One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:

"A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference." https://youtu.be/IjRSYv7u3T4?t=304

The original:

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other - in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press..princeton.edu/vol6-trans/16

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:

Very silly are your chronic lies.

> "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> uniformly moving frames of reference."

Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view, but pretty solid as for "value" and "truth", i.e. re consequences and experiments.

> The original: [...]

Disingenuous quote mining, not just an unreasonable and anti-scientific attitude. Ad nauseam, for 30 years or more. Insane...?

(EOD.)

Julio

On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
<maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
>> Very silly are your chronic lies.
>> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
>> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
>> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
>> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
>
>A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.

Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.

w.

Julio Di Egidio wrote:

>> "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed
>> of light in vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of
>> reference."
>
> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws,
> and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is
> some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not
> only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of
> view, but pretty solid as for "value" and "truth", i.e. re consequences
> and experiments.

or using loads of words and saying nothing. There is more stuff in what
Vasily wrote, compared with what you do. Your "math consistency" means
absolutely nothing in physics.

Richard Feynman parrots Einstein's silliest argument (the railway carriage is replaced with a car):

Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Compare with the original:

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:54:51 UTC+2, Yves Lucido wrote:
> Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>
> >> "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed
> >> of light in vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of
> >> reference."
> >
> > Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws,
> > and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is
> > some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not
> > only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of
> > view, but pretty solid as for "value" and "truth", i.e. re consequences
> > and experiments.
> or using loads of words and saying nothing.

FYI, my explanation is spot on and even quite terse at that.

> There is more stuff in what
> Vasily wrote, compared with what you do. Your "math consistency" means
> absolutely nothing in physics.

A very ignorant statement from yet another shithead.

Indeed, congratulations, always united when it counts...

*Plonk*

Julio

On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
> <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>
> >> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> >> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> >> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> >> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> >> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> >
> >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.

Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
to in 1905? How was it defined?

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 06:00:41 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
> > <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> > >> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> > >> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> > >> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> > >> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > >
> > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> to in 1905? How was it defined?

As usual: second and light-second are the most common as units of time ad space respectively, but there is nothing special to these. And, what's a "second"? It's just as arbitrary as a "meter", the relevant point rather being that, since (by assumption as well as by experimental result) *the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame*, so, whichever the convention, it can indeed be established.

There is in fact an additional "difficulty" with Einstein's relativity (with SR to begin with), which is the fact that "proper time" is not the same as "coordinate-time" (indeed, the former is global and absolute, the latter is local and relative...) and *procedures for measurement* have to be more explicit and sophisticated than the previous naive formulations, e.g. they usually involve clocks and light signals even to measure distances (which is another way to see the primality of time, BTW). Anyway that's another story: back to your objection, there is just no difficulty in defining units of any kind and just due care is needed to actually measure things.

Happy now?

Julio

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 13:53:00 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 06:00:41 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
> > > <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> > > >> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> > > >> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> > > >> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> > > >> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > >
> > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> As usual: second

And - how was it defined when your idiot guru lived
and mumbled?

> It's just as arbitrary as a "meter", the relevant point rather being that, since (by assumption as well as by experimental result)
*the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame*

In every inertial frame... nowhere?
Well, doesn't matter at the moment; maybe they are by assumption and
zillions of experiments; it doesn't change in the slightest the fact
that ANOTHER assumption your idiot guru also accepted is
inconsistent with that.

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 14:43:42 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 13:53:00 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 06:00:41 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
> > > > <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > > >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> > > > >> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> > > > >> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> > > > >> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> > > > >> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> > > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > > >
> > > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > As usual: second
> And - how was it defined when your idiot guru lived
> and mumbled?

I had given an ample explanation as to how your question is not even meaningful, and you just snip it all, to in fact make me say the very opposite of what I said... Who's the lying idiot here?

> > It's just as arbitrary as a "meter", the relevant point rather being that, since (by assumption as well as by experimental result)
> *the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame*
> In every inertial frame... nowhere?

Another red herring. We can say if we are in an inertial frame, we check that our test particles are not subject to any "apparent" forces. Indeed, an inertial frame, by definition, is a frame of reference in which the fundamental laws of physics (Newton's and, with Einstein, Maxwell's) hold.

Sure, these are ideal/theoretical constructs, but, to begin with, that we do (seem to) experience the regularity implied by the relativity principle is a fact, an experimental one. And, for the rest, that's just how physics works: all physics.

And I am not saying Einstein's relativity is "right", indeed, strictly speaking, it doesn't even make sense to say that about a physical theory (r.i.p. TOE): but I am saying that your objections are not even wrong.

> Well, doesn't matter at the moment; maybe they are by assumption and
> zillions of experiments; it doesn't change in the slightest the fact
> that ANOTHER assumption your idiot guru also accepted is
> inconsistent with that.

But you can't be bothered to say which?? C'mon, don't be shy...

Julio

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 15:55:26 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 14:43:42 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 13:53:00 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 06:00:41 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
> > > > > <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> > > > > >> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> > > > > >> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> > > > > >> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> > > > > >> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> > > > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > > > >
> > > > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > > > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > > > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > > > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > > > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > > As usual: second
> > And - how was it defined when your idiot guru lived
> > and mumbled?
> I had given an ample explanation as to how your question is not even meaningful,

Unfortunately, your opinion of meaningful and meaningless
is worthless. And so are your explainations.

> > > It's just as arbitrary as a "meter", the relevant point rather being that, since (by assumption as well as by experimental result)
> > *the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame*
> > In every inertial frame... nowhere?
> Another red herring. We can say if we are in an inertial frame, we check that our test particles are not subject to any "apparent" forces. Indeed, an inertial frame, by definition, is a frame of reference in which the fundamental laws of physics (Newton's and, with Einstein, Maxwell's) hold.

"Hold". Not "Hold locally".

> > Well, doesn't matter at the moment; maybe they are by assumption and
> > zillions of experiments; it doesn't change in the slightest the fact
> > that ANOTHER assumption your idiot guru also accepted is
> > inconsistent with that.
> But you can't be bothered to say which?? C'mon, don't be shy...

Tell it yourself: how was the (unit of time he was referring) defined?

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 18:55:55 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 15:55:26 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 14:43:42 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 13:53:00 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 06:00:41 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
> > > > > > <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> > > > > > >> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> > > > > > >> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> > > > > > >> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> > > > > > >> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> > > > > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > > > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > > > > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > > > > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > > > > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > > > > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > > > As usual: second
> > > And - how was it defined when your idiot guru lived
> > > and mumbled?
> > I had given an ample explanation as to how your question is not even meaningful,
> Unfortunately, your opinion of meaningful and meaningless
> is worthless. And so are your explainations.
> > > > It's just as arbitrary as a "meter", the relevant point rather being that, since (by assumption as well as by experimental result)
> > > *the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame*
> > > In every inertial frame... nowhere?
> > Another red herring. We can say if we are in an inertial frame, we check that our test particles are not subject to any "apparent" forces. Indeed, an inertial frame, by definition, is a frame of reference in which the fundamental laws of physics (Newton's and, with Einstein, Maxwell's) hold.
> "Hold". Not "Hold locally".

Those laws *are* local, there simply is more to the geometry of spacetime than just the principle of relativity.

> > > Well, doesn't matter at the moment; maybe they are by assumption and
> > > zillions of experiments; it doesn't change in the slightest the fact
> > > that ANOTHER assumption your idiot guru also accepted is
> > > inconsistent with that.
> > But you can't be bothered to say which?? C'mon, don't be shy...
> Tell it yourself: how was the (unit of time he was referring) defined?

I'll have to guess, thank you. I'd guess you are going to say "time is what a clock says time is", which is another piece of upside-down nonsense. Time is time is time: clocks tick time, not time is what clocks tick.

And that's plenty enough for now, time you do your own home work...

(EOD.)

Julio

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 20:15:18 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 18:55:55 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 15:55:26 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 14:43:42 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 13:53:00 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 06:00:41 UTC+2, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 18:40:17 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Wozniak
> > > > > > > <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:34:15 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 15:04:43 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > One of the silliest arguments in the history of science:
> > > > > > > >> Very silly are your chronic lies.
> > > > > > > >> > "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that
> > > > > > > >> > the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two
> > > > > > > >> > uniformly moving frames of reference."
> > > > > > > >> Not even wrong. Einstein rather combined relativity and Maxwell's laws, and it is the latter that imply that the speed of light in vacuum is some specific constant. An immediate consequence is SR, which is not only patently consistent from a mathematical and even a logical point of view
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >A lie, as expected from fanatic trash, of course it is not.
> > > > > > > Wozi, prove it, faith does not work.
> > > > > > Wabi, poor idiot, you're a living proof that faith works
> > > > > > much better than any proofs. But tell me, please,
> > > > > > what was the unit of time your idiot guru was referring
> > > > > > to in 1905? How was it defined?
> > > > > As usual: second
> > > > And - how was it defined when your idiot guru lived
> > > > and mumbled?
> > > I had given an ample explanation as to how your question is not even meaningful,
> > Unfortunately, your opinion of meaningful and meaningless
> > is worthless. And so are your explainations.
> > > > > It's just as arbitrary as a "meter", the relevant point rather being that, since (by assumption as well as by experimental result)
> > > > *the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame*
> > > > In every inertial frame... nowhere?
> > > Another red herring. We can say if we are in an inertial frame, we check that our test particles are not subject to any "apparent" forces. Indeed, an inertial frame, by definition, is a frame of reference in which the fundamental laws of physics (Newton's and, with Einstein, Maxwell's) hold.
> > "Hold". Not "Hold locally".
> Those laws *are* local

No.

, there simply is more to the geometry of spacetime than just the principle of relativity.
> > > > Well, doesn't matter at the moment; maybe they are by assumption and
> > > > zillions of experiments; it doesn't change in the slightest the fact
> > > > that ANOTHER assumption your idiot guru also accepted is
> > > > inconsistent with that.
> > > But you can't be bothered to say which?? C'mon, don't be shy...
> > Tell it yourself: how was the (unit of time he was referring) defined?
> I'll have to guess, thank you.

If you stubbornly refuse to answer a simple question...

> I'd guess you are going to say

And, of course, you guess wrong. So, again, how was the (unit of
time he was referring) defined?

On 7/26/21 1:15 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> Time is time is time: clocks tick time, not time is what clocks
> tick.

Hmmmm. "Time is time is time" (time qua time) is too ambiguous for good
tests of physical theories. So in experimental physics, time _IS_ what
clocks measure, because when testing any theory that includes time, a
clock is used to define and measure it.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 21:27:06 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/26/21 1:15 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > Time is time is time: clocks tick time, not time is what clocks
> > tick.
> Hmmmm. "Time is time is time" (time qua time) is too ambiguous for good
> tests of physical theories.

Time is a primitive notion in physics, up to at least QM included, that is.

> So in experimental physics, time _IS_ what
> clocks measure, because when testing any theory that includes time, a
> clock is used to define and measure it.

You too just don't get it and never will...

*Plonk*

Julio

On Monday, 26 July 2021 at 21:27:06 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/26/21 1:15 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > Time is time is time: clocks tick time, not time is what clocks
> > tick.
> Hmmmm. "Time is time is time" (time qua time) is too ambiguous for good
> tests of physical theories. So in experimental physics, time _IS_ what
> clocks measure

Or rather - what you and you fellow idiots imagine they
are FORCED to measure.