Re: I dare to relativists to explain local time: t-vx/c²

Den 05.10.2024 23:51, skrev rhertz:

 DON'T FORGET THE AWFUL TRUTH: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT WHAT LOCAL
TIME IS. NOT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!
 I PROVIDED MANY LINKS WITH PRETENTIOUS EXPLANATIONS, MORE METAPHYSICAL
THAN REAL, BUT YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT.
 WHAT ONLY MATTERS IS THE "FANTASTIC PAUL'S WORLD", WHERE YOU LIVE
ENJOYING YOUR LIST OF PAPERS AND FEELING FORTUNATE OF BEING A
"CONVERTED" RELATIVIST, MR. EE.
 YOU RUINED YOUR SMALL BRAIN WITH DECADES OF EXPOSURE TO RELATIVITY. NOW,
IT'S GOING WORSE FOR YOUR BRAIN, DUE TO THE NATURAL DECAY IN THE AMOUNT
OF NEURONS DUE TO YOUR AGE.
 EVEN YOUR PARROTING MECHANISM IS SUFFERING THE TOLL THAT AGING CAUSES.
  BUT REMEMBER: YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT LOCAL TIME IS.
 CASE CLOSED, AS YOUR MIND.

Well shouted, Richard.
Nobody can illustrate the stupidity of Richard Hertz better
than you, Richard.
Since you ask so nicely, I will remind you of other
cases when you have made a fool of yourself without my help:
| Den 02.10.2024 19:33, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> "Time is what my clock shows", infamously asserted at
|> the beginning of his plagiarized 1905 paper.
|> Assertion still sustained nowadays by relativists.
|> So, even moving at c/2, the clock of the moving observer would
|> dictate that a day last 86,400 seconds.
|> But relativity sustain the narrative that, even when your clock marks
|> 86,400 seconds/day, a remote clock (located on Earth's surface) would
|> mark 99,766 seconds/day.
|> All of this because OF A FORMULA, being impossible to verify it
|> experimentally.
|>
| Den 28.09.2024 04:34, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> This link illustrates a bit:
|> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
|>
|> Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²
|>
|> https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html
|>
|> G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
|> M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
|> R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
|>
|> Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59
|>
|> In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327
|>
|Den 27.09.2024 22:13, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS
|> THE ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE
|> 15,000 MILES FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY)
|> TO ESTIMATE THE TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.
|>
| Den 27.09.2024 00:27, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Mudrak's 2017 formula for GNSS Galileo:
|>
|> Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (aΩₑ)²]
|>
|> If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r
|> (i.e. 10 Km), then
|>
|> Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c²   ----- Mudrak 2017
|>
|> Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
|>
|> Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should
|> I explain?
|> Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
|>
| Den 27.09.2024 02:47, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Your STUPID and ILLOGICAL thinking is about having bought THIS CRAP:
|> Hafele considered a good approximation the following INSANE
|> assertion:
|>
|> - WE (H&K, plus the gang at USNO) considered A GOOD IDEA to think
|>   that a good approximation is:
|>
|>  - Earth rotates at 459,24 m/sec (Equator level). We SUPPOSE that
|>    USNO labs are FLOATING IN THE AIR for the duration of our eastward
|>    trip.
|>
|>  - So, in a stroke of a genius, we SUPPOSED that being still for
|>    65.42 hours (flight time + waiting in airports) at ALTITUDE 0.0Km,
|>    we WOULD REACH USNO LABS while Earth rotates such amount
|>    (either 0° latitude or the average 34° latitude).
|>
|>  - The only thing that we have to do is TO SIT COMFORTABLY, while
|>    Earth rotates, AND in 65.42 hours we will reach USNO AGAIN
|>    (because we departed from USNO, which MAGICALLY remained STILL
|>    IN SPACE, without ANY MOTION. We are, by the hand of Einstein,
|>    who slipped eastward, to finally reach USNO again.
|>
|>  - The only uncomfortable aspect of such adventure is that OUR ASSES
|>    got wet, while moving over water at height ZERO, plus a lot of
|>    bruises in our asses while moving over earth, at h=0.
|>
|>  - But all the pain suffered worth the sacrifice, as we COULD
|>    THEORETICALLY compute the elapsed time τ₀ =65.42h =235.512E+12 ns.
|>
|>  - That such value, which we pulled out of our asses, contain errors
|>    in the order of BILLIONS OF PARTS is irrelevant, because we proved
|>    that Einstein was right.
|>
| Den 15.09.2024 03:26, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
|> since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
|> BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.
|>
|> As they wrote here:
|>
|> https://www.oca.eu/en/news-lagrange/1363-first-results-from-microscope-satellite-confirm-albert-einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-with-unprecedented-precision
|>
|> QUOTE:
|> «The satellite’s performance is far exceeding expectations. Data
|> from more than 1,900 additional orbits are already available and
|> more are to come, which should enable us to further improve the
|> mission’s performance and approach its target of acquiring
|> measurements with a precision of 10-15. This first result is going
|> to shake the world of physics and will certainly lead to a revision
|> of alternative theories to general relativity,» said the mission’s
|> principal investigator Pierre Touboul.
|>
|> Enjoy slowly, relativists. Please don't choke on your stupidity,
|> as you are allowed to fail for being just humans.
|>
| Den 13.09.2024 19:32, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> And about your list of historical proofs of relativity,
|> I can make a deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond
|> any reasonable doubt, that relativists are members of a MAFFIA,
|> and profit from it. This is because the different results are
|> COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
|> cooking and peer complicity.
|>
| Den 10.09.2024 03:19, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
|>>
|>> GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
|>> by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
|>>
|>>    θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
|>>
|>> Where:
|>>  AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
|>>  φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
|>>  c = speed of light in vacuum
|>>  G = Gravitational constant
|>>  M = solar mass
|>>
|>
|> Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
|> what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense.
|>
|> Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
|>
|> 1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
|> reference frame with that of the Earth.
|>
|> 2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
|> that the observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the
|> position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
|> the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
|> time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon. Earth
|> rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
|> anual variation of ± 11.5 degrees!!!
|>
|> 3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial
|> coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because the Earth rotates
|> daily.
|>
|> 4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the ELEVATION
|> of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light of the Sun (and
|> stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERTURBATIONS. One of
|> the most important is the REFRACTION of the light passing through
|> atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so, the elevation angle at noon
|> CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
|> elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
|> locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
|> elevation in summer time.
|>
|> 5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in the
|> moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from being at
|> 90 degrees respect to the Sun.
|>
|> ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
|>
Make my day, Richard.
Say that you don't understand why you made a fool of yourself
in any of the quotations above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/