On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:12:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> I’m not so confident about the fidelity of his common sense. You say SURELY
> >>>> his common sense informs him of the reciprocity of motion, but what he SAYS
> >>>> is that it’s idiotic that physicist could say the car is stationary and the
> >>>> highway moving when it is obviously the other way around. I have no sense
> >>>> of him having any common sense about reciprocity of motion at all.
> >>>
> >>> Again, you have to distinguish between the visceral (and even
> >>> instinctive) common sense that enables him to play basketball or catch a
> >>> bag of pretzels in an airplane, versus his armchair attempts to theorize
> >>> about physics. The problem of the crackpots is that they ignore their
> >>> own common sense when they attempt to engage in high level conceptual
> >>> theorizing. It's easy to show Ed that his high-level beliefs contradict
> >>> common sense, and when you do this, he promptly runs away.
> >>>
> >>>> This is another great example where the common experience of descending in
> >>>> an elevator yields two completely different common sense interpretations.
> >>>
> >>> The point is not the under-determination of interpretations, the point is
> >>> the observational facts, combined with logic and reason. It's easy to
> >>> show crackpots that their high-level theories are illogical and
> >>> self-contradictory, based on simple common sense... and then they run
> >>> away. In contrast, they will happily engage endlessly with people who
> >>> argue that they need to abandon common sense.
> >>>
> >>>> The inability to think with precision will still
> >>>> allow common sense in the form of practical judgments that allow people to
> >>>> live in a reasonable and safe way (see dictionary), but this common sense
> >>>> is not sufficient for thinking logically.
> >>>
> >>> No one claims that we should think illogically. Indeed, good sense and
> >>> sound judgment fairly well entail thinking logically, and the classical
> >>> definition of the ability to perceive and reason common to all people
> >>> does as well. Indeed, people like Ed invariably pride themselves on
> >>> thinking logically ("I'm an analyst"), and they include that under the
> >>> umbrella of common sense.
> >>>
> >>>> People like Ed say, “Well, this person is just behaving like a mathematician. I have
> >>>> no further use for that, and I’ll just go back to relying on my intuitions.”
> >>>
> >>> No, they do not say they rely on their intuitions, let alone snap
> >>> judgments, they contend that they are "the world's greatest logicians",
> >>> and when they are shown by simple irrefutable logical steps that their
> >>> beliefs are self-contradictory, they very promptly run away. It can be
> >>> in a thread that has been running with other people for weeks or months,
> >>> but all it takes to shut it down is a few posts. This happens over and
> >>> over. There really is a huge difference between how crackpots respond to
> >>> being told they need to abandon common sense, and how they respond to
> >>> being shown that their beliefs are logically self-contradictory and
> >>> violate common sense. They will argue endlessly against the former, but
> >>> when confronted with they latter, they quickly go poof. There are also
> >>> cases when the crackpot actually acknowledges the facts, for example the
> >>> recent Seppala thread, ending with his terse "Okay, I got it". Also,
> >>> even Ed has at length acknowledged the falsity of some of his
> >>> long-standing claims, albeit at a glacial pace, and this was not due to
> >>> him conceding that common sense is wrong, but rather to him recognizing
> >>> that his claims violated common sense.
> >>>
> >> All of this is to say that when these cranks talk about “thinking
> >> logically”, they are in fact NOT thinking logically, but are confusing the
> >> intuitive, gut-level rule-making that almost everyone does (with different
> >> rules inferred from the same experiences, often) with logic. The way they
> >> will respond to carefully defined terms and logical arguments is to say,
> >> “But that makes no sense!” This is the relapse moment where logic fails,
> >> and there is a false attribution of logic to the intuition.
> >>
> >> The single signifying hallmark of scientific thinking is the elaboration of
> >> logic that allows intuitive statements to be disrupted and dropped,
> >> replaced with new concepts that become new intuitions. This is the kind of
> >> thing where people would NO LONGER say things like “It’s stupid to say the
> >> train is stationary and the earth is moving in any frame of reference,”
> >> because their intuitions have shifted. It’s when they are no longer
> >> mystified by the idea of sustained motion requiring no expenditure of
> >> energy and a continual application of an unbalanced force.
> >>
> >> People like Ed Lake and Ken Seto and Maciej Wozniak and John Sefton have a
> >> very difficult time with that disruption of intuition and cannot do the
> >> flip or the deference to observational data that breaks their intuitive
> >> rules, or logically developed models that respects all known data but
> >> breaks their intuitive rules. That willingness to drop the false intuition
> >> is what good science promotes and these cranks do not support.
> >
> > That’s why people like Odd who is indoctrinated in Einstein’s SR have a
> > very difficult time in accepting that the speed of everything (including
> > light) is observer dependent. Instead they accepted that the measuring
> > tools to measure the speed of light is flexible by asserting that the
> > length of a meter is 1/288,782,458 light-second.
> Well, no, there’s a chronological problem here.

There is no chronological problem......there is your assertion without any experimental support. The one-way speed of light never been tested.
> Light speed’s independence
> of observer (which you say is impossible) was established many decades ago
> in experimental observation,
This is purely an assertion......many decades ago no way to synch two clocks accurately separate by a long distance to measure light speed.

>though you have no idea what those references
> are because you forget them within an hour or so of them being mentioned to
> you. This was LONG BEFORE the definition of the meter in terms of
> light-seconds.

Again argument by assertion is not valid.
>
> So it is obviously impossible that the definition of the meter in terms of
> the light-second (in 1983) was used in experiments in the 1920s, 1930s,
> 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s that showed light speed’s independence of
> observer.

No the one-way light speed never been measured accurately. So your bullshit is not valid.

> > This guarantees that the speed of light is constant c no matter who is ever been tested so how can
> > measuring its speed. Not very scientific and very sad.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:12:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I’m not so confident about the fidelity of his common sense. You say SURELY
>>>>>> his common sense informs him of the reciprocity of motion, but what he SAYS
>>>>>> is that it’s idiotic that physicist could say the car is stationary and the
>>>>>> highway moving when it is obviously the other way around. I have no sense
>>>>>> of him having any common sense about reciprocity of motion at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you have to distinguish between the visceral (and even
>>>>> instinctive) common sense that enables him to play basketball or catch a
>>>>> bag of pretzels in an airplane, versus his armchair attempts to theorize
>>>>> about physics. The problem of the crackpots is that they ignore their
>>>>> own common sense when they attempt to engage in high level conceptual
>>>>> theorizing. It's easy to show Ed that his high-level beliefs contradict
>>>>> common sense, and when you do this, he promptly runs away.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is another great example where the common experience of descending in
>>>>>> an elevator yields two completely different common sense interpretations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is not the under-determination of interpretations, the point is
>>>>> the observational facts, combined with logic and reason. It's easy to
>>>>> show crackpots that their high-level theories are illogical and
>>>>> self-contradictory, based on simple common sense... and then they run
>>>>> away. In contrast, they will happily engage endlessly with people who
>>>>> argue that they need to abandon common sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The inability to think with precision will still
>>>>>> allow common sense in the form of practical judgments that allow people to
>>>>>> live in a reasonable and safe way (see dictionary), but this common sense
>>>>>> is not sufficient for thinking logically.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one claims that we should think illogically. Indeed, good sense and
>>>>> sound judgment fairly well entail thinking logically, and the classical
>>>>> definition of the ability to perceive and reason common to all people
>>>>> does as well. Indeed, people like Ed invariably pride themselves on
>>>>> thinking logically ("I'm an analyst"), and they include that under the
>>>>> umbrella of common sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> People like Ed say, “Well, this person is just behaving like a mathematician. I have
>>>>>> no further use for that, and I’ll just go back to relying on my intuitions.”
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they do not say they rely on their intuitions, let alone snap
>>>>> judgments, they contend that they are "the world's greatest logicians",
>>>>> and when they are shown by simple irrefutable logical steps that their
>>>>> beliefs are self-contradictory, they very promptly run away. It can be
>>>>> in a thread that has been running with other people for weeks or months,
>>>>> but all it takes to shut it down is a few posts. This happens over and
>>>>> over. There really is a huge difference between how crackpots respond to
>>>>> being told they need to abandon common sense, and how they respond to
>>>>> being shown that their beliefs are logically self-contradictory and
>>>>> violate common sense. They will argue endlessly against the former, but
>>>>> when confronted with they latter, they quickly go poof. There are also
>>>>> cases when the crackpot actually acknowledges the facts, for example the
>>>>> recent Seppala thread, ending with his terse "Okay, I got it". Also,
>>>>> even Ed has at length acknowledged the falsity of some of his
>>>>> long-standing claims, albeit at a glacial pace, and this was not due to
>>>>> him conceding that common sense is wrong, but rather to him recognizing
>>>>> that his claims violated common sense.
>>>>>
>>>> All of this is to say that when these cranks talk about “thinking
>>>> logically”, they are in fact NOT thinking logically, but are confusing the
>>>> intuitive, gut-level rule-making that almost everyone does (with different
>>>> rules inferred from the same experiences, often) with logic. The way they
>>>> will respond to carefully defined terms and logical arguments is to say,
>>>> “But that makes no sense!” This is the relapse moment where logic fails,
>>>> and there is a false attribution of logic to the intuition.
>>>>
>>>> The single signifying hallmark of scientific thinking is the elaboration of
>>>> logic that allows intuitive statements to be disrupted and dropped,
>>>> replaced with new concepts that become new intuitions. This is the kind of
>>>> thing where people would NO LONGER say things like “It’s stupid to say the
>>>> train is stationary and the earth is moving in any frame of reference,”
>>>> because their intuitions have shifted. It’s when they are no longer
>>>> mystified by the idea of sustained motion requiring no expenditure of
>>>> energy and a continual application of an unbalanced force.
>>>>
>>>> People like Ed Lake and Ken Seto and Maciej Wozniak and John Sefton have a
>>>> very difficult time with that disruption of intuition and cannot do the
>>>> flip or the deference to observational data that breaks their intuitive
>>>> rules, or logically developed models that respects all known data but
>>>> breaks their intuitive rules. That willingness to drop the false intuition
>>>> is what good science promotes and these cranks do not support.
>>>
>>> That’s why people like Odd who is indoctrinated in Einstein’s SR have a
>>> very difficult time in accepting that the speed of everything (including
>>> light) is observer dependent. Instead they accepted that the measuring
>>> tools to measure the speed of light is flexible by asserting that the
>>> length of a meter is 1/288,782,458 light-second.
>> Well, no, there’s a chronological problem here.
>
> There is no chronological problem......there is your assertion without
> any experimental support. The one-way speed of light never been tested.

That is incorrect. Citations have been provided to you recently. You chose
to ignore them without looking them up, and instead you made comments about
the measurements that proved you have no idea how the measurements were
done.

>> Light speed’s independence
>> of observer (which you say is impossible) was established many decades ago
>> in experimental observation,
> This is purely an assertion......many decades ago no way to synch two
> clocks accurately separate by a long distance to measure light speed.

That is also incorrect. There was sufficient accuracy in these experiments
to unambiguously rule out aether theories in general, decades before the
redefinition of the meter.

It does not matter that you don’t know about them or that you don’t believe
them. You can stomp your foot and turn blue in the face and shout that it’s
impossible, that you don’t accept it — it’s still history and nobody cares
whether you accept it or not.

>
>> though you have no idea what those references
>> are because you forget them within an hour or so of them being mentioned to
>> you. This was LONG BEFORE the definition of the meter in terms of
>> light-seconds.
>
> Again argument by assertion is not valid.
>>
>> So it is obviously impossible that the definition of the meter in terms of
>> the light-second (in 1983) was used in experiments in the 1920s, 1930s,
>> 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s that showed light speed’s independence of
>> observer.
>
> No the one-way light speed never been measured accurately. So your bullshit is not valid.
>
>>> This guarantees that the speed of light is constant c no matter who is
>>> ever been tested so how can
>>> measuring its speed. Not very scientific and very sad.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:10:34 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, I see that you chose to snip and dodge my direct questions to you....

Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity) had already been rendered moot by your own statement that you now agree that an ordinary person with minimal pre-requisites can understand a decent explanation of special relativity without relinquishing common sense. That was the whole point of contention, and (taking you at your word) you now agree.

Also, your complaint is rather rich, because if you look objectively at the last couple of posts from each of us, I think you'll see that I've been directly responding in detail to the things you have said in each of your posts, sometimes sentence-by-sentence, to unravel what appears (to me) to be a multitude of confusions and misconceptions, whereas you have taken to brazenly glossing over my entire posts without even attempting to address a single thing I've said, and instead just bottom-posting more muddled and baseless insinuations. And now you complain that *I* have not been directly responding to what *you* have said. Wow.

> ... pin little gold stars on yourself for argument-winning.

It isn't about "winning an argument", it's about engaging with what the other person is saying, and trying to arrive at an understanding of the issues involved in the topic, and resolve the points of disagreement. To do this you must actually address those issues. It's a common tactic of crackpots to go onto the internet and try to goad people into spoon-feeding them tutorials on their topic of interest, and they get frustrated when people don't dance to their tune, but that's life. Again, you stated in your previous message that you now agree that an ordinary person can understand special relativity, given very minimal pre-requisites, without relinquishing common sense. If you stand by that statement, then great, we have achieved agreement. If you are now recanting that statement, you should say so, and give your reasons (if you have any).

> you’re not interested in anything else but doing what it takes to make people “run away”

Not so, although I'm (slightly) interested in what it takes for people to understand things, and the mechanisms that people deploy to avoid understanding things that disagree with their own hobby-horse notions. It's generally possible to dispense with the preliminary denial mechanisms in short order, and then the crackpot begins just glossing over the entire posts and bottom-posting bland and unspecific denials and personal ad hominem and school yard taunts, unable to even attempt to respond substantively to anything that is being said, and then after a few rounds of that, the frustrated crackpot just runs away. That's the least interesting part.

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 7:54:20 AM UTC-7, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 5:26:54 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The subject here is your habitual assertion that the failure of crackpots
> > > to understand special relativity is not due to any faulty reasoning or
> > > lack of aptitude for the subject, not due to abysmal reading
> > > comprehension that leads to grossly misinterpreting snippets from books
> > > on the subject, not due to any lack of intellectual integrity, and not
> > > due to the vanity and ego of proud men who can't stand to be taught, no,
> > > not due to any of those reasons. It is (you claim) due to their reliance
> > > on what you define as common sense and intuition, by which you apparently
> > > mean the application of perfectly sound reasoning and judgment to a basis
> > > of "common knowledge" that is not broad enough to reveal relativistic effects.
> >
> > I’ll not respond to this, since you are clearly not paying attention to
> > what I actually say, and so there is no point to repeat it.
> I've explained to you what I think you are saying, and tried to put it in the most clear terms. If you think I have mischaracterized your position, then go ahead and point out how you think I have mischaracterized your position. Then we can make progress. Let's take it one small step at a time, first summarizing what I think is the cause of the crackpot's failures (which I think you deny), and then summarizing what (I think) *you* claim to be the cause:
>
> (1) I think the failure of crackpots to understand special relativity is due to any faulty reasoning, lack of aptitude for the subject, abysmal reading comprehension, lack of intellectual integrity, and the vanity and ego of proud men who can't stand to be taught. If you agree that these actually are the reasons for their failure, then we are in agreement.
>
> (2) I think *you* deny (1), and instead you are saying that the failure of crackpots to understand special relativity is their reliance on what you define as common sense and intuition, by which you apparently mean (correct me if I'm wrong) the application of perfectly sound reasoning and judgment to a basis of "common knowledge" (aka everyday experience) that is not broad enough to reveal relativistic effects. If this is wrong, i.e., if you agree that this is *not* what misleads crackpots, then we are in agreement.
> > Instead, we’ll just go right to….
> That's quite dumb, because you've bypassed the entire substantive content, and gone straight to the silly diversion that I specifically pointed out was irrelevant, namely, the completely separate question of:
> > >> Do you think it is reasonable to say that ANYONE with an average amount of
> > >> powers of logic and reasoning, and the acquaintance of everyday experiences
> > >> shared by most people, should be able to land on special relativity.... just using
> > >> those assets?
> I explained that this is an irrelevant excursion, because crackpots are not approaching the subject with no knowledge of relativistic effects. The typical crackpot is introduced to the subject by looking at many popular books as well as Einstein's 1905 paper, and was probably told about special relativity by his high school teacher (50 years ago), so he isn't approaching the subject with zero knowledge of relevant facts. Since this is an irrelevant diversion, I didn't give a full and clear treatment of the answer, which due to the verbally ambiguous formulation of your sentence (e.g., "anyone" or "everyone"? and what is "average amount of powers"?) would have been pointlessly laborious. But, since this diversionary question seems to be of interest to you, I will say more clearly what I think is the answer:
>
> It is within the realm of human capacity to deduce special relativity from very primitive awareness of external phenomena, basically just the intuitive and visceral level of awareness of dynamics that underlies Newtonian mechanics (which could, but for historical accident, have been formulated in ancient times). By quite trivial and primitive reasoning there is only a single constant degree of freedom in the logically possible relationship between what are called inertial coordinate systems (of which we are intuitive aware), with just three qualitatively different possibilities, and this can and has independently occurred to many people who have no sophisticated knowledge of physics.
>
> But, again, this is irrelevant to the subject at hand, because no one is claiming that crackpots are intelligent enough to have discovered special relativity on their own.
> > Explain why, if acquaintance with everyday experiences and basic powers of
> > logic and reasoning is prevalent among people...
>
> People posses whatever powers of logic and reasoning they possess. Some people are smarter than others. Again, I do not claim that every human, or even the majority of humans, have the level of intellect to discover special relativity on their own. Yes, some humans do, but we're not talking about those humans, we're talking about anti-relativity crackpots. No one is saying that crackpots would be capable of discovering special relativity for themselves. What we observe is something quite different, namely, they are exposed to some explanations of special relativity, of varying quality (unfortunately many expositions of special relativity are truly terrible), and they decide that it is wrong. The question at issue is what prevents them from understanding it? I explained what I think is the causes of their failure (erroneous reasoning, vanity, etc.), and I've explained why I don't think the reason is reliance on common sense (because special relativity is perfectly consistent with common sense, and indeed the humans who can discover it themselves do so by common sense and sound reasoning).
> > So is it your contention that average people would understand relativity
> > natively, just relying on their common experience and basic logic and
> > reasoning...
>
> No, see above. The subject here is not about who would be competent to independently discover special relativity. The subject here is whether common sense interferes with the average person's ability to understand special relativity when it is explained to them. I say it does not, and in fact common sense is essential to understanding.
> > except that they’ve all been poisoned by reading popularizations
> > about relativity, which blocks them from just understanding it?
> Here I would say yes, to some extent. There are so many extremely poor expositions of special relativity in circulation, and many high school teachers I'm sure give very poor explanations, trying to bewilder the students by telling them 1+1=1, and so on. I do think this is a contributor to sending some individuals down the path of crackpottery. Some crackpots make a speciality of collecting mutually contradictory statements from expositions, and they totally lack the ability to distinguish between good and bad expositions. Of course, if you ask 10 people to write a description of an elephant, you will get 10 different descriptions, and it takes a certain level of intellect to extract from those a coherent impression, and to be able to have independent judgment about which descriptions are better than others, and the sophistication to realize that the fact that they are different doesn't imply that any of them are wrong (although some may be). This is another area in which crackpots struggle, as part of their low reading comprehension.

I felt like I discovered special relativity somewhere
in the middle of Davies, about charge, there are some
few various ways to define enough or see so derived,
a usual invariance principle as about a maximum speed,
that is not an infinite speed. (But, in terms of what is
otherwise the invariant, sees the asymptotic as about
the main tenets mass-energy equivalence and the
vanishing though non-zero cosmological constant.)

I.e. by "discovered" I mean "in the course of research
and study, it was eminently clear what under category
of fact, such minimal definitions and derivations
established the invariance of the concept". Here
it's that "amongst some usual various 'derivations, or,
definitions of SR', there are some better derivations
that are less definition, and some complementarity
principle establishes SR and as independent and after GR,
besides that some establish SR then GR."

I.e., there are various derivations of SR, in terms.
I.e., in Rayleigh or along those lines is where up to
a point there is basically, Lienard-Wiechart, and
also other derivations as about the same means.

(And...: unipotential.)

I'd say there are at least a couple ways.

Out past the wave equation is attenuation.

For me because I have an otherwise usual theory,
it's very agreeable some these fittings in the model theory,
usual primitive tenets and principles, what result models in SR.
(Though, mostly after GR.)

On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 15:58:47 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:12:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> I’m not so confident about the fidelity of his common sense. You say SURELY
> >>>>>> his common sense informs him of the reciprocity of motion, but what he SAYS
> >>>>>> is that it’s idiotic that physicist could say the car is stationary and the
> >>>>>> highway moving when it is obviously the other way around. I have no sense
> >>>>>> of him having any common sense about reciprocity of motion at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, you have to distinguish between the visceral (and even
> >>>>> instinctive) common sense that enables him to play basketball or catch a
> >>>>> bag of pretzels in an airplane, versus his armchair attempts to theorize
> >>>>> about physics. The problem of the crackpots is that they ignore their
> >>>>> own common sense when they attempt to engage in high level conceptual
> >>>>> theorizing. It's easy to show Ed that his high-level beliefs contradict
> >>>>> common sense, and when you do this, he promptly runs away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is another great example where the common experience of descending in
> >>>>>> an elevator yields two completely different common sense interpretations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The point is not the under-determination of interpretations, the point is
> >>>>> the observational facts, combined with logic and reason. It's easy to
> >>>>> show crackpots that their high-level theories are illogical and
> >>>>> self-contradictory, based on simple common sense... and then they run
> >>>>> away. In contrast, they will happily engage endlessly with people who
> >>>>> argue that they need to abandon common sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The inability to think with precision will still
> >>>>>> allow common sense in the form of practical judgments that allow people to
> >>>>>> live in a reasonable and safe way (see dictionary), but this common sense
> >>>>>> is not sufficient for thinking logically.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No one claims that we should think illogically. Indeed, good sense and
> >>>>> sound judgment fairly well entail thinking logically, and the classical
> >>>>> definition of the ability to perceive and reason common to all people
> >>>>> does as well. Indeed, people like Ed invariably pride themselves on
> >>>>> thinking logically ("I'm an analyst"), and they include that under the
> >>>>> umbrella of common sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> People like Ed say, “Well, this person is just behaving like a mathematician. I have
> >>>>>> no further use for that, and I’ll just go back to relying on my intuitions.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, they do not say they rely on their intuitions, let alone snap
> >>>>> judgments, they contend that they are "the world's greatest logicians",
> >>>>> and when they are shown by simple irrefutable logical steps that their
> >>>>> beliefs are self-contradictory, they very promptly run away. It can be
> >>>>> in a thread that has been running with other people for weeks or months,
> >>>>> but all it takes to shut it down is a few posts. This happens over and
> >>>>> over. There really is a huge difference between how crackpots respond to
> >>>>> being told they need to abandon common sense, and how they respond to
> >>>>> being shown that their beliefs are logically self-contradictory and
> >>>>> violate common sense. They will argue endlessly against the former, but
> >>>>> when confronted with they latter, they quickly go poof. There are also
> >>>>> cases when the crackpot actually acknowledges the facts, for example the
> >>>>> recent Seppala thread, ending with his terse "Okay, I got it". Also,
> >>>>> even Ed has at length acknowledged the falsity of some of his
> >>>>> long-standing claims, albeit at a glacial pace, and this was not due to
> >>>>> him conceding that common sense is wrong, but rather to him recognizing
> >>>>> that his claims violated common sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>> All of this is to say that when these cranks talk about “thinking
> >>>> logically”, they are in fact NOT thinking logically, but are confusing the
> >>>> intuitive, gut-level rule-making that almost everyone does (with different
> >>>> rules inferred from the same experiences, often) with logic. The way they
> >>>> will respond to carefully defined terms and logical arguments is to say,
> >>>> “But that makes no sense!” This is the relapse moment where logic fails,
> >>>> and there is a false attribution of logic to the intuition.
> >>>>
> >>>> The single signifying hallmark of scientific thinking is the elaboration of
> >>>> logic that allows intuitive statements to be disrupted and dropped,
> >>>> replaced with new concepts that become new intuitions. This is the kind of
> >>>> thing where people would NO LONGER say things like “It’s stupid to say the
> >>>> train is stationary and the earth is moving in any frame of reference,”
> >>>> because their intuitions have shifted. It’s when they are no longer
> >>>> mystified by the idea of sustained motion requiring no expenditure of
> >>>> energy and a continual application of an unbalanced force.
> >>>>
> >>>> People like Ed Lake and Ken Seto and Maciej Wozniak and John Sefton have a
> >>>> very difficult time with that disruption of intuition and cannot do the
> >>>> flip or the deference to observational data that breaks their intuitive
> >>>> rules, or logically developed models that respects all known data but
> >>>> breaks their intuitive rules. That willingness to drop the false intuition
> >>>> is what good science promotes and these cranks do not support.
> >>>
> >>> That’s why people like Odd who is indoctrinated in Einstein’s SR have a
> >>> very difficult time in accepting that the speed of everything (including
> >>> light) is observer dependent. Instead they accepted that the measuring
> >>> tools to measure the speed of light is flexible by asserting that the
> >>> length of a meter is 1/288,782,458 light-second.
> >> Well, no, there’s a chronological problem here.
> >
> > There is no chronological problem......there is your assertion without
> > any experimental support. The one-way speed of light never been tested.
> That is incorrect. Citations have been provided to you recently. You chose
> to ignore them without looking them up, and instead you made comments about
> the measurements that proved you have no idea how the measurements were
> done.
> >> Light speed’s independence
> >> of observer (which you say is impossible) was established many decades ago
> >> in experimental observation,
> > This is purely an assertion......many decades ago no way to synch two
> > clocks accurately separate by a long distance to measure light speed.
> That is also incorrect. There was sufficient accuracy in these experiments
> to unambiguously rule out aether theories in general, decades before the
> redefinition of the meter.

Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Bod.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:10:34 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, I see that you chose to snip and dodge my direct questions to you....

Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity) had already been rendered moot by your own statement that you now agree that an ordinary person with minimal pre-requisites can understand a decent explanation of special relativity without relinquishing common sense. That was the whole point of contention, and (taking you at your word) you now agree. This was explained in my post.

To repeat, the canonical example of a bad explanation in relativity is to say "Hey kids, in the wacky world of special relativity, 1+1=1! Yes, you heard me right, the normal arithmetic and logic you learned in pre-school is wrong! Yes, this violates common sense, but you just have to get used to it!" That's a awful and incorrect explanation. The correct explanation of the composition of speeds does not involve any violation of common sense.. Indeed, we are guided every step of the way by common sense.

> ... pin little gold stars on yourself for argument-winning.

It isn't about "winning an argument", it's about engaging with what the other person is saying, and trying to arrive at an understanding of the issues involved in the topic, and to resolve any points of disagreement. To do this you must actually address those issues. Many crackpots go onto the internet and try to goad people into spoon-feeding them tutorials on their topic of interest, and they get frustrated when people don't dance to their tune, but that's life. Again, you stated in your previous message that you now agree that an ordinary person can understand special relativity, given very minimal pre-requisites, without relinquishing common sense. If you stand by that agreement, then great, we have achieved agreement. If you are now recanting that statement, you should say so, and give your reasons (if you have any).

> you’re not interested in anything else but doing what it takes to make people “run away”

Not so, although I'm (slightly) interested in what it takes for people to understand things, and the mechanisms that people deploy to avoid understanding things that disagree with their own preferred notions. It's generally possible to dispense with the bogus rationalizations in short order, and then the person begins just glossing over the entire posts, not even pretending to read the explanations, and then bottom-posting bland and unspecific denials and ad hominem and school yard taunts, and then after a few rounds of that, they just flee.

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:10:34 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Well, I see that you chose to snip and dodge my direct questions to you...
>
> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)

No. This is not for me.

Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
“decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?

If you do, what is it, title and author?

If you do not, then do you or do you not have a specific course taught
somewhere that provides a “decent explanation” of special relativity by
which an average Joe, otherwise untrained in physics, could understand
special relativity?

If you do, then where is the course taught and who teaches it?

If you do not, then what did you have in mind for an available “decent
explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe, otherwise
untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?

These are questions. Let’s see if you will answer any of them.

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

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 14:21:27 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
> “decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
> otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?

There is no; nobody has ever seen or will ever see your "singularities",
they can't exist without a pyramid of interpretations by one of those
insane gurus of yours, but you'll keep persuading they're some
undeniable observations.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:58:47 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:12:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> I’m not so confident about the fidelity of his common sense. You say SURELY
> >>>>>> his common sense informs him of the reciprocity of motion, but what he SAYS
> >>>>>> is that it’s idiotic that physicist could say the car is stationary and the
> >>>>>> highway moving when it is obviously the other way around. I have no sense
> >>>>>> of him having any common sense about reciprocity of motion at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, you have to distinguish between the visceral (and even
> >>>>> instinctive) common sense that enables him to play basketball or catch a
> >>>>> bag of pretzels in an airplane, versus his armchair attempts to theorize
> >>>>> about physics. The problem of the crackpots is that they ignore their
> >>>>> own common sense when they attempt to engage in high level conceptual
> >>>>> theorizing. It's easy to show Ed that his high-level beliefs contradict
> >>>>> common sense, and when you do this, he promptly runs away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is another great example where the common experience of descending in
> >>>>>> an elevator yields two completely different common sense interpretations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The point is not the under-determination of interpretations, the point is
> >>>>> the observational facts, combined with logic and reason. It's easy to
> >>>>> show crackpots that their high-level theories are illogical and
> >>>>> self-contradictory, based on simple common sense... and then they run
> >>>>> away. In contrast, they will happily engage endlessly with people who
> >>>>> argue that they need to abandon common sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The inability to think with precision will still
> >>>>>> allow common sense in the form of practical judgments that allow people to
> >>>>>> live in a reasonable and safe way (see dictionary), but this common sense
> >>>>>> is not sufficient for thinking logically.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No one claims that we should think illogically. Indeed, good sense and
> >>>>> sound judgment fairly well entail thinking logically, and the classical
> >>>>> definition of the ability to perceive and reason common to all people
> >>>>> does as well. Indeed, people like Ed invariably pride themselves on
> >>>>> thinking logically ("I'm an analyst"), and they include that under the
> >>>>> umbrella of common sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> People like Ed say, “Well, this person is just behaving like a mathematician. I have
> >>>>>> no further use for that, and I’ll just go back to relying on my intuitions.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, they do not say they rely on their intuitions, let alone snap
> >>>>> judgments, they contend that they are "the world's greatest logicians",
> >>>>> and when they are shown by simple irrefutable logical steps that their
> >>>>> beliefs are self-contradictory, they very promptly run away. It can be
> >>>>> in a thread that has been running with other people for weeks or months,
> >>>>> but all it takes to shut it down is a few posts. This happens over and
> >>>>> over. There really is a huge difference between how crackpots respond to
> >>>>> being told they need to abandon common sense, and how they respond to
> >>>>> being shown that their beliefs are logically self-contradictory and
> >>>>> violate common sense. They will argue endlessly against the former, but
> >>>>> when confronted with they latter, they quickly go poof. There are also
> >>>>> cases when the crackpot actually acknowledges the facts, for example the
> >>>>> recent Seppala thread, ending with his terse "Okay, I got it". Also,
> >>>>> even Ed has at length acknowledged the falsity of some of his
> >>>>> long-standing claims, albeit at a glacial pace, and this was not due to
> >>>>> him conceding that common sense is wrong, but rather to him recognizing
> >>>>> that his claims violated common sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>> All of this is to say that when these cranks talk about “thinking
> >>>> logically”, they are in fact NOT thinking logically, but are confusing the
> >>>> intuitive, gut-level rule-making that almost everyone does (with different
> >>>> rules inferred from the same experiences, often) with logic. The way they
> >>>> will respond to carefully defined terms and logical arguments is to say,
> >>>> “But that makes no sense!” This is the relapse moment where logic fails,
> >>>> and there is a false attribution of logic to the intuition.
> >>>>
> >>>> The single signifying hallmark of scientific thinking is the elaboration of
> >>>> logic that allows intuitive statements to be disrupted and dropped,
> >>>> replaced with new concepts that become new intuitions. This is the kind of
> >>>> thing where people would NO LONGER say things like “It’s stupid to say the
> >>>> train is stationary and the earth is moving in any frame of reference,”
> >>>> because their intuitions have shifted. It’s when they are no longer
> >>>> mystified by the idea of sustained motion requiring no expenditure of
> >>>> energy and a continual application of an unbalanced force.
> >>>>
> >>>> People like Ed Lake and Ken Seto and Maciej Wozniak and John Sefton have a
> >>>> very difficult time with that disruption of intuition and cannot do the
> >>>> flip or the deference to observational data that breaks their intuitive
> >>>> rules, or logically developed models that respects all known data but
> >>>> breaks their intuitive rules. That willingness to drop the false intuition
> >>>> is what good science promotes and these cranks do not support.
> >>>
> >>> That’s why people like Odd who is indoctrinated in Einstein’s SR have a
> >>> very difficult time in accepting that the speed of everything (including
> >>> light) is observer dependent. Instead they accepted that the measuring
> >>> tools to measure the speed of light is flexible by asserting that the
> >>> length of a meter is 1/288,782,458 light-second.
> >> Well, no, there’s a chronological problem here.
> >
> > There is no chronological problem......there is your assertion without
> > any experimental support. The one-way speed of light never been tested.
> That is incorrect. Citations have been provided to you recently. You chose
> to ignore them without looking them up, and instead you made comments about
> the measurements that proved you have no idea how the measurements were
> done.

No sir, there was no correct one-way light-speed measured over a long distance was done.

> >> Light speed’s independence
> >> of observer (which you say is impossible) was established many decades ago
> >> in experimental observation,
> > This is purely an assertion......many decades ago no way to synch two
> > clocks accurately separate by a long distance to measure light speed.
> That is also incorrect. There was sufficient accuracy in these experiments
> to unambiguously rule out aether theories in general, decades before the
> redefinition of the meter.
>
> It does not matter that you don’t know about them or that you don’t believe
> them. You can stomp your foot and turn blue in the face and shout that it’s
> impossible, that you don’t accept it — it’s still history and nobody cares
> whether you accept it or not.
> >
> >> though you have no idea what those references
> >> are because you forget them within an hour or so of them being mentioned to
> >> you. This was LONG BEFORE the definition of the meter in terms of
> >> light-seconds.
> >
> > Again argument by assertion is not valid.
> >>
> >> So it is obviously impossible that the definition of the meter in terms of
> >> the light-second (in 1983) was used in experiments in the 1920s, 1930s,
> >> 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s that showed light speed’s independence of
> >> observer.
> >
> > No the one-way light speed never been measured accurately. So your bullshit is not valid.
> >
> >>> This guarantees that the speed of light is constant c no matter who is
> >>> ever been tested so how can
> >>> measuring its speed. Not very scientific and very sad.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:58:47 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:12:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> I’m not so confident about the fidelity of his common sense. You say SURELY
>>>>>>>> his common sense informs him of the reciprocity of motion, but what he SAYS
>>>>>>>> is that it’s idiotic that physicist could say the car is stationary and the
>>>>>>>> highway moving when it is obviously the other way around. I have no sense
>>>>>>>> of him having any common sense about reciprocity of motion at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, you have to distinguish between the visceral (and even
>>>>>>> instinctive) common sense that enables him to play basketball or catch a
>>>>>>> bag of pretzels in an airplane, versus his armchair attempts to theorize
>>>>>>> about physics. The problem of the crackpots is that they ignore their
>>>>>>> own common sense when they attempt to engage in high level conceptual
>>>>>>> theorizing. It's easy to show Ed that his high-level beliefs contradict
>>>>>>> common sense, and when you do this, he promptly runs away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is another great example where the common experience of descending in
>>>>>>>> an elevator yields two completely different common sense interpretations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is not the under-determination of interpretations, the point is
>>>>>>> the observational facts, combined with logic and reason. It's easy to
>>>>>>> show crackpots that their high-level theories are illogical and
>>>>>>> self-contradictory, based on simple common sense... and then they run
>>>>>>> away. In contrast, they will happily engage endlessly with people who
>>>>>>> argue that they need to abandon common sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The inability to think with precision will still
>>>>>>>> allow common sense in the form of practical judgments that allow people to
>>>>>>>> live in a reasonable and safe way (see dictionary), but this common sense
>>>>>>>> is not sufficient for thinking logically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one claims that we should think illogically. Indeed, good sense and
>>>>>>> sound judgment fairly well entail thinking logically, and the classical
>>>>>>> definition of the ability to perceive and reason common to all people
>>>>>>> does as well. Indeed, people like Ed invariably pride themselves on
>>>>>>> thinking logically ("I'm an analyst"), and they include that under the
>>>>>>> umbrella of common sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People like Ed say, “Well, this person is just behaving like a
>>>>>>>> mathematician. I have
>>>>>>>> no further use for that, and I’ll
>>>>>>>> just go back to relying on my intuitions.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they do not say they rely on their intuitions, let alone snap
>>>>>>> judgments, they contend that they are "the world's greatest logicians",
>>>>>>> and when they are shown by simple irrefutable logical steps that their
>>>>>>> beliefs are self-contradictory, they very promptly run away. It can be
>>>>>>> in a thread that has been running with other people for weeks or months,
>>>>>>> but all it takes to shut it down is a few posts. This happens over and
>>>>>>> over. There really is a huge difference between how crackpots respond to
>>>>>>> being told they need to abandon common sense, and how they respond to
>>>>>>> being shown that their beliefs are logically self-contradictory and
>>>>>>> violate common sense. They will argue endlessly against the former, but
>>>>>>> when confronted with they latter, they quickly go poof. There are also
>>>>>>> cases when the crackpot actually acknowledges the facts, for example the
>>>>>>> recent Seppala thread, ending with his terse "Okay, I got it". Also,
>>>>>>> even Ed has at length acknowledged the falsity of some of his
>>>>>>> long-standing claims, albeit at a glacial pace, and this was not due to
>>>>>>> him conceding that common sense is wrong, but rather to him recognizing
>>>>>>> that his claims violated common sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of this is to say that when these cranks talk about “thinking
>>>>>> logically”, they are in fact NOT thinking logically, but are confusing the
>>>>>> intuitive, gut-level rule-making that almost everyone does (with different
>>>>>> rules inferred from the same experiences, often) with logic. The way they
>>>>>> will respond to carefully defined terms and logical arguments is to say,
>>>>>> “But that makes no sense!” This is the relapse moment where logic fails,
>>>>>> and there is a false attribution of logic to the intuition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The single signifying hallmark of scientific thinking is the elaboration of
>>>>>> logic that allows intuitive statements to be disrupted and dropped,
>>>>>> replaced with new concepts that become new intuitions. This is the kind of
>>>>>> thing where people would NO LONGER say things like “It’s stupid to say the
>>>>>> train is stationary and the earth is moving in any frame of reference,”
>>>>>> because their intuitions have shifted. It’s when they are no longer
>>>>>> mystified by the idea of sustained motion requiring no expenditure of
>>>>>> energy and a continual application of an unbalanced force.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People like Ed Lake and Ken Seto and Maciej Wozniak and John Sefton have a
>>>>>> very difficult time with that disruption of intuition and cannot do the
>>>>>> flip or the deference to observational data that breaks their intuitive
>>>>>> rules, or logically developed models that respects all known data but
>>>>>> breaks their intuitive rules. That willingness to drop the false intuition
>>>>>> is what good science promotes and these cranks do not support.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s why people like Odd who is indoctrinated in Einstein’s SR have a
>>>>> very difficult time in accepting that the speed of everything (including
>>>>> light) is observer dependent. Instead they accepted that the measuring
>>>>> tools to measure the speed of light is flexible by asserting that the
>>>>> length of a meter is 1/288,782,458 light-second.
>>>> Well, no, there’s a chronological problem here.
>>>
>>> There is no chronological problem......there is your assertion without
>>> any experimental support. The one-way speed of light never been tested.
>> That is incorrect. Citations have been provided to you recently. You chose
>> to ignore them without looking them up, and instead you made comments about
>> the measurements that proved you have no idea how the measurements were
>> done.
>
> No sir, there was no correct one-way light-speed measured over a long distance was done.

Ken, what is “correct” is determined by physicists, not by you.
One-way light speed measurements have been done over hundreds of miles with
sufficient accuracy to rule out aether theories in general, as has been
pointed out to you several times.

Nobody is going to care that someone who can’t pass a first-year physics
quiz looks at one-way light-speed measurements and sniffs that they aren’t
“correct”.

Who are you to say that physicists’ measurements are not correct?

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 16:31:33 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ken, what is “correct” is determined by physicists, not by you.

Bod, poor idiot, why not by comerade Lenin?

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> > (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>
> No. This is not for me.

Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity violates common sense, and I say it does not, so you've been trying to goad me into spoon feeding you a tutorial on special relativity, showing that it does not violate common sense. But now you claim "this is not for me". So please tell me, who is it for?

Admittedly your position is self-contradictory, because you've also assured me that you agree that special relativity does *not* violate common sense, which is presumably why you say the information you are requesting is "not for you". So you ought to be able to give the explanation to the mystery recipient yourself, right?

> Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
> “decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
> otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?

Translation: "Can you please spoon-feed me a tutorial on special relativity that does not violate common sense? I'm too uneducated to have ever read about it, and I'm too lazy to google it, and I'm too unthinking to have absorbed it any of the hundred times I've read it in this newsgroup. So, I'm going to keep trying to goad you into spoon-feeding it to me (again)."

Comment: Your new stipulation of being "otherwise untrained in physics" is pointless and stupid, revealing that you are still conflating "independently discovering" with "being taught". Remember, we are talking about being taught, so specifying an absence of prior instruction is idiotic, because whatever instruction is needed can be included in the instruction. The only relevant point is that none of the instruction/explanation, whether it was given previously or now, violates common sense.

Answer: Yes, dozens of them. And of course it can be summarized in just a few sentences, which you have seen many times but ignored.
> If you do, what is it, title and author?

Let me know who this is for (since you say "this is not for me"), and I will gladly provide them with a list of the well-known references going back to 1910. Or does this other person not have internet access, so I can only pass the answer through you? Out of curiosity, is this 'other person' (the one this request is for) visible to anyone but yourself? Since you already know the common sense explanation of special relativity (as you've assured me), why don't you just give it to this 'other person' yourself? Is it possible that you're actually asking for yourself? That would fit the facts much better.

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>>
>> No. This is not for me.
>
> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity
> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so you've been trying to
> goad me into spoon feeding you a tutorial on special relativity, showing
> that it does not violate common sense. But now you claim "this is not
> for me". So please tell me, who is it for?
>
> Admittedly your position is self-contradictory, because you've also
> assured me that you agree that special relativity does *not* violate
> common sense, which is presumably why you say the information you are
> requesting is "not for you". So you ought to be able to give the
> explanation to the mystery recipient yourself, right?
>
>> Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
>> “decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
>> otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?
>
> Translation: "Can you please spoon-feed me a tutorial on special
> relativity that does not violate common sense?

No, do not translate. Do not transform. Do not alter. I asked a question.
If you do not care to answer the actual question I asked, which had NOTHING
to do with a tutorial from you on a newsgroup for my benefit, then this is
an ample illustration that you are not interested in actually paying
attention to what I say.

The question is just above. If you can read and comprehend English, that
should be sufficient.

If you cannot muster yourself to do that, you will have — how do you say? —
“run away”.

> I'm too uneducated to have ever read about it, and I'm too lazy to google
> it, and I'm too unthinking to have absorbed it any of the hundred times
> I've read it in this newsgroup. So, I'm going to keep trying to goad you
> into spoon-feeding it to me (again)."
>
> Comment: Your new stipulation of being "otherwise untrained in physics"
> is pointless and stupid, revealing that you are still conflating
> "independently discovering" with "being taught". Remember, we are
> talking about being taught, so specifying an absence of prior instruction
> is idiotic, because whatever instruction is needed can be included in the
> instruction. The only relevant point is that none of the
> instruction/explanation, whether it was given previously or now, violates common sense.
>
> Answer: Yes, dozens of them. And of course it can be summarized in just
> a few sentences, which you have seen many times but ignored.
>
>> If you do, what is it, title and author?
>
> Let me know who this is for (since you say "this is not for me"), and I
> will gladly provide them with a list of the well-known references going
> back to 1910. Or does this other person not have internet access, so I
> can only pass the answer through you? Out of curiosity, is this 'other
> person' (the one this request is for) visible to anyone but yourself?
> Since you already know the common sense explanation of special relativity
> (as you've assured me), why don't you just give it to this 'other person'
> yourself? Is it possible that you're actually asking for yourself? That
> would fit the facts much better.
>

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

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 2:34:26 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> >>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> >>
> >> No. This is not for me.
> >
> > Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> > have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity
> > violates common sense, and I say it does not, so you've been trying to
> > goad me into spoon feeding you a tutorial on special relativity, showing
> > that it does not violate common sense. But now you claim "this is not
> > for me". So please tell me, who is it for?
> >
> > Admittedly your position is self-contradictory, because you've also
> > assured me that you agree that special relativity does *not* violate
> > common sense, which is presumably why you say the information you are
> > requesting is "not for you". So you ought to be able to give the
> > explanation to the mystery recipient yourself, right?
> >
> >> Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
> >> “decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
> >> otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?
> >
> > Translation: "Can you please spoon-feed me a tutorial on special relativity that
> > does not violate common sense? I'm too uneducated to have ever read about
> > it, and I'm too lazy to google it, and I'm too unthinking to have absorbed it any
> > of the hundred times I've read it in this newsgroup. So, I'm going to keep trying
> > to goad you into spoon-feeding it to me (again)."
>
> If you do not care to answer the actual question I asked, which had NOTHING
> to do with a tutorial from you on a newsgroup for my benefit...

That's not true. Your claim is that there is no tutorial/explanation of special relativity that doesn't involve violations of common sense, and I have pointed out that you are mistaken, and you have said: okay then show me a tutorial/explanation of special relativity that doesn't require relinquishing common sense. So you *are* asking for a tutorial. As to whether it is for your benefit, well your weird contortions on that were discussed in my message. You ask for the tutorial, but then you say it "isn't for you". That's ridiculous. Of course it's for you. I asked who it is for, if not for you, and you declined to answer.

Speaking of which, you've declined to answer or respond in any way to almost all of my questions and comments, whereas I have answered nearly all of yours (including the very one listed above) and explained why the ones I didn't answer were too stupid to answer, so it is the height of hypocrisy for you to complain that your questions are not being answered or addressed.

>this is an ample illustration that you are not interested in actually paying
> attention to what I say.

I do pay attention to what you say, which is how I know that you claim special relativity violates common sense, and I've been explaining to you why it doesn't.

> The question is just above. If you can read and comprehend English, that
> should be sufficient. If you cannot muster yourself to do that...

But wait... I *did* answer your question... in the very next sentences that you snipped and ignored. Look below after the heading "Answer:". [Just up above you were complaining that *I* don't pay attention to what *you* say... how rich.] Not to worry, here's the rest of my message that you ignored, so you can actually read it this time:

Comment: Your new stipulation of being "otherwise untrained in physics" is pointless and stupid, revealing that you are still conflating "independently discovering" with "being taught". Remember, we are talking about being taught, so specifying an absence of prior instruction is idiotic, because whatever instruction is needed can be included in the instruction. The only relevant point is that none of the instruction/explanation, whether it was given previously or now, violates common sense.

Answer: Yes, dozens of them. And of course it can be summarized in just a few sentences, which you have seen many times but ignored.

> If you do, what is it, title and author?
Let me know who this is for (since you say "this is not for me"), and I will gladly provide them with a list of the well-known references going back to 1910. Or does this other person not have internet access, so I can only pass the answer through you? Out of curiosity, is this 'other person' (the one this request is for) visible to anyone but yourself? Since you already know the common sense explanation of special relativity (as you've assured me), why don't you just give it to this 'other person' yourself? Is it possible that you're actually asking for yourself? That would fit the facts much better.

On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> > > (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> >
> > No. This is not for me.
> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity violates common sense, and I say it does not, so

So it means you're ignoring your idiot guru's own claims.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> > > > (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> > >
> > > No. This is not for me.
> > Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
>.
It does.
SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is observer dependent.

On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 13:37:26 UTC+2, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> > > > > (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> > > >
> > > > No. This is not for me.
> > > Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
> >.
> It does.

Of course it does, poor idiot Einstein has been admitting it
himself.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/common%20sense
acumen
good sense
intelligence
logic
practicality
prudence
rationality
sense
wisdom
wit
meant just some prejudices for him; samely as for Odd.

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 2:34:26 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>>>>
>>>> No. This is not for me.
>>>
>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>>> have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity
>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so you've been trying to
>>> goad me into spoon feeding you a tutorial on special relativity, showing
>>> that it does not violate common sense. But now you claim "this is not
>>> for me". So please tell me, who is it for?
>>>
>>> Admittedly your position is self-contradictory, because you've also
>>> assured me that you agree that special relativity does *not* violate
>>> common sense, which is presumably why you say the information you are
>>> requesting is "not for you". So you ought to be able to give the
>>> explanation to the mystery recipient yourself, right?
>>>
>>>> Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
>>>> “decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
>>>> otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?
>>>
>>> Translation: "Can you please spoon-feed me a tutorial on special relativity that
>>> does not violate common sense? I'm too uneducated to have ever read about
>>> it, and I'm too lazy to google it, and I'm too unthinking to have absorbed it any
>>> of the hundred times I've read it in this newsgroup. So, I'm going to keep trying
>>> to goad you into spoon-feeding it to me (again)."
>>
>> If you do not care to answer the actual question I asked, which had NOTHING
>> to do with a tutorial from you on a newsgroup for my benefit...
>
> That's not true. Your claim is that there is no tutorial/explanation of
> special relativity that doesn't involve violations of common sense, and I
> have pointed out that you are mistaken, and you have said: okay then
> show me a tutorial/explanation of special relativity that doesn't require
> relinquishing common sense. So you *are* asking for a tutorial. As to
> whether it is for your benefit, well your weird contortions on that were
> discussed in my message. You ask for the tutorial, but then you say it
> "isn't for you". That's ridiculous. Of course it's for you. I asked
> who it is for, if not for you, and you declined to answer.
>
> Speaking of which, you've declined to answer or respond in any way to
> almost all of my questions and comments, whereas I have answered nearly
> all of yours (including the very one listed above) and explained why the
> ones I didn't answer were too stupid to answer, so it is the height of
> hypocrisy for you to complain that your questions are not being answered or addressed.
>
>> this is an ample illustration that you are not interested in actually paying
>> attention to what I say.
>
> I do pay attention to what you say, which is how I know that you claim
> special relativity violates common sense, and I've been explaining to you why it doesn't.
>
>> The question is just above. If you can read and comprehend English, that
>> should be sufficient. If you cannot muster yourself to do that...
>
> But wait... I *did* answer your question... in the very next sentences
> that you snipped and ignored. Look below after the heading "Answer:".
> [Just up above you were complaining that *I* don't pay attention to what
> *you* say... how rich.] Not to worry, here's the rest of my message
> that you ignored, so you can actually read it this time:
>
> Comment: Your new stipulation of being "otherwise untrained in physics"
> is pointless and stupid, revealing that you are still conflating
> "independently discovering" with "being taught". Remember, we are talking
> about being taught, so specifying an absence of prior instruction is
> idiotic, because whatever instruction is needed can be included in the
> instruction. The only relevant point is that none of the
> instruction/explanation, whether it was given previously or now, violates common sense.
>
> Answer: Yes, dozens of them. And of course it can be summarized in just a
> few sentences, which you have seen many times but ignored.
>
>> If you do, what is it, title and author?
>
> Let me know who this is for (since you say "this is not for me"), and I
> will gladly provide them with a list of the well-known references going
> back to 1910. Or does this other person not have internet access, so I
> can only pass the answer through you? Out of curiosity, is this 'other
> person' (the one this request is for) visible to anyone but yourself?
> Since you already know the common sense explanation of special relativity
> (as you've assured me), why don't you just give it to this 'other person'
> yourself? Is it possible that you're actually asking for yourself? That
> would fit the facts much better.
>

Last chance.

Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
“decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity? If you
do, what is it, title and author?

Not an online tutorial on Usenet. A published and in print “decent
explanation” of special relativity.

Not for me. Not for any specific individual. An average Joe, otherwise
untrained in physics.

Not a list of dozens. Just the one you most favor. If it is not possible to
find one with all the information in one title that will equip an average
Joe, otherwise untrained in physics, then a minimal set that will get that
person up to speed and with a good comprehension of relativity.

If all you want to do is dodge, don’t bother responding with a non-answer.
If you are willing to stop dodging, then produce.

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>>>>
>>>> No. This is not for me.
>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
>> .
> It does.
> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is observer dependent.
>

Common sense does not claim that about light.
Common experience says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
capture the speed of is observer dependent. There is an instinct to say
then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
is a faulty instinct. You have certainly never had in your common
experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
because you personally have never measured light speed.

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

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 6:04:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> You are trying to goad me into spoon-feeding you a tutorial on special relativity...
>>>
>>> No. This is not for me.
>>
>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>> have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity
>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so you've been trying to
>> goad me into spoon feeding you a tutorial on special relativity, showing
>> that it does not violate common sense. But now you claim "this is not
>> for me". So please tell me, who is it for?
>
> Not for me. Not for any specific individual. [It is for] an average Joe.....

That doesn't make sense. If you already know how to explain special relativity without violating common sense, then you wouldn't need to keep trying to goad me into providing the explanation to you. Clearly it's for you, even if you have no interest in it yourself and only want it so you can pass it along to Joe.

Why is it important to you to maintain that the explanation you're requesting me to provide to you is "not for you"?

> untrained in physics.

Again, that's a senseless stipulation, because we are talking about being taught, so whatever instruction is needed can be included in the instruction.. Duh. The only relevant point is that none of the instruction/explanation, whether it was given previously or now, violates common sense.

> > Let me know who this is for (since you say "this is not for me"), and I
> > will gladly provide them with a list of the well-known references going
> > back to 1910.
>
> Not a list of dozens. Just the one you most favor.

Okay, the one from 1910.

> Last chance.

Still trying to goad me into doing your homework, and pointing you to the tutorial that you are too lazy to google... all the while insisting that it isn't for you, it's for Joe.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
> >>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
> >>>>
> >>>> No. This is not for me.
> >>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> >>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
> >>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
> >> .
> > It does.
> > SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
> > Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is observer dependent.
> >
> Common sense does not claim that about light.

Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent? It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent......to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1 meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit..

> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never had in your common
> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
> because you personally have never measured light speed.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 6:04:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> You are trying to goad me into spoon-feeding you a tutorial on special relativity...
>>>>
>>>> No. This is not for me.
>>>
>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>>> have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity
>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so you've been trying to
>>> goad me into spoon feeding you a tutorial on special relativity, showing
>>> that it does not violate common sense. But now you claim "this is not
>>> for me". So please tell me, who is it for?
>>
>> Not for me. Not for any specific individual. [It is for] an average Joe....
>
> That doesn't make sense. If you already know how to explain special
> relativity without violating common sense, then you wouldn't need to keep
> trying to goad me into providing the explanation to you. Clearly it's
> for you, even if you have no interest in it yourself and only want it so
> you can pass it along to Joe.
>
> Why is it important to you to maintain that the explanation you're
> requesting me to provide to you is "not for you"?
>
>> untrained in physics.
>
> Again, that's a senseless stipulation, because we are talking about being
> taught, so whatever instruction is needed can be included in the
> instruction. Duh. The only relevant point is that none of the
> instruction/explanation, whether it was given previously or now, violates common sense.
>
>>> Let me know who this is for (since you say "this is not for me"), and I
>>> will gladly provide them with a list of the well-known references going
>>> back to 1910.
>>
>> Not a list of dozens. Just the one you most favor.
>
> Okay, the one from 1910.
>
>> Last chance.
>
> Still trying to goad me into doing your homework, and pointing you to the
> tutorial that you are too lazy to google... all the while insisting that
> it isn't for you, it's for Joe.
>

As I thought.

Yet another dodge, and you decided to respond anyway with the dodge.

That terminates any further value to this conversation, and so it’s over.
But please, if you’d like to splutter further, indulge yourself.

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:04:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:11:15 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 2 August 2021 at 23:23:20 UTC+2, Arthur Adler wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:21:27 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>>>>>>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. This is not for me.
>>>>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
>>>>> have internet access? Remember, you >claim that special relativity
>>>>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so
>>>> .
>>> It does.
>>> SR claims that the speed of light is observer independent
>>> Common sense claims that the speed of any thing (including light) is observer dependent.
>>>
>> Common sense does not claim that about light.
>
> Sure it does claim that....why? Because if the speed of everything is
> observer dependent then why light is not observer dependent?

As I said, There is an instinct to say then if it works for 20 things then
it should work for everything. But that is a faulty instinct.

> It turns out that that the speed of light is also observer dependent.

No, it’s not. Your extrapolation from the few things you know to include
everything including light is just wrong.

> .....to save SR, physicist had to invent a new meter (1
> meter=1/299,632,770 light-second) to make light is not observer
> dependent. Sad that you are accepting such bull shit.
>
>> Common experien says that the speed of anything you’ve actually tried to
>> capture the speed of is nobserver dependent. There is an instinct to say
>> then if it works for 20 things then it should work for everything. But that
>> is a faulty instinct. You meter to make light is ew have certainly never
>> had in your common
>> experience the observation that measured light speed is observer dependent
>> because you personally have never measured light speed.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arthur Adler <aadler904@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 5:10:34 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Well, I see that you chose to snip and dodge my direct questions to you...
>>
>> Your post didn't include any questions, and the one request it included
>> (to spoon feed you a tutorial on special relativity)
>
> No. This is not for me.
>
> Do you or do you not have a specific reference for a published and in print
> “decent explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe,
> otherwise untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?
>
> If you do, what is it, title and author?
>
> If you do not, then do you or do you not have a specific course taught
> somewhere that provides a “decent explanation” of special relativity by
> which an average Joe, otherwise untrained in physics, could understand
> special relativity?
>
> If you do, then where is the course taught and who teaches it?
>
> If you do not, then what did you have in mind for an available “decent
> explanation” of special relativity by which an average Joe, otherwise
> untrained in physics, could understand special relativity?
>
> These are questions. Let’s see if you will answer any of them.
>

I thought not.

Lots and lots of bluster and deflection and “but I don’t believe you”
excuses.

Well done, asshat.

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

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 6:04:37 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> You are trying to goad me into spoon-feeding you a tutorial on special relativity...
> >>>>
> >>>> No. This is not for me.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it? Who is it for? Are you posting for someone else who doesn't
> >>> have internet access? Remember, you claim that special relativity
> >>> violates common sense, and I say it does not, so you've been trying to
> >>> goad me into spoon feeding you a tutorial on special relativity, showing
> >>> that it does not violate common sense. But now you claim "this is not
> >>> for me". So please tell me, who is it for?
> >>
> >> Not for me. Not for any specific individual. [It is for] an average Joe....
> >
> > That doesn't make sense. If you already know how to explain special
> > relativity without violating common sense, then you wouldn't need to keep
> > trying to goad me into providing the explanation to you. Clearly it's
> > for you, even if you have no interest in it yourself and only want it so
> > you can pass it along to Joe.
> >
> > Why is it important to you to maintain that the explanation you're
> > requesting me to provide to you is "not for you"?
> >
> >> untrained in physics.
> >
> > Again, that's a senseless stipulation, because we are talking about being
> > taught, so whatever instruction is needed can be included in the
> > instruction. Duh. The only relevant point is that none of the
> > instruction/explanation, whether it was given previously or now, violates common sense.
> >
> >>> Let me know who this is for (since you say "this is not for me"), and I
> >>> will gladly provide them with a list of the well-known references going
> >>> back to 1910.
> >>
> >> Not a list of dozens. Just the one you most favor.
> >
> > Okay, the one from 1910.
> >
> >> Last chance.
> >
> > Still trying to goad me into doing your homework, and pointing you to the
> > tutorial that you are too lazy to google... all the while insisting that
> > it isn't for you, it's for Joe.
> >
> As I thought.

Again, you gloss over everything I've said, and bottom-post the complaint that I haven't obeyed your command.

Look, we were originally discussing the conceptual basis of special relativity and it's relation to what might be called "common sense", and after being confronted with my explanation for why special relativity does not violate common sense, you effectively put a stop to all substantive discussion by suddenly switching your entire focus to a weird demand for a citation to the literature. You no longer have any interest in discussing the subject, you switched to a determined and single-minded effort to goad me into citing exactly one (not more than one) book from the vast literature on this subject. Why did you do that? Are you conceding that you don't trust your own intelligence and judgment, and you can only decide on the truth of the matter by an appeal to authority?

Suppose I let you goad me into giving you some citations to a tutorial in the literature (which isn't for you, no, perish the thought), which tells you the same things I've been telling you. Will you suddenly accept that what I've been telling you is correct? Or will you just say in Edlakian fashion "Well, the author of that book is as wrong as you are"? Is your purpose to actually understand the subject, or are you just seeking an authority to tell you what to think?

Suppose I give you a proof of Pythagoras' theorem, and you say you don't believe it. We talk about it, back and forth, me describing the proof in different ways, and giving various alternative proofs, and you explaining why you think the proof is wrong, etc., and finally you say "I don't want to talk about it any more, just tell me the name of a book that says your proof of Pythagoras' theorem is correct. Do you or do you not know of a book that contains that proof of Pythagoras' theorem? If so, give me the title and author of the book. This is your last chance." How should I react to this?

Are you seeking understanding, or are you seeking an authority?