Strange

Quite. It is unbelievable that you would claim this.

It doesn't really need a name. And if it does, it should have a meaningful one. That doesn't tell me what "LAN" is. Can we assume it is a constant? (Again, given a meaningless name.) If so, why not say that. No it isn't. You use the term several times but never explain what it is. I assume you mean "1s orbital". But again, why not say that. No, they really aren't. I don't care about your "theory"(*). I am just trying to help you understand why it is incomprehensible and no one will spend their time trying to decipher it. (*) It is, I assume, just arbitrary curve fitting. It is obviously nonsense because it is posted to vixra and a science forum, rather than submitted to a scientific journal.

This question does not have a "yes/no" answer. It depends which frame of reference you are using to measure OV, OC, VC and v. You appear to be using the same frame of reference for all of them, which is not useful if you want to show the difference between two frames of reference. Or you may be mixing frames of reference, it isn't clear, in which case no answer is possible. But that will do! This is not deviating from the subject. It is attempting to explain the basic principles of SR yo you in order that you can understand the answer to your original question. You cannot dictate how people try to explain things to you. Otherwise you will never learn.

1. What is the "Relation of Riquelme de Gozy"? (Who or what is a "Riquelme de Gozy"?) 2. What is "LAN Theory"? (what does LAN stand for?) 3. What is a "central line"? 4. What is the "electronic origin system"? If you make up terms and don't define them, your description becomes incomprehensible.

Chlorine doesn't kill the bacteria that cause disease. It just makes them encyst so they are not detected. They are still viable and any toxins they create can still be present. Also, there should be no need for this. It is mainly a substitute for good animal welfare practices. By packing more chickens into pens you can make more money, but you increase the disease burden which then needs to be treated.

Sadly, that seems to be true. You really should have understood all this before launching an attack on SR. (Although if you understood all this, presumably you wouldn't need to attack SR.) Here is a typical problem of the beginner: not being clear about frames of reference. It might be better to refer to this new reference frame as S' to distinguish it from the stationary frame S. Because, for example, when you say that S' is moving with velocity v, you need to say what that velocity is relative to. I assume it is relative to the stationary frame S. And the rest of your argument falls into the same trap: you are drawing and measuring everything as seen from S, not as seen in S'. For example, in your third diagram, you show the distance ravelled by light as measured in the stationary frame S, not the frame S'. That is why the distance OC has not changed. As measured in the moving frame S', the distance light travels in unit time will be a distance OC from S'; in other words, the light travels the same distance as measured in S' as it does in S.I have shown this in the diagram below. The distance light travels as seen in frame S' is O'C' (red).

Yes.

Because theory confirmed by observation. ! Moderator Note Thread closed

True. But then again, the diagram doesn't represent length contraction or time dilation. I might see if I can label it better, though... (Done)

But you have drawn a diagram from only one frame of reference (which is neither of the two rockets). Yes. Which is why, when you draw multiple frames of reference, you get the diagram shown by Ghideon. Here is an attempt to extend your diagram to add the frames of reference of each of the two rockets. It shows how far the rockets have gone in each frame of reference (upper arrows) and how far the light would have travelled in each frame of reference (lower arrows). Note that in each of the rockets' frames of reference, the distance between the rocket and the wavefront of the light is different. Understanding the invariance of c is absolutely fundamental to understanding SR (and therefore the Lorentz transform). Here is another version that moves the origins of the frames of reference, so it is more like Ghideon's diagram.

This is bizarre: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/05/politics/kfile-royals-trump/index.html (It wasn't true. It was just one of many rumours that he "leaked" to the papers to get publicity.)

Donald Trump likes it, so it must be really great. The best.

Your diagram only shows one frame of reference. In the way shown in Ghideon's diagram.

You say that special relativity is wrong, therefore you are claiming that quantum field theory is wrong. (Which means that the transistors in your computer don't work.)

You can't be surprised by that. You are claiming that one of the best tested theories is wrong. Actually, two of the best tested theories are wrong: you are also saying that quantum field theory is wrong. The fact you now realise you made a silly mistake but are too embarrassed to admit it?

Some people like the Transformers movies. That doesn't make them good.

! Moderator Note This is so brief, it is meaningless. Please explain what you are trying to say. Also, why is this in Religion? You mention physics and chemistry, neither of which have anything to do with religion. Unless you can clarify what the point of this thread is, it will be closed.

I remember (half-remember) a discussion on another forum that you can do a coordinate transform from our usual "expanding space" model to "slowing time"(*). But it isn't used because it is less intuitive (to most people) and introduces complications like a variable speed of light. Of course, you need something to explain why the rate of change (whether expansion, time, or size) has increased. We can explain this with "dark energy" (even though we don't know what that is). Changing coordinates to another system doesn't solve that problem. You can obviously tweak your grid model to make it reproduce the effects we observe, but then it just becomes an ad-hoc model, rather than an explanation. (*) actually, wouldn't time have to be getting faster so that photons from the past appear to have a lower frequency?

The thread is not closed. I assume you are just saying that because you have no answer to this simple mathematical explanation of your error. You obviously started out with an assumption that SR was wrong (I don't know why) and then tried to find some pseudo-mathematical reason to reject it. Unfortunately, science doesn't work that way. SR has been subject to over 100 years of analysis and testing. It works. I assume another derivation of the Lorentz transform would be from the Einstein Field Equations, by taking the low energy limit. (But it would probably require someone with more mathematical knowledge than is currently contributing to this thread - apologies to swansont if I am underestimating him! Where is Markus Hanke when you need him !?)

And robert.brown

I haven't come across "to golf" as a verb before. Is that an American or Canadian thing? Or just golfers? Or just the Interwebz?

Are you sure you're not confusing your hairdresser with your lawnmower? I remember seeing something years ago that all that twisting (and always in the same direction) was not good for the back

Or you could play pool or snooker and avoid the worry about hurricanes.

The only game you can win by being below par. It is a bit sad that "wandering slowly around a lawn hitting things with sticks" is back in the Olympics.

No more than one needs to when learning a foreign language. For example, Japanese use pitch in a similar way to the way English uses stress within words to distinguish meanings (eg record has different stress when use as a verb and as a noun). So, sake the drink has no pitch change but sake meaning salmon starts with a higher pitch on the first syllable.