Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean (space-contraction, charge mass)

On 12/15/2024 03:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/15/2024 01:39 PM, Python wrote:

Le 15/12/2024 à 22:35, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

On 12/15/2024 03:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 15.12.2024 o 10:53, Python pisze:

Le 12/12/2024 à 04:37, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 22:51, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 22:18, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 21:56, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 21:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 11.12.2024 o 20:17, Python pisze:

Le 11/12/2024 à 08:17, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 10.12.2024 o 20:45, Python pisze:

Le 10/12/2024 à 20:20, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

...

How do you practically check your "t = t'" equations for
clocks standing next to each other?

>
I read the numbers they display and I compare them.

>
Good.
>

Then for distant mutually at rest clocks with no

gravity involved?

>
I don't.

>
Sad. You don't. You can't. We can.

>
No you can't either. Sorry, There is a small technical detail:
those
"distant clocks" are not moving wrt each
other.
How do you ensure that? By assuming the
condition a priori;and you can do it because
you're only applying your procedure
in your gedanken. Am I incorrect ?

>
You are. I put two clocks at the extremity of a rod.

>
Yeah, sure - "distant" clocks  at the
extremity of the rod - very practical
indeed, isn't it?
>
>
  This is quite

reasonable to assume they are at rest wrt to each other, isn't
it?

>
No. Take 2 bodies - one orbitting the other.
Join them with a rod, do you secure their relative
immobility ? Yeah, you imagined and insisted
Gdańsk and Warsaw aren't moving wrt each other. You're
such an idiot.

>
What is the relative speed between Gdansk and Warsaw then?

>
Would have to calculate.

>
LOL!!!

>
OK, if you ask.
 From wiki - Gdańsk is 54°20′51″N 18°38′43″E,
Warsaw is 52°13′56″N 21°00′30″E.
Assuming the average Earth radius  6368km, Gdańsk
is 3713.3km distant from Earth axis, Warsaw is
3901.5km. That gives 972.1km/h and 1021.4km/h
of linear speed. The difference is 49.3km/h.
Good enough for you as the first estimation,
poor stinker?
Sure, the velocities are not quite parallel;
the final result will be slightly bigger.
>
>
>
>
>

>
>

You're only believing [into] a great
practical procedure - because your is pumping you with gedanken
fairy
tales where it works fine.

>
Nope. If such a procedure would fail it could be checked.

>
How could it fail if you  have never used it.
>
>

No magic, and if gravity could not be ignored in a given
practical setup

>
So, where, precisely, was your [method]
applied. In practice.

>
I asked for yours

>
And I asked where, precisely, was your idiocy
applied. In practice.
No answer? Of course,

>
Many labs where distant events are involved and high time resolution
is > needed, inside CERN detectors for instance.

>
The source?

>
http://ttc.web.cern.ch/LEB00Sync.pdf

>
But the document is signed "Varela, J", not
"Einstein, A", poor stinker. And it's definitely
far, far, far more elaborate than the "masterpiece"
of your idiot guru.
>
>

>
There's "apparent superluminal motion" then though that
it's said to be "illusory" isn't very scientific, vis-a-vis
angles, just pointing out that the Galilean or linear motion
as the usually given "what is in motion stays in motion",
holds up very well.
>
Then, because the Lorentzian invariant comes into play,
in regards to why at all Lorentzian instead of Galilean,
makes for better mathematics that "attains" to, makes
and keeps Galilean while reflecting Lorentzian, for
things like moving charge in the FitzGeraldian, in
the linear.
>
Then, for the un-linear, the rotational setting, there
is that it's rather more Lorentzian about the centrally-
symmetric, then that space-contraction-linear and the
space-contraction-rotational are two different things.
>
So, when the sky survey definitely has examples of
"superluminal motion", which would be Galilean,
in terms of velocity addition, then this gets
into reasons why there's space-contraction variously,
since it's un-scientific to say that linear motion
isn't Galilean when there are examples as don't agree.
>
The gyroscopic and heft make for it being rather
simply demonstrable space-contraction-rotational,
then for space-contraction-linear being different,
is that rotation is, if rotating, yet not in a
moving frame, while, the linear is a moving frame,
with regards to other frames, and that the space
moves with the frame, explaining why space-contraction
is real, space-contraction-linear is a thing, that's
mostly un-observable yet of course has for the three
constants of light's, charge's, and the magnetic ratio
after the gy-radius, what's for space-contraction-rotational,
that rotating frames are independent, as are linear frames.
>
Of course this has to fit _all_ the data why the examples
of "apparent super-luminal motion" and for example that
"the SLAC's linear track's demonstrates waved cracks",
then that also the idea of putting a charged cyclotron
and a neutral linac together obviously offers a completely
simple in principle experiment to provide non-null differences
between the linear setting, and rotational setting, the un-linear.

>
- This is complete gibberish
- This is unrelated to the thread's content
>
Are you high on drugs?
>
>

>
What it reflects is a clock hypothesis, like
an Einstein's "the time", and then how and why
there can be space-contraction-linear, and, the
space-contraction-rotational, with one making
relative motion the other relative rotation,
so, it's topical, and not gibberish, and no.
>
This way both adherents to the reasoning of
the Lorentzian, and, those to the observations
of the sky survey, may have a theory that
fulfills both, that it's merely for the
Galilean and the FitzGeraldian to be introduced,
to explain why there merely Lorentzian
does not thoroughly suffice.
>
Superimposing a charged cyclotron and neutral linac
and finding the humps and bumps in alternative operation,
defines a simple experiment demonstrating this,
though it's as well borne out by the data.
>
Moving charge is mostly relativistic,
quite close to mass-less, charge.
>
>

Of course it's not usually in the theory
that the "rest mass" of the electron is
actually miniscule, then also, that it
vacillates about zero mass, as with regards
to whether charge, the quantity, ever rests.