1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

  • Crank Richard Hertz fails relativity 101

    From Dono.@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Thu Nov 9 07:58:44 2023
    On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:


    CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.

    No, they are not , dumbestfuck

    You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Nov 9 08:57:05 2023
    On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 9:58:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:


    CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.
    No, they are not , dumbestfuck

    You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

    As a matter of fact, the vertical light clock commonly associated with Langevin's
    name was actually introduced by Lewis and Tolman https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity,_and_Non-Newtonian_Mechanics

    Langevin used a *horizontal* light clock to perform .a novel derivation of the LT
    http://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~sano/hssj/pdf/Cuvaj_C-1972-Langevin_Relativity-JSHS-No_10-pp113-142.pdf
    His demonstration is rather nice. since it employs a significantly "weaker"
    set of starting postulates than Einstein's original set.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Thu Nov 9 09:30:22 2023
    On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:58:46 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:


    CONCLUSION: Using an horizontal light clock, the results of TIME FLOW due to length contraction and time dilation are in conflict.
    No, they are not , dumbestfuck

    You botched your calculations, you are unable to do even the simplest exercise.

    At the end of my OP, I asked: "WHERE IS THE TRICK EMBEDDED IN THIS PARADOX?"

    Nobody answered that important question.

    In the length contraction issue, as v nears c and AB shrinks, the observer at rest PERCEIVES that tA ticks faster and faster, due to
    the invariance of c. Meanwhile, a co-moving observer register that the count of 1 us ticks in tA are NORMAL.

    In the limit of v = c, the observer at rest PERCEIVES an infinite difference between tK and tA. For 1us in tK, he perceives infinite ticks in tA,
    but a digital display of tA (digital domain kills analog domain), there IS NOT a difference between tK and tA.

    So, the observer at rest CAN'T EXPLAIN the difference between his Lorentz calculations and the TRUE COUNT shown in the remote digital display.

    Relativity is a flawed pseudo-science.

    Explain that, smart ass.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)