On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:36:58 PM UTC-4, 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.
>
> 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

Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or measurement, I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all, people keep blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is correct, by your standard.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:05:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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

You have really constructed a huge strawman this time. You have twisted everything I have said, and now you have the gall to psychoanalyze my motives. I appeal to logic, not common sense. If it makes common sense, so much the better, but if it doesn't pass the logic test, it doesn't matter if it makes sense.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:05:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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

And after all your pontificating, still not a drop of logic. Empty barrels do make the loudest noise.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:05:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
>
> You have really constructed a huge strawman this time. You have twisted
> everything I have said, and now you have the gall to psychoanalyze my motives.

Yes I do, for the reasons I stated. You don’t have to like it.

> I appeal to logic, not common sense. If it makes common sense, so much
> the better, but if it doesn't pass the logic test, it doesn't matter if it makes sense.
>

In that case there’s no logical problem with relativity either. At least,
you haven’t been able to cite any.

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:05:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
>
> And after all your pontificating, still not a drop of logic. Empty
> barrels do make the loudest noise.
>

Well, if you recall, I explained that people who do not know what they’re
talking about, or even what the words mean (eg isomorphism), haven’t really
earned a logical argument. Physics isn’t really about logic anyway. It’s
about modeling reality and testing that against experiment. This seemed to
come as a shock to you, which goes back to the point about not knowing much
at all about physics.

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

On 10/27/2021 3:28 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> 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 that's how many people think. It's "common sense" that it does that.
Which is my point.

> But data tells this is wrong.

Exactly. But it goes against "common sense", therefore many cranks have
issues with that.

> The same data tells us that rapidity does add linearly.

I did stumble across "rapidity" at one time. It's apparently with
velocity adjusted by gamma to be linear. I don't know where (or if) it
is used. But my comment wasn't about that but certain crank "flags".

> And I don't care about "flag phrases."

It has been my experience that many "flag phrases" are signs that a
person isn't here to learn physics, but is a crank bent on overthrowing
"standard" physics with their latest discovery or whatever.

I have been here for a very long time, and I've seen a long parade of
cranks come and go. Many, if not most, use/used one or more common
"crank phrases" which identifies their thinking as that of a crank.

> That's just a rationalization to avoid discussion of a topic which could lead to identifying a contradiction in the dogma of the cult.

Oh dear. "Dogma". "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."
>

"Mainstream Physics" as a "cult" with "dogma" which "brainwashes" the
gullible student. It's wrong because it goes against "common sense". I
won't make any early judgements other than to say it's not looking good.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 12:28:22 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Show where my argument contradicts itself.

Again, your argument contradicts itself where, on one hand, you agree that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, while on the other hand you deny that for any two given events separated by the increments dx,dy,dz,dt the quantity (dt)^2 -(dx)^2-(dy)^2-(dz)^2 is the same for any system of inertial coordinates, which is what characterizes Minkowski space-time. That is self-contradictory, because the former (which you accept) logically implies the latter (which you reject).

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 03:28:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 4:05:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@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
> >
> > And after all your pontificating, still not a drop of logic. Empty
> > barrels do make the loudest noise.
> >
> Well, if you recall, I explained that people who do not know what they’re
> talking about, or even what the words mean (eg isomorphism), haven’t really
> earned a logical argument. Physics isn’t really about logic anyway.

Sure, it's about obeying some idiots screaming, that we're
FORCED to THE BEST WAY.

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 04:19:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> "Mainstream Physics" as a "cult" with "dogma" which "brainwashes" the
> gullible student. It's wrong because it goes against "common sense". I
> won't make any early judgements other than to say it's not looking good.

It isn't, stupid Mike, but what can we do? The truth
isn't obligged to look fine.

On 10/28/2021 12:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 04:19:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> "Mainstream Physics" as a "cult" with "dogma" which "brainwashes" the
>> gullible student. It's wrong because it goes against "common sense". I
>> won't make any early judgements other than to say it's not looking good.
>
> It isn't, stupid Mike, but what can we do? The truth
> isn't obligged to look fine.
>

Well you have at least two of those and maybe all four, plus the
retarded parrot crap you have. Looks real bad for you, but we knew that.

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 06:50:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/28/2021 12:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 04:19:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> "Mainstream Physics" as a "cult" with "dogma" which "brainwashes" the
> >> gullible student. It's wrong because it goes against "common sense". I
> >> won't make any early judgements other than to say it's not looking good.
> >
> > It isn't, stupid Mike, but what can we do? The truth
> > isn't obligged to look fine.
> >
> Well you have at least two of those and maybe all four, plus the
> retarded parrot crap you have. Looks real bad for you, but we knew that.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did. Well, it seems they were made by these primitive
humans polluted with common sense.

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 06:55:07 UTC+2, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 06:50:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 10/28/2021 12:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 04:19:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Mainstream Physics" as a "cult" with "dogma" which "brainwashes" the
> > >> gullible student. It's wrong because it goes against "common sense". I
> > >> won't make any early judgements other than to say it's not looking good.
> > >
> > > It isn't, stupid Mike, but what can we do? The truth
> > > isn't obligged to look fine.
> > >
> > Well you have at least two of those and maybe all four, plus the
> > retarded parrot crap you have. Looks real bad for you, but we knew that.
> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> did. Well, it seems they were made by these primitive
> humans polluted with common sense.

Obviously, if they had no common sense, like stupid
Mike - they would equip the satellites with proper
clocks measuring proper time. GPS wouldn't work
then; but what a beautiful symmetry we would have
instead.

On 10/28/2021 12:55 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 06:50:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/28/2021 12:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 04:19:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mainstream Physics" as a "cult" with "dogma" which "brainwashes" the
>>>> gullible student. It's wrong because it goes against "common sense". I
>>>> won't make any early judgements other than to say it's not looking good.
>>>
>>> It isn't, stupid Mike, but what can we do? The truth
>>> isn't obligged to look fine.
>>>
>> Well you have at least two of those and maybe all four, plus the
>> retarded parrot crap you have. Looks real bad for you, but we knew that.
>
> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> did. Well, it seems they were made by these primitive
> humans polluted with common sense.
>

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

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

"Polly want a cracker!"

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

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

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 07:38:02 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/28/2021 12:55 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 06:50:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/28/2021 12:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 04:19:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Mainstream Physics" as a "cult" with "dogma" which "brainwashes" the
> >>>> gullible student. It's wrong because it goes against "common sense". I
> >>>> won't make any early judgements other than to say it's not looking good.
> >>>
> >>> It isn't, stupid Mike, but what can we do? The truth
> >>> isn't obligged to look fine.
> >>>
> >> Well you have at least two of those and maybe all four, plus the
> >> retarded parrot crap you have. Looks real bad for you, but we knew that.
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> > keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> > did. Well, it seems they were made by these primitive
> > humans polluted with common sense.
> >
>
> "In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> did."
>
> "In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> did." BRAWWWK!
>
> "Polly want a cracker!"
> "In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> did."
>
> "In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
> did." BRAWWWK!

See, stupid Mike, if your bunch of idiots started accepting
at least most obvious facts - I wouldn't have to repeat them
in a loop.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:36:58 PM UTC-4, 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.
>>
>> 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
>
> Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or measurement,

Well, there you go, using that word funny, but I think I know what you’re
trying to say.

But I think part of the issue here is your lack of understanding of the
scope of relativity, which is a shit-ton larger than time dilation, length
contraction, and momentum/energy. For example, QED and QCD, two of the most
exquisitely tested theories of all time, are manifestly covariant,
something that is insisted by relativity. You’d have to explain how to
arrive at QED, QCD without that manifest covariance. By the way, relativity
is also behind the prediction of positrons, as well as fermionic behavior,
which in turn completely accounts for metallicity and semiconductivity.
With Newtonian physics, you can observe the existence of antimatter,
metals, and semiconductors but you can’t explain why they exist. The
discovery of W and Z bosons showed that they were right where they were
predicted to be, in an electroweak theory that would not have been possible
in a nonrelativistic world. Need I go on? There are about three dozen
things you’ve probably heard of but didn’t know stemmed from relativity.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or
> measurement, I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all,
> people keep blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is
> correct, by your standard.
>

Ok, that’s your freedom to choose for yourself. But you’re looking for a
collaborator. So here’s what will happen along with that choice.

You won’t find a collaborator who is a current physicist, because they’ll
tell within a minute and a half that you use physics terms funny and half
basic misconceptions like thinking that time dilation accounts for length
contraction, and they’ll quickly surmise that you don’t know what you’re
talking about, and will decline to engage with a pretender.

You won’t find a collaborator among future young physicists who have the
skills you lack but are are less brainwashed by the current paradigm,
because they will have learned just enough to mistrust the reliability of
common sense, something that is made abundantly clear in first year physics
but which you apparently missed.

So that leaves you with collaborators just like yourself, marginally
exposed to physics and hopeful that a common sense solution can be arrived
at. Unfortunately, they’ll have none of the skills and tools you need to
advance your ideas, and on top of that, these people will each have their
own “bright idea” that will compete with yours, and so collaborating will
be less fun.

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

Tom Capizzi wrote:
....
> Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or measurement, I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all, people keep blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is correct, by your standard.

"Given two isomorphism"??? This does make any sense! Your poor (to say
the least) choice of expression demonstrates that you don't know
anything about what you pretend to talk about.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:44:13 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> ...
> > Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or measurement, I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all, people keep blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is correct, by your standard.
> "Given two isomorphism"??? This does make any sense! Your poor (to say
> the least) choice of expression demonstrates that you don't know
> anything about what you pretend to talk about.

Your post would be more intelligible if you used spellcheck. If you're so damn smart that you think you know what I meant to say, please post it. This is just word salad.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:44:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or
> > measurement, I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all,
> > people keep blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is
> > correct, by your standard.
> >
> Ok, that’s your freedom to choose for yourself. But you’re looking for a
> collaborator. So here’s what will happen along with that choice.
>
> You won’t find a collaborator who is a current physicist, because they’ll
> tell within a minute and a half that you use physics terms funny and half
> basic misconceptions like thinking that time dilation accounts for length
> contraction, and they’ll quickly surmise that you don’t know what you’re
> talking about, and will decline to engage with a pretender.
>
> You won’t find a collaborator among future young physicists who have the
> skills you lack but are are less brainwashed by the current paradigm,
> because they will have learned just enough to mistrust the reliability of
> common sense, something that is made abundantly clear in first year physics
> but which you apparently missed.
>
> So that leaves you with collaborators just like yourself, marginally
> exposed to physics and hopeful that a common sense solution can be arrived
> at. Unfortunately, they’ll have none of the skills and tools you need to
> advance your ideas, and on top of that, these people will each have their
> own “bright idea” that will compete with yours, and so collaborating will
> be less fun.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I'll remember your fantasy scenario at my first book signing event. I may need a collaborator for a peer reviewed paper, but that is not necessary to publish a book. All it takes is money. And, once again, you twist my words to suit your crooked agenda. Why the hell are you, a woodworker, so obsessed with defending an old dead man's physics theory? I explained that common sense is not the basis of my position, but logic is. If that happens to coincide with common sense, fine and dandy. Of course, there are times when logic itself doesn't agree with common sense. I still prefer logic.

And, maybe you're right. I might not find a collaborator among the crackpot skeptics here. No biggie. I'll just keep searching. Maybe it will be a mathematician, not a physicist. Works for me. But, you all will get a footnote for helping to fine tune the language to avoid those scary trigger words. Boo! Paradigm shift!!

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:31:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:36:58 PM UTC-4, 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.
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or measurement,
> Well, there you go, using that word funny, but I think I know what you’re
> trying to say.
>
> But I think part of the issue here is your lack of understanding of the
> scope of relativity, which is a shit-ton larger than time dilation, length
> contraction, and momentum/energy. For example, QED and QCD, two of the most
> exquisitely tested theories of all time, are manifestly covariant,
> something that is insisted by relativity. You’d have to explain how to
> arrive at QED, QCD without that manifest covariance. By the way, relativity
> is also behind the prediction of positrons, as well as fermionic behavior,
> which in turn completely accounts for metallicity and semiconductivity.
> With Newtonian physics, you can observe the existence of antimatter,
> metals, and semiconductors but you can’t explain why they exist. The
> discovery of W and Z bosons showed that they were right where they were
> predicted to be, in an electroweak theory that would not have been possible
> in a nonrelativistic world. Need I go on? There are about three dozen
> things you’ve probably heard of but didn’t know stemmed from relativity.
> > I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all, people keep
> > blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is correct, by your standard.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:23:28 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 12:28:22 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Show where my argument contradicts itself.
> Again, your argument contradicts itself where, on one hand, you agree that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, while on the other hand you deny that for any two given events separated by the increments dx,dy,dz,dt the quantity (dt)^2 -(dx)^2-(dy)^2-(dz)^2 is the same for any system of inertial coordinates, which is what characterizes Minkowski space-time. That is self-contradictory, because the former (which you accept) logically implies the latter (which you reject).

This one takes the prize for most illogical. If you actually understood what I wrote, you would realize that two different isomorphisms do not need to use the same expression to reach the same result. For instance, the logarithm and exponential are inverse mappings that are isomorphic. No one blathers that they are contradictory because in one the operation is addition and in the other it is multiplication. And why you even make a charge that is not justified, is part of your obsession with being contrary. I never said that the metric is not the same for any system of inertial coordinates (your words, your strawman). I said that in Euclidean eigenvector geometry, the invariant was the product of the coordinates, Σ*Δ = (ct+r)(ct-r) = c²t²-r² = s², the same identical Einstein Interval. There is no requirement that the metric be the dot product in a different isomorphism. In Euclidean geometry, it is the cross-product, a variant of multiplication. How does your pretzelogic turn equality into a contradiction?

El jueves, 28 de octubre de 2021 a las 10:34:36 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:31:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them. You've made absurd claims, now back them up. In any case, the standard in physics is not perfection.. It is, "If the numbers work, it's good enough." I have developed a geometrical interpretation which incorporates the first order effects of relativity. No dilation or contraction, just hyperbolic rotations into higher dimensions. Indistinguishable from predictions of the Lorentz Transform. By what logic does this imply that any of those properties you list are disputed?

See equation 4.2 in section 4 of the Landau's book The Classical Theory of Fields (available in the Internet). Landau used hyperbolic rotations to derive the Lorentz Transform, so your geometrical interpretation is not new.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 12:28:22 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Show where my argument contradicts itself.

Your argument contradicts itself where, on one hand, you agree that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, while on the other hand you deny that for any two given events separated by the increments dx,dy,dz,dt the quantity (dt)^2 -(dx)^2-(dy)^2-(dz)^2 is the same for any system of inertial coordinates, which is what characterizes Minkowski space-time. That is self-contradictory, because the former (which you accept) logically implies the latter (which you reject).

> I have developed a geometrical interpretation which incorporates the first
> order effects of relativity.

Just the first order? If your interpretation doesn't incorporate the second order effects, it was already contradicted by experiment by 1905, and in fact special relativity has now been validated to very high orders. Please note that if your "interpretation" differs from special relativity at any order, then it isn't just an interpretation, it is a different theory.

> No dilation or contraction, just hyperbolic rotations into higher dimensions.
> Indistinguishable from predictions of the Lorentz Transform.

That is another self-contradictory set of statements. Also, at some point you need to learn that it isn't "Lorentz Transform", it is Lorentz transformation. There is a difference between a transform (like a Fourier transform) and a transformation. And the phenomena described by the terms "time dilation" and "length contraction" and "skew of simultaneity" are unambiguous predictions of the Lorentz transformation between inertial coordinate systems, so if your theory (not interpretation) doesn't entail those phenomerna, it is easily distinguishable from special relativity and violates the Lorentz transformation.

> By what logic does this imply that any of those properties you list are disputed?

Things like quantum field theory that are founded on local Lorentz invariance are logically impossible if local Lorentz invariance was invalid. Local Lorentz invariance entails all the relativistic effects that you deny. So this is yet another self-contradiction of yours.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 6:34:36 AM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi brainfarted:
> It is, "If the numbers work, it's good enough." I have developed a geometrical interpretation which incorporates the first order effects of relativity. No dilation or contraction, just hyperbolic rotations into higher dimensions. Indistinguishable from predictions of the Lorentz Transform. By what logic does this imply that any of those properties you list are disputed?

Crank,

Your theory is easily debunked by experiments in the second order effect (Ives-Stilwell, Mosbauer). You are eating shit , like your fellow cranks.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:44:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any experiment or
>>> measurement, I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all,
>>> people keep blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is
>>> correct, by your standard.
>>>
>> Ok, that’s your freedom to choose for yourself. But you’re looking for a
>> collaborator. So here’s what will happen along with that choice.
>>
>> You won’t find a collaborator who is a current physicist, because they’ll
>> tell within a minute and a half that you use physics terms funny and half
>> basic misconceptions like thinking that time dilation accounts for length
>> contraction, and they’ll quickly surmise that you don’t know what you’re
>> talking about, and will decline to engage with a pretender.
>>
>> You won’t find a collaborator among future young physicists who have the
>> skills you lack but are are less brainwashed by the current paradigm,
>> because they will have learned just enough to mistrust the reliability of
>> common sense, something that is made abundantly clear in first year physics
>> but which you apparently missed.
>>
>> So that leaves you with collaborators just like yourself, marginally
>> exposed to physics and hopeful that a common sense solution can be arrived
>> at. Unfortunately, they’ll have none of the skills and tools you need to
>> advance your ideas, and on top of that, these people will each have their
>> own “bright idea” that will compete with yours, and so collaborating will
>> be less fun.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I'll remember your fantasy scenario at my first book signing event. I may
> need a collaborator for a peer reviewed paper, but that is not necessary
> to publish a book. All it takes is money.

Yes that’s right. Ask Ken Seto, Robert Winn, and any of a dozen others who
have taken the same path.

> And, once again, you twist my words to suit your crooked agenda. Why the
> hell are you, a woodworker, so obsessed with defending an old dead man's physics theory?

Well, relativity doesn’t belong to an old dead man. It’s now part of the
fabric of a whole lot of physics, as I just pointed out. As I pointed out
also, I have no skin in the game. But I can tell when someone is throwing
around words to sound impressive but who doesn’t know what they mean.
That’s kind of silly, on all counts.

> I explained that common sense is not the basis of my position, but logic
> is. If that happens to coincide with common sense, fine and dandy. Of
> course, there are times when logic itself doesn't agree with common
> sense. I still prefer logic.
>
> And, maybe you're right. I might not find a collaborator among the
> crackpot skeptics here. No biggie. I'll just keep searching. Maybe it
> will be a mathematician, not a physicist. Works for me. But, you all will
> get a footnote for helping to fine tune the language to avoid those scary
> trigger words. Boo! Paradigm shift!!
>

Happy hunting. It’ll be adorable to see how your hunt comes out. Maybe
“just money” will be your recourse.

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