On Saturday, 5 February 2022 at 07:31:57 UTC+1, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 5:20:37 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 2/5/2022 12:01 AM, everything isalllies wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:43:49 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 2/4/2022 6:18 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:14:11 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> A religion is not a nation in the 21st century. No religion is a
> > >>>> self-professed enemy of sovereign powers.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> "New York Times" about early 1930's ( am not going to dig the item up, I go from memory)
> > >>> NYT was then one of the most respected news publishing houses in the world.
> > >>> The page ONE HEADLINE: "Jews declare WAR on Germany"
> > >> Idjit.
> > >> A London newspaper, not the NYT.
> > >>
> > >> It was a convention of British Jews, who voted on whether they should
> > >> initiate a boycott against the new Nazi regime.
> > >>
> > >> It was voted down.
> > >>
> > >> I'm guessing this is a newspaper which used sensationalized headlines,
> > >> (like the NY Post) since "WAR" is an exaggeration of "boycott", plus the
> > >> resolution was defeated.
> > >>
> > >> <snip antisemitism>
> > >
> > > Ok, I got the newspaper wrong.
> > > But the Jewish boycott was an economic war on Germany designed to destroy the nation, and was commenced before Hitler was even the chancellor.
> > There. Was. No. Boycott.
> >
> > They voted it down.
> >
> > <snip antisemitism>
> and Jews . have. never. ever. done. anything. wrong . to anybody. ever. Right?
> There is much more to this boycott story than can be posted here, and I said I was not wanting to follow it up.

Well, and you're an idiot. It happens.

Am 04.02.2022 um 14:40 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Science is not democratic and not based on decisions.
>>
>> It is much more robust than that,
>> because it operates by natural selection.
>> (yes, I know that this can be quite unfair)
>>
>> So it will always be surrounded by a lunatic fringe,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
> Right. Mutant ideas that yield no progeny.
>
> Thomas’ plaintive cry is, “I am alive! My ideas deserve to procreate like
> everyone else’s!”
>
> Nope. Some ideas are bad and deserve to whither on the vine, and they do.

I was actually not talking about my own ideas.

I wrote a comment to [quote]:

">
> So Physics is all about nonsensical ideas?
> And Science is decided by the number of celebrities that vote on any
idea?
> (people that matter)
>
> I think you need to go back and have a little think about the
> ramifications of what you said.

No need to.
Executive summary: Nutters are out,"

[/quote]

I meant, that science is not democratic, because nobody can decide, what
is true and what is not.

Science tries to find out, what is true and does not depend on descisons
by anbody.

It is therefore impossible for science to take any kind of care for
particular interests of whatever group is involved.

That is certainly not, what such group usually like, hence search for
truth isn't always wellcome.

So, bad news for truth seakers (you are not wellcome!), but also for
special interest groups (truth seakers do not care!).

Also bad/good news for celebrities (your wote does not count! But you
may still earn money by smiliing into a camera!).

TH

Am 04.02.2022 um 10:22 schrieb everything isalllies:
> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 5:26:21 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> Or for historians.
>>> Historically it was a matter of violently anti-semitic proto-Nazis
>>> rallying against Einstein, a hundred years ago.
>>>
>
> This is factually incorrect.
> The book "100 authors against Einstein,", contains no antisemitic sentiments. Not that being anti-semetic is inherently wrong, after all in every war, each side are encouraged to hate the enemy.

The text you quoted was not mine.

I have never read that book and cannot say anything about it.

>
>>> They decided that 'Jewish Physics' must be wrong, no matter what,
>>> and that only 'Aryan Physics' aka 'Deutsche Physik' can be right.
>>> In the end not even Himmler supported them.
>> Physics is actually not related to religion.
>>
>
>> But the Nazis were predominately anti-religious, anyhow, and based their
>> believes on some obscure occultism, like Helena Blavatsiki's theosopy.
>>
>
>>
>> But Germany was a 'scientific hotspot' in the early twenties century and
>> a lot of famous physicists came from there.
>>
>> This lasted until the allied forces collected all scientist they could
>> find after WWII and shipped them abroad.
>>
>>
> So first you say that the germans were driven by hate of jews, for no reason at all, and rejected Einstein violently without reason, insisting that their Arian Physics was right, which according to you is obviously wrong. Yet the Americans wanted these same scientists to improve their own science?
>
I have the right to criticise whatever I like.

This is 'the name of the game' in physics, that theories had to be
defended against any kind of attacks.

I found roughly four hundred errors in Einstein's paper, what should be
sufficiant to disprove it.

But this would not disprove relativity itself, because errors prove
nothing, not even the opposite.

It has actually no relation to religion and citizenship of the author,
even if Einstein was Swiss citizen at that time.

Possibly there exists some kind of link between judaism and relativity.
But I have actually no idea, whether or not that is the case, because
I'm a protestant.

So I can write a critique against a scientific paper by stating, that
certain parts violate accepted rules for scientific papers in physics,
without being anti-semitic.

TH

Am 05.02.2022 um 00:30 schrieb Michael Moroney:

>>> They decided that 'Jewish Physics' must be wrong, no matter what,
>>> and that only 'Aryan Physics' aka 'Deutsche Physik' can be right.
>>> In the end not even Himmler supported them.
>>
>>
>> Physics is actually not related to religion.
>>
>> Therefore a physicist may be Mulim, Christian or a Jew, that wouldn't
>> make a difference.
>>
>> But the Nazis were predominately anti-religious, anyhow, and based
>> their believes on some obscure occultism, like Helena Blavatsiki's
>> theosopy.
>>
>> Physics is also international in nature and no such thing like 'Aryan
>> physics' or similar exists.
>>
>> (Btw: Aryans didn't exist, neither.)
>
> Tell the Nazis that.
>
> Their hate was more directed to race, or perceived race, even sending
> nuns of Jewish descent to the death camps, and not because of their
> religion. Nonexistent Aryans were glorified. That was their basis for
> 'Jewish Physics' being wrong and 'Deutsche Physik' to be glorified.
>>
>> But Germany was a 'scientific hotspot' in the early twenties century
>> and a lot of famous physicists came from there.
>>
>> This lasted until the allied forces collected all scientist they could
>> find after WWII and shipped them abroad.
>
> It largely lasted until the Nazis seized power and immediately went
> after Jewish scientists and professors. The Germans lost more scientists
> by losing Jewish scientists who escaped from/never returned to Germany
> or Nazi occupied territory, or perhaps were killed. Niels Bohr, Lise
> Meitner, Otto Frisch, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, Albert Einstein.

Not all of them were Germans.

Leo Szilard was Hungarian and Nils Bohr Danish (as far as I know)

> By 1935 there were zero Jewish professors in Germany.

Afaik there were some in 1935, but not many.
>
> The Manhattan Project was loaded with German/Eastern European refugee
> scientists.

Leo Szillard and Albert Einstein patented a device, which only one known
use in a fast breeding reactor.

So, possibly the atomic bomb was inveted much further than when the
Manhattan project existed.

> Fritz Haber, who'd you would think would be hailed as a German patriot
> for his WW1 work, was forced to resign, his immediate family escaped but
> he died not long after the Nazis seized power. Many of his extended
> family members died in the concentration camps.

I never thought, that Nazis were predominately German patriots.

I personally think, they were a bunch of criminals, which had the
intention to destroy Germany.

For instance Germany was bombed to total destruction, but the nazis air
force had, at first in the world, jet engine driven planes, which were
equipped with air-to-air missiles.

These planes were much faster than the allied bombers (roughly 400 km/h
faster) and could take out any allied plane.

But they did so only once and shot down 50 bombers in an hour. They were
never used again (at least not by the Germans).

So, the Nazis could have defended Germany airspace, if they wanted to do
so, but apparently didn't.

> Heisenberg was harassed for acting 'too Jewish' until the Nazis realized
> they would need him to educate.

The Nazis were VERY anti-scientific, but actually needed science, hence
let a few scientist alive.

TH

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 7:19:41 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:

>
> So I can write a critique against a scientific paper by stating, that
> certain parts violate accepted rules for scientific papers in physics,
> without being anti-semitic.
>
> TH

And it doesn't matter, as there can be no such thing as "antisemetic". Semites are all peoples who have a particular language base.
They therefore must by definition, include all the peoples in the middle east.
Now as I'm a supporter of the plight of the Palestinians who are currently being genocided by the friendly never do anything wrong jews, I can't then be antisemetic.

However Jews have taken that word, and made it their personal property.
But i also reject that word, because use of it is fully racist.

The person who has hate of a particular race of people Carte Blanche, is simply a Racist. and that term covers every human race.
The fact that one "special" race needs a special term exclusively for them alone, (the jews) proves that its the jews that are the racists, as they feel that the term "Racist" that is used for everyone else, is insufficient to encompass THEM, as they claim to be superior to all other races. They continuously make this claim. they are the original and only race that claim to be the MASTER Race, (it was not he Germans who believed this, it was the Jews) the jews always, always place their sins on their enemies. Its part of their belief system. not my idea.

Anyway, its apparently ok to hate other races, currently Americans are being schooled and propagandised into hating all Chinese.
And before that it was the Iranians, Afghans, Vietnamese, and before that the Koreans, and the Russians, the Germans, And the common thread behind it all is the driving force of jewish influence. Every single time, jewish money financing all wars on both sides.

But still this is not Physics.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 7:33:57 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 05.02.2022 um 00:30 schrieb Michael Moroney:
>
> >>> They decided that 'Jewish Physics' must be wrong, no matter what,
> >>> and that only 'Aryan Physics' aka 'Deutsche Physik' can be right.
> >>> In the end not even Himmler supported them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Physics is actually not related to religion.
> >>
> >> Therefore a physicist may be Mulim, Christian or a Jew, that wouldn't
> >> make a difference.
> >>
> >> But the Nazis were predominately anti-religious, anyhow, and based
> >> their believes on some obscure occultism, like Helena Blavatsiki's
> >> theosopy.
> >>
> >> Physics is also international in nature and no such thing like 'Aryan
> >> physics' or similar exists.
> >>
> >> (Btw: Aryans didn't exist, neither.)
> >
> > Tell the Nazis that.
> >
> > Their hate was more directed to race, or perceived race, even sending
> > nuns of Jewish descent to the death camps, and not because of their
> > religion. Nonexistent Aryans were glorified. That was their basis for
> > 'Jewish Physics' being wrong and 'Deutsche Physik' to be glorified.
> >>
> >> But Germany was a 'scientific hotspot' in the early twenties century
> >> and a lot of famous physicists came from there.
> >>
> >> This lasted until the allied forces collected all scientist they could
> >> find after WWII and shipped them abroad.
> >
> > It largely lasted until the Nazis seized power and immediately went
> > after Jewish scientists and professors. The Germans lost more scientists
> > by losing Jewish scientists who escaped from/never returned to Germany
> > or Nazi occupied territory, or perhaps were killed. Niels Bohr, Lise
> > Meitner, Otto Frisch, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, Albert Einstein.
> Not all of them were Germans.
>
> Leo Szilard was Hungarian and Nils Bohr Danish (as far as I know)
> > By 1935 there were zero Jewish professors in Germany.
> Afaik there were some in 1935, but not many.
> >
> > The Manhattan Project was loaded with German/Eastern European refugee
> > scientists.
> Leo Szillard and Albert Einstein patented a device, which only one known
> use in a fast breeding reactor.
>
> So, possibly the atomic bomb was inveted much further than when the
> Manhattan project existed.
> > Fritz Haber, who'd you would think would be hailed as a German patriot
> > for his WW1 work, was forced to resign, his immediate family escaped but
> > he died not long after the Nazis seized power. Many of his extended
> > family members died in the concentration camps.
> I never thought, that Nazis were predominately German patriots.
>
> I personally think, they were a bunch of criminals, which had the
> intention to destroy Germany.
>
> For instance Germany was bombed to total destruction, but the nazis air
> force had, at first in the world, jet engine driven planes, which were
> equipped with air-to-air missiles.
>
> These planes were much faster than the allied bombers (roughly 400 km/h
> faster) and could take out any allied plane.
>
> But they did so only once and shot down 50 bombers in an hour. They were
> never used again (at least not by the Germans).
>
> So, the Nazis could have defended Germany airspace, if they wanted to do
> so, but apparently didn't.
> > Heisenberg was harassed for acting 'too Jewish' until the Nazis realized
> > they would need him to educate.
> The Nazis were VERY anti-scientific, but actually needed science, hence
> let a few scientist alive.
>
> TH
There is so much we will never know about what went on behind the scenes in WW2, and any war for that matter.
I was interested in the renowned WW2 historian David Irving, but the jews decided that he should not be allowed to research the facts. Strange that of all the events in the known History of mankind, the ONLY event that is taboo to research is the jews claims re the "holocaust". Now why would that be you think?

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 2/3/2022 4:56 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> 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.
> >
> > Or for historians.
> > Historically it was a matter of violently anti-semitic proto-Nazis
> > rallying against Einstein, a hundred years ago.
> >
> > They decided that 'Jewish Physics' must be wrong, no matter what,
> > and that only 'Aryan Physics' aka 'Deutsche Physik' can be right.
> > In the end not even Himmler supported them.
> >
> Quite true. And "everything isalllies" has made his thoughts on that
> known...

Indeed. Physics isn't the only subject he is crazy in.

Best ignored...

Jan

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 8:31:10 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>You are all out on your own with your new theories of Physics.

No, it’s just Relativity 101. You are simply misinformed.

> I can't locate one single University level explanation of STR that allows
> for acceleration…

You must not have looked very hard... this is basic Relativity 101.

> within the hypothesis of Einstein…

What do you mean by “the hypothesis of Einstein”?

> and its not allowed for in his Paper, and no acceleration Math appears
> therein.

That's untrue, as explained previously… remember?

> No famous Physics Professors repeat what you are claiming re accelerations
> in STR in any of their many books on the subject.

Not true. For example, Albert Einstein was a fairly famous physics professor, and he wrote extensively about accelerations in special relativity... as you know (remember?)

> They never allow for accelerations within the development of the theory itself.

That's false, as was explained to you previously. Remember?

> You seem to think that acceleration is inherent in the STR theory, in
> which case it should be easily able to cope with Gravity…

Nope, gravitation involves curvature of the (pseudo-) metrical relations of space-time, whereas special relativity does not account for curvature, so it can be applied by itself only in sufficiently limited regions in which the variations of gravitation are negligibly small. Special relativity handles acceleration just fine. A theory that was applicable only to a universe in which nothing ever changed its state of motion would not make any sense… it would not be a theory of physics at all. Your difficulty is due to confusing coordinate systems with objects, and confusing the principle of relativity with the theory of relativity. We covered this before… remember?

> If acceleration was OK in STR, then what excuse can YOU offer to solve the
> Twin Paradox?

You’re confused. In the very post you responded to I used the twins scenario to illustrate how special relativity handles acceleration, and also explained your misconceptions about this. Remember? If not, just scroll back to my previous message.

> … both twins can claim that the other should be younger...

No, the elapsed proper time for each twin is just the integral of sqrt(dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2) along their respective paths, where t,x,y,z are *any* system of inertia-based coordinates. We covered this before.

> So what I want now, is your solution about the twin paradox…

See above. This is just Relativity 101, covered in every book on relativity ever written.

> [the same calculation] should work for any coordinate system accelerating or not…

Not true. The simple formula given above applies only if t,x,y,z are a system of inertia-based coordinates. The point is that it doesn’t requires either of the twins to be moving inertially. They can be moving with any kind of acceleration you choose, and you can use any system of inertia-based coordinates, and you get the same answer, because that quantity is Lorentz invariant.

Now, if you want to analyze the situation using an arbitrary system of coordinates, then you need to use the integral of sqrt(g_mn dx^m dx^n) along the paths, where g_mn are the components of the metric tensor for whatever system of coordinates you are using. It so happens that if your coordinates are inertia-based the metric tensor is extremely simple, and reduces to the expression given above. This is just Relativity 101, covered in every book on the subject.

> There is no difference at all between coordinate systems and … frames of reference.

That is not true. The meaning of “coordinate system” is clear and precise (given the necessary qualifiers), whereas the word “frame” has multiple usages and connotations in various contexts. The basic problem with using the word “frame” for newbies is that it tends to smuggle invalid connotations of “rigid” objects, whereas there can be no indefinitely extended rigid objects in nature for arbitrary states of motion (not even with coordinated “Born rigid motion”). In addition, the word “frame” encourages newbies to overlook the time coordinate.

In grade school the word “frame” often refers to a system of space coordinates, whereas in middle school it refers to a system of space and time coordinates, and in high school it refers to an equivalence class of space and time coordinates sharing the same speeds, and in freshman college physics it may refer to a local orthonormal tetrad of basis vectors, etc., and the meanings of all these things are subtly different depending on the relativistic context. So, to be clear, it’s best to just refer to definite coordinate systems.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:14:11 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> "STR claims that its logical to assume that the speed of light will always
>>> be measured at c by any observer regardless of his own motion, IF HE IS
>>> MOVING INERTIALLY. Now do you
>>> agree with that? Yes or no?
>>>
>>> Can you answer it with a yes or no?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I do, and it is not irrational at all.
>>
>> You might want to to try and venture why you think it is irrational. See if
>> you can come up with an argument other than inarticulate grunting.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> So, "i do" is the affirmative, a yes, Bodkin does agree with Einsteins
> claims on light speed measurements, but Townes does not .
> Seems Townes has his personal version of Physics uniquely his own.
> Ok, bodkin, next baby step is to identify what statements of Einstein
> led you to believe this claim re light speed measurement.

It wasn’t a statement by Einstein that convinced me. He wasn’t trying to
prove that this was so. He was raising a hypothesis, and went on to show
that IF the hypothesis were so, THEN certain things would ensue as a
necessary consequence. Then those things could be put to test to see if
they really happened, because classical physics said they would not happen.

Of course, that was all a century ago, and there have been lots of those
tests, and those results are what convinced me the hypothesis was so, not
any argument by Einstein.

This is how science actually works.

Not how YOU think it should work, obviously.

You obviously never took a physics class ever. Did you think that physics
professors make arguments to their students that the things they say are
so? Or do you think that they make hypothetical propositions to their
students that may or may not be so, and then do some experimental tests in
the class to see if they are so or not?

>
> As far as I can see, that belief comes as a consequence of the
> implications of the two postulates in his 1905 paper.
> Do we agree so far?
>
>
>
>
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:14:11 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> A religion is not a nation in the 21st century. No religion is a
>> self-professed enemy of sovereign powers.
>>
>
> "New York Times" about early 1930's ( am not going to dig the item up, I go from memory)
> NYT was then one of the most respected news publishing houses in the world.
> The page ONE HEADLINE: "Jews declare WAR on Germany"
> To be a jew, you are both a member of a religion and a member of a
> nation, which up until 1945 had no specific location, they were
> "internationally dispersed". But although they had no country territory,
> Prior 1945) they were still a tight nit easily identified Nation both in
> terms of beliefs secular and religious.
>
> The Nation of Judaism, was responsible for the creation of Communism.
> Something they openly brag about.
> Stalin was a puppet front man but the Communist party of russia was all run by jews.
>
>

Oh good grief. A headline reader.

Yeah ok, no more on this with you. Nutcase.

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:54:20 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> EVERY SINGLE book and university lecture on STR begins by stressing that
>>> STR is applicable to Inertial Frames of Reference.
>
>> Making up “alternative facts” that you have absolutely no basis for making,
>> just makes it clear you have no qualms about lying to push an argument.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> OK, Bodkin.
> Big statement there in just a few words..
> So now back up that statement with some "facts" of your own.
>
> Present the BOOK, cite the Physics Paper or lecture about STR that begins
> with a claim that STR does NOT require inertial motions, or inertial frames.

I already have.

Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler
General Realtivity from A to B, Geroch

Happy reading.

> Show me the MATH that derives lorentz transformations that do not have
> inertial relative motion.
>
> Provide the hard evidence to support you claim.
>
>
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Why not just say that from the start?

It has been said from the start. Length, like some other properties, is
frame-dependent.

> You believe that the rod shrinks for some, but not for others.

Yes, obviously.

> There is no way around that statement. If the rod has 2 different
> lengths ever, then the rod must have shrunk. But also at the same time, it did not shrink.
> Clear as mud.

Length is frame dependent, like Galileo says motion is. For one observer,
Galileo said, the object is stationary. For another, he said, the same
object is in motion.

So is it stationary or is it moving? Both, Galileo said. Motion is an
accident of reference frame, Galileo said.

You said you believe and understand Galilean physics.

>
> I take i that the stationary observer "sees" the rod shrunk, means that
> the rod physicalyl has shrunk, and its not an illusion?
>
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:06:50 AM UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 3:10:43 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Do either of these two observers see any change in rod length?
>>>
>>> The "stationary" observer sees the moving rod length contracted.
>>> The observer moving along with the rod does not.
>
>
>> Wow what a long winded way to simply say the last words, "The
>> "stationary" observer sees the moving rod length contracted.
>>> The observer moving along with the rod does not.:.
>>
>> Why not just say that from the start?
>> You believe that the rod shrinks for some, but not for others.
>> There is no way around that statement. If the rod has 2 different
>> lengths ever, then the rod must have shrunk. But also at the same time,
>> it did not shrink.
>> Clear as mud.
>>
>> I take i that the stationary observer "sees" the rod shrunk, means that
>> the rod physicalyl has shrunk, and its not an illusion?
>
> And this is why relativity and Lorentz transforms are TOXIC for the mind of sane persons.
> Because changes are PERCEPTUAL ONLY, and transitory.
>
> Once the motion STOP, length contraction VANISHES and everything go back
> to normality for everybody. Because it's pseudoscience,
> not physics. Only lame metaphysics that confuse some and allow CHARLATANS
> to have a party with idiot believers.

Lol. Take this up with Seto. He has the same complaint.

You apparently have the same understanding of physics that he does, by the
way.

He’s the same guy who talks about “absolutely horizontal.” Fine company you
have there.

>
> CAN'T BE SIMPLER!
>
> Original Lorentz:
>
> γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
> x' = γ (x - vt)
> t' = γ (t - vx/c²)
>
> If inertial motion STOPS at any moment and place (because v = 0), THEN
>
> γ = 1
> x' = x
> t' = t
>
> And NOTHING happened, even if 1,000,000 hours (t hours) passed.
>
> Lengths are RESTORED, times flow similarly, and EVERYTHING was a fucking
> dream in the mind of the imbecile of Einstein.
>
> Of course, ghost observer has to come back so can meet with the other at
> relative rest, and THIS FAIRY TAIL ends with NOTHING.
>
> All this fucking metaphysics was JUST a waste of time.
>
> Of course, some cretins will JUMP and scream: But check both clocks! The
> prove that it was not a dream is just there!
>
> And they will CONCEDE that length dilation is transitory, BUT time
> dilation is a permanent effect!
>
> This is the way these cretins make a living teaching at school and
> college. And will write 800 pages book with sophistry, fallacies
> and PSEUDO-SCIENCE.
>
> You can see the root of evils in relativity: How fuckers ABUSE of two
> simple equations for reference's transform.
>
>

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

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/2022 6:18 PM, everything isalllies wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:14:11 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> A religion is not a nation in the 21st century. No religion is a
>>> self-professed enemy of sovereign powers.
>>>
>>
>> "New York Times" about early 1930's ( am not going to dig the item up, I go from memory)
>> NYT was then one of the most respected news publishing houses in the world.
>> The page ONE HEADLINE: "Jews declare WAR on Germany"
>
> Idjit.
> A London newspaper, not the NYT.
>
> It was a convention of British Jews, who voted on whether they should
> initiate a boycott against the new Nazi regime.
>
> It was voted down.
>
> I'm guessing this is a newspaper which used sensationalized headlines,
> (like the NY Post) since "WAR" is an exaggeration of "boycott", plus the
> resolution was defeated.
>
> <snip antisemitism>
>

Yeah, when he said this, I just dropped off from that ridiculous boojums.

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

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>
> This is 'the name of the game' in physics, that theories had to be
> defended against any kind of attacks.
>

Don’t be silly.

Physics does not have to defend itself against people who obsess about
commas. What a waste of time that would be.

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

On Saturday, 5 February 2022 at 16:42:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:14:11 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> "STR claims that its logical to assume that the speed of light will always
> >>> be measured at c by any observer regardless of his own motion, IF HE IS
> >>> MOVING INERTIALLY. Now do you
> >>> agree with that? Yes or no?
> >>>
> >>> Can you answer it with a yes or no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I do, and it is not irrational at all.
> >>
> >> You might want to to try and venture why you think it is irrational. See if
> >> you can come up with an argument other than inarticulate grunting.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > So, "i do" is the affirmative, a yes, Bodkin does agree with Einsteins
> > claims on light speed measurements, but Townes does not .
> > Seems Townes has his personal version of Physics uniquely his own.
> > Ok, bodkin, next baby step is to identify what statements of Einstein
> > led you to believe this claim re light speed measurement.
>
> It wasn’t a statement by Einstein that convinced me. He wasn’t trying to
> prove that this was so. He was raising a hypothesis, and went on to show
> that IF the hypothesis were so, THEN certain things would ensue as a
> necessary consequence. Then those things could be put to test to see if
> they really happened, because classical physics said they would not happen.

No, poor idiot, it's not what classical physics said at all.

> Of course, that was all a century ago, and there have been lots of those
> tests, and those results are what convinced me the hypothesis was so, not
> any argument by Einstein.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 9:51:57 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/3/2022 4:56 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> 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.
> > >
> > > Or for historians.
> > > Historically it was a matter of violently anti-semitic proto-Nazis
> > > rallying against Einstein, a hundred years ago.
> > >
> > > They decided that 'Jewish Physics' must be wrong, no matter what,
> > > and that only 'Aryan Physics' aka 'Deutsche Physik' can be right.
> > > In the end not even Himmler supported them.
> > >
> > Quite true. And "everything isalllies" has made his thoughts on that
> > known...
>
> Indeed. Physics isn't the only subject he is crazy in.
>
> Best ignored...
>
> Jan
And yet you have no reasonable response to either....
just repeating the same old nonsense, without thinking.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:28:58 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 8:31:10 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You are all out on your own with your new theories of Physics.
>
> No, it’s just Relativity 101. You are simply misinformed.
> > I can't locate one single University level explanation of STR that allows
> > for acceleration…
>
> You must not have looked very hard... this is basic Relativity 101.

Nope, you are in error. I looked, very hard, there is nothing in STR at any level that allows for acceleration in the theory of Special Relativity. In fact, the one most central tennent is that STR is applicable to Inertial conditions.

If you actually think that STR involves accceleration and its basic 101 stuf, then you best simply profide say 3 links to mainstream documents that back up your claim.

So, links are now required, or please shut up about acceleration. Its that simple.

>
> You’re confused. In the very post you responded to I used the twins scenario to illustrate how special relativity handles acceleration, and also explained your misconceptions about this. Remember? If not, just scroll back to my previous message.
>
> > … both twins can claim that the other should be younger...
>
> No, the elapsed proper time for each twin is just the integral of sqrt(dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2) along their respective paths, where t,x,y,z are *any* system of inertia-based coordinates. We covered this before.
>
> > So what I want now, is your solution about the twin paradox…
>
> See above. This is just Relativity 101, covered in every book on relativity ever written.

Again, I come up with a negative result in a search about the twin paradox. (that agrees with your claims)
Every twin paradox discussion concludes that the travelling twin is the one in an accelerating frame, and so he will experience time dilation and thus be younger. His trip is broken into accelerating portions, which are not having any time dilation affect, but the rest of his trip is inertial, and that's where he looses time.

Once again, if you are going to claim a departure from mainstream literature, you MUST provide links so we can check your claims.

>

>
> > There is no difference at all between coordinate systems and … frames of reference.
>
> That is not true. The meaning of “coordinate system” is clear and precise (given the necessary qualifiers), whereas the word “frame” has multiple usages and connotations in various contexts. The basic problem with using the word “frame” for newbies is that it tends to smuggle invalid connotations of “rigid” objects, whereas there can be no indefinitely extended rigid objects in nature for arbitrary states of motion (not even with coordinated “Born rigid motion”). In addition, the word “frame” encourages newbies to overlook the time coordinate.
>
> In grade school the word “frame” often refers to a system of space coordinates, whereas in middle school it refers to a system of space and time coordinates, and in high school it refers to an equivalence class of space and time coordinates sharing the same speeds, and in freshman college physics it may refer to a local orthonormal tetrad of basis vectors, etc., and the meanings of all these things are subtly different depending on the relativistic context. So, to be clear, it’s best to just refer to definite coordinate systems.

Again, I find no such information in any documentation, in fact I find the opposite to what you claim.

"frame of reference, in dynamics, system of graduated lines symbolically attached to a body that serve to describe the position of points relative to the body. The reference frames used in dynamics are known as coordinate systems with axes (lines) emanating from a point known as the origin."-

"coordinate system, Arrangement of reference lines or curves used to identify the location of points in space. In two dimensions, the most common system is the Cartesian (after René Descartes) system. Points are designated by their distance along a horizontal (x) and vertical (y) axis from a reference point, the origin, designated (0, 0)." Encyclopedia Brittanica.

So as far as can be determined, you are all on your own with these ideas, making you a kook, a crank.

I asked you several times for documentation to verify your claims, you provide nothing.

On February 2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> There was an immediate experimental test:
> the dependence of the mass of the electron on its velocity.
> Kaufmann measured just that, in 1905 even, and he concluded
> that he had falsified the Lorentz-Einstein result,
> (as it was then called) and hence relativity.
> It turned out that Kaufmann's results were in error instead,

Where and how did he err?

--
Rich

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:42:14 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> "STR claims that its logical to assume that the speed of light will always
> >>> be measured at c by any observer regardless of his own motion, IF HE IS
> >>> MOVING INERTIALLY. Now do you
> >>> agree with that? Yes or no?
> >>>
> >>> Can you answer it with a yes or no?
> >>>
> >> I do, and it is not irrational at all.
> >>
> >> You might want to to try and venture why you think it is irrational. See if
> >> you can come up with an argument other than inarticulate grunting.
> >> --
> It wasn’t a statement by Einstein that convinced me. He wasn’t trying to
> prove that this was so. He was raising a hypothesis, and went on to show
> that IF the hypothesis were so, THEN certain things would ensue as a
> necessary consequence. Then those things could be put to test to see if
> they really happened, because classical physics said they would not happen.
>
> Of course, that was all a century ago, and there have been lots of those
> tests, and those results are what convinced me the hypothesis was so, not
> any argument by Einstein.
>
> This is how science actually works.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ok, I don't agree that the "experimental evidence" is valid. My claim is that its either fraudulent, misread, or incorrectly measured."
As its not possible to PROVE a theory by citing experimental evidence, we can only look at the hypothesis, where you think its rational and I dont.
Recall that you responded to this question with "
"STR claims that its logical to assume that the speed of light will always
> >>> be measured at c by any observer regardless of his own motion, IF HE IS
> >>> MOVING INERTIALLY. Now do you
> >>> agree with that? Yes or no?
> >>>
> >>> Can you answer it with a yes or no?
> >>>
> >> I do, and it is not irrational at all. "

But I can show you that the concept that light could be measured in any inertial frame with value c, regardless of the motion of the observer, is 100% irrational, and 100% impossible.
Which means that something has to be wrong with those interpretations of experiments.

But you really don't care about Physics, and understanding, you are just enjoying the feeling of belonging to a big group of guys that like to feel smarter than others.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 3:14:57 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > >>You believe that the rod shrinks for some, but not for others?

> Yes, obviously.

> Length is frame dependent, like Galileo says motion is. For one observer,
> Galileo said, the object is stationary. For another, he said, the same
> object is in motion.
>
> So is it stationary or is it moving? Both, Galileo said. Motion is an
> accident of reference frame, Galileo said.
>
> You said you believe and understand Galilean physics.
> >
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Here is your problem, a lack of critical thinking on the subject.
You are clearly no Galileo or Newton. -(but you might be a simple minded Einstein)

Galileo notes that motion is relative. And its extremely easy to demonstrate this.

(unlike Einsteins claims, that require sub atomic particle accelerators, light coming from distant stars, or speeds that are practically unobtainable in order to attempt a demonstration,)

He did not say "Motion" he reefers to RELATIVE motion.

But nothing in Galileo's physics can lead to the claim that objects shrink due to that relative motion.

Galileo did say that the "measurement of motion" will depend on the place from which the motion is measured.
From a "stationary" position, the motion velocity measure of a passing bird will be say 30.... but when measured from some other location, say from the back of a racing horse, that same bird velocity will be only 15.

He did not ever suggest that TWO distinctly different motions were going on at the same time. (because he is not an idiot)

There is on bird, one horse one guy under the tree, all taking measurements from different locations , OF THE ONE BIRD, with its one motion... Only the subjective location based measurements are different, not the birds motion.
If you measure your height while standing, and get one measurement, but someone else measures your height while you are lying down, you get two measurements. BECAUSE you are NOT actually measuring the same thing. You have not chaanged!

So with that in mind, we have to look at WHY Einstein claimed that simply be measuring distances from different locations, he concluded that rods shrank.

Ok so far? Or you want to get all anal about something?

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

Bodkin, rather than actually thinking about what I am saying, why don't you sidetrack, and start correcting my typo's and grammar?
That seems to be how Relativists approach a defence of their SR theory.
By duck and dodge, sidetrack, and ridicule.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:28:58 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 8:31:10 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You are all out on your own with your new theories of Physics.
>>
>> No, it’s just Relativity 101. You are simply misinformed.
>>> I can't locate one single University level explanation of STR that allows
>>> for acceleration…
>>
>> You must not have looked very hard... this is basic Relativity 101.
>
>
> Nope, you are in error. I looked, very hard,

What books did you read? Title, author, edition. If there are none, then
you looked very hard in the wrong places. That’s your fault.

> there is nothing in STR at any level that allows for acceleration in the
> theory of Special Relativity. In fact, the one most central tennent is
> that STR is applicable to Inertial conditions.
>
> If you actually think that STR involves accceleration and its basic 101
> stuf, then you best simply profide say 3 links to mainstream documents
> that back up your claim.
>
> So, links are now required, or please shut up about acceleration. Its that simple.
>
>
>>
>> You’re confused. In the very post you responded to I used the twins
>> scenario to illustrate how special relativity handles acceleration, and
>> also explained your misconceptions about this. Remember? If not, just
>> scroll back to my previous message.
>>
>>> … both twins can claim that the other should be younger...
>>
>> No, the elapsed proper time for each twin is just the integral of
>> sqrt(dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2) along their respective paths, where
>> t,x,y,z are *any* system of inertia-based coordinates. We covered this before.
>>
>>> So what I want now, is your solution about the twin paradox…
>>
>> See above. This is just Relativity 101, covered in every book on relativity ever written.
>
>
> Again, I come up with a negative result in a search about the twin
> paradox. (that agrees with your claims)
> Every twin paradox discussion concludes that the travelling twin is the
> one in an accelerating frame, and so he will experience time dilation and
> thus be younger. His trip is broken into accelerating portions, which
> are not having any time dilation affect, but the rest of his trip is
> inertial, and that's where he looses time.
>
> Once again, if you are going to claim a departure from mainstream
> literature, you MUST provide links so we can check your claims.
>
>
>>
>
>>
>>> There is no difference at all between coordinate systems and … frames of reference.
>>
>> That is not true. The meaning of “coordinate system” is clear and
>> precise (given the necessary qualifiers), whereas the word “frame” has
>> multiple usages and connotations in various contexts. The basic problem
>> with using the word “frame” for newbies is that it tends to smuggle
>> invalid connotations of “rigid” objects, whereas there can be no
>> indefinitely extended rigid objects in nature for arbitrary states of
>> motion (not even with coordinated “Born rigid motion”). In addition, the
>> word “frame” encourages newbies to overlook the time coordinate.
>>
>> In grade school the word “frame” often refers to a system of space
>> coordinates, whereas in middle school it refers to a system of space and
>> time coordinates, and in high school it refers to an equivalence class
>> of space and time coordinates sharing the same speeds, and in freshman
>> college physics it may refer to a local orthonormal tetrad of basis
>> vectors, etc., and the meanings of all these things are subtly different
>> depending on the relativistic context. So, to be clear, it’s best to
>> just refer to definite coordinate systems.
>
> Again, I find no such information in any documentation, in fact I find
> the opposite to what you claim.
>
> "frame of reference, in dynamics, system of graduated lines symbolically
> attached to a body that serve to describe the position of points relative
> to the body. The reference frames used in dynamics are known as
> coordinate systems with axes (lines) emanating from a point known as the origin."-
>
> "coordinate system, Arrangement of reference lines or curves used to
> identify the location of points in space. In two dimensions, the most
> common system is the Cartesian (after René Descartes) system. Points are
> designated by their distance along a horizontal (x) and vertical (y) axis
> from a reference point, the origin, designated (0, 0)." Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>
> So as far as can be determined, you are all on your own with these ideas,
> making you a kook, a crank.
>
> I asked you several times for documentation to verify your claims, you provide nothing.
>
>
>
>

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

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:42:14 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>> "STR claims that its logical to assume that the speed of light will always
>>>>> be measured at c by any observer regardless of his own motion, IF HE IS
>>>>> MOVING INERTIALLY. Now do you
>>>>> agree with that? Yes or no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you answer it with a yes or no?
>>>>>
>>>> I do, and it is not irrational at all.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to to try and venture why you think it is irrational. See if
>>>> you can come up with an argument other than inarticulate grunting.
>>>> --
>> It wasn’t a statement by Einstein that convinced me. He wasn’t trying to
>> prove that this was so. He was raising a hypothesis, and went on to show
>> that IF the hypothesis were so, THEN certain things would ensue as a
>> necessary consequence. Then those things could be put to test to see if
>> they really happened, because classical physics said they would not happen.
>>
>> Of course, that was all a century ago, and there have been lots of those
>> tests, and those results are what convinced me the hypothesis was so, not
>> any argument by Einstein.
>>
>> This is how science actually works.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Ok, I don't agree that the "experimental evidence" is valid. My claim is
> that its either fraudulent, misread, or incorrectly measured."

In that case, there’s no chance of convincing you of anything in physics,
because you don’t trust scientific results and you are just anti-science.

> As its not possible to PROVE a theory by citing experimental evidence, we
> can only look at the hypothesis, where you think its rational and I dont.

And there will be no logical proof of the hypothesis either, because that’s
not how science works.

Now, I answered your question, you answer mine. Why do you think the
statement below is irrational? Provide an argument that it is irrational.

> Recall that you responded to this question with "
> "STR claims that its logical to assume that the speed of light will always
>>>>> be measured at c by any observer regardless of his own motion, IF HE IS
>>>>> MOVING INERTIALLY. Now do you
>>>>> agree with that? Yes or no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you answer it with a yes or no?
>>>>>
>>>> I do, and it is not irrational at all. "
>
> But I can show you that the concept that light could be measured in any
> inertial frame with value c, regardless of the motion of the observer, is
> 100% irrational, and 100% impossible.

Go ahead and do that.

> Which means that something has to be wrong with those interpretations of experiments.
>
> But you really don't care about Physics, and understanding, you are just
> enjoying the feeling of belonging to a big group of guys that like to
> feel smarter than others.
>
>

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

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 8:31:10 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> I looked, very hard, there is nothing in STR at any level that allows for
> acceleration in the theory of Special Relativity.

I pointed you to Section 10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper in which he analyzes the motion of accelerating particles. That is the culmination of the whole paper, in which he derives the increasing inertia (resistance to acceleration) for particles moving at high speed... And still you claim that you have never seen any trace of acceleration in special relativity. Very strange.

Literally *every* reputable text on special relativity ever written discusses acceleration. You've just fallen prey to the common newbie error of thinking that because the principle of relativity refers to inertial coordinate systems that special relativity can’t handle non-inertial motions.. A theory in which nothing ever changes its state of motion would not even make sense.

Look, since you're so sure that no book on relativity talks about acceleration, will you promise to never post to this newsgroup again if I post 10 text books on special relativity that talk about acceleration? Answer: No, you won’t. You would just say “Well, I don’t believe any of those books.” Just as you ask for experimental demonstrations and then say “Well, I don’t believe any of those experiments”. So what is the point of asking for references and experiments? Your position is that until you understand why special relativity is not irrational, you will disregard any and all references and experiments.

So, your only task is to understand the two rows of clocks. 22 words. But you won’t do it.

> The elapsed proper time for each twin is just the integral of sqrt(dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2) along their respective paths, where t,x,y,z are *any* system of inertia-based coordinates. We covered this before.

You see, you have no response to the substantive explanations. You just pass over them without comment, and repeat your already debunked fallacies. Stop doing that... and start trying to actually understand the subject. Just 22 words.

> I asked you several times for documentation to verify your claims, you provide nothing.

Again, you have been provided with ample references to the literature (including Einstein’s 1905 paper) and to experiments, and you summarily disregard everything, because you believe special relativity is logically impossible, so all those references and experiments must be wrong. So there is no point in asking for more of them. Your only sensible course of action is to actually try to understand the two rows of clocks, which explains the relativity of simultaneity, and why special relativity does not entail a<b and b<a, as you imagine.