JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 4:18:36?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi NG
> > >
> > > I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> > > Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> > > encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
> > It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
> > is that special relativity by itself
> > is not adequate to deal with the situation.
> > That's all there is to it,
>
> The original question was about the centrifugal
> forces experienced by the observers on the disc. The assumption of the
> thought experiment described in Wikipedia is those forces do not affect
> the disc or the observers. It's just an idealisation, like assuming friction
> doesn't exist, etc.
>
> As for the observers' experience of the disc, it actually describes not
> "the" disc but of a certain quotient space (in the topological sense),
> namely the spacetime R^3,1 divided by the worldlines of the disc's
> material points(*). It's the standard confusion (and the root cause of the
> paradox) to assume that that quotient space can be equipped with a
> "sensible" time coordinate and the result embedded isometrically in R^3,1.
> The discontinuity of the time coordinate introduced by slowly moving
> clocks is known as the Sagnac effect and is another can of worms (see
> decades of discussions on this NG).
>
> (*)imagine a surface made of infinitesimal spacelike patches Lorentz-
> -orthogonal to the worldlines passing through them. If one uses the
> differential-geometric ideas to figure out its geometry, it'll turn out
> to be negatively curved.

Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 11:56:51 UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote:

> There can only be one physics in the world.

Any of your precious experiments for that nonsense?

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:28:53 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 4:18:36?AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi NG
> > > >
> > > > I had recently read a book about GR and found it astonishing, what
> > > > Einstein and Ehrenfest said about observers on a rotating disk.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To me it is selfevident, that observers on a rotating disk would
> > > > encounter some kind of outwards acceleration, if that disk rotates.
> > > It was evident then, and it should be evident now,
> > > is that special relativity by itself
> > > is not adequate to deal with the situation.
> > > That's all there is to it,
> >
> > The original question was about the centrifugal
> > forces experienced by the observers on the disc. The assumption of the
> > thought experiment described in Wikipedia is those forces do not affect
> > the disc or the observers. It's just an idealisation, like assuming friction
> > doesn't exist, etc.
> >
> > As for the observers' experience of the disc, it actually describes not
> > "the" disc but of a certain quotient space (in the topological sense),
> > namely the spacetime R^3,1 divided by the worldlines of the disc's
> > material points(*). It's the standard confusion (and the root cause of the
> > paradox) to assume that that quotient space can be equipped with a
> > "sensible" time coordinate and the result embedded isometrically in R^3,1.
> > The discontinuity of the time coordinate introduced by slowly moving
> > clocks is known as the Sagnac effect and is another can of worms (see
> > decades of discussions on this NG).
> >
> > (*)imagine a surface made of infinitesimal spacelike patches Lorentz-
> > -orthogonal to the worldlines passing through them. If one uses the
> > differential-geometric ideas to figure out its geometry, it'll turn out
> > to be negatively curved.
>
> Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
> Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
> Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
> would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
> and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.

Sure, as serious mathematics didn't want to fit his
madness the idiot had no choice but to invent another,
more obedient.

Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
> Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
> Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
> would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
> and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.

Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest paradox
(except me).

I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but
human.

Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein, and be worshiped like a
demi-God.

I find this behavior stupid.

Look at how Henri Poincaré behaves, the greatest mathematician of all
time, who, very humble,
corrects the Hendrik Lorentz transformations, and gives them the name
Lorentz transformations. Look at this man who posed E=mc² in 1902, and
who said in 1905: "Mr. Einstein says interesting things" even though
Einstein never, anywhere quotes Poincaré.

Eisntein will one day confess (too late, some would say) his lie, and say:
"I had read all of Poincaré, and I was captivated by this man's
writings."

Today, after having studied the theory of relativity for forty years, I
believe I am authorized to talk a little about it, because I master
everything, from Galilean frames of reference to accelerated frames of
reference, from the Langevin paradox to the Ehrenfest paradox, from
rotating disk to the relativity of lengths, distances, electromagnetic
frequencies, moments and durations.

And what I have to say is this. Eisntein was wrong when he said that
special relativity was difficult, but that there was no trap. The opposite
is true. It's very easy, and it doesn't require anything other than
squares, square roots, sines and cosines. Once I had to use a tengente,
and once I had to use an integral, and again, it's not absolutely
necessary to write the entire song.

There is absolutely no need to resort to abstract and, above all, false
non-Euclidean geometries.

If you ask a child to stand in front of a disk and ask him what he sees,
he will say: "I see a disk."

If you spin it at a low angular velocity, it will continue to say: "I see
a spinning disk."

If you spin it at a relativistic speed, it will always say that it sees a
disk, and it will point out that the disk is behaving strangely. But it
will still be a record. The child will never say that he sees "a
non-Euclidean thing in the shape of an inverted horse's saddle, or other
madness invented by relativistic physicists incapable of correctly
resolving the paradox and giving the transformations relating to the
rotating frames of reference like Poincaré 'had done for the Galilean
frames of reference.

I have the correct transformations for relativistic rotating frames, and
it's ultimately very simple. No paradox, no difficulty, nothing more than
angular velocities, circumferences, square roots, a sine, and a cosine.

And what the child will see, he will describe with great simplicity and
confidence.

R.H.

On 2024-01-03 18:09:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>> Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
>> Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
>> Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
>> would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
>> and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
>
> Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
> The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest
> paradox (except me).
>
> I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but human.
>
> Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein,

"Dr." Richard Hachel seems to be an example. A _very_ little Albert Einstein.

> and be worshiped like a demi-God.
>
> I find this behavior stupid.
>
> Look at how Henri Poincaré behaves, the greatest mathematician of all
> time, who, very humble,
> corrects the Hendrik Lorentz transformations, and gives them the name
> Lorentz transformations. Look at this man who posed E=mc² in 1902, and
> who said in 1905: "Mr. Einstein says interesting things" even though
> Einstein never, anywhere quotes Poincaré.
>
> Eisntein will one day confess (too late, some would say) his lie, and
> say: "I had read all of Poincaré, and I was captivated by this man's
> writings."
>
> Today, after having studied the theory of relativity for forty years, I
> believe I am authorized to talk a little about it, because I master
> everything, from Galilean frames of reference to accelerated frames of
> reference, from the Langevin paradox to the Ehrenfest paradox, from
> rotating disk to the relativity of lengths, distances, electromagnetic
> frequencies, moments and durations.
>
> And what I have to say is this. Eisntein was wrong when he said that
> special relativity was difficult, but that there was no trap. The
> opposite is true. It's very easy, and it doesn't require anything other
> than squares, square roots, sines and cosines. Once I had to use a
> tengente, and once I had to use an integral, and again, it's not
> absolutely necessary to write the entire song.
>
> There is absolutely no need to resort to abstract and, above all, false
> non-Euclidean geometries.
>
> If you ask a child to stand in front of a disk and ask him what he
> sees, he will say: "I see a disk."
>
> If you spin it at a low angular velocity, it will continue to say: "I
> see a spinning disk."
>
> If you spin it at a relativistic speed, it will always say that it sees
> a disk, and it will point out that the disk is behaving strangely. But
> it will still be a record. The child will never say that he sees "a
> non-Euclidean thing in the shape of an inverted horse's saddle, or
> other madness invented by relativistic physicists incapable of
> correctly resolving the paradox and giving the transformations relating
> to the rotating frames of reference like Poincaré 'had done for the
> Galilean frames of reference.
>
> I have the correct transformations for relativistic rotating frames,
> and it's ultimately very simple. No paradox, no difficulty, nothing
> more than angular velocities, circumferences, square roots, a sine, and
> a cosine.
>
> And what the child will see, he will describe with great simplicity and
> confidence.
>
> R.H.

--
Athel cb

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:09:30 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> > Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
> > Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
> > Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
> > would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
> > and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
>
> Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
> The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest paradox

I've just explained it. It's an old hat.

> (except me).

You're being infantile now.

> I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but
> human.

Oh stop it. Nonsense.
--
Jan

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:48:28 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2024-01-03 18:09:26 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 03/01/2024 à 14:28, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
>>> Yes, we understand how to handle it, nowadays.
>>> Back then Einstein and Ehrenfest mostly saw the can of worms, I guess.
>>> Einstein draw the conclusion that nothing good
>>> would come out of all this, for a more general theory,
>>> and he went to non-Euclidean geometry throughout.
>>
>> Turning to Euclidean geometry does not offer anything good.
>> The truth is that no one has ever managed to explain the Ehrenfest
>> paradox (except me).
>>
>> I repeat, and I will always repeat, the problem is not scientific but human.
>>
>> Everyone wants to be their little Albert Einstein,
>
> "Dr." Richard Hachel seems to be an example. A _very_ little Albert Einstein.

LOL

yes, about the size of the planck length

adi

On 12/30/2023 12:59 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Ce qu'il fait bien comprendre, c'est que la théorie de la relativité
> n'est pas une pure invention imaginée par Henri Poincaré et Hendrik
> Lorentz.
> Ces gens là n'étaient pas des bandits, des voyous, des crétins.
> Ils avaient fort bien compris que quelque chose clochait.
> Le plus grand mathématicien de son époque, Henri Poincaré va alors
> découvrir la formule d'équivalence masse-énergie E=mc², et donner à son
> ami Lorentz, les transformations correctes que Lorentz cherchait depuis
> des années.
> Tout cela sera plagié par Albert Einstein (copiste au bureau des brevets
> de Berne : LOL).
>
>  Ce qu'il manquait, à Henri Poincaré, c'était la dernière pointe (comme
> on dit aux échecs). Il n'a pas eu le dernier coup de génie (Docteur
> Hachel copyrights) de visualiser l'effet zoom spatial.
> Seul  moi a eu le coup de génie de décoder le problème à la perfection.
> Le reste, n'est que haine, jalousie, conneries (Jean-Pierre Messager
> copyriths) qui voue au docteur Hachel, une haine maladive.
> Personne n'est jamais parvenu à expliquer le paradoxe de Langevin mieux
> que moi.
> Et tout est là.
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?15OF2AXpMjanI7z90SPf_lsTkbc@jntp/Data.Media:2>
>
> http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp
>
> http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp
>
> La clé du problème est l'effet zoom spatial :
> D'=D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
>
> C'est d'une beauté et d'une logique infinie.
> Merci de votre écoute.
> R.H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Why are you telling us your hovercraft is full of eels?

Am 03.01.2024 um 11:56 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 03/01/2024 à 08:47, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am 28.12.2023 um 09:31 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 28/12/2023 à 09:01, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Rotation is therefore 'absolute', while inertial motion isn't.
>>>
>>> There is a difference between a non-rotating disk moving Galileanly at
>>> Vo=0.8c from right to left, and a fixed disk rotating with a tangential
>>> speed of 0.8c.
>>
>>
>> I have not the faintest idea how you want to build a rigid disk with
>> tangential velocity of 0.8 c.
>>
>> That disk had to be extremely large and had do run insanely fast.
>>
>> This combinagtion would create tremendous tensions at the rim of the
>> disk, which will more than sufficiant to break the disk apart. (for
>> all possible rigid materials)
>>
>>
>>> These are therefore not, obviously, the same equations that must be
>>> used. For the disk in translation, it's easy, the Poincaré-Lorentz
>>> transformations are enough. For the rotating disk, the reflection
>>> becomes appalling, and a lot of people have thrown in the towel in the
>>> face of the simple Ehrenfest paradox.
>>
>> How in the world could someone calculate the relativistic effects of
>> nonsense.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> This is not nonsense.

I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
disk is plain nonsense.

For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from, say,
very tough steel.

How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?

Well, REALLY fast!

c~=300,000,000 m/s

v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second

that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second

I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
this as equivalent to being at rest.

Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
velocity than this.

> There can only be one physics in the world.
> If we can imagine a hyperrigid disk, why not?
> Furthermore, we don't have to go at speeds of 0.8c.
> Small relativistic effects can already be measured before.
> Finally, let's not forget the planets, which revolve around their sun,
> and sometimes even faster than Mercury (we found a large planet rotating
> very close and very quickly around its sun).
> And there, no need for a “full disk”.

No?

I mean: how would you create a rigid disk from vacuum?

....

TH

Le 04/01/2024 à 08:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
> disk is plain nonsense.
>
> For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from, say,
> very tough steel.
>
> How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
>
> Well, REALLY fast!
>
> c~=300,000,000 m/s
>
> v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
>
> that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
>
> I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
> this as equivalent to being at rest.
>
> Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
> velocity than this.

This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.

I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk.

Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a
Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also
transformations for rotating frames of reference.

I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we talk
about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk about the
Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.

The problem remains human.

I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.

In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.

Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.

Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
aim of enslaving humanity.

The idea is not stupid.

But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
to be a moron.

R.H.

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 28.12.2023 um 13:18 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> ...
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >> But you certainly don't want to be an observer on a rotating disk, which
> >> has tangential velocity in the relativistic realm.
> >>
> >> That would be like sitting on a carussel, which runs insanely fast.
> >>
> >> You will be shot from that disk like a cannon ball.
> >>
> >> Therefore only very slow rotation is somehow feasable (for human
> >> observers), which is far far far from relativity velocity.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If we decompose the movement, we then understand that the part ?y does
> >>> not contract or only slightly, and that the part ?x contracts greatly at
> >>> relativistic speed.
> >>
> >> If you want to enter the realm of special relativity, you need extremely
> >> high angular velocity or extremely large disks (or both).
> >>
> >> This will bring the 'rigid' disk into its critical realm, where tensions
> >> are far greater than the strength of the material could possibly be.
> >>
> >> But at least: the radius will not shrink nor will the circumference.
> >>
> >> (more likely: that disk will break)
> >>
> >>
> >>> The observable residual velocity vector is therefore deviated inwards.
> >>>
> >>> This can explain why the disk ALSO contracts at the level of the
> >>> radius, and why there is no paradox, since pi remains invariant in this
> >>> case.
> >>
> >> I have absolutely no idea, what Einstein and Ehrenfest actually wanted
> >> to say.
> >
> > Einstein and Ehrenfest just took the 'paradox' as heuristics.
>
> It's total nonsense to declare a rotating FoR as equivalent to an
> inertial FoR.
>
> And it would be realy insane to assume, that an observer on a rotating
> disk rotating with tangential velocity in the realm of SRT (like say 0.5
> c) would not notice this rotation.
>
> Therefore I have not the faintest idea, what Einstein's/Ehrenfest's
> point actually was.

Ehrenfest's original point was
that there are severe problems with 'Born rigid motion',
as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
when you try to extend the concept to rotations,
(so a more general approach is needed)

Jan

Le 04/01/2024 à 12:00, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit :
> Ehrenfest's original point was
> that there are severe problems with 'Born rigid motion',
> as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
> when you try to extend the concept to rotations,
> (so a more general approach is needed)
>
> Jan

We must differentiate two things.
The Poincaré-Lorentz transformations
which are the correct relativistic transformations to use for Galilean
frames, and the Hachel transformations, which are the correct
transformations to use for rotating frames.

It's obviously not the same thing.

I don't think there is a "global" equation for this, since we are talking
about very different things.

Certainly there is a global formula, for example, for the general addition
of relativistic speeds.

I give this formula here.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?wiUVEp5XYx1_Rsh2d_KuhS98JL8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

We see that the longitudinal addition formula and the transverse addition
formula are included, and that for the longitudinal form:
w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c²)
and for the transverse form w=sqrt(v²+u²-v²u²/c²)

But here, we are talking about a Galilean frame of reference and a
rotating frame of reference.

And it's not the same thing.
​
R.H.

--
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo : <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=wiUVEp5XYx1_Rsh2d_KuhS98JL8@jntp>

On 1/4/24 5:00 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ehrenfest's original point was that there are severe problems with
> 'Born rigid motion', as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
> when you try to extend the concept to rotations, (so a more general
> approach is needed)

Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains
unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.

Tom Roberts

Le 04/01/2024 à 19:18, Tom Roberts a écrit :
>
> Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains
> unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
> it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.
>
> Tom Roberts

To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations.
You don't make mashed potatoes with grated carrots.
It's not the same thing.
I give you here the transformations established by this good doctor Hachel
and which are valid within the framework of the rotating frames of
reference.
These transformations in themselves resolve the Ehrenfest paradox.
The unit of angular velocity used in the formulas is radian per second.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?ESr48PgdCk-rG0jc124iblSJrDQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

--
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ESr48PgdCk-rG0jc124iblSJrDQ@jntp>

Richard Hachel wrote:

> To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
> transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...

Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the Crackpot Index...

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

"... 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)"

I'm sure you would qualify for many other items on that list, so take a look.

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 00:11:11 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
> > transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...
>
>
> Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the Crackpot Index...

And don't forget to give your fellow idiot Tom 5 points
for every word written in capital letters.

Am 04.01.2024 um 11:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
> Le 04/01/2024 à 08:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
>> disk is plain nonsense.
>>
>> For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from,
>> say, very tough steel.
>>
>> How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
>>
>> Well, REALLY fast!
>>
>> c~=300,000,000 m/s
>>
>> v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
>>
>> that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
>>
>> I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
>> this as equivalent to being at rest.
>>
>> Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
>> velocity than this.
>
> This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.
>
> I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
> could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk.
>
> Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a
> Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also
> transformations for rotating frames of reference.
>
> I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we
> talk about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk
> about the Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.
>
> The problem remains human.
>
> I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.
>
> In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.
>
> Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.
>
> Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
> aim of enslaving humanity.
>
> The idea is not stupid.
>
> But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
> to be a moron.

I assume a system behind this phenomenon.

I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
runs backbards (from our perspective).

This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly) 'Elite'
has managed to connect with these beings.

Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also the
elite of this 'otherworld'.

In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.

Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out of
good.

This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
create mess out of order.

The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but toxic
for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.

They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
hence more and more satanic.

So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.

TH

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Friday 5 January 2024 at 00:11:11 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>
>> > To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
>> > transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...
>>
>>
>> Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the Crackpot Index...

> And don't forget to give your fellow idiot Tom 5 points
> for every word written in capital letters.

I'm pretty sure that Tom has a defective keyboard, Woz...

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 07:41:10 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > On Friday 5 January 2024 at 00:11:11 UTC+1, palsing wrote:
> >> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>
> >> > To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
> >> > transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations....
> >>
> >>
> >> Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the Crackpot Index...
>
> > And don't forget to give your fellow idiot Tom 5 points
> > for every word written in capital letters.
> I'm pretty sure that Tom has a defective keyboard, Woz...

I'm pretty sure you're impudently lying right
now, Al, as expected from a Shit's doggie.

Le 05/01/2024 à 00:07, pnalsing@gmail.com (palsing) a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> To study a rotating disk, it is obviously necessary to use the Hachel
>> transformations, and not the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations...
>
>
> Congratulations, you earned another 20 points for completing item #25 on the
> Crackpot Index...

I don't mind giving them another name (hence the stupidity of the monkeys
who invented the crakpot index. They're just idiots who want to boast
about the dignity of others. "My enemy is a scumbag, I'm going to beat the
shit out of him."
But what name do I give to my transformations?

Tout cela n'est qu'une vaste plaisanterie.

Je n'ai pas à y prêter attention.

R.H.

Le 05/01/2024 à 07:22, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 04.01.2024 um 11:05 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>> Le 04/01/2024 à 08:19, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>>> I would say: to have a tangential velocity of, say, 0.5 c on a rigid
>>> disk is plain nonsense.
>>>
>>> For instance: Lets take a rigid disk with 100m diameter made from,
>>> say, very tough steel.
>>>
>>> How fast does it have to rotate to get 0.5 c at the circumference?
>>>
>>> Well, REALLY fast!
>>>
>>> c~=300,000,000 m/s
>>>
>>> v= 150,000,000 m/s=pi*100m *rotations_per_second
>>>
>>> that is roughly 450,000 rotations per second
>>>
>>> I would not believe for a minute, that an observer there would regard
>>> this as equivalent to being at rest.
>>>
>>> Also the disk will most likely break and already at a much lower
>>> velocity than this.
>>
>> This is not a real disk, but a thought experiment using very high speeds.
>>
>> I am trying to show you that there exist (even from low speeds) what we
>> could call relativistic transformations at the level of the rotating disk.
>>
>> Just as there are equations to know by heart for transformations in a
>> Galilean medium (Poincaré-Lorentz transformations), there are also
>> transformations for rotating frames of reference.
>>
>> I noticed that no one knows about these transformations, and that we
>> talk about the Ehrenfest paradox (it's stupid) just as we also talk
>> about the Langevin paradox for Galilean environments.
>>
>> The problem remains human.
>>
>> I suggest things: I only get idiotic answers.
>>
>> In science, in politics, in sociology, in theology, in criminology.
>>
>> Nine out of 10 answers are inconsistent or stupid.
>>
>> Some say (correctly) that the world has become a moron factory with the
>> aim of enslaving humanity.
>>
>> The idea is not stupid.
>>
>> But it is interesting to note that, more often than not, the moron likes
>> to be a moron.
>
>
> I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
>
> I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
> runs backbards (from our perspective).
>
> This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly) 'Elite'
> has managed to connect with these beings.
>
>
> Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also the
> elite of this 'otherworld'.
>
> In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
> immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
>
> Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
> behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out of
> good.
>
> This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
> create mess out of order.
>
> The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but toxic
> for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
>
> They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
> hence more and more satanic.
>
> So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
>
>
> TH

We enter metaphysics.
And so we are off topic.
I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and whatever
anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of physics.
Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
“Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal
wormholes”.
You have to stay serious.
I have already given the equations.
Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
involves hellish paradoxes.
Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by, we
realize that the damage would have been even worse if the dictatorship had
not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we kill this dictator.
But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It was better to kill the
dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the dictator from being killed,
and so on ad infinitum.
This is obviously a huge causality problem.
All these problems do not exist in my physics.

R.H.

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 1/4/24 5:00 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ehrenfest's original point was that there are severe problems with
> > 'Born rigid motion', as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
> > when you try to extend the concept to rotations, (so a more general
> > approach is needed)
>
> Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains
> unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
> it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.

It seems to have been important to Einstein for heuristics.
Having special relativity, it is obvious
that something needs to be done about Newtonian gravity.

The natural thing to do is to build a physical field theory,
in a Lorentz-invariant way.
'Everybody' at the time was trying to build
relativistic theories of gravitation,
with a 'force of gravity' derived from some physical field.
(like electromagnetic forces)

The Ehrenfest paradox led Einstein to believe
that this could not be the right way,
and that 'forces of gravity' should be gotten rid of altogether.

And that is what he ultimately accomplished in general relativity,
with the 'forces of gravity' becoming pseudo-forces,
just like the centrifugal force is in Newtonian mechanics.

BTW, all this was before Ehrenfest and Einstein had actually met IRL.
It was all correspondence and publications.

Jan

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 13:54:41 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/4/24 5:00 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ehrenfest's original point was that there are severe problems with
> > > 'Born rigid motion', as formulated by Born for linear accelerations,
> > > when you try to extend the concept to rotations, (so a more general
> > > approach is needed)
> >
> > Yes. Born rigid motion has the property that an object's size remains
> > unchanged in the successive co-moving inertial frames of the object as
> > it accelerates. But a rotating object has no such frames.
> It seems to have been important to Einstein for heuristics.
> Having special relativity, it is obvious
> that something needs to be done about Newtonian gravity.

Having a nonsense it is obvious that it will lead to
other nonsenses if not abandoned.

Am 05.01.2024 um 13:33 schrieb Richard Hachel:

>> I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
>> runs backbards (from our perspective).
>>
>> This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly)
>> 'Elite' has managed to connect with these beings.
>>
>>
>> Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also
>> the elite of this 'otherworld'.
>>
>> In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
>> immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
>>
>> Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
>> behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out
>> of good.
>>
>> This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
>> create mess out of order.
>>
>> The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but
>> toxic for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
>>
>> They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
>> hence more and more satanic.
>>
>> So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> We enter metaphysics.
> And so we are off topic.
> I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
> whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
> physics.
> Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
> “Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”.
> You have to stay serious.
> I have already given the equations.
> Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
> involves hellish paradoxes.
> Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
> we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
> dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
> kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
> was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
> dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.

It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.

It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.

The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys with
reverted time only the predictable future is good.

So: make future more unpredictable!

E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than required.

This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to do
something useful.

Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law, but
will make timetravel harder than it already is.

Another method is even simpler:

in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
regard the result as order of God.

Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
not really deserve that.

This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
world, which would disallow timetravel.

Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
your realm.

> This is obviously a huge causality problem.
> All these problems do not exist in my physics.

Sure, but timetravelers care about them.

TH

Le 06/01/2024 à 08:44, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Am 05.01.2024 um 13:33 schrieb Richard Hachel:
>
>>> I assume a system behind this phenomenon.
>>>
>>> I'm not quite sure, but would guess, that a world exists, where time
>>> runs backbards (from our perspective).
>>>
>>> This world is inhabited by intelligent beeings and our (earthly)
>>> 'Elite' has managed to connect with these beings.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now they exchange knowledge, what makes our elite superrich and also
>>> the elite of this 'otherworld'.
>>>
>>> In exchange for knowledge about future events, the locals had to
>>> immitate the behaviour of these otherworldly leaders.
>>>
>>> Since they have a time, which runs into the opposite direction, their
>>> behaviour is totally illogic, because they constantly create bad out
>>> of good.
>>>
>>> This behaviour is called 'satanism' and means, that the adepts have to
>>> create mess out of order.
>>>
>>> The ortherwordly leaders want this, because our world is nice, but
>>> toxic for beings from a world, where time runs backwards.
>>>
>>> They want this world (our Earth) to become gradually more inhabitable,
>>> hence more and more satanic.
>>>
>>> So, satanism is actually meant good, but time-reverted.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>> We enter metaphysics.
>> And so we are off topic.
>> I have described quite a bit about the nature of space-time, and
>> whatever anyone says, I remain one of the most rational theorists of
>> physics.
>> Many “pundits” as they say, say absolutely anything, and imagine
>> “Minkowski spaces”, “time travel”, “spatio-temporal wormholes”.
>> You have to stay serious.
>> I have already given the equations.
>> Furthermore, this abstract physics is ridiculous and contradictory, and
>> involves hellish paradoxes.
>> Suppose we go back in time to kill a dictator. But as the years go by,
>> we realize that the damage would have been even worse if the
>> dictatorship had not existed. So we send someone back to make sure we
>> kill this dictator. But ten years later, we realize that it is not. It
>> was better to kill the dictator, and someone was sent to prevent the
>> dictator from being killed, and so on ad infinitum.
>
> It is easy to overcome this problem and I have found a method to do this.
>
> It is relatively simple and is more effective, the more people use it.
>
> The idea is, that any future is good for you, but for the bad guys with
> reverted time only the predictable future is good.
>
> So: make future more unpredictable!
>
> E.g. you could decide to make almost everything you do better than required.
>
> This would cut causality relations, because if you have no reasons to
> make things better than you have to, you have no predictable cause to do
> something useful.
>
> Everybody will most liekly applaude and you brake absolutely no law, but
> will make timetravel harder than it already is.
>
> Another method is even simpler:
>
> in case you cannot decide something yourself, you can flip a coin and
> regard the result as order of God.
>
> Or you could help people (also: animals, plants or even things) who do
> not really deserve that.
>
> This would bring an additional element of unpredicability into the
> world, which would disallow timetravel.
>
> Extreme cleanness is a good method, too, because it lowers entropy in
> your realm.
>
>
>> This is obviously a huge causality problem.
>> All these problems do not exist in my physics.
>
> Sure, but timetravelers care about them.
>
>
> TH

In fact, I gave the relativistic transformations which seemed correct to
me for the resolution of the paradox, and we see that precisely, with
these transformations the paradox does not exist.

I see with semi-surprise that no one denies or confirms these
transformations.

Could it be false?

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?xVWFx0j8enEmyTfxa5f0R-lFg-M@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.