On 1/19/2024 4:27 AM, Giovanni wrote:
> Stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and train conductor Alice is stopped in the center of Einstein's infamous train moving relative to the station.
>
> When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, two stones hit simultaneously, the first, a firecracker at the head of the train, and the second stone, a firecracker at the tail of the train.
>
> Since the two sound wave fronts reach Bob simultaneously, but do not reach Alice simultaneously, the academic donkey deduces the physical nonsense that only for Bob the two stones hit the head and tail of the train simultaneously.
>
> In reality, according to universally shared and recognized physics, and for which the speed of sound does not depend on the speed of the sound source, the two events which for Bob are simultaneous, are not for Alice, because Alice, at the center of the train, moving forward together with the train, he first hears the sound wave front coming from the firecracker in front of the train and then the one from the firecracker behind the train.
>
> Replace the two sound fronts with the two light fronts of the infamous 1905 article and you discover that the academic donkey mentioned above was Albert Einstein.
>
> It seems to me that it cannot be demonstrated more clearly than this what I demonstrated and wrote in another way for the first time in the remote summer of 2019, namely that the Einsteinian relative simultaneity is the consequence of nothing less than a systematic error, with many regards to consequential: Lorentz transformations, kinematic time dilation and kinematic length contraction.
>
> Systematic Error (Treccani online encyclopedia): in physics, systematic errors are called those which, despite repeating the measurement several times, always occur in the same way, because they are due to imperfections of the instrument or incorrect measurement methods.
>
> Shall we throw Einstein, finally in 2024, off the pedestal? Or how much longer do we need to wait to free humanity's mental energies to give life to a true physical theory and not a mathematical theory like Special Relativity?
>
> Giovanni from Italy.
>
>
Belongs in sci.physics.relativity. Followup set.

You are talking about a thought experiment and then claiming relativity
results are due to systematic measurement errors. But in a thought
experiment, there are no actual measurements, therefore no measurement
errors.

Volney wrote:

> On 1/19/2024 4:27 AM, Giovanni wrote:
>> Shall we throw Einstein, finally in 2024, off the pedestal? Or how much
>> longer do we need to wait to free humanity's mental energies to give
>> life to a true physical theory and not a mathematical theory like
>> Special Relativity? Giovanni from Italy.
>
> Belongs in sci.physics.relativity. Followup set.
> You are talking about a thought experiment and then claiming relativity
> results are due to systematic measurement errors. But in a thought
> experiment, there are no actual measurements, therefore no measurement
> errors.

agree, But Maybe you forgot to give money to adobe.com to host your
files... check your FTP program to see your files on adobe.com
Call adobe.com and tell them their hosting service is broken.
TECH SUPPORT TECH SUPPORT TECH SUPPORT

𝗝𝗘𝗙𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗬_𝗘𝗣𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗜𝗡_ð_𝗜'𝗠_𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/X1rbm3GMhBC6

freed from the nazis, agreed on unification with the east, and cheap
energy delivered through the pipes, look what gearmony is doing now to
Russia. What a shithole of a nazi country. Once nazis, always nazi.

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗼𝗻_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺
Exploring a path that could lead to a conflict with Moscow is part of the
“training,” a German Defense Ministry spokesman says
https://r%74.com/news/590703-germany-comment-russian-attack-claim/

lesson to be learn from here, 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆. They are
motherfucker sons of the bitches. Written in their DNA. The same 𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆
people, speaking gearmon. 𝗞𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 feeling happy cheating you.

> Volney wrote:
> Belongs in sci.physics.relativity. Followup set.
> You are talking about a thought experiment and then claiming relativity
> results are due to systematic measurement errors. But in a thought
> experiment, there are no actual measurements, therefore no measurement
> errors.

===============================
> Volney ha scritto:
> Appartiene alla sci.fisica.relatività. Insieme di follow-up.
> Stai parlando di un esperimento mentale e poi affermi la relatività
> i risultati sono dovuti a errori sistematici di misurazione.
> Ma in un pensiero esperimento, non ci sono misurazioni effettive,
> quindi nessuna misurazione errori.

===============================
The feasible effective measurement is the one with the 2 stones and the 2 sound wave sources.

The mental measurement, that of Einstein, is the well-known one with the 2 lightning bolts and the 2 luminous wave fronts.

Both measurements, the feasible one and the mental one, are practically identical, because to measure simultaneity, both use, systematically mistaken, the independence of the speed of a wave in general, from the speed of the source of the same wave.

Both measurements are systematically wrong because it is like trying to measure a person's height using a scale.

Giovanni from Italy

===============================
La fattibile misura effettiva è quella con le 2 pietre e i 2 fonti d'onda sonori.

La misura mentale, quella di Einstein, è quella notissima con i 2 fulmini e i 2 fronti d'onda luminosi.

Entrambe le misure, quella fattibile e quella mentale, sono praticamente identiche, perché per misurare la simultaneità, entrambe utilizzano, sbagliando sistematicamente, l'indipendenza della velocità di un'onda in generale, dalla velocità della sorgente della medesima onda.

Entrambe le misure sono sistematicamente sbagliate perché è come voler misurare l'altezza di una persona usando una bilancia.

Giovanni dall'Italia.

> Jim Pennino wrote:
> Relativity has been confirmed by actual
> experiments with actual results.
> Where are your experiments that say otherwise?

===============================
> Jim Pennino ha scritto:
> La relatività è stata confermata da esperimenti reali
> con risultati reali.
> Dove sono i tuoi esperimenti che dicono il contrario?

===============================
Special relativity is a self-referential mathematical theory.

That is, special relativity refers exclusively to itself, losing any relationship with external reality and the complexity of the problems that characterize it.

In short: special relativity is correct just like a square root is correct, and there are no, because there cannot be, experiments that are able to demonstrate that the square root is wrong.

Giovanni from Italy.

===============================
La relatività speciale è una teoria matematica autoreferenziale.

Ovvero la relatività speciale fa riferimento esclusivamente a se stessa, perdendo ogni rapporto con la realtà esterna e la complessità dei problemi che la caratterizzano.

Insomma: la relatività speciale è corretta come ad esempio è corretta una radice quadrata, e non esistono, perché non possono esistere, esperimenti che sono in grado di dimostrare che la radice quadrata è sbagliata.

Giovanni dall'Italia.

On 1/19/2024 10:49 AM, Terence Marqueringh Leeuwenhoeck wrote:
> lesson to be learn from here, 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆.

Easier said than done.

You're stupid early human cro-magnons just like the Nazis. Your only
reason to fight Nazis is that Nazis have targeted you; otherwise, you'd
be in bed with them now, and you have been in bed with them before as
long as history can remember, and will be in bed with them in the
future. Who're you kidding?

You Russians are like kids. You get fooled easily, and will never leave
your Moms and Dads to the west of you.

You're not a matured people.

You think Iranians, or any of the BRICS countries count on you Russians?
Dream on. We _know_ what you are and how you feel inferior to the people
to the west of you.

Iranians and other BRICS nations do not see themselves inferior to
anybody on the face of the Earth. You call that inferiority in you
"realism," and we call that superiority in us, "being mature," that is,
being Modern Humans!

Oh, I forgot something: Fuck you Hanson.

mental retarded Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 1/19/2024 10:49 AM, Terence Marqueringh Leeuwenhoeck wrote:
>> lesson to be learn from here, 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆.
>
> Easier said than done.
> You're stupid early human cro-magnons just like the Nazis. Your only
> reason to fight Nazis is that Nazis have targeted you; otherwise, you'd

eat shit, you stupid motherfucker. Stop polluting this group with
nonsense. Post science, or fuck off.

𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂_𝘁𝗵𝗲_‘𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗙𝘂𝗲𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗿’_–_𝗘𝗿𝗱𝗼𝗴𝗮𝗻
The Turkish leader has called out the Israeli PM over the Gaza conflict
https://r%74.com/news/590968-erdogan-netanyahu-modern-fuehrer/

And now the Star of David looks like the Swastika to me because of the
Gaza genocide

Next week Erdogan will call Netanyahu the Pope due to western pressure.

Thats not Bibi; that's biden...

On 1/19/2024 4:49 PM, Taylor Suárez Zubizarreta wrote:
> mental retarded Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/2024 10:49 AM, Terence Marqueringh Leeuwenhoeck wrote:
>>> lesson to be learn from here, 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆.
>>
>> Easier said than done.
>> You're stupid early human cro-magnons just like the Nazis. Your only
>> reason to fight Nazis is that Nazis have targeted you; otherwise, you'd
>
> eat shit, you stupid motherfucker. Stop polluting this group with
> nonsense. Post science, or fuck off.
>

Find a German man, kneel in front of him, pull his pants down, and right
there in the streets suck his dick. Be a true Russian, Hanson. Not a
fake Russian.

Russia has got a long way to go.

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 8:27:15 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> [...]

The answer to the question in the subject line is no. What will happen to
Einstein's theory will be exactly what happened to Newton's and Maxwell's theories.

--
Jan

On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 12:37:55 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 8:27:15 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > [...]
>
> The answer to the question in the subject line is no. What will happen to
> Einstein's theory will be exactly what happened to Newton's and Maxwell's theories.

Or to the phlogiston theory.

> JanPB wrote:
> The answer to the question in the subject line is no.
> What will happen to Einstein's theory will be exactly what
> happened to Newton's and Maxwell's theories.

========================
> JanPB ha scritto:
> La risposta alla domanda nell'oggetto è no.
> Cosa accadrà alla teoria di Einstein sarà esattamente
> ciò che è successo alle teorie di Newton e Maxwell.

========================
Unlike Einstein, Maxwell and Newton did not make any epic systematic errors..

Giovanni from Italy.

========================
A differenza di Einstein, Maxwell e Newton non hanno fatto nessun epico errore sistematico.

Giovanni dall'Italia.

#################################################

> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> > Relativity has been confirmed by actual
> > experiments with actual results.
> > Where are your experiments that say otherwise?

===============================
> > Jim Pennino ha scritto:
> > La relatività è stata confermata da esperimenti reali
> > con risultati reali.
> > Dove sono i tuoi esperimenti che dicono il contrario?

===============================
> Giovanni from Italy wrote:
> Special relativity is a self-referential mathematical theory.
> That is, special relativity refers exclusively to itself, losing
> any relationship with external reality and the complexity of
> the problems that characterize it.
> In short: special relativity is correct just like a square root is
> correct, and there are no, because there cannot be, experiments
> that are able to demonstrate that the square root is wrong.
> Giovanni from Italy.

===============================
> Giovanni dall'Italia ha scritto:
> La relatività speciale è una teoria matematica autoreferenziale..
> Ovvero la relatività speciale fa riferimento esclusivamente a se
> stessa, perdendo ogni rapporto con la realtà esterna e la
> complessità dei problemi che la caratterizzano.
> Insomma: la relatività speciale è corretta come ad esempio è
> corretta una radice quadrata, e non esistono, perché non possono
> esistere, esperimenti che sono in grado di dimostrare che la radice
> quadrata è sbagliata.
> Giovanni dall'Italia.

===============================
Only by getting out of the epic systematic error committed by Einstein in using a wave to measure simultaneity (which in fact turns out to be falsely relative), an epic systematic error which, I repeat, is like wanting to measure the height of a person using a scale, is it It is possible to demonstrate that simultaneity is absolute.

Just below is the feasible measurement without Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905.

The stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and the conductor Alice is stopped in the center of the infamous Einstein train, a train in relative motion with respect to the station.

When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, two rocks hit the head and tail of the train simultaneously.

Since two electronic devices are positioned at the head of the train and at the tail of the train which re-launch the 2 stones towards Alice and obviously also towards Bob, the 2 stones end up simultaneously reaching both Bob and Alice, who in fact are grazed by the 2 stones in the same instant.

The reason is because, according to universally shared physics, the stone coming from the head of the train travels a smaller space at a speed decreased than that of the train, while the stone coming from the tail of the train travels a greater space at a speed this time higher than that of the train.

Well: once Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905 has disappeared, simultaneity turns out to be what it really is, that is, absolute, and in fact the 2 stones fall simultaneously at the head and tail of the train, not only for Bob, but also for Alice, and in fact the same 2 stones not only graze Bob, but at the same moment they also graze Alice.

Giovanni from Italy.

===============================
Solo uscendo dall'epico errore sistematico commesso da Einstein di impiegare un'onda per misurare la simultaneità (che si rivela infatti falsamente relativa), epico errore sistematico che, ripeto, è come voler misurare l'altezza di una persona usando una bilancia, è possibile dimostrare che la simultaneità è assoluta.

Appena di seguito la fattibile misura senza l'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905.

Il capostazione Bob è fermo al centro della stazione e la capotreno Alice è ferma al centro del famigerato treno di Einstein, treno in movimento relativo rispetto alla stazione.

Quando Alice è esattamente di fronte a Bob, per Bob, due pietre colpiscono simultaneamente la testa e la coda del treno.

Siccome in testa al treno e in coda al treno, sono posizionati due dispositivi elettronici che rilanciano le 2 pietre verso Alice e ovviamente anche verso Bob, finisce che le 2 pietre raggiungono simultaneamente sia Bob e sia Alice, che infatti vengono sfiorati dalle 2 pietre nel medesimo istante.

Il motivo è perché, secondo la fisica universalmente condivisa, la pietra proveniente dalla testa del treno, percorre uno spazio inferiore ad una velocità diminuita di quella del treno, mentre la pietra proveniente dalla coda del treno, percorre uno spazio maggiore ad una velocità questa volta maggiorata di quella del treno.

Ebbene: sparito l'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905, la simultaneità si rivela essere per quella che realmente è, e cioè assoluta, ed infatti le 2 pietre cadono simultaneamente in testa e in coda al treno, non solo per Bob, ma anche per Alice, ed infatti le medesime 2 pietre sfiorano non solo Bob, ma nello stesso istante sfiorano anche Alice.

Giovanni dall'Italia.

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 5:04:16 AM UTC-8, Giovanni wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > The answer to the question in the subject line is no.
> > What will happen to Einstein's theory will be exactly what
> > happened to Newton's and Maxwell's theories.
> =========================
>
> > JanPB ha scritto:
> > La risposta alla domanda nell'oggetto è no.
> > Cosa accadrà alla teoria di Einstein sarà esattamente
> > ciò che è successo alle teorie di Newton e Maxwell.
>
> =========================
>
> Unlike Einstein, Maxwell and Newton did not make any epic systematic errors.
>
> Giovanni from Italy.
>
> =========================
>
> A differenza di Einstein, Maxwell e Newton non hanno fatto nessun epico errore sistematico.
>
> Giovanni dall'Italia.
>
> #################################################
> > > Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > Relativity has been confirmed by actual
> > > experiments with actual results.
> > > Where are your experiments that say otherwise?
>
> ================================
>
> > > Jim Pennino ha scritto:
> > > La relatività è stata confermata da esperimenti reali
> > > con risultati reali.
> > > Dove sono i tuoi esperimenti che dicono il contrario?
>
> ===============================> > Giovanni from Italy wrote:
> > Special relativity is a self-referential mathematical theory.
> > That is, special relativity refers exclusively to itself, losing
> > any relationship with external reality and the complexity of
> > the problems that characterize it.
> > In short: special relativity is correct just like a square root is
> > correct, and there are no, because there cannot be, experiments
> > that are able to demonstrate that the square root is wrong.
> > Giovanni from Italy.
>
> ===============================> > Giovanni dall'Italia ha scritto:
> > La relatività speciale è una teoria matematica autoreferenziale.
> > Ovvero la relatività speciale fa riferimento esclusivamente a se
> > stessa, perdendo ogni rapporto con la realtà esterna e la
> > complessità dei problemi che la caratterizzano.
> > Insomma: la relatività speciale è corretta come ad esempio è
> > corretta una radice quadrata, e non esistono, perché non possono
> > esistere, esperimenti che sono in grado di dimostrare che la radice
> > quadrata è sbagliata.
> > Giovanni dall'Italia.
> ================================
>
> Only by getting out of the epic systematic error committed by Einstein in using a wave to measure simultaneity (which in fact turns out to be falsely relative), an epic systematic error which, I repeat, is like wanting to measure the height of a person using a scale, is it It is possible to demonstrate that simultaneity is absolute.
>
> Just below is the feasible measurement without Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905.
>
> The stationmaster Bob is stopped in the center of the station and the conductor Alice is stopped in the center of the infamous Einstein train, a train in relative motion with respect to the station.
>
> When Alice is exactly in front of Bob, for Bob, two rocks hit the head and tail of the train simultaneously.
>
> Since two electronic devices are positioned at the head of the train and at the tail of the train which re-launch the 2 stones towards Alice and obviously also towards Bob, the 2 stones end up simultaneously reaching both Bob and Alice, who in fact are grazed by the 2 stones in the same instant.
>
> The reason is because, according to universally shared physics, the stone coming from the head of the train travels a smaller space at a speed decreased than that of the train, while the stone coming from the tail of the train travels a greater space at a speed this time higher than that of the train.
>
> Well: once Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905 has disappeared, simultaneity turns out to be what it really is, that is, absolute, and in fact the 2 stones fall simultaneously at the head and tail of the train, not only for Bob, but also for Alice, and in fact the same 2 stones not only graze Bob, but at the same moment they also graze Alice.
>
> Giovanni from Italy.
>
> ================================
>
> Solo uscendo dall'epico errore sistematico commesso da Einstein di impiegare un'onda per misurare la simultaneità (che si rivela infatti falsamente relativa), epico errore sistematico che, ripeto, è come voler misurare l'altezza di una persona usando una bilancia, è possibile dimostrare che la simultaneità è assoluta.
>
> Appena di seguito la fattibile misura senza l'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905.
>
> Il capostazione Bob è fermo al centro della stazione e la capotreno Alice è ferma al centro del famigerato treno di Einstein, treno in movimento relativo rispetto alla stazione.
>
> Quando Alice è esattamente di fronte a Bob, per Bob, due pietre colpiscono simultaneamente la testa e la coda del treno.
>
> Siccome in testa al treno e in coda al treno, sono posizionati due dispositivi elettronici che rilanciano le 2 pietre verso Alice e ovviamente anche verso Bob, finisce che le 2 pietre raggiungono simultaneamente sia Bob e sia Alice, che infatti vengono sfiorati dalle 2 pietre nel medesimo istante.
>
> Il motivo è perché, secondo la fisica universalmente condivisa, la pietra proveniente dalla testa del treno, percorre uno spazio inferiore ad una velocità diminuita di quella del treno, mentre la pietra proveniente dalla coda del treno, percorre uno spazio maggiore ad una velocità questa volta maggiorata di quella del treno.
>
> Ebbene: sparito l'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905, la simultaneità si rivela essere per quella che realmente è, e cioè assoluta, ed infatti le 2 pietre cadono simultaneamente in testa e in coda al treno, non solo per Bob, ma anche per Alice, ed infatti le medesime 2 pietre sfiorano non solo Bob, ma nello stesso istante sfiorano anche Alice.
>
> Giovanni dall'Italia.

Don't you need to find
mathematics more than Cantor
before physics more than Einstein?

It is a continuum mechanics, mechanis continuus, needs infinity, infinie. (Scusi.)

Ciao

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 5:04:16 AM UTC-8, Giovanni wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > The answer to the question in the subject line is no.
> > What will happen to Einstein's theory will be exactly what
> > happened to Newton's and Maxwell's theories.
> =========================
>
> > JanPB ha scritto:
> > La risposta alla domanda nell'oggetto è no.
> > Cosa accadrà alla teoria di Einstein sarà esattamente
> > ciò che è successo alle teorie di Newton e Maxwell.
>
> =========================
>
> Unlike Einstein, Maxwell and Newton did not make any epic systematic errors.
>
> Giovanni from Italy.
>
> =========================
>
> A differenza di Einstein, Maxwell e Newton non hanno fatto nessun epico errore sistematico.
>
> Giovanni dall'Italia.
>
> #################################################
> > > Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > Relativity has been confirmed by actual
> > > experiments with actual results.
> > > Where are your experiments that say otherwise?
>
> ================================
>
> > > Jim Pennino ha scritto:
> > > La relatività è stata confermata da esperimenti reali
> > > con risultati reali.
> > > Dove sono i tuoi esperimenti che dicono il contrario?
>
> ===============================> > Giovanni from Italy wrote:
> > Special relativity is a self-referential mathematical theory.
> > That is, special relativity refers exclusively to itself, losing
> > any relationship with external reality and the complexity of
> > the problems that characterize it.
> > In short: special relativity is correct just like a square root is
> > correct, and there are no, because there cannot be, experiments
> > that are able to demonstrate that the square root is wrong.
> > Giovanni from Italy.
>
> ===============================> > Giovanni dall'Italia ha scritto:
> > La relatività speciale è una teoria matematica autoreferenziale.
> > Ovvero la relatività speciale fa riferimento esclusivamente a se
> > stessa, perdendo ogni rapporto con la realtà esterna e la
> > complessità dei problemi che la caratterizzano.
> > Insomma: la relatività speciale è corretta come ad esempio è
> > corretta una radice quadrata, e non esistono, perché non possono
> > esistere, esperimenti che sono in grado di dimostrare che la radice
> > quadrata è sbagliata.
> > Giovanni dall'Italia.
> ================================
>
> Only by getting out of the epic systematic error committed by Einstein in using a wave to measure simultaneity

False. Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.

> (which in fact turns out to be falsely relative), an epic systematic error

Gobbledygook.

Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.

--
Jan

> Jim Pennino wrote:
> This is just yet more arm waving kook babble.
> Real experiments with real data says Einstein
> was correct and your thought experiment is nonsense.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

==========================================
> Jim Pennino ha scritto:
> Questa è solo un'altra sciocchezza che agita il braccio.
> Esperimenti reali con dati reali dicono che Einstein
> aveva ragione e il tuo pensiero
> l'esperimento è una sciocchezza.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

==========================================
Yours is a typical dogmatic response, in fact perched on opinions to which I have already replied, opinions aggravated in their dogmatism by the fact that they avoid entering into the merits of my argued dispute, and that is, in summary, that relative simultaneity is the consequence of an epic systematic error committed by Einstein in 1905.

Troll, your presence in this threed is as annoying as a fly on the wall, and we hate to crush you, so run away on your own also because this threed is not your thing, since you answer without arguing, like a broken record, always with the same dogmas and the same links that everyone, and even the stones, know and have read.

Giovanni from Italy.

========================
La tua è una tipica risposta dogmatica, infatti arroccata su opinioni a cui ho già replicato, opinioni aggravate nel loro dogmatismo, dal fatto che evitano di entrare nel merito della mia argomentata contestazione, e cioè, in sintesi, che la simultaneità relativa è la conseguenza di un epico errore sistematico commesso da Einstein nel 1905.

Troll, la tua presenza in questo threed è fastidiosa come una mosca sul muro, e ci fa schifo schiacciarti, pertanto scappa via da solo anche perché questo threed non è pane per i tuoi denti, visto che rispondi senza argomentare, come un disco rotto, sempre con gli stessi dogmi e gli stessi link che tutti, e anche i sassi, conoscono e hanno letto.

Giovanni dall'Italia.

> JanPB wrote:
> False.
> Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.
> Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.

=============================
> JanPB ha scritto:
> Falso.
> Smettila di inventare cose, non è un metodo di argomentazione valido..
> Trova un hobby diverso, smettila di far perdere tempo a tutti.

=============================
I have many hobbies, and arguing about the physical nonsense of Einstein's relative simultaneity is the thing that comes easiest to me.

We electronic engineers are well aware of systematic errors. Just think that an instant after reading, about 5 years ago, the first 5 pages of Einstein's original 1905 article, I immediately identified it.

You don't represent anyone, why on earth do you speak for everyone?

Giovanni from Italy.

=============================
Ho tanti hobby, e argomentare sulla scemenza fisica della simultaneità relativa di Einstein è la cosa che mi viene più facile.

Gli errori sistematici noi ingegneri elettronici li conosciamo bene, pensa che un istante dopo aver letto, circa 5 anni fa, le prime 5 pagine dell'articolo originale del 1905 di Einstein, l'ho subito individuato.

Non rappresenti nessuno, perché mai parli a nome di tutti?

Giovanni dall'Italia.

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 1:28:56 PM UTC-8, Giovanni wrote:
> > Jim Pennino wrote:
> > This is just yet more arm waving kook babble.
> > Real experiments with real data says Einstein
> > was correct and your thought experiment is nonsense.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity
>
> ===========================================
>
> > Jim Pennino ha scritto:
> > Questa è solo un'altra sciocchezza che agita il braccio.
> > Esperimenti reali con dati reali dicono che Einstein
> > aveva ragione e il tuo pensiero
> > l'esperimento è una sciocchezza.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity
>
> ===========================================
>
> Yours is a typical dogmatic response, in fact perched on opinions to which I have already replied, opinions aggravated in their dogmatism by the fact that they avoid entering into the merits of my argued dispute, and that is, in summary, that relative simultaneity is the consequence of an epic systematic error committed by Einstein in 1905.
>
> Troll, your presence in this threed is as annoying as a fly on the wall, and we hate to crush you, so run away on your own also because this threed is not your thing, since you answer without arguing, like a broken record, always with the same dogmas and the same links that everyone, and even the stones, know and have read.
>
> Giovanni from Italy.
>
> =========================
>
> La tua è una tipica risposta dogmatica, infatti arroccata su opinioni a cui ho già replicato, opinioni aggravate nel loro dogmatismo, dal fatto che evitano di entrare nel merito della mia argomentata contestazione, e cioè, in sintesi, che la simultaneità relativa è la conseguenza di un epico errore sistematico commesso da Einstein nel 1905.
>
> Troll, la tua presenza in questo threed è fastidiosa come una mosca sul muro, e ci fa schifo schiacciarti, pertanto scappa via da solo anche perché questo threed non è pane per i tuoi denti, visto che rispondi senza argomentare, come un disco rotto, sempre con gli stessi dogmi e gli stessi link che tutti, e anche i sassi, conoscono e hanno letto.
>
> Giovanni dall'Italia.

Here it's just that "Relativity of Simultaneity is local",
that "SR is local", "making the special: spatial", where
Einstein in "Out of My Later Years" already said so,
though many followers don't know it,
and Einstein's second-most famous equation,
of mass/energy equivalency, is as of Einstein's: "bridge",
to space contraction.

Einstein has one theory of relativity, not two.

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 1:48:12 PM UTC-8, Giovanni wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > False.
> > Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.
> > Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.
> ==============================
>
> > JanPB ha scritto:
> > Falso.
> > Smettila di inventare cose, non è un metodo di argomentazione valido.
> > Trova un hobby diverso, smettila di far perdere tempo a tutti.
>
> ==============================
>
> I have many hobbies, and arguing about the physical nonsense of Einstein's relative simultaneity

It's not any "nonsense". You just don't understand this stuff. Just pick a different hobby.
This one is a waste of your time.

--
Jan

On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 23:39:38 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 1:48:12 PM UTC-8, Giovanni wrote:
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > False.
> > > Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.
> > > Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.
> > ==============================
> >
> > > JanPB ha scritto:
> > > Falso.
> > > Smettila di inventare cose, non è un metodo di argomentazione valido.
> > > Trova un hobby diverso, smettila di far perdere tempo a tutti.
> >
> > ==============================
> >
> > I have many hobbies, and arguing about the physical nonsense of Einstein's relative simultaneity
> It's not any "nonsense".

Jan, poor idiot, tje mumble of your insane guru was not
even consistent. You've got the proof, pretending you
didn't notice will not make it go away.

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 1:48:12 PM UTC-8, Giovanni wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> > False.
> > Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.
> > Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.
> ==============================
>
> > JanPB ha scritto:
> > Falso.
> > Smettila di inventare cose, non è un metodo di argomentazione valido.
> > Trova un hobby diverso, smettila di far perdere tempo a tutti.
>
> ==============================
>
> I have many hobbies, and arguing about the physical nonsense of Einstein's relative simultaneity is the thing that comes easiest to me.
>
> We electronic engineers are well aware of systematic errors. Just think that an instant after reading, about 5 years ago, the first 5 pages of Einstein's original 1905 article, I immediately identified it.
>
> You don't represent anyone, why on earth do you speak for everyone?
>
> Giovanni from Italy.
>
> ==============================
>
> Ho tanti hobby, e argomentare sulla scemenza fisica della simultaneità relativa di Einstein è la cosa che mi viene più facile.
>
> Gli errori sistematici noi ingegneri elettronici li conosciamo bene, pensa che un istante dopo aver letto, circa 5 anni fa, le prime 5 pagine dell'articolo originale del 1905 di Einstein, l'ho subito individuato.
>
> Non rappresenti nessuno, perché mai parli a nome di tutti?
>
> Giovanni dall'Italia.
Yes, and his replies to you are also dogmatic without engaging in reasoned dispute because relativity functions as an ideology and is defended as one by censoring, de-platforming, and ridicule. Relativity is not even science and has been refuted and discredited all along by excellent scientists who have pointed out its facile errors only to be despised by the ignorant and pretentious. Poor relativists imagine it is intelligent!

On 1/20/2024 4:48 PM, Giovanni wrote:
>
>> JanPB wrote:
>> False.
>> Stop making stuff up, it's not a valid method of argument.
>> Find a different hobby, stop wasting everybody's time.
>
> I have many hobbies, and arguing about the physical nonsense of Einstein's relative simultaneity is the thing that comes easiest to me.

Because you don't understand it.
>
> We electronic engineers

Why are so many relativity crackpots electrical engineers?

> Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Yes, his replies to you are also dogmatic without
> engaging in reasoned dispute because relativity
> functions as an ideology and is defended as one by
> censoring, de-platforming, and ridicule. Relativity is
> not even science and has been refuted and discredited
> all along by excellent scientists who have pointed out
> its facile errors only to be despised by the ignorant and
> pretentious. Poor relativists imagine it is intelligent!

≈≈≈===============================
> Laurence Clark Crossen ha scritto:
> Sì, e anche le loro isposte sono dogmatiche senza impegnarsi in
> una disputa ragionata perché la relatività funziona come un'ideologia
> ed è difesa come tale mediante la censura, il de-platforming e il ridicolo.
> La relatività non è nemmeno scienza ed è stata da sempre confutata
> e screditata da eccellenti scienziati che ne hanno sottolineato i facili
> errori solo per essere disprezzati dagli ignoranti e dai pretenziosi.
> I poveri relativisti immaginano che sia intelligente.

≈===================================
You are ok because you think with your brain.

But how can you not understand that the Einsteinian physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is simply a consequence of having chosen a wave as a measurement method, and in fact if instead of using the luminous wave fronts of the infamous 1905 article we use the sound wave fronts, the physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is still obtained, but not if, for example, stones are used.

Giovanni from Italy.

≈====================================
Sei ok perché ragioni con il tuo cervello.

Ma come si fa a non capire che la einsteniana scemenza fisica della simultaneità relativa è semplicemente una conseguenza di aver scelto un'onda come metodo di misura, ed infatti se invece di usare i fronti d'onda luminosi del famigerato articolo del 1905 si usano i fronti d'onda sonori, si ottiene ugualmente la scemenza fisica della simultaneità relativa, ma non se ad esempio si usano dei sassi.

Giovanni dall'Italia.

On Sunday 21 January 2024 at 15:00:06 UTC+1, Giovanni wrote:

> But how can you not understand that the Einsteinian physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is simply a consequence of having chosen a wave as a measurement method

Nope. It's just some inconsistent mumble of
an idiot cramk. The method of "how to measure
to get the results matching our beloved religion"
were compiled some yeras after the death of
Giant Guru.

l'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/english?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 6:00:06 AM UTC-8, Giovanni wrote:
> > Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > Yes, his replies to you are also dogmatic without
> > engaging in reasoned dispute because relativity
> > functions as an ideology and is defended as one by
> > censoring, de-platforming, and ridicule. Relativity is
> > not even science and has been refuted and discredited
> > all along by excellent scientists who have pointed out
> > its facile errors only to be despised by the ignorant and
> > pretentious. Poor relativists imagine it is intelligent!
> ≈≈≈================================
>
> > Laurence Clark Crossen ha scritto:
> > Sì, e anche le loro isposte sono dogmatiche senza impegnarsi in
> > una disputa ragionata perché la relatività funziona come un'ideologia
> > ed è difesa come tale mediante la censura, il de-platforming e il ridicolo.
> > La relatività non è nemmeno scienza ed è stata da sempre confutata
> > e screditata da eccellenti scienziati che ne hanno sottolineato i facili
> > errori solo per essere disprezzati dagli ignoranti e dai pretenziosi.
> > I poveri relativisti immaginano che sia intelligente.
>
> ≈====================================
>
> You are ok because you think with your brain.
>
> But how can you not understand that the Einsteinian physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is simply a consequence of having chosen a wave as a measurement method, and in fact if instead of using the luminous wave fronts of the infamous 1905 article we use the sound wave fronts, the physical nonsense of relative simultaneity is still obtained, but not if, for example, stones are used.
>
> Giovanni from Italy.
>
> ≈=====================================
>
> Sei ok perché ragioni con il tuo cervello.
>
> Ma come si fa a non capire che la einsteniana scemenza fisica della simultaneità relativa è semplicemente una conseguenza di aver scelto un'onda come metodo di misura, ed infatti se invece di usare i fronti d'onda luminosi del famigerato articolo del 1905 si usano i fronti d'onda sonori, si ottiene ugualmente la scemenza fisica della simultaneità relativa, ma non se ad esempio si usano dei sassi.
>
> Giovanni dall'Italia.
Yes, I agree that light behaves, with regard to speed, like sound waves because the medium determines the speed. That means the only way we can know our Sun and Sirius are moving towards each other at 5.5 km/sec is thanks to compression waves preserving the information. As with sound the speed of the observer has to be taken into account (and some relativists will allow this as "closing speeds") even though the speed of the ambulance doesn't impart any speed to the waves. So we don't need relativity at all. There is no such thing as time dilation, length contraction or relativity of simultaneity. Einstein was very confused. He kept the Lorentz transformations, the only purpose for was to save the ether, and he discarded the ether! Now the relativists here proudly employ the gamma from the LT's!

L'epico errore sistematico di Einstein del 1905:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Einstein's epic systematic error of 1905:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/english?authuser=0

Einsteins epischer systematischer Fehler von 1905:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/deutsch?authuser=0

L'erreur systématique épique d'Einstein de 1905:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/fran%C3%A7ais?authuser=0

El épico error sistemático de Einstein de 1905:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/espa%C3%B1ol?authuser=0

Эпическая систематическая ошибка Эйнштейна 1905 года:
https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

> Laurence Clark Crossen ha scritto:
> Yes, I agree that light behaves, with regard to speed, like sound waves because the medium determines the speed. That means the only way we can know our Sun and Sirius are moving towards each other at 5.5 km/sec is thanks to compression waves preserving the information. As with sound the speed of the observer has to be taken into account (and some relativists will allow this as "closing speeds") even though the speed of the ambulance doesn't impart any speed to the waves. So we don't need relativity at all. There is no such thing as time dilation, length contraction or relativity of simultaneity. Einstein was very confused. He kept the Lorentz transformations, the only purpose for was to save the ether, and he discarded the ether! Now the relativists here proudly employ the gamma from the LT's!

=======================================
The new physical theories of motion (obviously I have mine) can wait.

First let's knock Einstein off his pedestal with the slogan:

- special relativity is just a self-referential mathematical theory, in fact relative simultaneity is simply the consequence of a systematic error (in as many languages as possible on planet Earth):

https://sites.google.com/view/einstein-systematic-error/home-page?authuser=0

Giovanni from Italy.

=======================================
Le nuove teorie fisiche del moto (ovviamente io ho la mia) possono aspettate.

Primo buttiamo giù dal piedistallo Einstein con lo slogan:

- la relatività speciale è solo una teoria matematica autoreferenziale, infatti la simultaneità relativa è semplicemente la conseguenza di un errore sistematico (in quante più lingue del pianeta Terra):

https://sites.google.com/view/errore-sistematico-di-einstein/home-page?authuser=0

Giovanni dall'Italia.