with math.

 

At any case, I close this discussion here, except for the demonstration that Einstein's derivation of Lorentz was right (I tell you in advance

that many mathematicians found it wrong, in the last 110 years), They are called Lorentz Transforms by H. Poincarè, and the scientific

community has accepted Poincarè decision since 1905, because it was Poincarè's will to credit it to his friend Lorentz. I never read about

"Einstein's Transforms".

 

I'll stop here for good.

[Dubbelosix]

So, you are telling me, you do not remember the discussions of relative velocities? Are we even on the same forum???

[Dubbelosix]

Now... Faraday and Heaviside where actual scientists in the physics sense, but Tesla was a pure experimentalist, with additional factors - but he was so adamant that Einstein was wrong, to then point he openly ridiculed him. Let me ask a question, what is this fascination with Tesla... I know... I just want you to explain it to me, and then I will explain why you are wrong about my signature formula.... deal or no deal?

[rhertz]

Now... Faraday and Heaviside where actual scientists in the physics sense, but Tesla was a pure experimentalist, with additional factors - but he was so adamant that Einstein was wrong, to then point he openly ridiculed him. Let me ask a question, what is this fascination with Tesla... I know... I just want you to explain it to me, and then I will explain why you are wrong about my signature formula.... deal or no deal?

 

Dubbelosix, I wanted you to know that I'm putting you in my Ignore List once I finish this post.

 

I don't want to trigger you or hurt in anyway your feelings, so I consider that this is the best thing to do.

 

First time ever that I use this feature.

[ralfcis]

You will find such peace but resist peeking, the people here have nothing important to say now or in the future.

[marcospolo]

You will find such peace but resist peeking, the people here have nothing important to say now or in the future.

Are you including yourself?

[marcospolo]

Still no relativist can be bothered to reply on this post?

 

THE DILATION OF TIME CONUNDRUM
Two unmoving spaceships: A & B are the same distance from an observation point C.
The observer at point C sends a signal in both directions which will reach A & B after the same
amount of time. This signal thus starts both spaceships moving simultaneously.
Both spaceships accelerate identically and reach the same high velocity on their way to point C.
This velocity is close enough to the velocity of light so that they should apparently be
significantly affected by time dilation according to the principles of Special Relativity.

http://www.flight-li...pter xxvii.pdf

 

At the precise point that they pass by C, both spaceships send a signal which is the measurement
of the time on their own clocks to reach point C. These signals are marked AT & BT in the
second diagram.
Both spaceships are in a state of perfect symmetry from the perspective of C.
It is therefore clear regardless of the exact value of AT & BT, that these measurements of their
respective times (including any time dilation) will be equal to one another at the point of passing
C, from the observation point of C.
Thus AT = BT when perceived from the observer at C.
However the signals sent out are also both received by the other ship!
So A receives the signal BT, and B receives AT. There will be a very small delay in the time
that it takes the signals to pass between the ships. Seeing as the measurement is taken before the
signal is sent (as they both symmetrically pass by point C) this will not affect the actual
measurement, and thus the signals sent will be identical.
Both ships each will therefore be able to see that the times of their flight are such that BT = AT
when they arrive at point C.
We do not need to specify any values to see that despite a large effective velocity between A &
B, that there can be absolutely no effective time dilation between A & B!
This proves that time dilation due to relative velocity as specified in the Special Theory of
Relativity can only be a logical and empirical impossibility!!
 (clipped from www.flight-light-and-spin.com)

 

Relativists need to step up and show how SR still can work.

Edited June 6, 2019 by marcospolo

[Dubbelosix]

You will find such peace but resist peeking, the people here have nothing important to say now or in the future.

 

It's like an impulsion with you people... Haven't you listened to the mods? And now here is me eating the bait. 

[Vmedvil2]

No more bullshit shall be cut, Mods close my thread.

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

On the contrary, you keep asking people to varify with explanations why you are wrong, while I left you wordless?

 

 

I think I left you worthless, to be honest. 

 

Well, this is the last time I answer you, because you let me wordless.

[ralfcis]

Marco I've already answered your question but since you are illiterate in math you can't understand the answer. However, I'll give it another shot on my relativity and algebra thread because I'd like to keep things in one place for the future. 

[sluggo]

rhertz#308;

Let's examine the chase scene. The morons rob a bank, and speed away at 50 mph on route 66. The police get a call of a sighting 1 mile away. They immediately speed after them at 60 mph. How long will it take to catch up with the robbers?
distance between cars = 1, robber car speed r = 50, cop car speed c = 60, d = distance.
For robbers, d=1 + rt.
For cops, d=ct.
If cops and robbers are coincident, then 1+rt = ct.
Rearranging, t(c-r)=1, and t=1/(c-r).
Note, nothing is moving at a speed of (c-r)!
There are two objects in motion, so both speeds are required to solve the problem.
Transfer this relationship to an SR example.
A stick 1 unit long with a light at the near end and a mirror at the far end, moves at v along x. A photon moves at c toward the mirror. Using the same setup for the 1st example, t1=1/(c-v). For the reflection, t2 = 1/(c+v).
Nothing moves at (c-v) or (c+v).
Those two values are referred to as 'closing speeds'. How long to form or close a spatial gap/interval.

[GAHD]

No more bullshit shall be cut, Mods close my thread.

 

MMK.

 

To those interested, you can still copypasta a reply quote in a new thread if you're so inclined.