Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> to Odd:
> <blocked>
>

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> to Odd:
> <blocked>
>

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
>

Yup keep it up. It’s gonna get reeeeeally quiet for you here.

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

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 2:12:11 PM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi wrote:
> 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>

You don't like when your nose is rubbed into shit. It is your own shit , of your ow making.

On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 2:11:15 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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>

What''s the problem , old fart?
It is inconvenient that you were proven to be a crank? The shoe fits, so wear it.

Tom Capizzi wrote:

>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> to Odd: <blocked>

post smaller, you fucking imbecile.

DAN ANDREWS GOES FULL HITLER WITH NEW EMERGENCY POWERS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z4ZDiKpoECQz/

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> 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.

it's like watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon...

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

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