On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:07:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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.

So, giving something a name is all that it takes to be legitimate? Maybe they use a different term for it nowadays. The derivative which defines Proper velocity is the rate of change of "distance" as determined in the reference frame with respect to time in the moving frame. This is rationalized by the claim that the time measured by a clock on the path is unambiguous for all observers. This is a result of the "distance" actually being a displacement (and please, none of that crap about active and passive. You claim that we use the Lorentz Transform because it makes them agree. Since they do agree, there is no reason to make phony distinctions). Since the Proper time is "dilated", the length traveled is also contracted. This is the length that the stationary observer measures. The actual path length is the uncontracted length, or gamma x measured length. The derivative of total distance with respect to the stationary observer's time is Proper velocity, from a proper derivative.

>
> 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?
> >

" most of what you say is already covered in lessons about
relativistic kinematics." So you agree?
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:07:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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

to Odd Bodkin:

So, giving something a name is all that it takes to be legitimate? Maybe they use a different term for it nowadays. The derivative which defines Proper velocity is the rate of change of "distance" as determined in the reference frame with respect to time in the moving frame. This is rationalized by the claim that the time measured by a clock on the path is unambiguous for all observers. This is a result of the "distance" actually being a displacement (and please, none of that crap about active and passive. You claim that we use the Lorentz Transform because it makes them agree. Since they do agree, there is no reason to make phony distinctions). Since the Proper time is "dilated", the length traveled is also contracted. This is the length that the stationary observer measures. The actual path length is the uncontracted length, or gamma x measured length. The derivative of total distance with respect to the stationary observer's time is Proper velocity, from a proper derivative.

>
> 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?
> >

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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

more opinions and still no logic.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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

but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:36:19 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> 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.

Wrong. You are the troll.

Tom Capizzi wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:36:19 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Wrong. You are the troll.

I oppose it vehemently. Your "crackpot skeptic" is oxymoron, to begin
with.

As the governments says, the "vaccines" are effective, but it won't give
you protection to get infected or infect others.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 AM UTC-7, 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.

There is no need for me to defend my claim. You will be finding out first-hand that I am correct. You will forever be considered a crackpot here.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:07:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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.
>
> So, giving something a name is all that it takes to be legitimate?

If there is a quantity that experimental data validates is a useful and
interesting quantity, yes, that’s all that’s needed to be legitimate.
Momentum only became interesting as a property when it was discovered to be
conserved in closed systems. That being said, it has to be the quantity
that is actually conserved, and the Newtonian expression isn’t.

> Maybe they use a different term for it nowadays. The derivative which
> defines Proper velocity is the rate of change of "distance" as determined
> in the reference frame with respect to time in the moving frame.

Sloppily said, but I get what you’re after.

> This is rationalized by the claim that the time measured by a clock on
> the path is unambiguous for all observers.

It is called “proper time” in physics.

> This is a result of the "distance" actually being a displacement (and
> please, none of that crap about active and passive. You claim that we use
> the Lorentz Transform because it makes them agree.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe you picked this up in
conversation with someone else.

> Since they do agree, there is no reason to make phony distinctions).
> Since the Proper time is "dilated",

No, proper time is not dilated. Time dilation is the statement that the
coordinate time between two events is frame-dependent.

> the length traveled is also contracted.

Again, length contraction is the statement that coordinate length between
two events is frame-dependent. It is not caused by time dilation. You have
this all muddled up.

> This is the length that the stationary observer measures. The actual path
> length is the uncontracted length, or gamma x measured length.

No, there is no “actual” length, as length is frame dependent. Likewise,
there is no “actual velocity”.

> The derivative of total distance with respect to the stationary
> observer's time is Proper velocity, from a proper derivative.

I’m not sure what you mean by “proper derivative”. It seems you are trying
to parse terms and guess what they mean without actually reading and
learning what they mean. This is a red flag.

>
>>
>> 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?
>>>
>
> " most of what you say is already covered in lessons about
> relativistic kinematics." So you agree?

For the MOST that I referred to. The idea of boosts being additive when
expressed in rapidity, for example. No surprise there at all. So what?

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
>
> more opinions and still no logic.
>

Let me make something clear to you. A person who doesn’t know what they’re
talking about hasn’t earned a “logical discussion”. It doesn’t matter
whether you are capable of thinking logically and whether you are
interested in the subject. If you don’t correctly understand what the words
used in physics mean, and you don’t have the prerequisite basics under your
belt, then having a “logical discussion” is fruitless and a waste of time.

It’s like someone hoping for a medical discussion with a surgeon, just by
wearing a white lab coat and a stethoscope. The surgeon is going to know
within 15 seconds that you’re just stringing together medical terminology
without knowing what the words actually mean, and that you don’t know what
you’re talking about. At that point, any conversation with the surgeon is
going to veer into why you are pretending to be medically knowledgeable.

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

El martes, 26 de octubre de 2021 a las 19:59:19 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> 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.
> > > 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?

Quite the opposite. We humans built models to adapt us to our environment. When you go to your home, you have built a mental model which allows you to get into your bedroom.
Physicists do the same, based in observations they built models that explain some of the observations.

> > >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.

Physics models can't be proved (because we do not know how and why Nature does what it does). Models can only be verified or falsified.

> > >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.

See above.

> > >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?

Sure you can built a new physical model, but you have to be sure your new model complies with previous observations and also with new observations.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
>
> but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
>

Indeed, another keyword. There are many, many critics of relativity who say
that physics should appeal to common sense, and that theories that fly in
the face of common sense have something wrong with them. Indeed, a lot of
hacks spend years trying to replace relativity with something that appeals
to common sense and agrees with experimental results. Hence, the
“alternative explanation” gambit.

This is a red flag also.

I think if you read the popularizations of some noted physicists, you’ll
see them all say that nature does not respect common sense. Nature is
weird. It behaves in ways that common sense says are flat-out impossible.
This plain fact bothers a lot of amateurs deeply. They don’t want nature to
be strange, and they don’t want their common sense challenged.

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

On 10/27/2021 10:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
>
> but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.

"Common sense". Another flag phrase.

You may be rushing for your keyboard to write "How can common sense be a
crank sign????" but I will remind you that common sense is largely what
has evolved in primitive humans to survive, and isn't even the same from
person to person. For example someone with the "common sense" to avoid
a pack of lions was more likely to survive and pass on their genes than
someone without such "common sense". So these days most (but not all!)
people who were plopped into the middle of the savanna near lions would
be afraid and try to get away from the lions.

(not all; there have been stories of people injured or killed trying to
pet wild bison or feed bears in Yellowstone)

As to physics, "common sense" is that velocities add linearly, as in
Newton. But primitive humans never experienced relative velocity
combinations, for everything they experienced the Newtonian
approximation is fine. "Common sense" therefore is that SR must be
wrong. But in this case, it is "common sense" which is wrong.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 10:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
>>
>> but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
>
> "Common sense". Another flag phrase.
>
> You may be rushing for your keyboard to write "How can common sense be a
> crank sign????" but I will remind you that common sense is largely what
> has evolved in primitive humans to survive, and isn't even the same from
> person to person. For example someone with the "common sense" to avoid
> a pack of lions was more likely to survive and pass on their genes than
> someone without such "common sense". So these days most (but not all!)
> people who were plopped into the middle of the savanna near lions would
> be afraid and try to get away from the lions.
>
> (not all; there have been stories of people injured or killed trying to
> pet wild bison or feed bears in Yellowstone)
>
> As to physics, "common sense" is that velocities add linearly, as in
> Newton. But primitive humans never experienced relative velocity
> combinations, for everything they experienced the Newtonian
> approximation is fine. "Common sense" therefore is that SR must be
> wrong. But in this case, it is "common sense" which is wrong.
>

This is critical. It’s not that common sense doesn’t know about some
things that happen. It’s that common sense is often quite positive about
something that is flat wrong.

This is unsettling to amateurs for whom common sense is their strongest
tool. To tell an amateur that their greatest analytical asset is unreliable
will then leave them feeling attacked and undercut.

There is a reason why physics takes extensive study. It’s is not something
that someone off the street can participate in meaningfully, but that’s
also true for law, architecture, medicine, biochemistry, or silicon chip
design. There is no shortcut, and people who look for one are either lazy
or cheaters.

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

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 19:07:54 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
> >
> > but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
> >
> Indeed, another keyword. There are many, many critics of relativity who say
> that physics should appeal to common sense, and that theories that fly in
> the face of common sense have something wrong with them.

See, Odd - you're not the first bunch of idiots trying to fight it.
It always ends similiar way. In the case of your Shit -
the clocks of GPS keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did. And that some morons think these clocks
are not proper - well, nobody cares. Sorry.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 AM UTC-7, 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.
> There is no need for me to defend my claim. You will be finding out first-hand that I am correct. You will forever be considered a crackpot here.

So what? I can always change my writing style, but you will always be a knee-jerk skeptic.

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 19:42:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 10:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
> >
> > but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
> "Common sense". Another flag phrase.
>
> You may be rushing for your keyboard to write "How can common sense be a
> crank sign????" but I will remind you that common sense is largely what
> has evolved in primitive humans to survive, and isn't even the same from
> person to person. For example someone with the "common sense" to avoid
> a pack of lions was more likely to survive and pass on their genes than

Another example of common sense applicability is recognizing a
bunch of fanatics worshipping an insane crazie...

> As to physics, "common sense" is that velocities add linearly, as in
> Newton. But primitive humans never experienced relative velocity
> combinations

Sure. Only demigods like gurus of physics or stupid Mike did.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 1:07:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
> >
> > but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
> >
> Indeed, another keyword. There are many, many critics of relativity who say
> that physics should appeal to common sense, and that theories that fly in
> the face of common sense have something wrong with them. Indeed, a lot of
> hacks spend years trying to replace relativity with something that appeals
> to common sense and agrees with experimental results. Hence, the
> “alternative explanation” gambit.
>
> This is a red flag also.
>
> I think if you read the popularizations of some noted physicists, you’ll
> see them all say that nature does not respect common sense. Nature is
> weird. It behaves in ways that common sense says are flat-out impossible.
> This plain fact bothers a lot of amateurs deeply. They don’t want nature to
> be strange, and they don’t want their common sense challenged.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

That's your interpretation. I don't buy it. Just because we are so arrogant to think we understand Nature and then whine about it not making sense, because, that's Nature.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 7:48:57 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:36:19 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> > 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.
> Wrong. You are the troll.
Nope , but you are the crank.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 AM UTC-7, 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.
>> There is no need for me to defend my claim. You will be finding out
>> first-hand that I am correct. You will forever be considered a crackpot here.
>
> So what? I can always change my writing style, but you will always be a knee-jerk skeptic.
>

You can change your writing style, you can change your nym.

What you could also change, but it seems very unlikely that you will, is
your familiarity with physics. I’m a woodworker, not a physicist. I do not
do physics for a living, I do not feel threatened by having successful
theories challenged, I have no skin in the game. However, I am interested
enough in the subject to have read many physics textbooks, working the
problems as I go, and looking up experimental papers in journals. I’ve
spent about 8000 hours studying physics over the last 10 years. You may not
want to invest that kind of effort. That’s fine, but on the other hand,
you’d then be CHOOSING to not become conversant enough with the subject to
contribute much.

What you cannot change is your hunger for attention and validation. This is
an odor that permeates your posts. It’s also what keeps you from arresting
yourself when you put your foot in your mouth or when you start splattering
words around that you’ve seen online but don’t really understand. I’m
curious, for example, what you think “isomorphism” means.

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

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 1:42:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/27/2021 10:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
> >
> > but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
> "Common sense". Another flag phrase.
>
> You may be rushing for your keyboard to write "How can common sense be a
> crank sign????" but I will remind you that common sense is largely what
> has evolved in primitive humans to survive, and isn't even the same from
> person to person. For example someone with the "common sense" to avoid
> a pack of lions was more likely to survive and pass on their genes than
> someone without such "common sense". So these days most (but not all!)
> people who were plopped into the middle of the savanna near lions would
> be afraid and try to get away from the lions.
>
> (not all; there have been stories of people injured or killed trying to
> pet wild bison or feed bears in Yellowstone)
>
> As to physics, "common sense" is that velocities add linearly, as in
> Newton. But primitive humans never experienced relative velocity
> combinations, for everything they experienced the Newtonian
> approximation is fine. "Common sense" therefore is that SR must be
> wrong. But in this case, it is "common sense" which is wrong.

False assumption. Your argument assumes that because Newtonian velocities add, you can just extrapolate that behavior to non-Newtonian velocities. But data tells this is wrong. The same data tells us that rapidity does add linearly. And that the non-linear rule is merely a translation of the identity for the hyperbolic tangent of the sum of two angles. Geometry defines rapidity as the area bounded by the axis of symmetry of a diagonal hyperbola, a radius vector to an arbitrary point on the hyperbola, and the stretch of the hyperbola between the vertex and the arbitrary point. But a little geometric algebra, and this patch of area can be shown to be equal, not just equivalent, to the definite integral of the hyperbola from the vertex to the arbitrary point. All definite integrals (where they exist) have the additive property of their limits. If c is a point between the limits, a and b , of a definite integral, then the sum of the definite integral from a to c and the definite integral from c to b is equal to the definite integral of the same function from a to b. Common sense says that if its always true, then it is true for hyperbolic rotations. I can narrow down a general definition to apply to a specific case. It is not generally valid to extrapolate an individual case beyond its boundaries. Since special relativity is outside the domain of Newtonian physics, common sense does not allow Newtonian "rules" to just be extrapolated.

And I don't care about "flag phrases." That's just a rationalization to avoid discussion of a topic which could lead to identifying a contradiction in the dogma of the cult. As I've told the others, if you have a logical point, make it. Show where my argument contradicts itself. I am not the least bit interested in dogma or opinion. Since it seems that the majority on usenet now are cranks, I don't care if you all think I am the newest crank on the block. As my mother used to say, "Consider the source."

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:22:59 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 AM UTC-7, 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.
> >> There is no need for me to defend my claim. You will be finding out
> >> first-hand that I am correct. You will forever be considered a crackpot here.
> >
> > So what? I can always change my writing style, but you will always be a knee-jerk skeptic.
> >
> You can change your writing style, you can change your nym.
>
> What you could also change, but it seems very unlikely that you will, is
> your familiarity with physics. I’m a woodworker, not a physicist. I do not
> do physics for a living, I do not feel threatened by having successful
> theories challenged, I have no skin in the game. However, I am interested
> enough in the subject to have read many physics textbooks, working the
> problems as I go, and looking up experimental papers in journals. I’ve
> spent about 8000 hours studying physics over the last 10 years. You may not
> want to invest that kind of effort. That’s fine, but on the other hand,
> you’d then be CHOOSING to not become conversant enough with the subject to
> contribute much.
>
> What you cannot change is your hunger for attention and validation. This is
> an odor that permeates your posts. It’s also what keeps you from arresting
> yourself when you put your foot in your mouth or when you start splattering
> words around that you’ve seen online but don’t really understand. I’m
> curious, for example, what you think “isomorphism” means.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Passive aggressive ad hominem attacks are still ad hominems.
Go back to your woodworking.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 1:07:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
>>>
>>> but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
>>>
>> Indeed, another keyword. There are many, many critics of relativity who say
>> that physics should appeal to common sense, and that theories that fly in
>> the face of common sense have something wrong with them. Indeed, a lot of
>> hacks spend years trying to replace relativity with something that appeals
>> to common sense and agrees with experimental results. Hence, the
>> “alternative explanation” gambit.
>>
>> This is a red flag also.
>>
>> I think if you read the popularizations of some noted physicists, you’ll
>> see them all say that nature does not respect common sense. Nature is
>> weird. It behaves in ways that common sense says are flat-out impossible.
>> This plain fact bothers a lot of amateurs deeply. They don’t want nature to
>> be strange, and they don’t want their common sense challenged.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> That's your interpretation. I don't buy it. Just because we are so
> arrogant to think we understand Nature and then whine about it not making
> sense, because, that's Nature.
>

Common sense is a set of rules extrapolated from everyday experience. This
extrapolation allows us to make quick, rule-of-thumb judgments that will
work most of the time, which is an evolutionary survival strategy.

But rules of thumb are rarely generalizable to being exactly true. “The
same object cannot be in two different places at the same time,” is an
example of a rule of thumb. This works in everyday experience, but our
everyday experience is only a thin slice of reality, and this rule in fact
is not correct generally. Tunneling diodes and q-bit computers work
explicitly on the principle of the same thing being in two places at once,
and these things do in fact work, which means the rule is bad. Where the
common-sense man then usually objects is to say, “why then do we never see
it in everyday life? Why do we not see the same Buick inside and outside
the garage at the same time, if it is possible at all?” This is where the
skill of calculating is important — vital in physics, in fact. Because
possible does not mean commonplace, or that what is commonplace at one size
or energy scale is commonplace at all scales, including everyday ones. So
yes, it is consistent with a nature that a Buick be inside and outside the
garage at the same time, but it is exceedingly rare; but it is much more
commonplace for a neutron to be inside and outside the nucleus at the same
time.

This is why physics involves more than just doing the sanity check of
whether such things happen in everyday life. This is why experiments
outside the domain of everyday experience are important, why calculations
of rates and sizes of effects are important, and why common sense is not
any kind of reliable metric of reality.

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:22:59 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 AM UTC-7, 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.
>>>> There is no need for me to defend my claim. You will be finding out
>>>> first-hand that I am correct. You will forever be considered a crackpot here.
>>>
>>> So what? I can always change my writing style, but you will always be a
>>> knee-jerk skeptic.
>>>
>> You can change your writing style, you can change your nym.
>>
>> What you could also change, but it seems very unlikely that you will, is
>> your familiarity with physics. I’m a woodworker, not a physicist. I do not
>> do physics for a living, I do not feel threatened by having successful
>> theories challenged, I have no skin in the game. However, I am interested
>> enough in the subject to have read many physics textbooks, working the
>> problems as I go, and looking up experimental papers in journals. I’ve
>> spent about 8000 hours studying physics over the last 10 years. You may not
>> want to invest that kind of effort. That’s fine, but on the other hand,
>> you’d then be CHOOSING to not become conversant enough with the subject to
>> contribute much.
>>
>> What you cannot change is your hunger for attention and validation. This is
>> an odor that permeates your posts. It’s also what keeps you from arresting
>> yourself when you put your foot in your mouth or when you start splattering
>> words around that you’ve seen online but don’t really understand. I’m
>> curious, for example, what you think “isomorphism” means.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Passive aggressive ad hominem attacks are still ad hominems.
> Go back to your woodworking.
>

What people post here is driven by internal motivations. It is useful, when
someone like you says something about a subject you know little about, to
understand WHY you would say such a thing.

It’s interesting to me, for example, why you’ve frequently used the word
“isomorphism” in such a strange way. I mean, it’s a pretty word, and it
sounds all technical and such, but if you use the word in a strange way in
a conversation with someone who knows what it really means, you’re running
a huge risk of looking like either an idiot or a pretender. And so then the
question becomes, what motivates you to take such a risk?

You may not care for such examinations. There’s that cartoon by Peter
Steiner: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” But odd behavior is
going to lead inevitably to your motives being questioned. Your hope to
have your IDEA discussed without bringing in WHO you are, is a pipe-dream.

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

On Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 21:36:58 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 1:07:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
> >>>
> >>> but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
> >>>
> >> Indeed, another keyword. There are many, many critics of relativity who say
> >> that physics should appeal to common sense, and that theories that fly in
> >> the face of common sense have something wrong with them. Indeed, a lot of
> >> hacks spend years trying to replace relativity with something that appeals
> >> to common sense and agrees with experimental results. Hence, the
> >> “alternative explanation” gambit.
> >>
> >> This is a red flag also.
> >>
> >> I think if you read the popularizations of some noted physicists, you’ll
> >> see them all say that nature does not respect common sense. Nature is
> >> weird. It behaves in ways that common sense says are flat-out impossible.
> >> This plain fact bothers a lot of amateurs deeply. They don’t want nature to
> >> be strange, and they don’t want their common sense challenged.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > That's your interpretation. I don't buy it. Just because we are so
> > arrogant to think we understand Nature and then whine about it not making
> > sense, because, that's Nature.
> >
> Common sense is a set of rules extrapolated from everyday experience. This
> extrapolation allows us to make quick, rule-of-thumb judgments that will
> work most of the time, which is an evolutionary survival strategy.

That's making it very good when recognizing a bunch of fanatic
idiots worshipping an insane crazie.

> This is why physics involves more than just doing the sanity check of
> whether such things happen in everyday life. This is why experiments
> outside the domain of everyday experience are important, why calculations
> of rates and sizes of effects are important, and why common sense is not
> any kind of reliable metric of reality.

In the meantime in the reality, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. See,
poor halfbrain - common sense has sttill something to say
in the subject.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> And I don't care about "flag phrases." That's just a rationalization to
> avoid discussion of a topic which could lead to identifying a
> contradiction in the dogma of the cult.

Well, see, there the motivation leaks out. Here you’ve been saying all
along that you have no interest in criticizing relativity but only have an
“alternate explanation” you think is better. But the reality is that you
want to dismantle relativity by finding a fatal flaw in it, which you think
you can do by appealing to common sense.

Usually the reason why amateurs try to tear down relativity is so that
there is a vacuum in the space occupied by it, into which they can lob
their own ideas, in the hope of getting some attention.

> As I've told the others, if you have a logical point, make it. Show where
> my argument contradicts itself. I am not the least bit interested in
> dogma or opinion. Since it seems that the majority on usenet now are
> cranks, I don't care if you all think I am the newest crank on the block.
> As my mother used to say, "Consider the source."
>

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