From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Thoughts on this European Physical Journal paper or at least the abstract?

Abstract:

The east-west directional anisotropy in clock rate observed in the Hafele-Keating experiment
with circumnavigation atomic clocks is commonly ascribed to the special relativity. In this investigation,
based on the local-ether wave equation, an entirely different
interpretation of this anisotropy is presented
by showing that the clock-rate variation can originate from an intrinsic quantum property of the atom. For
a harmonic-like wavefunction, the local-ether wave equation leads to a first-order time evolution equation
similar to Schr-?odingerrCOs equation. However, the time derivative incorporates a speed-dependent factor sim-
ilar to that in the Lorentz mass-variation law. Consequently, the
quantum energy, the transition frequency,
and hence the atomic clock rate decrease with the atom speed by this speed-dependent mass-variation
factor. According to the local-ether model, the speed is referred
specifically to a geocentric or heliocentric
inertial frame for an earthbound or interplanetary clock, respectively.
It is shown that this restriction on
reference frame is actually in accord with the various experimental
results of the anisotropy and the clock-
rate difference in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the synchronism and
the clock-rate adjustment in GPS
(global positioning system), and of the spatial isotropy in the
Hughes-Drever experiment. Moreover, the
switching of the unique reference frame is in accord with the
frequency-shift formulas adopted in earth-
bound and interplanetary spacecraft microwave links. Meanwhile, the local-ether model predicts a constant
deviation in frequency shift from the calculated result reported in an interplanetary spacecraft link. This
discrepancy then provides a means to test the local-ether wave equation.

Cheers
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but without the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete concepts of "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that they --
or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the _Lorentz_ transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean* transformation.

Precisely the kind of *theoretical physics* paper that you would expect from
an *electrical engineer* :-D

Given that "The European Physical Journal _B_" is a peer-reviewed journal "committed to maintaining the highest level of integrity in the content published", ISTM to be a case where the peer-review system failed badly...
in 2001.

There is only one other person, in fact a *mechanical* engineer, one James Marsen (not to be confused with historically important people, and the
actor, James _Marsden_), publishing at Academia.edu and ResearchGate (the former is a predatory publisher and suspicious [1], the latter is not), who
has cited this paper so far (all other citations of it are by CC Su himself):

<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10981528855933398754&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en&oi=gsb>

The abstract of Marsen's 2021 paper begins with

,-<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350190574_The_Local-Ether_Model_and_Quantum_Electromagnetics_Theories_of_Prof_Ching-Chuan_Su>
|
| This paper is intended to promote the work of the late Prof. Ching-Chuan
| Su of the National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan. [...]

So apparently this weird idea of CC Su died with him in or before 2021.
Good riddance.

Marsen himself appears to be retired, too (he holds an MSc in Mechanical Engineering from Columbia University, of which he states is an "alumnus"),
and has published crackpot papers like "The Tron Theory: A novel concept for the Aether and Matter" which he publishd together with his brother (I think) who has no scientific credentials whatsoever (although probably also an engineer).

There is evidence to suggest that he was a doctoral student who worked on tokamaks but then stopped pursuing that "for personal reasons":

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252333104_Experimental_and_theoretical_studies_of_high-beta_tokamaks>

<https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6227399> (p. 4)

As you can see, on ResearchGate he also published a "Conference Paper" for a meeting of the "John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society" --

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space>

-- an organization of and for science crackpots and pseudoscience:

,-<https://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?title=John_Chappell_Natural_Philosophy_Society>
|
| The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) is a world-wide think
| tank of critical thinkers made up of professors, PHDs, scientists,
| engineers, and layman who openly criticize mainstream physics and
| cosmology and who propose alternative theory, philosophy, and models.
| [...]
'
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having an alternative theory as
long as it *is* a theory, i.e. is *falsifiable*. But usually the ideas circulating in those groups are not; they are more like an echo chamber
filled with and welcoming delusional armchair philosophers who have no clue what they are talking about. As you can also see here:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCIGsEQ2-g4>

[There this Franklin Hu (do look him up; his "Theory of Everything" is hilarious, contrary to every experimental result so far that you can think
of [2]) is actually literally claiming (at 4:04) that for best reception you would need a receiver antenna that has "basically the same kind of antenna shape" as the sending antenna of polarization (that is not so). Obviously
he has never seen the *huge* sending antennas at a radio station or mobile phone towers, and compared that with the relatively *tiny* (and completely differently formed) antenna on a radio receiver or in a mobile phone. *facepalm* (This, as a counter-example, is a hypothesis that *is*
falsifiable. One wonders then how he, claiming to argue scientificially,
has never double-checked.)]

There is a very interesting monograph that analyzes this (fringe scince, at best) from a sociologist's perspective:

Collins, HM; Bartlett, A; Reyes-Galindo, LI (2016). The Ecology of Fringe Science and its Bearing on Policy. Working Paper. <https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/123875/>

___
[0] AISB: pb|a pb|Y = ++reEb|a pb|a pb|Y = E-#/c-# reA p-# = m-#c-#
rco E-# = m-#crU| + p-#c-# = +| m c-# for p = +| m v for m rea 0
rcA m_rel := +| m = +| mreC.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia.edu#Criticism>
[2] <https://franklinhu.com/theory.html>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 04/29/2026 02:21 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but without the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete concepts of "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that they -- or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the _Lorentz_ transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean* transformation.

Precisely the kind of *theoretical physics* paper that you would expect from an *electrical engineer* :-D

Given that "The European Physical Journal _B_" is a peer-reviewed journal "committed to maintaining the highest level of integrity in the content published", ISTM to be a case where the peer-review system failed badly...
in 2001.

There is only one other person, in fact a *mechanical* engineer, one James Marsen (not to be confused with historically important people, and the
actor, James _Marsden_), publishing at Academia.edu and ResearchGate (the former is a predatory publisher and suspicious [1], the latter is not), who has cited this paper so far (all other citations of it are by CC Su himself):

<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10981528855933398754&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en&oi=gsb>

The abstract of Marsen's 2021 paper begins with

,-<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350190574_The_Local-Ether_Model_and_Quantum_Electromagnetics_Theories_of_Prof_Ching-Chuan_Su>
|
| This paper is intended to promote the work of the late Prof. Ching-Chuan
| Su of the National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan. [...]

So apparently this weird idea of CC Su died with him in or before 2021.
Good riddance.

Marsen himself appears to be retired, too (he holds an MSc in Mechanical Engineering from Columbia University, of which he states is an "alumnus"), and has published crackpot papers like "The Tron Theory: A novel concept for the Aether and Matter" which he publishd together with his brother (I think) who has no scientific credentials whatsoever (although probably also an engineer).

There is evidence to suggest that he was a doctoral student who worked on tokamaks but then stopped pursuing that "for personal reasons":

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252333104_Experimental_and_theoretical_studies_of_high-beta_tokamaks>

<https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6227399> (p. 4)

As you can see, on ResearchGate he also published a "Conference Paper" for a meeting of the "John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society" --

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space>

-- an organization of and for science crackpots and pseudoscience:

,-<https://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?title=John_Chappell_Natural_Philosophy_Society>
|
| The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) is a world-wide think
| tank of critical thinkers made up of professors, PHDs, scientists,
| engineers, and layman who openly criticize mainstream physics and
| cosmology and who propose alternative theory, philosophy, and models.
| [...]
'
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having an alternative theory as
long as it *is* a theory, i.e. is *falsifiable*. But usually the ideas circulating in those groups are not; they are more like an echo chamber filled with and welcoming delusional armchair philosophers who have no clue what they are talking about. As you can also see here:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCIGsEQ2-g4>

[There this Franklin Hu (do look him up; his "Theory of Everything" is hilarious, contrary to every experimental result so far that you can think
of [2]) is actually literally claiming (at 4:04) that for best reception you would need a receiver antenna that has "basically the same kind of antenna shape" as the sending antenna of polarization (that is not so). Obviously
he has never seen the *huge* sending antennas at a radio station or mobile phone towers, and compared that with the relatively *tiny* (and completely differently formed) antenna on a radio receiver or in a mobile phone. *facepalm* (This, as a counter-example, is a hypothesis that *is* falsifiable. One wonders then how he, claiming to argue scientificially,
has never double-checked.)]

There is a very interesting monograph that analyzes this (fringe scince, at best) from a sociologist's perspective:

Collins, HM; Bartlett, A; Reyes-Galindo, LI (2016). The Ecology of Fringe Science and its Bearing on Policy. Working Paper. <https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/123875/>

___
[0] AISB: pb|a pb|Y = ++reEb|a pb|a pb|Y = E-#/c-# reA p-# = m-#c-#
rco E-# = m-#crU| + p-#c-# = +| m c-# for p = +| m v for m rea 0
rcA m_rel := +| m = +| mreC.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia.edu#Criticism>
[2] <https://franklinhu.com/theory.html>

A "doubly-objective relativity theory" is a simple account of a
mathematical theory of physics that: besides that motion is relative,
that space is relative.

The "relativity theory" is in a sense, as Einstein put it, a very
simple theory of a negative stipulation of absolutes. Einstein
basically says: "Motion? It's relative, ...". Here then making
for "what's good for motion is good for space", then makes models
of theories where either and both of motion and space are relative,
for example, that they're absolutes to each other.

Then, giving "space-frames" and "frame-spaces", makes plain "frames",
as it were, "obsolete". The "rest frame" and "relativistic frame"
of General Relativity are not "obsolete", except to SR-ians, who are,
at best, "incomplete".





--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 04/29/2026 06:40 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/29/2026 02:21 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and
general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but
without
the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete
concepts of
"rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that
they --
or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the
_Lorentz_
transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean*
transformation.

Precisely the kind of *theoretical physics* paper that you would
expect from
an *electrical engineer* :-D

Given that "The European Physical Journal _B_" is a peer-reviewed journal
"committed to maintaining the highest level of integrity in the content
published", ISTM to be a case where the peer-review system failed
badly...
in 2001.

There is only one other person, in fact a *mechanical* engineer, one
James
Marsen (not to be confused with historically important people, and the
actor, James _Marsden_), publishing at Academia.edu and ResearchGate (the
former is a predatory publisher and suspicious [1], the latter is
not), who
has cited this paper so far (all other citations of it are by CC Su
himself):

<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10981528855933398754&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en&oi=gsb>


The abstract of Marsen's 2021 paper begins with

,-<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350190574_The_Local-Ether_Model_and_Quantum_Electromagnetics_Theories_of_Prof_Ching-Chuan_Su>

|
| This paper is intended to promote the work of the late Prof.
Ching-Chuan
| Su of the National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan. [...]

So apparently this weird idea of CC Su died with him in or before 2021.
Good riddance.

Marsen himself appears to be retired, too (he holds an MSc in Mechanical
Engineering from Columbia University, of which he states is an
"alumnus"),
and has published crackpot papers like "The Tron Theory: A novel
concept for
the Aether and Matter" which he publishd together with his brother (I
think)
who has no scientific credentials whatsoever (although probably also an
engineer).

There is evidence to suggest that he was a doctoral student who worked on
tokamaks but then stopped pursuing that "for personal reasons":

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252333104_Experimental_and_theoretical_studies_of_high-beta_tokamaks>


<https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6227399> (p. 4)

As you can see, on ResearchGate he also published a "Conference Paper"
for a
meeting of the "John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society" --

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space>


-- an organization of and for science crackpots and pseudoscience:

,-<https://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?title=John_Chappell_Natural_Philosophy_Society>

|
| The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) is a world-wide
think
| tank of critical thinkers made up of professors, PHDs, scientists,
| engineers, and layman who openly criticize mainstream physics and
| cosmology and who propose alternative theory, philosophy, and models.
| [...]
'
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having an alternative theory as
long as it *is* a theory, i.e. is *falsifiable*. But usually the ideas
circulating in those groups are not; they are more like an echo chamber
filled with and welcoming delusional armchair philosophers who have no
clue
what they are talking about. As you can also see here:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCIGsEQ2-g4>

[There this Franklin Hu (do look him up; his "Theory of Everything" is
hilarious, contrary to every experimental result so far that you can
think
of [2]) is actually literally claiming (at 4:04) that for best
reception you
would need a receiver antenna that has "basically the same kind of
antenna
shape" as the sending antenna of polarization (that is not so).
Obviously
he has never seen the *huge* sending antennas at a radio station or
mobile
phone towers, and compared that with the relatively *tiny* (and
completely
differently formed) antenna on a radio receiver or in a mobile phone.
*facepalm* (This, as a counter-example, is a hypothesis that *is*
falsifiable. One wonders then how he, claiming to argue scientificially,
has never double-checked.)]

There is a very interesting monograph that analyzes this (fringe
scince, at
best) from a sociologist's perspective:

Collins, HM; Bartlett, A; Reyes-Galindo, LI (2016). The Ecology of Fringe
Science and its Bearing on Policy. Working Paper.
<https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/123875/>

___
[0] AISB: pb|a pb|Y = ++reEb|a pb|a pb|Y = E-#/c-# reA p-# = m-#c-#
rco E-# = m-#crU| + p-#c-# = +| m c-# for p = +| m v for m rea 0 >> rcA m_rel := +| m = +| mreC.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia.edu#Criticism>
[2] <https://franklinhu.com/theory.html>

A "doubly-objective relativity theory" is a simple account of a
mathematical theory of physics that: besides that motion is relative,
that space is relative.

The "relativity theory" is in a sense, as Einstein put it, a very
simple theory of a negative stipulation of absolutes. Einstein
basically says: "Motion? It's relative, ...". Here then making
for "what's good for motion is good for space", then makes models
of theories where either and both of motion and space are relative,
for example, that they're absolutes to each other.

Then, giving "space-frames" and "frame-spaces", makes plain "frames",
as it were, "obsolete". The "rest frame" and "relativistic frame"
of General Relativity are not "obsolete", except to SR-ians, who are,
at best, "incomplete".

This is sort of an account that SR-ians live in a lane of their own
making, where others have GR General Relativity first then SR, Special Relativity or Restricted Relativity, as a special case, and like
Einstein says, that "SR is local", and they should stay in it.

There are plainly wider concerns like the Mach-ian, the overall accounts
of truly potentialistic theories, the extra-local and
the extended, about which SR-ians are simply ignorant.

So, various accounts of Lorentzian invariance get involved usual
sorts ideas about the local (what's the metric / what's the norm)
and the extended (is it a point or a path).

Then, GR/SR and QM are each said to be proved out to 25+ orders
of decimal magnitude: while it's arrived at that they disagree
about 120+ orders of decimal magnitude, it's one of what's called
"the crisis" in physics, and neither of which have an account of
gravity, the oldest law.




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 04/29/2026 08:34 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/29/2026 06:40 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/29/2026 02:21 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and >>> general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but
without
the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete
concepts of
"rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that
they --
or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the
_Lorentz_
transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean*
transformation.

Precisely the kind of *theoretical physics* paper that you would
expect from
an *electrical engineer* :-D

Given that "The European Physical Journal _B_" is a peer-reviewed
journal
"committed to maintaining the highest level of integrity in the content
published", ISTM to be a case where the peer-review system failed
badly...
in 2001.

There is only one other person, in fact a *mechanical* engineer, one
James
Marsen (not to be confused with historically important people, and the
actor, James _Marsden_), publishing at Academia.edu and ResearchGate
(the
former is a predatory publisher and suspicious [1], the latter is
not), who
has cited this paper so far (all other citations of it are by CC Su
himself):

<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10981528855933398754&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en&oi=gsb>



The abstract of Marsen's 2021 paper begins with

,-<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350190574_The_Local-Ether_Model_and_Quantum_Electromagnetics_Theories_of_Prof_Ching-Chuan_Su>


|
| This paper is intended to promote the work of the late Prof.
Ching-Chuan
| Su of the National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan. [...]

So apparently this weird idea of CC Su died with him in or before 2021.
Good riddance.

Marsen himself appears to be retired, too (he holds an MSc in Mechanical >>> Engineering from Columbia University, of which he states is an
"alumnus"),
and has published crackpot papers like "The Tron Theory: A novel
concept for
the Aether and Matter" which he publishd together with his brother (I
think)
who has no scientific credentials whatsoever (although probably also an
engineer).

There is evidence to suggest that he was a doctoral student who
worked on
tokamaks but then stopped pursuing that "for personal reasons":

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252333104_Experimental_and_theoretical_studies_of_high-beta_tokamaks>



<https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6227399> (p. 4)

As you can see, on ResearchGate he also published a "Conference Paper"
for a
meeting of the "John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society" --

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333865449_A_Michelson-Morley_Type_Experiment_Should_be_Performed_in_Low_Earth_Orbit_and_Interplanetary_Space>



-- an organization of and for science crackpots and pseudoscience:

,-<https://naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/index.php?title=John_Chappell_Natural_Philosophy_Society>


|
| The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) is a world-wide
think
| tank of critical thinkers made up of professors, PHDs, scientists,
| engineers, and layman who openly criticize mainstream physics and
| cosmology and who propose alternative theory, philosophy, and models.
| [...]
'
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having an alternative theory as >>> long as it *is* a theory, i.e. is *falsifiable*. But usually the ideas
circulating in those groups are not; they are more like an echo chamber
filled with and welcoming delusional armchair philosophers who have no
clue
what they are talking about. As you can also see here:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCIGsEQ2-g4>

[There this Franklin Hu (do look him up; his "Theory of Everything" is
hilarious, contrary to every experimental result so far that you can
think
of [2]) is actually literally claiming (at 4:04) that for best
reception you
would need a receiver antenna that has "basically the same kind of
antenna
shape" as the sending antenna of polarization (that is not so).
Obviously
he has never seen the *huge* sending antennas at a radio station or
mobile
phone towers, and compared that with the relatively *tiny* (and
completely
differently formed) antenna on a radio receiver or in a mobile phone.
*facepalm* (This, as a counter-example, is a hypothesis that *is*
falsifiable. One wonders then how he, claiming to argue
scientificially,
has never double-checked.)]

There is a very interesting monograph that analyzes this (fringe
scince, at
best) from a sociologist's perspective:

Collins, HM; Bartlett, A; Reyes-Galindo, LI (2016). The Ecology of
Fringe
Science and its Bearing on Policy. Working Paper.
<https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/123875/>

___
[0] AISB: pb|a pb|Y = ++reEb|a pb|a pb|Y = E-#/c-# reA p-# = m-#c-#
rco E-# = m-#crU| + p-#c-# = +| m c-# for p = +| m v for m rea 0 >>> rcA m_rel := +| m = +| mreC.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia.edu#Criticism>
[2] <https://franklinhu.com/theory.html>

A "doubly-objective relativity theory" is a simple account of a
mathematical theory of physics that: besides that motion is relative,
that space is relative.

The "relativity theory" is in a sense, as Einstein put it, a very
simple theory of a negative stipulation of absolutes. Einstein
basically says: "Motion? It's relative, ...". Here then making
for "what's good for motion is good for space", then makes models
of theories where either and both of motion and space are relative,
for example, that they're absolutes to each other.

Then, giving "space-frames" and "frame-spaces", makes plain "frames",
as it were, "obsolete". The "rest frame" and "relativistic frame"
of General Relativity are not "obsolete", except to SR-ians, who are,
at best, "incomplete".

This is sort of an account that SR-ians live in a lane of their own
making, where others have GR General Relativity first then SR, Special Relativity or Restricted Relativity, as a special case, and like
Einstein says, that "SR is local", and they should stay in it.

There are plainly wider concerns like the Mach-ian, the overall accounts
of truly potentialistic theories, the extra-local and
the extended, about which SR-ians are simply ignorant.

So, various accounts of Lorentzian invariance get involved usual
sorts ideas about the local (what's the metric / what's the norm)
and the extended (is it a point or a path).

Then, GR/SR and QM are each said to be proved out to 25+ orders
of decimal magnitude: while it's arrived at that they disagree
about 120+ orders of decimal magnitude, it's one of what's called
"the crisis" in physics, and neither of which have an account of
gravity, the oldest law.

(Lahn claims to ignore me since after establishing or correcting a
few points like how Majorana spinor makes two different kinds of
particles into each other or how the strong force is still in the
theory, then that after some of his ad hominem and the rage-baiting
I fed him the sinker after the loaded question and he rage-quit.)


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 29/04/2026 |a 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but without the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete concepts of "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that they -- or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the _Lorentz_ transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean* transformation.

Vor langer Zeit wies ich darauf hin, dass die Vorstellung relativistischer Masse absurd ist.

Viele lachten dar|+ber, so sehr hielten Physiker an diesem Konzept fest.

Ich erkl|nrte, dass Masse, wie Ladung, eine relativistische Invariante ist
und dass nicht die Masse mit der Geschwindigkeit variiert, sondern die Gesamtenergie gem|n|f der Gleichung E = mc-# * reU(1 + Vr-#/c-#).
Ich erkl|nrte, dass die |+blicherweise gemessenen Geschwindigkeiten als beobachtbare Geschwindigkeiten VreC bezeichnet werden sollten, aber nicht
die tats|nchlichen Relativgeschwindigkeiten Vr darstellen.

Und dass die entsprechende Gleichung VreC = Vr/reU(1+Vr-#/c-#) lautet.

Das sage ich seit vierzig Jahren.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:

<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010>

Junk that should never have been published.
Maybe that is why the author submitted it
to a series where it is off-topic,

Jan
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 29/04/2026 |a 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and
general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but without >> the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete concepts of >> "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that they -- >> or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the _Lorentz_ >> transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean*
transformation.

Vor langer Zeit wies ich darauf hin, dass die Vorstellung relativistischer Masse absurd ist.

I have no idea why you are suddenly writing in German (although it is grammatically correct which is quite an accomplishment for a non-native speaker; did you write it yourself?). Are you trying to return the favor because I, being German, wrote in French in fr.ALL? :)

If so, thanks, but I can assure you that I speak English fluently, and since this is an international newsgroup, I prefer to write in English so that
many people understand what I am writing.

Viele lachten dar|+ber, so sehr hielten Physiker an diesem Konzept fest.

Actually, the concept of "relativistic mass" has been phased out of
university Physics classes at least since 2020 when I studied special relativity for the first time at university (I had taken an online course on
SR before, which also was very good -- and led to my university studies --,
but the subject of mass never came up there, IIRC).

See also:

Fermilab: Is relativistic mass real? <https://youtu.be/LTJauaefTZM?si=qWETjZORdUM6uppm>

(Coincidentally, that was published almost 9 years ago, the year before I started studying Physics.)

Ich erkl|nrte, dass Masse, wie Ladung, eine relativistische Invariante ist und dass nicht die Masse mit der Geschwindigkeit variiert, sondern die Gesamtenergie

That much is correct.

gem|n|f der Gleichung E = mc-# * reU(1 + Vr-#/c-#).

That's nonsense, as you have been told /ad nauseam/ (including by me) already.

If you care to read the footnote, you find that because of the Minkowski
metric it is

E = m c^2/reU(1 - v^2/c^2),

where v is the relative speed, instead. But only if the mass m is not zero.
In general (without potential energy),

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2.

That is also why your equation must be wrong: it is NOT a special case of
the equation that works for *all* masses (including mass zero).

Das sage ich seit vierzig Jahren.

Yes, you have been claiming the same nonsense for 40 years now, despite all attempts to correct you. I vaguely remember discussions containing your
"Vr" from ca. 5 years ago.

Will you ever learn?
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 4/30/2026 3:31 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Actually, the concept of "relativistic mass" has been phased out of university Physics classes at least since 2020 when I studied special

And no surprise. It was making your lies
of alleged falsifying Newton's prejudices
much more impudent.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:

Le 29/04/2026 |a 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but without
the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete concepts of "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that they --
or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the _Lorentz_
transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean* transformation.

Vor langer Zeit wies ich darauf hin, dass die Vorstellung relativistischer Masse absurd ist.

Viele lachten dar|+ber, so sehr hielten Physiker an diesem Konzept fest.

Ich erkl|nrte, dass Masse, wie Ladung, eine relativistische Invariante ist und dass nicht die Masse mit der Geschwindigkeit variiert, sondern die Gesamtenergie gem|n|f der Gleichung E = mc? * reU(1 + Vr?/c?).
Ich erkl|nrte, dass die |+blicherweise gemessenen Geschwindigkeiten als beobachtbare Geschwindigkeiten V? bezeichnet werden sollten, aber nicht
die tats|nchlichen Relativgeschwindigkeiten Vr darstellen.

Und dass die entsprechende Gleichung V? = Vr/reU(1+Vr?/c?) lautet.

Das sage ich seit vierzig Jahren.

Still forty years late,

Jan

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Am Donnerstag000030, 30.04.2026 um 03:31 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 29/04/2026 |a 11:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit :

amirjf wrote:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100510170010

Did you notice the c's in there? This paper is like denying special and >>> general relativity while arguing based on them at the same time, but without
the author noticing it. Also, they are using the long-obsolete concepts of >>> "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", but again without noticing that they --
or rather their proper interpretations -- are a consequence of the _Lorentz_
transformation [0], while their argument is based on the *Galilean*
transformation.

Vor langer Zeit wies ich darauf hin, dass die Vorstellung relativistischer >> Masse absurd ist.

I have no idea why you are suddenly writing in German (although it is grammatically correct which is quite an accomplishment for a non-native speaker; did you write it yourself?). Are you trying to return the favor because I, being German, wrote in French in fr.ALL? :)

If so, thanks, but I can assure you that I speak English fluently, and since this is an international newsgroup, I prefer to write in English so that
many people understand what I am writing.

Viele lachten dar|+ber, so sehr hielten Physiker an diesem Konzept fest.

Actually, the concept of "relativistic mass" has been phased out of university Physics classes at least since 2020 when I studied special relativity for the first time at university (I had taken an online course on SR before, which also was very good -- and led to my university studies --, but the subject of mass never came up there, IIRC).

See also:

Fermilab: Is relativistic mass real? <https://youtu.be/LTJauaefTZM?si=qWETjZORdUM6uppm>

(Coincidentally, that was published almost 9 years ago, the year before I started studying Physics.)

I don't like that guy, because I regard it as bad idea to start a video
with the name 'Einstein' and to wear silk pritend nonsense on a black
t-shirt, while doing so.

I also dislike how that guy uses his blackboard, because it looks like a
total mess.

I also dislike his sinister looks and how he makes gestures with his
hands (like a socerer, who tries to teach flames how to burn).
...


TH
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2