On 7/23/2021 11:06 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
>>>>>>> frame any source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
>>>>>>
>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>>>>
>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
>>
>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
>>
>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
>>
>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
>
> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
> assertion.
>
> That’s just insanity, Ken.

Plus Ken doesn't understand that if he makes a claim he believes in, it
is not a fact but itself is an assertion. This leads to the bizarre
situation where Ken claims everything he doesn't believe in is an
assertion, but he makes claims he seems to think are factual but
themselves are unsupported assertions. He may simply be unable to tell
the difference between his beliefs/theory and actual science fact.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
>>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
>>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
>>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>>>>
>>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
>>
>> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
>> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
>>
That's right, Ken. Why repeat this? All Einstein's arguments did not
depend on this redefinition or anything else that happened more than a
half century in the future (of that time, 1905).

>>> Do you know that such argument is circular?

Not now. What started as Einstein's P2 is now considered established
confirmed as factual, as factual as the inverse square Coulomb's Law of
electrostatic force, as it has been validated by boatloads of experiments.

The redefinition was because scientists want to define ALL units in
terms of natural constants rather than some bar or weight in Paris.
They just recently redefined the kilogram as well. (Of course the
redefinitions don't cause issues with old experimental results because
they deliberately choose the new definition value to be as close as
possible to the old value, just using a certain number of Si-28 atoms
instead of a mass in Paris as the definition. Same for redefinition of
the meter)

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 7/23/2021 11:06 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
>>>>>>>> frame any source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
>>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
>>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
>>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
>>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
>>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
>>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
>>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
>>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
>>>
>>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
>>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
>>>
>>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
>>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
>>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
>>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
>>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
>>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
>>>
>>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
>>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
>>
>> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
>> understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
>> assertion.
>>
>> That’s just insanity, Ken.
>
> Plus Ken doesn't understand that if he makes a claim he believes in, it
> is not a fact but itself is an assertion. This leads to the bizarre
> situation where Ken claims everything he doesn't believe in is an
> assertion, but he makes claims he seems to think are factual but
> themselves are unsupported assertions. He may simply be unable to tell
> the difference between his beliefs/theory and actual science fact.

This is, I think, one of the basic disconnects between a lot of engineers
and a lot of scientists.

Scientists say that truth is based on what happens in corroborated
observation and experiment, no matter how surprising or nonintuitive the
result — period, end of story.

Engineers rely more on being able to “figure things out logically” which in
turn hangs on common sense and experience. And so if an experimental result
is counter to common sense experience and resists what makes sense to an
engineer “logically”, then it is suspect and not to be trusted.

Ken comes from a background in chemical engineering. If he can’t reconcile
an idea or an experiment by making “logical sense” of it, then as far as
he’s concerned, it’s false. He expects anything that is true to make
intuitive sense to him. He objects to being surprised.

His brain is calcified. In his mid-80’s, this isn’t really a surprise. It’s
also irreversible.

>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
>>>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
>>>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
>>>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>>>>>
>>>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
>>>
>>> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
>>> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
>>>
> That's right, Ken. Why repeat this? All Einstein's arguments did not
> depend on this redefinition or anything else that happened more than a
> half century in the future (of that time, 1905).
>
>>>> Do you know that such argument is circular?
>
> Not now. What started as Einstein's P2 is now considered established
> confirmed as factual, as factual as the inverse square Coulomb's Law of
> electrostatic force, as it has been validated by boatloads of experiments.
>
> The redefinition was because scientists want to define ALL units in
> terms of natural constants rather than some bar or weight in Paris.
> They just recently redefined the kilogram as well. (Of course the
> redefinitions don't cause issues with old experimental results because
> they deliberately choose the new definition value to be as close as
> possible to the old value, just using a certain number of Si-28 atoms
> instead of a mass in Paris as the definition. Same for redefinition of
> the meter)
>

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

On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 17:06:32 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
> assertion.
>
> That’s just insanity, Ken.

You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
assertion.
That’s just some brainwashed fanatism, Bod.

On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 20:35:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Scientists say that truth is based on what happens in corroborated
> observation and experiment, no matter how surprising or nonintuitive the
> result — period, end of story.

Bullshit, of course; instead your scientists scream of being FORCED to
THE BEST WAY.

Demented Old Polish Kook, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 17:06:32 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
>> understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
>> assertion.
>>
>> That’s just insanity, Ken.
>
> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
> assertion.
> That’s just some brainwashed fanatism, Bod.

So your position, Maciej, or believing or not things without even
pretending to understand them is definitely not "brainwashing", right?

Looks like self-brainwhasing to me, Maciej, while Bod's way, which is
to learn stuff in order to understand it looks sane to me. I may be
wrong, who knows in a world where demented Polish drunkards of your
kind are summoning scientist to address their madness?

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 04:12:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Demented Old Polish Kook, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 17:06:32 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> >> understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
> >> assertion.
> >>
> >> That’s just insanity, Ken.
> >
> > You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> > understand it, and if you don’t believe it or understand it then it’s an
> > assertion.
> > That’s just some brainwashed fanatism, Bod.
> So your position, Maciej, or believing or not things without even
> pretending to understand them is definitely not "brainwashing", right?

Have you already understood how sqrt function is defined for R,
Python?

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> His brain is calcified. In his mid-80’s, this isn’t really a surprise.

A quick review of the usenet archive shows that he was saying *exactly* the same things 25 years ago when he first got internet access (so he would have been late 50's or early 60's), and it's clear that he had already been a hardened crackpot for decades before the internet came along. So I don't think it can be attributed to old age. This is the case for most such individuals, i.e., this kind of maniacal fixation has gripped them their entire adult lives -- although in their younger years they may have less time to devote to it. Often it was triggered by a high school teacher who was trying to amaze and astound the students by describing relativity (often incorrectly) in the weirdest and least intelligible terms possible. For most students that does no real harm, they just ignore it, but for individuals with a tendency toward crackpotism I suspect that such teachers do immense harm.. It's possible that the individuals would have become crackpots anyway, but who knows for sure.

> Scientists say that truth is based on what happens in corroborated
> observation and experiment, no matter how surprising or nonintuitive the
> result — period, end of story.

That isn't really true. Many of the greatest scientists devoted a lot of time to rationalizing experimental results to make them fit into a simple and logically coherent interpretative framework, and from that inferred logical framework they were able to extract predictions for other phenomena. Science is not just a catalogue of independent experimental results. The problem with crackpots isn't that they try to reconcile the phenomena with reason and logic into some coherent and intelligible conceptual framework, the problem is that they do it very badly.

The most wrong thing you can say to a crackpot is that special relativity makes no logical sense and he just has to accept it as a brute unfathomable fact. That's completely wrong. Unfortunately, this is the level on which many amateur supporters of relativity have accepted it themselves, because they never really understood the dynamical basis of the subject. (A discussion of common sense and logic involving quantum mechanics has subtleties, but not relativity.)

> If he can’t reconcile an idea or an experiment by making “logical sense” of it,
> then as far as he’s concerned, it’s false. He expects anything that is true to make
> intuitive sense to him.

You switched concepts there. First you referred to "logical sense" and then you referred to "intuitive sense". Those are not the same things at all. The important point is that special relativity is perfectly logical and intuitive, and conforms to common sense, provided one understands the dynamical basis of it. The pet ideas that crackpots espouse are not the product of intuition, common sense, or logic, they are high-level fantasies, like the incredible hulk.

Speaking of calcified brains, people who decide early in life that special relativity has no logical explanation and can only be accepted as a set of incomprehensible brute facts are almost never able to let go of that misconception, even after their error has been clearly explained. They are just in love with the idea of the acceptance of unfathomable facts, and indeed they think this is the essential lesson of special relativity. So, anti-relativity crackpots are not the only individuals whose thinking never evolves..

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 10:49:56 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > His brain is calcified. In his mid-80’s, this isn’t really a surprise.
> A quick review of the usenet archive shows that he was saying *exactly* the same things 25 years ago when he first got internet access (so he would have been late 50's or early 60's), and it's clear that he had already been a hardened crackpot for decades before the internet came along.

Well, you and other fanatics of The Shit have also been
mumbling the same idiocies for these decades.

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:06:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame.. So sorry.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
> >>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
> >>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
> >>>>>> frame any source.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
> >>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
> >>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
> >>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
> >>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
> >>>>> he can’t claim P2.
> >>>>>
> >>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
> >>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
> >>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
> >>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
> >>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
> >>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
> >>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
> >>>
> >> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
> >> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
> >
> > Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
> > is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature..
> >
> > This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
> > convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
> > compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
> > moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
> > even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
> > the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
> >
> > It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
> > and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> undersea you can force me.

There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source. All you can do is made assertion that there is experimental support for such inane idea but no actual experiments cited. BTW, the one-way speed of light never been tested.
>
> That’s just insanity, Ken.
> >
> >>>
> >>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
> >>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
> >>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
> >>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
> >>>
> >> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
> >
> > No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
> > established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.

That’s a lie......no such experiment exist. To this day, the OWLS have not been tested.
> >
> >> Do you know that such argument is circular?
> >>>
> >>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
> >>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
> >>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto wrote:

>> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe
>> it or undersea you can force me.
>
> There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light
> is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source. All you can
> do is made assertion that there is experimental support for such inane
> idea but no actual experiments cited. BTW, the one-way speed of light
> never been tested.

"Any capitalist govt that wages psychological warfare on its own citizens
has declared itself an *enemy_of_the_people* ."

"capitalism is a rokafella bill gates predatory ideology, that prays on
legitimate economic activity, through usury primarily."

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> His brain is calcified. In his mid-80’s, this isn’t really a surprise.
>
> A quick review of the usenet archive shows that he was saying *exactly*
> the same things 25 years ago when he first got internet access (so he
> would have been late 50's or early 60's), and it's clear that he had
> already been a hardened crackpot for decades before the internet came
> along. So I don't think it can be attributed to old age.

Well, let’s just say that 25 years ago, when he was in his late 50’s or
early 60’s, there was a chance for him to be educable, even though he held
the same ideas. Now it is not possible.

> This is the case for most such individuals, i.e., this kind of maniacal
> fixation has gripped them their entire adult lives -- although in their
> younger years they may have less time to devote to it. Often it was
> triggered by a high school teacher who was trying to amaze and astound
> the students by describing relativity (often incorrectly) in the weirdest
> and least intelligible terms possible. For most students that does no
> real harm, they just ignore it, but for individuals with a tendency
> toward crackpotism I suspect that such teachers do immense harm. It's
> possible that the individuals would have become crackpots anyway, but who knows for sure.
>
>> Scientists say that truth is based on what happens in corroborated
>> observation and experiment, no matter how surprising or nonintuitive the
>> result — period, end of story.
>
> That isn't really true. Many of the greatest scientists devoted a lot of
> time to rationalizing experimental results to make them fit into a simple
> and logically coherent interpretative framework,

Right! But the key phrase here is incorporating experimental results, no
matter how surprising or counter-intuitive they are. This is how science
actually works, to accept that corroborated experimental results are true,
and then bend common sense to accept things previously not accepted in a
new theoretical framework.

> and from that inferred logical framework they were able to extract
> predictions for other phenomena. Science is not just a catalogue of
> independent experimental results. The problem with crackpots isn't that
> they try to reconcile the phenomena with reason and logic into some
> coherent and intelligible conceptual framework, the problem is that they do it very badly.
>
> The most wrong thing you can say to a crackpot is that special relativity
> makes no logical sense and he just has to accept it as a brute
> unfathomable fact. That's completely wrong. Unfortunately, this is the
> level on which many amateur supporters of relativity have accepted it
> themselves, because they never really understood the dynamical basis of
> the subject. (A discussion of common sense and logic involving quantum
> mechanics has subtleties, but not relativity.)
>
>> If he can’t reconcile an idea or an experiment by making “logical sense” of it,
>> then as far as he’s concerned, it’s false. He expects anything that is true to make
>> intuitive sense to him.
>
> You switched concepts there. First you referred to "logical sense" and
> then you referred to "intuitive sense".

That’s why they are in quotation marks. Crackpots confuse and conflate the
two, saying that the only logical conclusion is the intuitive one, which is
not at all right.

>Those are not the same things at all. The important point is that special
> relativity is perfectly logical and intuitive, and conforms to common
> sense, provided one understands the dynamical basis of it. The pet ideas
> that crackpots espouse are not the product of intuition, common sense, or
> logic, they are high-level fantasies, like the incredible hulk.
>
> Speaking of calcified brains, people who decide early in life that
> special relativity has no logical explanation and can only be accepted as
> a set of incomprehensible brute facts are almost never able to let go of
> that misconception, even after their error has been clearly explained.
> They are just in love with the idea of the acceptance of unfathomable
> facts, and indeed they think this is the essential lesson of special
> relativity. So, anti-relativity crackpots are not the only individuals
> whose thinking never evolves.
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:06:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
>>>>>>>> frame any source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
>>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
>>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
>>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
>>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
>>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
>>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
>>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
>>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
>>>
>>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
>>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
>>>
>>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
>>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
>>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
>>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
>>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
>>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
>>>
>>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
>>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
>> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
>> undersea you can force me.
>
> There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light
> is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source.

Yes, I’m aware there is no way to convince you it’s true, even though there
are mounds of experimental evidence that says it is true. This is exactly
what I was talking about. Scientists are swayed by experimental evidence.
Cranks like you never are, and instead you rely on your intuitive
preconceptions alone and say such evidence is impossible.

> All you can do is made assertion that there is experimental support for
> such inane idea but no actual experiments cited. BTW, the one-way speed
> of light never been tested.

Neither of those statements is true. I *just* told you about the one-way
speed measurements from moving sources at the Advanced Photon Source
laboratory, and now you pretend 1) that I never told you about them, and 2)
they don’t exist.

I’ll repeat for your benefit that experimental results do not disappear
just because you don’t look them up.

I’ll remind you that you’ve been also told about one-way light speed
measurements from moving sources done by Roemer, at Fermilab, and at
numerous other places. You do not acknowledge any of them. Other people do.

>>
>> That’s just insanity, Ken.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
>>>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
>>>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
>>>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>>>>>
>>>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
>>>
>>> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
>>> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
>
> That’s a lie......no such experiment exist. To this day, the OWLS have not been tested.

That’s incorrect, and your mistake has been called out to you dozens of
times, with specific references, which you’ve then cast aside and
forgotten.

>>>
>>>> Do you know that such argument is circular?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
>>>>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
>>>>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 21:54:13 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:06:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
> >>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
> >>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
> >>>>>>>> frame any source.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
> >>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
> >>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
> >>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
> >>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
> >>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
> >>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
> >>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
> >>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
> >>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
> >>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
> >>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
> >>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
> >>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
> >>>
> >>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
> >>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
> >>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
> >>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
> >>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
> >>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
> >>>
> >>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
> >>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
> >> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> >> undersea you can force me.
> >
> > There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light
> > is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source.
> Yes, I’m aware there is no way to convince you it’s true, even though there
> are mounds of experimental evidence that says it is true.

I don't hear any experimental evidence, I only hear some brainwashed
fanatics. And even the gurus of higher level of initiation have even stopped
to fool themself with these tales of experimental evidence (and fool
themself with tales of being FORCED to THE BEST WAY instead).

> This is exactly
> what I was talking about. Scientists are swayed by experimental evidence.

Yes, poor halfbrain, that's what you're talking about. Competent
thinkers (Kuhn, Lakatos, Poincare) knew better.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, let’s just say that 25 years ago, when he was in his late 50’s or
> early 60’s, there was a chance for him to be educable, even though he held
> the same ideas.

He didn't just have the same ideas, he exhibited exactly the same degree of ineducability, i.e., he was already a diamond hard crackpot, and had clearly been in that condition already for a long time, probably since high school. Look at his earliest threads from a quarter century ago. He was being given exactly the same explanations of his misconceptions as what he is given today (in fact, he was being given better explanations than he gets today), and he was responding in exactly the same way he does today.

> > Many of the greatest scientists devoted a lot of time to rationalizing experimental
> > results to make them fit into a simple and logically coherent interpretative framework,
>
> Right! But the key phrase here is incorporating experimental results...

You missed the point. For example, in 1906 the results of Kaufmann seemed to contradict what he called the Lorentz-Einstein theory, and Einstein agreed that those experimental results did indeed seem to dis-confirm his theory, and support the alternative theory of Abraham, and that he could see nothing wrong with the experimental set-up or analysis. But, nevertheless (and this is the point), he maintained that special relativity was, in his opinion, still more likely to be correct, because it was self-evidently more logical and makes more sense as a comprehensive framework. This was quickly agreed by most scientists, even though it was decades before really conclusive experiments of the Kaufmann type were finally reconciled. Similar sequences of events have occurred many times in history, when ideas have come to be accepted based on their self-evident logical superiority, even though they were (for a time) not empirically superior to competing ideas. I repeat, the problem with crackpots is not their reliance on logic, reason, and common sense, the problem is that they are illogical, unreasonable, and lack common sense. Their beliefs are not intuitive at all, they are high-level peculiar fantasies (note that no two crackpots agree with each other's beliefs -- quite the contrary, they generally regard each others' beliefs as nonsense -- so they are clearly not espousing any putative common shared sensibility or basic common intuitions).

On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:10:17 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, let’s just say that 25 years ago, when he was in his late 50’s or
> > early 60’s, there was a chance for him to be educable, even though he held
> > the same ideas.
> He didn't just have the same ideas, he exhibited exactly the same degree of ineducability, i.e., he was already a diamond hard crackpot, and had clearly been in that condition already for a long time, probably since high school. Look at his earliest threads from a quarter century ago. He was being given exactly the same explanations of his misconceptions as what he is given today (in fact, he was being given better explanations than he gets today), and he was responding in exactly the same way he does today.

As if much changed in the fartings of you and your fellow idiots in the meantime.

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Well, let’s just say that 25 years ago, when he was in his late 50’s or
>> early 60’s, there was a chance for him to be educable, even though he held
>> the same ideas.
>
> He didn't just have the same ideas, he exhibited exactly the same degree
> of ineducability, i.e., he was already a diamond hard crackpot, and had
> clearly been in that condition already for a long time, probably since
> high school. Look at his earliest threads from a quarter century ago.
> He was being given exactly the same explanations of his misconceptions as
> what he is given today (in fact, he was being given better explanations
> than he gets today), and he was responding in exactly the same way he does today.
>
>>> Many of the greatest scientists devoted a lot of time to rationalizing experimental
>>> results to make them fit into a simple and logically coherent interpretative framework,
>>
>> Right! But the key phrase here is incorporating experimental results...
>
> You missed the point. For example, in 1906 the results of Kaufmann

And this is why I said *corroborated* experimental evidence is what sways.

> seemed to contradict what he called the Lorentz-Einstein theory, and
> Einstein agreed that those experimental results did indeed seem to
> dis-confirm his theory, and support the alternative theory of Abraham,
> and that he could see nothing wrong with the experimental set-up or
> analysis. But, nevertheless (and this is the point), he maintained that
> special relativity was, in his opinion, still more likely to be correct,
> because it was self-evidently more logical and makes more sense as a
> comprehensive framework. This was quickly agreed by most scientists,
> even though it was decades before really conclusive experiments of the
> Kaufmann type were finally reconciled. Similar sequences of events have
> occurred many times in history, when ideas have come to be accepted based
> on their self-evident logical superiority, even though they were (for a
> time) not empirically superior to competing ideas. I repeat, the problem
> with crackpots is not their reliance on logic, reason, and common sense,
> the problem is that they are illogical, unreasonable, and lack common
> sense. Their beliefs are not intuitive at all, they are high-level
> peculiar fantasies (note that no two crackpots agree with each other's
> beliefs -- quite the contrary, they generally regard each others' beliefs
> as nonsense -- so they are clearly not espousing any putative common
> shared sensibility or basic common intuitions).
>
>

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

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For example, in 1906 the results of Kaufmann
>
> And this is why I said *corroborated* experimental evidence is what sways..

Corroboration is always provisional and incomplete, but that's not the issue. Stipulate the empirical facts. The issue is your contention that the facts related to relativity defy (with careless conflation) logic, reason, intuition, and common sense, whereas I say they do not. The facts of special relativity did not (and do not) require any adjustment to logic, etc. That's what the Kaufmann incident illustrates, i.e., the application of unadjusted logic, reason, intuition, and common sense yielded special relativity, despite apparent conflict with experiment, and eventually the facts supporting it were established. This shows that special relativity is clearly not contrary to logic, etc. You conflate the acquisition of new information (e.g., massless energy has inertia) with the overthrow of logic, reason, intuition, and common sense.

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 8:41:43 PM UTC-7, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > For example, in 1906 the results of Kaufmann
> >
> > And this is why I said *corroborated* experimental evidence is what sways.
> Corroboration is always provisional and incomplete, but that's not the issue. Stipulate the empirical facts. The issue is your contention that the facts related to relativity defy (with careless conflation) logic, reason, intuition, and common sense, whereas I say they do not. The facts of special relativity did not (and do not) require any adjustment to logic, etc. That's what the Kaufmann incident illustrates, i.e., the application of unadjusted logic, reason, intuition, and common sense yielded special relativity, despite apparent conflict with experiment, and eventually the facts supporting it were established. This shows that special relativity is clearly not contrary to logic, etc. You conflate the acquisition of new information (e.g., massless energy has inertia) with the overthrow of logic, reason, intuition, and common sense.

There are so many "old aether" theories that these days there
have been some of the drift setup and, components what the
experiment is for, I don't see so much "inertial frame vs aether frame"
as "inertial frame theories and the space-frame".

I.e. one nice big theory is actually quite sensible.

Whether it's "deriving SR in terms of GR" or "defining
GR in terms of SR", I suppose the approach should include
both the "original" assumption after mc^2 if also the "novel"
assumption that "it's the exact term according to the whatever
normalization of constants agrees".

I.e. the one theory leaving out the other in the context of both
enough usually, finds "the original" "derivation" as it were of SR,
for usually that whatever's in the normalization would already
be in the original terms. (Which for some is not the point.)

Excuse me, I make this all up myself.

I.e. in some sense I reject the interpretation of SR as definitive,
while at the same time the derivation of SR from GR is profound,
that is geometric and about the radius and very nice.

Or General Relativity's the stronger law - as what the
field and manifold of space is defined in terms of its contents.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:54:13 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:06:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
> >>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
> >>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
> >>>>>>>> frame any source.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
> >>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
> >>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
> >>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
> >>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
> >>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
> >>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
> >>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
> >>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
> >>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
> >>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
> >>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
> >>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
> >>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
> >>>
> >>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
> >>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
> >>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
> >>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
> >>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
> >>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
> >>>
> >>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
> >>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
> >> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> >> undersea you can force me.
> >
> > There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light
> > is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source.
> Yes, I’m aware there is no way to convince you it’s true, even though there
> are mounds of experimental evidence that says it is true.

Keep on saying that there are mounts of experimental evidence to support constant light speed of c, but no such experiment is cited.
I think what Einstein said and you endorsed is as follows: The speed of light for a aether frame observer is c independent of the motion of the source.....I can agree to such concept. But since no observer is at rest in the aether so such argument is mute.
So the true story of SR:
1. It is an aether theory that derives the constant light speed of c.
2. It claimed that the existence of the aether is superfluous..
3. Einstein was successful to convince physicists to accept the above contradictory concepts .
4. End of story.

>This is exactly
> what I was talking about. Scientists are swayed by experimental evidence.
> Cranks like you never are, and instead you rely on your intuitive
> preconceptions alone and say such evidence is impossible.
> > All you can do is made assertion that there is experimental support for
> > such inane idea but no actual experiments cited. BTW, the one-way speed
> > of light never been tested.
> Neither of those statements is true. I *just* told you about the one-way
> speed measurements from moving sources at the Advanced Photon Source
> laboratory, and now you pretend 1) that I never told you about them, and 2)
> they don’t exist.
>
> I’ll repeat for your benefit that experimental results do not disappear
> just because you don’t look them up.
>
> I’ll remind you that you’ve been also told about one-way light speed
> measurements from moving sources done by Roemer, at Fermilab, and at
> numerous other places. You do not acknowledge any of them. Other people do.
> >>
> >> That’s just insanity, Ken.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
> >>>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
> >>>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
> >>>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
> >>>
> >>> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
> >>> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
> >
> > That’s a lie......no such experiment exist. To this day, the OWLS have not been tested.
> That’s incorrect, and your mistake has been called out to you dozens of
> times, with specific references, which you’ve then cast aside and
> forgotten.
> >>>
> >>>> Do you know that such argument is circular?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
> >>>>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
> >>>>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> For example, in 1906 the results of Kaufmann
>>
>> And this is why I said *corroborated* experimental evidence is what sways.
>
> Corroboration is always provisional and incomplete, but that's not the
> issue. Stipulate the empirical facts. The issue is your contention that
> the facts related to relativity defy (with careless conflation) logic,
> reason, intuition, and common sense, whereas I say they do not.

Intuition is migratory and depends on the education and experience of both
the individual and the cohort group. Galileo’s insights about motion were
not intuitive to his contemporaries, though they are intuitive now because
even school children are taught the essentials of Newton’s laws.

The mind can be made to conform to new information and to incorporate it as
part of one’s accepted worldview. This does not mean that this exercise is
easy or successful or natural for everyone else.

There are a number of people who post to this group who still have
Aristotelian sensibilities, such as the most natural state of motion being
at rest relative to the earth, and that any motion different than that,
regardless of the body or the environment, is traceable to some sustained
influence that is propelling the body. This is not intuitive to me anymore,
and it isn’t to you either, but it IS to these others and to deny that or
to insist that they are not being sensible is simply foolishness.

Common sense is an adaptive evolutionary trait that takes one’s everyday
experience to synthesize predictive rules and generalizations that will
support further applications in everyday life. That’s all. There’s nothing
more idealizable about it. And different cohorts of people have different
exposure to phenomena that form those rules, or give greater credence to
some experiential evidence than to other evidence. And in particular, there
are those who trust their OWN experiences to form those generalizations
than to take the word of scientists who have measured more arcane
phenomena. Hence Seto’s assertion that the speed of ANYTHING is frame
dependent because its his experience that says that’s invariably true and
regardless of any measurement of the speed of light that says that it’s not
always true. If one trusts one’s personal experience more than results
gathered by experimental physicists, then one’s intuition will be likewise
limited to rules generalized from that personal experience.

> The facts of special relativity did not (and do not) require any
> adjustment to logic, etc. That's what the Kaufmann incident illustrates,
> i.e., the application of unadjusted logic, reason, intuition, and common
> sense yielded special relativity, despite apparent conflict with
> experiment, and eventually the facts supporting it were established.
> This shows that special relativity is clearly not contrary to logic, etc.
> You conflate the acquisition of new information (e.g., massless energy
> has inertia) with the overthrow of logic, reason, intuition, and common sense.
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:54:13 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:06:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
>>>>>>>>>> frame any source.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>>>>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>>>>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>>>>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>>>>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
>>>>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
>>>>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
>>>>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
>>>>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
>>>>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
>>>>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
>>>>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
>>>>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
>>>>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
>>>>>
>>>>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
>>>>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
>>>>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
>>>>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
>>>>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
>>>>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
>>>>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
>>>> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
>>>> undersea you can force me.
>>>
>>> There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light
>>> is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source.
>> Yes, I’m aware there is no way to convince you it’s true, even though there
>> are mounds of experimental evidence that says it is true.
>
> Keep on saying that there are mounts of experimental evidence to support
> constant light speed of c, but no such experiment is cited.

That’s not so, Ken. The results have been referred to you many times. What
happens, though, is that you forget that they were cited, and lapse back
into the degradation of dementia and insist that no one has ever answered
this for you.

> I think what Einstein said and you endorsed is as follows: The speed of
> light for a aether frame observer is c independent of the motion of the source.....

He certainly did not say that. Nor do I.

> I can agree to such concept. But since no observer is at rest in the
> aether so such argument is mute.
> So the true story of SR:
> 1. It is an aether theory that derives the constant light speed of c.
> 2. It claimed that the existence of the aether is superfluous..
> 3. Einstein was successful to convince physicists to accept the above
> contradictory concepts .
> 4. End of story.
>
>> This is exactly
>> what I was talking about. Scientists are swayed by experimental evidence.
>> Cranks like you never are, and instead you rely on your intuitive
>> preconceptions alone and say such evidence is impossible.
>>> All you can do is made assertion that there is experimental support for
>>> such inane idea but no actual experiments cited. BTW, the one-way speed
>>> of light never been tested.
>> Neither of those statements is true. I *just* told you about the one-way
>> speed measurements from moving sources at the Advanced Photon Source
>> laboratory, and now you pretend 1) that I never told you about them, and 2)
>> they don’t exist.
>>
>> I’ll repeat for your benefit that experimental results do not disappear
>> just because you don’t look them up.
>>
>> I’ll remind you that you’ve been also told about one-way light speed
>> measurements from moving sources done by Roemer, at Fermilab, and at
>> numerous other places. You do not acknowledge any of them. Other people do.
>>>>
>>>> That’s just insanity, Ken.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
>>>>>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
>>>>>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
>>>>>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
>>>>> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
>>>
>>> That’s a lie......no such experiment exist. To this day, the OWLS have not been tested.
>> That’s incorrect, and your mistake has been called out to you dozens of
>> times, with specific references, which you’ve then cast aside and
>> forgotten.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know that such argument is circular?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
>>>>>>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
>>>>>>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 5:30:42 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Corroboration is always provisional and incomplete, but that's not the
> > issue. Stipulate the empirical facts. The issue is your contention that
> > the facts related to relativity defy (with careless conflation) logic,
> > reason, intuition, and common sense, whereas I say they do not.
>
> Intuition is migratory...

The incorrectness of your idee fixe was explained in the very next sentences (that you snipped). Again, the facts of special relativity did not (and do not) require any adjustment to logic, reason, intuition, or common sense.. That's what the Kaufmann incident illustrates, i.e., the application of unadjusted logic, reason, intuition, and common sense yielded special relativity, despite apparent conflict with experiment, and eventually the facts supporting it were established. This shows that special relativity is clearly not contrary to pre-existing logic, etc. You conflate the acquisition of new information (e.g., massless energy has inertia) with the overthrow or migration of logic, reason, intuition, and common sense.

> Galileo’s insights about motion were not intuitive to his contemporaries...

Not true, he gave very commonplace explanations that are quite intuitive to everyone, e.g., how things behave inside a uniformly gliding ship. The principle of relativity is quite intuitive and visceral, and always was. It's even wired into the nervous systems of animals. People in this newsgroup who deny the principle of relativity are just being idiotic. Even Newton explained that the common man perceives motion in purely relative terms.

> The mind can be made to conform to new information...

Right, that's what I explained... you are conflating new information with migratory logic, reason, intuition, and common sense. Of course, to have a truly sensible discussion one would need to clearly define each of those four things, as they are not synonyms of each other, but none of them are the same as acquiring new information, which is all that is involved in understanding special relativity.

> There are a number of people who post to this group who still have
> Aristotelian sensibilities...

First, Aristotle's views on physics are far from being an exemplar of common sense or intuition. It has always been pointed out, in every age, that his somewhat bizarre pronouncements about physics are contrary to the most commonplace observations, and Aristotle was never expressing the intuitions of the common man. He had certain high-level conceptual premises into which he tried to fit explanations of phenomena. Second, although there are occasional alignments between some ideas of Aristotle and the notions of people in this newsgroup, they are purely accidental and not rationally consistent. (Aristotle was rational.) Kooky ideas about "two sets of Galilean equations", or "the E-matrix", or "oscillating photons", etc., are not to be found in Aristotle. Anti-relativity crackpots are not expressing common sense or intuitive beliefs, they are expressing irrational, illogical, non-intuitive, and self-contradictory notions, based on willful ignorance, misinformation and (frankly) stupidity. Their errors have nothing to do with migrating common sense.
> to insist that they are not being sensible is simply foolishness.

I strongly disagree. The claims and beliefs of the anti-relativity crackpots in this newsgroup are not sensible at all. To claim (as you habitually do) that the ravings of these individuals are "sensible" or "intuitive" is simply nuts. It happens to be your idee fixe, i.e., you think the lesson of special relativity is that even though it makes no sense, it must nevertheless be accepted as a brute incomprehensible fact. That is completely wrong, and you give great encouragement to anti-relativity crackpots by telling them that their ideas make perfect sense but they must simply surrender to the brute facts of a nonsensical nature. The crackpots are wrong about nearly everything, but they are right to reject your claim that logic, reason, and common sense can't be applied to nature.

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:54:13 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:06:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
> >>>>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
> >>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
> >>>>>>>>>> frame any source.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
> >>>>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
> >>>>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
> >>>>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
> >>>>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest........then
> >>>>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
> >>ted.>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
> >>>>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
> >>>>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
> >>>>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
> >>>>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
> >>>>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
> >>>>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
> >>>>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
> >>>>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
> >>>>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
> >>>>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
> >>>>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
> >>>>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
> >>>>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
> >>>>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
> >>>> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
> >>>> undersea you can force me.
> >>>
> >>> There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light
> >>> is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source.
> >> Yes, I’m aware there is no way to convince you it’s true, even though there
> >> are mounds of experimental evidence that says it is true.
> > er frame
> > Keep on saying that there are mounts of experimental evidence to support
> > constant light speed of c, but no such experiment is cited.
> That’s not so, Ken. The results have been referred to you many times. What
> happens, though, is that you forget that they were cited, and lapse back
> into the degradation of dementia and insist that no one has ever answered
> this for you.
>
YOU ARE A LIAR...no such result have been report for the simple reason that the speed of light is not constant c in all frames. It is constant c for an aether frame observer who is at rest in the aether.
>
> > I think what Einstein said and you endorsed is as follows: The speed of
> > light for a aether frame observer is c independent of the motion of the source.....
> He certainly did not say that. Nor do I.
> > I can agree to such concept. But since no observer is at rest in the
> > aether so such argument is mute.
> > So the true story of SR:
> > 1. It is an aether theory that derives the constant light speed of c.
> > 2. It claimed that the existence of the aether is superfluous..
> > 3. Einstein was successful to convince physicists to accept the above
> > contradictory concepts .
> > 4. End of story.
> >
> >> This is exactly
> >> what I was talking about. Scientists are swayed by experimental evidence.
> >> Cranks like you never are, and instead you rely on your intuitive
> >> preconceptions alone and say such evidence is impossible.
> >>> All you can do is made assertion that there is experimental support for
> >>> such inane idea but no actual experiments cited. BTW, the one-way speed
> >>> of light never been tested.
> >> Neither of those statements is true. I *just* told you about the one-way
> >> speed measurements from moving sources at the Advanced Photon Source
> >> laboratory, and now you pretend 1) that I never told you about them, and 2)
> >> they don’t exist.
> >>
> >> I’ll repeat for your benefit that experimental results do not disappear
> >> just because you don’t look them up.
> >>
> >> I’ll remind you that you’ve been also told about one-way light speed
> >> measurements from moving sources done by Roemer, at Fermilab, and at
> >> numerous other places. You do not acknowledge any of them. Other people do.
> >>>>
> >>>> That’s just insanity, Ken.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
> >>>>>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
> >>>>>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
> >>>>>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
> >>>>> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
> >>>
> >>> That’s a lie......no such experiment exist. To this day, the OWLS have not been tested.
> >> That’s incorrect, and your mistake has been called out to you dozens of
> >> times, with specific references, which you’ve then cast aside and
> >> forgotten.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you know that such argument is circular?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
> >>>>>>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
> >>>>>>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 5:30:42 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Corroboration is always provisional and incomplete, but that's not the
>>> issue. Stipulate the empirical facts. The issue is your contention that
>>> the facts related to relativity defy (with careless conflation) logic,
>>> reason, intuition, and common sense, whereas I say they do not.
>>
>> Intuition is migratory...
>
> The incorrectness of your idee fixe was explained in the very next
> sentences (that you snipped). Again, the facts of special relativity did
> not (and do not) require any adjustment to logic, reason, intuition, or
> common sense. That's what the Kaufmann incident illustrates, i.e., the
> application of unadjusted logic, reason, intuition, and common sense
> yielded special relativity, despite apparent conflict with experiment,
> and eventually the facts supporting it were established. This shows that
> special relativity is clearly not contrary to pre-existing logic, etc.
> You conflate the acquisition of new information (e.g., massless energy
> has inertia) with the overthrow or migration of logic, reason, intuition,
> and common sense.
>
>> Galileo’s insights about motion were not intuitive to his contemporaries...
>
> Not true, he gave very commonplace explanations that are quite intuitive
> to everyone, e.g., how things behave inside a uniformly gliding ship.

I think you overestimate how much information was available to common
people without the careful experiments that Galileo did himself (precisely
*because* they were not common knowledge). For example, his experiments
with ramps were instrumental (pun intended) to his revelation that motion
would continue in the absence of an applied force. There were no
commonplace examples of this, and indeed astronomical bodies would not have
provided the argument because prior to observations with new instruments
(telescopes) nobody would have had the information available to question
whether they were propelled by angels.

In the case of special relativity, keep in mind that electrodynamics in the
Maxwellian interpretation were NOT common knowledge among non-physicists,
and so there was no means to grasp the new handle that Maxwell’s laws might
follow the same invariance that Newtonian mechanics did. This was NEW
information, and in the absence of that information, people were completely
free to assume that the ballistic dependence of speed on reference frame
should apply. Indeed, Newton himself thought so, proof enough that
acquaintance with everyday phenomena is NOT enough to just “reason your
way” into an intuitive grasp of relativity.

On top of that, it is COMMON that people have a disconnect between what
they see in the real world and how they would explain things. I remember
taking my first year class and the professor asked the simple qualitative
question about how to describe the path of an projectile in the air with
physics, say chucking a melon horizontally off the roof of a five-story
building. Less than 1/5 of the class suggested the downward-opening
parabolic path. Less than 1/5. This alone tells you that the most COMMON
sense is not the parabolic insight. Answers varied from being a straight
diagonal line to the ground, to a Wile E. Coyote-style horizontal traverse
with a 90 degree elbow to a vertical traverse, to the most common answer, a
quarter-circle path transitioning from horizontal to vertical. Now, you
might say this is then idiocy, but then the accurate observation is that
COMMON sense is then idiocy. (The professor then asked, clearly frustrated,
whether anyone had been to a baseball game. The answer from the audience
was, “Yeah, but that’s real life. You were asking about physics.”)

I just disagree that special relativity (or for that matter most of
physics) can be accurately conceived just by “thinking things through” and
comparison with everyday experience, precisely because everyday experience
is a small and non-representative slice of reality. Which is why
experimental physics has played such a strong and essential role in
figuring things out.

> The principle of relativity is quite intuitive and visceral, and always
> was. It's even wired into the nervous systems of animals. People in
> this newsgroup who deny the principle of relativity are just being
> idiotic. Even Newton explained that the common man perceives motion in
> purely relative terms.
>
>> The mind can be made to conform to new information...
>
> Right, that's what I explained... you are conflating new information with
> migratory logic, reason, intuition, and common sense. Of course, to have
> a truly sensible discussion one would need to clearly define each of
> those four things, as they are not synonyms of each other, but none of
> them are the same as acquiring new information, which is all that is
> involved in understanding special relativity.
>
>> There are a number of people who post to this group who still have
>> Aristotelian sensibilities...
>
> First, Aristotle's views on physics are far from being an exemplar of
> common sense or intuition. It has always been pointed out, in every age,
> that his somewhat bizarre pronouncements about physics are contrary to
> the most commonplace observations, and Aristotle was never expressing the
> intuitions of the common man. He had certain high-level conceptual
> premises into which he tried to fit explanations of phenomena. Second,
> although there are occasional alignments between some ideas of Aristotle
> and the notions of people in this newsgroup, they are purely accidental
> and not rationally consistent. (Aristotle was rational.) Kooky ideas
> about "two sets of Galilean equations", or "the E-matrix", or
> "oscillating photons", etc., are not to be found in Aristotle.
> Anti-relativity crackpots are not expressing common sense or intuitive
> beliefs, they are expressing irrational, illogical, non-intuitive, and
> self-contradictory notions, based on willful ignorance, misinformation
> and (frankly) stupidity. Their errors have nothing to do with migrating common sense.
>
>> to insist that they are not being sensible is simply foolishness.
>
> I strongly disagree. The claims and beliefs of the anti-relativity
> crackpots in this newsgroup are not sensible at all. To claim (as you
> habitually do) that the ravings of these individuals are "sensible" or
> "intuitive" is simply nuts. It happens to be your idee fixe, i.e., you
> think the lesson of special relativity is that even though it makes no
> sense, it must nevertheless be accepted as a brute incomprehensible fact.
> That is completely wrong, and you give great encouragement to
> anti-relativity crackpots by telling them that their ideas make perfect
> sense but they must simply surrender to the brute facts of a nonsensical
> nature. The crackpots are wrong about nearly everything, but they are
> right to reject your claim that logic, reason, and common sense can't be applied to nature.
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:33:49 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:54:13 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 11:06:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:40:24 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the aether frame is older than the SR inertial frame, it appears
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the SR inertial frame is just a renamed of the aether frame. So sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, Galileo created the concept of the inertial frame long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before any aether theory was created. As usual, you're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike, the Galileo’s inertial frame ia not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s inertial frame. It does not have constant speed of light c
>>>>>>>>>>>> frame any source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, they are the same. They have the same definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>> The only question was which transformation (Galilean or Lorentz) apply to
>>>>>>>>>>> those identically defined inertial frames. Galileo thought the answer was
>>>>>>>>>>> one, and Einstein had enough additional information about electrodynamics
>>>>>>>>>>> (which Galileo did not) to show that it was the other.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the inertial observer does not consider himself at rest.......then
>>>>>>>>>>> he can’t claim P2.
>>>> ted.>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An aether observer is defined as at rest and thus he get P2 naturally> --
>>>>>>>>> And you understand how it’s possible to be true for the observer at rest in
>>>>>>>>> the ether and so you accept that. And you personally do not understand how
>>>>>>>>> it is possible to be true for observers at rest in inertial reference
>>>>>>>>> frames that are MOVING relative to the supposed ether, and so you don’t
>>>>>>>>> accept it and call it an assertion. But that’s not what makes an assertion
>>>>>>>>> an assertion — whether you accept it or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes I don’t understand your assertion. How does an inertial observer get
>>>>>>>> P2 when he runs toward or away from a light source?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know you don’t understand it. That doesn’t make it an assertion. It
>>>>>>> is an experimental fact, fully supported in the experimental literature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This word “assertion” you use. It doesn’t mean a statement you’re not
>>>>>>> convinced of. It means a statement that HAS NO supporting evidence or
>>>>>>> compelling argument. There IS supporting evidence for P2 for an observer
>>>>>>> moving relative to a light source, but you’ve never bothered to read it or
>>>>>>> even look for it. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn’t make
>>>>>>> the evidence non-existent. It only makes you ignorant of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s not an assertion. It’s just a true statement that you don’t understand
>>>>>>> and haven’t looked up any of the evidence for.
>>>>>> You have this idiotic idea that something is only true if you believe it or
>>>>>> undersea you can force me.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way that you can force me to believe that the speed of light
>>>>> is constant c if I run toward or away from a light source.
>>>> Yes, I’m aware there is no way to convince you it’s true, even though there
>>>> are mounds of experimental evidence that says it is true.
>>> er frame
>>> Keep on saying that there are mounts of experimental evidence to support
>>> constant light speed of c, but no such experiment is cited.
>> That’s not so, Ken. The results have been referred to you many times. What
>> happens, though, is that you forget that they were cited, and lapse back
>> into the degradation of dementia and insist that no one has ever answered
>> this for you.
>>
> YOU ARE A LIAR...no such result have been report

No, Ken, this is not correct. Just in the past week, I have mentioned the
one-way light speed measurement at the Advanced Photon Source laboratory,
and reminded you of the multiple times that you’ve been told about Ole
Roemer’s one-way speed measurement back in the 1600s.

If you do not remember what has been told to you THIS PAST WEEK, then don’t
go telling people they’re liars and that they’ve never told you. If your
mind is rotted to the point where you can’t remember conversations from
LAST WEEK, then this is YOUR weakness, not other people’s hostile untruths.

> for the simple reason that the speed of light is not constant c in all
> frames. It is constant c for an aether frame observer who is at rest in the aether.
>>
>>> I think what Einstein said and you endorsed is as follows: The speed of
>>> light for a aether frame observer is c independent of the motion of the source.....
>> He certainly did not say that. Nor do I.
>>> I can agree to such concept. But since no observer is at rest in the
>>> aether so such argument is mute.
>>> So the true story of SR:
>>> 1. It is an aether theory that derives the constant light speed of c.
>>> 2. It claimed that the existence of the aether is superfluous..
>>> 3. Einstein was successful to convince physicists to accept the above
>>> contradictory concepts .
>>> 4. End of story.
>>>
>>>> This is exactly
>>>> what I was talking about. Scientists are swayed by experimental evidence.
>>>> Cranks like you never are, and instead you rely on your intuitive
>>>> preconceptions alone and say such evidence is impossible.
>>>>> All you can do is made assertion that there is experimental support for
>>>>> such inane idea but no actual experiments cited. BTW, the one-way speed
>>>>> of light never been tested.
>>>> Neither of those statements is true. I *just* told you about the one-way
>>>> speed measurements from moving sources at the Advanced Photon Source
>>>> laboratory, and now you pretend 1) that I never told you about them, and 2)
>>>> they don’t exist.
>>>>
>>>> I’ll repeat for your benefit that experimental results do not disappear
>>>> just because you don’t look them up.
>>>>
>>>> I’ll remind you that you’ve been also told about one-way light speed
>>>> measurements from moving sources done by Roemer, at Fermilab, and at
>>>> numerous other places. You do not acknowledge any of them. Other people do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s just insanity, Ken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is nevertheless true, whether you understand how it’s possible or not,
>>>>>>>>> that P2 holds in ALL inertial reference frames, not just those at rest
>>>>>>>>> relative to the aether. That’s what made Einstein’s paper so interesting.
>>>>>>>>> It’s also what follow-up experiments showed to be correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is true only if the meter is redefined as 1/299,792,458 light-seconds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it does not depend on that redefinition. The validity of P2 was
>>>>>>> established experimentally half a century BEFORE the redefinition.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s a lie......no such experiment exist. To this day, the OWLS
>>>>> have not been tested.
>>>> That’s incorrect, and your mistake has
>>>>> been called out to you dozens of
>>>> times, with specific references, which you’ve then cast aside and
>>>> forgotten.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know that such argument is circular?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether you buy the experimental results or not is irrelevant. Whether you
>>>>>>>>> understand how it’s possible or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s easy or
>>>>>>>>> natural for you to understand or not is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>