"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:8af2a83f-6372-4b83-a87b-39a358ccad4dn@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:98587af2-de8d-4a90...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > SR holds that there is an entity "space-time" that is measured by
> > > different observers with rulers and clocks. "space-time" is an
> > > invariant.
> > >
> > > That is, in this context there is an entity "time" that is measured by
> > > clocks.
>
> > There is also rulers which measure the space part. You seem to be
> > ignoring that.

>> Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.

>Not really. Clocks measure space, too:

Only if one *assume*s that a speed, such as c, is valid. c can only be
verified as valid when referred back to clocks. Its circular.

In this context, clocks are ticking time, not "space-time". They measure in
seconds.

>> I have specifically explained in detail that clocks read differently and
>> not
>> unique, and why they do. In contrast, you are just blabbering.

>Pot, kettle, black. But if different observers read different values for
>the
>same clock, your argument that "clocks read differently" cannot be used
>to claim "clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time ("space-
> time") at different rates."

I don't understand your point.

I am, of course, simplifying the issue for the discussion.

Because of the circularity the the POR and SOL, there are actually an
infinite number of ways of assigning how the clocks read different. They can
be a mix of clocks slowing down and time travel.

This is a complication not relevant for the discussion.

> > Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't
> > say the moving clock is running slow at some specific rate.
>
>> Strawman. I never made that claim.

>SR does, and it's unavoidable. You look at a subset of the phenomenon and
>believe you have the whole thing figured out.

I don't understand you language. To be clear. I never made the claim that SR
states that moving clocks run slow

SR most certainly does not claim that moving clocks run slow. Is your claim
that SR says they do?

SR claims that clocks "take different paths in space-time", always.

Time dilation is at the level of "optical illusion" in SR. its an "as if"
and never physically true.

> Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong
> (Adams
> prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
>
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/
>
> Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
>
> Time into video 0:31 :
>
> "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of
> nature...?"
>
> Time into video 19:30 :
>
> >"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call
>> the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe…
>> and
>> the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into
> >little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these
>> bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the
>> same
>> is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."
>
> >Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.
>
>> QF are "background fields".

>You seem to be dismissing the most accurate theory we have to describe
>one domain of reality.

Nope. I am dismissing the name. A QF is an ether.

>> It means that there is an invariant or absolute object of reality that is
>> fixed in 4 dimensions. Its called the "Block Universe"

>I don't believe in the block universe. You shouldn't either.

Its impossible to accept the SR interpretation without the BU.

>https://www.realclearscience.com/2018/09/03/the_block_universe_theory_explained_282664.html

I can't access that link. It wants checks my system don't support.

However, the Block Universe can be proven to be a direct consequence of the
SR interpretation of the LT. Its trivially obvious.

One 3rd party argument is here:

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf

As I noted prior, its a position held by Lee Smolin.

> > > Observers take "different paths in space-time". That's why clocks and
> > > lengths, apparently, read differently, in SR, not because rules and
> >> > clocks change how they record events.
>
>
> >> you might get less confused about SR.
>
>> I have a pretty good handle on SR mate.

>So you deleted the references to proper time and coordinate time. How
>come?

Its not relevant. Many get way, way confused on the difference between
coordinate systems and reference frames and thus conflate them. Einstein was
quite confused on this, using the terms interchangeably.

Coordinate systems, by definition, have no effect of any physical results
whatsoever. They are just a change of variables. One has a function, and its
tautological inverse function to swap coordinates back and forth.

The point of the Lorentz Transform is that it is a *frame* transform that
uses coordinates simply for convenience.

A coordinate transform cannot make clocks read different on travel through
different paths.

The LT represents a *frame* transform that does allow for clocks to read
different. The GT represents a frame transform that does not allow for
clocks to read different. The coordinate systems used for a universe
satisfying the LT of GT are irrelevant. The physical difference between LT
frames and GT frames are very relevant.

If the coordinate system is locked to the frame, then one may analyse on an
"as if" basis.

The point is that a rotating coordinate system cannot generate effective
forces in an inertial reference frame, it only makes it more difficult to
mathematically deal with, so one don't usually do it.

Thus when terms like "coordinate time" are mentioned, I roll my eyes.

>> Indeed, here is what is one of the few actually correct accounts of the
>> Twins Paradox that doesn't use acceleration or frame switching.
>
>> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht

>I think you disparage some perfectly valid explanations. I've thought
>a lot about the TP in the past and have no need to revisit it.

If acceleration was actually required to explain the TP, SR would be false.
Thus, explanations claiming that acceleration are required, should be
disparaged.

Sure, SR can deal with accelerations (but not gravity), but that's a
different issue.

>> I am also bit of a dab hand at GR, here's my derivation of the Riemann
> >Curvature Tensor....
>
>> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/riemann/riemann.xht

>You seem to have good handle on tensor calculus. I'm impressed.

Its a hobby. I have a passing knowledge. My interest is in the fundamentals.

> >> This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and
> >> length.
>
>> > No problem, we have those.
>
>> Unfortunately, we don't have them independently.

>Yes, we do. We had length, time and mass standards, surely you know the
>history of the meter:

Nope. If both length and clock rates have the same function of motion, it
all cancels out.

Its impossible to independently define X, T and c. This is obvious.

Nature can be more subtle than anticipated.

>https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/meter

>as well as time and mass.

> One can only make consistent choices, from many consistent choices.

> > > To verify the SOL for another inertial system, one needs to
> > > independently
> > > measure both the SOL and the TIME in that inertial system. This is
> > > impossible.
> >
> > Dead wrong, Kevin. The MMX used the same equipment in different
> > (approximately) inertial frames to measure the SoL. Admittedly, the
> > measurements were performed in air and had deleterious effects, but
> > LLR experiments are consistent with the SoL not being dependent on
> > the motion of the mirror on the moon.
>
>> Oh dear... None of this has any relevance to the issue. The observer and
>> observed are traveling in the MMX at the *same* speed. dah... There is no
>> relative speed for their to be measuring clocks from different points of
>> view. Indeed, the MMX can be explained simply by assuming photons.
>
>> You just don't understand the point.

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 3:43:38 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:8af2a83f-6372-4b83...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > >
> > > Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
> >
> > Not really. Clocks measure space, too:
>
> Only if one *assume*s that a speed, such as c, is valid. c can only be
> verified as valid when referred back to clocks. Its circular.

Kevin, are you trying to get me involved in another interminably-long
discussion? I don't like it. But what the hey.

One need not assume that there is a speed as c: It can be done with
neither clocks nor rulers. Can you figure out how?

Hint: you need clocks and rulers to measure the value, but not to
measure its existence.

> > > I have specifically explained in detail that clocks read differently
> > > and not unique, and why they do. In contrast, you are just blabbering..
>
> > Pot, kettle, black. But if different observers read different values for
> > the same clock, your argument that "clocks read differently" cannot be
> > used to claim "clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time
> > ("space-time") at different rates."

> I don't understand your point.

You have more than one observer. One observer says the clock is running
50% the "normal rate, the other says it's running at 80% of the normal rate..
Also, two observers in relative motion measure the other's clock as running
slow.

So it's obvious that what they're reading is not the "actual" rate of the clock,
otherwise they would agree whose is slow, right?

> I am, of course, simplifying the issue for the discussion.
>
> Because of the circularity the the POR and SOL, there are actually an
> infinite number of ways of assigning how the clocks read different. They can
> be a mix of clocks slowing down and time travel.
>
> This is a complication not relevant for the discussion.

There is no circularity, Kevin.

> > > > Another observer moving at a different speed with disagree, so you can't
> > > > say the moving clock is running slow at some specific rate.
> > >
> > > Strawman. I never made that claim.
> >
> > SR does, and it's unavoidable. You look at a subset of the phenomenon and
> > believe you have the whole thing figured out.
>
> I don't understand you language. To be clear. I never made the claim that SR
> states that moving clocks run slow

"There is nothing nonsensical about taking a view that when one actually
measures the the frequency of moving clocks that they are truly physically
running slow. Its the obvious 1st choice. If it looks like a duck, quacks
like a duck...."

It IS nonsensical, and it isn't obvious. It seems to me that you are a canard :-)

> SR most certainly does not claim that moving clocks run slow. Is your claim
> that SR says they do?

It seems to me that YOU are doing the quacking.

> SR claims that clocks "take different paths in space-time", always.
>
> Time dilation is at the level of "optical illusion" in SR. its an "as if"
> and never physically true.

Reality is that stationary and moving clocks are synchronized when
they pass, but later they disagree. so it's not exactly an optical illusion.

> > > "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
> > > we call the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire
> > > universe… > >> and the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of
> > > this fluid get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum
> > > mechanics... and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle
> > > the electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the
> > > universe..."
> > >
> > > Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.
> > >
> > > QF are "background fields".
>
> > You seem to be dismissing the most accurate theory we have to describe
> > one domain of reality.
>
> Nope. I am dismissing the name. A QF is an ether.

Calling it an ether is dissembling, IMHO, because it does not have a motion
of its own as the classical ether was presumed to have.

> > > It means that there is an invariant or absolute object of reality that is
> > > fixed in 4 dimensions. Its called the "Block Universe"
> >
> > I don't believe in the block universe. You shouldn't either.
>
> Its impossible to accept the SR interpretation without the BU.
>
> However, the Block Universe can be proven to be a direct
> consequence of the SR interpretation of the LT. Its trivially obvious.

I disagree. And there's more than one block universe concept,so
it seems that you can waffle around and come to any conclusion
you want.

> One 3rd party argument is here:
>
> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf
>
> As I noted prior, its a position held by Lee Smolin.

Yeah, well, he's an iconoclast. I like to hear what he has to say, but
I don't fall at his feet.

> > > I have a pretty good handle on SR mate.
> >
> > So you deleted the references to proper time and coordinate time. How
> > come?
>
> Its not relevant. Many get way, way confused on the difference between
> coordinate systems and reference frames and thus conflate them. Einstein was
> quite confused on this, using the terms interchangeably.
>
> Coordinate systems, by definition, have no effect of any physical results
> whatsoever. They are just a change of variables. One has a function, and its
> tautological inverse function to swap coordinates back and forth.
>
> The point of the Lorentz Transform is that it is a *frame* transform that
> uses coordinates simply for convenience.
>
> A coordinate transform cannot make clocks read different on travel through
> different paths.

They're merely matrices to hold observers with instruments like clocks, etc..
And since observers populate ALL coordinate systems and have instruments
to make measurements, you are equivocating.
> The LT represents a *frame* transform that does allow for clocks to read
> different. The GT represents a frame transform that does not allow for
> clocks to read different. The coordinate systems used for a universe
> satisfying the LT of GT are irrelevant. The physical difference between LT
> frames and GT frames are very relevant.
>
> If the coordinate system is locked to the frame, then one may analyse on an
> "as if" basis.
>
> The point is that a rotating coordinate system cannot generate effective
> forces in an inertial reference frame, it only makes it more difficult to
> mathematically deal with, so one don't usually do it.
>
> Thus when terms like "coordinate time" are mentioned, I roll my eyes.

When someone rolls their eyes at coordinate time, I roll MY eyes. Why
don't you kick over the traces and coin "frame time"? :-))

As for me and my house, I'll stick with a term that is actually understood
by physicists.
> > > Indeed, here is what is one of the few actually correct accounts of the
> > > Twins Paradox that doesn't use acceleration or frame switching.
> >
> >> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
>
> > I think you disparage some perfectly valid explanations. I've thought
> > a lot about the TP in the past and have no need to revisit it.
>
> If acceleration was actually required to explain the TP, SR would be false.
> Thus, explanations claiming that acceleration are required, should be
> disparaged.

Since there's more than one way to explain the TP( and they all agree), it's
illogical to reject the argument using acceleration.

> > > I am also bit of a dab hand at GR, here's my derivation of the Riemann
> > > Curvature Tensor....
> >
> > > https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/riemann/riemann.xht
>
> > You seem to have good handle on tensor calculus. I'm impressed.
>
> Its a hobby. I have a passing knowledge. My interest is in the fundamentals.

Well, so am I, but in considering the possible existence of tachyons.

> > > > This is pretty simple. the SOL requires a definition of time and
> > > > length.
> >
> > > > No problem, we have those.
> >
> > > Unfortunately, we don't have them independently.
> >
> > Yes, we do. We had length, time and mass standards, surely you know the
> > history of the meter:
>
> Nope. If both length and clock rates have the same function of motion, it
> all cancels out.
>
> Its impossible to independently define X, T and c. This is obvious.

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 03:18:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 3:43:38 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >
> > "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> > news:8af2a83f-6372-4b83...@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
> > >
> > > Not really. Clocks measure space, too:
> >
> > Only if one *assume*s that a speed, such as c, is valid. c can only be
> > verified as valid when referred back to clocks. Its circular.
> Kevin, are you trying to get me involved in another interminably-long
> discussion? I don't like it. But what the hey.
>
> One need not assume that there is a speed as c: It can be done with
> neither clocks nor rulers. Can you figure out how?
>
> Hint: you need clocks and rulers to measure the value, but not to
> measure its existence.

You also need to deeply believe, that when clocks don't show
what you want them to - they can't be real.

You have more than one observer. One observer says the clock is running
> 50% the "normal rate, the other says it's running at 80% of the normal rate.
> Also, two observers in relative motion measure the other's clock as running
> slow.

Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we can be completely
sure that the mumble of your bunch of idiots has nothing
in common with the real clocks, the real observers or real
anything.

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 03:18:11 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 3:43:38 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > >
> > > "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> > > news:8af2a83f-6372-4b83...@googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:33:57 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. Clocks measure space, too:
> > >
> > > Only if one *assume*s that a speed, such as c, is valid. c can only be
> > > verified as valid when referred back to clocks. Its circular.
> > Kevin, are you trying to get me involved in another interminably-long
> > discussion? I don't like it. But what the hey.
> >
> > One need not assume that there is a speed as c: It can be done with
> > neither clocks nor rulers. Can you figure out how?
> >
> > Hint: you need clocks and rulers to measure the value, but not to
> > measure its existence.
> You also need to deeply believe, that when clocks don't show
> what you want them to - they can't be real.
> You have more than one observer. One observer says the clock is running
> > 50% the "normal rate, the other says it's running at 80% of the normal rate.
> > Also, two observers in relative motion measure the other's clock as running
> > slow.
> Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we can be completely
> sure that the mumble of your bunch of idiots has nothing
> in common with the real clocks, the real observers or real
> anything.

What is the measurement of the relative or an absolute?
How would you measure a difference?

On October 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Either clocks physically slow down, OR they travel through time
> ("space-time") at different rates.

OR because they they take different paths.
> An odometer reads different going from London to Edinburgh either because it
> takes a different path OR ...

yes - DIFFERENT PATHS!

You flubbed YOUR OWN analogy!
Well done -

--
Rich

On October 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space. If clocks read
> differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks,
> thus space is not relevant.

********************************************
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht

"The times in different frames are different because time in frames is dependent on
distance as well as time of other frames. This changes the distances that the traveller
measures from that which the stay at home twin measures. The fact that frame times
depend on distance is typically ignored."
********************************************

Good job!

PS I refer you to Orwell's "doublethink"

--
Rich

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
>
> On October 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >
> > Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space. If clocks read
> > differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks,
> > thus space is not relevant.
>
> ********************************************
> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
>
> "The times in different frames are different because time in frames is dependent on
> distance as well as time of other frames. This changes the distances that the traveller
> measures from that which the stay at home twin measures. The fact that frame times
> depend on distance is typically ignored."
> ********************************************
>
> Good job!
>
> PS I refer you to Orwell's "doublethink"
> --
> Rich

The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter distance.
Kevin typically ignores this. The distance is shorter because of the relativity of
simultaneity. Distance is measured by noting the starting point and the ending
point *at the same time*. The "same time" is different in different frames.. Time is
the key factor in length contraction AND time dilation. That's why David Mermin
entitled his book, "It's About Time."

https://www.amazon.com/Its-About-Time-Understanding-Relativity/dp/0691141274

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter distance.

No, he doesn't. Your bunch of idiots has fabricated that.
Anyone can check GPS, no real observer is going to apply
your mad, primitive schema.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:35:15 AM UTC-6, Mad Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
> > distance.
>
> No, he doesn't.

Mad hatter Maciej spends his time submerged in a river in Africa.

“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell
yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

“Denial is an essential part of existence. Without it I am nothng.”
– Jason Krumbine

"To disbelieve is easy; to scoff is simple; to have faith is harder." --Louis L'Amour

“I have a very highly developed sense of denial.” – Gweneth Paltrow

> Your bunch of idiots has fabricated that.

“It’s not denial. I’m just selective about the reality I accept.”
– Bill Watterson

> Anyone can check GPS, no real observer is going to apply
> your mad, primitive schema.

Mad Maciej has a short memory, or dementia. He needs to be reminded
continually:

"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the
clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first
operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the syn-
thesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012
faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in
timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day." -- Neil Ashby
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

I know of a young man who slipped on a wet floor and fell. Now he has lost his
memory and doctor's say it might be permanent.

Perhaps Wet-floor Wozniak has had a similar experience.

On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:35:15 AM UTC-6, Mad Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
> > > distance.
> >
> > No, he doesn't.
> Mad hatter Maciej spends his time submerged in a river in Africa.

Poor fanatic idiot Gary is denying that GPS clocks
are real, because they don't fit the "description of
reality" he's deeply believing.
>
> “Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell
> yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme
>

Like denying that GPS clocks are real, because they don't
fit some "description of reality" announced by an insane
crazie.

> "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
> the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
> relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
> clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> was that predicted by GR,

And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
the correct state.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:50:08 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:35:15 AM UTC-6, Mad Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
> > > > distance.
> > >
> > > No, he doesn't.
> >
> > Mad hatter Maciej spends his time submerged in a river in Africa.
>
> Poor fanatic idiot Gary is denying that GPS clocks
> are real, because they don't fit the "description of
> reality" he's deeply believing.

Mad-hatter Maciej is a liar. He tells himself lies and tries to suck
unsuspecting newbies into his delusional world.

“Denial is the worst kind of lie … because it is the lie you tell
yourself.” – Michelle A. Homme

> Like denying that GPS clocks are real, because they don't
> fit some "description of reality" announced by an insane
> crazie.

I'm not denying any such thing. Weird Wozniak wishes his words were
worthy, but everyone eschews empty exchanges.

> > "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
> > the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
> > relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
> > clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> > was that predicted by GR,
>
> And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
> of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
> the correct state.

Lying isn't covered by deleting facts. Google keeps a record:

if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the
clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first
operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the syn-
thesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012
faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in
timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day." -- Neil Ashby
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

Mad Maciej the Weird Wozniak and Prevaricating Pole tried to hide the truth by
deleting what really happened. He is a despicable troll. He'd better clean up
his act before the wind blows down the door.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WhLhF12TBE

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelations 21:8

On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 17:47:01 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:50:08 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:35:15 AM UTC-6, Mad Wozniak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 23:14:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The traveler measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
> > > > > distance.
> > > >
> > > > No, he doesn't.
> > >
> > > Mad hatter Maciej spends his time submerged in a river in Africa.
> >
> > Poor fanatic idiot Gary is denying that GPS clocks
> > are real, because they don't fit the "description of
> > reality" he's deeply believing.
> Mad-hatter Maciej is a liar.

Google keeps, record, but you're not worthy of searching
for it.
It's good that, at least, you're ashamed.

> > Like denying that GPS clocks are real, because they don't
> > fit some "description of reality" announced by an insane
> > crazie.
> I'm not denying any such thing.

Google keeps, record, but you're not worthy of searching
for it.
It's good that, at least, you're ashamed.

> > And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
> > of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
> > the correct state.
> Lying isn't covered by deleting facts.

Nor by insisting that GPS clocks (indicating t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did) are not real.

> if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> was that predicted by GR,

A lie, as expected from relativistic scum. The prediction
of The Shit is 9 192 631 770, the reality is 9 192 631 774.
No real observer is going to apply your mad, primitive
schema, sorry. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:b1e207c9-86cb-4b02-a637-11376ff68d16n@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
>
> On October 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >
> > Clocks measure time, not space. Only rulers measure space. If clocks
> > read
> > differently it's because there are differences either in time or clocks,
> > thus space is not relevant.
>
> ********************************************
>> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
>
>> "The times in different frames are different because time in frames is
>> dependent on
>> distance as well as time of other frames. This changes the distances that
>> the traveller
>> measures from that which the stay at home twin measures. The fact that
>> frame times
>> depend on distance is typically ignored."
> ********************************************
>
>> Good job!
>
>> PS I refer you to Orwell's "doublethink"
>> --
>> Rich

>The traveller measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
>distance.
>Kevin typically ignores this.

What are you babbling on about?

I explain in full detail in my TP calculation that the traveller measures a
shorter distance for himself, and that the stay at home also agrees that the
traveller distance is shorter.

I use whatever the LT spits out for the times and distances.

Sure, I sometimes might be a tad brief in my prose...

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht

>The distance is shorter because of the relativity of
>simultaneity.

"relativity of simultaneity" is code for "the front and back end of the rod
are at different points in time", however time travel makes people sound
like nutjobs, so its usually avoided.

The problem is that many are scared shitless to actually state the elephant
in the room.

That is, what is the only rational physical interpretation of the SR model
of the LT?

Its time travel in a block universe.

The way one lives in denial of this, is to persist in the "path in
space-time" euphuism and simply refuse to acknowledge what that actually
means.

Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now get
this, represents *time*. A length in the time axis physically means going at
different rates, say 100sec/sec. Its the only way to interpret a "length" in
time. This is the bit Tom Roberts just don't get. I understand his
viewpoint, unfortunately, he don't understand what time actually is.

One covers more or less of another's time, in their own time. Thus, one
covers time at different rates.

See below on "time represents a real physical process" as clarification on
this.

>Distance is measured by noting the starting point and the ending
>point *at the same time*. The "same time" is different in different
>frames. Time is
>the key factor in length contraction AND time dilation.

Sure.... absolutely...we agree.

The red herring in the TP is that the time difference occurs on a one way
trip, and this can be checked by sending signals back and forth, thus no
need to ever experience accelerations by going back. Return just doubles up
the time.

Its how the LT has to work. Any observer has to agree on the physical
results, without accelerations.

The problem with SR isn't the LT, and its base conclusions, its the
interpretation of the LT.

We now now that physical objects are excitations in a field. Its QFT. Thus
the universe absolutely does have background fields. They are ethers in all
but name.

A truly empty universe cannot possible have any characteristics. Epsilon0
thus cannot possible exist, neither can c. This is truly obvious,
unfortunately, many have been gaslighted into the delusion that nothing is
something.

The only reason "c in vacuum" can exist, is if the vacuum isn't actually
empty.

The basic flaw in the "space-time" view is that time represents a real
physical process, thus space cannot be exchanged with time. Its not a
kinematic effect. Its objects physically ageing.

Space:

Space is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real
physical, measurable objects do not all merge into one object. It expresses
the fact that there are discrete, separate objects that can be identified
from other objects. Without individual physical objects, space does not
exist. That is, “space” is how separation of physical objects is accounted
for.

Time:

Time is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real physical,
separate measurable objects change their state such as position and
momentum. If no individual mass-energy objects changes their state,
including the quantum vacuum, time does not exist. That is, “time” is how
change of a physical object’s state is accounted for.

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html

Its real physical objects that create space and time, thus space-time" is
physically wrong, and can only represent an "as-if".

SR is a blind behavioural mathematical model, that works, for the wrong
reason.

One don't even need SR or LET to get to the basic equations.

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/emc2/emc2.xht

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:11:06 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:b1e207c9-86cb-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The traveller measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
> > distance. Kevin typically ignores this.
>
> What are you babbling on about?
>
> I explain in full detail in my TP calculation that the traveller measures a
> shorter distance for himself, and that the stay at home also agrees that the
> traveller distance is shorter.

Does the home twin agree? On what basis does he agree?

> I use whatever the LT spits out for the times and distances.
>
> Sure, I sometimes might be a tad brief in my prose...
>
> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
>
> >The distance is shorter because of the relativity of simultaneity.
>
> "relativity of simultaneity" is code for "the front and back end of the rod
> are at different points in time", however time travel makes people sound
> like nutjobs, so its usually avoided.

There you go being "a tad brief" again :-) An observer ALWAYS measures
the front end and back end of the rod at the SAME time.

> The problem is that many are scared shitless to actually state the elephant
> in the room.

That's not elephant in the room -- see below.

> That is, what is the only rational physical interpretation of the SR model
> of the LT?
>
> Its time travel in a block universe.

BAA-lpney.

> The way one lives in denial of this, is to persist in the "path in
> space-time" euphuism and simply refuse to acknowledge what that actually
> means.
>
> Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now get
> this, represents *time*. A length in the time axis physically means going at
> different rates, say 100sec/sec. Its the only way to interpret a "length" in
> time. This is the bit Tom Roberts just don't get. I understand his
> viewpoint, unfortunately, he don't understand what time actually is.

Nobody understands that. There are a lot of speculations, though. Joan Vaccaro
has put her finger on the REAL elephant in the room: the fact that there is, in
fact, an asymmetry between time and space.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2015.0670
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04012

The Minkowski diagram tends to brush over this, so one must be VERY careful
using it. I point this out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

> One covers more or less of another's time, in their own time. Thus, one
> covers time at different rates.

"covers" time? What does that mean? One always experiences time at one
second per second.

> See below on "time represents a real physical process" as clarification on
> this.

> > Distance is measured by noting the starting point and the ending
> > point *at the same time*. The "same time" is different in different
> > frames. Time is the key factor in length contraction AND time dilation.
>
> Sure.... absolutely...we agree.
>
> The red herring in the TP is that the time difference occurs on a one way
> trip, and this can be checked by sending signals back and forth, thus no
> need to ever experience accelerations by going back. Return just doubles up
> the time.

Yes, clocks at points A and B can be synchronized by Einstein sync and a
traveler with a clock synchronized at A goes from A to B. He compares
clocks as he passes B. Time dilation! One way travel but two way clock sync
which must be completed before the traveler arrives at B.

> Its how the LT has to work. Any observer has to agree on the physical
> results, without accelerations.

Acceleration doesn't matter, although an argument using acceleration
yields the same results as non-accelerated approaches. So using
acceleration is not stupid.

> The problem with SR isn't the LT, and its base conclusions, its the
> interpretation of the LT.
>
> We now [k]now that physical objects are excitations in a field. Its QFT. Thus
> the universe absolutely does have background fields. They are ethers in all
> but name.

> A truly empty universe cannot possible have any characteristics. Epsilon0
> thus cannot possible exist, neither can c. This is truly obvious,
> unfortunately, many have been gaslighted into the delusion that nothing is
> something.
>
> The only reason "c in vacuum" can exist, is if the vacuum isn't actually
> empty.

The question you're not addressing is, "Can a volume of space be truly empty?"

> The basic flaw in the "space-time" view is that time represents a real
> physical process, thus space cannot be exchanged with time. Its not a
> kinematic effect. Its objects physically ageing.

I tend to agree. One interpretation of time is that it's a quantum process of
matter. Possibly, the virtual particle sea can be considered as matter for this
purpose. As far as proving that connection. we're not there yet.

> Space:
>
> Space is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real
> physical, measurable objects do not all merge into one object. It expresses
> the fact that there are discrete, separate objects that can be identified
> from other objects. Without individual physical objects, space does not
> exist. That is, “space” is how separation of physical objects is accounted
> for.

But does the ZPE count as "individual physical objects"?

> Time:
>
> Time is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real physical,
> separate measurable objects change their state such as position and
> momentum. If no individual mass-energy objects changes their state,
> including the quantum vacuum, time does not exist. That is, “time” is how
> change of a physical object’s state is accounted for.
>
> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html
>
> Its real physical objects that create space and time, thus space-time" is
> physically wrong, and can only represent an "as-if".

“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something quite
different.” – Steven Carlip

> SR is a blind behavioural mathematical model, that works, for the wrong
> reason.

“If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.” -- Naval Ops Manual

> One don't even need SR or LET to get to the basic equations.

What about the basic assumptions (postulates)? One must start with
those. SR has such which are observed behaviors of nature. If your
postulates aren't observables ... ?

Tachyon physics has that problem, but at least it can be explored as an
extension of SR which has extensive experimental verification.

On 10/29/23 2:39 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Tom Roberts"  wrote in message
> news:yqidnSWeE7fNoqr4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com...
>> On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
>>> physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically
>>> slow down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different
>>> rates. You can't have it both ways. [...]
>
>> Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
>> a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
>> have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the
>> clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.
>
>> This is no different from two sides of a triangle having
>> a different total path length than the third side.
>
> Nope. That's precisely what "travels through time at different rates
> means". Its what actually *creates* the different path length.
> Its why time in the LT has the gamma factor.

Hmmmm. So for a right triangle with sides along Cartesian x and y axes,
the hypotenuse "travels through y at a different rate [#]" -- have you
ever seen anyone make such a silly claim?

[#] Different from what? -- from the leg along the x
axis that does not "travel through y" at all? And you
seem to forget that the hypotenuse also "travels
through x"... [I disavow any such use of "traveling";
I am merely paralleling your usage to show how silly
it is.]

The Lorentz transform has a gamma factor for both x and t, and they are
due to the algebra that is predicated on preserving the group structure,
not any half-baked notion of "traveling through time".

> The "path length" can't change without travelling through "space-time",
> that is "time", at different rates, by action of the gamma factor.

Except that every clock "travels through time" at 1 second per second.
It is only when you look at a clock from a different inertial frame, AND
FORGET THAT YOU ARE DOING SO, that you can deceive yourself like that.

> Your  use of the word "path length" is just a meaningless word used to
> avoid the fact that SR is time travel into the future.

Nonsense. For a timelike path, its path length is well defined and equal
to the elapsed proper time of a clock that follows the path.

But yes, due to the way we humans perceive time, SR and GR model
timelike paths as necessarily future directed. Anything else would be
instantly and completely refuted by very basic observations of the world
we inhabit. And in accordance with myriad observations, SR and GR also
model clocks traveling between a given pair of endpoints along different
paths as having different path lengths (elapsed proper times) -- just
like triangles on a Euclidean plane.

> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf - 3rd party
> account of the block universe

Did you even read the abstract???? -- it directly implies the universe
cannot be 3D, implying it must be (3+1)-D as in SR. Of course nobody
really expects SR to describe the universe, that requires GR and a much
more sophisticated and subtle analysis.

Tom Roberts

On 10/31/23 2:10 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other,
> now get this, represents *time*.

There's your mistake. The other axis represents time IN THE INERTIAL
FRAME IN WHICH THE DIAGRAM IS DRAWN.

You can draw the diagram using any inertial frame, and in other frames
your original axes are skewed, and NEITHER represents time, because it
represents time IN THE ORIGINAL FRAME (only).

But remember in SR, all inertial frames are equally valid....

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 23:50:42 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > I explain in full detail in my TP calculation that the traveller measures a
> > shorter distance for himself, and that the stay at home also agrees that the
> > traveller distance is shorter.
> Does the home twin agree? On what basis does he agree?

See, poor halfbrain: dwarves fabricated by Tolkien do what
Tolkien imagines. And twins fabricated by relativistic idiots
do what relativistic idiots imagine. Isn't it simple?
Both has very little in common with people/observers of
the real world.

On 10/31/2023 11:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
>> the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
>> relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
>> clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
>> was that predicted by GR,
>
> And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
> of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
> the correct state.

Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
things exactly backwards.

Sorry to hear about your slip and fall. Did you at least put out one of
those "Wet Floor" warning things so nobody else gets hurt?

On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 17:32:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 10/31/2023 11:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> >> "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
> >> the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
> >> relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
> >> clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> >> was that predicted by GR,
> >
> > And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
> > of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
> > the correct state.
> Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
> things exactly backwards.

It's you, not me, stupid Mike. Have you already found another
idiot supporting you with your "setting clocks to 9 192 631 770
ISO absurd is some Newton mode"?

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:32:22 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2023 11:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
> > > the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
> > > relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
> > > clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> > > was that predicted by GR,
> >
> > And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
> > of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
> > the correct state.
>
> Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
> things exactly backwards.
> So maybe it's a form of dyslexia? I hadn't thought of that. Poor, poor Maciej!

> Sorry to hear about your slip and fall. Did you at least put out one of
> those "Wet Floor" warning things so nobody else gets hurt?

Wozzie wouldn't have done that. It makes him feel better when he watches
someone else slips and falls, too.

On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 18:33:05 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:32:22 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> >
> > On 10/31/2023 11:50 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 12:44:45 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > > "At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained
> > > > the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that
> > > > relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite
> > > > clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit
> > > > was that predicted by GR,
> > >
> > > And for some hours or days things were matching the mumble
> > > of your idiot guru. Then a little switch turned them back to
> > > the correct state.
> >
> > Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
> > things exactly backwards.
> > So maybe it's a form of dyslexia? I hadn't thought of that. Poor, poor Maciej!
> > Sorry to hear about your slip and fall. Did you at least put out one of
> > those "Wet Floor" warning things so nobody else gets hurt?
> Wozzie wouldn't have done that. It makes him feel better when he watches
> someone else slips and falls, too.

Particularly when I see a relativistic idiot denying
that GPS clocks are real. Or another, insisting
that setting to 9 192 631 774 is an indirect
setting to 9 192 631 770.

On 11/1/2023 1:05 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 17:32:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

>> Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
>> things exactly backwards.
>
> It's you, not me, stupid Mike.

See what I mean? Wozniak even gets who is confused backwards!

On Thursday, 2 November 2023 at 05:06:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/1/2023 1:05 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 17:32:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>
> >> Poor Wozniak. He is always confused because he (deliberately) states
> >> things exactly backwards.
> >
> > It's you, not me, stupid Mike.
> See what I mean? Wozniak even gets who is confused backwards!

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

On October 23, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Professor of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
> prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:
> Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
> Time into video 0:31 :
> "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of nature...?"
> "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call
> the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and
> the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into
> little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these
> bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron...."
> Thus QFT is an Ether in denial.

*************************
Date: October 17, 2023
Author: Kevin Aylward
Group: sci.physics.relativity

> You are another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
> You have a pop media concept of SR, yet believe that you have it sussed.
***************************

--
Rich

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:33:08 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
> > > > Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
> > > Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?
> > >
> > > Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many clones here who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!
> > Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e.. the
> > diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
> > because light's speed is constant.
> >
> > An image from a relativistic approach exists insofar as "behind the wavefront",
> > then as passing the last look and the look back, as that the look back,
> > is "reverse angle", so the rear-view would only see if proceeding on the
> > track the image came from, or as what image arrives in space otherwise
> > as that it would go out of perspective, which would appear as having shrunk,
> > but shrinking while it's observed, vanishing when it's not.
> >
> > I.e., something approaching directly and also meeting directly, is visible
> > coming and going, while not directly, it's only visible where it was,
> > as when the image arrives as when it was emitted.
> >
> > Loosely, ....
> When watching, it's motion and in motion.
>
>
> First, when talking about an irrational claim, is to make the case,
> that "irrational", is about the "rational". Here, "rational" is two
> things: it's both the completion of the reasoning, and, the completion
> of never being irrational, the rational. So, "relativity's most irrational",
> claim, would have to be so minimally irrational or directly rational,
> as what's never exercised irrational, is "irrational roots in relativity,
> are space and time units, their roots and rational roots and irrational roots".
>
> This is that "linear keeps in rational roots, irrational roots are also called non-linearities".
>
> Then, insofar as an irrational claim, then is for "what claim of Relativity actually
> is reasonably or reasonatingly irrational, claim that if irrational at all goes with it,
> other claims".
>
> I.e., relativity has an "ideal" "claim of irrationality", a guarantee of the
> guarantee's of its reasonings, that "if irrational at all falls down all roots",
> changing "confusion about everything to do with science, or here relativity,
> where I can't axiomatize integrable my integrand, that I do, what the
> guarantees of non-confusion, mean in the applied, and finally to the direct
> action, usually relativity's first effect, effects in light.
>
> Then "look" is to effect perspective, and "watch" is to effect perspective,
> that image is reflectively being present in the perspective, that "motion"
> and "motion in real-time", is that at any instant, the light diffuses, including shine.
>
> Clearly it's galilean as a "to light speed impulse", explaining for example chrome effects,
> reflections and that in effect mirrors, where the light is reflected, participate with
> the other observable incident rays at that location, going out, as reflections of sources
> make for that "under the eclipse the leaves of the tree have fringes in their shadow",
> that that moment of the focus, is that "look" is an effect of focus, that each location
> has only one "look" at a time, and is watching what it's looking at, or looking.
>
> I.e. "it's galilean to an infinite speed impulse, including a light speed impulse",
> making "thus effectively there are no mirrors between any two points in space".
>
> Then under "irrational roots" there finding either side "overcomplete" that not
> having that, property of mutual completion, it's called "Dirichlet" and "irrational roots"
> where "Dirichlet is rationals 1 irrationals 0" that "a Dirichlet function is about any
> function that density properties in completion are the same everywhere, but it's
> exactly two complementary domains only denseness properties and one 1 the other 0".
>
> Or, "relativity's most irrational claim" is then "for Einstein either SR or GR, here it
> is that special relativity's most irrational claim, is that light that went one meter,
> did not also go less than one meter with any object in the same 1 meter or it
> over 1 second".
>
> Then, "restoring relativity's most irrational claim to a contrivance of overcompleteness,
> a usual property guaranteeing what we have adds up, that light's speed is a constant
> and invariant, that then it's glow and shine, the optical and geometric".
>
> Light is always incident from all angles.
>
> The scale of the resolution of an image, here is what it means science has achieved "20 orders
> of magnitude resolution" and all the way to atomic scale "25 orders of magnitude resolution",
> the entire body of observability, in the micro is micro-optical and micro-geometric, and in
> the macro is macro-optical and macro-geometric, and in the meso- is optical and geometric.
>
> So, here I have even put the needle in "I won't even hear nonsense about relativity at all",
> "it's harder to actually of course validate special relativity experimentally", i.e. that point
> being that of course as far as I can tell, every experience I've ever had is explained quite
> well, my interpretation of having "researched special relativity" and "resolved relativity
> in foundations, physics", the point being that by being academic and making an apologetics
> first, then as it goes along I just point to the entire apologetics, mathematical foundations,
> coming up to physical foundations, of bringing that along and bringing one along, an
> entire canon and an apologetics that for "Relativity: the entire discussion and Einstein's
> theories thereon, with all respects to theories real physics", that making arguments in
> relativity always explaining "the light wasn't there", it's that special relativity is given
> the terms in the units, and dimensionless, about why "according to SI's units its these
> necessary formalisms in the Special Relativity all what may apply", is that then for
> example "wherever it falls out or even loosens in contraction, SR has no irrational
> claim in it, only any mistaken derivations after SR and other units, then also and
> especially: that SR's reflection and imaging optical and geometric the light-like,
> is built as continuity laws when not invariances, any invariance that is undercomplete".
>
> Then this is that "any conservation law is two conservation laws, one of it".
>
> And they have one continuity law, which least action in theory is time, t..
>
> "Relativity's most irrational claim: SR's, that things don't move, under roots
> building image, as so for each bundle of roots, that parallel transport is
> the entire picture, what under optical and gometric terms is only one point
> image, also only one-sided".
>
>
> Think of perspective as looking from infinitely far away, it's called 2-D perspective.
>
> This way mentally you reconstruct what you're seeing besides what's in front of the eyes -
> also it's the model construct in space terms which are of course equivalent:
> one mental drawing.
>
> The point is being that for Einstein and "SR or GR themselves or both",
> is that GR changes in the future, while SR is from the past, so having SR
> in front, is corresponding to the contents, which in imaging are free".
>
> So, one must separate "SR and GR" or "GR, then SR", and these days enough
> it's "why yes my units are classical but SR will relativize them, SR is then say
> STR and then GTR" and as Einstein's "SR, then GR, called STR then GTR".
> There's though that STR-arians say as GR then "GTR...", but it is though,
> "ah but now, my old GR is already Einstein's new old GR and already old SR's
> GTR to SR", so in this manner it's still SR and GR to "according to the units",
> that into STR are "these are our units..." then as "then it's one of Einstein's
> 'either SR, _or_ GR_", simply gently factoring Einstein's "SR" and "GR" among
> the other resulting constructs, as of course they go together in usual boost
> addition, what are frames the entire frame.
>
> It's not irrational, though, both Special Relativity and General Relativity of course
> have a no-nonsense theory, which are quite true and absolutely so in all respects.
>
> So, any "irrational claim" about relativity must have some "how irrational is it"
> and "how is it irrational", then there's "that's obviously irrational", or,
> "our knowledge of the theory really ends here, picking one or the other of
> the SR or GR because I don't have both, is that SR at least is computed always
> as constant velocity, because everything else in the universe is moving.
>
> "Light never moves: only glows and goes away."
>
> Light Speed Rest Frame theory <-> Glow Speed Rest Frame theory
>
> Then, rays over time, helps establish it's a continuous theory.