Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU

My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
all, so here is a condensed version.

The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.

It isn't.

Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.

You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
space and time are Minkowskian.

In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
an idiot.

--
Jan

On 1/17/2024 5:15 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
>
> My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> all, so here is a condensed version.
>
> The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
>
> You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> space and time are Minkowskian.
>
> In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> an idiot.
>
> --
> Jan

My question has to do with what information is useless and consequently
is all information worthy of argument.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 3:15:50 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> all, so here is a condensed version.
>
> The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
>
> You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> space and time are Minkowskian.
>
> In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> an idiot.
>
> --
> Jan

Excuse my ignorance if "what's an MTW".

Ah, "Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's Gravitation".

Yeah, I've heard of them, now I'll be looking into their derivations,
and comparing and contrasting that with Einstein's theory, latest.

Yeah the, uh, FLRW, cosmology, was really in vogue for a long time.
That's Walker not Wheeler though I suppose, but, same sort of difference.

"The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space."

"The cosmoological constant ...." [Typo mine]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

Yeah, I kind of wonder what Thorne, says, is the cosmological constant.

Then, I wonder if any of them, have, the cosmological constant,
as vanishing, also positive.

Einstein's like "well I don't say but if infinitesimals were standard
that would be nice".

Anyways, modern cosmology having paint-canned inflationary cosmology,
which you would have known if your theory already worked that out,
and now you're told and hemming and hawing about it,
anyways space-contraction is real in a theory with a fall gravity,
the space-carriage of linear motion, and spacetime-wheel of rotational motion,
vis-a-vis independent rotating frames of course, Einstein's bridges,
Einstein's defense of Newton and attack on classical motion, dot dot dot.

What, you never heard of that?

It's like when we were studying boost addition and
the guy was like "you can easily convince yourself that", ...,
not for everybody, I suppose, i.e. those who noticed the opposite.

On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 00:15:50 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> all, so here is a condensed version.
>
> The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
>
> You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> space and time are Minkowskian.

Or rather "space in the meaning of a relativistic idiot"
and "time in the meaning of a relativistic idiot" are.
It's no way affecting the real time, which (as anyone
can check in GPS) is basing on non-identical clocks.

> In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> an idiot.

And I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming
that youj and your fellow idiots are everyone.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> all, so here is a condensed version.
>
> The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
>
> It isn't.
>
> Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
>
> You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> space and time are Minkowskian.
>
> In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> an idiot.
>
> --
> Jan

Imbecile, the main FALLACY in SR is the assertion that OWLS = AB/(tB-tA), providing that A and B clocks are IN SYNC, and that B clock
can be read remotely.

As it is IMPOSSIBLE, the fallacious statement that TWLS = 2AB/(t´A -tA) = OWLS is completely FALSE and UNPROVEN.

With OWLS measurement, you would need two clocks in perfect sync and REMOTE READING of B clock, which IS IMPOSSIBLE.

So, SR is rotten since the start of the theory claiming that OWLS = TWLS, without any fucking proof (not once in 120 years).

With TWLS, you don't need any clock synchronization since the same clock is used twice.

And this fallacy MEANS CHEATING, A MASS DECEPTION for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).

You are a zombie parrot, with no brain. You just BOUGHT an unsubstantiated idea because you are a fucking snowflake with no neurons, who
need to gather with similar subspecies.

You wasted your life following a fucking CULT! I bet you also endorse feminism, gender change, global warming and are pro-abortion and that
russian and chinese are bad people.

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 4:57:24 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> > My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> > all, so here is a condensed version.
> >
> > The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> > clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> > Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> > It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
> >
> > You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> > a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> > synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> > experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> > space and time are Minkowskian.
> >
> > In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> > an idiot.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Imbecile, the main FALLACY in SR is the assertion that OWLS = AB/(tB-tA), providing that A and B clocks are IN SYNC, and that B clock
> can be read remotely.

You simply have the observer at the remote clock record the time that
he receives the signal on a small piece of paper. He then affixes the
strip of paper to the leg of a carrier pigeon and sends the pigeon flying
to the first observer, who can then perform the simple arithmetic.

What's the issue?
> As it is IMPOSSIBLE, the fallacious statement that TWLS = 2AB/(t´A -tA) = OWLS is completely FALSE and UNPROVEN.
>
> With OWLS measurement, you would need two clocks in perfect sync and REMOTE READING of B clock, which IS IMPOSSIBLE.

All attempts to demonstrate anisotropy of signal propagation through
empty space have failed. Since space appears to be isotropic, TWLS
must equal OWLS.

> So, SR is rotten since the start of the theory claiming that OWLS = TWLS, without any fucking proof (not once in 120 years).
>
> With TWLS, you don't need any clock synchronization since the same clock is used twice.

Of course. And although OWLS measurement requires two clocks, OWLS ANISOTROPY
measurement does not require synchronized clocks. Will has written: "...a test of the
isotropy of the speed between the same two clocks as the orientation of the propagation
path varies relative to Σ should not depend on how they were synchronized..."
Conventionalists like Zhang and Anderson may argue otherwise, but special relativity
works just fine and has been enormously successful despite their hair-splitting arguments
which I deem no more productive than arguing about dancing angels and pins.

> And this fallacy MEANS CHEATING, A MASS DECEPTION for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).
>
> You are a zombie parrot, with no brain. You just BOUGHT an unsubstantiated idea because you are a fucking snowflake with no neurons, who
> need to gather with similar subspecies.
>
> You wasted your life following a fucking CULT! I bet you also endorse feminism, gender change, global warming and are pro-abortion and that
> russian and chinese are bad people.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 3:15:50 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> > My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> > all, so here is a condensed version.
> >
> > The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> > clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> > Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> > It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
> >
> > You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> > a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> > synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> > experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> > space and time are Minkowskian.
> >
> > In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> > an idiot.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Excuse my ignorance if "what's an MTW".
>
> Ah, "Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's Gravitation".
>
>
> Yeah, I've heard of them, now I'll be looking into their derivations,
> and comparing and contrasting that with Einstein's theory, latest.
>
> Yeah the, uh, FLRW, cosmology, was really in vogue for a long time.
> That's Walker not Wheeler though I suppose, but, same sort of difference.
>
> "The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space."
>
> "The cosmoological constant ...." [Typo mine]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric
>
> Yeah, I kind of wonder what Thorne, says, is the cosmological constant.
>
> Then, I wonder if any of them, have, the cosmological constant,
> as vanishing, also positive.
>
> Einstein's like "well I don't say but if infinitesimals were standard
> that would be nice".
>
>
> Anyways, modern cosmology having paint-canned inflationary cosmology,
> which you would have known if your theory already worked that out,
> and now you're told and hemming and hawing about it,
> anyways space-contraction is real in a theory with a fall gravity,
> the space-carriage of linear motion, and spacetime-wheel of rotational motion,
> vis-a-vis independent rotating frames of course, Einstein's bridges,
> Einstein's defense of Newton and attack on classical motion, dot dot dot.
>
> What, you never heard of that?
>
> It's like when we were studying boost addition and
> the guy was like "you can easily convince yourself that", ...,
> not for everybody, I suppose, i.e. those who noticed the opposite.

I emailed one time with Thomas Dolby, he was pretty cool.
I emailed with Martin Gardner one time. Quite genial, even nice.
So, conversation isn't dead, just curled up in the corner with chivalry.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/Vzr4XFUJIO4/m/r2qQuxCOBgAJ

Posted By: Finlayson, Subject: Ross, Has the words: boost

Dec. 18, 2019, 8:07PM

This was "Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation" when we were writing
"Open Message to Ross..." on sci.physics.relativity.

It provides an example of a counterexample in usual boost addition.

"Answer 1.23 says "make an arbitrary boost", then "a pure rotation
lines up the coordinate frame again", but that "p^x doesn't
have its original magnitude", then "boost along p^x again".

"You can easily convince yourself that the product of these
transformations is not a pure rotation, there is in general
a net boost left over."

But, in 1.2 there isn't "a pure rotation
lines up the coordinate frame again"."

In my reading from Einstein I really sort of make commentary why he
supports space contraction. So, you should only interpret that for yourself.
As Einstein would put it for his model physicist and model philosopher,
who if you don't convince, aren't listening.

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
Fascinating. But I have paused the video at the beginning of the third section--the Richenbach section--to ask this question: if relativity if false then why cannot to clocks be synchronized while exactly adjacent to one another, then moved any distance at any relative velocity and still not be considered synchronized? What power or cause would de-synchronized them, assuming relativity is not true?

On Friday 19 January 2024 at 01:55:23 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Of course. And although OWLS measurement requires two clocks, OWLS ANISOTROPY
> measurement does not require synchronized clocks.

> Conventionalists like Zhang and Anderson may argue otherwise, but special relativity

refuses any arguments, as expected from a bunch of fanatic
religious mjaniacs.

> works just fine and has been enormously successful

In the meantime in the real world,, of course, forbidden by
your bunch of idiots "improper"clocks keep measuring t;=t,
just like all serious clocks always did

> which I deem no more productive than arguing about dancing angels and pins.

Shortening - FUCK THE ARGUING!! i'M FINE AND SUCCESSFUL
AND BRILLIANT AND SO ON, I JUST KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Friday 19 January 2024 at 06:40:55 UTC+1, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> >
> >
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> Fascinating. But I have paused the video at the beginning of the third section--the Richenbach section--to ask this question: if relativity if false then why cannot to clocks be synchronized while exactly adjacent to one another, then moved any distance at any relative velocity and still not be considered synchronized? What power or cause would de-synchronized them, assuming relativity is not true?

Jeez. Do you know what a clock is?
It's a DE-VI-CE. A device may always
fail, just because it's a device, not
a gedanken avatar of a Great Mystical
Youdontknowwhat.

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 2:57:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> > My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> > all, so here is a condensed version.
> >
> > The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> > clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> > Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> > It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
> >
> > You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> > a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> > synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> > experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> > space and time are Minkowskian.
> >
> > In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> > an idiot.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Imbecile, the main FALLACY in SR is the assertion that OWLS = AB/(tB-tA),

No, as I said: this is a very common misconception and the authro of the
video you quoted fell into this classic trap (and so did Veritassium AFAICT).

The equation you quote refers to a particular property of a particular coordinate
system. This is not a defining property of special relativity, whose actual
defining property is its geometry (which is Lorentzian). This was not
known in 1905 but was true just the same.

providing that A and B clocks are IN SYNC, and that B clock
> can be read remotely.

Again, clock sync is neither necessary or essential for defining
special relativity. It's merely a *convenience* AND a nice tool
providing a direct comparison to the Newtonian mechanics for
speeds much smaller than c.

> As it is IMPOSSIBLE, the fallacious statement that TWLS = 2AB/(t´A -tA) = OWLS is completely FALSE and UNPROVEN.

It doesn't matter. It's just like in Euclidean geometry: the "ruler sync" idea
(i.e., the concept of an orthogonal coordinate system) is just
a convenience, it's not the defining root cause of Euclidean geometry.

> With OWLS measurement, you would need two clocks in perfect sync and REMOTE READING of B clock, which IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, irrelevant. You are arguing about definitions. For accelerated
motion such definitions become even more variated.

> So, SR is rotten since the start of the theory claiming that OWLS = TWLS, without any fucking proof (not once in 120 years).

No. You simply don't understand the theory. Most normal people know
exactly when they reach limits of their knowledge. You just assume
the entire rest of the planet has been wrong for 120 years. Enjoy.

> With TWLS, you don't need any clock synchronization since the same clock is used twice.
>
> And this fallacy MEANS CHEATING, A MASS DECEPTION

Stop fantasising, there is no fallacy and no cheating, you only don't understand the
what the issue is.

> for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).

I grew up in a communist country, so I know it better than you can imagine.

> You are a zombie parrot, with no brain. You just BOUGHT an unsubstantiated idea

I've just told you what the facts are: special relativity's very essence is that space
and time form a Lorentzian (aka. Minkowski) geometry. Clock sync is a
mere convenience, just like coordinate axes ("rulers sync") are mere
conveniences, and are not required for Euclidean geometry. In fact,
until Descartes Euclidean geometry existed quite well.

It's exactly the same with special relativity (Lorentzian geometry) except:

1. this is not how the theory was introduced historically,

2. this is not how the theory is taught, typically.

> because you are a fucking snowflake with no neurons, who
> need to gather with similar subspecies.

I've just told you that you made a mistake. Now apologise.

> You wasted your life following a fucking CULT!

Don't be silly. I know this stuff cold. Also, unlike you, I know what I don't know.

> I bet you also endorse feminism, gender change, global warming and are pro-abortion and that
> russian and chinese are bad people.

I'll keep you guessing, it's fun watching you fly off like that.

--
Jan

On Friday 19 January 2024 at 23:35:30 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

> > You wasted your life following a fucking CULT!
> Don't be silly. I know this stuff cold.

Of course you know your cult stuff, nobody is
doubting it, poor fanatic idiot.

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 2:57:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: \
> >
> > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > [Ridiculous besmirchment deleted]
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> >
> > The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> > clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> > Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> > It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
> >
> > You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> > a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> > synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> > experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> > space and time are Minkowskian.
> >
> > In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> > an idiot.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> Imbecile, the main FALLACY in SR is the assertion that OWLS = AB/(tB-tA),

Can you provide evidence that it's a fallacy, rather than assertion?
> As it is IMPOSSIBLE, the fallacious statement that TWLS = 2AB/(t´A -tA) = OWLS
> is completely FALSE and UNPROVEN.

Your "conclusion" is based on an UNPROVEN assertion.

> TE READING of B clock, which IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Clock B doesn't need to be read "remotely" - whatever that means.

> So, SR is rotten since the start of the theory claiming that OWLS = TWLS, without
> any fucking proof (not once in 120 years).

And without any proof, Richard makes baseless assertions. And he hasn't proven
that OWLS <> TWLS. The only way that it cannot be is if AB/(tB - tA) <> BA/(tA - tB).

> With TWLS, you don't need any clock synchronization since the same clock is used twice.

Yes, indeed. So why don't you believe that AB/(tB - tA) <> BA/(tA - tB)?

> And this fallacy MEANS CHEATING, A MASS DECEPTION

There is a baseless assertion, and the only "fallacy" is the one you're trying to foist
on those who see through your "mass deception" :-)

> for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).

I try to follow this admonition:

“What I cannot create, I do not understand." -- Richard P. Feynman

I grew up in a communist country, so I know it better than you can imagine.

I test the assumptions (e.g., postulates). Although synchronizing clocks isn't a
postulate, it's important for verifying the theory. Hence, Einstein synchronization.
Can you falsify it? If you can't, then your assertion is baseless.

> You are a zombie parrot, with no brain. You just BOUGHT an unsubstantiated idea

Pot, kettle, black :-))

Gary

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 2:35:30 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 2:57:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
> > > My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
> > > all, so here is a condensed version.
> > >
> > > The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
> > > clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.
> > >
> > > It isn't.
> > >
> > > Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
> > > It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.
> > >
> > > You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
> > > a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no
> > > synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
> > > experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
> > > space and time are Minkowskian.
> > >
> > > In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
> > > an idiot.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > Imbecile, the main FALLACY in SR is the assertion that OWLS = AB/(tB-tA),
> No, as I said: this is a very common misconception and the authro of the
> video you quoted fell into this classic trap (and so did Veritassium AFAICT).
>
> The equation you quote refers to a particular property of a particular coordinate
> system. This is not a defining property of special relativity, whose actual
> defining property is its geometry (which is Lorentzian).
This defining property is a reification fallacy. Space has no geometry. It is imposed on it, imbecile.

This was not
> known in 1905 but was true just the same.
> providing that A and B clocks are IN SYNC, and that B clock
> > can be read remotely.
> Again, clock sync is neither necessary or essential for defining
> special relativity. It's merely a *convenience* AND a nice tool
> providing a direct comparison to the Newtonian mechanics for
> speeds much smaller than c.
> > As it is IMPOSSIBLE, the fallacious statement that TWLS = 2AB/(t´A -tA) = OWLS is completely FALSE and UNPROVEN.
> It doesn't matter. It's just like in Euclidean geometry: the "ruler sync" idea
> (i.e., the concept of an orthogonal coordinate system) is just
> a convenience, it's not the defining root cause of Euclidean geometry.
> > With OWLS measurement, you would need two clocks in perfect sync and REMOTE READING of B clock, which IS IMPOSSIBLE.
> Again, irrelevant. You are arguing about definitions. For accelerated
> motion such definitions become even more variated.
> > So, SR is rotten since the start of the theory claiming that OWLS = TWLS, without any fucking proof (not once in 120 years).
> No. You simply don't understand the theory. Most normal people know
> exactly when they reach limits of their knowledge. You just assume
> the entire rest of the planet has been wrong for 120 years.
Recourse to ad populum fallacy instead of reasoning. Lemmings.

Enjoy.
> > With TWLS, you don't need any clock synchronization since the same clock is used twice.
> >
> > And this fallacy MEANS CHEATING, A MASS DECEPTION
> Stop fantasising, there is no fallacy and no cheating, you only don't understand the
> what the issue is.
> > for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).
> I grew up in a communist country, so I know it better than you can imagine.
> > You are a zombie parrot, with no brain. You just BOUGHT an unsubstantiated idea
> I've just told you what the facts are: special relativity's very essence is that space
> and time form a Lorentzian (aka. Minkowski) geometry. Clock sync is a
> mere convenience, just like coordinate axes ("rulers sync") are mere
> conveniences, and are not required for Euclidean geometry. In fact,
> until Descartes Euclidean geometry existed quite well.
>
> It's exactly the same with special relativity (Lorentzian geometry) except:
>
> 1. this is not how the theory was introduced historically,
>
> 2. this is not how the theory is taught, typically.
> > because you are a fucking snowflake with no neurons, who
> > need to gather with similar subspecies.
> I've just told you that you made a mistake. Now apologise.
> > You wasted your life following a fucking CULT!
> Don't be silly. I know this stuff cold. Also, unlike you, I know what I don't know.
> > I bet you also endorse feminism, gender change, global warming and are pro-abortion and that
> > russian and chinese are bad people.
> I'll keep you guessing, it's fun watching you fly off like that.
>
> --
> Jan

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:52:48 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 2:35:30 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > The equation you quote refers to a particular property of a particular coordinate
> > system. This is not a defining property of special relativity, whose actual
> > defining property is its geometry (which is Lorentzian).
>
> This defining property is a reification fallacy. Space has no geometry.
> It is imposed on it,

Just as are all laws of physics. We let go of a rock, it falls to the ground. We
ascribe a force pulls it down, or a geometry, or a fairy. The fact is, Larry, no
one really knows what "space" is. As Tom Roberts says, all we have is models.

> imbecile.

Now, Larry, you KNOW that Jan is NOT an "imbecile." Calling him that is lying. Is
THAT how you want to be known -- as a liar? Have a little more respect for yourself.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 5:42:41 AM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:52:48 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 2:35:30 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > The equation you quote refers to a particular property of a particular coordinate
> > > system. This is not a defining property of special relativity, whose actual
> > > defining property is its geometry (which is Lorentzian).
> >
> > This defining property is a reification fallacy. Space has no geometry.
> > It is imposed on it,
> Just as are all laws of physics. We let go of a rock, it falls to the ground. We
> ascribe a force pulls it down, or a geometry, or a fairy. The fact is, Larry, no
> one really knows what "space" is. As Tom Roberts says, all we have is models.
>
> > imbecile.
>
> Now, Larry, you KNOW that Jan is NOT an "imbecile." Calling him that is lying. Is
> THAT how you want to be known -- as a liar? Have a little more respect for yourself.
Models are not reification fallacy. A model is an abstraction, not a reification fallacy. Models involving the reification fallacy are illogical and invalid models. Tom and you are conflating the fallacy with abstractions without the fallacy. You two are confusing math with physics; many excellent scientists have commented on this unfortunate tendency in physics over the past 100 years. These mistakes are utterly stupid. Accepting relativity involves making these mistakes. It takes an imbecile to do that (less than 70 IQ). Even a child knows the difference, and this gets laughs at a clown show..

Larry wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > Larry wrote:
> > >
> > > This defining property is a reification fallacy. Space has no geometry.
> > > It is imposed on it,
> >
> > Just as are all laws of physics. We let go of a rock, it falls to the ground. We
> > ascribe a force pulls it down, or a geometry, or a fairy. The fact is, Larry, no
> > one really knows what "space" is. As Tom Roberts says, all we have is models.
> >
> > > imbecile.
> >
> > Now, Larry, you KNOW that Jan is NOT an "imbecile." Calling him that is lying. Is
> > THAT how you want to be known -- as a liar? Have a little more respect for yourself.
>
> Models are not reification fallacy. A model is an abstraction, not a reification
> fallacy.

Larry, you seem to have a compulsion about "reification" as if you believe you can touch
space and know everything about it. That is just bizarre pretentiousness and arrogance.

> Models involving the reification fallacy are illogical and invalid models.

The fact is that you have nothing even as good as that.
> Tom and you are conflating the fallacy with abstractions without the fallacy.

You are conflating reality with physics.

> You two are confusing math with physics;

:-)) Larry, math is just counting. Mathematics is only a tool. Even the most sublime
mathematics reduces to that. Physics is trying to find out how the universe works. The
best we can do is observe, make models, test them, observe, modify, etc. And if the
difference between the model and the observation can't be quantified, you got nuttin!

"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
– Robert A. Heinlein

> many excellent scientists have commented on this unfortunate tendency in physics over
> the past 100 years.

Name one!

> These mistakes are utterly stupid.

What "mistakes"? Using math? Now THAT'S utterly stupid.

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best
he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and
not make messes in the house." – Robert A. Heinlein

> Accepting relativity involves making these mistakes.

You are wrong, opinion-breath. It takes someone who is fully human to use mathematics
to compare theory with experiment. I've done so. Have you?

> It takes an imbecile to do that (less than 70 IQ). Even a child knows the difference,
> and this gets laughs at a clown show..

Apparently, you don't know the difference between theory and experiment. What is your IQ?

Le 22/01/2024 à 13:41, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> Larry wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>> >
>> > Larry wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This defining property is a reification fallacy. Space has no geometry.
>> > > It is imposed on it,
>> >
>> > Just as are all laws of physics. We let go of a rock, it falls to the ground.
>> We
>> > ascribe a force pulls it down, or a geometry, or a fairy. The fact is, Larry,
>> no
>> > one really knows what "space" is. As Tom Roberts says, all we have is models.
>> >
>> > > imbecile.
>> >
>> > Now, Larry, you KNOW that Jan is NOT an "imbecile." Calling him that is lying.
>> Is
>> > THAT how you want to be known -- as a liar? Have a little more respect for
>> yourself.
>>
>> Models are not reification fallacy. A model is an abstraction, not a reification
>> fallacy.
>
> Larry, you seem to have a compulsion about "reification" as if you believe you
> can touch
> space and know everything about it. That is just bizarre pretentiousness and
> arrogance.
>
>> Models involving the reification fallacy are illogical and invalid models.
>
> The fact is that you have nothing even as good as that.
>
>> Tom and you are conflating the fallacy with abstractions without the fallacy.
>
> You are conflating reality with physics.
>
>> You two are confusing math with physics;
>
> :-)) Larry, math is just counting. Mathematics is only a tool. Even the most
> sublime
> mathematics reduces to that. Physics is trying to find out how the universe
> works. The
> best we can do is observe, make models, test them, observe, modify, etc. And if
> the
> difference between the model and the observation can't be quantified, you got
> nuttin!
>
> "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
> – Robert A. Heinlein
>
>> many excellent scientists have commented on this unfortunate tendency in physics
>> over
>> the past 100 years.
>
> Name one!
>
>> These mistakes are utterly stupid.
>
> What "mistakes"? Using math? Now THAT'S utterly stupid.
>
> "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best
> he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and
> not make messes in the house." – Robert A. Heinlein
>
>> Accepting relativity involves making these mistakes.
>
> You are wrong, opinion-breath. It takes someone who is fully human to use
> mathematics
> to compare theory with experiment. I've done so. Have you?
>
>> It takes an imbecile to do that (less than 70 IQ). Even a child knows the
>> difference,
>> and this gets laughs at a clown show..
>
> Apparently, you don't know the difference between theory and experiment. What
> is your IQ?

As usual, Larry does not know what he does not know. He could have a large
IQ but that does not help when you are ignorant of the subject matter.

Get a dang textbook, Larry, and read the dang thing!

On January 19, JanPB wrote:
>> for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).
>
> I grew up in a communist country, so I know it better than you can imagine.

Notice anything familiar in the Land of the Unfree, today?
Notice any ruling political party reminiscent of your childhood?
Recognize any of the self-proclaimed Leaders?

Did you know that in many of the so-called elite education
institutions, they now demand loyalty oaths from the faculty?
No oath, no tenure -

--
Rich

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:58:47 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> On January 19, JanPB wrote:
> >> for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).
> >
> > I grew up in a communist country, so I know it better than you can imagine.
> Notice anything familiar in the Land of the Unfree, today?
> Notice any ruling political party reminiscent of your childhood?
> Recognize any of the self-proclaimed Leaders?
>
> Did you know that in many of the so-called elite education
> institutions, they now demand loyalty oaths from the faculty?
> No oath, no tenure -
>
> --
> Rich
The Left in the U.S. has long been extremely Marxist. To understand Marxism, Napoleon is instructive. He said, “Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.” That is what Marxism is. It characterizes those in power as oppressors, to exploit the vice of desiring power over others. Then it exploits, envy, greed... Relativity functions as an ideology.

Larry wrote:
>
> The Left in the U.S. has long been extremely Marxist. To understand Marxism,
> Napoleon is instructive. He said, “Men are more easily governed through their
> vices than through their virtues.” That is what Marxism is. It characterizes
> those in power as oppressors, to exploit the vice of desiring power over
> others. Then it exploits, envy, greed... Relativity functions as an ideology.

You were going okay there, Larry, until that last brain-fart. You didn't tell
the truth, but another Larry did:

“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

And THAT'S the truth!

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 16:02:03 UTC+1, gharnagel wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > The Left in the U.S. has long been extremely Marxist. To understand Marxism,
> > Napoleon is instructive. He said, “Men are more easily governed through their
> > vices than through their virtues.” That is what Marxism is. It characterizes
> > those in power as oppressors, to exploit the vice of desiring power over
> > others. Then it exploits, envy, greed... Relativity functions as an ideology.
> You were going okay there, Larry, until that last brain-fart. You didn't tell
> the truth, but another Larry did:
>
> “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
> thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
> rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”

Relativistic idiots are telling the truth very
seldom, and, of course, not in this case.
"because someone thought it would be a
good idea for the universe to obey these rules"
is exact description of why The Shit was invented.

On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 7:02:03 AM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > The Left in the U.S. has long been extremely Marxist. To understand Marxism,
> > Napoleon is instructive. He said, “Men are more easily governed through their
> > vices than through their virtues.” That is what Marxism is. It characterizes
> > those in power as oppressors, to exploit the vice of desiring power over
> > others. Then it exploits, envy, greed... Relativity functions as an ideology.
> You were going okay there, Larry, until that last brain-fart. You didn't tell
> the truth, but another Larry did:
>
> “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
> thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
> rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
> -- Lawrence M. Krauss
>
> And THAT'S the truth!

Have you read Krauss' book about nothing/something
and a mathematical universe hypothesis?

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/search?q=Krauss%20author%3AFinlayson

I felt that I got my best explanation for L-principle from Davies,
from the '80's, then though his later stuff recall's Penrose's interview
with Kuhn, where Penrose is like "you know I deliberately popularize
these things as paradoxical, it's intentional", with respect to airy
notions of airy notions. I.e., Penrose keeps it whimsical to keep from
leaving the audience crying. His books for example with Rindler
are much more the hard parts.

gharnagel wrote:

> Larry wrote:
>>
>> T̶h̶e̶ L̶e̶f̶t̶ i̶n̶ t̶h̶e̶ U̶.S̶. h̶a̶s̶ l̶o̶n̶g̶ b̶e̶e̶n̶ e̶x̶t̶r̶e̶m̶e̶l̶y̶ M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶t̶. T̶o̶ u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶
>> M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶m̶, N̶a̶p̶o̶l̶e̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ i̶n̶s̶t̶r̶u̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶. H̶e̶ s̶a̶i̶d̶, “M̶e̶n̶ a̶r̶e̶ m̶o̶r̶e̶ e̶a̶s̶i̶l̶y̶
>> g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶e̶d̶ t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ v̶i̶c̶e̶s̶ t̶h̶a̶n̶ t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ v̶i̶r̶t̶u̶e̶s̶.” T̶h̶a̶t̶ i̶s̶ w̶h̶a̶t̶
>> M̶a̶r̶x̶i̶s̶m̶ i̶s̶. I̶t̶ c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶z̶e̶s̶ t̶h̶o̶s̶e̶ i̶n̶ p̶o̶w̶e̶r̶ a̶s̶ o̶p̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶o̶r̶s̶, t̶o̶ e̶x̶p̶l̶o̶i̶t̶
>> t̶h̶e̶ v̶i̶c̶e̶ o̶f̶ d̶e̶s̶i̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ p̶o̶w̶e̶r̶ o̶v̶e̶r̶ o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶. T̶h̶e̶n̶ i̶t̶ e̶x̶p̶l̶o̶i̶t̶s̶, e̶n̶v̶y̶,
>> g̶r̶e̶e̶d̶... R̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶ f̶u̶n̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ a̶s̶ a̶n̶ i̶d̶e̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶.
>
> Y̶o̶u̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ g̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ o̶k̶a̶y̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶, L̶a̶r̶r̶y̶, u̶n̶t̶i̶l̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ l̶a̶s̶t̶ b̶r̶a̶i̶n̶-f̶a̶r̶t̶. Y̶o̶u̶
> d̶i̶d̶n̶'t̶ t̶e̶l̶l̶ t̶h̶e̶ t̶r̶u̶t̶h̶, b̶u̶t̶ a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ L̶a̶r̶r̶y̶ d̶i̶d̶:
>
>_“𝙍𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮_𝙖𝙣𝙙_𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙢_𝙢𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙨_𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚_𝙣𝙤𝙩_𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙_𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚_𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙚
>_𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩_𝙞𝙩_𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙_𝙗𝙚_𝙖_𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙_𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙖_𝙛𝙤𝙧_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙚_𝙩𝙤_𝙤𝙗𝙚𝙮_𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚_𝙧𝙪𝙡𝙚𝙨;
>_𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧,_𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚_𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙧𝙮_𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙨_𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚_𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙙_𝙪𝙥𝙤𝙣_𝙪𝙨_𝙗𝙮_𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚.”
> -- Marx, Engels and Lenin
>
> And THAT'S the truth!

the truth is you both are putting your feet into each other mouth. The
next will be say the nazis landed on the Moon, manned, in 1969, and even
before that.