Gary Stephens

There is no reason for why the Lorentz transformation would apply only to light rays! It obviously applies to any object.

This is very easy to prove as follows: Consider a light clock that is so large that its ticking time takes exactly 1 s. Then it can be synchronized with a standard mechanical clock which remains on the bottom mirror arbitrarily close to where the ray reflects. This means that, in the frame where the clocks are at rest, the events "light ray hitting the bottom mirror" and "mechanical clock ticking" happen not only at the same time but also at the same space location. This implies that these two events remain synchronized in all frames, and therefore the mechanical clock is also observed to run slow!

The end!

Gary Stephens

You didn't understand a single thing I said (or you are purposely "misunderstanding" what I said in order to try to flee like a coward, which is typical from anti-relativist people).

I did not say that "there is no relativity of simultaneity between the light rays in the moving system and the stationary system".

I said that in the frame where the clocks are at rest, the events "light ray hitting the bottom mirror" and "mechanical clock ticking" happen not only at the same time but also at the same space location. This implies that these two events remain synchronized in all frames. This means that both the light clock and the mechanical clock are synchronized in all frames. This implies that if the moving light clock is observed to run slow (as you implicitly admitted in your very first comment since you said the Lorentz transformation is valid for light rays), then the moving mechanical clock is also observed to run slow. Subsequently, the Lorentz transformation applies not only to light rays, but to any object.

V. G. Rousseau

By this uncivilised comment, you have shown that you are not worth talking to.

Gary Stephens

What I said is: "... or you are purposely "misunderstanding" what I said in order to..."

So, you are the one who chose that option!

I just proved you wrong and now you are fleeing. Anyone with a little bit of honor would admit that they were wrong. But that's a thing that cowards can't do...

The reason why people "flee" from your discusions, is because they find you to be a thoroughly unpleasant and uncivilised fool, and quickly realise, you are not worth talking to.

Gary Stephens

"The reason why people "flee" from your discusions, is because they find you to be a thoroughly unpleasant and uncivilised fool"

Or perhaps because no one has ever managed to point out a single flaw in the Theory of Relativity in the last 120 years. No one has ever made an experiment that contradicts the predictions of Relativity.

The point is that you have been proven wrong, and that you don't have what it takes to recognize that you are wrong.

The Universe doesn't care about your lies, it still works the same.

All

The Lorentz transform was derived in 1887 assuming transverse ether wind to delay light by a factor called GAMMA. Ether wind inside the wave front is irrelevant according to the wave model. So, the wave model was in conflict 1887. The Lorentz transform is therefore absurd.

In 1905 Einstein assumed the wrong result and invented another explanation to the same erratic result.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

"In 1905 Einstein assumed the wrong result"

What "wrong result"? I challenge you to give a reference to a single experiment that proves his postulates wrong.

Also, I challenged you to point out a single mistake in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation that I gave. I'm still waiting!

V. G. Rousseau

Light is waves and you need an ether. Assuming the same light speed to all observers is absurd.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

"Light is waves and you need an ether. Assuming the same light speed to all observers is absurd."

Your argument of authority is not scientifically acceptable. You are just a pseudo-scientist. Besides, the real absurd thing is to refuse to look at facts that have been observed in daily experiments over the last 120 years, which all confirm the theory of Relativity. Are you using a GPS in order to go to your convention of pseudo-science? Maybe you should learn how your GPS works, then...

Once again, I challenge you to point out a single mistake in the rigorous mathematical derivation that I gave.

Once again, I challenge you to point out a single mistake in the rigorous mathematical derivation that I gave.

V. G. Rousseau

I do not have to disprove your reasoning, since you start with an absurd assumption. Just like Einstein.

John-Erik

V. G. Rousseau

Relevance of observer motion is demonstrated in the Doppler effect. Einstein's idea of light speed constancy independent of observer motion is an absurd idea.

Have a good day.

John-Erik

"Einstein's idea of light speed constancy independent of observer motion is an absurd idea."

The argument of authority is not a valid scientific argument. Besides, looking at your profile reveals that you don't even have any authority!

V. G. Rousseau

Thanks for your opinion. I am retired. Have a good day.

John-Erik

> I am retired.

Not sure whether or not this is your response to my comment about the authority. So, let me be more precise: You don't have any credentials.

The biggest problem of theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered holy and sacred since it venerates the light.

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

Furthermore, Einstein's theories can't stand against Ockham Razor. Here is my Physics letter that disproves all Einstein's principles.

Read it please objectively by following Ockham Razor :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369143082_Physics_letter_Cosmical_observations_and_experiments_against_the_relativistic_explanations_of_the_Doppler_effect_and_the_Gravitational_effect_of_the_light

Akram Louiz

Read again the challenge: It is not about posting your paper, it is about pointing out a single mistake in this rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

If you can't, then you lost.

Spoiler: You can't!

V. G. Rousseau You seem more religious than educated. But the real problem is that you look so brave like if the light is gonna save you from me. Fuck your light and tell me honestly, are you testing me?

So far, all you have done is using the argument of authority, which is not scientifically acceptable. Besides, with your total lack of credentials, you don't even have any authority. Finally, if you believe that Relativity (which is the most well-tested theory of all times) is wrong, you should at least be consistent with your belief and quit using your GPS.

The introduction of this thesis discusses the problem of GPS systems and proves that time dilatation is crap. Here is the link:

Thesis A thesis about Newtonian mechanics rotations and about diffe...

Akram Louiz

Once again, read what the challenge is about: I didn't ask for anti-relativists to spam me with their crap, I asked to point out a single mistake in this rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

Akram Louiz

"My thesis proves that, despite the mathematical correctness of the derivative of vectors in the Euclidean space, the derivative of a vector is not perpendicular to the derived vector in physics."

There has never been any theorem that claims that the derivative of a vector should be perpendicular to the vector. You are just making things up. Also, this has nothing to do with the topic of the present challenge.

Once again, read what the challenge is about: I didn't ask for anti-relativists to spam me with their crap, I asked to point out a single mistake in this rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

I have to point out one inaccuracy at the beginning which disrespects the historical precedence.

The first correct version of the Lorentz Transformations (to be distinguished from the Field Lorentz Transformations) was given by Larmor in his Aether and Matter in 1900, by imposing the invariance of Maxwell equations.

(1) LARMOR: t'= t/γ - vx'/c2, x'= γ(x-vt)

though Larmor did not mention any inverse transformation (because for him these were auxiliary variables hence not real values of coordinates in the other frame of reference).

Before 1900 it was indeed found a transformation by Lorentz, the transformation t'=t-vx/c2 , where t' is called "local time", basically due to field/waves retardation.

Lorentz in 1904, most probably not aware of Larmor's studies, rederived the transformations in the same way but unfortunately made a mistake:

t'= t/γ - vx/c2 (x not primed) , x'= γ(x-vt)

which Poincarè in 1905 corrected and found (1).

Poincarè from (1) found the coordinate transformation

(2) t'= γ(t -vx/c2), x'=γ(x - vt)

naming them Lorentz Transformations

Poincarè provided also the inverse, obtained just by setting (-v), hence the define a "group".

Einstein by imposing the inertial frame equivalence found them some months before Poincarè independently.

(1) and (2), if taken as mathematical equations are equivalent since it is possible to pass from one to the other through simple algebra.

(1) and (2) if v is considered a relative speed are also physically the same.

If v in (1) is the speed relative to an "isotropic frame" where light propagates according to Larmor and Lorentz (Heaviside and Abraham et al), then the form (1) is not physically equivalent to (2).

To make the story short, it was Larmor not Lorentz to find first these not approximated relations which had not the same physical meaning as the one which Poincarè and Einstein gave them later on.

There are some cases where the Larmor-Lorentz form and physical interpretation has different predictions than Einstein-Poincarè (which must have the interpretation of v as relative speed only).

Presentation The trajectory OF LIGHT according to Special Relativity AND ...

Akram Louiz ,

this conversation is meant to stay at a non-personal level. What you just said disqualifies yourself first, your opponent and this thread.

We are trying to clarify aspects of how nature works not giving personal opinions against other people. This is valid for anybody else.

Akram Louiz,

You are infamously known to be a pseudoscientist whose crappy publications are found in predatory and fake journals whose impact factor is a perfect zero.

Behave yourself and shame on you!

Akram Louiz Article Physics letter: Cosmical observations and experiments agains...

In the chapter about photon mass you write

"I suggested that the gravitational effect is because of the real mass of a photon. I also suggest that this mass can be found easily by making or observing a gravitational blueshift corrected shift of the light in a vacuum, and by using the famous formula:ΔE= mΔV²/2."

Instead you should have used the formula ΔE=hΔf, which is applicable to the photon energy and the photon mass hf/c².

You cannot assume relativity is wrong and then try to prove it with the consequences of that assumption.

Issam Mohanna and Wolfgang Konle :

Fuck the god made of light that you venerate by the pseudo-science of Einstein.

The people nowadays is more educated than the people of the 20th century.

The people nowadays know everything about your lies.

Your religion will never become science.

Akram Louiz

"Your religion will never become science."

You are the one who keeps making statements that are unsupported by experimental facts or logical reasoning. You are the one who is relying on religion, you are not a scientist.

And you are stupidly ignoring that your GPS makes use of both Special and General Relativity in order to locate you accurately.

Akram Louiz "Fuck the god made of light..."

Are you crazy? I simply mentioned the correct formula for the energy of photons and you answer with such a crap!

Do you want to get reported?

Akram Louiz

Once again, the challenge is to point out a single mistake in my rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation, which includes a rigorous derivation of time-dilation. Here it is again: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

I CHALLENGE YOU TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE.

Do you understand what "pointing out a mistake" means?

Akram Louiz

"if you want to discuss a derivation than forget about the GPS system because I gave you the answer about its satellites."

Quit fleeing like the coward that you are! Once again, this entire thread is a CHALLENGE for you to point out a single mistake in this rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

Without taking into account Einstein's relativity, the GPS would fail.

More details in this short YouTube video from Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,Canada.

https://youtu.be/x7mWlAauLPs?si=lg2XvwAFYTKpffdj

V. G. Rousseau

To obtain the LT presented by Einstein and Poincarè, the only postulate needed is the equivalence of inertial frames (Poincarè), and the experimental evidence of the 2Way speed of light (RADAR).

Combining the two, it is sufficient to obtain the Lorentz Transformations in Einstein-Poincarè form.

The equivalence of inertial frames inevitably carries with it the constancy of the SOL ONE-WAY =c which characterizes SR.

If it wasn't the case, then, being possible to measure different values of SOL in different inertial frames, one would distinguish one frame from the other just being in a lab at constant speed by measuring the SOL, hence the frames would not be equivalent anymore. That is to say that same observations (measurement of SOL) would not have the same outcome in different coordinates.

The Lorentz Transformations were found in a different format by Larmor and Lorentz in 1900..

It should be seen which Lorentz transformations were used in those experiments: Einstein-Poincarè or Larmor-Lorentz ?

Stefano Quattrini

"It should be seen which Lorentz transformations were used in those experiments: Einstein-Poincarè or Larmor-Lorentz ?"

The one that I am explicitly talking about in the original post, namely this one: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

How can we prove the mass dilation m=mₒ/√(1-v²/c²)? The direct algebraic proof may supposedly frustrate the anti-relativists.

We simply refer to the definitions of energy and impulse in mechanics:

Energy E equals force F times distance s. E=F*s or infinitesimal dE=F*ds.

Momentum P equals force F times time t. P=F*t or infinitesimal dP=F*dt.

The force F must be the same in both definitions, otherwise physics would be inconsistent. We then get F=dE/ds=dP/dt.

We insert in this equation E=mc² and P=mv for an object with rest mass mₒ. Additionally we take into account v=ds/dt.

With some algebra we then can directly verify the force equation with this obvious assumptions.

Everybody who does not believe in this verification is demanded to do the according algebra by her- or himself.

I am mentioning this because this straight forward algebraic proof with the force equation of mechanics is not mentioned in standard physics textbooks.

V. G. Rousseau ,

the one you are talking about is indeed Einstein-Poincare'. Nevertheless I am afraid that most experiments complied with Lorentz-Larmor..

by the way instead of being in vacuum (or also in air) where light propagates at c, if we are in a medium like water, how the Lorentz Transformations are affected?

Stefano Quattrini

The Lorentz transformation is a transformation between frames. Although it is derived by considering the fact that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, it is a transformation that applies to massive objects, not light (which doesn't have a rest frame). As a consequence, there is no reason for the Lorentz transformation to be affected whether we are in a medium like water or in space.

It also has to be pointed out that, as opposed to a common misconception, the photons do not slow down in medium. They still travel between the atoms at speed c. But the time needed by the photons to travel a certain distance is effectively increased due to the time delay between absorption and emission of the photons by the atoms. Thus the reduced speed of light in a medium is only apparent.

V. G. Rousseau

Agreed, they travel in vacuum at their characteristic speed.

Yes, they should be involved in how massive objects emit and detect light.

Are LT applicable between objects moving in water as they are applied in vacuum. Do they give reliable results in stationary media?

Consider that the overall propagation speed of light in water is not the same as vacuum hence the results of its applications do not come out the same as they come out when nothing is interposed between bodies.

Stefano Quattrini

"Are LT applicable between objects moving in water as they are applied in vacuum. Do they give reliable results in stationary media?

Consider that the overall propagation speed of light in water is not the same as vacuum hence the results of its applications do not come out the same as they come out when nothing is interposed between bodies."

From my previous response, there is no reason for LT not to apply to objects moving in water. Let us analyze the situation like this: We know that LT applies to an object moving in vacuum. Does it apply to two objects moving in vacuum? Certainly. What about three? Of course. Then there is no reason why it wouldn't apply to N objects in vacuum, right? Well, here we are: An object moving in water is just N objects (the object itself and all the atoms that constitute the water) moving in vacuum. LT applies. Once again, the apparent slowing down of the speed of light in water is completely irrelevant.

but what is measured at the end are results between "objects" moving in water... signals must be used to verify the transformations...

TWIN effect or the time dilation is independent on the interposed medium, but Doppler effect and other interactions must be done according to the local medium...

Preprint Reconciliation of the Rosen and Laue theories of special rel...

Stefano Quattrini

"signals must be used to verify the transformations..."

Why should the transformations be "verified" when they have already been deeply verified for over 120 years, and all experiments that are carried out everyday are in perfect agreement with the theory?

What is this rage of wanting to prove Relativity "wrong" when there is not a single indication that it is "wrong"?

As I keep saying: “The hardest thing to understand in the Theory of Relativity is why so many people want to believe it is wrong.”

V. G. Rousseau ,

not in that case probably, since that Physics paper is quite recent

Michael Evan Crenshaw

Article Reconciliation of the Rosen and Laue theories of special rel...

Some laws are time independent, some not.

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

I know that there cannot be any mistake regarding the Lorentz transformation (did you even read what the challenge is about?). That is precisely why I challenge all anti-relativists to point out a single mistake in my rigorous derivation. I know that they can't.

V. G. Rousseau

Stefano Quattrini

That's why I explicitly pointed out in the challenge that, so far, the postulates of Relativity have never been faulted.

V. G. Rousseau ,

Stefan Bernhard Rüster

Yes, like everything in physics, the theory of relativity can only be considered correct insofar as it is applicable. But like everything in physics, its applicability is limited.

It is not applicable to radiation. This does not devalue the theory of relativity. But it is important to be aware of this limitation.

We also know that Newton's physics is not applicable to radiation. Nor does this devalue Newton's mechanical laws.

In terms of radiation, we have to face the fact that one of the two relevant causes of radiation is to transport static force fields with an accelerated motion.

The other cause is the transport of energy, momentum and angular momentum from quantum mechanical state transitions. Presumably, however, this is also related to the first cause and is nothing more than a summed adjustment of the static fields of all components of the modified states.

Overall, this simply means that we need to go back to the roots to properly deal with radiation. Relying on derived concepts obscures the fundamental connections to static force fields. The main distortion of explaining radiation processes is caused by the linking of particles with static force fields.

But the association of spatial deformation with gravitational fields is also not helpful in this respect, as it suppresses the similarities of the radiation principles of electromagnetism and gravity.

The development of models for gravitational radiation based on the theory of relativity is certainly possible, but ignores the common principles regarding the static fields. The approach of the general theory of relativity to radiation also suffers from the mathematical singularity of the zero frequency of static fields.

But as I said, this does not devalue the general theory of relativity in areas where it is really applicable.

Stefano Quattrini

"Einstein was the first to be quite dissatisfied with SR, not suitable to model accelerations"

It has to be pointed out that it is a common misconception to claim that Special Relativity cannot deal with accelerated objects and/or accelerated frames of references. SR actually has no problem with it. This is what I prove in this video tutorial where I show how to solve the Twin Paradox by taking into account a finite acceleration/deceleration over the entire trip: https://youtu.be/QFWF90bch3c

V. G. Rousseau ,

regardless of how much you can point it out, there is impossibility to deal with "accelerated frames of reference" in SR. No problem for accelerated objects observer from an inertial frame (as for Classical Dynamics).

The Twin effect is very easily explainable with the following form of LT

t'=t/gamma -vx'/c2

the LT are applied twice in opposite such that the term vx'/c2 cancel out hence

t'=t/gamma..

the point is that if the twins do not rejoin, that term does not cancel out in LT E-P form so that the result is not anymore

t'=t/gamma

Stefano Quattrini

"there is impossibility to deal with "accelerated frames of reference" in SR."

That is not true. Once again, I proved that there is no problem in the tutorial I just gave you. I do the analysis first from the point of view of the stay-at-home twin, who finds out that the traveler comes back younger. Then I do the analysis from the point of view of the accelerated twin, and he agree 100% with the conclusion of the other twin.

Again, the tutorial is here and involves only basic calculus: https://youtu.be/QFWF90bch3c

This

“…Special Relativity follows from the Lorentz transformation which is rigorously derived from the two following postulates:

The laws of physics are identical in all inertial frames of reference.

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.….”

- yeah, is essentially correct. However from the above by no means it follows that the SR is completely correct theory – in some specific contrast to the Lorentz theory, which is based really on the same postulates as well.

The difference is in that though Lorentz theory also isn’t scientifically perfect theory - as the SR isn’t also for the same fundamental reason – the authors of both theories had only some transcendent illusory imagination about what “Matter/matter”, “space”, and “time are”,

- nonetheless Lorentz and Poincaré believed that Matter’s space/time/spacetime are absolute - what is fundamentally true, and so action of the postulates above are by some way limited,

- but in the SR the action of the postulates is postulated as absolute, and so the SR is based also on the postulate that there is no absolute Matter’s space/time/spacetime, and so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

That is the base of a few other the SR postulates - that “space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”;

- and concretely the last tenet is formulated in the SR as the postulate that letters x.y.z,t in Lorentz transformations relate to all/every points in the spacetime, and so postulated existence of “relativistic properties and effects” - “space contraction” , “time dilation”, etc.

All the last in the SR really is fundamentally incorrect – Matter’s space/time/spacetime is absolutely for sure absolute – that completely directly, rigorously, and unambiguously follows, say, from the Dingle objection to the SR, space/time/spacetime are fundamentally mutually independent, fundamentally cannot be impacted by anything in Matter, and impact on anything in Matter, as that is completely rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one of two main papers arehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics .

In the model, including, the physical sense of the Lorentz transformations is explained, it is pointed when the transformational are completely applicable and when only limitedly, etc.

More see the link above, SS posts in other threads, say, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_understand_special_relativity/1 , pages 1,2, are relevant to this thread question; the thread – in contrast to many other about the SR ones – isn’t heavily spammed till now.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

"However from the above by no means it follows that the SR is completely correct theory"

The point is that no experiment has ever faulted the postulates, and no experiment has ever shown any discrepancy in the predictions of the theory. Claiming otherwise would require to give a reference to an article peer-reviewed and published in a high-quality journal (not a corrupted journal like "Physics Essays" for instance).

Justo Pastor Lambare

you and Domsta seem to agree with Dingle yes...

Justo Pastor Lambare

Justo Pastor Lambare

I do not even look at it, because the result which comes out is untenable...

if the prediction is the one of Domsta, it is even stupid to have a look at

Preprint ABOUT TIME DILATION AND TWIN PARADOX SOLUTION

this is the only valid prediction of time dilation which is in agreement with experimental evidence..

Justo Pastor Lambare

according to performed experiments and Lorentz Electrodynamics.

Preprint ABOUT TIME DILATION AND TWIN PARADOX SOLUTION

disagreement about the result of the simple configuration presented above means to understand nothing about nature can or cannot work in agreement with experimental evidence.

The Author of the above mentioned preprint has correctly analysed the first version of my statement formulated as follows

which WAS temporarily wrongly assigned by me as a proposition of the SRT. What I have authorised as a proposition of SRT in the final form reads as follows*)

JoaD: "The observed lifetime of muons, at rest with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object UNIFORMLY moving with respect to the Earth with velocity v.">>

Conclusion: Stefano Quattrini by still propagating the first sentence from his preprint

SQ:

without any explaining comment commits a forbidden activity of FALSE presentation of contribution of other authors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*) in post #10 on p. 326 and subsequent pages, available as

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_actual_physical_meaning_of_the_Lorentz_Transformations/326

Joachim Domsta has stated,

Never seen more impertinent guy who purpously does not distinguish between "the sentence is falsified" and "the sentence by stated NN is falsified". All is played just for proving unfairly that I was wrong. That's a very deep handicape on Stefano's reliability as a scientist. The more that till now he NEVER disproved any of my scientific claims. Shame on you, my dear Stefano Quattrini

never seen a more stubborn individual insisting on

>

which is untenable according to the consequence of experimental evidence..

written here

Preprint ABOUT TIME DILATION AND TWIN PARADOX SOLUTION

that is Dingle's objection....

@Justo Pastor Lambare

thanks, you might be sure that I am constantly sure about both - that my stubborn fight for the addition of 'uniformy' is necessary for getting a prediction of SRTheory and its empirical consistency.

Justo Pastor Lambare

the usual circular logic... which is disconfirmed by experiments basically...

Preprint ABOUT TIME DILATION AND TWIN PARADOX SOLUTION

In the preprint by Stefano Quattrini available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389515943 [accessed Mar 13 2025]

the first sentence reads:

Since the current text of the preprint presents false info about facts, hence

-- the sentence should be replaced by the following text jointly with the footnote (or some other equivalent way of referencing)

As claimed by Joachim Domsta*), according to Special Relativity : (1) "The observed lifetime of muons, at rest with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object uniformly moving with respect to the Earth with velocity v."

---------------------------------------------

*) in posts within the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_actual_physical_meaning_of_the_Lorentz_Transformations

or

-- my name should be deleted from this sentence.

Justo Pastor Lambare

OK, as you may see I stopped discussing Stefano's "science". But I had to rectify his FALSE description of my contribution. The bad news is that he doesn't want to correct the error which must be read as a purposely chosen way to give himself alleged right to state that I am wrong. I see this as some kind of expressing jealousy that he couldn't show any error in my correcting him comments.

Joachim Domsta ,

shame on you....

first of all it was you to make a mistake which after more than a week you wanted to be corrected in your original sentence:

>

as reported in my script

>

that is to say you are a professional LIAR accusing me of a false description of your contribution, not even worthy of a scientific credibility.

From my side I will erase your first unfortunate sentence from here

Preprint THE TWIN MUONS WHICH FAILED TO REJOIN

and put your second sentence here

Preprint ABOUT TIME DILATION AND TWIN PARADOX SOLUTION

the above copy of the post #7 p.9 uses copied first lines of your preprint as it was 23 hours ago.

And the copy downloaded just a minute ago also has the first lines are formulated as follows

>

Thank you in advance that you will ...

Thank you Stefano for removing my name from the preprint  THE TWIN MUONS WHICH FAILED TO REJOIN.

I removed your name from the initial sentence, I stated at the end that you claimed:

"The observed lifetime of muons, at rest with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object uniformly moving with respect to the Earth with velocity"

which does not improve the physical validity

""The observed lifetime of muons, at rest with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object uniformly moving with respect to the Earth with velocity"

If the muons are at rest with respect to the Earth, and if they are observed from an object in uniform motion with respect to the Earth, then the muons are in relative motion with respect to the observer. As such, it is perfectly correct to state that their lifetime is observed to be dilated.

V. G. Rousseau

Yes, that sentence is logically correct "assuming" the applicability of the equivalence of inertial frames.

Also a "minus habens" can make that logical inference...That is the same triviality that led Dingle to disqualify the conclusion of SR as the "RECIPROCITY OF TIME DILATION".

Since the same can be said from the other inertial frame, at least one observer which detects that, if not both, give physically meaningless quantities.

It is the same as saying that two people see each other much smaller at a distance hence both conclude that the other is much smaller. When people met, both of them discovered that they were wrong. None of the viewpoints was able to detect what was "real", but both were victims of an optical illusion...

It means that such a sentence cannot have anything of any physical validity.

On the contrary atomic clocks, as it is well modeled in General Relativity, have their own "rates" at rest in a gravitational field, different than its twin moving in the gravitational field (HAFELE AND KEATING).

For a measurable time dilation to occur between two clocks, at least one object must have not been inertial at least for a while (which is always the case) hence gained some speed in a fix frame.

Gravitation is omnipervasive that sentence is not physics.

Stefano Quattrini

"It is the same as saying that two people see each other much smaller at a distance hence both conclude that the other is much smaller. When people met, both of them discovered that they were wrong."

OMG. You are making the same novice mistake that all anti-relativists keep doing over and over again with the apparent twin paradox. You are basically claiming that "twin A sees twin B moving, thus twin B is younger. But twin B sees twin A moving, thus twin A is younger. They are both younger than each other, thus there is a paradox and Relativity is wrong".

This misconception arises because of your inability of identifying proper times and your inability of defining clearly which events you are describing.

This misconception is clearly pointed out in this video tutorial, and the paradox rigorously solved: https://youtu.be/Dy8fC2eVOeA

V. G. Rousseau ,

if both sentences are equally correct in SR....

"The observed lifetime of muons, at rest with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object uniformly moving with respect to the Earth with velocity"

"The observed lifetime of muons, uniformly moving with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object stationary with respect to the Earth"

General relativity does not imply the above shame.

The rate of a moving clock in reference to ECI frame is fixed by its speed and gravitational potential, there is no reciprocity as there is no reciprocity for such quantities in Lorentz Electrodynamics.

Atomic clocks, as it is well modeled in General Relativity, have their own "rates" at rest in a gravitational field, different than their twin moving in the gravitational field (HAFELE AND KEATING).

For a measurable time dilation to occur in absence of gravitation (DEEP SPACE) between two clocks, at least one object must have not been inertial at least for a while (which is always the case) hence gained some speed in a fix frame.

Gravitation is omnipervasive that shame is not physics.

Here's what happened: Domsta mistakenly thought that Stefano removed his name from his twin paper because he didn't read it all.

I fight Stefano's lies step by step. Till now I have won that Stefano stopped to say that the first version (without 'uniformly') is my statement.

Nevertheless he still commits a lie by OMITTING in the preprint that the corrected sentence (with 'uniformly') is claimed by me as a prediction of SRT (cf. my demand presented in post #10 on page

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_actual_physical_meaning_of_the_Lorentz_Transformations/333 )

Joachim Domsta,

Previously, you didn't use "uniformly" and later you shifted to "uniformly" and thus, in that respect, Stefano is correct.

Here is the structure of my claim after Stefano recognised my mistake corrected:

《According to JoaD, the SRT prediction is that [sentence with 'uniformly']》

which is now obviously WRONGLY presented by @Stefano Quattrini as follows

《According to JoaD [sentence with 'uniformly']》

Issam,

I think we are facing here a "psychopathic" behaviour of a guy...

"psychopathetic" maybe better??

Anyway the segment of the original text about my contribution has read as follows:

《As claimed by Joachim Domsta, according to Special Relativity :

(1) "The observed lifetime of muons, at rest with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object moving with respect to the Earth with velocity v."》

which was wrong due to lack of the adjective 'uniformly' between 'object' and 'moving'.

-----------

The corrected text about me in Stefano's preprints reads now as follows:

《 The sentence adjusted by Joachim Domsta as: "The observed lifetime of muons, at rest with respect to the Earth, IS γ(v) times longer if observed from an object moving uniformly with respect to the Earth with velocity v.", 》

as if the quotation were a by me claimed prediction, whereas it is plainly claimed by me as a prediction of SRT.

No respect for purposely made manipulations!

Incidentally, here is a new thought experiment called "Einstein's Cat" that debunks the anti-relativist claim according to which time dilation supposedly applies only to light clocks, and not to material objects.

https://youtu.be/PFh_OQMwKmU

Incidentally a LIght clock basically implies this...

Presentation The trajectory OF LIGHT according to Special Relativity AND ...