Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 13:18:22 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 23:25:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 18:41:02 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [-]
> > > > > > It isn't. Lorentz-Einstein predicted the trajectories of high-energy
> > > > > > electrons in combined electric and magnetic fields.
> > > > > > Kaufmann, and others after him, measured those trajectories.
> > > > > > Conclusion 1: Lorentz-Einstein predictions confirmed.
> > > > > > Conclusion 2: Einstein 1905 -was- in direct contact with experiment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Conclusion 3: poor idiot JJ is impudently lying, as expected from
> > > > > a relativistic stinker; these predictions belong to Maxwell.
> > > > Of course not.
> > > > The Lorentz force law is named 'the Lorentz force law'
> > > > for very good reasons. It is not Maxwell's force law,
> > >
> > > Nor Einstein's force law.
> > No one ever suggested that.
>
> So why "Lorentz-Einstein predictions"?

Because the Lorentz aether theory
and Einstein's theory of relativity
are completely equivalent.
They predict the same outcome for all experiments.

Relativity is prefered because it is conceptually simpler,

Jan

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 14:33:39 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 13:18:22 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 23:25:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 18:41:02 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > [-]
> > > > > > > It isn't. Lorentz-Einstein predicted the trajectories of high-energy
> > > > > > > electrons in combined electric and magnetic fields.
> > > > > > > Kaufmann, and others after him, measured those trajectories.
> > > > > > > Conclusion 1: Lorentz-Einstein predictions confirmed.
> > > > > > > Conclusion 2: Einstein 1905 -was- in direct contact with experiment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Conclusion 3: poor idiot JJ is impudently lying, as expected from
> > > > > > a relativistic stinker; these predictions belong to Maxwell.
> > > > > Of course not.
> > > > > The Lorentz force law is named 'the Lorentz force law'
> > > > > for very good reasons. It is not Maxwell's force law,
> > > >
> > > > Nor Einstein's force law.
> > > No one ever suggested that.
> >
> > So why "Lorentz-Einstein predictions"?
> Because the Lorentz aether theory
> and Einstein's theory of relativity
> are completely equivalent.
> They predict the same outcome for all experiments.

:) And Maxwell - didn't.
Well, no, they are not. Lorentz predicts (correctly) that
the clocks of GPS will be set to a different rate on a GPS
satellite than on Earth. According to The Holiest Postulate
it shouldn't happen.

> Relativity is prefered because it is conceptually simpler,

CONCEPTUALLY SIMPLER; well, this is a really
good one.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:17:37 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> No goalpost shifting please,
> >>
> >> What happened to actually figuring out if Einstein's hypothesis is
> >> rational?
> >
> > Supposed 'rationality' has nothing to do with physics.
> > Physics is about prediction and observation,
> > and getting those to agree,

> This is what he refuses to tolerate.

Yes, he is stuck in the Middle Ages,
when clever reasoning was the norm for learned discourse.
(queue angels and pins)

Jan

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> And your "scientific method" bullshit is a pure bullshit.
>

Isn’t it curious that someone that is anti-science spends all day on a
science newsgroup?

It’s like someone who hates religion spending all day in religious forums,
or someone who thinks astrology is a waste of time then wasting all his
time in astrology forums.

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Relativity is prefered because it is conceptually simpler,
>
> CONCEPTUALLY SIMPLER; well, this is a really
> good one.
>

Yes, it is. I gather you find it much more conceptually difficult. What a
shame.

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

Op 03-feb.-2022 om 14:18 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:10:28 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> And yet there are people today don't accept it. And their reasons are robust.
>>>
>>> And people who don't accept the moon landings.
>>> And people who think Earth is flat.
>>> And people who believe in gods.
>>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>> You did not read the bit " And their reasons are robust.".???
>> The people you mentioned don't have robust reasons.
>> But those that don't accept STR do have robust reasons.
>>
>
> LOL. And who is the judge of robustness? You?

Probably related to "pure rationality and logic".

Dirk Vdm

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 12:16:23 PM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> Ah ok so when you say p=mv by definition, that’s just you saying it. Not
>> physicists. You who know nothing. Got it.
>>>
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> I repeat, "You must be some kind of special idiot. :-"
>
> No moron, Its called classical Physics, you remember the "real physics"
> that you are trying weakly with shit explanations to overturn in favour
> of your irrational Einstein Physics.

No, sorry, the physics textbook you have skimmed does not make a partition
somewhere in the book that says, “Stuff before here is REAL physics, and
stuff after here is NOT REAL physics.” It’s all real physics whether you
acknowledge it or not.

> So yeah, p=mv UNTIL you prove that STR is correct, and you ain't even
> started to do that yet.
>

STR has been validated to be correct to physicists. Whether someone like
you, who selectively decides what physics is “real” and what is “not”, is
convinced is, frankly, of concern to no one. Why do you think that you are
owed a special convincing, and in the formats you choose?

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

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:06:17 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> I took my definition directly for the Wikipedia article…

Here's what you said: “ALL coordinate systems must have an origin and that origin is always a body.” That is a verbatim quote. That did not come from wikipedia. Your error has been explained, and now you want to deny you ever said it. Great.

> Any coordinate system must be on or relative to a body.

The phrase “a coordinate system must be “on” a body makes no sense, and the statement that a coordinate system must be “relative to” a body is brain-dead, because by definition every body has coordinates in terms of some system of coordinates. Duh.

> I think you better rephrase or explain differently, what you are talking
> about with the k parameter. Where exactly does Newtons equations use
> this parameter and set it to zero?

The most general class of logically self-consistent relativistic formulations, that includes both Galilean/Newtonian relativity and special relativity, can be parameterized by a single constant. In general, all the laws of physics can be written in terms of this constant, and if that constant is zero, the result is the Newtonian laws of physics, whereas if that constant is 1/c^2, the result is special relativity. Empirically, the value of that constant is 1/c^2.

> What is the k parameter referring to exactly? Some "degree of freedom in the
> logically self-consistent relationships between such coordinate systems", well
> what does that even mean?

It means that if you begin with the Galilean principle of relativity, which is the proposition that there’s a complete class of coordinate systems in each of which all the laws of physics take the same form, and you carefully work out the logical implications, without making any other assumptions, you arrive at an expression for how two such systems must be related to each other. That expression has a degree of freedom, meaning it contains one constant whose value is not constrained by the logic. It could be any constant value. From everyday experience it’s obvious that this constant must either be zero or else it is extremely small (too small to have been detected in Newton’s day). Using Galilean relativity is tantamount to assuming that constant is zero. But we now know the constant is actually 1/c^2.

> I cant find any failure of Newtons Laws…

Right, you couldn’t find it, so I explained it to you…. remember? Again, according to Newtonian physics the work done on a mass m to accelerate it to speed v is (1/2)mv^2, but the most general logically consistent expression is actually (m/k)[1/sqrt(1-kv^2) – 1], which equals Newton’s expression in the limit as k goes to zero (which you could verify yourself if you knew how to evaluate the limit… using Newton’s binomial theorem), but we can measure this work and we now know it is actually mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) – 1], which is what the general expression gives with k=1/c^2.

> what makes you think that there is some problem in the first place?

See above. Newtonian mechanics fails.

> You have not demonstrated any Time dilation ever, not once. We have found
> that clocks, (not time)

You are mistaken, there’s an abundance of demonstrations of all aspects of Lorentz invariance, to extremely high precision, including relativistic time dilation. Of course, this doesn't refer to any metaphysical quantities, such as you unwittingly have in mind when you say “clocks, not time”, forgetting that time refers to far more than just “clocks”, it refers to the characteristic temporal advance of *every* physical phenomena along a certain path, and if you mean something else than this by the word “time”, you are talking about a metaphysical concept. Science refers to operationally-defined quantities in terms of Galileo’s class of inertia-based coordinates systems in which all the laws of physics take the same form.

> a great valid experiment for STR, which demands 100% pure inertial conditions exclusively.

No, that’s a juvenile misconception. Special relativity handles acceleration just fine. You're grossly misinformed. The elapsed proper time along any path is always just the integral of sqrt(dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2) along that path, whether it is an inertial path or accelerating.

You see, this illustrates why it is hopeless for you to even try to assess the empirical evidence for Lorentz invariance at this stage of your learning, because your misconceptions completely mangle all your attempts to even understand what special relativity predicts, and in what circumstances. You can’t evaluate the empirical evidence for a theory until you at least gain a rudimentary understanding of the theory… which you do not presently possess. And before you can do that, you need at least a rudimentary understanding of classical physics… which you do not presently possess. And before you can do that, you need at least a rudimentary ability to think rationally and to exhibit intellectual integrity, which….

> Did I mention that STR also demands that there is no gravity…

Again, that's another juvenile misconception. Special relativity requires only that the gravitational potential in the region of interest doesn’t vary appreciably. This is the equivalence principle, i.e., special relativity applies within any sufficiently limited region… and moveover there is no help for you in arbitrary regions with significantly varying potential, because general relativity has all the same features as special relativity that you don’t understand. For example, in all generality, the elapsed time along any path is the integral of sqrt(g_mn dx^m dx^n) where g_mn are the components of the metric tensor, and this gives all the same effects of time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of inertial simultanety as does special relativity, just slightly adjusted to account for gravitational effects as well. You see, all the precise tests of these things really use general relativity, but the outcomes exhibit all the special relativistic effects.

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 16:27:58 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And your "scientific method" bullshit is a pure bullshit.
> >
> Isn’t it curious that someone that is anti-science spends all day on a
> science newsgroup?

Bod, poor halfbrain, being anti-Bodkin-pure-bullshit isn't
being anti-science.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 02/02/2022 à 23:08, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> Go look later in the same “Physics Text books” where momentum for anything
>> with mass > 0 is written as p=mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> In reality, there is only one equation for momentum.
>
> p=m.v

No sir. First of all, it is not even the correct expression for momentum
for massive objects at ANY speed.

The ONE correct equation for momentum for massive objects is
p=m*v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). It turns out that p=m*v is a useful approximation
for when v<<c, but at ANY speed it is only an approximation and is never
exactly correct.

However, this is not even the only expression for momentum, because there
is momentum for example in electromagnetic fields that have no mass
whatsoever. And so if you have a physical system that contains both massive
objects and non-massive entities, the total momentum of the system is going
to involve terms that calculate the momentum completely differently.

>
> There isn't a speed at which we're going to start saying: the equation is
> changing.

That’s right. And p=mv is NEVER right, though it is a good approximation at
low speeds.

This may come as a shock to you, but it’s been known for longer than you’ve
been alive.

>
> As there is no right triangle where we will say: the theorem changes, it
> is no longer a²+b²=c².
>
> The equations must remain unavoidable.
>
> In the case of the relativistic momentum, it is only necessary to pose:
> p=m.Vr
> by specifying that Vr is the real speed of the particle, and that we do
> not observe, because of spatial anisochrony, the real speed of things.
>
> We therefore set Vr=Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>
> It then comes easily that p=m.Vr=m[Vo/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)]
>
> But we still have p=m.Vr
>
> Momentum is always the product of mass times speed, and that alone.
>
> You just have to give the actual speed of the particle.
>
> R.H.
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:51:59 PM UTC+11, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 03/02/2022 à 04:24, everything isalllies a écrit :
>>
>>> "All clocks maintain synchronicity regardless of relative motion."
>> You mean their chronotropy?
>> Ie the speed at which they beat?
>> If that's what you mean, I don't think that's accurate (unless they're in
>> the same inertial frame).
>> If they are not in the same inertial reference frame, each of the watches
>> sees the other watch which beats less quickly.
>> PLEASE NOTE: this does not mean that she sees her hands turn slower.
>> Simply its mechanism beats slower. But you can sometimes see (in direct
>> approach) its hands turn faster while its mechanism beats slower.
>> This is what confuses relativists in general (as well as the spatial zoom
>> effect). They have a hard time swallowing the concept.
>> I play the parrot, and I explain why. They confuse chronotropy effect
>> (beat of watches: transverse Doppler effect) and anisochrony (longitudinal
>> Doppler effect).
>> These are two different phenomena, but both real. You deny the first,
>> physicists deny the second.
>> Both effects must be accepted as real and unavoidable effects.
>>
>> R.H.
>
> I gather you believe that "Time", as opposed to machinery, (clocks)
> passes differently in different frames of reference.
> By what rationale do you claim that time can change due to changes in
> observation origin and motion?
>

Just be advised that “Hachel” is a bit of a nutter and struggles with
episodic breaks from reality.

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:54:52 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> By 1910 'everyone' who mattered knew that relativity had to be right.
>>
>> Jan
>
> And yet there are people today don't accept it. And their reasons are robust.

Robust is in the eye of the beholder.
There are people who do not accept that we ever landed on the moon, and
they firmly believe their reasons are “robust”. Do you agree that their
reasons are robust? Do you see any way to sort out whether their reasons
are *really* robust or not, and arrive at a consensus?

> You may be curious but not about this topic.
>
> You thoughts are solidified like concrete. No room to think outside the box.
>
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:18:22 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>>> What happened to actually figuring out if Einstein's hypothesis is rational?
>> Supposed 'rationality' has nothing to do with physics.
>> Physics is about prediction and observation,
>> and getting those to agree,
>>
>> Jan
>
> That's a stupid statement.

No, it’s not. It’s been true of science since before Galileo.

> Why did Einstein or anyone bother to make any form of explanation, for
> their hypothesis at all. Because all explanations I assume would at least
> read like the work of a rational mind....

Your expectations are off the mark.

> If I presented my hypothesis for peer review and I said that the moon is
> mad of cheese, and a mouse is green, so the bible is true, and the
> equation for Momentum is p=mv, then you would expect that it would be
> rejected because its irrational nonsense, and the reviewers have no
> reason to bother deciding the value of the equation.

You apparently do not understand how science works.
First of all, “the Bible is true” does not follow logically from “a mouse
is green”. That is, even if you assumed provisionally that “a mouse is
green” is true, you cannot rigorously deduce “the Bible is true” from it.
On the other hand, length contraction can be rigorously deduced from just a
couple of crazy-sounding assumptions.

So that’s one key difference between your cartoon analog and what
relativity says.

Now the next complaint you have is that, “Yeah but the assumptions should
not be crazy sounding too! Otherwise the whole thing is nuttery.” And that
answer to that is, no, that is NOT a requirement. Because nature is
stranger than we think, and a lot of our classical physics assumptions are
simply WRONG, though they are close enough to give the appearance of being
right.

A good example of this is Aristotles assumption that the natural state of
any object is being at rest with respect to the earth, and that sustained
motion requires a sustained force applied. Those are VERY REASONABLE
sounding assumptions, and just about everything we see in everyday life
adheres to them. Stop pushing on things or pulling on things, and
eventually they all come to rest with respect to the earth.

Except the assumption is WRONG, and Galileo made a completely new
assumption that flew in the face of that common sense: He said that the
natural state of motion of objects is to CONTINUE the current motion, and
that NO sustained net force is needed to have sustained motion. Now, you
say that you believe Galileo’s physics, but I’m not sure you appreciate how
fundamentally different his assumptions were from the previous.

Likewise, a lot of assumptions in modern physics just are different than
what they were in classical physics. So what? That happens ALL THE TIME.
Whether you care for that or not is irrelevant.

>
> No, Rationality is essential in all Science.

Not in the way you mean it. Not consistency with previous world view. It
not only not essential, it is actively skirted all the time and on purpose.

> Would you be happy to go see an irrational Medical Doctor?
> Physics is about Observation, analysis, then proposed explanations.
> Followed up with predictions of what will happen under different
> conditions. And 100% of the process requires a rational, metered, logical approach.
>
>
>
>

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

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 03-feb.-2022 om 14:18 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:10:28 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet there are people today don't accept it. And their reasons are robust.
>>>>
>>>> And people who don't accept the moon landings.
>>>> And people who think Earth is flat.
>>>> And people who believe in gods.
>>>>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>> You did not read the bit " And their reasons are robust.".???
>>> The people you mentioned don't have robust reasons.
>>> But those that don't accept STR do have robust reasons.
>>>
>>
>> LOL. And who is the judge of robustness? You?
>
> Probably related to "pure rationality and logic".
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

Some of what goes into this is the following boneheaded line of thought.
“I believe that X is true. I *strongly* believe it. And I am not an
irrational person, not crazy. And so if I believe X to be true, then I must
have arrived at that conclusion by some rational thought process. Even if I
can’t actually reconstruct what that thought process was, it must have been
rational, because I’m not crazy. And so if it’s wrong, you’re going to have
to point out where I was being irrational.”

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

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 17:18:32 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 1:06:17 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I took my definition directly for the Wikipedia article…
>
> Here's what you said: “ALL coordinate systems must have an origin and that origin is always a body.” That is a verbatim quote. That did not come from wikipedia. Your error has been explained, and now you want to deny you ever said it. Great.
>
> > Any coordinate system must be on or relative to a body.
>
> The phrase “a coordinate system must be “on” a body makes no sense, and the statement that a coordinate system must be “relative to” a body is brain-dead, because by definition every body has coordinates in terms of some system of coordinates. Duh.
>
> > I think you better rephrase or explain differently, what you are talking
> > about with the k parameter. Where exactly does Newtons equations use
> > this parameter and set it to zero?
>
> The most general class of logically self-consistent relativistic formulations, that includes both Galilean/Newtonian relativity and special relativity, can be parameterized by a single constant. In general, all the laws of physics can be written in terms of this constant, and if that constant is zero, the result is the Newtonian laws of physics, whereas if that constant is 1/c^2, the result is special relativity. Empirically, the value of that constant is 1/c^2.
>
> > What is the k parameter referring to exactly? Some "degree of freedom in the
> > logically self-consistent relationships between such coordinate systems", well
> > what does that even mean?
>
> It means that if you begin with the Galilean principle of relativity, which is the proposition that there’s a complete class of coordinate systems in each of which all the laws of physics take the same form, and you carefully work out the logical implications, without making any other assumptions, you arrive at an expression for how two such systems must be related to each other. That expression has a degree of freedom, meaning it contains one constant whose value is not constrained by the logic. It could be any constant value. From everyday experience it’s obvious that this constant must either be zero or else it is extremely small (too small to have been detected in Newton’s day). Using Galilean relativity is tantamount to assuming that constant is zero. But we now know the constant is actually 1/c^2.
>
> > I cant find any failure of Newtons Laws…
>
> Right, you couldn’t find it, so I explained it to you…. remember? Again, according to Newtonian physics the work done on a mass m to accelerate it to speed v is (1/2)mv^2, but the most general logically consistent expression is actually (m/k)[1/sqrt(1-kv^2) – 1], which equals Newton’s expression in the limit as k goes to zero (which you could verify yourself if you knew how to evaluate the limit… using Newton’s binomial theorem), but we can measure this work and we now know it is actually mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) – 1], which is what the general expression gives with k=1/c^2.
>
> > what makes you think that there is some problem in the first place?
>
> See above. Newtonian mechanics fails.

A dream of a fanatic idiot. No, it doesn't.

>
> > You have not demonstrated any Time dilation ever, not once. We have found
> > that clocks, (not time)
>
> You are mistaken, there’s an abundance of demonstrations of all aspects of Lorentz invariance, to extremely high precision, including relativistic time dilation. Of course, this doesn't refer to any metaphysical quantities

Yes, it does, and in the meantime in the real world
real clocks of real TAI, forbidden by your moronic
metaphysics, keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

> You see, this illustrates why it is hopeless for you to even try to assess the empirical evidence for Lorentz invariance at this stage of your learning, because
because in the meantime in the real world
real clocks of real TAI, forbidden by your moronic
metaphysics, keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 18:52:41 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> > Op 03-feb.-2022 om 14:18 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:10:28 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And yet there are people today don't accept it. And their reasons are robust.
> >>>>
> >>>> And people who don't accept the moon landings.
> >>>> And people who think Earth is flat.
> >>>> And people who believe in gods.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>
> >>> You did not read the bit " And their reasons are robust.".???
> >>> The people you mentioned don't have robust reasons.
> >>> But those that don't accept STR do have robust reasons.
> >>>
> >>
> >> LOL. And who is the judge of robustness? You?
> >
> > Probably related to "pure rationality and logic".
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> Some of what goes into this is the following boneheaded line of thought.
> “I believe that X is true. I *strongly* believe it. And I am not an
> irrational person, not crazy. And so if I believe X to be true, then I must
> have arrived at that conclusion by some rational thought process. Even if I
> can’t actually reconstruct what that thought process was, it must have been
> rational, because I’m not crazy. And so if it’s wrong, you’re going to have
> to point out where I was being irrational.”

Your "scientific method", poor halfbrain, as painted.

On 2/3/2022 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And your "scientific method" bullshit is a pure bullshit.
>>
>
> Isn’t it curious that someone that is anti-science spends all day on a
> science newsgroup?
>
> It’s like someone who hates religion spending all day in religious forums,
> or someone who thinks astrology is a waste of time then wasting all his
> time in astrology forums.

It is actually no different from someone who is pro-science arguing with
those (cranks) who oppose science or some aspect of it all day every
day. Pro-science is all about advancing knowledge and there's no hope
of progress arguing with cranks. I say that as someone who "burned
daylight" in exactly that way now understanding the results that weren't
quite so obvious to me in earlier times.

Einstein brought the Unified field. As the first of his
kind he would not be able to complete his dream.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 19:31:44 UTC+1, whodat wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And your "scientific method" bullshit is a pure bullshit.
> >>
> >
> > Isn’t it curious that someone that is anti-science spends all day on a
> > science newsgroup?
> >
> > It’s like someone who hates religion spending all day in religious forums,
> > or someone who thinks astrology is a waste of time then wasting all his
> > time in astrology forums.
> It is actually no different from someone who is pro-science arguing with
> those (cranks) who oppose science or some aspect of it all day every
> day. Pro-science is all about advancing knowledge and there's no hope
> of progress arguing with cranks.

Of course. What kind of progress can happen when
discussing with someone opposing your obviously,
undoubtedly, absolutely, definitely, positively right
opinion?

Le 03/02/2022 à 18:52, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

>> p=m.v
>
> No sir.

> p=m*v/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Pffff...

Are you doing it on purpose or what?

R.H.

On 2/3/2022 6:11 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:54:52 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> By 1910 'everyone' who mattered knew that relativity had to be right.
>>
>> Jan
>
> And yet there are people today don't accept it.

They're called 'cranks'. The reason for their existence, particularly
the large number of anti-relativity cranks, is a question left up to
psychologists and psychiatrists to figure out.

Meanwhile, actual physicists have moved on long ago, using the science
which became settled science 110+ years ago.

On 2/3/2022 10:57 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 03-feb.-2022 om 14:18 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:10:28 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de
>>> moortel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet there are people today don't accept it. And their reasons
>>>>> are robust.
>>>>
>>>> And people who don't accept the moon landings.
>>>> And people who think Earth is flat.
>>>> And people who believe in gods.
>>>>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>>   You did not read the bit " And their reasons are robust.".???
>>> The people you mentioned don't have robust reasons.
>>> But those that don't accept STR do have robust reasons.
>>>
>>
>> LOL. And who is the judge of robustness? You?
>
> Probably related to "pure rationality and logic".
>
Or "common sense".

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 20:15:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 6:11 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:54:52 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> >> By 1910 'everyone' who mattered knew that relativity had to be right.
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> > And yet there are people today don't accept it.
> They're called 'cranks'. The reason for their existence, particularly
> the large number of anti-relativity cranks, is a question left up to
> psychologists and psychiatrists to figure out.

So, how is the result of measurement of
a 6-foot-tall person standing 100 m away,
stupid Mike?

> Meanwhile, actual physicists have moved on long ago, using the science
> which became settled science 110+ years ago.

And forbidden by your moronic Shit TAI, using common
sense, keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 4:18:22 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Supposed 'rationality' has nothing to do with physics.

Not true. Rationality and logical consistency are paramount in physics. Granted, given two or more logically self-consistent alternatives, observation and experiment are the determining factors, but no one supports logical inconsistencies. The crackpot’s position is always that special relativity (for example) is logically inconsistent, and therefore must be wrong. He is correct to the extent that if a theory entails logical inconsistency, it must be wrong. (If that weren’t true, science and rationality would be impossible.) His mistake is in thinking that special relativity entails a logical inconsistency. This isn’t an empirical question, it’s a purely rational question.

When you tell a crackpot that rationality is irrelevant, he hears you saying that special relativity is irrational but you simply must accept it as a brute irrational fact. If you really believe that, you don’t understand special relativity any better than he does. Special relativity is not irrational, and does not entail any logical inconsistencies.

At a higher level, there are actually rational reasons that rule out Galilean relativity, a priori, but those are reserved for advanced studies in the foundations of relativity, and aren’t needed for discussion here, and would just sail far above the heads of all the participants. So set that aside, and just deal with the posited situation that there are two distinct nominally logical and viable alternatives, one of which agrees with observation. The crank’s main (actually, his only) interest is ultimately his belief in the logical inconsistency of special relativity. Once that is debunked, he invariably loses interest. (That’s because his only real reason for denying all the experimental results is that he thinks they *must* be wrong because the theory is logically inconsistent.)

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And your "scientific method" bullshit is a pure bullshit.
>>>
>>
>> Isn’t it curious that someone that is anti-science spends all day on a
>> science newsgroup?
>>
>> It’s like someone who hates religion spending all day in religious forums,
>> or someone who thinks astrology is a waste of time then wasting all his
>> time in astrology forums.
>
> It is actually no different from someone who is pro-science arguing with
> those (cranks) who oppose science or some aspect of it all day every
> day. Pro-science is all about advancing knowledge and there's no hope
> of progress arguing with cranks. I say that as someone who "burned
> daylight" in exactly that way now understanding the results that weren't
> quite so obvious to me in earlier times.
>

I think you and I have different expectations for “progress” with regard to
cranks. I do not have any hopes in them coming away better informed about
relativity or even physics in general. At best, what cranks come away with
following interactions with people who know better is this: that they are
underprepared to discuss the topic intelligently, that they do not know
what the words mean, that the math skills they lack are actually important,
that science bases validity on experiment and not by logical argument, and
that they were foolish to think that they have unearthed some overlooked
flaw in the whole shebang.

There are a few cranks like Woz who are just here to vent rage, and there’s
nothing really to be done about that other than poke fun at him now and
again for being such a useless ass.

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