On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:37:47 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 26-okt.-2021 om 19:11 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> >> ...nothing of relevance...
> >
> > To Dirk:
> I did not write the above.
> > Thanks for the cites, but I'm too busy to study the whole book right now. Too bad neither book was published before I started college courses. But with your familiarity, you should have no trouble identifying where something I wrote runs afoul of the text. Page number, please?
> >
> >
> >
> There is no need to study whole books.
> I did not ask you to study whole books.
> You should find a way to properly reply to *anyone* under *their*
> messages, and thus to *me* under *my* messages.
>
> Dirk Vdm

You could have just told me to click on the arrow instead of implying that it is my duty to make your life easier. In any case, so what? I only asked you to pick a topic in my post and identify which principle it violates. And as far as the two examples you chose for me to compare to, both are irrelevant. They apply to Minkowski geometry, pseudo-Euclidean geometry. I am working in Euclidean geometry, period. In case it hasn't sunk in, the rules are different in the two isomorphisms. I opted for Euclidean precisely because of that. If you want to argue dogma from Minkowski geometry, you're on the wrong thread.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:37:47 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 26-okt.-2021 om 19:11 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> >> ...nothing of relevance...
> >
> > To Dirk:
> I did not write the above.
> > Thanks for the cites, but I'm too busy to study the whole book right now. Too bad neither book was published before I started college courses. But with your familiarity, you should have no trouble identifying where something I wrote runs afoul of the text. Page number, please?
> >
> >
> >
> There is no need to study whole books.
> I did not ask you to study whole books.
> You should find a way to properly reply to *anyone* under *their*
> messages, and thus to *me* under *my* messages.
>
> Dirk Vdm
to Dirk Vdm:

You could have told me to click on the arrow instead of berating me for being unfamiliar with the process. My "Reply to Author" button was grayed out, and I can't trim previous comments. I didn't know that button was for email replies. My answers to you will now be directed straight at you. Like the fact that the two examples you supplied links for are both irrelevant, because they apply to Minkowski geometry, pseudo-Euclidean geometry. In case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about Euclidean relativity. The rules are different, and I work in Euclidean geometry for that very reason. If you want to argue dogma from Minkowski geometry, you're on the wrong thread.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:32:55 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 15:12:53 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical effects (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time dilation, twin paradox, etc. etc.).
>
> > That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a measurable illusion. The only difference between stationary observations of the illusion of reality and relatively moving observations of the illusions of relativity is that the complex phase angle for the stationary observer is 0, and the projection cosine is 1. When there is relativistic velocity involved, the phase angle is not 0, and the cosine projection is less than 1. The sine projection defines this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle). With this definition, the Lorentz factor, γ, equals the secant of the phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there is to relativity.
> Both SR and GR are geometrical models. Hafele-Keating experiments, showed that flown atomic clocks elapsed times (whose ticking rates do not change while moving relative to the control clock) were different to the elapsed time of the ground atomic clock in total agreement with GR.
> The geometry of spacetime clearly affects the elapsed time of clocks.
To Paparios:
What's your point? I agree that the elapsed time of clocks is measurable, and that it is the real projection of invariant complex time. As such, it varies with relative velocity. I make no claim about GR.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:44:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> >> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:22:28 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> >>> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Einstein asserted the invariance of the speed of light and he asserted
> >> the dilation of time and the contraction of length, things which are
> >> contradicted by a grid of light lines, which do not change for relative
> >> velocity. In Minkowski geometry, these contradictions vanish, at the
> >> price of rubber units that flutter around in the wind. In Euclidean
> >> geometry, the paradox is resolved by the fact that both time dilation
> >> and length contraction are pure illusions, illusions we can measure, but
> >> illusions nonetheless. Nothing actually shrinks, but the effect of
> >> relativistic spacetime causes the illusion all by itself.
> >> What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical effects
> >> (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time dilation,
> >> twin paradox, etc. etc.).
> >
> > That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not
> > mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a measurable
> > illusion. The only difference between stationary observations of the
> > illusion of reality and relatively moving observations of the illusions
> > of relativity is that the complex phase angle for the stationary observer
> > is 0, and the projection cosine is 1. When there is relativistic velocity
> > involved, the phase angle is not 0, and the cosine projection is less
> > than 1. The sine projection defines this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle).
> > With this definition, the Lorentz factor, γ, equals the secant of the
> > phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there is to relativity.
> >
> To this, there is a very important physical principle. If a hypothesis
> involves no distinct *measurable* consequences, then it is for all intents
> and purposes useless in physics, though it may be entertaining
> metaphysically. As an example of this, back when people thought neutrinos
> were massless, the only interaction that neutrinos would ever engage in was
> the weak interaction. But the weak interaction is inherently left-handed.
> So only left-handed neutrinos participate. The hypothesis then arise about
> whether there could be right-handed neutrinos as well, if only for the sake
> of symmetry. But right handed neutrinos have NO interaction they can
> participate in. The have no mass, so gravity is out. No charge, so
> electromagnetism is out. No color, so the nuclear strong force is out. And
> the are right-handed so the weak interaction is out. They are called
> “sterile neutrinos” because though they might (invisibly) exist, they
> participate in no interactions at all and so cannot have no bearing in any
> theory which purports to explain nature. They therefore have no rightful
> place in any physical theory, because their existence is not testable in
> any way. It is literally a useless idea.
>
> In much the same way, you are proposing a length of a moving object that
> CANNOT be measured and makes no DISTINCTIVE predictions compared to
> relativity. It is a useless idea in physics, even if you find it somehow
> appealing on some other non physical grounds.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

To bodkin:
It is your opinion that I present a "useless idea", but logically that is irrelevant. Until you have tried every possible approach, including ones that haven't been thought of yet, you have no basis to call it useless. On the other hand, I claim that this unmeasurable distance can be differentiated to produce an unmeasurable velocity. And this can be multiplied by an invariant scalar, mass, to produce an unmeasurable momentum. Except that when the object or particle slams into a target inelastically, it dumps ALL of its momentum, both Newtonian and unmeasurable. It is the source of the excess relativistic momentum not accounted for by Newton's formula. The momentum that physics "experts" once claimed was the result of fictional relativistic mass. So, excuse me if I pay no more attention to your opinions.

El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 15:12:53 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> > El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:22:28 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> > > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Einstein asserted the invariance of the speed of light and he asserted the dilation of time and the contraction of length, things which are contradicted by a grid of light lines, which do not change for relative velocity. In Minkowski geometry, these contradictions vanish, at the price of rubber units that flutter around in the wind. In Euclidean geometry, the paradox is resolved by the fact that both time dilation and length contraction are pure illusions, illusions we can measure, but illusions nonetheless. Nothing actually shrinks, but the effect of relativistic spacetime causes the illusion all by itself.

> > What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical effects (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time dilation, twin paradox, etc. etc.).

> That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a measurable illusion. The only difference between stationary observations of the illusion of reality and relatively moving observations of the illusions of relativity is that the complex phase angle for the stationary observer is 0, and the projection cosine is 1. When there is relativistic velocity involved, the phase angle is not 0, and the cosine projection is less than 1. The sine projection defines this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle). With this definition, the Lorentz factor, γ, equals the secant of the phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there is to relativity.

Physicists care for precise measurements, which is the only way to falsify a model. "Illusions" have not any role in physics. Your "reality itself is a measurable illusion" is complete nonsense.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:44:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:22:28 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
>>>>> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein asserted the invariance of the speed of light and he asserted
>>>> the dilation of time and the contraction of length, things which are
>>>> contradicted by a grid of light lines, which do not change for relative
>>>> velocity. In Minkowski geometry, these contradictions vanish, at the
>>>> price of rubber units that flutter around in the wind. In Euclidean
>>>> geometry, the paradox is resolved by the fact that both time dilation
>>>> and length contraction are pure illusions, illusions we can measure, but
>>>> illusions nonetheless. Nothing actually shrinks, but the effect of
>>>> relativistic spacetime causes the illusion all by itself.
>>>> What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical effects
>>>> (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time dilation,
>>>> twin paradox, etc. etc.).
>>>
>>> That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not
>>> mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a measurable
>>> illusion. The only difference between stationary observations of the
>>> illusion of reality and relatively moving observations of the illusions
>>> of relativity is that the complex phase angle for the stationary observer
>>> is 0, and the projection cosine is 1. When there is relativistic velocity
>>> involved, the phase angle is not 0, and the cosine projection is less
>>> than 1. The sine projection defines this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle).
>>> With this definition, the Lorentz factor, γ, equals the secant of the
>>> phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there is to relativity.
>>>
>> To this, there is a very important physical principle. If a hypothesis
>> involves no distinct *measurable* consequences, then it is for all intents
>> and purposes useless in physics, though it may be entertaining
>> metaphysically. As an example of this, back when people thought neutrinos
>> were massless, the only interaction that neutrinos would ever engage in was
>> the weak interaction. But the weak interaction is inherently left-handed.
>> So only left-handed neutrinos participate. The hypothesis then arise about
>> whether there could be right-handed neutrinos as well, if only for the sake
>> of symmetry. But right handed neutrinos have NO interaction they can
>> participate in. The have no mass, so gravity is out. No charge, so
>> electromagnetism is out. No color, so the nuclear strong force is out. And
>> the are right-handed so the weak interaction is out. They are called
>> “sterile neutrinos” because though they might (invisibly) exist, they
>> participate in no interactions at all and so cannot have no bearing in any
>> theory which purports to explain nature. They therefore have no rightful
>> place in any physical theory, because their existence is not testable in
>> any way. It is literally a useless idea.
>>
>> In much the same way, you are proposing a length of a moving object that
>> CANNOT be measured and makes no DISTINCTIVE predictions compared to
>> relativity. It is a useless idea in physics, even if you find it somehow
>> appealing on some other non physical grounds.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> To bodkin:
> It is your opinion that I present a "useless idea", but logically that is
> irrelevant. Until you have tried every possible approach, including ones
> that haven't been thought of yet, you have no basis to call it useless.

Yes I do have a basis which I described to you. Physics considers useless
any idea that does not provide a distinctive measurable signature. Period,
end of story. It doesn’t matter whether you wish it were different. It
doesn’t matter if you think it’s physicists’ loss if they don’t consider
all ideas from all comers.

> On the other hand, I claim that this unmeasurable distance can be
> differentiated to produce an unmeasurable velocity. And this can be
> multiplied by an invariant scalar, mass, to produce an unmeasurable
> momentum. Except that when the object or particle slams into a target
> inelastically, it dumps ALL of its momentum, both Newtonian and
> unmeasurable. It is the source of the excess relativistic momentum not
> accounted for by Newton's formula.

That is not a distinctive signature. It’s simply an “alternate explanation”
of something already quantitatively accounted for by relativity. Because it
does not provide a distinctive experimental signature, it is by the metric
already described, useless.

> The momentum that physics "experts" once claimed was the result of
> fictional relativistic mass. So, excuse me if I pay no more attention to your opinions.
>

Well, fine, dismiss my “opinions” if you wish. You will find no scientific
audience that has a different view. Pitching a snit may feel momentarily
gratifying but what will it gain you?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 15:12:53 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> > > El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:22:28 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> > > > On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Einstein asserted the invariance of the speed of light and he asserted the dilation of time and the contraction of length, things which are contradicted by a grid of light lines, which do not change for relative velocity. In Minkowski geometry, these contradictions vanish, at the price of rubber units that flutter around in the wind. In Euclidean geometry, the paradox is resolved by the fact that both time dilation and length contraction are pure illusions, illusions we can measure, but illusions nonetheless. Nothing actually shrinks, but the effect of relativistic spacetime causes the illusion all by itself.
>
> > > What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical effects (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time dilation, twin paradox, etc. etc.).
>
> > That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a measurable illusion. The only difference between stationary observations of the illusion of reality and relatively moving observations of the illusions of relativity is that the complex phase angle for the stationary observer is 0, and the projection cosine is 1. When there is relativistic velocity involved, the phase angle is not 0, and the cosine projection is less than 1. The sine projection defines this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle). With this definition, the Lorentz factor, γ, equals the secant of the phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there is to relativity.
> Physicists care for precise measurements, which is the only way to falsify a model. "Illusions" have not any role in physics. Your "reality itself is a measurable illusion" is complete nonsense.

To Paparios:
That's just your opinion. Besides, caring for precise measurements is hardly the same thing as caring for truth. In any case, it is also not true that the only way to "falsify a model" is with precise measurements. Remember, it was Galileo who proved that all masses fall at the same rate. He did so using logic, and the proof by contradiction technique in a thought experiment. Even with the best available equipment, measurements would not have been proof, only confirmation. Your last remark is foolish. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Which one is the illusion? No role in physics? That's nonsense.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 5:58:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:44:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> >>>> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:22:28 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail..com escribió:
> >>>>> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein asserted the invariance of the speed of light and he asserted
> >>>> the dilation of time and the contraction of length, things which are
> >>>> contradicted by a grid of light lines, which do not change for relative
> >>>> velocity. In Minkowski geometry, these contradictions vanish, at the
> >>>> price of rubber units that flutter around in the wind. In Euclidean
> >>>> geometry, the paradox is resolved by the fact that both time dilation
> >>>> and length contraction are pure illusions, illusions we can measure, but
> >>>> illusions nonetheless. Nothing actually shrinks, but the effect of
> >>>> relativistic spacetime causes the illusion all by itself.
> >>>> What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical effects
> >>>> (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time dilation,
> >>>> twin paradox, etc. etc.).
> >>>
> >>> That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not
> >>> mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a measurable
> >>> illusion. The only difference between stationary observations of the
> >>> illusion of reality and relatively moving observations of the illusions
> >>> of relativity is that the complex phase angle for the stationary observer
> >>> is 0, and the projection cosine is 1. When there is relativistic velocity
> >>> involved, the phase angle is not 0, and the cosine projection is less
> >>> than 1. The sine projection defines this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle).
> >>> With this definition, the Lorentz factor, γ, equals the secant of the
> >>> phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there is to relativity.
> >>>
> >> To this, there is a very important physical principle. If a hypothesis
> >> involves no distinct *measurable* consequences, then it is for all intents
> >> and purposes useless in physics, though it may be entertaining
> >> metaphysically. As an example of this, back when people thought neutrinos
> >> were massless, the only interaction that neutrinos would ever engage in was
> >> the weak interaction. But the weak interaction is inherently left-handed.
> >> So only left-handed neutrinos participate. The hypothesis then arise about
> >> whether there could be right-handed neutrinos as well, if only for the sake
> >> of symmetry. But right handed neutrinos have NO interaction they can
> >> participate in. The have no mass, so gravity is out. No charge, so
> >> electromagnetism is out. No color, so the nuclear strong force is out. And
> >> the are right-handed so the weak interaction is out. They are called
> >> “sterile neutrinos” because though they might (invisibly) exist, they
> >> participate in no interactions at all and so cannot have no bearing in any
> >> theory which purports to explain nature. They therefore have no rightful
> >> place in any physical theory, because their existence is not testable in
> >> any way. It is literally a useless idea.
> >>
> >> In much the same way, you are proposing a length of a moving object that
> >> CANNOT be measured and makes no DISTINCTIVE predictions compared to
> >> relativity. It is a useless idea in physics, even if you find it somehow
> >> appealing on some other non physical grounds.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > To bodkin:
> > It is your opinion that I present a "useless idea", but logically that is
> > irrelevant. Until you have tried every possible approach, including ones
> > that haven't been thought of yet, you have no basis to call it useless.
> Yes I do have a basis which I described to you. Physics considers useless
> any idea that does not provide a distinctive measurable signature. Period,
> end of story. It doesn’t matter whether you wish it were different. It
> doesn’t matter if you think it’s physicists’ loss if they don’t consider
> all ideas from all comers.
> > On the other hand, I claim that this unmeasurable distance can be
> > differentiated to produce an unmeasurable velocity. And this can be
> > multiplied by an invariant scalar, mass, to produce an unmeasurable
> > momentum. Except that when the object or particle slams into a target
> > inelastically, it dumps ALL of its momentum, both Newtonian and
> > unmeasurable. It is the source of the excess relativistic momentum not
> > accounted for by Newton's formula.
> That is not a distinctive signature. It’s simply an “alternate explanation”
> of something already quantitatively accounted for by relativity. Because it
> does not provide a distinctive experimental signature, it is by the metric
> already described, useless.
> > The momentum that physics "experts" once claimed was the result of
> > fictional relativistic mass. So, excuse me if I pay no more attention to your opinions.
> >
> Well, fine, dismiss my “opinions” if you wish. You will find no scientific
> audience that has a different view. Pitching a snit may feel momentarily
> gratifying but what will it gain you?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

To bodkin:
My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics. Then, when they are fed the same old crap by teachers, they will recognize it for what it is. That "scientific audience" you posit is too far gone. I don't need your agreement , or theirs, to pursue my objective. By the way, you make the claim that special relativity accounts for excess relativistic momentum. Since it is not relativistic mass, please let us in on the secret.

Op 26-okt.-2021 om 21:54 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:37:47 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 26-okt.-2021 om 19:11 schreef Tom Capizzi:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>>>> ...nothing of relevance...
>>>
>>> To Dirk:
>> I did not write the above.
>>> Thanks for the cites, but I'm too busy to study the whole book right now. Too bad neither book was published before I started college courses. But with your familiarity, you should have no trouble identifying where something I wrote runs afoul of the text. Page number, please?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There is no need to study whole books.
>> I did not ask you to study whole books.
>> You should find a way to properly reply to *anyone* under *their*
>> messages, and thus to *me* under *my* messages.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> You could have just told me to click on the arrow instead of implying that it is my duty to make your life easier. In any case, so what? I only asked you to pick a topic in my post and identify which principle it violates. And as far as the two examples you chose for me to compare to, both are irrelevant. They apply to Minkowski geometry, pseudo-Euclidean geometry. I am working in Euclidean geometry, period. In case it hasn't sunk in, the rules are different in the two isomorphisms. I opted for Euclidean precisely because of that. If you want to argue dogma from Minkowski geometry, you're on the wrong thread.
>

You had written:

| "I should ignore this troll, too, but eigenvalues are integral
| to the discussion of Bondi k-calculus and eigenvector
| decomposition, and none of the other responses listed them
| correctly.
| | I clearly did not invent them, but I've never seen them applied
| to Lorentz before."

So I gave two examples of them "being applied to Lorentz", whatever
you want people to think you might possibly have in mind. Did it
take you really 50 years to come here with that kind of splodge?

Dirk Vdm

El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:07:52 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:

> > Physicists care for precise measurements, which is the only way to falsify a model. "Illusions" have not any role in physics. Your "reality itself is a measurable illusion" is complete nonsense.

> To Paparios:
> That's just your opinion. Besides, caring for precise measurements is hardly the same thing as caring for truth.

Physicists can only build models to explain what Nature does. We really do not know why and how Nature does its job. You are mixing physical models with the world which is nonsensical.

>In any case, it is also not true that the only way to "falsify a model" is with precise measurements. Remember, it was Galileo who proved that all masses >fall at the same rate. He did so using logic, and the proof by contradiction technique in a thought experiment.

In fact Galileo was an experimenter. He threw down different objects (with different masses) from the Tower of Pisa, to show they all experimented the same acceleration (within the limits of accuracy of his time).

>Even with the best available equipment, measurements would not have been proof, only confirmation.

Wrong, all physical models (within their domain of applicability) predict some results. If an experiment is performed and those predictions are not observed, then the model is falsified and a new one have to be formulated.

>Your last remark is foolish. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Which one is the illusion? No role in physics? That's nonsense.

Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again, Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts to more or less explain how Nature works.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 15:12:53 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:22:28 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
>>>>> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein asserted the invariance of the speed of light and he asserted
>>>> the dilation of time and the contraction of length, things which are
>>>> contradicted by a grid of light lines, which do not change for
>>>> relative velocity. In Minkowski geometry, these contradictions vanish,
>>>> at the price of rubber units that flutter around in the wind. In
>>>> Euclidean geometry, the paradox is resolved by the fact that both time
>>>> dilation and length contraction are pure illusions, illusions we can
>>>> measure, but illusions nonetheless. Nothing actually shrinks, but the
>>>> effect of relativistic spacetime causes the illusion all by itself.
>>
>>>> What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical
>>>> effects (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time
>>>> dilation, twin paradox, etc. etc.).
>>
>>> That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not
>>> mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a
>>> measurable illusion. The only difference between stationary
>>> observations of the illusion of reality and relatively moving
>>> observations of the illusions of relativity is that the complex phase
>>> angle for the stationary observer is 0, and the projection cosine is 1.
>>> When there is relativistic velocity involved, the phase angle is not 0,
>>> and the cosine projection is less than 1. The sine projection defines
>>> this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle). With this definition, the Lorentz
>>> factor, γ, equals the secant of the phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or
>>> cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there is to relativity.
>> Physicists care for precise measurements, which is the only way to
>> falsify a model. "Illusions" have not any role in physics. Your "reality
>> itself is a measurable illusion" is complete nonsense.
>
> To Paparios:
> That's just your opinion. Besides, caring for precise measurements is
> hardly the same thing as caring for truth. In any case, it is also not
> true that the only way to "falsify a model" is with precise measurements.
> Remember, it was Galileo who proved that all masses fall at the same
> rate. He did so using logic, and the proof by contradiction technique in
> a thought experiment.

He did no such thing. He made an argument that followed from certain
precepts, certainly, but logic can prove nothing in science. No theory is
ever proven in science. They are only validated provisionally in
experiment. I’m guessing you’re having a hard time with distinguishing
science from philosophy.

> Even with the best available equipment, measurements would not have been
> proof, only confirmation. Your last remark is foolish. Is it a particle
> or is it a wave? Which one is the illusion?

Neither. Neither description matches observed reality, which is why a NEW
description was called for — a quantum field.

Again a false dichotomy that springs from an unfortunate lack of
acquaintance with 2nd year physics.

> No role in physics? That's nonsense.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 5:58:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 2:44:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:24:02 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:22:28 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:06:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein asserted the invariance of the speed of light and he asserted
>>>>>> the dilation of time and the contraction of length, things which are
>>>>>> contradicted by a grid of light lines, which do not change for relative
>>>>>> velocity. In Minkowski geometry, these contradictions vanish, at the
>>>>>> price of rubber units that flutter around in the wind. In Euclidean
>>>>>> geometry, the paradox is resolved by the fact that both time dilation
>>>>>> and length contraction are pure illusions, illusions we can measure, but
>>>>>> illusions nonetheless. Nothing actually shrinks, but the effect of
>>>>>> relativistic spacetime causes the illusion all by itself.
>>>>>> What you call "illusions" have very real measurable and physical effects
>>>>>> (see gravitational redshift and blueshift, gravitational time dilation,
>>>>>> twin paradox, etc. etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's kind of my point. Just because something is measurable does not
>>>>> mean it is not also an illusion. In fact, reality itself is a measurable
>>>>> illusion. The only difference between stationary observations of the
>>>>> illusion of reality and relatively moving observations of the illusions
>>>>> of relativity is that the complex phase angle for the stationary observer
>>>>> is 0, and the projection cosine is 1. When there is relativistic velocity
>>>>> involved, the phase angle is not 0, and the cosine projection is less
>>>>> than 1. The sine projection defines this phase angle as v/c = sin(angle).
>>>>> With this definition, the Lorentz factor, γ, equals the secant of the
>>>>> phase angle, which is 1/cosine, or cosine = 1/γ. And that's all there
>>>>> is to relativity.
>>>>>
>>>> To this, there is a very important physical principle. If a hypothesis
>>>> involves no distinct *measurable* consequences, then it is for all intents
>>>> and purposes useless in physics, though it may be entertaining
>>>> metaphysically. As an example of this, back when people thought neutrinos
>>>> were massless, the only interaction that neutrinos would ever engage in was
>>>> the weak interaction. But the weak interaction is inherently left-handed.
>>>> So only left-handed neutrinos participate. The hypothesis then arise about
>>>> whether there could be right-handed neutrinos as well, if only for the sake
>>>> of symmetry. But right handed neutrinos have NO interaction they can
>>>> participate in. The have no mass, so gravity is out. No charge, so
>>>> electromagnetism is out. No color, so the nuclear strong force is out. And
>>>> the are right-handed so the weak interaction is out. They are called
>>>> “sterile neutrinos” because though they might (invisibly) exist, they
>>>> participate in no interactions at all and so cannot have no bearing in any
>>>> theory which purports to explain nature. They therefore have no rightful
>>>> place in any physical theory, because their existence is not testable in
>>>> any way. It is literally a useless idea.
>>>>
>>>> In much the same way, you are proposing a length of a moving object that
>>>> CANNOT be measured and makes no DISTINCTIVE predictions compared to
>>>> relativity. It is a useless idea in physics, even if you find it somehow
>>>> appealing on some other non physical grounds.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> To bodkin:
>>> It is your opinion that I present a "useless idea", but logically that is
>>> irrelevant. Until you have tried every possible approach, including ones
>>> that haven't been thought of yet, you have no basis to call it useless.
>> Yes I do have a basis which I described to you. Physics considers useless
>> any idea that does not provide a distinctive measurable signature. Period,
>> end of story. It doesn’t matter whether you wish it were different. It
>> doesn’t matter if you think it’s physicists’ loss if they don’t consider
>> all ideas from all comers.
>>> On the other hand, I claim that this unmeasurable distance can be
>>> differentiated to produce an unmeasurable velocity. And this can be
>>> multiplied by an invariant scalar, mass, to produce an unmeasurable
>>> momentum. Except that when the object or particle slams into a target
>>> inelastically, it dumps ALL of its momentum, both Newtonian and
>>> unmeasurable. It is the source of the excess relativistic momentum not
>>> accounted for by Newton's formula.
>> That is not a distinctive signature. It’s simply an “alternate explanation”
>> of something already quantitatively accounted for by relativity. Because it
>> does not provide a distinctive experimental signature, it is by the metric
>> already described, useless.
>>> The momentum that physics "experts" once claimed was the result of
>>> fictional relativistic mass. So, excuse me if I pay no more attention to your opinions.
>>>
>> Well, fine, dismiss my “opinions” if you wish. You will find no scientific
>> audience that has a different view. Pitching a snit may feel momentarily
>> gratifying but what will it gain you?
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> To bodkin:
> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics.

Now you are wandering headlong into the Crackpot Index (Google it).

Education is not brainwashing. Lack of education in physics does not give
you an advantage, it does not free you from biases to have exceptional
insights.

You will find no “future scientific revolutionaries” by posting here. Nor
will your ideas live for an eternity to be discovered decades from now by
budding scientists digging through archives for fresh ideas. I could give
you a few “treatises” to try to look up from previous posters hoping for
the same thing you’re hoping for, and you’d be perhaps shocked to find
nothing but digital dust.

> Then, when they are fed the same old crap by teachers, they will
> recognize it for what it is. That "scientific audience" you posit is too
> far gone. I don't need your agreement , or theirs, to pursue my
> objective. By the way, you make the claim that special relativity
> accounts for excess relativistic momentum. Since it is not relativistic
> mass, please let us in on the secret.
>

No, it is not relativistic mass. Nor is it “excess”. It is exactly the
momentum that ALL things truly have, and for which the Newtonian formula
was a handy but ultimately incorrect approximation. The Newtonian formula
for momentum has a measurable *deficit*. If you thought momentum was
DEFINED as mass times velocity, it was not. Momentum is defined as one of
two vector kinematic quantities that are conserved in closed systems.
Period. If you thought otherwise, then you were misinformed. The Newtonian
expression for that conserved quantity is almost, but not quite
quantitatively correct, as experiment has amply exhibited.

You are hoping that future generations will find a physics that is
consistent with your shallow and poorly educated understanding of the
world. There is absolutely no reason the truth should align with your
elementary exposure. You just wish it did.

The metric for truth in science is simple: agreement with experiment and
observation over a wide range of applications. There IS NO other standard
for truth in science. If you thought there was or think there should be,
then you should probably pursue another hobby like metaphysics, because
science isn’t what you thought it is.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:07:52 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > Physicists care for precise measurements, which is the only way to falsify a model. "Illusions" have not any role in physics. Your "reality itself is a measurable illusion" is complete nonsense.
>
> > To Paparios:
> > That's just your opinion. Besides, caring for precise measurements is hardly the same thing as caring for truth.
> Physicists can only build models to explain what Nature does. We really do not know why and how Nature does its job. You are mixing physical models with the world which is nonsensical.
Because we don't know why Nature does its job, we should not make physical models?
> >In any case, it is also not true that the only way to "falsify a model" is with precise measurements. Remember, it was Galileo who proved that all masses >fall at the same rate. He did so using logic, and the proof by contradiction technique in a thought experiment.
> In fact Galileo was an experimenter. He threw down different objects (with different masses) from the Tower of Pisa, to show they all experimented the same acceleration (within the limits of accuracy of his time).
No number of repetitions of those experiments could prove that all objects fall at the same speed. If the measurements wildly disagreed, that would certainly kill a model. But if there is a very small difference, it still wouldn't prove the premise.
> >Even with the best available equipment, measurements would not have been proof, only confirmation.
> Wrong, all physical models (within their domain of applicability) predict some results. If an experiment is performed and those predictions are not observed, then the model is falsified and a new one have to be formulated.
You are wrong. Experiments which fall within the expected deviations do not prove anything. Most they can do is confirm. Otherwise, you would have to physically try every possible experiment. Good luck.
> >Your last remark is foolish. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Which one is the illusion? No role in physics? That's nonsense.
> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again, Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts to more or less explain how Nature works.
So, I'm not allowed to build a physical model because one already exists, and there can be no other? Is that your position? Is that how science works nowadays?

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
....
>> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again, Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts to more or less explain how Nature works.
> So, I'm not allowed to build a physical model because one already exists, and
> there can be no other? Is that your position? Is that how science works nowadays?

You are definitely allowed to do so, and it may even be an interesting
one (like the holographic principle could be for instance). I doubt you
will, nevertheless, because you wrote too much silliness about what SR
actually IS.

Prove me wrong: produce you model with full mathematical details in a
proper article exposing how it is compatible with experiments whare
SR/GR holds.

<snip>

> No, it is not relativistic mass. Nor is it “excess”. It is exactly the
> momentum that ALL things truly have, and for which the Newtonian formula
> was a handy but ultimately incorrect approximation. The Newtonian formula
> for momentum has a measurable *deficit*. If you thought momentum was
> DEFINED as mass times velocity, it was not. Momentum is defined as one of
> two vector kinematic quantities that are conserved in closed systems.
> Period. If you thought otherwise, then you were misinformed. The Newtonian
> expression for that conserved quantity is almost, but not quite
> quantitatively correct, as experiment has amply exhibited.
>
> You are hoping that future generations will find a physics that is
> consistent with your shallow and poorly educated understanding of the
> world. There is absolutely no reason the truth should align with your
> elementary exposure. You just wish it did.
>
> The metric for truth in science is simple: agreement with experiment and
> observation over a wide range of applications. There IS NO other standard
> for truth in science. If you thought there was or think there should be,
> then you should probably pursue another hobby like metaphysics, because
> science isn’t what you thought it is.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I define momentum as invariant mass times Proper velocity. At the speeds Newton was using for data, there is virtually no distinction between velocity and Proper velocity. But while velocity reveals a deficit at higher values, Proper velocity is precisely correct from minus infinity to plus infinity, including the Newtonian range in the middle. And you would have me believe that the non-linear relationship between velocity and momentum just coincidentally matches a transcendental function of rapidity, that thing you boost with a Lorentz transform? In a way, your post is correct. Relativistic momentum should be what it is. It is the real Newtonian projection which is deficient, coincidentally by exactly the same factor as a unit of distance or time. Proper velocity, despite its improper definition, is physical velocity, because it represents all the momentum that an invariant mass is supposed to have. Like everything else relativistic, we can only measure its cosine projection, an illusion. In the limit of infinite Proper velocity, its cosine projection is just c, also an illusion. Not an absolute limit, as it certainly does not apply to Proper velocity. It is not the number of meters per second that represents the barrier to FTL. It is the fact that c represents infinite Proper velocity. Nothing can be observed going faster than c, because there is no Proper velocity greater than infinity. You can't add two velocities to exceed c because all velocities less than c have finite rapidity. The sum of two finite rapidities, no matter how large, is still another finite rapidity. All finite rapidities map to finite Proper velocity, and finite Proper velocity only projects a cosine fraction that is less than c, because c is only projected by infinite Proper velocity. In point of fact, the non-linear velocity addition rule of special relativity is just a simple translation of the hyperbolic identity for the tanh of the sum of two angles, from hyperbolic projections to circular projections, using the gudermannian function of the rapidity. What if one of the combining velocities is c? In that case, the Proper velocity and rapidity of one of the two velocities is already infinite. In this case, the other velocity is sublight and has finite rapidity. When you add a finite amount to infinity, it is the same as adding zero. The infinity is unchanged. So, when we project the cosine fraction, the result is the same limit, c. Consequently, the velocity of c is invariant with respect to relative velocity of its source or its observer. And, last case, what if both velocities are c? Then both velocities have infinite Proper velocity and rapidity. If we try to double infinity, we get the same problem as before. The result is once again the same infinity, and the projection is just 1 c. Do you disagree?

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 1:03:46 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've never seen eigenvalues and eigenvectors applied to the Lorentz transform before...
> ...the two examples you supplied links for are both irrelevant, because they apply
> to Minkowski geometry, pseudo-Euclidean geometry.

By accepting the Lorentz transformation but rejecting the Minkowski (pseudo)metic, you are contradicting yourself. That's because the Lorentz transformation is mathematically equivalent to the Minkowski (pseudo) metric, in the sense that the quantity (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is preserved under Lorentz transformations. This is a simple algebraic fact.

> Thanks for the cites, but I'm too busy to study the whole book right now. Too bad
> neither book was published before I started college courses.

You started college courses before 1969? Well, no matter, because those were certainly not the first text books to discuss the linear algebra of the Lorentz transformation. And the fact that the Lorentz transformation for a pure boost has the lightlike eigenvectors in the parallel and anti-parallel directions to the direction of motion has been well known since 1905. (I presume you didn't start college before that!)

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 7:16:35 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> ...
> >> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again, Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts to more or less explain how Nature works.
> > So, I'm not allowed to build a physical model because one already exists, and
> > there can be no other? Is that your position? Is that how science works nowadays?
> You are definitely allowed to do so, and it may even be an interesting
> one (like the holographic principle could be for instance). I doubt you
> will, nevertheless, because you wrote too much silliness about what SR
> actually IS.
>
> Prove me wrong: produce you model with full mathematical details in a
> proper article exposing how it is compatible with experiments whare
> SR/GR holds.

I need a sponsor just to prepublish on arXiv, and then collaboration with someone experienced in the protocol of peer review. Are you volunteering?

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi insisted:

> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics. Then, when they are fed the same old crap by teachers, they will recognize it for what it is.

Fact is, no one gives a shit about your crankeries. Live with it.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 7:31:45 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 1:03:46 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I've never seen eigenvalues and eigenvectors applied to the Lorentz transform before...
> > ...the two examples you supplied links for are both irrelevant, because they apply
> > to Minkowski geometry, pseudo-Euclidean geometry.
> By accepting the Lorentz transformation but rejecting the Minkowski (pseudo)metic, you are contradicting yourself. That's because the Lorentz transformation is mathematically equivalent to the Minkowski (pseudo) metric, in the sense that the quantity (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is preserved under Lorentz transformations.

Being equivalent is hardly being the same. The Lorentz Transformation had a life as a hyperbolic rotation long before it was appropriated by physics. Why would I reject that? It's the only thing that makes special relativity work. But the transform does not tell you what happens to the imaginary projections, because the Lorentz Transform we use only relates real projections to each other. And I never said that the pseudometric is wrong for Minkowski, just that Minkowski does not belong in a discussion of Euclidean relativity. The light-cone unit vectors are null vectors, but the Euclidean unit vectors are not. Arguments based on Minkowski geometry are not valid for Euclidean geometry, regardless of what parts they may have in common.

> You started college courses before 1969?
Yes. It took 34 years to finish, with a 3.85. Is that a problem for you?

<snip crap>

to Dono:
<snip crap>

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> I define momentum as invariant mass times Proper velocity.

Physics isn't about making up names for quantities, like "proper velocity". To be clear, if you agree that momentum of a particle of rest mass m moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates x,t is mv/sqrt(1-v^2), then it doesn't matter what you name the individual quantities. It so happens that m/sqrt(1-v^2) is the total energy in units of mass, but you don't need to notice that if you're not interested.

> ... a transcendental function of rapidity...

When I asked previously if you were just talking about phrasing things in terms of rapidity, you dismissed the suggestion contemptuously, but now you write 500 words obsessing over rapidity. Very strange.

> > By accepting the Lorentz transformation but rejecting the Minkowski (pseudo)metic,
> > you are contradicting yourself. That's because the Lorentz transformation is mathematically
> > equivalent to the Minkowski (pseudo) metric, in the sense that the quantity
> > (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is preserved under Lorentz transformations.
>
> Being equivalent is hardly being the same.

The point is that it is self-contradictory to embrace one thing (the Lorentz transformation) and contemptuously reject an equivalent thing (the Minkowski pseudometric).

The Lorentz Transformation had a life as a hyperbolic rotation long before it was appropriated by physics. Why would I reject that? It's the only thing that makes special relativity work. But the transform does not tell you what happens to the imaginary projections, because the Lorentz Transform we use only relates real projections to each other. And I never said that the pseudometric is wrong for Minkowski, just that Minkowski does not belong in a discussion of Euclidean relativity. The light-cone unit vectors are null vectors, but the Euclidean unit vectors are not. Arguments based on Minkowski geometry are not valid for Euclidean geometry, regardless of what parts they may have in common.

> > You started college courses before 1969?
> Yes. It took 34 years to finish, with a 3.85. Is that a problem for you?

No, but, as I said, those were not the first text books to discuss the linear algebra of Lorentz transformations, and the lightlike eigenvectors in the axis of motion for a pure boost have been known since 1905.

> I define momentum as invariant mass times Proper velocity.

Physics isn't about making up names for quantities, like "proper velocity". To be clear, if you agree that momentum of a particle of rest mass m moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates x,t is mv/sqrt(1-v^2), then it doesn't matter what you name the individual quantities. It so happens that m/sqrt(1-v^2) is the total energy in units of mass, but you don't need to notice that if you're not interested.

> ... a transcendental function of rapidity...

When I suggested previous that your thesis has to do with talking about rapidity, you said no, perish the thought. Now you post hundreds of words focusing on rapidity. Very strange.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > By accepting the Lorentz transformation but rejecting the Minkowski (pseudo)metic,
> > you are contradicting yourself. That's because the Lorentz transformation is mathematically
> > equivalent to the Minkowski (pseudo) metric, in the sense that the quantity
> > (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is preserved under Lorentz transformations.
>
> Being equivalent is hardly being the same.

The point is that it's self-contradictory to embrace one thing (the Lorentz transformation) and contemptuously reject an equivalent thing (the Minkowski pseudometric).

> > You started college courses before 1969?
> Yes. It took 34 years to finish, with a 3.85. Is that a problem for you?

No, but, as I said, those were not the first text books to discuss the linear algebra of Lorentz transformations, and the lightlike eigenvectors in the axis of motion for a pure boost have been known since 1905.

> I define momentum as invariant mass times Proper velocity.

Physics isn't about making up names for quantities, like "proper velocity". To be clear, if you agree that momentum of a particle of rest mass m moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates x,t is mv/sqrt(1-v^2), then it doesn't matter what you name the individual quantities. It so happens that m/sqrt(1-v^2) is the total energy in units of mass, but you don't need to notice that if you're not interested.

> ... a transcendental function of rapidity...

When I suggested previous that your thesis has to do with talking about rapidity, you said no, perish the thought. Now you post hundreds of words focusing on rapidity. Very strange.

Tom Capizzi quote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 7:16:35 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again, Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts to more or less explain how Nature works.
>>> So, I'm not allowed to build a physical model because one already exists, and
>>> there can be no other? Is that your position? Is that how science works nowadays?
>> You are definitely allowed to do so, and it may even be an interesting
>> one (like the holographic principle could be for instance). I doubt you
>> will, nevertheless, because you wrote too much silliness about what SR
>> actually IS.
>>
>> Prove me wrong: produce you model with full mathematical details in a
>> proper article exposing how it is compatible with experiments whare
>> SR/GR holds.
>
> I need a sponsor just to prepublish on arXiv, and then collaboration with someone experienced in the protocol of peer review. Are you volunteering?

Write and publish the paper first, anywhere , then you could think about
peer reviewing or arXiv.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 8:24:20 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi quote:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 7:16:35 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again, Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts to more or less explain how Nature works.
> >>> So, I'm not allowed to build a physical model because one already exists, and
> >>> there can be no other? Is that your position? Is that how science works nowadays?
> >> You are definitely allowed to do so, and it may even be an interesting
> >> one (like the holographic principle could be for instance). I doubt you
> >> will, nevertheless, because you wrote too much silliness about what SR
> >> actually IS.
> >>
> >> Prove me wrong: produce you model with full mathematical details in a
> >> proper article exposing how it is compatible with experiments whare
> >> SR/GR holds.
> >
> > I need a sponsor just to prepublish on arXiv, and then collaboration with someone experienced in the protocol of peer review. Are you volunteering?
> Write and publish the paper first, anywhere , then you could think about
> peer reviewing or arXiv.

Please explain how I can publish anywhere without peer review?