The principle of relativity says that frequency, wavelength and speed of light, as measured by the emitter, do not vary with the speed of the emitter. Yet explanations of the Doppler effect implicitly suggest that the wavelength does vary at the emitter:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

Einsteinians have a problem here. They accept the principle of relativity and agree that the wavelength of light, as measured by the emitter, does not vary with the speed of the emitter. On the other hand, as measured by the observer/receiver, the wavelength SHOULD vary with the speed of the emitter (otherwise the speed of light is variable, not constant). So the theory effectively says that the wavelength variation is undiscoverable initially, when it is created at the emitter, and becomes discoverable only by the observer/receiver, at the end of the light travel. This is obviously idiotic and extremely dangerous - could be exposed by any sane person. Einsteinians camouflage the idiocy at the expense of an apparent violation of the principle of relativity - they present the wavelength as varying at the emitter. Some danger remains but it is immeasurably smaller.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:47:01 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The principle of relativity says that frequency, wavelength and speed of light, as measured by the emitter, do not vary with the speed of the emitter. Yet explanations of the Doppler effect implicitly suggest that the wavelength does vary at the emitter:
>
> https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
>
> https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77
>
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
>
> Einsteinians have a problem here. They accept the principle of relativity and agree that the wavelength of light, as measured by the emitter, does not vary with the speed of the emitter. On the other hand, as measured by the observer/receiver, the wavelength SHOULD vary with the speed of the emitter (otherwise the speed of light is variable, not constant). So the theory effectively says that the wavelength variation is undiscoverable initially, when it is created at the emitter, and becomes discoverable only by the observer/receiver, at the end of the light travel. This is obviously idiotic and extremely dangerous - could be exposed by any sane person. Einsteinians camouflage the idiocy at the expense of an apparent violation of the principle of relativity - they present the wavelength as varying at the emitter. Some danger remains but it is immeasurably smaller.
>
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc and has never been proven. It is an absurd attempt to pretend the speed of light does not vary ACROSS reference frames.

On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc
> and has never been proven.

Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.

Moreover, this variation in wavelength is not "ad hoc", it is predicted
by the best model we have for such light beams, classical
electrodynamics, and confirmed by many experiments and measurements.

With everything you write, you merely display your comprehensive
ignorance of basic physics.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 6:21:39 AM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:

> The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
> of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
> varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
> due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
> orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
> the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.

Honest Roberts, this is too idiotic even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. Brothers Einsteinians will never accept you in the Brotherhood.

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 12:56:39 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 6:21:39 AM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
> > of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
> > varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
> > due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
> > orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
> > the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.
> Honest Roberts, this is too idiotic even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. Brothers Einsteinians will never accept you in the Brotherhood.
It's a speaking in tongues.

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 9:21:39 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc
> > and has never been proven.
> Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
> of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
> varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
> due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
> orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
> the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.
>
> Moreover, this variation in wavelength is not "ad hoc", it is predicted
> by the best model we have for such light beams, classical
> electrodynamics, and confirmed by many experiments and measurements.
>
> With everything you write, you merely display your comprehensive
> ignorance of basic physics.
>
> Tom Roberts

There's those "beams" again, ....

I really think there's something about the optical in the "Fresnel imaging"
where the objects with small wavelengths / big bodies somehow make for
"lensing in the large", as what accompanies caustics and such in lensing,
"gravitational".

I'm sort of wondering what "Pioneer Anomaly" is these days.

On Mon, 29 May 2023 22:21:26 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc and
>> has never been proven.
>
> Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
> of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
> varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
> due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
> orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
> the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto
> itself.

In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and cannot
affect the observed.
> Moreover, this variation in wavelength is not "ad hoc", it is predicted
> by the best model we have for such light beams, classical
> electrodynamics, and confirmed by many experiments and measurements.

poor little Tommy thinks the spacing of ocean waves has a different value
for every boat.
> With everything you write, you merely display your comprehensive
> ignorance of basic physics.

Tommy has a head full of SciFi equations but very little basic physics.
He cannot even understand the simple travelling wave equation.

> Tom Roberts

--
-- lover of truth

Jane wrote:

>> Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
>> of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
>> varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is
>> not due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
>> orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact
>> that the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto
>> itself.
>
> In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and cannot
> affect the observed.

you too must be coming from Moldova.

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:32:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 22:21:26 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad hoc and
> >> has never been proven.
> >
> > Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured wavelength
> > of every monochromatic light beam from distant astronomical objects
> > varies as the earth and observer orbit the sun. In SR and GR this is not
> > due to any effect on the light, but rather is due to the varying
> > orientations in spacetime of the measuring instrument, and the fact that
> > the instrument necessarily projects whatever it is measuring onto
> > itself.
> In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and cannot
> affect the observed.
> > Moreover, this variation in wavelength is not "ad hoc", it is predicted
> > by the best model we have for such light beams, classical
> > electrodynamics, and confirmed by many experiments and measurements.
> poor little Tommy thinks the spacing of ocean waves has a different value
> for every boat.
> > With everything you write, you merely display your comprehensive
> > ignorance of basic physics.
> Tommy has a head full of SciFi equations but very little basic physics.
> He cannot even understand the simple travelling wave equation.
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth
The only people who understand relativity are those who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.

On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

> The only people who understand relativity are those
> who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.

So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> <...>
> > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> <...>
> > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
The idea that a better alternative is necessary to supersede relativity is incorrect since it is of no value and will be discarded entirely. For example, as Richard Hertz has shown, there is no mass velocity relationship even on the micro level. For example, the equivalence principle is vacuous nonsense. Newton said he did not feign hypotheses, meaning he did not pretend to explain the cause of gravity. Einstein did pretend to explain its cause and failed entirely.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> <...>
> > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
For example, the Sagnac effect technology does not require any relativistic calculations because it only involves ordinary additive velocities.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> <...>
> > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
It is unnecessary to explain the null result of the MMX as Pentcho Valev has shown and as you can verify by using simple additive velocity calculations as in ballistics.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> <...>
> > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
The eclipse experiment is supposed to have predicted a doubling of the Newtonian deflection, yet the Pound Snider has demonstrated Newtonian, so which is it? It has to be one or the other. Really the double-deflection prediction was not based on any sound reasoning and the eclipse experiments remained debatable until the radio waves allegedly proved that electromagnetism is deflected by gravity. That is also very doubtful and better explained by refraction. The muons are better explained by a longer life in nature than a laboratory, as made clear recently by Richard Hertz. Time dilation is an absurd ad hoc concept that remains unproven because time= distance over speed as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph, so changing the time to keep the speed constant is just lying with the language of mathematics.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.

Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > <...>
> > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside.. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> > Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> > about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
> Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.

No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.

I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.

I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".

Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.

The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
abstraction of discretization of the continuous.

I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
flat in statics, curving in dynamics.

Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.

(These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)

It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.

Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.

You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:43:51 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > > > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > > > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > > > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > > > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> > > Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> > > about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
> > Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.
> No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.
>
> I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.
>
> I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".
>
> Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
> of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
> the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.
>
> The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
> abstraction of discretization of the continuous.
>
> I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
> flat in statics, curving in dynamics.
>
> Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
> anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
> has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
> the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.
>
> (These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)
>
> It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
> or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.
>
> Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
> have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.
>
> You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
> about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.

Hm..., "blobbed" in "space-time" is already a word, ....

http://www.physics.ntua.gr/corfu2021/Program/nc.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04624
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11040-021-09390-6
https://inspirehep.net/literature/1950237

It's a convenient descriptive term for "space contraction" in "parallel transport".

Which are already words in "space-time".

"Blobbed magmas in space-time".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_(algebra)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-coalgebra
"The main related concepts are initial F-algebras
which may serve to encapsulate the induction principle,
and the dual construction F-coalgebras."

UV/IR mixing: "plasmatic magmas"? "Magmatic plasmas"?

"Nessie".

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:43:51 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > > > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > > > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > > > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > > > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> > > Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> > > about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
> > Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.
> No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.
>
> I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.
>
> I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".
>
> Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
> of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
> the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.
>
> The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
> abstraction of discretization of the continuous.
>
> I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
> flat in statics, curving in dynamics.
>
> Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
> anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
> has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
> the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.
>
> (These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)
>
> It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
> or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.
>
> Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
> have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.
>
> You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
> about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.
George Hammond makes more sense than you and at least he's amusing, not dead-pan.

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:56:27 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:43:51 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > > > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > > > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > > > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > > > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > > > > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > > > > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > > > > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > > > > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> > > > Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> > > > about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
> > > Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.
> > No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.
> >
> > I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.
> >
> > I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".
> >
> > Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
> > of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
> > the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.
> >
> > The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
> > abstraction of discretization of the continuous.
> >
> > I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
> > flat in statics, curving in dynamics.
> >
> > Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
> > anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
> > has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
> > the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.
> >
> > (These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)
> >
> > It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
> > or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.
> >
> > Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
> > have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.
> >
> > You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
> > about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.
> Hm..., "blobbed" in "space-time" is already a word, ....
>
> http://www.physics.ntua.gr/corfu2021/Program/nc.pdf
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04624
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11040-021-09390-6
> https://inspirehep.net/literature/1950237
>
> It's a convenient descriptive term for "space contraction" in "parallel transport".
>
> Which are already words in "space-time".
>
> "Blobbed magmas in space-time".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_(algebra)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-coalgebra
> "The main related concepts are initial F-algebras
> which may serve to encapsulate the induction principle,
> and the dual construction F-coalgebras."
>
>
> UV/IR mixing: "plasmatic magmas"? "Magmatic plasmas"?
>
> "Nessie".
It's a speaking in tongues.

On 6/1/23 6:32 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 22:21:26 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 10:45 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> The idea that the wavelength changes with relative motion is ad
>>> hoc and has never been proven.
>> Nonsense! The annual Doppler effect shows that the measured
>> wavelength of every monochromatic light beam from distant
>> astronomical objects varies as the earth and observer orbit the
>> sun. In SR and GR this is not due to any effect on the light, but
>> rather is due to the varying orientations in spacetime of the
>> measuring instrument, and the fact that the instrument necessarily
>> projects whatever it is measuring onto itself.
>
> In any valid form of physical analysis, the observer must not and
> cannot affect the observed.

This is just plain not true. Apparently you have never heard of quantum
mechanics. But this is more general than QM.

It is important to understand how various properties of the observer
affect the measurements. The annual Doppler shift is so well known and
solidly established that all astronomical data are routinely corrected
for it before publication (because it is trivial and of no interest to
astronomers and astrophysicists).

> [... nonsense and insults omitted]

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 6:30:21 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:43:51 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > > > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > > > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > > > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > > > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > > > > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > > > > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > > > > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > > > > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> > > > Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> > > > about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
> > > Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.
> > No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.
> >
> > I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.
> >
> > I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".
> >
> > Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
> > of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
> > the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.
> >
> > The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
> > abstraction of discretization of the continuous.
> >
> > I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
> > flat in statics, curving in dynamics.
> >
> > Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
> > anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
> > has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
> > the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.
> >
> > (These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)
> >
> > It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
> > or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.
> >
> > Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
> > have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.
> >
> > You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
> > about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.
> George Hammond makes more sense than you and at least he's amusing, not dead-pan.

So, if I point at Earman and Wald and Geroch, they're wrong, too?

There's a saying
"you can bring a horse to water,
but you can't make him drink".

(The Stetson is an iconic hat, in the lid is a liner,
the picture on the liner is a man watering his horse
with his hat. The horse drinks from the hat)

I'm kind of enjoying reading Wald, he has a great discursive and
explanatory style, including reasons and also the weights of other
reasons.

It's similar with Earman, he presents a lot of the historical development,
and helps assign aspects and explorations of the development to the
wide range of thinkers involved, mathematicians and physicists and philosophers,
about "singularities" in physics for what are "singularities" in mathematics.

Often people will learn attaching some "examples" to definitions before they
start to understand that the definitions are examples, then about the abstraction
of mathematics and complementary rules and the rulial and regular in regimes,
it helps if they sort of have already a thorough understanding of everything.

How about the mathematics of infinity? Does that make any sense to you?

(Some have that it's indispensable for a mathematics with a continuum.)

There are various kinds of waves, for example in sound, in light,
in liquids, in electromagnetic interfaces, while a common descriptive milieu,
even just such examples as "skin effect" and "core effect" show that
there are values "x" in one model that are "1/x" in the other.

So, some of them are really "resonances", and the classical's just a sample,
and the real is really a matter of potential theory.

(The theory of potentials, the theory of sum potentials,
the theory of sigma potentials, the theory of omega potentials.)

It's said that Lefschetz founded an institute of differential geometry.

So anyways as Nessie humps across the loch, according to your senses,
what's underneath is virtual, but there are connections.

There's "wave/particle duality" and "particle/point locality" and "wave/resonance globality",
it's a continuum mechanics, with normalization ("de-re-normalization") and discretization
for tractability and common central simple terms, because of Rayleigh and Planck
and the ultraviolet catastrophe. It's a continuum mechanics.

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 9:32:24 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 6:30:21 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:43:51 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > > > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > > > > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > > > > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > > > > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > > > > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > > > > > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > > > > > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > > > > > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > > > > > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> > > > > Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> > > > > about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
> > > > Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.
> > > No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.
> > >
> > > I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.
> > >
> > > I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".
> > >
> > > Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
> > > of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
> > > the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.
> > >
> > > The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
> > > abstraction of discretization of the continuous.
> > >
> > > I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
> > > flat in statics, curving in dynamics.
> > >
> > > Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
> > > anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
> > > has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
> > > the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.
> > >
> > > (These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)
> > >
> > > It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
> > > or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.
> > >
> > > Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
> > > have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.
> > >
> > > You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
> > > about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.
> > George Hammond makes more sense than you and at least he's amusing, not dead-pan.
> So, if I point at Earman and Wald and Geroch, they're wrong, too?
>
> There's a saying
> "you can bring a horse to water,
> but you can't make him drink".
>
> (The Stetson is an iconic hat, in the lid is a liner,
> the picture on the liner is a man watering his horse
> with his hat. The horse drinks from the hat)
>
> I'm kind of enjoying reading Wald, he has a great discursive and
> explanatory style, including reasons and also the weights of other
> reasons.
>
> It's similar with Earman, he presents a lot of the historical development,
> and helps assign aspects and explorations of the development to the
> wide range of thinkers involved, mathematicians and physicists and philosophers,
> about "singularities" in physics for what are "singularities" in mathematics.
>
> Often people will learn attaching some "examples" to definitions before they
> start to understand that the definitions are examples, then about the abstraction
> of mathematics and complementary rules and the rulial and regular in regimes,
> it helps if they sort of have already a thorough understanding of everything.
>
> How about the mathematics of infinity? Does that make any sense to you?
>
> (Some have that it's indispensable for a mathematics with a continuum.)
>
> There are various kinds of waves, for example in sound, in light,
> in liquids, in electromagnetic interfaces, while a common descriptive milieu,
> even just such examples as "skin effect" and "core effect" show that
> there are values "x" in one model that are "1/x" in the other.
>
> So, some of them are really "resonances", and the classical's just a sample,
> and the real is really a matter of potential theory.
>
> (The theory of potentials, the theory of sum potentials,
> the theory of sigma potentials, the theory of omega potentials.)
>
> It's said that Lefschetz founded an institute of differential geometry.
>
>
> So anyways as Nessie humps across the loch, according to your senses,
> what's underneath is virtual, but there are connections.
>
> There's "wave/particle duality" and "particle/point locality" and "wave/resonance globality",
> it's a continuum mechanics, with normalization ("de-re-normalization") and discretization
> for tractability and common central simple terms, because of Rayleigh and Planck
> and the ultraviolet catastrophe. It's a continuum mechanics.
Let me be clear. I haven't read your comment because I don't have time for defenders of relativity. It's far more productive to read critics. To your point, if the origins of relativity are thoroughly false, so are its pinnacles.

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:01:06 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 9:32:24 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 6:30:21 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:43:51 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:27:28 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 5:13:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 4:23:30 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 6/2/2023 6:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > > > > The only people who understand relativity are those
> > > > > > > > > who recognize it is purely self-contradictory nonsense.
> > > > > > > > So would you mind explaining to me what it is that relativity
> > > > > > > > is supposed to explain and provide me with some alternative
> > > > > > > > that works better. Bear in mind that I am neither supportive
> > > > > > > > of relativity nor am I denying its usefulness. Thanks.
> > > > > > > You could read the thousands of books and articles by critics of relativity and find out it is entirely unnecessary and will fall by the wayside. Here is an example from an article co-authored by Tom Van Flandern and another author: "At the other extreme, Feynman preserves the force and motion concepts with their classical meanings, and comments: ‘‘It is one of the
> > > > > > > peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that it has both a field interpretation and a geometrical interpretation. ... the fact is that a spin-two
> > > > > > > field has this geometrical interpretation: this is not something readily explainable—it is just marvelous. The geometrical interpretation is not
> > > > > > > really necessary or essential to physics.’’" So this part of relativity is unnecessary.
> > > > > > Been reading some of this Earman about singularities and Wald
> > > > > > about quantum field theory in curved ("blobbed") space-times.
> > > > > Singularities and curved space-time are fiction.
> > > > No thanks, I'm not a fictionalist.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a formalist - not a fictionalist.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's closed-minded to be a, "retro-finitist".
> > > >
> > > > Energy is the great medium of exchange, but there are lots
> > > > of milieus and regimes, though from not so much,
> > > > the kinetic and charge, and the optical and radionuclear.
> > > >
> > > > The wave/particle duality of course is a great fundamental
> > > > abstraction of discretization of the continuous.
> > > >
> > > > I think that space-time is "curving" in "dynamics",
> > > > flat in statics, curving in dynamics.
> > > >
> > > > Of course the dynamics at speed make statics -
> > > > anyways this "quantum field theory and singularities",
> > > > has that, just like the origin, is everywhere,
> > > > the origin is a singularity, about the impulse.
> > > >
> > > > (These are "Einstein's everywhere singularities the white holes".)
> > > >
> > > > It's kind of like about tossing a ball, up and down,
> > > > or in a curve, or, back-and-forth.
> > > >
> > > > Anyways the "well" and the "wall" has for where singularities
> > > > have two sides of the wall: the curved side and the flat side.
> > > >
> > > > You know, anything written as a symmetry and a conservation
> > > > about an invariant, also has a writing as a continuity, and a boundary.
> > > George Hammond makes more sense than you and at least he's amusing, not dead-pan.
> > So, if I point at Earman and Wald and Geroch, they're wrong, too?
> >
> > There's a saying
> > "you can bring a horse to water,
> > but you can't make him drink".
> >
> > (The Stetson is an iconic hat, in the lid is a liner,
> > the picture on the liner is a man watering his horse
> > with his hat. The horse drinks from the hat)
> >
> > I'm kind of enjoying reading Wald, he has a great discursive and
> > explanatory style, including reasons and also the weights of other
> > reasons.
> >
> > It's similar with Earman, he presents a lot of the historical development,
> > and helps assign aspects and explorations of the development to the
> > wide range of thinkers involved, mathematicians and physicists and philosophers,
> > about "singularities" in physics for what are "singularities" in mathematics.
> >
> > Often people will learn attaching some "examples" to definitions before they
> > start to understand that the definitions are examples, then about the abstraction
> > of mathematics and complementary rules and the rulial and regular in regimes,
> > it helps if they sort of have already a thorough understanding of everything.
> >
> > How about the mathematics of infinity? Does that make any sense to you?
> >
> > (Some have that it's indispensable for a mathematics with a continuum.)
> >
> > There are various kinds of waves, for example in sound, in light,
> > in liquids, in electromagnetic interfaces, while a common descriptive milieu,
> > even just such examples as "skin effect" and "core effect" show that
> > there are values "x" in one model that are "1/x" in the other.
> >
> > So, some of them are really "resonances", and the classical's just a sample,
> > and the real is really a matter of potential theory.
> >
> > (The theory of potentials, the theory of sum potentials,
> > the theory of sigma potentials, the theory of omega potentials.)
> >
> > It's said that Lefschetz founded an institute of differential geometry.
> >
> >
> > So anyways as Nessie humps across the loch, according to your senses,
> > what's underneath is virtual, but there are connections.
> >
> > There's "wave/particle duality" and "particle/point locality" and "wave/resonance globality",
> > it's a continuum mechanics, with normalization ("de-re-normalization") and discretization
> > for tractability and common central simple terms, because of Rayleigh and Planck
> > and the ultraviolet catastrophe. It's a continuum mechanics.
> Let me be clear. I haven't read your comment because I don't have time for defenders of relativity. It's far more productive to read critics. To your point, if the origins of relativity are thoroughly false, so are its pinnacles.

Oh. Here it's pretty well established that light's speed is a constant,
in deep space.

Einstein has a clock hypothesis and all, the relativistic dynamics of
relativistic mass of the inertial system in the rotational or cyclotron,
and space contraction, in the rotational and in the linear, is pretty well-established.

Also Einstein isn't again "Quantum Mechanics", and speaks kindly of
the Bohm-deBroglie "real wave interpretation".

The cosmological constant as vanishing is kind of a free parameter in
the regimes of running constants.

Also Einstein makes it clear "SR is local".

Then, the notions of singularity theory and invariant theory are pretty much involved
in what's these days the fundamental mathematical physics.
(... Which is a field theory in a gauge theory with a gauge in a field.)

Yeah, if you don't know about "running constants" and that NIST CODATA
regularly updates with, _smaller_ fundamental physical constants, and that
SI 2019 is basically a divorce from reality, those are things.