Re: The insanity of the pseudoscience SR by 1905

On 03/22/2025 06:14 PM, rhertz wrote:

I was thinking about the paper the fallacious deceiver plagiarized in
1905, which is called now Special Relativity.
>
Many times in the past I mentally revised the first part looking for
absurd assertions, like the second postulate and independence of c with
motion of the emitter, the funny kinematics that the imbecile derived
from it, his fallacious and mathematically wrong derivation of Lorentz
transforms, etc.
>
I accept that constancy of speed of light in vacuum is a local constant.
Maxwell derived it in 1865 through the values of permittivity and
permeability. But Maxwell didn't say a word about the independence of
the emitter motion.
>
I accept the mathematical artifacts that are called Lorentz transforms,
being for me just A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY WITH NO PHYSICAL MEANING.
Lorentz sought a basis for length contraction since 1892, after
FitzGerald idea about the failure of MMX.
>
In 1904, Lorentz PLANTED the Gamma Factor, as well as local time,
without any explanations or references to his prior works since 1892.
But both terms came from the work of Voigt in 1887. Lorentz DISMISSED
the value of time transform as just a collateral nuisance in his pursuit
of length contraction justification.
>
>
So far, so good.
>
But just a while ago, a doubt struck my mind about Einstein's paper:
>
HOW COME, IF TIME IS PERCEIVED AS DILATED from calculations of the
observer at rest, and length is perceived as contracted in the same
stupid remote perception,
THE INERTIAL MOTION WITH SPEED v IS PERCEIVED AS CERTAIN?
>
Shouldn't the imbecile relativists perceive speed v AFFECTED BY THE
MOTION ITSELF?
>
Time affected in the remote perception. Length affected in the remote
perception.
>
But HOW COME speed v is considered to be EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH
OBSERVERS, when they perform remote sensing of speed (and it's
symmetric).
>
Should v be a FUNCTION of time and distance and not a universal
constant, exactly like the c speed? At least in the theoretical
framework of the fucking papers that have been written?
>
With this FALLACY of constancy of speed v at the same level of speed c,
all the building of SR seems to me A GIANT PILE OF CRAP, MORE THAN EVER
BEFORE.
>
Fuck Einstein and every fucking relativist.

There are three different things called "c",
light's and electrostatics' and electrodynamics'.
The other ones at light arrive at from limits.
Yet, they're not the same, though they're on
the same order and a bit above and below.
"Equating" the photon and electron, or, you know,
measurements so associated with them, is a pretty
great thing and it's because of electron-physics mostly
which is due the ultraviolet catastrophe largely and
that there are yet, for examples, muon and neutrino
physics, has that electron-physics is a great,
"severe abstraction", and what happens when it's
the only idiom is that the other aspects of physics
get bent and eventually broken to it.
Then, "equating relativists", is as stupid, when for
example there are weak SR-ians which is what it seems
you're talking about, there are the other kinds, for
example when there's one "energy" yet four and more
fields cum forces, fields of potential and simple
instantaneous derivatives called forces.
Einstein long ago definitely pointed out
that "relativity of simultaneity is non-local,
and, SR is local", meaning there's always a skew
from any alternative perspective given any dynamics.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....