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

Den 04.10.2024 15:34, skrev rhertz:

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:44:39 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

The Lorentz transform describes SR completely.
It's meaning is that it predicts a lot of physical
consequences which are observed in the real world,
and which are not predicted by Newtonian mechanics
and Galilean relativity.
 SR is thoroughly tested by a innumerable experiments
and observations and is never falsified.
 Newtonian mechanics is falsified by a number of experiments.
(But it is still a very useful theory as long as we know
 its limitations.)
 Some of the experimental evidence:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
 In a hopeless attempt to 'save' NM Richard Hertz claims:
"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."
 So Richard Hertz is wrong unless all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.
 Hilarious, no? 😂

  And yet in another proof of your ignorance, fanaticism and brainwashing
on relativity, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT
-vx/c², EITHER WITH A PHYSICAL MEANING OR EVEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE.

A coordinate transform is:
t' = at + bx
x' = ct + dx
Do you think that the term "b" has another EXPLANATION,
EITHER WITH A PHYSICAL MEANING OR EVEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE,
than the terms a, c and d?

 That is because you're an idiot who bought the relativity package of
crap WITHOUT a mere question on its ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE.

Quite.
I have bought SR and the Lorentz transform with all its terms
because I know that SR is thoroughly experimentally verified.
I also know that Newtonian mechanics and the Galilean transform
without the term -vx/c² is experimentally falsified.
Do you need another 'explanation' for why the term  -vx/c²
must be in the transformation which give the predictions that
are in accordance with physical measurements in the real world?

 Give an explanation about the PHYSICAL MEANING of -vx/c² in "local time"
OR shut your mouth (or equivalent).
 Cornered relativistic rat.

There is no "local time" in SR.
You can see what Lorentz meant by "local time" in chapter 3 here:
https://paulba.no/div/LTorigin.pdf
Quote:
"Lorentz called the t' coordinate ’local time’, as opposed to
  the t coordinate which was the ’absolute time’ inherited from Newton.
  But note that this ’local time’ is what it shown by local clocks,
  and it is the ’local time’ that can be measured.
  The ’absolute time’ t is unobservable."
Only an idiot would call a term in a coordinate transform "local time".
What is the term vt? "Local position"?
And only an idiot would claim that all physicists born after 1900
are frauds.
Don't you agree, Richard? :-D
--
Paul, having fun
https://paulba.no/