Revised blog, much shorter, only about 3 typescript pages, not 9.

Also focused: Einstein erred.

https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

On 8/6/23 1:37 PM, xip14 wrote:
> https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,
so your claim "Einstein erred" is hopelessly naive -- YOU erred.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 19:29:57 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/6/23 1:37 PM, xip14 wrote:
> > https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/
>
> That is full of nonsense and errors. You CLEARLY do not understand SR,

And that we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

On the pavement axis there are two particles and two speeds, the sum of speeds greater than c. One or both of these speeds must be slowed down.

On the Lorentz Transform axis there is one particle and one speed. You do not to figure out which particle to slow down. Maybe you do, but I don’t.

I am going to rephrase it.

On the pavement axis there are two particles and two speeds, the sum of speeds greater than c. First, since this speed is a divergence of two particles, it is not illegal even if greater than c. Second, if two particle speed must be slowed down, you must slow down one or both of the particles. Symmetric or asymmetric?

On the Lorentz Transform axis, two particles combine into one particle and one speed. If greater than c, that speed is illegal, and must be fixed. It can be fixed by slowing down one or both of the pavement particles. Symmetric or asymmetric? The LT’s don't do it that way. The LT’s leave pavement particle speeds as is, and increase the time of one-particle on the LT axis. No symmetry question.

EDoMB 1905 Section §5 velocity-addition-formula used today:

V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )

reduction factor: rf = 1 + vw/c²

Speed-c is c = 4 miles per hour.

→ Let v = 4 mph and w = 0 mph.

rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 0 = 1

V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 4 + 0 ) / 1 = 4 mph

→ Let v = 0 and w = 4.

rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 0 = 1

V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 0 + 4 ) / 1 = 4 mph

→ Let v = 2 and w = 2.

rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 1 / 4 = 5 / 4

V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 2 + 2 ) / ( 5 / 4 ) = 0.8 × 4 = 3.2 mph

Why is it that speed 2 + 2 is transformed while speeds 0 + 4 are not transformed?

El viernes, 11 de agosto de 2023 a las 12:34:31 UTC-4, xip14 escribió:
> EDoMB 1905 Section §5 velocity-addition-formula used today:
> V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
> reduction factor: rf = 1 + vw/c²
>
> Speed-c is c = 4 miles per hour.
>
> → Let v = 4 mph and w = 0 mph.
>
> rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 0 = 1
>
> V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 4 + 0 ) / 1 = 4 mph
>
> → Let v = 0 and w = 4.
>
> rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 0 = 1
>
> V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 0 + 4 ) / 1 = 4 mph
>
> → Let v = 2 and w = 2.
>
> rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 1 / 4 = 5 / 4
>
> V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 2 + 2 ) / ( 5 / 4 ) = 0.8 × 4 = 3.2 mph
>
> Why is it that speed 2 + 2 is transformed while speeds 0 + 4 are not transformed?

Because you are using the wrong value of c. The correct value is c=186000 miles per second

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:34:31 AM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:
> Why is it that speed 2 + 2 is transformed while speeds 0 + 4 are not transformed?

Because you are an idiot.

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:49:35 AM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 11 de agosto de 2023 a las 12:34:31 UTC-4, xip14 escribió:
> > EDoMB 1905 Section §5 velocity-addition-formula used today:
> > V = ( v + w ) / ( 1 + vw/c² )
> > reduction factor: rf = 1 + vw/c²
> >
> > Speed-c is c = 4 miles per hour.
> >
> > → Let v = 4 mph and w = 0 mph.
> >
> > rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 0 = 1
> >
> > V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 4 + 0 ) / 1 = 4 mph
> >
> > → Let v = 0 and w = 4.
> >
> > rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 0 = 1
> >
> > V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 0 + 4 ) / 1 = 4 mph
> >
> > → Let v = 2 and w = 2.
> >
> > rf = 1 + vw/c² = 1 + 1 / 4 = 5 / 4
> >
> > V = ( v + w ) / rf = ( 2 + 2 ) / ( 5 / 4 ) = 0.8 × 4 = 3.2 mph
> >
> > Why is it that speed 2 + 2 is transformed while speeds 0 + 4 are not transformed?
> Because you are using the wrong value of c. The correct value is c=186000 miles per second

If one of the two speeds is 0 then....

Here are “plus-sign” Lorentz Transforms, axis X′ ( primed ) being the pavement and axis X ( unprimed ) being the moving axis, moving with negative speed-v. The transforms reverse the sign of speed-v to +v.

x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )

t = gamma × ( t′ + vx′ / c² )

Here is the Galilean form shown in textbooks.

x = x′ + vt′

t = t′

Example numbers: the origin x = 0 of axis X moves negatively at speed v = – 3 miles per hour. This motion continues for time t′ = 1 hour. Point-x′ is fixed value x′ = 0. It is always at the origin of axis X′. Speed-v reversed to positive speed-v.

x = 0 miles + 3 mph × 1 hour = 3 miles

t = 1 hour

Speed of point-x on axis X is x / t:

x / t = 3 miles / 1 hour = 3 miles per hour

The origin of axis X moves negatively at 3 mph away from the origin [ x′ = 0 ] of axis X′. Point-x′ is at origin point [ x′ = 0 ] appears on retreating axis X to move positively for 1 hour, beginning at [ x = 0 ] and ending up at x = 3 miles, hence 3 mph.

One new number: the origin x = 0 of axis X moves negatively at speed v = – 3 miles per hour. This motion continues for time t′ = 1 hour. Point-x′ is fixed value x′ = 1 on axis X′.

x = 1 mile + 3 mph × 1 hour = 4 miles

t = 1 hour

Speed of point-x on axis X is x / t:

x / t = 4 miles / 1 hour = 4 miles per hour

Wolfgang Pauli: “It’s not even wrong.”

Stationary point x′ = 1 appears on negatively moving axis X to move from x = 1 to x = 4 over the course of an hour. Distance equals 3 miles.

3 miles / 1 hour = 3 miles per hour

Necromancers believe algebra can turn base metal into gold. Not always.

Le 22/08/2023 à 21:51, xip14 a écrit :
> Here are “plus-sign” Lorentz Transforms, axis X′ ( primed ) being the
> pavement and axis X ( unprimed ) being the moving axis, moving with negative
> speed-v. The transforms reverse the sign of speed-v to +v.
>
> x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )
>
> t = gamma × ( t′ + vx′ / c² )
>
> Here is the Galilean form shown in textbooks.
>
> x = x′ + vt′
>
> t = t′
>
> Example numbers: the origin x = 0 of axis X moves negatively at speed v = – 3
> miles per hour. This motion continues for time t′ = 1 hour. Point-x′ is
> fixed value x′ = 0. It is always at the origin of axis X′. Speed-v reversed
> to positive speed-v.
>
> x = 0 miles + 3 mph × 1 hour = 3 miles
>
> t = 1 hour
>
> Speed of point-x on axis X is x / t:
>
> x / t = 3 miles / 1 hour = 3 miles per hour
>
> The origin of axis X moves negatively at 3 mph away from the origin [ x′ = 0 ]
> of axis X′. Point-x′ is at origin point [ x′ = 0 ] appears on retreating
> axis X to move positively for 1 hour, beginning at [ x = 0 ] and ending up at x =
> 3 miles, hence 3 mph.
>
> One new number: the origin x = 0 of axis X moves negatively at speed v = – 3
> miles per hour. This motion continues for time t′ = 1 hour. Point-x′ is
> fixed value x′ = 1 on axis X′.
>
> x = 1 mile + 3 mph × 1 hour = 4 miles
>
> t = 1 hour
>
> Speed of point-x on axis X is x / t:
>
> x / t = 4 miles / 1 hour = 4 miles per hour
>
> Wolfgang Pauli: “It’s not even wrong.”
>
> Stationary point x′ = 1 appears on negatively moving axis X to move from x = 1
> to x = 4 over the course of an hour. Distance equals 3 miles.
>
> 3 miles / 1 hour = 3 miles per hour
>
> Necromancers believe algebra can turn base metal into gold. Not always.

Je ne comprends pas ce que tu essayes de faire.

R.H.

> Je ne comprends pas ce que tu essayes de faire.
>
> R.H.

The LT’s transform point-x′ into point-x. Point-x′ must start out as x′ = 0. It can remain there or move on to x′ = wt′ ( velocity addition ) or x′ = – vt′ ( time dilation ). A stationary point such as x′ = 1 or x′ = 2 is a falsehood.

C’est seulement merde.

Le 23/08/2023 à 15:01, xip14 a écrit :
>> R.H.
>
> The LT’s transform point-x′ into point-x. Point-x′ must start out as x′
> = 0. It can remain there or move on to x′ = wt′ ( velocity addition ) or x′
> = – vt′ ( time dilation ). A stationary point such as x′ = 1 or x′ = 2 is
> a falsehood.
>
> C’est seulement merde.

Mais non, c'est pas merde.

C'est toi qui ne comprends pas de quoi on parle et qui croit que c'est
merde.

Poincaré transformations are used for this:
We have an event that occurs in an R repository,
in a given position and in a given time.

At the MOMENT, when the event is perceived, and not when it occurs, the
observer O starts his watch.

Observer O then says, there is an event E that happened in
x,y,z), there is now a time To.

Attention, To is ALWAYS negative in principle. We never perceive an event
that will occur in the future.

He sets for example E=(12,9,0,-15)

To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
Another observer O' who crosses O at this precise moment, and at speed
Vo=0.8c, also recovers the photons on his retina.

But he will not see the event in the same place (as in the aberration of
the aposition of the stars at the zenith).

Nor will he design the event that took place at the same time.

It is necessary to use the transformers of Poincaré to know all that, and
all becomes very simple.

E=(40,9,0,-41).

Here is a perfect example illustrating the transformations of Poincaré
and their utility.

I will never understand how on the physics forums, loads of individuals
find it beautiful and fulfilling to spit on me while I explain things to
them with an unprecedented clarity.

This is part of human bullshit, which is unfathomable.

R.H.

You’re right. It’s wrong.

A stationary point such as x′ = 1 or x′ = 2 can certainly exist on axis X′. It’s just that those stationary points cannot be transformed into points-of-speed on axis X, whereas x′ = 0 of speed-0 can be transformed into speed +v on axis X when axis X itself has speed –v on axis X′.

More: when the full gamma transform is used, stationary point x′ = 1 on axis X′ can be transformed into stationary point-x on axis X.

x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )

x = gamma × ( 1 + vt′ )

t′ = 0

x = gamma × 1

For example, gamma = 1.5

x = 1.5 × 1 = 1.5

Point-x has transformed value 1.5

It is a vexatious business described in 1905-Section §4. A moving meter stick of length 1 meter does not appear to be something in motion with length 1.5 meters. It’s the reverse. The moving meter stick “appears” to have length 2 / 3 meters.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 7:45:18 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 23/08/2023 à 15:01, xip14 a écrit :
> >> R.H.
> >
> > The LT’s transform point-x′ into point-x. Point-x′ must start out as x′
> > = 0. It can remain there or move on to x′ = wt′ ( velocity addition ) or x′
> > = – vt′ ( time dilation ). A stationary point such as x′ = 1 or x′ = 2 is
> > a falsehood.
> >
> > C’est seulement merde.
> Mais non, c'est pas merde.
>
> C'est toi qui ne comprends pas de quoi on parle et qui croit que c'est
> merde.
>
> Poincaré transformations are used for this:
> We have an event that occurs in an R repository,
> in a given position and in a given time.
>
> At the MOMENT, when the event is perceived, and not when it occurs, the
> observer O starts his watch.
>
> Observer O then says, there is an event E that happened in
> x,y,z), there is now a time To.
>
> Attention, To is ALWAYS negative in principle. We never perceive an event
> that will occur in the future.
>
> He sets for example E=(12,9,0,-15)
>
> To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
> Another observer O' who crosses O at this precise moment, and at speed
> Vo=0.8c, also recovers the photons on his retina.
>
> But he will not see the event in the same place (as in the aberration of
> the aposition of the stars at the zenith).
>
> Nor will he design the event that took place at the same time.
>
> It is necessary to use the transformers of Poincaré to know all that, and
> all becomes very simple.
>
> E=(40,9,0,-41).
>
> Here is a perfect example illustrating the transformations of Poincaré
> and their utility.
>
> I will never understand how on the physics forums, loads of individuals
> find it beautiful and fulfilling to spit on me while I explain things to
> them with an unprecedented clarity.
>
> This is part of human bullshit, which is unfathomable.
>
> R.H.

Frames can converge on each other in space.
They have their own velocities below c.
The atom can move at near light speed toward itself.
If two atoms are they are converging below 2c.

Section §4: time dilation and Lorentz Contraction

The ALGEBRA of Section §4 allows the moving guy to say, “My clock is slower than your clock,” and “My meter stick is shorter than your meter stick.” But Special Relativity won’t let the moving guy be the observer. So the stationary guy says, “Your clock is slower than my clock,” and “Your meter stick is shorter than my meter stick.”

Velocity-addition is likewise Lorentz Transformation. The ALGEBRA allows the moving guy to say, “My clock is faster than your clock, so my rifle bullet is slower than your rifle bullet.” But Special Relativity won’t let the moving guy be the observer. The stationary guy must be the observer, saying to the moving guy, “Your rifle bullet is not up to speed.” The velocity-addition-formula cannot function as intended on that basis.

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 6:27:17 AM UTC-7, xip14 wrote:
> But Special Relativity won’t let the moving guy be the observer.
You should stop lying

On 8/24/23 8:27 AM, xip14 wrote:
> [...] But Special Relativity won’t let the moving guy be the
> observer.

This is not true. Go back and read Einstein's 1905 paper. In it he
starts out
"Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order
to render our presentation more precise and to
distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from
others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it
the “stationary system.”

This starts with an English translation of the German phrase used by
mathematicians to select an ARBITRARY system of coordinates that satisfy
the given condition. Moreover, his words are quite clear that
"stationary system" is merely a LABEL for whichever coordinates one
chooses to give that label.

So whichever guy you call "moving", anyone else can call "stationary".
Given Einstein's first postulate, ANY inertial frame can be so chosen.

> [... further mistakes omitted]

Tom Roberts

Time dilation has been around for 120 years and nobody has been able to ask a question: What is time dilation?

I ask a question:

V = ( 8 + 12 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10

Option-A: V = ( 8 + 12 ) / 2 = 8 / 2 + 12 / 2 = 4 + 6 = 10

Option-B: V = ( 8 + 12 ) / 2 = 8 / 1 + 12 / 6 = 8 + 2 = 10

Which is it?

Einstein says it is A and the Large Hadron Collider says it is B.

https://dibdeck.blogspot.com/

On 8/26/23 10:09 AM, xip14 wrote:
> Time dilation has been around for 120 years and nobody has been able
> to ask a question: What is time dilation?

Nonsense. That question has been asked and answered for those 120 years:
"time dilation" is simply a geometric projection. Ditto for
"length contraction".

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 1:57:57 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/26/23 10:09 AM, xip14 wrote:
> > Time dilation has been around for 120 years and nobody has been able
> > to ask a question: What is time dilation?
> Nonsense. That question has been asked and answered for those 120 years:
> "time dilation" is simply a geometric projection. Ditto for
Why does force and motion slow time. How do they project?
> "length contraction".
>
> Tom Roberts
You can only add to your own velocity.
Your movement does not move other frames...
All forces are geometric. And gravity is not an open curve metric.
Instead of a parabola it is a Riemann sphere ...

Mitchell Raemsch