Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 16:12:27 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> 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.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. You are
eating shit , like your fellow cultists.

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 16:26:24 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

If you could your idiot guru wouldn't impress you.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 9:54:10 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> 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.

The Lorentz Transform IS a hyperbolic rotation. Nothing to derive. And it has little to do with rotating a complex vector out of Minkowski or Euclidean spacetime. My geometrical interpretation explains the fictions of length contraction and time dilation as real projections of complex vectors. I doubt that is in your example. And if my model is "nothing new" why are all the crackpot skeptics scrambling to reject my thesis?

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:12:27 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> 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.

<nothing of value here>

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
> > Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
> > 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?
> >
> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
> relativity.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
>>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
>> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
>> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
>>> 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?
>>>
>> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
>> relativity.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
> facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 11:26:17 AM UTC-7, nutter Tom Capizzi brainfarted:
> My geometrical interpretation explains the fictions of length contraction and time dilation as real projections of complex vectors.

Imbecile,

Time dilation is detected by multiple experiments.
Length contraction explains the fitting of ions in the undulator stage of particle accelerators.
Keep up the entertainment, clown!

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 21:28:35 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 11:26:17 AM UTC-7, nutter Tom Capizzi brainfarted:
> > My geometrical interpretation explains the fictions of length contraction and time dilation as real projections of complex vectors.
> Imbecile,
>
> Time dilation is detected by multiple experiments.

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

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
> where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
> I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
> good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
> what to do next.
>
I did one better than that, I proved the crank Tom Capizzi to be a liar.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
>>>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
>>> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
>>> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
>>> relativity.
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
>> facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.
>
> Which are irrelevant to the impacts of relativity I cited.
>
> This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
> where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
> I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
> good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
> what to do next.
>
> Here’s the gap you’re missing: spending a few thousand hours learning
> physics so you know the scope of relativity’s impact.
>
> Not interested in doing that? Fine. Then you’ve nothing to make an impact
> with, just a germ of an undeveloped idea you don’t know how to carry
> forward.
>
>
>> Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptic would interpret that to mean my
>> theory doesn't explain 2nd order effects. Just haven't gotten around to
>> it yet. But just for comparison, Newtonian physics also explains only
>> first order effects. Do you reject it? Whatever. I'm done with your dissembling.
>>
>
>
>

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
>>>>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
>>>> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
>>>> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
>>>> relativity.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
>>> facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.
>>
>> Which are irrelevant to the impacts of relativity I cited.
>>
>> This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
>> where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
>> I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
>> good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
>> what to do next.
>>
>> Here’s the gap you’re missing: spending a few thousand hours learning
>> physics so you know the scope of relativity’s impact.
>>
>> Not interested in doing that? Fine. Then you’ve nothing to make an impact
>> with, just a germ of an undeveloped idea you don’t know how to carry
>> forward.
>>
>>
>>> Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptic would interpret that to mean my
>>> theory doesn't explain 2nd order effects. Just haven't gotten around to
>>> it yet. But just for comparison, Newtonian physics also explains only
>>> first order effects. Do you reject it? Whatever. I'm done with your dissembling.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> As for “dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptics”, I’ll just remind you that the
> chief complaint about your offering is not that it’s obviously invalidated
> by data. It’s that you are an imposter, uneducated in physics, who is
> pretending to know enough to say something profound or useful in physics.
> The fact that you cannot cite ONE person in the last 120 years who has made
> a recognized contribution to fundamental physics without the benefit of a
> physics education does not deter you from thinking you are somehow
> different (or that you can pull off the illusion). And you do not know
> enough physics to even know whether your idea is useful or not, other than
> that you like it because it appeals to your common sense. You don’t know
> the implications of of relativity in physics to tell whether yours is on
> par. You don’t have the foggiest idea whether your idea has any
> distinguishing predictions, and you take umbrage at the requirement that it
> do that at all.
>
> It is your status as someone who obviously does not know what he’s talking
> about that AUTOMATICALLY makes your idea not worth digging into, though
> several here have sketched out the things you didn’t know to think about.
>

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 6:53:01 AM 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).

> ...the logarithm and exponential are inverse mappings ... No one blathers that they
> are contradictory...

I didn't say Lorentz invariance and the Minkowski pseudo-metric are contradictory... quite the opposite. I said that each one implies the other. What's contradictory is your acceptance of the former and denial of the latter..

> I never said that the metric is not the same for any system of inertial coordinates...

You said that you reject Minkowski space-time, which is nothing but the Minkowski pseudo-metric, i.e., the content is nothing but the fact that the quantity (dt)^2 -(dx)^2-(dy)^2-(dz)^2 is the same for any system of inertial coordinates, which is nothing but Lorentz invariance. You contradict yourself by accepting Lorentz invariance but rejecting the invariance of the Minkowski pseudo-metric.

> 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.

That isn't "Euclidean eigenvector geometry", that is fourth grade algebra. In general 3+1 dimensions, the invariant is the inner product of the incremental interval. There is nothing novel about this, and it represents acceptance (not denial) of the Minkowski pseudo-metric... the very thing you claim to be denying.

> There is no requirement that the metric be the dot product...

Wait, the invariant interval according to Lorentz invariance is inner product (which I presume is what you are calling the dot product). There is no ambiguity about this. Again, 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. That's all there is to it. Which part of this do you disagree with? Or, if you don't disagree with it at all, what point are you trying to make?

El jueves, 28 de octubre de 2021 a las 15:26:17 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 9:54:10 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> > 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.
> The Lorentz Transform IS a hyperbolic rotation. Nothing to derive. And it has little to do with rotating a complex vector out of Minkowski or Euclidean spacetime. My geometrical interpretation explains the fictions of length contraction and time dilation as real projections of complex vectors. I doubt that is in your example. And if my model is "nothing new" why are all the crackpot skeptics scrambling to reject my thesis?

Up until today you have presented nothing new. You can try to publish your "work" in vixra.org. That is a place where your paper is aproved and published within two days after sending it......

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 9:54:10 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The Lorentz Transform IS a hyperbolic rotation. Nothing to derive. And it has little to do with rotating a complex vector out of Minkowski or Euclidean spacetime. My geometrical interpretation explains the fictions of length contraction and time dilation as real projections of complex vectors. I doubt that is in your example. And if my model is "nothing new" why are all the crackpot skeptics scrambling to reject my thesis?

replace your idiotic "crackpot skeptics" by people with a clue.

the answer is: fine, put up or shut up. So far you've only pretended.

You have a model? Cool! PUBLISH IT.

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 22:42:41 UTC+2, Townes Olson wrote:

> That isn't "Euclidean eigenvector geometry", that is fourth grade algebra.. In general 3+1 dimensions, the invariant is the inner product of the incremental interval. There is nothing novel about this, and it represents acceptance (not denial) of the Minkowski pseudo-metric... the very thing you claim to be denying.

See, Tom (Tom C) - you're talking to insane fanatic idiots.
They insist their non-Euclidean idiocies were FORCED
by the nature - but they practically know it's a bullshit,
They're not using them, of course. Whenever they have
to calculate something for real - it's Euclidean. But, for
ideological reasons, they have to pretend Euclid isn't
worthy enough. Any nonsense against E. is good for them,
including the one that there is nothing new in his geometry.
At least this one is true.

Tom Capizzi wrote:

> And, once again, you twist my words to suit your crooked agenda.

That is correct...it is a crooked agenda.

Not a straight agenda, but a little bent and twisted.

notice the dark gint in his eyes...

the way a cat looks at a mouse.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 3:11:24 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
> >>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
> >> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
> >> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
> >> relativity.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
> > facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.
> Which are irrelevant to the impacts of relativity I cited.
>
> This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
> where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
> I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
> good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
> what to do next.
>
> Here’s the gap you’re missing: spending a few thousand hours learning
> physics so you know the scope of relativity’s impact.
>
> Not interested in doing that? Fine. Then you’ve nothing to make an impact
> with, just a germ of an undeveloped idea you don’t know how to carry
> forward.
> > Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptic would interpret that to mean my
> > theory doesn't explain 2nd order effects. Just haven't gotten around to
> > it yet. But just for comparison, Newtonian physics also explains only
> > first order effects. Do you reject it? Whatever. I'm done with your dissembling.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 3:28:35 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 11:26:17 AM UTC-7, nutter Tom Capizzi brainfarted:
> > My geometrical interpretation explains the fictions of length contraction and time dilation as real projections of complex vectors.
> Imbecile,
>
> Time dilation is detected by multiple experiments.
> Length contraction explains the fitting of ions in the undulator stage of particle accelerators.
> Keep up the entertainment, clown!

to Dono:
<blocked>

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 3:34:02 PM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
> > where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
> > I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
> > good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
> > what to do next.
> >
> I did one better than that, I proved the crank Tom Capizzi to be a liar.

to Dono:
<blocked>

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 3:35:18 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
> >>>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
> >>> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
> >>> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
> >>>> 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?
> >>>>
> >>> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
> >>> relativity.
> >>> --
> >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>
> >> A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
> >> facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.
> >
> > Which are irrelevant to the impacts of relativity I cited.
> >
> > This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
> > where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
> > I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
> > good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
> > what to do next.
> >
> > Here’s the gap you’re missing: spending a few thousand hours learning
> > physics so you know the scope of relativity’s impact.
> >
> > Not interested in doing that? Fine. Then you’ve nothing to make an impact
> > with, just a germ of an undeveloped idea you don’t know how to carry
> > forward.
> >
> >
> >> Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptic would interpret that to mean my
> >> theory doesn't explain 2nd order effects. Just haven't gotten around to
> >> it yet. But just for comparison, Newtonian physics also explains only
> >> first order effects. Do you reject it? Whatever. I'm done with your dissembling.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> As for “dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptics”, I’ll just remind you that the
> chief complaint about your offering is not that it’s obviously invalidated
> by data. It’s that you are an imposter, uneducated in physics, who is
> pretending to know enough to say something profound or useful in physics.
> The fact that you cannot cite ONE person in the last 120 years who has made
> a recognized contribution to fundamental physics without the benefit of a
> physics education does not deter you from thinking you are somehow
> different (or that you can pull off the illusion). And you do not know
> enough physics to even know whether your idea is useful or not, other than
> that you like it because it appeals to your common sense. You don’t know
> the implications of of relativity in physics to tell whether yours is on
> par. You don’t have the foggiest idea whether your idea has any
> distinguishing predictions, and you take umbrage at the requirement that it
> do that at all.
>
> It is your status as someone who obviously does not know what he’s talking
> about that AUTOMATICALLY makes your idea not worth digging into, though
> several here have sketched out the things you didn’t know to think about.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 3:57:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
> >>>>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
> >>>> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
> >>>> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
> >>>>> 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?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
> >>>> relativity.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
> >>> facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.
> >>
> >> Which are irrelevant to the impacts of relativity I cited.
> >>
> >> This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
> >> where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
> >> I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
> >> good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
> >> what to do next.
> >>
> >> Here’s the gap you’re missing: spending a few thousand hours learning
> >> physics so you know the scope of relativity’s impact.
> >>
> >> Not interested in doing that? Fine. Then you’ve nothing to make an impact
> >> with, just a germ of an undeveloped idea you don’t know how to carry
> >> forward.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptic would interpret that to mean my
> >>> theory doesn't explain 2nd order effects. Just haven't gotten around to
> >>> it yet. But just for comparison, Newtonian physics also explains only
> >>> first order effects. Do you reject it? Whatever. I'm done with your dissembling.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > As for “dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptics”, I’ll just remind you that the
> > chief complaint about your offering is not that it’s obviously invalidated
> > by data. It’s that you are an imposter, uneducated in physics, who is
> > pretending to know enough to say something profound or useful in physics.
> > The fact that you cannot cite ONE person in the last 120 years who has made
> > a recognized contribution to fundamental physics without the benefit of a
> > physics education does not deter you from thinking you are somehow
> > different (or that you can pull off the illusion). And you do not know
> > enough physics to even know whether your idea is useful or not, other than
> > that you like it because it appeals to your common sense. You don’t know
> > the implications of of relativity in physics to tell whether yours is on
> > par. You don’t have the foggiest idea whether your idea has any
> > distinguishing predictions, and you take umbrage at the requirement that it
> > do that at all.
> >
> > It is your status as someone who obviously does not know what he’s talking
> > about that AUTOMATICALLY makes your idea not worth digging into, though
> > several here have sketched out the things you didn’t know to think about.
> >
> As a key example of your red-flag behavior, I pointed out something that
> should have made your eyes pop open and made you say to yourself, “hey I
> have to find out more about that.” I told you that relativity explains why
> metals are metals. This is such an obviously everyday impact of relativity,
> that it should have appealed to your common sense curiosity. But instead,
> your reaction was to become defensive, saying that I had not proven that
> your idea does NOT explain why metals are metals, and saying that you
> hadn’t gotten around to studying second-order effects. There was NO
> interest on your part to understand what relativity has to do with
> metallicity, and because of that ignorance, you’ll have no grip on whether
> your idea accounts for it as well.
>
> It’s your LACK OF INTEREST IN THE PHYSICS that’s the red flag. Instead, you
> just want attention, visibility, someone to say hey you might be onto
> something so good for you. THAT is what pegs you as a crackpot, someone who
> is not interested enough in the physics to learn it, for any number of
> excuses.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 4:42:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 6:53:01 AM 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).
> > ...the logarithm and exponential are inverse mappings ... No one blathers that they
> > are contradictory...
>
> I didn't say Lorentz invariance and the Minkowski pseudo-metric are contradictory... quite the opposite. I said that each one implies the other. What's contradictory is your acceptance of the former and denial of the latter..
>
> > I never said that the metric is not the same for any system of inertial coordinates...
>
> You said that you reject Minkowski space-time, which is nothing but the Minkowski pseudo-metric, i.e., the content is nothing but the fact that the quantity (dt)^2 -(dx)^2-(dy)^2-(dz)^2 is the same for any system of inertial coordinates, which is nothing but Lorentz invariance. You contradict yourself by accepting Lorentz invariance but rejecting the invariance of the Minkowski pseudo-metric.
> > 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.
> That isn't "Euclidean eigenvector geometry", that is fourth grade algebra.. In general 3+1 dimensions, the invariant is the inner product of the incremental interval. There is nothing novel about this, and it represents acceptance (not denial) of the Minkowski pseudo-metric... the very thing you claim to be denying.
>
> > There is no requirement that the metric be the dot product...
>
> Wait, the invariant interval according to Lorentz invariance is inner product (which I presume is what you are calling the dot product). There is no ambiguity about this. Again, 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. That's all there is to it. Which part of this do you disagree with? Or, if you don't disagree with it at all, what point are you trying to make?

to Townes:
<blocked>

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 7:03:39 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 28 de octubre de 2021 a las 15:26:17 UTC-3, tgca...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 9:54:10 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote:
> > > 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.
> > The Lorentz Transform IS a hyperbolic rotation. Nothing to derive. And it has little to do with rotating a complex vector out of Minkowski or Euclidean spacetime. My geometrical interpretation explains the fictions of length contraction and time dilation as real projections of complex vectors. I doubt that is in your example. And if my model is "nothing new" why are all the crackpot skeptics scrambling to reject my thesis?
> Up until today you have presented nothing new. You can try to publish your "work" in vixra.org. That is a place where your paper is aproved and published within two days after sending it......

Thank you for the link. I will look into it. As to nothing new, that's your opinion. I find that virtually all the opinions are based on the misconception that I am describing Minkowski geometry, when I am actually talking about Euclidean geometry, as the title of the thread suggests. And while others have done so before me, I find no evidence of any serious investigation into real Euclidean eigenvector decomposition, not the complex eigenvectors of Minkowski. You know, Minkowski reformulated his presentation a couple years after its first publication to eliminate the imaginary time coordinate.. However, the light-cone vectors are still null vectors, and there are no null vectors in Euclidean geometry. Nor do the Euclidean eigenvectors have dot products with each other that are non-zero. In Euclidean geometry, eigenvectors are real and perpendicular. Maybe you just haven't read enough details. For the benefit of speed-readers, I will add references that highlight the differences with main-stream relativity.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 3:11:24 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
>>>>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
>>>> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
>>>> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
>>>> relativity.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
>>> facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.
>> Which are irrelevant to the impacts of relativity I cited.
>>
>> This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
>> where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
>> I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
>> good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
>> what to do next.
>>
>> Here’s the gap you’re missing: spending a few thousand hours learning
>> physics so you know the scope of relativity’s impact.
>>
>> Not interested in doing that? Fine. Then you’ve nothing to make an impact
>> with, just a germ of an undeveloped idea you don’t know how to carry
>> forward.
>>> Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptic would interpret that to mean my
>>> theory doesn't explain 2nd order effects. Just haven't gotten around to
>>> it yet. But just for comparison, Newtonian physics also explains only
>>> first order effects. Do you reject it? Whatever. I'm done with your dissembling.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> to Odd one:
> <blocked>
>