On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 9:01:32 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Time ... is one of the original 4 [dimensions], and we already know that it shrinks
> by the same factor as space.

Neither time nor space "shrink" according to special relativity. Talking about space and time shrinking is the kind of thing you find in bad popularizations of relativity, not in actual texts. The correct statement is that, due to the inertia of energy, inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and this entails all the relativistic effects, but it does not signify that either space or time "shrink".

> Both time and space have extra magnitude to get rid of, so it can't be going from either
> one to the other.

As noted above, all the relativistic effects are accounted for by the dynamical fact that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which entails (among things) that the loci of simultaneity for relatively moving systems of coordinates are skewed ("rotated") relative to each other. In other words, the set of events coinciding with a given object at a given time t in terms of S is skewed in time relative to the set of events coinciding with that object at a given time t' in terms of S'. Of course, it isn't a Euclidean rotation, it is a hyperbolic rotation. This is elementary relativity, and it is objectively verifiable. You've actually agreed with all this, so nothing is accomplished by introducing some unobservable elements that have no effect on the phenomena... even by your own account. Agreed?

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 20:41:21 -0500, Clutterfreak
<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:

>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?

Trust me, that's what it means.

When President says, "Trust Me.", it means FUCK YOU!

Anybody who tells you "Trust Me,", is thinking...Fuck You!

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about...
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:29:06 AM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 9:01:32 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > Time ... is one of the original 4 [dimensions], and we already know that it shrinks
> > by the same factor as space.
> Neither time nor space "shrink" according to special relativity. Talking about space and time shrinking is the kind of thing you find in bad popularizations of relativity, not in actual texts. The correct statement is that, due to the inertia of energy, inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and this entails all the relativistic effects, but it does not signify that either space or time "shrink".
> > Both time and space have extra magnitude to get rid of, so it can't be going from either
> > one to the other.
> As noted above, all the relativistic effects are accounted for by the dynamical fact that inertia-based coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which entails (among things) that the loci of simultaneity for relatively moving systems of coordinates are skewed ("rotated") relative to each other. In other words, the set of events coinciding with a given object at a given time t in terms of S is skewed in time relative to the set of events coinciding with that object at a given time t' in terms of S'. Of course, it isn't a Euclidean rotation, it is a hyperbolic rotation. This is elementary relativity, and it is objectively verifiable. You've actually agreed with all this, so nothing is accomplished by introducing some unobservable elements that have no effect on the phenomena... even by your own account. Agreed?

I will not agree with anything you regurgitate. Just because you make a sequence of statements that I choose to ignore is not an indication I agree with you. And the "Talking about space and time shrinking is the kind of thing you find in bad popularizations of relativity, not in actual texts. " that I do comes from Einstein's books, not some popularized version of relativity. Your argument amounts to "It is what it is because that's what it is." A bunch of circular logic, mumbo-jumbo. I think you're the one who needs to learn the difference between correlation and causation. The Lorentz Transformation applies to any hyperbola. It does not cause relativistic effects. It is a hyperbolic rotation. It applies in hyperbolic trigonometry. It predicts relativistic effects. The dilation of time is demonstrated by stationary clocks and the contraction of length is the result of simultaneous measurements. That's in Einstein's book. I'm sure there are circumstances where events are neither simultaneous nor coincident. The demonstrations of dilation and contraction are not any of those cases. So, wise-ass, in cases where the measurement is actually simultaneous AND the measurement is found to be contracted, where is the rest of the measurement hiding? Neither Einstein, Lorentz or Minkowski have anything to say about that. Because it isn't in their 4 dimensions. That doesn't make the Lorentz Transformation wrong, just incomplete. It only relates cosine projections.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
<snip>

> 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?

No, Moroney (fake EE). It doesn't say that, imbecile. The transmitter carrier L1c is codified at 154 x 10.23 Mhz = 1575.42 Mhz.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Talking about space and time shrinking is the kind of thing you find in bad popularizations
> of relativity, not in actual texts. " that I do comes from Einstein's books, not some popularized
> version of relativity.

Could you cite an example of an actual text book (not a popularization) that talks about "shrinking time and space" in special relativity?

> Your argument amounts to "It is what it is because that's what it is."

To the contrary, the laws of physics are all Lorentz invariant, corresponding to the fact that inertia-based coordinates (in which the laws of physics hold good in their simple homogeneous and isotropic form) are related by Lorentz transformations, and this is due to the inertia of energy, which in turn is due to the conservation of energy. Now, if you ask me why there is local conservation of energy, I wouldn't offer a glib answer, but without such fundamental symmetries the world would be chaotic and incomprehensible.. These considerations don't have any real bearing on this discussion.

> The Lorentz Transformation... does not cause relativistic effects. It is a hyperbolic
> rotation.

No one says the Lorentz transformation "causes" things, we say that the coordinate systems in terms of which the laws of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic form are related by Lorentz transformations, which entails all the relativistic effects.

> The dilation of time is demonstrated by stationary clocks...

No, time dilation refers to the relations between relatively moving entities. For example, given two relatively moving ideal clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest.

> and the contraction of length is the result of simultaneous measurements.

Well, length contraction is due to the fact that the laws of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of coordinate systems that are related by Lorentz transformations (due to the inertia of energy), and one aspect of this relationship is length contractions. Of course, to understand this correctly, it's necessary to distinguish between passive and active transformations.

> In cases where the measurement is actually simultaneous AND the measurement
> is found to be contracted, where is the rest of the measurement hiding?

There are no "hiding measurements" (whatever that might mean). For example, when the one-mile ring of train cars on the one-mile circular track begin to move at speed v, the cars shrink and pull apart, because their total length is only sqrt(1-v^2) miles. There are no hidden measurements in this scenario, nor in any other.

> Neither Einstein, Lorentz or Minkowski have anything to say about that.

About what? "Hidden measurements"? There are no hidden measurements, so no one has anything sensible to say about them. Can you clarify what you mean by "the measurement hiding"?

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 1:17:39 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> <snip>
> > 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?
> No, Moroney (fake EE). It doesn't say that, imbecile. The transmitter carrier L1c is codified at 154 x 10.23 Mhz = 1575.42 Mhz.

And, while not as significant as the GR correction, the relative velocity in orbit results in a time dilation on the order of 1/6 the GR correction. Without any correction, the system would fail after about 2 minutes. So not including the SR correction would probably take about 15 minutes to crash the system.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 1:47:09 AM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:05:16 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "Talking about space and time shrinking is the kind of thing you find in bad popularizations
> > of relativity, not in actual texts. " that I do comes from Einstein's books, not some popularized
> > version of relativity.
> Could you cite an example of an actual text book (not a popularization) that talks about "shrinking time and space" in special relativity?
> > Your argument amounts to "It is what it is because that's what it is."
> To the contrary, the laws of physics are all Lorentz invariant, corresponding to the fact that inertia-based coordinates (in which the laws of physics hold good in their simple homogeneous and isotropic form) are related by Lorentz transformations, and this is due to the inertia of energy, which in turn is due to the conservation of energy. Now, if you ask me why there is local conservation of energy, I wouldn't offer a glib answer, but without such fundamental symmetries the world would be chaotic and incomprehensible. These considerations don't have any real bearing on this discussion.
>
> > The Lorentz Transformation... does not cause relativistic effects. It is a hyperbolic
> > rotation.
>
> No one says the Lorentz transformation "causes" things, we say that the coordinate systems in terms of which the laws of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic form are related by Lorentz transformations, which entails all the relativistic effects.
>
> > The dilation of time is demonstrated by stationary clocks...
>
> No, time dilation refers to the relations between relatively moving entities. For example, given two relatively moving ideal clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest.
> > and the contraction of length is the result of simultaneous measurements.
> Well, length contraction is due to the fact that the laws of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of coordinate systems that are related by Lorentz transformations (due to the inertia of energy), and one aspect of this relationship is length contractions. Of course, to understand this correctly, it's necessary to distinguish between passive and active transformations.
>
> > In cases where the measurement is actually simultaneous AND the measurement
> > is found to be contracted, where is the rest of the measurement hiding?
> There are no "hiding measurements" (whatever that might mean). For example, when the one-mile ring of train cars on the one-mile circular track begin to move at speed v, the cars shrink and pull apart, because their total length is only sqrt(1-v^2) miles. There are no hidden measurements in this scenario, nor in any other.
> > Neither Einstein, Lorentz or Minkowski have anything to say about that.
> About what? "Hidden measurements"? There are no hidden measurements, so no one has anything sensible to say about them. Can you clarify what you mean by "the measurement hiding"?

No. I'm tired of your game. You use definitions that Einstein did not. Phony distinctions to create red herrings. Your dogma is wrong. Repeating it over and over won't change that, but it now bores me.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 23:07:09 UTC+1, tgca...@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

No, not always. GPS staff was able to do them correctly.
But, of course, you're not going to accept any measurement
not fitting your obviously right theory. Just like your opponents.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 00:51:41 UTC+1, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:

> No. That is just "real" for an observer at rest with the track, not for an observer on the train.

That is only real for a brainwashed moron imagining these
2 observers.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 04:56:30 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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

It doesn't. You can't read, stupid Mike. It only says that it "would appear"
as 10.22999999543 to an imagined someone. Besides, even if
they wrote it really - the measurement result is 10.23, and what
is a value of an assertion against a measurement result, stupid
Mike?

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:05:00 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 23:07:09 UTC+1, tgca...@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
> No, not always. GPS staff was able to do them correctly.
> But, of course, you're not going to accept any measurement
> not fitting your obviously right theory. Just like your opponents.

Except that my opponents are wrong. Or liars, or both. GPS staff got the same wrong measurements as everybody else. They just used correction algorithms to synchronize the clocks. Has nothing to do with my theory, But, you have no problem conflating this noise with my theory and arguing against your own strawman. How clever.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 07:14:24 UTC+1, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:05:00 AM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 23:07:09 UTC+1, tgca...@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
> > No, not always. GPS staff was able to do them correctly.
> > But, of course, you're not going to accept any measurement
> > not fitting your obviously right theory. Just like your opponents.
> Except that my opponents are wrong. Or liars, or both. GPS staff got the same wrong measurements as everybody else.

Sure, and Pele couldn't play soccer correctly, only you can.
But, anyway, the result of GPS measurement (t'=t) differ from
the result of your opponents (time dilation idiocy).

On 2021-11-02 22:02:49 +0000, Tom Capizzi said:

> 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.

You were the one who introduced the big word, "isomorphism".

Carelessness is not acceptable in mathematics, even if we accept you
were just being careless and not stupid and ignorant.

> 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.

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

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 2:55:51 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-11-02 22:02:49 +0000, Tom Capizzi said:
>
> > 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.
> You were the one who introduced the big word, "isomorphism".
>
> Carelessness is not acceptable in mathematics, even if we accept you
> were just being careless and not stupid and ignorant.
> > 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.
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Well, this is a physics thread. And I've been told over and over by physics "experts" that physics is not about truth. That's philosophy. If the numbers work, that's good enough. So, I admit that sometimes I get careless when addressing that group. I do get tired of these self-proclaimed experts blathering about falsifiability. While two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment, they still persist in demanding one. They do not appear to understand that what makes isomorphisms different has no effect on the outcome of any experiment.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Could you cite an example of an actual text book (not a popularization) that talks about
> > "shrinking time and space" in special relativity?

[No.]

> > > The Lorentz Transformation... does not cause relativistic effects. It is a hyperbolic
> > > rotation.
> >
> > No one says the Lorentz transformation "causes" things, we say that the coordinate
> > systems in terms of which the laws of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic
> > form are related by Lorentz transformations, which entails all the relativistic effects.
> >
> > > The dilation of time is demonstrated by stationary clocks...
> >
> > No, time dilation refers to the relations between relatively moving entities. For example,
> > given two relatively moving ideal clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial
> > coordinates in which the other clock is at rest.
> >
> > > and the contraction of length is the result of simultaneous measurements.
> >
> > Well, length contraction is due to the fact that the laws of physics take the same
> > homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of coordinate systems that are related
> > by Lorentz transformations (due to the inertia of energy), and one aspect of this
> > relationship is length contractions. Of course, to understand this correctly, it's
> > necessary to distinguish between passive and active transformations.
> >
> > > In cases where the measurement is actually simultaneous AND the measurement
> > > is found to be contracted, where is the rest of the measurement hiding?
> >
> > There are no "hiding measurements" (whatever that might mean). For example, when
> > the one-mile ring of train cars on the one-mile circular track begin to move at speed v,
> > the cars shrink and pull apart, because their total length is only sqrt(1-v^2) miles. There
> > are no hidden measurements in this scenario, nor in any other.
> >
> > > Neither Einstein, Lorentz or Minkowski have anything to say about that.
> >
> > About what? "Hidden measurements"? There are no hidden measurements, so no one has anything sensible to say about them. Can you clarify what you mean by "the measurement hiding"?
>
> No.

Well, that's the problem with your ideas... you can't explain what you mean..

> I'm tired of your game.

My "game"? I'm asking you to explain what you mean, and you refuse.

> You use definitions that Einstein did not. Phony distinctions to create red herrings.

What definitions am I using that Einstein did not? What phony distinctions am I making?

> ... it now bores me.

Right, it generally only takes about ten messages, carefully and clearly explaining special relativity, before individuals such as yourself declare themselves "bored" and run away.

To sum up, your fundamental problem is that you have abandoned common sense, and immersed yourself in a solipsistic world of self-contradictory fantasy, without a shred of common sense, sound judgment, or logic. It isn't entirely your fault... you've been misled by popularizations written by people who don't understand special relativity any better than you do.

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment

You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
>
>
> You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
> that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment. Is that better? God knows I wouldn't want to make a small grammar mistake talking to trolls. And you know damn well what I mean. Quit playing stupid. If you want to correct me, just offer your alternative. You seem to enjoy being contrary.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> No. I'm tired of your game. You use definitions that Einstein did not.
> Phony distinctions to create red herrings. Your dogma is wrong. Repeating
> it over and over won't change that, but it now bores me.
>

You keep using the derogatory term dogma as though just being different is
valuable in itself. Anything can be called dogma, including 2+2=4, but for
what purpose?

Relativity is simple, though not immediately intuitive. There’s nothing
about intuitiveness that is intrinsically more worthwhile.

As for you being convinced, nobody feels that’s important, really.
Remaining unconvinced also is not a position of favor.

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

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>> ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
>>
>>
>> You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
>> that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
>
> Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment. Is that better?

It is. Now can you explain what are these two structures you are talking
about?

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 14:21:39 UTC+1, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
> >
> >
> > You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
> > that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
> Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment.

Your own example - "With respect to the logarithm, addition and multiplication are isomorphisms."
Can't you distinguish addition and multiplication (with respect to the logarithm)?

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Could you cite an example of an actual text book (not a popularization) that talks about
> > "shrinking time and space" in special relativity?

[No.]

> > > The Lorentz Transformation... does not cause relativistic effects. It is a hyperbolic
> > > rotation.
> >
> > No one says the Lorentz transformation "causes" things, we say that the coordinate
> > systems in terms of which the laws of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic
> > form are related by Lorentz transformations, which entails all the relativistic effects.
> >
> > > The dilation of time is demonstrated by stationary clocks...
> >
> > No, time dilation refers to the relations between relatively moving entities. For example,
> > given two relatively moving ideal clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial
> > coordinates in which the other clock is at rest.
> >
> > > and the contraction of length is the result of simultaneous measurements.
> >
> > Well, length contraction is due to the fact that the laws of physics take the same
> > homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of coordinate systems that are related
> > by Lorentz transformations (due to the inertia of energy), and one aspect of this
> > relationship is length contractions. Of course, to understand this correctly, it's
> > necessary to distinguish between passive and active transformations.
> >
> > > In cases where the measurement is actually simultaneous AND the measurement
> > > is found to be contracted, where is the rest of the measurement hiding?
> >
> > There are no "hiding measurements" (whatever that might mean). For example, when
> > the one-mile ring of train cars on the one-mile circular track begin to move at speed v,
> > the cars shrink and pull apart, because their total length is only sqrt(1-v^2) miles. There
> > are no hidden measurements in this scenario, nor in any other.
> >
> > > Neither Einstein, Lorentz or Minkowski have anything to say about that.
> >
> > About what? "Hidden measurements"? There are no hidden measurements, so no one
> > has anything sensible to say about them. Can you clarify what you mean by "the
> > measurement hiding"?
>
> No.

Well, that is the problem with your beliefs ... you can't explain what you mean.

> I'm tired of your game.

My "game"? I asked you (repeatedly) to explain what you mean, and you are apparently unable to do so.

> You use definitions that Einstein did not. Phony distinctions to create red herrings.

What definitions am I using that Einstein did not? And what phony distinctions am I making?

> ... it now bores me.

Right, it generally takes only about ten messages, carefully and clearly explaining special relativity, before individuals such as yourself declare themselves "bored" and run away.

To sum up, your fundamental problem is that you have abandoned common sense, and immersed yourself in a solipsistic world of self-contradictory fantasy, without a shred of common sense, sound judgment, logic, the natural intuitive basis for all human reason. It isn't entirely your fault... you've been misled by popularizations written by people who don't understand special relativity any better than you do, into thinking that special relativity is weird and wacky and violates common sense, and you've taken this (erroneous) view as license to throw common sense and natural intuition out the window and fabricate complete nonsense. I suggest you try to get back in touch with your common sense and intuition, and stop indulging yourself with wildly self-contradictory and illogical beliefs.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 14:49:27 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> What definitions am I using that Einstein did not?

There are many, starting from "second", poor trash.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 9:27:32 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >>> ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
> >>
> >>
> >> You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
> >> that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
> >
> > Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment. Is that better?
> It is. Now can you explain what are these two structures you are talking
> about?

As if you haven't read any of the previous posts. One structure is Minkowski geometry, and the other is Euclidean eigenvector geometry. Things that are true for Euclidean geometry are not true for Minkowski geometry and vice versa. But since Einstein published relativity (On the Electrodynamics ....) about 3 years before Minkowski invented his variant, Euclidean geometry is the standard by which to judge special relativity. And it fails to measure up.

Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 9:27:32 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>>>> ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
>>>> that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
>>>
>>> Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment. Is that better?
>> It is. Now can you explain what are these two structures you are talking
>> about?
>
> As if you haven't read any of the previous posts. One structure is Minkowski geometry, and the other is Euclidean eigenvector geometry. Things that are true for Euclidean geometry are not true for Minkowski geometry and vice versa. But since Einstein published relativity (On the Electrodynamics ...) about 3 years before Minkowski invented his variant, Euclidean geometry is the standard by which to judge special relativity. And it fails to measure up.

I see no math there. You just pretend.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 10:22:07 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 9:27:32 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 8:58:06 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>> Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >>>>> ... two isomorphisms cannot be distinguished by experiment
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're doing it again: using the word "isomorphism" in a way
> >>>> that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
> >>>
> >>> Big deal. So, two isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished by experiment. Is that better?
> >> It is. Now can you explain what are these two structures you are talking
> >> about?
> >
> > As if you haven't read any of the previous posts. One structure is Minkowski geometry, and the other is Euclidean eigenvector geometry. Things that are true for Euclidean geometry are not true for Minkowski geometry and vice versa. But since Einstein published relativity (On the Electrodynamics ....) about 3 years before Minkowski invented his variant, Euclidean geometry is the standard by which to judge special relativity. And it fails to measure up.
> I see no math there. You just pretend.

What? You expect me to write a book in a post? For idiots who won't read it anyway, and if they do, they will change it to suit their own argument? Do I have a sign on me that says "Sucker"? For the feeble-minded: Einstein postulated the invariance of c. He also asserted that time dilation and length contraction were physical. But in Euclidean eigenvector geometry (most definitely NOT Minkowski geometry), time and distance are invariant in the eigenvector "rest" frame (the one associated with the chosen reference origin). These coordinates are determined by light rays and are unaffected by relative velocity of either the source or the observer. (Read Bondi's k-calculus) Using the Einstein postulate of the invariance of lightspeed, a grid of events is defined that are not affected by relative velocity. Distances and times are invariant. The measurements that claim otherwise are defective.. These "shrinking" properties are illusions. That's all the math you get. You want more, read Bondi's book. I'm sure you'll have some wisecracks about him, too.