Tom Capizzi wrote:
....
> 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.

Nope. You are the one who do not know what a isomorphism is. Your
sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE.

The correct statement is: Logarithm IS an isomorphism between
the groups (R+*, *) (strictly positive real numbers, multiplication)
and (R, +)

You are even more ignorant of basic algebra than you are of physics.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 20:45:35 UTC+1, tgca...@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.

Both completely baseless assertions.

> 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

:) You know - that's exact opinion of Tom Roberts. He is too
dumb to invent it by himself, so it must be shared by at least
some others prominent relativists.
And it's mad. Sure, you can always measure incorrectly, why
not? Just - what do you think it's going to show if you do?

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

I’m not sure what there is to debate about in physics. Ethics, yes.
Metaphysics, yes. Physics, not so much.

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

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
> Nope. You are the one who do not know what a isomorphism is. Your
> sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE.
>
> The correct statement is: Logarithm IS an isomorphism between
> the groups (R+*, *) (strictly positive real numbers, multiplication)
> and (R, +)
>
> You are even more ignorant of basic algebra than you are of physics.

Big deal. You like talking in big words. A morphism is a mapping. An isomorphism is a bidirectional mapping that preserves binary relationships between the elements. So, I was careless in an illustrative example. Proves nothing, except that you are only interested in being contrary. I don't pay strict attention to details when I deal with trolls. What's the point? They never agree, even when plainly wrong.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:19:00 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 20:45:35 UTC+1, tgca...@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.
> Both completely baseless assertions.
> > 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
> :) You know - that's exact opinion of Tom Roberts. He is too
> dumb to invent it by himself, so it must be shared by at least
> some others prominent relativists.
> And it's mad. Sure, you can always measure incorrectly, why
> not? Just - what do you think it's going to show if you do?

I don't know Tom Roberts. But you and all the other skeptics are content to defend a hypothesis (won't even call it a theory) in which relatively moving measurements are ALWAYS wrong, yet you make endless rationalizations to justify it.

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> ...
>>> 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.
>> Nope. You are the one who do not know what a isomorphism is. Your
>> sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE.
>>
>> The correct statement is: Logarithm IS an isomorphism between
>> the groups (R+*, *) (strictly positive real numbers, multiplication)
>> and (R, +)
>>
>> You are even more ignorant of basic algebra than you are of physics.
>
> Big deal. You like talking in big words. A morphism is a mapping. An isomorphism is a bidirectional mapping that preserves binary relationships between the elements. So, I was careless in an illustrative example. Proves nothing, except that you are only interested in being contrary. I don't pay strict attention to details when I deal with trolls. What's the point? They never agree, even when plainly wrong.

So far 100% of your claims are nonsense when it comes to maths
or physics. 100%.

You brag about an isomorphism between SR and your theory, but you
have presented NOTHING of your theory.

So yes, "big deal", crank. You cannot force people to agree with
your nonsensical empty gobbledygook.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> ...
>>> 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.
>> Nope. You are the one who do not know what a isomorphism is. Your
>> sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE.
>>
>> The correct statement is: Logarithm IS an isomorphism between
>> the groups (R+*, *) (strictly positive real numbers, multiplication)
>> and (R, +)
>>
>> You are even more ignorant of basic algebra than you are of physics.
>
> Big deal. You like talking in big words. A morphism is a mapping. An
> isomorphism is a bidirectional mapping that preserves binary
> relationships between the elements.

Direct text grab from the first Google hit. No surprise there.

> So, I was careless in an illustrative example. Proves nothing, except
> that you are only interested in being contrary. I don't pay strict
> attention to details when I deal with trolls. What's the point? They
> never agree, even when plainly wrong.
>

I think the point is that it’s telling when someone comes to a physics
group and uses words he plainly doesn’t know the meaning of. One naturally
wonders, “Why is this person doing something so foolish? Does he think the
audience is mostly people who don’t know better and will be jargon-dazzled?
Does he really think no one will notice? What is the point, exactly, of
putting on such a masquerade?” It’s one thing to put on a lab coat and a
stethoscope and pretend to be a doctor in an audience of flight attendants
or car salesmen. It’s another level of stupidity to pull that in a room
full of surgeons.

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:19:00 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 20:45:35 UTC+1, tgca...@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.
>> Both completely baseless assertions.
>>> 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
>> :) You know - that's exact opinion of Tom Roberts. He is too
>> dumb to invent it by himself, so it must be shared by at least
>> some others prominent relativists.
>> And it's mad. Sure, you can always measure incorrectly, why
>> not? Just - what do you think it's going to show if you do?
>
> I don't know Tom Roberts. But you and all the other skeptics are content
> to defend a hypothesis (won't even call it a theory) in which relatively
> moving measurements are ALWAYS wrong,

Wrong in what MEASURABLE sense?

If your complaint is that they are philosophically wrong, or feel wrong, or
your common sense tells you they’re wrong, then what does that have to do
with science?

> yet you make endless rationalizations to justify it.
>

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

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> So, answer this question. When the train is going around a curve, how long is it
> from engine to caboose?

As mentioned previously, the length of a curved slender object (or collection of objects) is the sum (integral) of the incremental lengths of the segments composing the object(s). For example, each train car is straight and has rest length L, and the length of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links). A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction (and accelerating).

To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of 100 stationary train cars (each 1/100 of a mile in length), connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v. What will happen? Answer: The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or else jump the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of their motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is just sqrt(1-v^2) mile. That is relativistic length contraction. Remember, already in the 1880's it was known that the laws of electromagnetism imply that solid objects contract in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and this is a real physical contraction. Agreed?

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:29:25 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> 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.
> >> Nope. You are the one who do not know what a isomorphism is. Your
> >> sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE.
> >>
> >> The correct statement is: Logarithm IS an isomorphism between
> >> the groups (R+*, *) (strictly positive real numbers, multiplication)
> >> and (R, +)
> >>
> >> You are even more ignorant of basic algebra than you are of physics.
> >
> > Big deal. You like talking in big words. A morphism is a mapping. An isomorphism is a bidirectional mapping that preserves binary relationships between the elements. So, I was careless in an illustrative example. Proves nothing, except that you are only interested in being contrary. I don't pay strict attention to details when I deal with trolls. What's the point? They never agree, even when plainly wrong.
> So far 100% of your claims are nonsense when it comes to maths
> or physics. 100%.
>
> You brag about an isomorphism between SR and your theory, but you
> have presented NOTHING of your theory.
>
> So yes, "big deal", crank. You cannot force people to agree with
> your nonsensical empty gobbledygook.

Proved my point. Trolls never agree. The bigger point is that I realize I've already achieved my objective, and I let the trolls distract me with their inane nit-picking. Way back before I understood how crooked (or should I say 'bent'?) the rules of relativity are, my goal was to create a model in which special relativity was easier to learn. I intended to use my computer screen as an instrument, like an oscilloscope, but for Lorentz Transformations, to display internal connections in a real-time display. When we look at a speedometer, for example, nothing about the speedometer is moving anywhere near as fast as the mph it indicates. With fundamental graphics of Euclidean geometry, I was able to strip the invariant dimensions, and enhance the affected dimensions. It wasn't intended to be an alternative to Minkowski spacetime.
In creating the graphic simulations (animation is not formal enough to describe the mapping between the equations and the pixel coordinates), I found a consistency with a larger geometrical structure. And in Euclidean geometry, I discovered that Einstein contradicted himself. Since Minkowski geometry would not exist for another 3 or so years after Einstein first published relativity, the fact that he contradicted himself in Euclidean geometry must be taken seriously. So, even though the contradiction sort of vanishes in Minkowski geometry, the rules of logic were corrupted for special relativity, to allow subjective realities to replace an objective reality with contradictions. My point is, no matter how you cover it up, special relativity is based on a contradiction. Although rationalized away by Minkowski geometry, it is still bent.
And I found that an 8 dimensional geometry eliminated the need for any special relativity, at all. From this, I concluded that special relativity was an artifact of trying to cram 8 dimensions worth of data into 4 dimensions. Further, I found that the "contracted" units of relativity were precisely the same size as the cosine projection of an invariant unit rotated into one of the higher dimensions. I know that coincidence is not causation, but if my objective is just to illustrate a sterile formula with an interactive screen display, then, whether it is really the reason for the physical observation, that is no longer relevant. Because if I use the formula to put the pixels in place, they will agree with every physical measurement ever recorded. Kind of like Proper velocity. Physics asserts that it is a mathematical convenience only, because Proper velocity can exceed c. Yet it is the Lorentz transformable 3-velocity in the 4-velocity, and it is exactly the same velocity that an invariant mass has to have to display the amount of relativistic momentum that all labs detect. So, according to mainstream physics, it is just a coincidence that Proper velocity tracks relativistic momentum linearly. They would rather keep their empirical fudge factor than admit their commandment is false. But if I use the secant of the circular angle to calculate where to locate a pixel, it will always agree with the Lorentz predictions.
I am under no obligation to reveal my code. But I guarantee that every pixel it plots will be within 1/2-pixel of where it is supposed to be. Any degree of testing will confirm the placing. When I do release the code, I don't promise that it will be elegant or efficient. It is code written to draw an image, with an arbitrary input from the user. You can insert print statements everywhere, and as the arbitrary input is smoothly incremented, the points are plotted and recorded.
The point is, the axial projections on the axes that are affected by relative velocity are the coordinates of special relativity. There is a 1:1 correspondence between the axial components of multidimensional units and the units of relativity. All the relationships are identical. That's why I claim it's an isomorphism. But the isomorphism is only with half the dimensions of the space. Einstein and Lorentz say nothing about these other components. In 4 dimensions, they don't exist. But when we see them added vectorially, we realize that their sum is invariant, just like the co-moving observer claimed all along. What the moving observer measured was that part of the invariant whole that was parallel to the axis, the dot product in Euclidean geometry. So, we can say, Einstein's relativity is just the cosine projection of 8D reality. There are undoubtedly an infinity of ways to describe the invisible missing components. And since we do not have the technology to measure them directly, it will be difficult to prove or disprove. So, I chose to illustrate the simplest one. The one in which relativistic effects are completely accounted for by rigid rotation. So, except for the extra dimensions, it involves only basic Euclidean geometry operations. Had I found a contradiction, a more complicated model would have been necessary. But, we are here because no such contradiction occurred.
And yet the trolls keep trying to annoy me. One of them mentioned a "killfile". Got to see if my reader has that feature. I'm quite sure that if one of those morons could find a flaw in my work, then so would someone intelligent. Eventually, it would get my attention. In any case, I'll be inviting my followers from other platforms to tune in on Usenet, and they don't deserve the indiscriminate heckling of this group's trolls.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:54:56 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So, answer this question. When the train is going around a curve, how long is it
> > from engine to caboose?
> As mentioned previously, the length of a curved slender object (or collection of objects) is the sum (integral) of the incremental lengths of the segments composing the object(s). For example, each train car is straight and has rest length L, and the length of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links). A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction (and accelerating).
>
> To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of 100 stationary train cars (each 1/100 of a mile in length), connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v. What will happen? Answer: The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or else jump the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of their motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is just sqrt(1-v^2) mile. That is relativistic length contraction. Remember, already in the 1880's it was known that the laws of electromagnetism imply that solid objects contract in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and this is a real physical contraction. Agreed?

No. Not agreed. There is no physical contraction. It is a flaw in the process of measurement. And special relativity gives this flaw holy status. To question it is heresy. You are wasting my time, flatlander.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 23:54:56 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So, answer this question. When the train is going around a curve, how long is it
> > from engine to caboose?
> As mentioned previously, the length of a curved slender object (or collection of objects) is the sum (integral) of the incremental lengths of the segments composing the object(s). For example, each train car is straight and has rest length L, and the length of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links). A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction (and accelerating).
>
> To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of 100 stationary train cars (each 1/100 of a mile in length), connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v. What will happen? Answer: The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or else jump the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of their motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is just sqrt(1-v^2) mile. That is relativistic length contraction. Remember, already in the 1880's it was known that the laws of electromagnetism imply that solid objects contract in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and this is a real physical contraction. Agreed?

No. That is just "real" for an observer at rest with the track, not for an observer on the train. Which does give reason to ponder...

(To explain anything relativity, at least at a pedagogical level, I think one should always explicitly consider both/all observer's points of view.)

Julio

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 4:38:46 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:

> And I found that an 8 dimensional geometry eliminated the need for any special relativity, at all. From this, I concluded that special relativity was an artifact of trying to cram 8 dimensions worth of data into 4 dimensions. Further, I found that the "contracted" units of relativity were precisely the same size as the cosine projection of an invariant unit rotated into one of the higher dimensions.

Nurse,

Please send for the straightjacket for lunatic asylum patient Tom Capizzi. And do not forget the water hose.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 00:57:05 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 4:38:46 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And I found that an 8 dimensional geometry eliminated the need for any special relativity, at all. From this, I concluded that special relativity was an artifact of trying to cram 8 dimensions worth of data into 4 dimensions. Further, I found that the "contracted" units of relativity were precisely the same size as the cosine projection of an invariant unit rotated into one of the higher dimensions.
> Nurse,
>
> Please send for the straightjacket for lunatic asylum patient Tom Capizzi.. And do not forget the water hose.

You just can't allow that, can you. Piece of shit...

*Plonk*

Julio

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:54:56 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 12:38:08 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> So, answer this question. When the train is going around a curve, how long is it
>>> from engine to caboose?
>> As mentioned previously, the length of a curved slender object (or
>> collection of objects) is the sum (integral) of the incremental lengths
>> of the segments composing the object(s). For example, each train car is
>> straight and has rest length L, and the length of the train is the sum
>> of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links). A train that
>> is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in any
>> inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different
>> direction (and accelerating).
>>
>> To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track,
>> one mile in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a
>> set of 100 stationary train cars (each 1/100 of a mile in length),
>> connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around the track. Now suppose we
>> slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v. What will happen?
>> Answer: The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or
>> else jump the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of
>> their motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the
>> un-stretched cars is just sqrt(1-v^2) mile. That is relativistic length
>> contraction. Remember, already in the 1880's it was known that the laws of
>> electromagnetism imply that solid objects contract in the direction of
>> motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and this is a real physical contraction. Agreed?
>
> No. Not agreed. There is no physical contraction. It is a flaw in the
> process of measurement.

The cars separating from each other is not going to be “flaw in the process
of measurement.” Perhaps you should explain why you are so firmly fixed on
the idea of length being a frame invariant. Do you have any RATIONALE for
believing it, or do you just hold it as some sacred writ?

> And special relativity gives this flaw holy status. To question it is
> heresy. You are wasting my time, flatlander.
>

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:29:25 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Nope. You are the one who do not know what a isomorphism is. Your
>>>> sentence makes absolutely NO SENSE.
>>>>
>>>> The correct statement is: Logarithm IS an isomorphism between
>>>> the groups (R+*, *) (strictly positive real numbers, multiplication)
>>>> and (R, +)
>>>>
>>>> You are even more ignorant of basic algebra than you are of physics.
>>>
>>> Big deal. You like talking in big words. A morphism is a mapping. An
>>> isomorphism is a bidirectional mapping that preserves binary
>>> relationships between the elements. So, I was careless in an
>>> illustrative example. Proves nothing, except that you are only
>>> interested in being contrary. I don't pay strict attention to details
>>> when I deal with trolls. What's the point? They never agree, even when plainly wrong.
>> So far 100% of your claims are nonsense when it comes to maths
>> or physics. 100%.
>>
>> You brag about an isomorphism between SR and your theory, but you
>> have presented NOTHING of your theory.
>>
>> So yes, "big deal", crank. You cannot force people to agree with
>> your nonsensical empty gobbledygook.
>
> Proved my point. Trolls never agree.

Well, of course you’re not going to get much agreement if you say something
silly.

> The bigger point is that I realize I've already achieved my objective,

Which was what? That you proved something to yourself?

> and I let the trolls distract me with their inane nit-picking. Way back
> before I understood how crooked (or should I say 'bent'?) the rules of
> relativity are, my goal was to create a model in which special relativity
> was easier to learn.

For which you’d need to understand relativity in the first place. Which you
do not.

> I intended to use my computer screen as an instrument, like an
> oscilloscope, but for Lorentz Transformations, to display internal
> connections in a real-time display. When we look at a speedometer, for
> example, nothing about the speedometer is moving anywhere near as fast as
> the mph it indicates. With fundamental graphics of Euclidean geometry, I
> was able to strip the invariant dimensions, and enhance the affected
> dimensions. It wasn't intended to be an alternative to Minkowski spacetime.
> In creating the graphic simulations (animation is not formal enough to
> describe the mapping between the equations and the pixel coordinates), I
> found a consistency with a larger geometrical structure. And in Euclidean
> geometry, I discovered that Einstein contradicted himself.

You have not elucidated those self-contradictions.
The only thing you have called out is a contradiction between relativity
and something YOU believe to be true, the invariance of length. That is not
a self-contradiction. That is a contention between two different beliefs.

> Since Minkowski geometry would not exist for another 3 or so years after
> Einstein first published relativity, the fact that he contradicted
> himself in Euclidean geometry must be taken seriously. So, even though
> the contradiction sort of vanishes in Minkowski geometry, the rules of
> logic were corrupted for special relativity, to allow subjective
> realities to replace an objective reality with contradictions. My point
> is, no matter how you cover it up, special relativity is based on a
> contradiction. Although rationalized away by Minkowski geometry, it is still bent.

Again, no contradiction that you have called out.

> And I found that an 8 dimensional geometry eliminated the need for any
> special relativity, at all. From this, I concluded that special
> relativity was an artifact of trying to cram 8 dimensions worth of data
> into 4 dimensions. Further, I found that the "contracted" units of
> relativity were precisely the same size as the cosine projection of an
> invariant unit rotated into one of the higher dimensions. I know that
> coincidence is not causation, but if my objective is just to illustrate a
> sterile formula with an interactive screen display, then, whether it is
> really the reason for the physical observation, that is no longer
> relevant. Because if I use the formula to put the pixels in place, they
> will agree with every physical measurement ever recorded. Kind of like
> Proper velocity. Physics asserts that it is a mathematical convenience
> only, because Proper velocity can exceed c. Yet it is the Lorentz
> transformable 3-velocity in the 4-velocity, and it is exactly the same
> velocity that an invariant mass has to have to display the amount of
> relativistic momentum that all labs detect. So, according to mainstream
> physics, it is just a coincidence that Proper velocity tracks
> relativistic momentum linearly. They would rather keep their empirical
> fudge factor than admit their commandment is false. But if I use the
> secant of the circular angle to calculate where to locate a pixel, it
> will always agree with the Lorentz predictions.
> I am under no obligation to reveal my code. But I guarantee that every
> pixel it plots will be within 1/2-pixel of where it is supposed to be.
> Any degree of testing will confirm the placing. When I do release the
> code, I don't promise that it will be elegant or efficient. It is code
> written to draw an image, with an arbitrary input from the user. You can
> insert print statements everywhere, and as the arbitrary input is
> smoothly incremented, the points are plotted and recorded.
> The point is, the axial projections on the axes that are affected by
> relative velocity are the coordinates of special relativity. There is a
> 1:1 correspondence between the axial components of multidimensional units
> and the units of relativity. All the relationships are identical. That's
> why I claim it's an isomorphism. But the isomorphism is only with half
> the dimensions of the space. Einstein and Lorentz say nothing about these
> other components. In 4 dimensions, they don't exist. But when we see them
> added vectorially, we realize that their sum is invariant, just like the
> co-moving observer claimed all along. What the moving observer measured
> was that part of the invariant whole that was parallel to the axis, the
> dot product in Euclidean geometry. So, we can say, Einstein's relativity
> is just the cosine projection of 8D reality. There are undoubtedly an
> infinity of ways to describe the invisible missing components. And since
> we do not have the technology to measure them directly, it will be
> difficult to prove or disprove. So, I chose to illustrate the simplest
> one. The one in which relativistic effects are completely accounted for
> by rigid rotation. So, except for the extra dimensions, it involves only
> basic Euclidean geometry operations. Had I found a contradiction, a more
> complicated model would have been necessary. But, we are here because no
> such contradiction occurred.

I’ll remind you that your idea being useless or wrong has nothing to do
with internal logical inconsistency, though it’s all you’re willing to pay
attention to, as though your stance on it matters.

> And yet the trolls keep trying to annoy me. One of them mentioned a
> "killfile". Got to see if my reader has that feature.

It would be useful if you learned the tools you use.

> I'm quite sure that if one of those morons could find a flaw in my work,
> then so would someone intelligent. Eventually, it would get my attention.
> In any case, I'll be inviting my followers from other platforms to tune
> in on Usenet, and they don't deserve the indiscriminate heckling of this group's trolls.
>

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

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 4:42:23 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > As mentioned previously, the length of a curved slender object (or collection of objects) is the sum (integral) of the incremental lengths of the segments composing the object(s). For example, each train car is straight and has rest length L, and the length of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links). A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction (and accelerating).
> >
> > To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of 100 stationary train cars (each 1/100 of a mile in length), connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v. What will happen? Answer: The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or else jump the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of their motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is just sqrt(1-v^2) mile. That is relativistic length contraction. Remember, already in the 1880's it was known that the laws of electromagnetism imply that solid objects contract in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and this is a real physical contraction. Agreed?
>
> No. Not agreed. There is no physical contraction.

Ah, so we've identified another contradiction in your beliefs, namely, you have said repeatedly that you get the same answers as special relativity does, but now you admit that you don't. According to elementary special relativity the train cars break apart, because the total length of the cars when moving with speed v is just sqrt(1-v^2) miles, whereas the circular track is 1 mile.

> It is a flaw in the process of measurement.

Special relativity says the cars break apart... what "flaw" are you referring to? Are you agreeing that the cars break apart, or not?

This contraction theory of Larmor and Lorentz, in the hands of Einstein, became a means of producing a confusing
pyrotechnic display designed to intellectually impress the masses. Serious calculations were made concerning
the diminution of a human being due to motion.

The poor victim, we are told, is totally unaware of the change in his dimensions because his associates are all suffering
diminution in the same relative proportion. Everything in motion contracts in the same relative ratio.

One cannot even physically determine the actual amount of the alleged contraction. It always eludes you. This fact is
an extraordinarily ingenious protective element inserted, inadvertently perhaps, into the Theory of Relativity.
Nothing can be verified experimentally.

Reality has been dethroned and mathematics has become the final creator, director, judge, jury, and arbiter of the type
and destiny of a physical universe which, no longer, is permitted a voice in these matters.

Anonymous

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 8:26:25 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 4:42:23 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > As mentioned previously, the length of a curved slender object (or collection of objects) is the sum (integral) of the incremental lengths of the segments composing the object(s). For example, each train car is straight and has rest length L, and the length of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars (neglecting the joining links). A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction (and accelerating)..
> > >
> > > To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of 100 stationary train cars (each 1/100 of a mile in length), connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v. What will happen? Answer: The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point (or else jump the tracks), because they are contracted in the direction of their motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is just sqrt(1-v^2) mile. That is relativistic length contraction. Remember, already in the 1880's it was known that the laws of electromagnetism imply that solid objects contract in the direction of motion by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and this is a real physical contraction. Agreed?
> >
> > No. Not agreed. There is no physical contraction.
> Ah, so we've identified another contradiction in your beliefs, namely, you have said repeatedly that you get the same answers as special relativity does, but now you admit that you don't. According to elementary special relativity the train cars break apart, because the total length of the cars when moving with speed v is just sqrt(1-v^2) miles, whereas the circular track is 1 mile.
> > It is a flaw in the process of measurement.
> Special relativity says the cars break apart... what "flaw" are you referring to? Are you agreeing that the cars break apart, or not?

What an idiot. If special relativity says they break apart, so do I. What part of isomorphism don't you get? Special relativity says they break apart because they shrink. I say they break apart because they are twisted off the track by rotation into an extra dimension. Prove otherwise. At least in my interpretation solid matter does not shrink because a moving observer looks at it. The crackpots will argue that it's relative velocity, not absolute velocity. And I will remind them that the choice of reference frame is totally arbitrary, and some of the time, the object IS stationary. But because of relative velocity, it shrinks anyway. At least that's the story from relativity. Anyway, the FLAW is assuming that measurement actually applies to the rest length. Geometrically, and physically, it only applies to the axial projection of the rotated rest length. The axial projection agrees 100% with actual measurements, so you'll have to come up with some other excuse for disregarding the possibility. It's the WYSIWYG paradigm. It is only valid under the same conditions as Newtonian physics is valid. Which means it is not valid at relativistic velocities. Then it must be replaced by the dot product, which reduces to WYSIWYG as relative velocity approaches 0. Otherwise, it is the cosine, or axial, projection. At any relative velocity, that's the most we can expect to measure. And this agrees 100% with experiment: x' = x cos(θ). This is equivalent to x = x' sec(θ) = γ x'. Now, that's relativity for you.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:01:58 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Special relativity says they break apart because they shrink. I say they break
> apart because they are twisted off the track by rotation into an extra dimension.
> Prove otherwise.

The cars are in contact with the track, all along their length, so they are aligned with the track, i.e., they are manifestly not "twisting off the track" spatially.

Now, it is elementary special relativity that the locus of simultaneous events of each train car in terms of its own rest frame is "rotated" into the time dimension (albeit not a Euclidean rotation), i.e., the simultaneities of the cars and the track are skewed. Is this what you are trying to say? Is your "extra dimension" just the time dimension?

On 11/2/2021 12:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> You know what "Trust Me." means?, it means fuck you.

What does fuck you mean, trust me?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 9:36:12 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 6:01:58 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Special relativity says they break apart because they shrink. I say they break
> > apart because they are twisted off the track by rotation into an extra dimension.
> > Prove otherwise.
> The cars are in contact with the track, all along their length, so they are aligned with the track, i.e., they are manifestly not "twisting off the track" spatially.
>
> Now, it is elementary special relativity that the locus of simultaneous events of each train car in terms of its own rest frame is "rotated" into the time dimension (albeit not a Euclidean rotation), i.e., the simultaneities of the cars and the track are skewed. Is this what you are trying to say? Is your "extra dimension" just the time dimension?

Need some remedial arithmetic? Earlier in the conversation, I clearly mentioned what I found just using 8. ALL 4 axial dimensions are essentially bivectors instead of vectors. As bivectors, each is a patch of area, with totally arbitrary shape. Then to say the magnitude of a bivector is constant means that you have defined a hyperbola. And to superimpose a sequence of these hyperbolas as a result of incrementing a constant creates a hyperbolic coordinate system where dimension lines of constant bivector magnitude are hyperbolas. And if the hyperbola is formed by the product of two real eigenvector axes, Σ and Δ, there is a unique relationship between the point (Σ,Δ) and the Minkowski invariant s²: Σ*Δ = s². Even though the point is in Euclidean eigenvector units, the invariant is identical to the Minkowski interval. This is no coincidence. The eigenvectors are ct-r=0 and ct+r=0, with coordinates (ct+r) and (ct-r). And this is where Minkowski became prophetic. He said, "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Although he was talking about his own geometry and spacetime, both eigenvectors of a real Lorentz matrix are, in fact, 50/50 mixtures of time and space. Then, Σ*Δ = (ct+r)(ct-r) = c²t²-r² = s². In other words, the Minkowski invariant is actually just a coordinate in a hyperbolic trigonometry. What we call the equation of an invariant is just a coordinate transform from Euclidean or Minkowski geometries to invariant hyperbolic coordinates. The hyperbolic rotation angle is also the same in both frames as in the invariant hyperbolic coordinate system. We call it rapidity. Bondi called it the natural log of k or 1/k, of his k-calculus. Bondi called it a fundamental ratio. It is the exponential of rapidity, and the reciprocal pair are the real eigenvalues of the Lorentz matrix that boosts the relative velocity to observed levels. One correlation is not causation, but here we have interlocking relationships at multiple levels. This deserves investigation.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 7:36:45 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Special relativity says they break apart because they shrink. I say they break
> > > apart because they are twisted off the track by rotation into an extra dimension.
> >
> > The cars are in contact with the track, all along their length, so they are aligned with the
> > track, i.e., they are manifestly not "twisting off the track" spatially..
> >
> > Now, it is elementary special relativity that the locus of simultaneous events of each train car in terms of its own rest frame is "rotated" into the time dimension (albeit not a Euclidean rotation), i.e., the simultaneities of the cars and the track are skewed. Is this what you are trying to say? Is your "extra dimension" just the time dimension?
>
> Earlier in the conversation, I clearly mentioned what I found just using 8.

So, your answer is No, you are not talking about time as the "extra dimension" into which the rest-locus of an object is skewed when placed in motion. The problem with your answer is that we know, for an objectively verifiable fact, that inertia-based coordinate systems (3 real space coordinates and 1 real time coordinate), as operationally established by clear physical processes, are related by Lorentz transformations. This is a consequence of the inertia of energy, and it fully accounts for all the relativistic phenomena. You have agreed with this, right? So hypothesizing any additional effects would destroy the agreement with the observed phenomena. Right?

On 11/2/2021 11:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 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.

So Janitor, why do the GPS specs *explicitly* state the satellite
transmitter carrier is at 10.22999999543 MHz, not 10.23 MHz? And why do
the specs explicitly mention GR as the reason for that?

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 7:36:45 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Special relativity says they break apart because they shrink. I say they break
> > > > apart because they are twisted off the track by rotation into an extra dimension.
> > >
> > > The cars are in contact with the track, all along their length, so they are aligned with the
> > > track, i.e., they are manifestly not "twisting off the track" spatially.
> > >
> > > Now, it is elementary special relativity that the locus of simultaneous events of each train car in terms of its own rest frame is "rotated" into the time dimension (albeit not a Euclidean rotation), i.e., the simultaneities of the cars and the track are skewed. Is this what you are trying to say? Is your "extra dimension" just the time dimension?
> >
> > Earlier in the conversation, I clearly mentioned what I found just using 8.
> So, your answer is No, you are not talking about time as the "extra dimension" into which the rest-locus of an object is skewed when placed in motion. The problem with your answer is that we know, for an objectively verifiable fact, that inertia-based coordinate systems (3 real space coordinates and 1 real time coordinate), as operationally established by clear physical processes, are related by Lorentz transformations. This is a consequence of the inertia of energy, and it fully accounts for all the relativistic phenomena. You have agreed with this, right? So hypothesizing any additional effects would destroy the agreement with the observed phenomena. Right?

Finally got something right. Time is not one of the extra dimensions, per se. It is one of the original 4, and we already know that it shrinks by the same factor as space. Both time and space have extra magnitude to get rid of, so it can't be going from either one to the other. By allowing each unit to be 2 dimensional, the axial projection rotates into the circular projection. We can't measure the circular projection, so when we measure the axial projection it appears to be contracted. But the vector sum is invariant. The interesting thing is that the angle of the projection is defined by the relative velocity, but is also the gudermannian of the hyperbolic rotation angle that is responsible for the relative velocity.

Here's a thought experiment. It's only an analogy, so don't try to extrapolate it to force a contradiction. We already know that the gudermannian maps rapidity, which ranges from plus to minus infinity, to a circular angle that ranges from plus to minus Pi/2. With this transformation, we can map all 4 of the infinite dimensions of Minkowski spacetime to fit inside a shoebox. The extra 4 dimensions in this model are spikes that are a function of relative velocity, and point OUTSIDE the box. Nothing of them can be measured from inside the box, and anything rotated into one becomes partly unmeasurable, creating the illusion of being shrunken.