On 10/21/2021 10:19 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> To you and all the other glib one-liners, I refuse to respond to such frivolous comments. Where are all the real physicists?

The real physicists left here decades ago, once the inmates took over
the asylum. Too much noise and too little useful info to bother with
Usenet groups, so all you'll find here are cranks and those here either
to watch the cranks crank away or respond to them and watch the
reactions. A form of entertainment.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:31:01 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 21-okt.-2021 om 16:19 schreef Tom Capizzi:
>>> To you and all the other glib one-liners, I refuse to respond to such
>>> frivolous comments. Where are all the real physicists? I provide
>>> inordinate detail to encourage explicit replies, and all I get are
>>> wisecracks. I have more important things to do than indulge
>>> schoolyard arguments like "Is not!" "Is too!". Maybe you should all
>>> learn some mathematics before commenting on it.
>>>
>> Maybe you should realise that physics is not just an
>> exercise in algebra. If you don't understand the physical
>> meanings of the variables in the equations, you are a
>> hopeless victim of your own self-inflicted ignorance.
>> Thinking that you can either learn something or teach
>> someone here, is a waste of your own time.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> More worthless opinions. I have found, over the last few years that all
> my critics fall into basically 3 categories. Pronouncements from
> authority (mindless regurgitation of dogma), strawman arguments
> (references to the rules of Minkowski geometry are irrelevant in a
> discussion of Euclidean geometry),

This was an interesting comment. Are you saying that any discussion of
physics that includes consideration of a Minkowski geometry model is
IRRELEVANT to the topic? That you ONLY want discussion of YOUR idea without
bringing in competitor ideas?

>and of course, the ad hominem attacks from those who have no logical
> comments to make. Apparently, teaching you anything is a waste of time.

There’s another interesting comment. Are you viewing this forum as one
where there is discussion of your ideas or one where you are teaching
others your idea?

> That hardly means that every other reader is as biased.
>

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:38:47 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:36:32 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:28:34 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:31:01 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>> Op 21-okt.-2021 om 16:19 schreef Tom Capizzi:
>>>>>>> To you and all the other glib one-liners, I refuse to respond to such
>>>>>>> frivolous comments. Where are all the real physicists? I provide
>>>>>>> inordinate detail to encourage explicit replies, and all I get are
>>>>>>> wisecracks. I have more important things to do than indulge
>>>>>>> schoolyard arguments like "Is not!" "Is too!". Maybe you should all
>>>>>>> learn some mathematics before commenting on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should realise that physics is not just an
>>>>>> exercise in algebra. If you don't understand the physical
>>>>>> meanings of the variables in the equations, you are a
>>>>>> hopeless victim of your own self-inflicted ignorance.
>>>>>> Thinking that you can either learn something or teach
>>>>>> someone here, is a waste of your own time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>> More worthless opinions. I have found, over the last few years that
>>>>> all my critics fall into basically 3 categories. Pronouncements from
>>>>> authority (mindless regurgitation of dogma), strawman arguments
>>>>> (references to the rules of Minkowski geometry are irrelevant in a
>>>>> discussion of Euclidean geometry), and of course, the ad hominem
>>>>> attacks from those who have no logical comments to make. Apparently,
>>>>> teaching you anything is a waste of time. That hardly means that
>>>>> every other reader is as biased.
>>>> You forgot the main category: the one that rubs your nose in your shit
>>>> by exposing you as a crank
>>> I see no point in engaging crackpot skeptics.
>> You got one right: we are the skeptics, you are the crackpot
>
> That's funny. A skeptic who can't present a logical counterargument.
> Don't like the message, attack the messenger. The rest of this space
> intentionally left blank.
>
>
>
>
>

I do think it’s interesting that the ONLY people you are responding to are
those that are giving you terse one-liners, in which you tell them you are
going to ignore them (but you’re not), and meanwhile you do not respond to
others who have more substantive comments (those, you truly ignore). What
gives?

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:48:38 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:43:49 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:38:47 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:36:32 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:28:34 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:31:01 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 21-okt.-2021 om 16:19 schreef Tom Capizzi:
>>>>>>>>> To you and all the other glib one-liners, I refuse to respond to such
>>>>>>>>> frivolous comments. Where are all the real physicists? I provide
>>>>>>>>> inordinate detail to encourage explicit replies, and all I get are
>>>>>>>>> wisecracks. I have more important things to do than indulge
>>>>>>>>> schoolyard arguments like "Is not!" "Is too!". Maybe you should all
>>>>>>>>> learn some mathematics before commenting on it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you should realise that physics is not just an
>>>>>>>> exercise in algebra. If you don't understand the physical
>>>>>>>> meanings of the variables in the equations, you are a
>>>>>>>> hopeless victim of your own self-inflicted ignorance.
>>>>>>>> Thinking that you can either learn something or teach
>>>>>>>> someone here, is a waste of your own time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>> More worthless opinions. I have found, over the last few years that
>>>>>>> all my critics fall into basically 3 categories. Pronouncements
>>>>>>> from authority (mindless regurgitation of dogma), strawman
>>>>>>> arguments (references to the rules of Minkowski geometry are
>>>>>>> irrelevant in a discussion of Euclidean geometry), and of course,
>>>>>>> the ad hominem attacks from those who have no logical comments to
>>>>>>> make. Apparently, teaching you anything is a waste of time. That
>>>>>>> hardly means that every other reader is as biased.
>>>>>> You forgot the main category: the one that rubs your nose in your
>>>>>> shit by exposing you as a crank
>>>>> I see no point in engaging crackpot skeptics.
>>>> You got one right: we are the skeptics, you are the crackpot
>>> That's funny. A skeptic who can't present a logical counterargument.
>> I did, I pointed out the imbecilities you spout. Of course, you, in
>> typical crank fashion, deny that the imbecilities were pointed out.
>
> Claiming that I am a crank and proving it are not the same thing. Only a
> crackpot skeptic is so self-important as to think his pronouncements have
> any logical impact. If my argument is not logical, then it will lead to a
> contradiction. Instead of insults, present a logical counter-argument.
> Oooh! That's right. You can't. At least, you won't. You're dismissed.
>

You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
and yet be dead wrong. That is because it does not agree with experimental
measurement, and it is this distinction that separates science from
philosophy. Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like yours is wrong does
not require demonstration of an internal logical contradiction. You know
this, right?

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

On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 21:12:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
> and yet be dead wrong. That is because it does not agree with experimental
> measurement

Of course, it's not the case of your Shit, which sounds as
idiotic as it is AND not agree with experimental measurements.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 21:12:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
> > and yet be dead wrong. That is because it does not agree with experimental
> > measurement
> Of course, it's not the case of your Shit, which sounds as
> idiotic as it is AND not agree with experimental measurements.

I think the first post was correct and all that is left of usenet is cranks.. Some of these comments are too ridiculous to bother to comment. And I haven't seen a logical counter-argument yet. I notice a new contender for most illogical.
To bodkin:
discussion of Minkowski geometry is irrelevant to my argument, because my position uses Euclidean geometry. While I don't intend to argue against Minkowski, using his geometry to argue against me is quite illogical. The fundamental rules of both geometries are incompatible with each other. Besides, there are thousands of books on the subject of Minkowski geometry. Very few approach relativity from a Euclidean perspective, and I believe there are none which focus on eigenvector decomposition. And because of the rules of Minkowski geometry, it does not have real eigenvectors. The light-cone bases are not Minkowski perpendicular, so are literally irrelevant to a discussion of eigenvector decomposition. In any case, I thought I made it clear that this thread is about Euclidean relativity. There are plenty of other threads about Minkowski.
As to your last remark, so what? It is your strawman argument that my theory does not agree with experimental measurements. I never claimed that. I tried to make it clear that it is an isomorphism, and, as such, it predicts the same results as special relativity. There is no experiment that can distinguish two isomorphisms. My claim is that the Einstein Interpretation is what is wrong, and it has no effect on the predictions of the Lorentz Transform. Since they cannot be distinguished by experiment, it must be done by logical argument.
Then, there is this gem, "Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like yours is wrong does
not require demonstration of an internal logical contradiction." Ridiculous.. How do you propose to demonstrate that my idea, (not just an idea like mine) is wrong? Pronouncement by a crackpot skeptic regurgitating dogma? Since the premise of my argument is that special relativity is based on false assumptions, any attempt to use dogma against me is circular logic, never valid. And if my idea is wrong then one of you know-it-alls should have no trouble finding a logical contradiction. Hasn't happened yet. I'm confident there is no logical flaw, so waste your time trying to find one. The fact that there are disagreements with an illogical special relativity is not a surprise, nor is it proof that there is anything wrong with my argument.
When Einstein published his first paper on special relativity, he was an outsider, too, with an unconventional idea. I wonder if he had to put up with as much crackpottery. And if he had real peer review, perhaps he wouldn't have settled for an illogical theory, which he doubled down to defend.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:14:56 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein's rebuttal: [Varićak] unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that
> of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction
> really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for
> a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be
> demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.

Right, and to understand Einstein's comment to Varićak it is important to realize that the word "observer" is used in casual discussions of special relativity only as sloppy shorthand for a specific system of inertia-based coordinates. Thus, speaking more rigorously, Einstein is pointing out that the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium (meaning the spatial distance between the ends at equal values of the time coordinate) has its normal rest length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving with speed v. Both of these are objectively correct statements about what really exists, and they are not contradictory.

> Einstein... acknowledges that the perception of length contraction is different in the two frames.

Be careful. He is merely pointing out that the rod has different spatial lengths in terms of two different systems of time and space coordinates. He could have gone on to note that the relation is reciprocal, i.e., given two rods on the x axis, each one is spatially contracted in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest. Likewise, each of two relatively moving clocks runs slow in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest. There are all perfectly objective statements of verifiable fact. There are no alternate realities or contradictions here at all. The key is to understand how inertia-based coordinate systems are related to each other (and why they are related that way).

> While there can be an arbitrary number of different measurements, there is only one,
> common target of observation.

Exactly. There is just a single objective set of phenomena, and we can describe the phenomena in terms of any system of coordinates we like. There is a special class of coordinate systems, called inertia-based or inertial coordinates, in terms of which the equations of physics all take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. That's the principle of relativity. As shorthand, unless we specify otherwise, we usually refer to such coordinate systems.

> I asked ... point blank what happens to the moving meter stick.

You have your tenses mixed up. If a rod is moving inertially, then nothing is "happening" to it, other than motion in terms of any specified system of reference. Maybe you meant to ask something like "What happens to a solid rod when it is subjected to a force that causes it to accelerate? Does it contract?" That's really just re-asking Varićak's question. As I mentioned before, this is an active transformation, i.e., a single rod in two different states of motion described in terms of a single system S of inertial coordinates. Yes, the spatial length of the rod is reduced (in terms of S) when it is gently accelerated from rest to some speed v and allowed to reach equilibrium again. Note that this is conceptually different from talking about the spatial length of a rod in a single state of motion, described in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates (passive transformation). We choose Lorentz transformations between they make the passive transformations match the active transformations, consistent with the principle of relativity.

> If the effect [length contraction] is physical, the principle of relativity results in a contradiction.

Not at all. Length contraction is certainly "physical"... in fact, already in the 1880's it was known that the equi-potential surfaces of a moving charge contract in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This follows directly from Maxwell's equations. There is no controversy (among competent physicists) about whether length contraction and time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity are "physical". They are all objective verifiable facts... and they do *not* entail any multiple realities or subjectivist silliness. Those are just misconceptions that come from many dreadful popularizations of special relativity.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:19:23 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:14:56 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Einstein's rebuttal: [Varićak] unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that
> > of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction
> > really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for
> > a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be
> > demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.
> Right, and to understand Einstein's comment to Varićak it is important to realize that the word "observer" is used in casual discussions of special relativity only as sloppy shorthand for a specific system of inertia-based coordinates. Thus, speaking more rigorously, Einstein is pointing out that the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium (meaning the spatial distance between the ends at equal values of the time coordinate) has its normal rest length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving with speed v. Both of these are objectively correct statements about what really exists, and they are not contradictory.
>
> > Einstein... acknowledges that the perception of length contraction is different in the two frames.
>
> Be careful. He is merely pointing out that the rod has different spatial lengths in terms of two different systems of time and space coordinates. He could have gone on to note that the relation is reciprocal, i.e., given two rods on the x axis, each one is spatially contracted in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest. Likewise, each of two relatively moving clocks runs slow in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest. There are all perfectly objective statements of verifiable fact. There are no alternate realities or contradictions here at all. The key is to understand how inertia-based coordinate systems are related to each other (and why they are related that way).
>
> > While there can be an arbitrary number of different measurements, there is only one,
> > common target of observation.
>
> Exactly. There is just a single objective set of phenomena, and we can describe the phenomena in terms of any system of coordinates we like. There is a special class of coordinate systems, called inertia-based or inertial coordinates, in terms of which the equations of physics all take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. That's the principle of relativity. As shorthand, unless we specify otherwise, we usually refer to such coordinate systems.
>
> > I asked ... point blank what happens to the moving meter stick.
>
> You have your tenses mixed up. If a rod is moving inertially, then nothing is "happening" to it, other than motion in terms of any specified system of reference. Maybe you meant to ask something like "What happens to a solid rod when it is subjected to a force that causes it to accelerate? Does it contract?" That's really just re-asking Varićak's question. As I mentioned before, this is an active transformation, i.e., a single rod in two different states of motion described in terms of a single system S of inertial coordinates. Yes, the spatial length of the rod is reduced (in terms of S) when it is gently accelerated from rest to some speed v and allowed to reach equilibrium again. Note that this is conceptually different from talking about the spatial length of a rod in a single state of motion, described in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates (passive transformation). We choose Lorentz transformations between they make the passive transformations match the active transformations, consistent with the principle of relativity.
>
> > If the effect [length contraction] is physical, the principle of relativity results in a contradiction.
>
> Not at all. Length contraction is certainly "physical"... in fact, already in the 1880's it was known that the equi-potential surfaces of a moving charge contract in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This follows directly from Maxwell's equations. There is no controversy (among competent physicists) about whether length contraction and time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity are "physical". They are all objective verifiable facts... and they do *not* entail any multiple realities or subjectivist silliness. Those are just misconceptions that come from many dreadful popularizations of special relativity.

Typical denial by a cultist. I don't care about acceleration. Neither does the Lorentz Transform. The effects of relativity are the result of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.

"... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."
What doubletalk. The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion. The shorter length is a geometric projection from a rotated vector. It is merely the displacement between the endpoints, which depends on relative velocity and the complex rotation it is associated with. You simply cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0. And then you attribute the contracted length to the motion of the object's coordinate system. But relativity says it has exactly the same contracted length when it is NOT moving, and it is the observer who is.

I was going to address each point, but I see no purpose. You have offered the same regurgitated dogma I've heard before. It is no more rational because you wrote it than it was the first time I read it. I would say we can agree to disagree, but cultists never concede anything. That's what brainwashing does. You are so convinced that only the approved version of relativity can possibly be correct, you simply reject any alternative out of hand. If my proposition is false, it will inevitably lead to a contradiction. If you're correct, show me that contradiction. What are you afraid of? That you will have to admit you couldn't find one? Instead you repeat the nonsense taught by mainstream physics, expecting the gullible to swallow it. Not gonna happen.

THIS THREAD IS PURE GOLD, BETTER THAN PHYSICAL COMEDY.

Somebody should make a documentary with cartoon characters representing each actor. Also it would be educational.

Look if I put some excerpts together: a cacophony, much confusing than hearing the sound of a populated jungle.

tgca...@gmail.com, Oct 21, 2021, 11:14:56 AM
This is the claim:
In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that one sees the length contraction in an objective way, according to Lorentz,
while it is "only an apparent, subjective phenomenon, caused by the manner of our clock-regulation and length-
measurement", according to Einstein.

Einstein's rebuttal:
The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts.

The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading.

It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such
a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.[22]
— Albert Einstein, 1911

MY COMMENT: EVEN EINSTEIN WASN'T BUYING HIS SHIT, WHILE RESORTING TO SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES AS USUAL.

Dirk Van de moortel, Oct 21, 2021, 12:31:01 PM
Maybe you should realise that physics is not just an exercise in algebra. If you don't understand the physical
meanings of the variables in the equations, you are a hopeless victim of your own self-inflicted ignorance.
Thinking that you can either learn something or teach someone here, is a waste of your own time.

MY COMMENT: NO DORK, IT'S ALSO AN EXERCISE IN DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY, AS IN GR.

Michael Moroney, Oct 21, 2021, 3:56:26 PM
The real physicists left here decades ago, once the inmates took over the asylum. Too much noise and
too little useful info to bother with Usenet groups, so all you'll find here are cranks and those here either
to watch the cranks crank away or respond to them and watch the reactions. A form of entertainment.

MY COMMENT: BUT YOU ARE AN OPINIONATED AMATEUR WHO WROTE ABOUT 10,000 POSTS IN 15 YEARS. WHAT ARE YOU, THEN?

Dono., Oct 21, 2021, 1:30:42 PM
You forgot the main category: the one that rubs your nose in your shit by exposing you as a crank

MY COMMENT: YOU ARE A REPTILIAN LIFEFORM AND SHOULD COMMENT ON FORUMS FOR YOUR SPECIE. DON'T BOTHER HUMANS.

bodk...@gmail.com, Oct 21, 2021, 4:12:37 PM
You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound and yet be dead wrong. That is
because it does not agree with experimental measurement, and it is this distinction that separates science
from philosophy. Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like yours is wrong does not require demonstration
of an internal logical contradiction. You know this, right?

MY COMMENT: RELATIVITY IS A CRIME OF THOUGHT POSING AS AN IDEA, AND FAILS MISERABLY IN EXPERIMENTS. EXPLAIN
WHY IS SO PROTECTED BY ESTABLISHMENT AFTER ITS REVIVAL SINCE WWII END, SPECIALLY GR AS USED IN COSMOLOGY.

tgca...@gmail.com, Oct 22, 2021, 2:21 AM
Typical denial by a cultist. I don't care about acceleration. Neither does the Lorentz Transform. The effects of relativity
are the result of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.

"... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in
which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."

What doubletalk. The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion.

The shorter length is a geometric projection from a rotated vector. It is merely the displacement between the endpoints,
which depends on relative velocity and the complex rotation it is associated with.

You simply cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0. And then you attribute the contracted length to the
motion of the object's coordinate system. But relativity says it has exactly the same contracted length when it is NOT moving,
and it is the observer who is.

I was going to address each point, but I see no purpose. You have offered the same regurgitated dogma I've
heard before. It is no more rational because you wrote it than it was the first time I read it. I would say we
can agree to disagree, but cultists never concede anything. That's what brainwashing does. You are so
convinced that only the approved version of relativity can possibly be correct, you simply reject any alternative out of hand.
.........

MY COMMENT: I'M WITH THIS GUY. HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH, AND IN A VERY COMPACT WAY. RESPECT.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> The effects of relativity are the result of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.

You misunderstood my comment, which was that your tenses were garbled when you asked what is "happening" to a solid rod when it is "moving". It isn't changing it's intrinsic state when in inertial motion, so nothing intrinsic is "happening" to it. It is simply moving in terms of the specified coordinates. It's spatial length in terms of those coordinates is not changing.. So I surmised that perhaps what you were trying to ask is just a repeat of the original question, i.e., is the rod's spatial length in terms of these coordinates actually less than its spatial length in terms of inertial coordinates in which it is at rest, and the answer (again) is yes. If that isn't your question, then you need to clarify what you are asking.

> "... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest length L in terms
> of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length
> L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."
>
> The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion.

You must speak clearly and precisely: The object has a specific spatial length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, and it has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinate system in which it is moving (along its length) at the speed v. Neither of these is an illusion. They are both objectively verifiable facts.

> You simply cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0.

That's not true at all. Conceptually we can construct a rectangular grid of standard rulers with standard clocks located at each node, and we can synchronize the clocks inertially, meaning we synchronize them in such a way that inertia is isotropic in terms of these measures of position and time. This is an inertia-based coordinate system, and the spatial length of an object moving through this grid has the speed dx/dt in terms of the x,t coordinates of the grid and clocks. The object need not have 0 velocity relative to the grid. Space and time coordinate systems would not be very useful if, as you imagine, they only applied to stationary objects!

> And then you attribute the contracted length to the motion of the object's
> coordinate system.

Huh? That bears no relation to anything I said. For example, I explained that, already in the 1880's it was known that the equi-potential surfaces around a moving charge contract by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the direction of motion.

> Relativity says it has exactly the same contracted length when it is NOT moving, and
> it is the observer who is.

Well, there is no absolute meaning to one or the other being moving or stationary, but yes, if you start with two solid rods, A and B, each of spatial length L and initially at rest in S, each of these rods has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of an inertial coordinate system S' moving at speed v in terms of S. Now, if you gently accelerate rod B until it is at rest in S', the spatial length of A in S is still L, and the spatial length of B in S' is now L, and the spatial lengths of A in terms of S' and of B in terms of S are both L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Do you disagree with any of this?

> You are so convinced that only the approved version of relativity can
> possibly be correct, you simply reject any alternative out of hand.

Wait... you haven't described any alternative. You have said special relativity is false and entails contradictions, but when I press you to identify any contradiction, you just run away. Phrases like "approved version" are just silly. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, which is the proposition that the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of systems of coordinates related by Lorentz transformations. You've agreed to this, so I don't know what "alternative" you are talking about, nor why you continue to insist that special relativity is false and/or entails contradictions. Can you clarify?

> If my proposition is false, it will inevitably lead to a contradiction.
> If you're correct, show me that contradiction.

What is your proposition? As far as I can see, your proposition is "special relativity is false", but then you contradict this by agreeing that inertia-based coordinate systems are indeed related by Lorentz transformations. So what "proposition" are you referring to? I'll be happy to critique your "proposition" if you can tell me clearly what it is.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 9:17:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>snip garbage<

Crankiest one,

Don't fret, Tom is not going to supplant you as the number one crank, you are still the king of cranks, he's a distant number 4

> MY COMMENT: I'M WITH THIS GUY. HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH, AND IN A VERY COMPACT WAY. RESPECT.

Rushing to suck cock to your fellow crank, way to go Dickie-boy

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I posed the question explicitly to Don Lincoln, of YouTube fame. I asked
> him point blank what happens to the moving meter stick. He dodged that
> question, instead answering his own question. He removed the meter stick
> from the scenario and claimed that the space between where the ends of
> the meter stick “used to be” was contracted. I wanted to know where he
> stood on the physical nature of length contraction. Inadvertently, he had
> given me a definition of a displacement, not a distance, and displacement
> is the cosine projection of total distance. The reason I asked was the
> argument I use is different in both cases. If the effect is physical, the
> principle of relativity results in a contradiction. In that case,
> relativity is patently wrong. If the effect is an illusion, then I don't
> have to demonstrate that special relativity is wrong, I merely have to
> demonstrate that geometric relativity is better. Before I respond
> further, which side of the argument are you on?
>

It’s neither. False dichotomy.

There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as you
are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand, it is
not an illusion.

Instead, it’s a direct consequence of the operational definition of length.
As applied to an object that can either be moving or stationary, the
operational definition of length is the magnitude of the difference between
locations of extremal endpoints of the object, where the locations must be
recorded simultaneously. The condition of simultaneity should be
immediately obvious from a moment’s thought for a moving object. But
there’s the rub, because simultaneity is relative. This makes length BY
DEFINITION not an intrinsic property of an object but a frame-dependent
one, in a way analogous to why velocity is not an intrinsic property.

The false dichotomy comes from assuming that there is such a thing as
intrinsic length, and that any change in length must therefore be either a
physical change or not actually measuring the length.

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

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> It’s neither. False dichotomy.
>
> There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as
> you are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand,
> it is not an illusion.

so true, so true. I like my *Divergent_Matter*. For instance the gravity
tensor in that equation is not a fictitious "gravity", but the directly
implied matter diverging. The *matter_diverging_tensor*. Einstein was
good, but not good enough.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 6:17:21 AM UTC-4, Rique Pazo wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> > It’s neither. False dichotomy.
> >
> > There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as
> > you are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand,
> > it is not an illusion.
> so true, so true. I like my *Divergent_Matter*. For instance the gravity
> tensor in that equation is not a fictitious "gravity", but the directly
> implied matter diverging. The *matter_diverging_tensor*. Einstein was
> good, but not good enough.

To bodkin:
You can be obtuse if you want. It's amusing. And as far as your "operational definition of length" is concerned, it is rubbish. What you have defined is not length, but displacement. Even a cursory internet search will reveal that distance (or length) is not the same thing as displacement. Your argument is based on a false premise. Worthless. Typical deflection, however. Either the length physically contracts (nope, never) or it is an illusion, because we are fooled by the inappropriate WYSIWYG paradigm, which is only valid for Newtonian velocities. In relativistic situations, the procedure is the dot product. And this thread is about Euclidean relativity, in which both the dot and cross-product behave as we expect them to, not Minkowski's, where not even the Pythagorean identity holds. This tells us that no matter how perfect our measurement grid, the geometry only allows us to measure cosine projections of distance, i.e. displacements. And when we do the experiments carefully, that's exactly what we find. We can measure 100% of what the geometry says is the real projection. Length contraction is a farce. A simple-minded, FALSE explanation for the "failure" of measurement to record 100% of distance between the two endpoints. It is not the contraction of the length of the relatively moving object. It is the inability of measurement to record imaginary projections. This is not Newtonian physics. To make assertions about relativistic scenarios using Newtonian logic is about as valid as judging Euclidean geometry using the rules of Minkowski geometry.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 21:12:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
>>> and yet be dead wrong. That is because it does not agree with experimental
>>> measurement
>> Of course, it's not the case of your Shit, which sounds as
>> idiotic as it is AND not agree with experimental measurements.
>
> I think the first post was correct and all that is left of usenet is
> cranks. Some of these comments are too ridiculous to bother to comment.
> And I haven't seen a logical counter-argument yet. I notice a new
> contender for most illogical.
> To bodkin:
> discussion of Minkowski geometry is irrelevant to my argument, because my
> position uses Euclidean geometry. While I don't intend to argue against
> Minkowski, using his geometry to argue against me is quite illogical. The
> fundamental rules of both geometries are incompatible with each other.
> Besides, there are thousands of books on the subject of Minkowski
> geometry. Very few approach relativity from a Euclidean perspective, and
> I believe there are none which focus on eigenvector decomposition. And
> because of the rules of Minkowski geometry, it does not have real
> eigenvectors. The light-cone bases are not Minkowski perpendicular, so
> are literally irrelevant to a discussion of eigenvector decomposition. In
> any case, I thought I made it clear that this thread is about Euclidean
> relativity. There are plenty of other threads about Minkowski.

OK, so you are looking only for attention for your alternate idea, and
struggling a bit to earn it.

> As to your last remark, so what? It is your strawman argument that my
> theory does not agree with experimental measurements. I never claimed
> that. I tried to make it clear that it is an isomorphism, and, as such,
> it predicts the same results as special relativity. There is no
> experiment that can distinguish two isomorphisms. My claim is that the
> Einstein Interpretation is what is wrong,

In science, two theoretical constructions that are experimentally
indistinguishable are equivalent, and because they make the same
experimental predictions (which is the ONLY measure of validity in
science), then one cannot rightly say one is right and the other is wrong.
They are both right if validated by experiment, because they are
equivalent.

You might as well be trying to argue that, between Lagrangian and
Hamiltonian mechanics, one interpretation is right and the other wrong.
That’s silly. The two are demonstrably equivalent.

It’s also silly to say that there should be one and only one “correct”
formalism. This has NEVER been the case, and it’s hammered into freshman
physics students that any given physical system can be analyzed by a number
of equivalent theoretical schemes, where the preference of one over the
other is only in convenience.

> and it has no effect on the predictions of the Lorentz Transform. Since
> they cannot be distinguished by experiment, it must be done by logical argument.

And that’s pointless and off track as just described.

> Then, there is this gem, "Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like yours is wrong does
> not require demonstration of an internal logical contradiction."
> Ridiculous. How do you propose to demonstrate that my idea, (not just an
> idea like mine) is wrong?

Only if it disagrees with experiment. And if it is equivalent in
experimental predictive power, then it is completely equivalent to
relativity and offers nothing new.

> Pronouncement by a crackpot skeptic regurgitating dogma? Since the
> premise of my argument is that special relativity is based on false assumptions,

The ONLY way to prove in science that any set of assumptions in a theory
are wrong, is to prove that necessary consequences of those assumptions end
up disagreeing with experiment. Since you confess that relativity is
entirely consistent with experiment, then you literally have no scientific
basis for your claim that the assumptions are false.

> any attempt to use dogma against me is circular logic, never valid. And
> if my idea is wrong then one of you know-it-alls should have no trouble
> finding a logical contradiction.

Again, I will repeat that there are many physics ideas that are perfectly
logically consistent that are also wrong. And showing that they are wrong
does not involve pointing out the logical contradiction in them.

> Hasn't happened yet. I'm confident there is no logical flaw, so waste
> your time trying to find one. The fact that there are disagreements with
> an illogical special relativity is not a surprise, nor is it proof that
> there is anything wrong with my argument.
> When Einstein published his first paper on special relativity, he was an
> outsider, too, with an unconventional idea.

This is a common misconception. He was not an outsider. He was classically
trained and had his PhD work blessed by his advisor. He was connected to
the physics community and current in the literature. The only thing he did
not have at the time of his big year was an academic position. This is much
different than the outsiders who post here.

> I wonder if he had to put up with as much crackpottery. And if he had
> real peer review, perhaps he wouldn't have settled for an illogical
> theory, which he doubled down to defend.
>

And finally, let’s discuss the term “illogical”. You are not using this
term correctly in any formal sense. Illogical implies an internal
contradiction or finding results that do not follow from the assumptions.
There is nothing in Einstein’s work that fits that mold. What you
apparently mean by “illogical” is that it cannot be deduced from a
Newtonian framework and is therefore inconsistent with either your
intuition or a set of assumptions that you are holding. That is true, but
that is not illogical. I think what you are TRYING to claim is that
preference should be given to a theory that is both consistent with a
classical set of assumptions and agrees with experiment, giving favor to
conceptual continuity over a disruptive set of assumptions. That, however,
has never been true in science.

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> THIS THREAD IS PURE GOLD, BETTER THAN PHYSICAL COMEDY.
>
> Somebody should make a documentary with cartoon characters representing
> each actor. Also it would be educational.
>
> Look if I put some excerpts together: a cacophony, much confusing than
> hearing the sound of a populated jungle.
>
> tgca...@gmail.com, Oct 21, 2021, 11:14:56 AM
> This is the claim:
> In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that one sees the length contraction in
> an objective way, according to Lorentz,
> while it is "only an apparent, subjective phenomenon, caused by the
> manner of our clock-regulation and length-
> measurement", according to Einstein.
>
> Einstein's rebuttal:
> The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that
> of mine concerning the physical facts.
>
> The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading.
>
> It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving
> observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such
> a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a
> non-comoving observer.[22]
> — Albert Einstein, 1911
>
> MY COMMENT: EVEN EINSTEIN WASN'T BUYING HIS SHIT, WHILE RESORTING TO
> SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES AS USUAL.
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel, Oct 21, 2021, 12:31:01 PM
> Maybe you should realise that physics is not just an exercise in algebra.
> If you don't understand the physical
> meanings of the variables in the equations, you are a hopeless victim of
> your own self-inflicted ignorance.
> Thinking that you can either learn something or teach someone here, is a
> waste of your own time.
>
> MY COMMENT: NO DORK, IT'S ALSO AN EXERCISE IN DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY, AS IN GR.
>
>
> Michael Moroney, Oct 21, 2021, 3:56:26 PM
> The real physicists left here decades ago, once the inmates took over the
> asylum. Too much noise and
> too little useful info to bother with Usenet groups, so all you'll find
> here are cranks and those here either
> to watch the cranks crank away or respond to them and watch the
> reactions. A form of entertainment.
>
> MY COMMENT: BUT YOU ARE AN OPINIONATED AMATEUR WHO WROTE ABOUT 10,000
> POSTS IN 15 YEARS. WHAT ARE YOU, THEN?
>
>
> Dono., Oct 21, 2021, 1:30:42 PM
> You forgot the main category: the one that rubs your nose in your shit by
> exposing you as a crank
>
> MY COMMENT: YOU ARE A REPTILIAN LIFEFORM AND SHOULD COMMENT ON FORUMS FOR
> YOUR SPECIE. DON'T BOTHER HUMANS.
>
>
> bodk...@gmail.com, Oct 21, 2021, 4:12:37 PM
> You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
> and yet be dead wrong. That is
> because it does not agree with experimental measurement, and it is this
> distinction that separates science
> from philosophy. Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like yours is
> wrong does not require demonstration
> of an internal logical contradiction. You know this, right?
>
> MY COMMENT: RELATIVITY IS A CRIME OF THOUGHT POSING AS AN IDEA, AND FAILS
> MISERABLY IN EXPERIMENTS.

Dismissing the crap propaganda (which is pointless and only makes you look
bad), you make the claim that relativity “fails miserably in experiments”.
That is a claim about facts that you surely can back up. If you can’t, then
let’s just lump that small statement into the rest of the pile of crap
propaganda.

> EXPLAIN
> WHY IS SO PROTECTED BY ESTABLISHMENT AFTER ITS REVIVAL SINCE WWII END,
> SPECIALLY GR AS USED IN COSMOLOGY.
>
> tgca...@gmail.com, Oct 22, 2021, 2:21 AM
> Typical denial by a cultist. I don't care about acceleration. Neither
> does the Lorentz Transform. The effects of relativity
> are the result of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.
>
> "... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest
> length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in
> which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in
> terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."
>
> What doubletalk. The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion.
>
> The shorter length is a geometric projection from a rotated vector. It is
> merely the displacement between the endpoints,
> which depends on relative velocity and the complex rotation it is associated with.
>
> You simply cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0.
> And then you attribute the contracted length to the
> motion of the object's coordinate system. But relativity says it has
> exactly the same contracted length when it is NOT moving,
> and it is the observer who is.
>
> I was going to address each point, but I see no purpose. You have offered
> the same regurgitated dogma I've
> heard before. It is no more rational because you wrote it than it was the
> first time I read it. I would say we
> can agree to disagree, but cultists never concede anything. That's what
> brainwashing does. You are so
> convinced that only the approved version of relativity can possibly be
> correct, you simply reject any alternative out of hand.
> ........
>
> MY COMMENT: I'M WITH THIS GUY. HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH, AND IN A VERY COMPACT WAY. RESPECT.
>

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

On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 14:59:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > THIS THREAD IS PURE GOLD, BETTER THAN PHYSICAL COMEDY.
> >
> > Somebody should make a documentary with cartoon characters representing
> > each actor. Also it would be educational.
> >
> > Look if I put some excerpts together: a cacophony, much confusing than
> > hearing the sound of a populated jungle.
> >
> > tgca...@gmail.com, Oct 21, 2021, 11:14:56 AM
> > This is the claim:
> > In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that one sees the length contraction in
> > an objective way, according to Lorentz,
> > while it is "only an apparent, subjective phenomenon, caused by the
> > manner of our clock-regulation and length-
> > measurement", according to Einstein.
> >
> > Einstein's rebuttal:
> > The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that
> > of mine concerning the physical facts.
> >
> > The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading.
> >
> > It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving
> > observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such
> > a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a
> > non-comoving observer.[22]
> > — Albert Einstein, 1911
> >
> > MY COMMENT: EVEN EINSTEIN WASN'T BUYING HIS SHIT, WHILE RESORTING TO
> > SOPHISTRY AND FALLACIES AS USUAL.
> >
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel, Oct 21, 2021, 12:31:01 PM
> > Maybe you should realise that physics is not just an exercise in algebra.
> > If you don't understand the physical
> > meanings of the variables in the equations, you are a hopeless victim of
> > your own self-inflicted ignorance.
> > Thinking that you can either learn something or teach someone here, is a
> > waste of your own time.
> >
> > MY COMMENT: NO DORK, IT'S ALSO AN EXERCISE IN DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY, AS IN GR.
> >
> >
> > Michael Moroney, Oct 21, 2021, 3:56:26 PM
> > The real physicists left here decades ago, once the inmates took over the
> > asylum. Too much noise and
> > too little useful info to bother with Usenet groups, so all you'll find
> > here are cranks and those here either
> > to watch the cranks crank away or respond to them and watch the
> > reactions. A form of entertainment.
> >
> > MY COMMENT: BUT YOU ARE AN OPINIONATED AMATEUR WHO WROTE ABOUT 10,000
> > POSTS IN 15 YEARS. WHAT ARE YOU, THEN?
> >
> >
> > Dono., Oct 21, 2021, 1:30:42 PM
> > You forgot the main category: the one that rubs your nose in your shit by
> > exposing you as a crank
> >
> > MY COMMENT: YOU ARE A REPTILIAN LIFEFORM AND SHOULD COMMENT ON FORUMS FOR
> > YOUR SPECIE. DON'T BOTHER HUMANS.
> >
> >
> > bodk...@gmail.com, Oct 21, 2021, 4:12:37 PM
> > You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
> > and yet be dead wrong. That is
> > because it does not agree with experimental measurement, and it is this
> > distinction that separates science
> > from philosophy. Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like yours is
> > wrong does not require demonstration
> > of an internal logical contradiction. You know this, right?
> >
> > MY COMMENT: RELATIVITY IS A CRIME OF THOUGHT POSING AS AN IDEA, AND FAILS
> > MISERABLY IN EXPERIMENTS.
> Dismissing the crap propaganda (which is pointless and only makes you look
> bad), you make the claim that relativity “fails miserably in experiments”.
> That is a claim about facts that you surely can back up. If you can’t, then
> let’s just lump that small statement into the rest of the pile of crap
> propaganda.

Sorry, poor idiot. Measurements with serious equipment,
prepared by professionals (GPS) give time (as defined by
your idiot guru himself) galilean, with the precision of
an acceptable error. Your time dilation idiocy was only
obtained from the clocks of your idiot gurus, and they're
not even amateurs.

On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 14:59:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 21:12:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
> >>> and yet be dead wrong. That is because it does not agree with experimental
> >>> measurement
> >> Of course, it's not the case of your Shit, which sounds as
> >> idiotic as it is AND not agree with experimental measurements.
> >
> > I think the first post was correct and all that is left of usenet is
> > cranks. Some of these comments are too ridiculous to bother to comment.
> > And I haven't seen a logical counter-argument yet. I notice a new
> > contender for most illogical.
> > To bodkin:
> > discussion of Minkowski geometry is irrelevant to my argument, because my
> > position uses Euclidean geometry. While I don't intend to argue against
> > Minkowski, using his geometry to argue against me is quite illogical. The
> > fundamental rules of both geometries are incompatible with each other.
> > Besides, there are thousands of books on the subject of Minkowski
> > geometry. Very few approach relativity from a Euclidean perspective, and
> > I believe there are none which focus on eigenvector decomposition. And
> > because of the rules of Minkowski geometry, it does not have real
> > eigenvectors. The light-cone bases are not Minkowski perpendicular, so
> > are literally irrelevant to a discussion of eigenvector decomposition. In
> > any case, I thought I made it clear that this thread is about Euclidean
> > relativity. There are plenty of other threads about Minkowski.
> OK, so you are looking only for attention for your alternate idea, and
> struggling a bit to earn it.
> > As to your last remark, so what? It is your strawman argument that my
> > theory does not agree with experimental measurements. I never claimed
> > that. I tried to make it clear that it is an isomorphism, and, as such,
> > it predicts the same results as special relativity. There is no
> > experiment that can distinguish two isomorphisms. My claim is that the
> > Einstein Interpretation is what is wrong,
> In science, two theoretical constructions that are experimentally
> indistinguishable are equivalent

Or, at least, a poor idiot woodworker is asserting so.

> experimental predictions (which is the ONLY measure of validity in
> science)

Or, at least, a poor idiot woodworker is asserting so.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 6:17:21 AM UTC-4, Rique Pazo wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> It’s neither. False dichotomy.
>>>
>>> There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as
>>> you are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand,
>>> it is not an illusion.
>> so true, so true. I like my *Divergent_Matter*. For instance the gravity
>> tensor in that equation is not a fictitious "gravity", but the directly
>> implied matter diverging. The *matter_diverging_tensor*. Einstein was
>> good, but not good enough.
>
> To bodkin:
> You can be obtuse if you want. It's amusing. And as far as your
> "operational definition of length" is concerned, it is rubbish. What you
> have defined is not length, but displacement.

No sir. Displacement is the difference in positions of the SAME point on a
body over a SPAN of time.
Length is operationally defined as the difference between locations of two
different extremal points on a body, where the locations are taken at the
SAME time.

This is basic freshman physics. If you do not understand basic terms
understood by a freshman physics student, then you are far more of an
outsider than what Einstein ever was. In fact, if you do not understand the
meanings of these terms, then you have some brushing up to do on the basics
before you try to take on more advanced topics like relativity.

> Even a cursory internet search will reveal that distance (or length) is
> not the same thing as displacement. Your argument is based on a false
> premise. Worthless. Typical deflection, however. Either the length
> physically contracts (nope, never) or it is an illusion,

As I said, this is a false dichotomy, and it’s driven by your insistence
that there is an intrinsic property of length (which is what you measure at
rest) and anything else is an illusion. That’s simply false. Length can
certainly be measured for a non-stationary body, and the operational
definition of length supports that. Like velocity, though, there is no
intrinsic, frame-independent value.

> because we are fooled by the inappropriate WYSIWYG paradigm, which is
> only valid for Newtonian velocities. In relativistic situations, the
> procedure is the dot product. And this thread is about Euclidean
> relativity, in which both the dot and cross-product behave as we expect them to,

You mean as YOU expect them to. Dot and cross products are perfectly well
defined in non-Euclidean formalisms, even if you are neither trained in
them or comfortable with them. The world, or mathematics for that matter,
does not need to conform to wha you are comfortable with.

> not Minkowski's, where not even the Pythagorean identity holds.

Nor should the Pythagorean theorem hold. The Pythagorean theorem holds only
in Euclidean spaces and in fact in zero-curvature Euclidean planes. There
should not be the expectation that the Pythagorean theorem holds outside
its declared domain.

> This tells us that no matter how perfect our measurement grid, the
> geometry only allows us to measure cosine projections of distance, i.e.
> displacements. And when we do the experiments carefully, that's exactly
> what we find. We can measure 100% of what the geometry says is the real
> projection. Length contraction is a farce. A simple-minded, FALSE
> explanation for the "failure" of measurement to record 100% of distance
> between the two endpoints.

No, there’s no failure. There’s no gap. The operational definition of
length has been held to. It just yields a different value for an object
that’s moving than when the object is stationary. Likewise, when you
measure kinetic energy, you will measure a different value for different
reference frames, and this tells you that kinetic energy is not an
intrinsic property of the object, and neither is length.

> It is not the contraction of the length of the relatively moving object.
> It is the inability of measurement to record imaginary projections. This
> is not Newtonian physics. To make assertions about relativistic scenarios
> using Newtonian logic is about as valid as judging Euclidean geometry
> using the rules of Minkowski geometry.
>

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

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:59:19 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 21:12:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
> >>> and yet be dead wrong. That is because it does not agree with experimental
> >>> measurement
> >> Of course, it's not the case of your Shit, which sounds as
> >> idiotic as it is AND not agree with experimental measurements.
> >
> > I think the first post was correct and all that is left of usenet is
> > cranks. Some of these comments are too ridiculous to bother to comment.
> > And I haven't seen a logical counter-argument yet. I notice a new
> > contender for most illogical.
> > To bodkin:
> > discussion of Minkowski geometry is irrelevant to my argument, because my
> > position uses Euclidean geometry. While I don't intend to argue against
> > Minkowski, using his geometry to argue against me is quite illogical. The
> > fundamental rules of both geometries are incompatible with each other.
> > Besides, there are thousands of books on the subject of Minkowski
> > geometry. Very few approach relativity from a Euclidean perspective, and
> > I believe there are none which focus on eigenvector decomposition. And
> > because of the rules of Minkowski geometry, it does not have real
> > eigenvectors. The light-cone bases are not Minkowski perpendicular, so
> > are literally irrelevant to a discussion of eigenvector decomposition. In
> > any case, I thought I made it clear that this thread is about Euclidean
> > relativity. There are plenty of other threads about Minkowski.
> OK, so you are looking only for attention for your alternate idea, and
> struggling a bit to earn it.
> > As to your last remark, so what? It is your strawman argument that my
> > theory does not agree with experimental measurements. I never claimed
> > that. I tried to make it clear that it is an isomorphism, and, as such,
> > it predicts the same results as special relativity. There is no
> > experiment that can distinguish two isomorphisms. My claim is that the
> > Einstein Interpretation is what is wrong,
> In science, two theoretical constructions that are experimentally
> indistinguishable are equivalent, and because they make the same
> experimental predictions (which is the ONLY measure of validity in
> science), then one cannot rightly say one is right and the other is wrong..
> They are both right if validated by experiment, because they are
> equivalent.
>
> You might as well be trying to argue that, between Lagrangian and
> Hamiltonian mechanics, one interpretation is right and the other wrong.
> That’s silly. The two are demonstrably equivalent.
>
> It’s also silly to say that there should be one and only one “correct”
> formalism. This has NEVER been the case, and it’s hammered into freshman
> physics students that any given physical system can be analyzed by a number
> of equivalent theoretical schemes, where the preference of one over the
> other is only in convenience.
> > and it has no effect on the predictions of the Lorentz Transform. Since
> > they cannot be distinguished by experiment, it must be done by logical argument.
> And that’s pointless and off track as just described.
> > Then, there is this gem, "Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like yours is wrong does
> > not require demonstration of an internal logical contradiction."
> > Ridiculous. How do you propose to demonstrate that my idea, (not just an
> > idea like mine) is wrong?
> Only if it disagrees with experiment. And if it is equivalent in
> experimental predictive power, then it is completely equivalent to
> relativity and offers nothing new.
> > Pronouncement by a crackpot skeptic regurgitating dogma? Since the
> > premise of my argument is that special relativity is based on false assumptions,
> The ONLY way to prove in science that any set of assumptions in a theory
> are wrong, is to prove that necessary consequences of those assumptions end
> up disagreeing with experiment. Since you confess that relativity is
> entirely consistent with experiment, then you literally have no scientific
> basis for your claim that the assumptions are false.
> > any attempt to use dogma against me is circular logic, never valid. And
> > if my idea is wrong then one of you know-it-alls should have no trouble
> > finding a logical contradiction.
> Again, I will repeat that there are many physics ideas that are perfectly
> logically consistent that are also wrong. And showing that they are wrong
> does not involve pointing out the logical contradiction in them.
> > Hasn't happened yet. I'm confident there is no logical flaw, so waste
> > your time trying to find one. The fact that there are disagreements with
> > an illogical special relativity is not a surprise, nor is it proof that
> > there is anything wrong with my argument.
> > When Einstein published his first paper on special relativity, he was an
> > outsider, too, with an unconventional idea.
> This is a common misconception. He was not an outsider. He was classically
> trained and had his PhD work blessed by his advisor. He was connected to
> the physics community and current in the literature. The only thing he did
> not have at the time of his big year was an academic position. This is much
> different than the outsiders who post here.
> > I wonder if he had to put up with as much crackpottery. And if he had
> > real peer review, perhaps he wouldn't have settled for an illogical
> > theory, which he doubled down to defend.
> >
> And finally, let’s discuss the term “illogical”. You are not using this
> term correctly in any formal sense. Illogical implies an internal
> contradiction or finding results that do not follow from the assumptions.
> There is nothing in Einstein’s work that fits that mold. What you
> apparently mean by “illogical” is that it cannot be deduced from a
> Newtonian framework and is therefore inconsistent with either your
> intuition or a set of assumptions that you are holding. That is true, but
> that is not illogical. I think what you are TRYING to claim is that
> preference should be given to a theory that is both consistent with a
> classical set of assumptions and agrees with experiment, giving favor to
> conceptual continuity over a disruptive set of assumptions. That, however,
> has never been true in science.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Again, to bodkin, as this latest drivel arrived after my last post.

It is convenient to claim that all science cares about are results. I have been told more than once by physics "experts" that physics does not care about truth. If the numbers agree, that's good enough. Truth is for philosophers. So physicists can't or won't distinguish between isomorphisms. Physics' loss. Then you claim that if results are all that matters, that I have no basis to claim relativity is false. And then you claim that my theory, summed up here as Euclidean Relativity, is false because even though it predicts identical results to Einstein's version, you don't like the implications.. Tough. No wonder you think that there are no contradictions in special relativity. You don't even recognize your own contradictions.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:11:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 6:17:21 AM UTC-4, Rique Pazo wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> It’s neither. False dichotomy.
> >>>
> >>> There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as
> >>> you are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand,
> >>> it is not an illusion.
> >> so true, so true. I like my *Divergent_Matter*. For instance the gravity
> >> tensor in that equation is not a fictitious "gravity", but the directly
> >> implied matter diverging. The *matter_diverging_tensor*. Einstein was
> >> good, but not good enough.
> >
> > To bodkin:
> > You can be obtuse if you want. It's amusing. And as far as your
> > "operational definition of length" is concerned, it is rubbish. What you
> > have defined is not length, but displacement.
> No sir. Displacement is the difference in positions of the SAME point on a
> body over a SPAN of time.
> Length is operationally defined as the difference between locations of two
> different extremal points on a body, where the locations are taken at the
> SAME time.
>
> This is basic freshman physics. If you do not understand basic terms
> understood by a freshman physics student, then you are far more of an
> outsider than what Einstein ever was. In fact, if you do not understand the
> meanings of these terms, then you have some brushing up to do on the basics
> before you try to take on more advanced topics like relativity.
> > Even a cursory internet search will reveal that distance (or length) is
> > not the same thing as displacement. Your argument is based on a false
> > premise. Worthless. Typical deflection, however. Either the length
> > physically contracts (nope, never) or it is an illusion,
> As I said, this is a false dichotomy, and it’s driven by your insistence
> that there is an intrinsic property of length (which is what you measure at
> rest) and anything else is an illusion. That’s simply false. Length can
> certainly be measured for a non-stationary body, and the operational
> definition of length supports that. Like velocity, though, there is no
> intrinsic, frame-independent value.
> > because we are fooled by the inappropriate WYSIWYG paradigm, which is
> > only valid for Newtonian velocities. In relativistic situations, the
> > procedure is the dot product. And this thread is about Euclidean
> > relativity, in which both the dot and cross-product behave as we expect them to,
> You mean as YOU expect them to. Dot and cross products are perfectly well
> defined in non-Euclidean formalisms, even if you are neither trained in
> them or comfortable with them. The world, or mathematics for that matter,
> does not need to conform to wha you are comfortable with.
> > not Minkowski's, where not even the Pythagorean identity holds.
> Nor should the Pythagorean theorem hold. The Pythagorean theorem holds only
> in Euclidean spaces and in fact in zero-curvature Euclidean planes. There
> should not be the expectation that the Pythagorean theorem holds outside
> its declared domain.
> > This tells us that no matter how perfect our measurement grid, the
> > geometry only allows us to measure cosine projections of distance, i.e.
> > displacements. And when we do the experiments carefully, that's exactly
> > what we find. We can measure 100% of what the geometry says is the real
> > projection. Length contraction is a farce. A simple-minded, FALSE
> > explanation for the "failure" of measurement to record 100% of distance
> > between the two endpoints.
> No, there’s no failure. There’s no gap. The operational definition of
> length has been held to. It just yields a different value for an object
> that’s moving than when the object is stationary. Likewise, when you
> measure kinetic energy, you will measure a different value for different
> reference frames, and this tells you that kinetic energy is not an
> intrinsic property of the object, and neither is length.
> > It is not the contraction of the length of the relatively moving object..
> > It is the inability of measurement to record imaginary projections. This
> > is not Newtonian physics. To make assertions about relativistic scenarios
> > using Newtonian logic is about as valid as judging Euclidean geometry
> > using the rules of Minkowski geometry.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

To bodkin:
I do not accept your pronouncements. And if you want to cling to freshman physics, you are wasting my time.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:11:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 6:17:21 AM UTC-4, Rique Pazo wrote:
> > >> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> It’s neither. False dichotomy.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as
> > >>> you are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand,
> > >>> it is not an illusion.
> > >> so true, so true. I like my *Divergent_Matter*. For instance the gravity
> > >> tensor in that equation is not a fictitious "gravity", but the directly
> > >> implied matter diverging. The *matter_diverging_tensor*. Einstein was
> > >> good, but not good enough.
> > >
> > > To bodkin:
> > > You can be obtuse if you want. It's amusing. And as far as your
> > > "operational definition of length" is concerned, it is rubbish. What you
> > > have defined is not length, but displacement.
> > No sir. Displacement is the difference in positions of the SAME point on a
> > body over a SPAN of time.
> > Length is operationally defined as the difference between locations of two
> > different extremal points on a body, where the locations are taken at the
> > SAME time.
> >
> > This is basic freshman physics. If you do not understand basic terms
> > understood by a freshman physics student, then you are far more of an
> > outsider than what Einstein ever was. In fact, if you do not understand the
> > meanings of these terms, then you have some brushing up to do on the basics
> > before you try to take on more advanced topics like relativity.
> > > Even a cursory internet search will reveal that distance (or length) is
> > > not the same thing as displacement. Your argument is based on a false
> > > premise. Worthless. Typical deflection, however. Either the length
> > > physically contracts (nope, never) or it is an illusion,
> > As I said, this is a false dichotomy, and it’s driven by your insistence
> > that there is an intrinsic property of length (which is what you measure at
> > rest) and anything else is an illusion. That’s simply false. Length can
> > certainly be measured for a non-stationary body, and the operational
> > definition of length supports that. Like velocity, though, there is no
> > intrinsic, frame-independent value.
> > > because we are fooled by the inappropriate WYSIWYG paradigm, which is
> > > only valid for Newtonian velocities. In relativistic situations, the
> > > procedure is the dot product. And this thread is about Euclidean
> > > relativity, in which both the dot and cross-product behave as we expect them to,
> > You mean as YOU expect them to. Dot and cross products are perfectly well
> > defined in non-Euclidean formalisms, even if you are neither trained in
> > them or comfortable with them. The world, or mathematics for that matter,
> > does not need to conform to wha you are comfortable with.
> > > not Minkowski's, where not even the Pythagorean identity holds.
> > Nor should the Pythagorean theorem hold. The Pythagorean theorem holds only
> > in Euclidean spaces and in fact in zero-curvature Euclidean planes. There
> > should not be the expectation that the Pythagorean theorem holds outside
> > its declared domain.
> > > This tells us that no matter how perfect our measurement grid, the
> > > geometry only allows us to measure cosine projections of distance, i.e.
> > > displacements. And when we do the experiments carefully, that's exactly
> > > what we find. We can measure 100% of what the geometry says is the real
> > > projection. Length contraction is a farce. A simple-minded, FALSE
> > > explanation for the "failure" of measurement to record 100% of distance
> > > between the two endpoints.
> > No, there’s no failure. There’s no gap. The operational definition of
> > length has been held to. It just yields a different value for an object
> > that’s moving than when the object is stationary. Likewise, when you
> > measure kinetic energy, you will measure a different value for different
> > reference frames, and this tells you that kinetic energy is not an
> > intrinsic property of the object, and neither is length.
> > > It is not the contraction of the length of the relatively moving object.
> > > It is the inability of measurement to record imaginary projections. This
> > > is not Newtonian physics. To make assertions about relativistic scenarios
> > > using Newtonian logic is about as valid as judging Euclidean geometry
> > > using the rules of Minkowski geometry.
> > >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> To bodkin:
> I do not accept your pronouncements. And if you want to cling to freshman physics, you are wasting my time.

Upon further reading, I find more misrepresentations in every paragraph. You are misguided if you think that distance is not invariant. It is displacement that varies with relative velocity. Distance is invariant in magnitude, but varies in phase angle with relative velocity. Pathetic amateurs are married to the proposition that the cosine projection of distance is all that there is. Then they resort to pretzelogic to rationalize why it is different for every observer moving at a different speed. Distance only changes phase angle, not magnitude. This is an intrinsic property, unlike kinetic energy or the displacement projection.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:59:19 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 3:25:58 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 21:12:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You may be aware that an idea in science can be perfectly logically sound
>>>>> and yet be dead wrong. That is because it does not agree with experimental
>>>>> measurement
>>>> Of course, it's not the case of your Shit, which sounds as
>>>> idiotic as it is AND not agree with experimental measurements.
>>>
>>> I think the first post was correct and all that is left of usenet is
>>> cranks. Some of these comments are too ridiculous to bother to comment.
>>> And I haven't seen a logical counter-argument yet. I notice a new
>>> contender for most illogical.
>>> To bodkin:
>>> discussion of Minkowski geometry is irrelevant to my argument, because my
>>> position uses Euclidean geometry. While I don't intend to argue against
>>> Minkowski, using his geometry to argue against me is quite illogical. The
>>> fundamental rules of both geometries are incompatible with each other.
>>> Besides, there are thousands of books on the subject of Minkowski
>>> geometry. Very few approach relativity from a Euclidean perspective, and
>>> I believe there are none which focus on eigenvector decomposition. And
>>> because of the rules of Minkowski geometry, it does not have real
>>> eigenvectors. The light-cone bases are not Minkowski perpendicular, so
>>> are literally irrelevant to a discussion of eigenvector decomposition. In
>>> any case, I thought I made it clear that this thread is about Euclidean
>>> relativity. There are plenty of other threads about Minkowski.
>> OK, so you are looking only for attention for your alternate idea, and
>> struggling a bit to earn it.
>>> As to your last remark, so what? It is your strawman argument that my
>>> theory does not agree with experimental measurements. I never claimed
>>> that. I tried to make it clear that it is an isomorphism, and, as such,
>>> it predicts the same results as special relativity. There is no
>>> experiment that can distinguish two isomorphisms. My claim is that the
>>> Einstein Interpretation is what is wrong,
>> In science, two theoretical constructions that are experimentally
>> indistinguishable are equivalent, and because they make the same
>> experimental predictions (which is the ONLY measure of validity in
>> science), then one cannot rightly say one is right and the other is wrong.
>> They are both right if validated by experiment, because they are
>> equivalent.
>>
>> You might as well be trying to argue that, between Lagrangian and
>> Hamiltonian mechanics, one interpretation is right and the other wrong.
>> That’s silly. The two are demonstrably equivalent.
>>
>> It’s also silly to say that there should be one and only one “correct”
>> formalism. This has NEVER been the case, and it’s hammered into freshman
>> physics students that any given physical system can be analyzed by a number
>> of equivalent theoretical schemes, where the preference of one over the
>> other is only in convenience.
>>> and it has no effect on the predictions of the Lorentz Transform. Since
>>> they cannot be distinguished by experiment, it must be done by logical argument.
>> And that’s pointless and off track as just described.
>>> Then, there is this gem, "Likewise, a demonstration that an idea like
>>> yours is wrong does
>>> not require demonstration of an internal
>>> logical contradiction."
>>> Ridiculous. How do you propose to
>>> demonstrate that my idea, (not just an
>>> idea like mine) is wrong?
>> Only if it disagrees with experiment. And if it is equivalent in
>> experimental predictive power, then it is completely equivalent to
>> relativity and offers nothing new.
>>> Pronouncement by a crackpot skeptic regurgitating dogma? Since the
>>> premise of my argument is that special relativity is based on false assumptions,
>> The ONLY way to prove in science that any set of assumptions in a theory
>> are wrong, is to prove that necessary consequences of those assumptions end
>> up disagreeing with experiment. Since you confess that relativity is
>> entirely consistent with experiment, then you literally have no scientific
>> basis for your claim that the assumptions are false.
>>> any attempt to use dogma against me is circular logic, never valid. And
>>> if my idea is wrong then one of you know-it-alls should have no trouble
>>> finding a logical contradiction.
>> Again, I will repeat that there are many physics ideas that are perfectly
>> logically consistent that are also wrong. And showing that they are wrong
>> does not involve pointing out the logical contradiction in them.
>>> Hasn't happened yet. I'm confident there is no logical flaw, so waste
>>> your time trying to find one. The fact that there are disagreements with
>>> an illogical special relativity is not a surprise, nor is it proof that
>>> there is anything wrong with my argument.
>>> When Einstein published his first paper on special relativity, he was an
>>> outsider, too, with an unconventional idea.
>> This is a common misconception. He was not an outsider. He was classically
>> trained and had his PhD work blessed by his advisor. He was connected to
>> the physics community and current in the literature. The only thing he did
>> not have at the time of his big year was an academic position. This is much
>> different than the outsiders who post here.
>>> I wonder if he had to put up with as much crackpottery. And if he had
>>> real peer review, perhaps he wouldn't have settled for an illogical
>>> theory, which he doubled down to defend.
>>>
>> And finally, let’s discuss the term “illogical”. You are not using this
>> term correctly in any formal sense. Illogical implies an internal
>> contradiction or finding results that do not follow from the assumptions.
>> There is nothing in Einstein’s work that fits that mold. What you
>> apparently mean by “illogical” is that it cannot be deduced from a
>> Newtonian framework and is therefore inconsistent with either your
>> intuition or a set of assumptions that you are holding. That is true, but
>> that is not illogical. I think what you are TRYING to claim is that
>> preference should be given to a theory that is both consistent with a
>> classical set of assumptions and agrees with experiment, giving favor to
>> conceptual continuity over a disruptive set of assumptions. That, however,
>> has never been true in science.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Again, to bodkin, as this latest drivel arrived after my last post.
>
> It is convenient to claim that all science cares about are results. I
> have been told more than once by physics "experts" that physics does not care about truth.

No, that’s not quite right. What the scientific method says is that the
ONLY way to assert what is truth is by comparison with experiment. There IS
NO other validation mechanism.

Or to put it conversely, if you have two theories that agree equally well
with experiment, then you have no other scientific handle to say that one
is truth and the other is not. And indeed, any other handle applied to try
to assert one being more truthful than the other is in the domain of
philosophy.

> If the numbers agree, that's good enough. Truth is for philosophers. So
> physicists can't or won't distinguish between isomorphisms. Physics'
> loss. Then you claim that if results are all that matters, that I have no
> basis to claim relativity is false. And then you claim that my theory,
> summed up here as Euclidean Relativity, is false because even though it
> predicts identical results to Einstein's version, you don't like the implications.

I have never claimed your theory is false. What I have said is that at best
it is equivalent to relativity, by your own notice that they are
isomorphic. There are no implications I care about other than agreement
with experiment. But that being said, if your idea offers no way to test it
in a way that distinguishes it experimentally from relativity, then you’ve
offered nothing of scientific value. Many others have come here with
hand-wavy assertions that their self-published book with their ideas agrees
with relativity in every experimental facet but offers an “alternate
interpretation” that they think is superior; they have no understanding why
an “alternate interpretation” offers nothing of value in science.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:11:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 6:17:21 AM UTC-4, Rique Pazo wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It’s neither. False dichotomy.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as
>>>>> you are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand,
>>>>> it is not an illusion.
>>>> so true, so true. I like my *Divergent_Matter*. For instance the gravity
>>>> tensor in that equation is not a fictitious "gravity", but the directly
>>>> implied matter diverging. The *matter_diverging_tensor*. Einstein was
>>>> good, but not good enough.
>>>
>>> To bodkin:
>>> You can be obtuse if you want. It's amusing. And as far as your
>>> "operational definition of length" is concerned, it is rubbish. What you
>>> have defined is not length, but displacement.
>> No sir. Displacement is the difference in positions of the SAME point on a
>> body over a SPAN of time.
>> Length is operationally defined as the difference between locations of two
>> different extremal points on a body, where the locations are taken at the
>> SAME time.
>>
>> This is basic freshman physics. If you do not understand basic terms
>> understood by a freshman physics student, then you are far more of an
>> outsider than what Einstein ever was. In fact, if you do not understand the
>> meanings of these terms, then you have some brushing up to do on the basics
>> before you try to take on more advanced topics like relativity.
>>> Even a cursory internet search will reveal that distance (or length) is
>>> not the same thing as displacement. Your argument is based on a false
>>> premise. Worthless. Typical deflection, however. Either the length
>>> physically contracts (nope, never) or it is an illusion,
>> As I said, this is a false dichotomy, and it’s driven by your insistence
>> that there is an intrinsic property of length (which is what you measure at
>> rest) and anything else is an illusion. That’s simply false. Length can
>> certainly be measured for a non-stationary body, and the operational
>> definition of length supports that. Like velocity, though, there is no
>> intrinsic, frame-independent value.
>>> because we are fooled by the inappropriate WYSIWYG paradigm, which is
>>> only valid for Newtonian velocities. In relativistic situations, the
>>> procedure is the dot product. And this thread is about Euclidean
>>> relativity, in which both the dot and cross-product behave as we expect them to,
>> You mean as YOU expect them to. Dot and cross products are perfectly well
>> defined in non-Euclidean formalisms, even if you are neither trained in
>> them or comfortable with them. The world, or mathematics for that matter,
>> does not need to conform to wha you are comfortable with.
>>> not Minkowski's, where not even the Pythagorean identity holds.
>> Nor should the Pythagorean theorem hold. The Pythagorean theorem holds only
>> in Euclidean spaces and in fact in zero-curvature Euclidean planes. There
>> should not be the expectation that the Pythagorean theorem holds outside
>> its declared domain.
>>> This tells us that no matter how perfect our measurement grid, the
>>> geometry only allows us to measure cosine projections of distance, i.e.
>>> displacements. And when we do the experiments carefully, that's exactly
>>> what we find. We can measure 100% of what the geometry says is the real
>>> projection. Length contraction is a farce. A simple-minded, FALSE
>>> explanation for the "failure" of measurement to record 100% of distance
>>> between the two endpoints.
>> No, there’s no failure. There’s no gap. The operational definition of
>> length has been held to. It just yields a different value for an object
>> that’s moving than when the object is stationary. Likewise, when you
>> measure kinetic energy, you will measure a different value for different
>> reference frames, and this tells you that kinetic energy is not an
>> intrinsic property of the object, and neither is length.
>>> It is not the contraction of the length of the relatively moving object.
>>> It is the inability of measurement to record imaginary projections. This
>>> is not Newtonian physics. To make assertions about relativistic scenarios
>>> using Newtonian logic is about as valid as judging Euclidean geometry
>>> using the rules of Minkowski geometry.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> To bodkin:
> I do not accept your pronouncements.

OK, you don’t accept physics basics. These are not “my” pronouncements.
These are definitions and basic physics concepts as taught by physicists in
basic physics materials.

> And if you want to cling to freshman physics, you are wasting my time.

Well, I’ve heard that before. There are many (usually elderly) cranks who
have said that they have no interest in spending a lot of time in basic
freshman physics, because they don’t have that kind of time to burn. And so
they just want to leap right into a more advanced topic because it’s more
interesting to them. I hate to tell you this, but there are no shortcuts.
You are free to not accept that pronouncement either, but the outcomes will
remain unchanged.

>

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

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> The effects of relativity are the result of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.

The point of my comment was that your tenses were garbled when you asked what is "happening" to a solid rod when it is "moving" (uniformly, in equilibrium). It isn't changing it's intrinsic state when in inertial motion, so nothing intrinsic is "happening" to it. It is simply moving in terms of the specified coordinates. It's spatial length in terms of those coordinates is not changing. So I surmised that perhaps what you were trying to ask is just a repeat of the original question, i.e., is the rod's spatial length in terms of these coordinates actually less than its spatial length in terms of inertial coordinates in which it is at rest, and the answer (again) is yes. You could also have been meaning to ask if a rod physically changes when its state of motion changes from being at rest in one frame to being at rest in another frame, and the answer (again) is yes. If neither of these is your question, then could you clarify what you are asking?

> "... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest length L in terms
> of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length
> L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."
>
> The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion.

You must speak clearly and with precision: The object has a specific spatial length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, and it has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinate system in which it is moving (along its length) at the speed v. Neither of these is an illusion. They are both objectively verifiable facts.

> You simply cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0.

That is not true at all. Conceptually we can construct a rectangular grid of standard rulers with standard clocks located at each node, and we can synchronize the clocks inertially, meaning we synchronize them in such a way that inertia is isotropic in terms of these measures of position and time. This is an inertia-based coordinate system, and the spatial length of an object moving through this grid has the speed dx/dt in terms of the x,t coordinates of the grid and clocks. The object need not have 0 velocity relative to the grid. Space and time coordinate systems would not be very useful if, as you imagine, they only applied to stationary objects!

> And then you attribute the contracted length to the motion of the object's
> coordinate system.

No, that bears no relation to anything I said. For example, I explained that, already in the 1880's it was known that the equi-potential surfaces around a moving charge contract by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the direction of motion. I also talked about passive transformations, versus active transformations. Yes, if an object in a single state of motion is described in terms of two different systems of coordinates, the object is (obviously) not undergoing any physical change, and the difference in descriptions is due to the difference in coordinate systems... which by itself is not physically significant. The reason we attribute physical significance to Lorentz transformations is because they match the effects of active transformations, i.e., the descriptions of a solid object (at equilibrium, after modding out the time translation phase shifts, etc.) in two different states of motion in terms of a single coordinate system. This is obviously undergoing a physical change (e.g., the phase relations between the ends of the object change, even in Born rigid motion), but the configurations are congruent because the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant.

> Relativity says it has exactly the same contracted length when it is NOT moving, and
> it is the observer who is.

There's no absolute distinction between one being moving and the other stationary, but yes, if you start with two solid rods, A and B, each of spatial length L and initially at rest in S, each of these rods has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of an inertial coordinate system S' moving at speed v in terms of S. Now, if you gently accelerate rod B until it is at rest in S', the spatial length of A in S is still L, and the spatial length of B in S' is now L, and the spatial lengths of A in terms of S' and of B in terms of S are both L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Do you disagree with any of this?

> You are so convinced that only the approved version of relativity can
> possibly be correct, you simply reject any alternative out of hand.

What "alternative" are you referring to? You have said special relativity is false and entails contradictions, but when I press you to identify any contradiction, you just run away. Phrases like "approved version" are just silly. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, which is the proposition that the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of systems of coordinates related by Lorentz transformations. You've agreed to this, so I don't know what "alternative" you are talking about, nor why you continue to insist that special relativity is false and/or entails contradictions. Can you clarify?

> If my proposition is false, it will inevitably lead to a contradiction.
> If you're correct, show me that contradiction.

What is your proposition? As far as I can see, your only relevant proposition is "special relativity is false", but then you contradict this by agreeing that inertia-based coordinate systems are indeed related by Lorentz transformations. So what "proposition" are you referring to? I'll be happy to critique your "proposition" if you can tell me clearly what it is. Are you just talking about speaking in terms of rapidity rather than velocity?