On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 8:18:14 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:30:06 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > By accepting the Lorentz transformation but rejecting the Minkowski (pseudo)metic,
> > > you are contradicting yourself. That's because the Lorentz transformation is mathematically
> > > equivalent to the Minkowski (pseudo) metric, in the sense that the quantity
> > > (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is preserved under Lorentz transformations.
> >
> > Being equivalent is hardly being the same.
> The point is that it's self-contradictory to embrace one thing (the Lorentz transformation) and contemptuously reject an equivalent thing (the Minkowski pseudometric).
> > > You started college courses before 1969?
> > Yes. It took 34 years to finish, with a 3.85. Is that a problem for you?
> No, but, as I said, those were not the first text books to discuss the linear algebra of Lorentz transformations, and the lightlike eigenvectors in the axis of motion for a pure boost have been known since 1905.
> > I define momentum as invariant mass times Proper velocity.
> Physics isn't about making up names for quantities, like "proper velocity". To be clear, if you agree that momentum of a particle of rest mass m moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates x,t is mv/sqrt(1-v^2), then it doesn't matter what you name the individual quantities. It so happens that m/sqrt(1-v^2) is the total energy in units of mass, but you don't need to notice that if you're not interested.
>
> > ... a transcendental function of rapidity...
>
> When I suggested previous that your thesis has to do with talking about rapidity, you said no, perish the thought. Now you post hundreds of words focusing on rapidity. Very strange.

You made an offhand remark about rapidity in a post that wasn't about rapidity. I did not say anything about it, I ignored that remark. Another fabrication of yours?

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 8:24:20 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi quote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 7:16:35 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again, Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts to more or less explain how Nature works.
>>>>> So, I'm not allowed to build a physical model because one already exists, and
>>>>> there can be no other? Is that your position? Is that how science works nowadays?
>>>> You are definitely allowed to do so, and it may even be an interesting
>>>> one (like the holographic principle could be for instance). I doubt you
>>>> will, nevertheless, because you wrote too much silliness about what SR
>>>> actually IS.
>>>>
>>>> Prove me wrong: produce you model with full mathematical details in a
>>>> proper article exposing how it is compatible with experiments whare
>>>> SR/GR holds.
>>>
>>> I need a sponsor just to prepublish on arXiv, and then collaboration with someone experienced in the protocol of peer review. Are you volunteering?
>> Write and publish the paper first, anywhere , then you could think about
>> peer reviewing or arXiv.
>
> Please explain how I can publish anywhere without peer review?

make it public, any place. academia.edu, Google doc, no one cares.
Only the content of your paper matters.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 5:48:29 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > By accepting the Lorentz transformation but rejecting the Minkowski (pseudo)metic,
> > you are contradicting yourself. That's because the Lorentz transformation is mathematically
> > equivalent to the Minkowski (pseudo) metric, in the sense that the quantity
> > (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is preserved under Lorentz transformations.
>
> Being equivalent is hardly being the same.

The point is that it is self-contradictory to embrace one thing (the Lorentz transformation) and contemptuously reject an equivalent thing (the Minkowski pseudometric).

> > You started college courses before 1969?
>
> Yes. It took 34 years to finish... Is that a problem for you?

No, but, as I said, those were not the first text books to discuss the linear algebra of Lorentz transformations, and the lightlike eigenvectors in the axis of motion for a pure boost have been known since 1905.

> > I define momentum as invariant mass times Proper velocity.

Physics isn't about making up names for quantities, like "proper velocity". If you agree that momentum of a particle of rest mass m moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates x,t is mv/sqrt(1-v^2), then it doesn't matter what you name the individual quantities. It so happens that m/sqrt(1-v^2) is the total energy in units of mass, but you don't need to notice that if you're not interested. Referring to the quantity v/sqrt(1-v^2) as "proper velocity" is not useful or insightful.

> > When I suggested previous that your thesis has to do with talking about rapidity,
> > you said no, perish the thought. Now you post hundreds of words focusing on
> > rapidity. Very strange.
>
> You made an offhand remark about rapidity in a post that wasn't about rapidity.

Your original post in this thread did mention rapidity.

> I did not say anything about it, I ignored that remark.

But why? When someone insightfully discerns that the bee in your bonnet is your belief that we should talk about rapidity rather than velocity, why would you ignore it, only to post a 500 word screed on rapidity the next day - confirming my suspicion. For someone who claims to be trying to communicate your ideas, you sure do spend a lot of effort being evasive, and refusing to engage with the genuine comments and questions that are posed.

Since you can apparently only respond to the very last sentence in a post, let me end with this:

It is self-contradictory to embrace one thing (the Lorentz transformation) and contemptuously reject an equivalent thing (the Minkowski pseudometric).

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> to Dono:
> <snip crap>

Crap is what you are making up.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:07:52 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>>
>>>> Physicists care for precise measurements, which is the only way to
>>>> falsify a model. "Illusions" have not any role in physics. Your
>>>> "reality itself is a measurable illusion" is complete nonsense.
>>
>>> To Paparios:
>>> That's just your opinion. Besides, caring for precise measurements is
>>> hardly the same thing as caring for truth.
>> Physicists can only build models to explain what Nature does. We really
>> do not know why and how Nature does its job. You are mixing physical
>> models with the world which is nonsensical.
> Because we don't know why Nature does its job, we should not make physical models?
>>> In any case, it is also not true that the only way to "falsify a model"
>>> is with precise measurements. Remember, it was Galileo who proved that
>>> all masses >fall at the same rate. He did so using logic, and the proof
>>> by contradiction technique in a thought experiment.
>> In fact Galileo was an experimenter. He threw down different objects
>> (with different masses) from the Tower of Pisa, to show they all
>> experimented the same acceleration (within the limits of accuracy of his time).
> No number of repetitions of those experiments could prove that all
> objects fall at the same speed. If the measurements wildly disagreed,
> that would certainly kill a model. But if there is a very small
> difference, it still wouldn't prove the premise.
>>> Even with the best available equipment, measurements would not have
>>> been proof, only confirmation.
>> Wrong, all physical models (within their domain of applicability)
>> predict some results. If an experiment is performed and those
>> predictions are not observed, then the model is falsified and a new one
>> have to be formulated.
> You are wrong. Experiments which fall within the expected deviations do
> not prove anything. Most they can do is confirm. Otherwise, you would
> have to physically try every possible experiment. Good luck.
>>> Your last remark is foolish. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Which
>>> one is the illusion? No role in physics? That's nonsense.
>> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their
>> domain of applicability. For some models particle is the right word, for
>> others wave is the word and for others neither of those words. Again,
>> Nature is where we live. Physical models are tools built by our thoughts
>> to more or less explain how Nature works.
> So, I'm not allowed to build a physical model because one already exists,
> and there can be no other? Is that your position? Is that how science works nowadays?

If your model makes no distinct quantitative measurable predictions, then
it is of no scientific value over the current one. I think I’ve mentioned
this several times and your response has been to say you don’t care if this
is what scientists think.

>

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

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:

> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics.

Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.

My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.

We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 00:46:28 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:07:52 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > Physicists care for precise measurements, which is the only way to falsify a model. "Illusions" have not any role in physics. Your "reality itself is a measurable illusion" is complete nonsense.
>
> > To Paparios:
> > That's just your opinion. Besides, caring for precise measurements is hardly the same thing as caring for truth.
> Physicists can only build models to explain what Nature does. We really do not know why and how Nature does its job. You are mixing physical models with the world which is nonsensical.
> >In any case, it is also not true that the only way to "falsify a model" is with precise measurements. Remember, it was Galileo who proved that all masses >fall at the same rate. He did so using logic, and the proof by contradiction technique in a thought experiment.
> In fact Galileo was an experimenter. He threw down different objects (with different masses) from the Tower of Pisa, to show they all experimented the same acceleration (within the limits of accuracy of his time).
> >Even with the best available equipment, measurements would not have been proof, only confirmation.
> Wrong, all physical models (within their domain of applicability) predict some results. If an experiment is performed and those predictions are not observed, then the model is falsified and a new one have to be formulated.
> >Your last remark is foolish. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Which one is the illusion? No role in physics? That's nonsense.
> Again, GR, SR, QFT, QED, etc. are models, which are valid within their domain of applicability.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 01:16:35 UTC+2, Python wrote:

> Prove me wrong: produce you model with full mathematical details in a
> proper article exposing how it is compatible with experiments whare
> SR/GR holds.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 04:25:10 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics.
> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>
> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>
> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics.
> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>
> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>
> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
Being labeled a crank by crackpot skeptics means less than nothing. I really don't care about all the negative opinions passed off as fact. When I'm finished here (my schedule) I will just move over to mathematical physics where they are not so biased against theory. And if all else fails, I'll just move over to philosophy. Anyway, physics appears not to care about truth, just expediency. Sad. "If the numbers work, that's good enough." Obsessing over "falsifying" when isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment. The operating principle seems to be it isn't even worth considering a different explanation if the current one "works". Most of the critics have been "educated" to believe that special relativity and Minkowski geometry are inseparable. That's why this thread is called Euclidean relativity. And why most of the criticism is rubbish. Things that are true in Euclidean geometry are not true in Minkowski geometry and vice versa. When Einstein first inflicted his special relativity on the world, there was no Minkowski geometry.. That was developed several years after. Others claim that Minkowski and Euclidean geometry are equivalent, so there is no reason to choose one over the other, which basically means no reason to upset the applecart. Such poor understanding of isomorphisms. Such obsession with unreliable measurements. The physics paradigm is WYSIWYG. This is only valid at Newtonian velocities. Newtonian physics is not valid at relativistic speeds, why should its measurement paradigm be any different? Try to disprove that.

Sometimes I will exaggerate the rhetoric, because I found that polite, rigorous descriptions get no notice. If people talk about the crackpot, they are at least talking about the idea. No such thing as bad publicity.

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics.
> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>
> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>
> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.

Who appointed you the "official" crank labeler? My advice to you is to stick to logical arguments and keep the opinions to yourself. It concerns me very little that I have zero credibility with you. The feeling is mutual.

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics.
>> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>>
>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>>
>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
>
> Who appointed you the "official" crank labeler? My advice to you is to stick to logical arguments and keep the opinions to yourself. It concerns me very little that I have zero credibility with you. The feeling is mutual.

Well, this is a general consensus here amongst people who have a minimal
education in science in general, and physics in particular.

There are a few people down here, anyway, who have a foot in both
sides, could you guess who?

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by
>>> mainstream physics.
>> Well, with this statement you are now
>>> *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very
>>> much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>>
>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because
>> you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>>
>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and
>> they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
>
> Being labeled a crank by crackpot skeptics means less than nothing. I
> really don't care about all the negative opinions passed off as fact.
> When I'm finished here (my schedule) I will just move over to
> mathematical physics where they are not so biased against theory.

Good luck.

> And if all else fails, I'll just move over to philosophy.

Well, that’s at least in the right ballpark.

> Anyway, physics appears not to care about truth, just expediency. Sad.
> "If the numbers work, that's good enough." Obsessing over "falsifying"
> when isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment. The operating
> principle seems to be it isn't even worth considering a different
> explanation if the current one "works".

Well, that’s about it, yes. What is concerning to me, of course, is that
you did not seem to know this about science, or in fact you don’t have much
of an idea of how science (as practiced by scientists) advances. This to me
throws a red flag that you never really learned much about science except
for maybe a freshman class or two, and are operating off some internal idea
of what you THINK doing science should be like.

> Most of the critics have been "educated" to believe that special
> relativity and Minkowski geometry are inseparable. That's why this thread
> is called Euclidean relativity. And why most of the criticism is rubbish.
> Things that are true in Euclidean geometry are not true in Minkowski
> geometry and vice versa. When Einstein first inflicted his special
> relativity on the world, there was no Minkowski geometry. That was
> developed several years after. Others claim that Minkowski and Euclidean
> geometry are equivalent, so there is no reason to choose one over the
> other, which basically means no reason to upset the applecart. Such poor
> understanding of isomorphisms. Such obsession with unreliable measurements.

Actually, understanding the reliability of the measurement is core to the
practice of experimental physics. And the fact that you attempt to simply
dismiss measurements as “unreliable” further separates you from how physics
is actually done.

> The physics paradigm is WYSIWYG. This is only valid at Newtonian
> velocities. Newtonian physics is not valid at relativistic speeds, why
> should its measurement paradigm be any different? Try to disprove that.
>
> Sometimes I will exaggerate the rhetoric, because I found that polite,
> rigorous descriptions get no notice. If people talk about the crackpot,
> they are at least talking about the idea. No such thing as bad publicity.
>

Right, that’s what you’re after: being noticed. Not necessarily validated
but just noticed. You are in the hunt for an interested audience, so that
you do not disappear. And that’s why you will leave here and hunt for an
audience in mathematical physics, and failing that, you will hunt for an
audience in philosophy, until you find people that will give you attention
strokes.

A while back, there was a pretender here who knew nothing about physics but
claimed to have a lot to say about time. It turns out he was a Dutchman who
had never held a job his whole life, but who loved to pontificate in
neighborhood bars, where I’m sure other patrons gave him strokes. After a
while here, his website soliciting for-fee speaking engagements on this
topic fell into digital dust.

You are very transparent. Too many of your kind drawn here, like moths to a
lamppost.

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

Op 27-okt.-2021 om 14:50 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been
>>> brainwashed
by mainstream physics.
>> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank
>> and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is
>> anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>>
>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby
>> because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity
>> credibility.
>>
>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like
>> you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are
>> clueless.
>
> Being labeled a crank by crackpot skeptics means less than nothing. I
> really don't care about all the negative opinions passed off as fact.
> When I'm finished here (my schedule) I will just move over to
> mathematical physics where they are not so biased against theory. And
> if all else fails, I'll just move over to philosophy. Anyway, physics
> appears not to care about truth, just expediency. Sad. "If the
> numbers work, that's good enough." Obsessing over "falsifying" when
> isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment. The operating
> principle seems to be it isn't even worth considering a different
> explanation if the current one "works". Most of the critics have been
> "educated" to believe that special relativity and Minkowski geometry
> are inseparable. That's why this thread is called Euclidean
> relativity. And why most of the criticism is rubbish. Things that are
> true in Euclidean geometry are not true in Minkowski geometry and
> vice versa. When Einstein first inflicted his special relativity on
> the world, there was no Minkowski geometry. That was developed
> several years after. Others claim that Minkowski and Euclidean
> geometry are equivalent, so there is no reason to choose one over the
> other, which basically means no reason to upset the applecart. Such
> poor understanding of isomorphisms. Such obsession with unreliable
> measurements. The physics paradigm is WYSIWYG. This is only valid at
> Newtonian velocities. Newtonian physics is not valid at relativistic
> speeds, why should its measurement paradigm be any different? Try to
> disprove that.

Warning: using the word "paradigm" tends to be a warning sign
for severe crackpotism.
When you're done here and go elsewhere, keep that in mind ;-)

Dirk Vdm

>
> Sometimes I will exaggerate the rhetoric, because I found that
> polite, rigorous descriptions get no notice. If people talk about the
> crackpot, they are at least talking about the idea. No such thing as
> bad publicity.
>

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 15:36:50 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by mainstream physics.
> >> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
> >>
> >> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
> >>
> >> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
> >
> > Who appointed you the "official" crank labeler? My advice to you is to stick to logical arguments and keep the opinions to yourself. It concerns me very little that I have zero credibility with you. The feeling is mutual.
> Well, this is a general consensus here amongst people who have a minimal
> education in science in general, and physics in particular.

In the meantime in the real world, of course, GPS
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:50:23 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Things that are true in Euclidean geometry are not true in Minkowski geometry
> and vice versa.

Appending the word "geometry" to "Minkowski" is really just an analogy, because time is not the same thing as space, and a Euclidean manifold is a metrical space whereas the manifold of spatio-temporal relations is not a metrical space, since the Minkowski line element is a pseudo-metric. (For example, the triangle inequality does not apply, which is a defining attribute of metrical spaces.) But if your point is that a manifold characterized by the Minkowski pseudometric is not the same as one characterized by a Euclidean metric, that is certainly true. However, we observe that the manifold of spatio-temporal events actually is characterized (locally) by the Minkowski pseudometric, not a Euclidean metric, so your beliefs are incorrect.

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 15:42:30 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Actually, understanding the reliability of the measurement is core to the
> practice of experimental physics. And the fact that you attempt to simply
> dismiss measurements as “unreliable” further separates you from how physics
> is actually done.

In the meantime in the real world, of course, GPS
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by
>>> mainstream physics.
>> Well, with this statement you are now
>>> *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very
>>> much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>>
>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because
>> you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>>
>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and
>> they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
>
> Who appointed you the "official" crank labeler? My advice to you is to
> stick to logical arguments and keep the opinions to yourself. It concerns
> me very little that I have zero credibility with you. The feeling is mutual.
>

That’s all well and good to have those little one-on-one tit-for-tats, but
the issue issue is, you’re looking for the attention of an audience. If you
keep going around from forum to forum, expressing your disdain for those
who critique your thinking, you will soon find yourself where you started,
with no audience and just you telling yourself you have a brilliant idea.
And since what you’re REALLY after is external relevance, this doesn’t
really meet the need, does it?

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

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 9:42:42 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 27-okt.-2021 om 14:50 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been
> >>> brainwashed
> by mainstream physics.
> >> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank
> >> and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is
> >> anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
> >>
> >> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby
> >> because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity
> >> credibility.
> >>
> >> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like
> >> you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are
> >> clueless.
> >
> > Being labeled a crank by crackpot skeptics means less than nothing. I
> > really don't care about all the negative opinions passed off as fact.
> > When I'm finished here (my schedule) I will just move over to
> > mathematical physics where they are not so biased against theory. And
> > if all else fails, I'll just move over to philosophy. Anyway, physics
> > appears not to care about truth, just expediency. Sad. "If the
> > numbers work, that's good enough." Obsessing over "falsifying" when
> > isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment. The operating
> > principle seems to be it isn't even worth considering a different
> > explanation if the current one "works". Most of the critics have been
> > "educated" to believe that special relativity and Minkowski geometry
> > are inseparable. That's why this thread is called Euclidean
> > relativity. And why most of the criticism is rubbish. Things that are
> > true in Euclidean geometry are not true in Minkowski geometry and
> > vice versa. When Einstein first inflicted his special relativity on
> > the world, there was no Minkowski geometry. That was developed
> > several years after. Others claim that Minkowski and Euclidean
> > geometry are equivalent, so there is no reason to choose one over the
> > other, which basically means no reason to upset the applecart. Such
> > poor understanding of isomorphisms. Such obsession with unreliable
> > measurements. The physics paradigm is WYSIWYG. This is only valid at
> > Newtonian velocities. Newtonian physics is not valid at relativistic
> > speeds, why should its measurement paradigm be any different? Try to
> > disprove that.
> Warning: using the word "paradigm" tends to be a warning sign
> for severe crackpotism.
> When you're done here and go elsewhere, keep that in mind ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Sometimes I will exaggerate the rhetoric, because I found that
> > polite, rigorous descriptions get no notice. If people talk about the
> > crackpot, they are at least talking about the idea. No such thing as
> > bad publicity.
> >

I see. Like the rest of the crackpot skeptics, you fear paradigm shift. Well, that's how science works. Get used to it.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 9:57:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by
> >>> mainstream physics.
> >> Well, with this statement you are now
> >>> *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very
> >>> much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
> >>
> >> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because
> >> you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
> >>
> >> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and
> >> they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
> >
> > Who appointed you the "official" crank labeler? My advice to you is to
> > stick to logical arguments and keep the opinions to yourself. It concerns
> > me very little that I have zero credibility with you. The feeling is mutual.
> >
> That’s all well and good to have those little one-on-one tit-for-tats, but
> the issue issue is, you’re looking for the attention of an audience. If you
> keep going around from forum to forum, expressing your disdain for those
> who critique your thinking, you will soon find yourself where you started,
> with no audience and just you telling yourself you have a brilliant idea.
> And since what you’re REALLY after is external relevance, this doesn’t
> really meet the need, does it?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I'm looking to find one collaborator, not an audience. It obviously won't be a crackpot skeptic who opposes me.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> No, it is not relativistic mass. Nor is it “excess”. It is exactly the
>> momentum that ALL things truly have, and for which the Newtonian formula
>> was a handy but ultimately incorrect approximation. The Newtonian formula
>> for momentum has a measurable *deficit*. If you thought momentum was
>> DEFINED as mass times velocity, it was not. Momentum is defined as one of
>> two vector kinematic quantities that are conserved in closed systems.
>> Period. If you thought otherwise, then you were misinformed. The Newtonian
>> expression for that conserved quantity is almost, but not quite
>> quantitatively correct, as experiment has amply exhibited.
>>
>> You are hoping that future generations will find a physics that is
>> consistent with your shallow and poorly educated understanding of the
>> world. There is absolutely no reason the truth should align with your
>> elementary exposure. You just wish it did.
>>
>> The metric for truth in science is simple: agreement with experiment and
>> observation over a wide range of applications. There IS NO other standard
>> for truth in science. If you thought there was or think there should be,
>> then you should probably pursue another hobby like metaphysics, because
>> science isn’t what you thought it is.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I define momentum as invariant mass times Proper velocity.

Well, if by “proper velocity” you mean v/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where v is the
Newtonian velocity, then this is of course the relativistic result and
you’ve accomplished nothing that relativity hasn’t already stated.

> At the speeds Newton was using for data, there is virtually no
> distinction between velocity and Proper velocity. But while velocity
> reveals a deficit at higher values, Proper velocity is precisely correct
> from minus infinity to plus infinity, including the Newtonian range in
> the middle. And you would have me believe that the non-linear
> relationship between velocity and momentum just coincidentally matches a
> transcendental function of rapidity,

Well, rapidity is DEFINED as a transcendental function of proper velocity,
and it was so defined as a convenient parameter in relativistic kinematics.
So there was no coincidence there, any more than there is a coincidence
between “Mammalia” and having mammary glands.

> that thing you boost with a Lorentz transform? In a way, your post is
> correct. Relativistic momentum should be what it is. It is the real
> Newtonian projection which is deficient,

Yes.

> coincidentally by exactly the same factor as a unit of distance or time.

Well, except that the definition of length is not deficient. The fact that
it is frame-dependent is not really a deficiency, any more than momentum
being frame-dependent is a deficiency. You’ve yet to defend your belief
that length is a frame-independent, intrinsic property of an object, other
than just a hand-waving assertion. When I asked you HOW YOU KNOW which
properties are intrinsic and which are extrinsic, you went suddenly quiet.

> Proper velocity, despite its improper definition,

I have no idea how you would think a named parameter would be improperly
defined.

In all the below, most of what you say is already covered in lessons about
relativistic kinematics. Have you read nothing about relativistic
kinematics?

> is physical velocity, because it represents all the momentum that an
> invariant mass is supposed to have. Like everything else relativistic, we
> can only measure its cosine projection, an illusion. In the limit of
> infinite Proper velocity, its cosine projection is just c, also an
> illusion. Not an absolute limit, as it certainly does not apply to Proper
> velocity. It is not the number of meters per second that represents the
> barrier to FTL. It is the fact that c represents infinite Proper
> velocity. Nothing can be observed going faster than c, because there is
> no Proper velocity greater than infinity. You can't add two velocities to
> exceed c because all velocities less than c have finite rapidity. The sum
> of two finite rapidities, no matter how large, is still another finite
> rapidity. All finite rapidities map to finite Proper velocity, and finite
> Proper velocity only projects a cosine fraction that is less than c,
> because c is only projected by infinite Proper velocity. In point of
> fact, the non-linear velocity addition rule of special relativity is just
> a simple translation of the hyperbolic identity for the tanh of the sum
> of two angles, from hyperbolic projections to circular projections, using
> the gudermannian function of the rapidity. What if one of the combining
> velocities is c? In that case, the Proper velocity and rapidity of one of
> the two velocities is already infinite. In this case, the other velocity
> is sublight and has finite rapidity. When you add a finite amount to
> infinity, it is the same as adding zero. The infinity is unchanged. So,
> when we project the cosine fraction, the result is the same limit, c.
> Consequently, the velocity of c is invariant with respect to relative
> velocity of its source or its observer. And, last case, what if both
> velocities are c? Then both velocities have infinite Proper velocity and
> rapidity. If we try to double infinity, we get the same problem as
> before. The result is once again the same infinity, and the projection is
> just 1 c. Do you disagree?
>

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 9:42:42 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 27-okt.-2021 om 14:50 schreef Tom Capizzi:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been
>>>>> brainwashed
>> by mainstream physics.
>>>> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank
>>>> and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is
>>>> anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>>>>
>>>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby
>>>> because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity
>>>> credibility.
>>>>
>>>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like
>>>> you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are
>>>> clueless.
>>>
>>> Being labeled a crank by crackpot skeptics means less than nothing. I
>>> really don't care about all the negative opinions passed off as fact.
>>> When I'm finished here (my schedule) I will just move over to
>>> mathematical physics where they are not so biased against theory. And
>>> if all else fails, I'll just move over to philosophy. Anyway, physics
>>> appears not to care about truth, just expediency. Sad. "If the
>>> numbers work, that's good enough." Obsessing over "falsifying" when
>>> isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment. The operating
>>> principle seems to be it isn't even worth considering a different
>>> explanation if the current one "works". Most of the critics have been
>>> "educated" to believe that special relativity and Minkowski geometry
>>> are inseparable. That's why this thread is called Euclidean
>>> relativity. And why most of the criticism is rubbish. Things that are
>>> true in Euclidean geometry are not true in Minkowski geometry and
>>> vice versa. When Einstein first inflicted his special relativity on
>>> the world, there was no Minkowski geometry. That was developed
>>> several years after. Others claim that Minkowski and Euclidean
>>> geometry are equivalent, so there is no reason to choose one over the
>>> other, which basically means no reason to upset the applecart. Such
>>> poor understanding of isomorphisms. Such obsession with unreliable
>>> measurements. The physics paradigm is WYSIWYG. This is only valid at
>>> Newtonian velocities. Newtonian physics is not valid at relativistic
>>> speeds, why should its measurement paradigm be any different? Try to
>>> disprove that.
>> Warning: using the word "paradigm" tends to be a warning sign
>> for severe crackpotism.
>> When you're done here and go elsewhere, keep that in mind ;-)
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>> Sometimes I will exaggerate the rhetoric, because I found that
>>> polite, rigorous descriptions get no notice. If people talk about the
>>> crackpot, they are at least talking about the idea. No such thing as
>>> bad publicity.
>>>
>
> I see. Like the rest of the crackpot skeptics, you fear paradigm shift.
> Well, that's how science works. Get used to it.
>

I don’t think you should confuse gentle mockery with fear.

Let me ask you a simple question: Can you name ONE PERSON in the last 120
years that has made a substantive contribution to fundamental physics (let
alone a paradigm shift) without the benefit of a thorough education in the
subject? And if not, why do you think you’re different?

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

Op 27-okt.-2021 om 16:02 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 9:42:42 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 27-okt.-2021 om 14:50 schreef Tom Capizzi:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been
>>>>> brainwashed
>> by mainstream physics.
>>>> Well, with this statement you are now *officially* labeled a crank
>>>> and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very much that there is
>>>> anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>>>>
>>>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby
>>>> because you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity
>>>> credibility.
>>>>
>>>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like
>>>> you, and they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are
>>>> clueless.
>>>
>>> Being labeled a crank by crackpot skeptics means less than nothing. I
>>> really don't care about all the negative opinions passed off as fact.
>>> When I'm finished here (my schedule) I will just move over to
>>> mathematical physics where they are not so biased against theory. And
>>> if all else fails, I'll just move over to philosophy. Anyway, physics
>>> appears not to care about truth, just expediency. Sad. "If the
>>> numbers work, that's good enough." Obsessing over "falsifying" when
>>> isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment. The operating
>>> principle seems to be it isn't even worth considering a different
>>> explanation if the current one "works". Most of the critics have been
>>> "educated" to believe that special relativity and Minkowski geometry
>>> are inseparable. That's why this thread is called Euclidean
>>> relativity. And why most of the criticism is rubbish. Things that are
>>> true in Euclidean geometry are not true in Minkowski geometry and
>>> vice versa. When Einstein first inflicted his special relativity on
>>> the world, there was no Minkowski geometry. That was developed
>>> several years after. Others claim that Minkowski and Euclidean
>>> geometry are equivalent, so there is no reason to choose one over the
>>> other, which basically means no reason to upset the applecart. Such
>>> poor understanding of isomorphisms. Such obsession with unreliable
>>> measurements. The physics paradigm is WYSIWYG. This is only valid at
>>> Newtonian velocities. Newtonian physics is not valid at relativistic
>>> speeds, why should its measurement paradigm be any different? Try to
>>> disprove that.

>> Warning: using the word "paradigm" tends to be a warning sign
>> for severe crackpotism.
>> When you're done here and go elsewhere, keep that in mind ;-)
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>> Sometimes I will exaggerate the rhetoric, because I found that
>>> polite, rigorous descriptions get no notice. If people talk about the
>>> crackpot, they are at least talking about the idea. No such thing as
>>> bad publicity.
>>>
>
> I see. Like the rest of the crackpot skeptics, you fear paradigm shift. Well, that's how science works. Get used to it.
>

Warning: using "paradigm" is bad... but using "paradigm shift" is
EVEN WORSE!
Get used it ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 9:57:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by
>>>>> mainstream physics.
>>>> Well, with this statement you are now
>>>>> *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very
>>>>> much that there is anything that you can do or say to change this opinion here.
>>>>
>>>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because
>>>> you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>>>>
>>>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and
>>>> they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
>>>
>>> Who appointed you the "official" crank labeler? My advice to you is to
>>> stick to logical arguments and keep the opinions to yourself. It concerns
>>> me very little that I have zero credibility with you. The feeling is mutual.
>>>
>> That’s all well and good to have those little one-on-one tit-for-tats, but
>> the issue issue is, you’re looking for the attention of an audience. If you
>> keep going around from forum to forum, expressing your disdain for those
>> who critique your thinking, you will soon find yourself where you started,
>> with no audience and just you telling yourself you have a brilliant idea.
>> And since what you’re REALLY after is external relevance, this doesn’t
>> really meet the need, does it?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I'm looking to find one collaborator, not an audience. It obviously won't
> be a crackpot skeptic who opposes me.
>

Ah, that’s another common keyword. What this translates to, among those
with history here, is “I consider myself the idea guy. I don’t have all the
technical skills needed to develop this myself. But with the help of
someone with real physics training, I can maybe get this developed into a
viable, publishable paper. Having good ideas in physics shouldn’t be
limited to people with lots of physics background. It should be open to
all intelligent people with an interest in the subject, and I deserve a
little notice for at least having an interesting idea, even if I can’t
carry it all the way the way a professional physicist would.”

You are painfully obvious, even though you’re trying not to be. Also,
fairly routine, one of a handful who wander through here annually JUST LIKE
YOU.

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

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7:06:50 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm looking to find one collaborator, not an audience.

Not going to happen since you are the crackpot

> It obviously won't be a crackpot skeptic who opposes me.

We are the skeptics, you are the crackpot.