On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> >> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
> >
> > Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
> >
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> > clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> autisticly repeat it.

Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
24*60*60 seconds. Your idiot guru has lost. Common sense has
won. It always wins.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:53:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> > >> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
> > >
> > > Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
> > >
> > >
> > > In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> > > clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
> > Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> > autisticly repeat it.
> Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
> both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
> 24*60*60 seconds. Your idiot guru has lost. Common sense has
> won. It always wins.

Not sure exactly what your point is. If those two clocks were brought together, they would not count the same number of seconds. They are preprogrammed to tick at a rate which is appropriate for the frame of reference they WILL be in when operating.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 15:11:27 UTC+1, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:53:46 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> > > >> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
> > > >
> > > > Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> > > > clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
> > > Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> > > autisticly repeat it.
> > Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
> > both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
> > 24*60*60 seconds. Your idiot guru has lost. Common sense has
> > won. It always wins.
> Not sure exactly what your point is. If those two clocks were brought together, they would not count the same number of seconds.

But you do understand the difference between "it is"
and "it would be if[...]"?

The point is simple: coordinates and their properties
are a matter of choice. Time included. They always
were. Gurus physicists may scream "no choice, we are
FORCED!" but the choice is there and we're not.

According to physics we should choose its dilating junk,
according to common sense we should choose clocks
measuring t'=t. We have GPS, TAI, UTC, we can check
what is chosen for real. Common sense has won,
physics has lost. Game over.

On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
>>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
>>>
>>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
>>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.

>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
>> autisticly repeat it.
>
> Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
> both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
> 24*60*60 seconds.

The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
MHz, and the satellite’s frequency when viewed from Earth appears as
10.23 MHz. In other words t' != t.

> Your idiot guru has lost.

I don't know who your idiot guru is, but the point is that Einstein's GR
has won, since the GPS system works as designed.

> Common sense has won. It always wins.

Whose common sense? It varies from person to person.
Fortunately for GPS users, the common sense that to receive a signal at
10.23 MHz means to transmit at 10.23 MHz is known to be wrong, science
wins over incorrect common sense.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 15:42:58 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> >>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
> >>>
> >>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> >>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
>
> >> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> >> autisticly repeat it.
> >
> > Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
> > both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
> > 24*60*60 seconds.
> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543

No, stupid Mike, it is not. Measured with the GPS satellite clock
(the one set to the serious second instead your ISO idiocy)
it is 10.23 as well.

> > Your idiot guru has lost.
> I don't know who your idiot guru is, but the point is that Einstein's GR
> has won, since the GPS system works as designed.

Sure. As designed by common sense, as forbidden
by your idiot guru and his idiot minions. According
to your moronic science Cs clocks should be set
to 9 192 631 770 - always, everywhere. They're
not. Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
> MHz, and the satellite’s frequency when viewed from Earth appears as
> 10.23 MHz. In other words t' != t.

idiot, it can't be higher.

On 2021-10-30 02:16:34 +0000, Dono. said:

> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>>> Another important point to bear in mind is that, given two
>>> identically-constructed rods of rest length L0 and moving with relative
>>> speed v, each rod has the spatial length L0*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the
>>> inertial coordinates in which the other rod is at rest. Likewise each
>>> of two relativity moving clocks runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in
>>> terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. Do you
>>> agree?
>> I don't think so. The transformation is symmetrical in the sense that
>> both observers will get the same measurements as each other.
>
> We are dealing with a Dingle. Hopeless.

I see your point, but you're being too kind to Tom Capizzi. For all his
faults Herbert Dingle was a real physicist with some idea of what he
was talking about. The various nutters who post here are not in the
same class.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2021 1:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 22:50:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> >>>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
> >>>
> >>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> >>> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
>
> >> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> >> autisticly repeat it.
> >
> > Sorry, poor trash: between 2021-11-02 00:00 and 2021-11-03 00:00
> > both a ground GPS clock and a satellite GPS clocks will count
> > 24*60*60 seconds.
>
> The overall GPS SYSTEM time agrees with a ground clock, yes, however the
> point is that the frequency transmitted by a satellite is 10.22999999543
> MHz, and the satellite’s frequency when viewed from Earth appears as
> 10.23 MHz. In other words t' != t.
>
> > Your idiot guru has lost.
>
> I don't know who your idiot guru is, but the point is that Einstein's GR
> has won, since the GPS system works as designed.

Animals have been using GPS since the beginning of time...what took you
guys sooo long?

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

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2021-10-30 02:16:34 +0000, Dono. said:
>
>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> Another important point to bear in mind is that, given two
>>>> identically-constructed rods of rest length L0 and moving with relative
>>>> speed v, each rod has the spatial length L0*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the
>>>> inertial coordinates in which the other rod is at rest. Likewise each
>>>> of two relativity moving clocks runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in
>>>> terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. Do you
>>>> agree?
>>> I don't think so. The transformation is symmetrical in the sense that
>>> both observers will get the same measurements as each other.
>>
>> We are dealing with a Dingle. Hopeless.
>
> I see your point, but you're being too kind to Tom Capizzi. For all his
> faults Herbert Dingle was a real physicist with some idea of what he
> was talking about. The various nutters who post here are not in the
> same class.
>

However, in some encouraging news, a lot of persistent nutters have vacated
sci.physics.relativity lately.

Henry Wilson, Ken Seto, Robert Winn, Engr. Ravi, David Seppala, Ed Lake,
all seem to have come to the slow realization that talking about something
they know nothing about is fruitless boondoggling. The only ones that seem
to be remaining are the angry, incoherent, truly insane ones like Pentcho
“Bulgarian on Twitter” Valev, Mitch “Homeless Guy” Raimsch, Malu “Off His
Meds” Wozniak. Oh, and that recalcitrant propagandist Richard Hertz, who is
by far the largest contributor of noise here today.

Is this a good thing? I know how I’d vote.

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

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Michael Moroney wrote:

> > I don't know who your idiot guru is, but the point is that Einstein's GR
> > has won, since the GPS system works as designed.
>
> Animals have been using GPS since the beginning of time...what took you
> guys sooo long?

probably yous tooo busy trying to destroy the earth....

reset the earth.

Yous need something bigger than a china virus...a virus that kills everybody faster.

How about start with a virus that kills only Jewish people? Then NOBODY would try to find a cure...

just like the old days...maybe get IBM to help.

What's next? Niggers! Nobody will bother to find a cure...never gets FDA approval.

What's next? A real honest to goodness Chink Virus!

What's next?

Of course, anyone who tries to find a cure will be ...assassinated.
(like Israel assassinates Iranian nucleur scientists) (which you people look the other way...)

Why ruin a good thing?

What's next, who's next? Who is a problem??

Fuck'em, kill them all...

but leave me at least one girl.

I don't trust you guys...

I'm going to have to go on another planet and
wait to yous kill
all yous others off...

Everybody is waiting for the next...Einstein.

Here are some ideas Einstein had about how to get rid of all yous people...

"Certainly the possibility can be envisaged of building a bomb of far greater size, capable of producing destruction over a larger area. " -Albert Einstein

"It also is credible that an extensive use could be made of radioactivated gases which would spread over a wide region, causing heavy loss of life without damage to buildings." Albert Einstein

"...believe it is necessary to go on beyond these possibilities to contemplate a vast extension of bacteriological warfare." Albert Einstein

"....starting a chain reaction of a scope great enough to destroy part or all of this planet." - Albert Einstein

"...imagine the earth being destroyed like a nova by a stellar explosion" -Albert Einstein

Trust the science.

You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.

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

Op 02-nov.-2021 om 18:11 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2021-10-30 02:16:34 +0000, Dono. said:
>>
>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>> Another important point to bear in mind is that, given two
>>>>> identically-constructed rods of rest length L0 and moving with relative
>>>>> speed v, each rod has the spatial length L0*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the
>>>>> inertial coordinates in which the other rod is at rest. Likewise each
>>>>> of two relativity moving clocks runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in
>>>>> terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. Do you
>>>>> agree?
>>>> I don't think so. The transformation is symmetrical in the sense that
>>>> both observers will get the same measurements as each other.
>>>
>>> We are dealing with a Dingle. Hopeless.
>>
>> I see your point, but you're being too kind to Tom Capizzi. For all his
>> faults Herbert Dingle was a real physicist with some idea of what he
>> was talking about. The various nutters who post here are not in the
>> same class.
>>
>
> However, in some encouraging news, a lot of persistent nutters have vacated
> sci.physics.relativity lately.
>
> Henry Wilson, Ken Seto, Robert Winn, Engr. Ravi, David Seppala, Ed Lake,
> all seem to have come to the slow realization that talking about something
> they know nothing about is fruitless boondoggling. The only ones that seem
> to be remaining are the angry, incoherent, truly insane ones like Pentcho
> “Bulgarian on Twitter” Valev, Mitch “Homeless Guy” Raimsch, Malu “Off His
> Meds” Wozniak. Oh, and that recalcitrant propagandist Richard Hertz, who is
> by far the largest contributor of noise here today.
>
> Is this a good thing? I know how I’d vote.

Lake and Seppala will be back soon.
They are brooding on something. I can smell it.

Dirk Vdm

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 18:11:11 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > On 2021-10-30 02:16:34 +0000, Dono. said:
> >
> >> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> >>>> Another important point to bear in mind is that, given two
> >>>> identically-constructed rods of rest length L0 and moving with relative
> >>>> speed v, each rod has the spatial length L0*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the
> >>>> inertial coordinates in which the other rod is at rest. Likewise each
> >>>> of two relativity moving clocks runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in
> >>>> terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. Do you
> >>>> agree?
> >>> I don't think so. The transformation is symmetrical in the sense that
> >>> both observers will get the same measurements as each other.
> >>
> >> We are dealing with a Dingle. Hopeless.
> >
> > I see your point, but you're being too kind to Tom Capizzi. For all his
> > faults Herbert Dingle was a real physicist with some idea of what he
> > was talking about. The various nutters who post here are not in the
> > same class.
> >
> However, in some encouraging news, a lot of persistent nutters have vacated
> sci.physics.relativity lately.
>
> Henry Wilson, Ken Seto, Robert Winn, Engr. Ravi, David Seppala, Ed Lake,
> all seem to have come to the slow realization that talking about something
> they know nothing about is fruitless boondoggling.

But there is absolutely no chance that it could ever happen to you or
any of your fellow idiots.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-10-30 02:16:34 +0000, Dono. said:
>
> > On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> >>> Another important point to bear in mind is that, given two
> >>> identically-constructed rods of rest length L0 and moving with relative
> >>> speed v, each rod has the spatial length L0*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the
> >>> inertial coordinates in which the other rod is at rest. Likewise each
> >>> of two relativity moving clocks runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in
> >>> terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. Do you
> >>> agree?
> >> I don't think so. The transformation is symmetrical in the sense that
> >> both observers will get the same measurements as each other.
> >
> > We are dealing with a Dingle. Hopeless.
>
> I see your point, but you're being too kind to Tom Capizzi. For all his
> faults Herbert Dingle was a real physicist with some idea of what he
> was talking about. The various nutters who post here are not in the
> same class.
>
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

And you have no point. All of you ignorant skeptics are all talk and no substance. I never claimed to be a physicist. I just claim to be right. Not a single one of the crackpot skeptics has proved otherwise, but you all continue to make the same unsubstantiated claims. Good thing I ignore such idiocy. It could give someone an inferiority complex.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 17:38:08 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-10-30 02:16:34 +0000, Dono. said:
>
> > On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> >>> Another important point to bear in mind is that, given two
> >>> identically-constructed rods of rest length L0 and moving with relative
> >>> speed v, each rod has the spatial length L0*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the
> >>> inertial coordinates in which the other rod is at rest. Likewise each
> >>> of two relativity moving clocks runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in
> >>> terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. Do you
> >>> agree?
> >> I don't think so. The transformation is symmetrical in the sense that
> >> both observers will get the same measurements as each other.
> >
> > We are dealing with a Dingle. Hopeless.
>
> I see your point, but you're being too kind to Tom Capizzi. For all his
> faults Herbert Dingle was a real physicist with some idea of what he
> was talking about.

Sorry, trash - being a physicist is excluding having some
idea of what you're talking about.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:00:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> All of you ignorant skeptics are all talk and no substance.

Not true, I've addressed the substance with several careful and detailed comments, explaining (for example) the meaning of "length" in relativistic length contraction... which was the subject of this sub-thread. In summary, the length at time t of a solid rod (in equilibrium) in terms of a given system S of inertial coordinates x,y,z,t is defined as the spatial distance (square root of the sum of squares of the coordinate differences) between the ends of the rod at any given time t (of S).

> I claim that ... the derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to the same time
> is Newtonian velocity.

No, the velocity of a particle in terms of any specified system of coordinates is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt.

> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.

This was already answered in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when it is stationary. It has always been understood (by scientists) that the term "relativistic mass" (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2.

If there is anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear, go ahead and point it out.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:48:02 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > I don't know who your idiot guru is, but the point is that Einstein's GR
> > > has won, since the GPS system works as designed.
> >
> > Animals have been using GPS since the beginning of time...what took you
> > guys sooo long?
> probably yous tooo busy trying to destroy the earth....
>
> reset the earth.
>
> Yous need something bigger than a china virus...a virus that kills everybody faster.
>
> How about start with a virus that kills only Jewish people? Then NOBODY would try to find a cure...
>
> just like the old days...maybe get IBM to help.
>
> What's next? Niggers! Nobody will bother to find a cure...never gets FDA approval.
>
> What's next? A real honest to goodness Chink Virus!
>
> What's next?
>
>
> Of course, anyone who tries to find a cure will be ...assassinated.
> (like Israel assassinates Iranian nucleur scientists) (which you people look the other way...)
>
>
> Why ruin a good thing?
>
>
> What's next, who's next? Who is a problem??
>
> Fuck'em, kill them all...
>
> but leave me at least one girl.
>
> I don't trust you guys...
>
> I'm going to have to go on another planet and
> wait to yous kill
> all yous others off...
>
> Everybody is waiting for the next...Einstein.
>
>
> Here are some ideas Einstein had about how to get rid of all yous people....
>
> "Certainly the possibility can be envisaged of building a bomb of far greater size, capable of producing destruction over a larger area. " -Albert Einstein
>
> "It also is credible that an extensive use could be made of radioactivated gases which would spread over a wide region, causing heavy loss of life without damage to buildings." Albert Einstein
>
> "...believe it is necessary to go on beyond these possibilities to contemplate a vast extension of bacteriological warfare." Albert Einstein
>
> "....starting a chain reaction of a scope great enough to destroy part or all of this planet." - Albert Einstein
>
> "...imagine the earth being destroyed like a nova by a stellar explosion" -Albert Einstein
>
> Trust the science.
>
> You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

In my darker moods, I wonder if Einstein realized the truth about hypercomplex geometry, and intentionally supported nuclear weapons as a way to discourage any thought of hypertechnology weapons. This technology makes nuclear weapons seem like 4th of July sparklers, even H-bombs. Think of it this way. Scientists have estimated that it would take the entire output of the US energy grid for a year to power a modest size ship to a nearby star system and back. Now imagine if all that power were released in one place at the same time. That's what will happen if we allow the rogues who profit off war to get their hands on this technology before there are any regulations. This technology could actually reverse all the climate damage that greed has caused. Or, it could destroy us all. If we do nothing, greed will destroy us all, anyway. We are at a crossroads here, much like Earth in the Gary7 episode of the original Star Trek. As you may recall, the Enterprise was on a mission to figure out how the planet survived a destructive arms race to become a member of the Federation. Loss of historical records or something. Anyway, his plan was to create a crisis that could lead to total annihilation and miraculously save the day at the last possible second. The idea was that coming so close to disaster would bring all the governments together to a peaceful future. Unless we cooperate with this technology, we will not reach that future.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 20:18:59 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:

> No, the velocity of a particle in terms of any specified system of coordinates is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt.

No, your idiot gurus with their inflation nonsense
have refuted this common sense prejudice.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2021-10-30 02:16:34 +0000, Dono. said:
>>
>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 6:45:13 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:15:41 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>> Another important point to bear in mind is that, given two
>>>>> identically-constructed rods of rest length L0 and moving with relative
>>>>> speed v, each rod has the spatial length L0*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the
>>>>> inertial coordinates in which the other rod is at rest. Likewise each
>>>>> of two relativity moving clocks runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in
>>>>> terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other is at rest. Do you
>>>>> agree?
>>>> I don't think so. The transformation is symmetrical in the sense that
>>>> both observers will get the same measurements as each other.
>>>
>>> We are dealing with a Dingle. Hopeless.
>>
>> I see your point, but you're being too kind to Tom Capizzi. For all his
>> faults Herbert Dingle was a real physicist with some idea of what he
>> was talking about. The various nutters who post here are not in the
>> same class.
>>
>> --
>> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
>
> And you have no point. All of you ignorant skeptics are all talk and no
> substance. I never claimed to be a physicist. I just claim to be right.

It’s not clear what you claim to be right about, though.

What you say you have is an alternative explanation for relativity’s
results, and which matches experimental results item for item. Since the
measure of a scientific theory’s validity is how well it matches
experiment, then at most it can be only equally right as relativity as far
as science is concerned.

Then you say it is “more right” because it appeals to your common sense
better. But appealing to common sense is not, nor has it ever been, a
measure of “right” in science, and to insist that it should be is just
silly and misses the point.

Then you say that your own personal definitions of length (as well as
momentum and who knows what other things) are better than the basic
definitions used in physics and agreed upon by physicists. If they don’t
conform to the agreed upon meaning by which effective communication is
enabled, in what sense are your definitions more “right”?

In effect, you are insisting that you are right until someone proves to you
that your idea is logically, internally inconsistent, which you say is the
only way you would admit that it’s wrong. That bar has nothing to do with
science, where there are lots and lots of perfectly logically consistent
ideas which re nonetheless wrong.

It’s a silly strawman idea of how you think science should work.

> Not a single one of the crackpot skeptics has proved otherwise, but you
> all continue to make the same unsubstantiated claims. Good thing I ignore
> such idiocy. It could give someone an inferiority complex.
>

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

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> What you say you have is an alternative explanation for relativity’s
> results, and which matches experimental results item for item. Since the
> measure of a scientific theory’s validity is how well it matches
> experiment, then at most it can be only equally right as relativity as far
> as science is concerned.
>
> Then you say it is “more right” because it appeals to your common sense
> better. But appealing to common sense is not, nor has it ever been, a
> measure of “right” in science,

Or, at least, it’s a silly strawman idea of how you think science should work.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:18:59 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:00:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > All of you ignorant skeptics are all talk and no substance.
> Not true, I've addressed the substance with several careful and detailed comments, explaining (for example) the meaning of "length" in relativistic length contraction... which was the subject of this sub-thread. In summary, the length at time t of a solid rod (in equilibrium) in terms of a given system S of inertial coordinates x,y,z,t is defined as the spatial distance (square root of the sum of squares of the coordinate differences) between the ends of the rod at any given time t (of S).
>
> > I claim that ... the derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> > complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to the same time
> > is Newtonian velocity.
> No, the velocity of a particle in terms of any specified system of coordinates is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt.
> > I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.
> This was already answered in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when it is stationary. It has always been understood (by scientists) that the term "relativistic mass" (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2.
>
> If there is anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear, go ahead and point it out.

You just proved my point. All talk, no substance. Some idiot here tried to use a train to model relativistic effects. So, answer this question. When the train is going around a curve, how long is it from engine to caboose? According to your half-assed definition, the length of the train is the distance between the two cars. Well on a curve, that depends on how you define length. The length between the 1st and last car is the straightline distance between the endpoints. According to me it is the length along the track. Your brain-dead logic only allows one definition. And it is the line that jumps the tracks. The line that special relativity calls length, according to you.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > What you say you have is an alternative explanation for relativity’s
> > results, and which matches experimental results item for item. Since the
> > measure of a scientific theory’s validity is how well it matches
> > experiment, then at most it can be only equally right as relativity as far
> > as science is concerned.
> >
> > Then you say it is “more right” because it appeals to your common sense
> > better. But appealing to common sense is not, nor has it ever been, a
> > measure of “right” in science,
> Or, at least, it’s a silly strawman idea of how you think science should work.

Agreeing with common sense is just gravy. You apparently have no conception of what an isomorphism is. With respect to the logarithm, addition and multiplication are isomorphisms. But there is no way, in general, that the two operations can be exchanged. Exponents add and exponentials multiply. Relativity asserts that solid objects shrink because we get shorter measurements. Nevermind that there is no force to overcome nuclear repulsive forces. Relativity is wrong. Length contraction is an illusion, one that we can measure, but an illusion, nonetheless. Nothing shrinks, period.

Op 02-nov.-2021 om 20:38 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:18:59 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:00:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> All of you ignorant skeptics are all talk and no substance.
>> Not true, I've addressed the substance with several careful and detailed comments, explaining (for example) the meaning of "length" in relativistic length contraction... which was the subject of this sub-thread. In summary, the length at time t of a solid rod (in equilibrium) in terms of a given system S of inertial coordinates x,y,z,t is defined as the spatial distance (square root of the sum of squares of the coordinate differences) between the ends of the rod at any given time t (of S).
>>
>>> I claim that ... the derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
>>> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to the same time
>>> is Newtonian velocity.
>> No, the velocity of a particle in terms of any specified system of coordinates is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt.
>>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.
>> This was already answered in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when it is stationary. It has always been understood (by scientists) that the term "relativistic mass" (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2.
>>
>> If there is anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear, go ahead and point it out.
>
> You just proved my point. All talk, no substance. Some idiot here tried to use a train to model relativistic effects. So, answer this question. When the train is going around a curve, how long is it from engine to caboose? According to your half-assed definition, the length of the train is the distance between the two cars. Well on a curve, that depends on how you define length. The length between the 1st and last car is the straightline distance between the endpoints. According to me it is the length along the track. Your brain-dead logic only allows one definition. And it is the line that jumps the tracks. The line that special relativity calls length, according to you.
>

Mr. Townes Olson doesn't realize that you are merely here for this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

Dirk Vdm

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 1:48:02 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't know who your idiot guru is, but the point is that Einstein's GR
>>>> has won, since the GPS system works as designed.
>>>
>>> Animals have been using GPS since the beginning of time...what took you
>>> guys sooo long?
>> probably yous tooo busy trying to destroy the earth....
>>
>> reset the earth.
>>
>> Yous need something bigger than a china virus...a virus that kills everybody faster.
>>
>> How about start with a virus that kills only Jewish people? Then NOBODY
>> would try to find a cure...
>>
>> just like the old days...maybe get IBM to help.
>>
>> What's next? Niggers! Nobody will bother to find a cure...never gets FDA approval.
>>
>> What's next? A real honest to goodness Chink Virus!
>>
>> What's next?
>>
>>
>> Of course, anyone who tries to find a cure will be ...assassinated.
>> (like Israel assassinates Iranian nucleur scientists) (which you people
>> look the other way...)
>>
>>
>> Why ruin a good thing?
>>
>>
>> What's next, who's next? Who is a problem??
>>
>> Fuck'em, kill them all...
>>
>> but leave me at least one girl.
>>
>> I don't trust you guys...
>>
>> I'm going to have to go on another planet and
>> wait to yous kill
>> all yous others off...
>>
>> Everybody is waiting for the next...Einstein.
>>
>>
>> Here are some ideas Einstein had about how to get rid of all yous people...
>>
>> "Certainly the possibility can be envisaged of building a bomb of far
>> greater size, capable of producing destruction over a larger area. " -Albert Einstein
>>
>> "It also is credible that an extensive use could be made of
>> radioactivated gases which would spread over a wide region, causing
>> heavy loss of life without damage to buildings." Albert Einstein
>>
>> "...believe it is necessary to go on beyond these possibilities to
>> contemplate a vast extension of bacteriological warfare." Albert Einstein
>>
>> "....starting a chain reaction of a scope great enough to destroy part
>> or all of this planet." - Albert Einstein
>>
>> "...imagine the earth being destroyed like a nova by a stellar
>> explosion" -Albert Einstein
>>
>> Trust the science.
>>
>> You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
> In my darker moods, I wonder if Einstein realized the truth about hypercomplex geometry,

You are using a differential geometry term. Could you please state what you
think it means?

The rest of your science fiction fanboy stuff ignored.

> and intentionally supported nuclear weapons as a way to discourage any
> thought of hypertechnology weapons. This technology makes nuclear weapons
> seem like 4th of July sparklers, even H-bombs. Think of it this way.
> Scientists have estimated that it would take the entire output of the US
> energy grid for a year to power a modest size ship to a nearby star
> system and back. Now imagine if all that power were released in one place
> at the same time. That's what will happen if we allow the rogues who
> profit off war to get their hands on this technology before there are any
> regulations. This technology could actually reverse all the climate
> damage that greed has caused. Or, it could destroy us all. If we do
> nothing, greed will destroy us all, anyway. We are at a crossroads here,
> much like Earth in the Gary7 episode of the original Star Trek. As you
> may recall, the Enterprise was on a mission to figure out how the planet
> survived a destructive arms race to become a member of the Federation.
> Loss of historical records or something. Anyway, his plan was to create a
> crisis that could lead to total annihilation and miraculously save the
> day at the last possible second. The idea was that coming so close to
> disaster would bring all the governments together to a peaceful future.
> Unless we cooperate with this technology, we will not reach that future.
>

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What you say you have is an alternative explanation for relativity’s
>>> results, and which matches experimental results item for item. Since the
>>> measure of a scientific theory’s validity is how well it matches
>>> experiment, then at most it can be only equally right as relativity as far
>>> as science is concerned.
>>>
>>> Then you say it is “more right” because it appeals to your common sense
>>> better. But appealing to common sense is not, nor has it ever been, a
>>> measure of “right” in science,
>> Or, at least, it’s a silly strawman idea of how you think science should work.
>
> Agreeing with common sense is just gravy. You apparently have no
> conception of what an isomorphism is.

I think I’ve asked you what you think an isomorphism is. You haven’t
answered.

> With respect to the logarithm, addition and multiplication are isomorphisms.

I wonder what this means.

> But there is no way, in general, that the two operations can be
> exchanged. Exponents add and exponentials multiply. Relativity asserts
> that solid objects shrink because we get shorter measurements. Nevermind
> that there is no force to overcome nuclear repulsive forces. Relativity
> is wrong. Length contraction is an illusion, one that we can measure, but
> an illusion, nonetheless. Nothing shrinks, period.
>

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

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:52:20 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 02-nov.-2021 om 20:38 schreef Tom Capizzi:
> > On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 3:18:59 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:00:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> All of you ignorant skeptics are all talk and no substance.
> >> Not true, I've addressed the substance with several careful and detailed comments, explaining (for example) the meaning of "length" in relativistic length contraction... which was the subject of this sub-thread. In summary, the length at time t of a solid rod (in equilibrium) in terms of a given system S of inertial coordinates x,y,z,t is defined as the spatial distance (square root of the sum of squares of the coordinate differences) between the ends of the rod at any given time t (of S).
> >>
> >>> I claim that ... the derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> >>> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to the same time
> >>> is Newtonian velocity.
> >> No, the velocity of a particle in terms of any specified system of coordinates is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt.
> >>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.
> >> This was already answered in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when it is stationary. It has always been understood (by scientists) that the term "relativistic mass" (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2.
> >>
> >> If there is anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear, go ahead and point it out.
> >
> > You just proved my point. All talk, no substance. Some idiot here tried to use a train to model relativistic effects. So, answer this question. When the train is going around a curve, how long is it from engine to caboose? According to your half-assed definition, the length of the train is the distance between the two cars. Well on a curve, that depends on how you define length. The length between the 1st and last car is the straightline distance between the endpoints. According to me it is the length along the track. Your brain-dead logic only allows one definition. And it is the line that jumps the tracks. The line that special relativity calls length, according to you.
> >
> Mr. Townes Olson doesn't realize that you are merely here for this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
>
> Dirk Vdm

to Dirk:
A f**king comedian thinks he can debate physics.