Re: Relativity is a pseudoscience II. The Hafele-Keating HOAX,

Le 12/09/2024 à 05:03, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :

Mr. Hertz: It's hard to see any value in such an experiment. What I
found especially absurd was the finding of time dilation and time
contraction. Logic is enough to understand time dilation is a
self-contradictory absurdity—junk science.

No, the notions of length contraction or time dilation are not absurdities.
We can now speak, in light of the experiments, of physical realities.
I have never stopped explaining, and explaining it clearly, that the problem comes from a misunderstanding of the subject by the highest physicists themselves, not from what is happening in the physical reality of the world.
It is then quite obvious, and physicists are ALL at fault when they deny it, that what they are stating IS absurd and false, and not what they should be stating.
Physicists are like a bad bow designer, who throws arrows "not too badly", and who can hit a target
once out of two times on average. So they are happy with their bow.
They start saying that it is normal, because there is a law of uncertainty,
that a bow can never, on average, make you hit the target more than once out of two.
This is also the theory of Jean-Pierre Messager, who finds RR very good, and who howls with laughter the day that Doctor Hachel (blessed be he) says that he, with a bow of his design, you hit the target every time.
This idea is beyond him. It is no longer in agreement with his religious belief.
One of the problems of relativistic physicists is that they do not go far enough in relativistic extravagance. They limit themselves, pettily, to the fixed contraction of the lengths of moving objects, and to their time dilation (their time seems to turn less quickly).
So the opposite is true: it is because they are not extravagant enough that their doctrine becomes false and they are mocked by the "cranks".
It is indeed obvious that things said as they say them are absurd: two travelers cannot become younger than each other.
There is necessarily, on their part, an educational responsibility in their way of considering things in this way, and of not wanting to be more precise and clear.
Worse, when Doctor Hachel speaks about it (he is much better than Einstein and Poincaré on this, and he explains things much better) he is spat on, human madness always being there.
No. It is the terms and concepts that are imprecise. Because everything is badly said. From there come all the misunderstandings, the errors, then the hatreds.
We should say: "There is a reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies".
And not "There is a reciprocal dilation of time", which is absurd, and forces the student to fill the stupidity of the concept with a "time-gap" dust under the carpet.
We should say: "There is an elasticity of lengths and distances" and not
"there is a fixed contraction in the reference frame of type l'=g.l
And so on for many things.
So, we should not say either: "the theory is false".
We should say "they all speak falsely about it".
Their experiences do not deceive them. It is their lack of understanding of things that deceives them.
"When you cut off a dog's four legs, it no longer comes to eat when you call it, THEREFORE it becomes deaf".
R.H.