On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 4:49:38 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 2:10:21 AM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You said: "The Lorentz transformation *is* the relationship between
> > inertia-based coordinate systems. " But this is incorrect, its your claim,
> > but it nonsense.
> That isn’t a substantive statement. There's obviously some relationship between the inertia-based coordinate systems defined by Galileo, and you’ve been shown that the only logically viable forms of that relationship are Galilean transformations and Lorentz transformations, and then it has been explained to you how it has been determined that the latter is correct. Typing the phrase “that is nonsense” is not a meaningful rebuttal, so the explanation stands.
> > You math is just too simple if you think you can make the impossible
> > happen just by playing with equations.
> Right. We cannot make the impossible happen. But it is not impossible for each clock to show less elapsed time than the difference between the times of clocks in the other row as it passes them. Remember? And it obviously is not impossible for a speed c to have the same value in terms of two relatively moving systems of coordinates (given your new understanding of the relativity of simultaneity), because we can exhibit such coordinate systems explicitly. They are systems related by Lorentz transformations.
> > I say there is no link between Galilean Mechanics and Lorentz equations..
> > You think there is.
> Well, the link that has been explained to you is that the actual equations of mechanics, which are Lorentz invariant, reduce to the Newtonian equations of mechanics in the low speed limit. This has been explicitly exhibited for you… remember the expressions for the kinetic energy?
> > You cant ever rationally get from Galileo to "light must go at c in any coordinate system".
> Of course not. Claiming that light must go at c in any coordinate system would be insane. Special relativity does *not* say the speed of light is c in any coordinate system. You see, your brain is just overflowing with misinformation. You need to discard all that, and start paying attention to the actual explanations.
> > And the result is the famous, "It may not seem rational, but the universe does
> > not have to fit your idea of whats rational".
> Anyone who says that is an idiot. Rationality is an essential ingredient of science, and special relativity is perfectly rational. The problem is you have no understanding of what special relativity actually says. You think it says impossible things, whereas in fact everything special relativity says is perfectly possible and rational. You have not identified any impossibility or irrationality in special relativity. (Simply declaring, without explanation, that it is impossible does not constitute a meaningful criticism.)
> > I've looked at how Einstein and every other professor steps from Galileo
> > to the "inescapable" conclusion about light going at c always, and they all
> > make the same error of logic.
> Great… and I was hoping your next sentence would actually describe that error… but, alas, it did not. Simply labeling something as “rubbish” is not a rational argument... What is this “error” that everyone has made? Why can’t you explain it?
>
> > It's Impossible.
>
> You keep typing that… but you always neglect to explain why you think it is impossible. You’ve had ample opportunity to explain, and so far you have never explained… aside from your initial attempt by claiming that relativity implies a<b and b<a, which was thoroughly debunked... Remember?
>
> Until and unless you can actually give a rational explanation for why special relativity is impossible, your claims have no foundation at all. And to give such an explanation, you would first need to understand what special relativity actually says.

Blah, blah..
You continuously keep insisting that practically everything I say is wrong, because it's "not what SRT actually says".
Einsteins own explanation and the explanations by all mainstream Physicists don't seem to be able to clearly state what STR actually says, according to you.
Whats wrong with my statement, "You cant ever rationally get from Galileo to "light must go at c in any coordinate system".

You say its an incorrect understanding of what STR actually says.
Whats wrong? did I leave out the magic word "inertial" and that's what offended your sensibilities?
We were already talking in terms of Inertial motion, so I assumed that an intelligent person would still follow my drift here.
But not you. You delight in rhetoric, games of word play, crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Ok, so does "You cant ever rationally get from Galileo to "light must be measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system". make you satisfied?

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 8:33:47 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You’re the one playing with words.
>
> Curved or straight, those are properties. Remember?
> >
> No he (Galileo) did not have one universal frame either.
>
> Again, I don’t know what purpose you think it serves you, to make up
> something that he did not say, and then when called on it you just make up
> something else.
>
> Is this the “alternative facts” people like you are famous for?
> >
> That’s not what HE said. It’s what YOU say. You have no idea what he
> thought or said because you’ve never read what he said.

> > I repeat, there is not one single property of an object that changes in
> > any way, because of different observation from different locations. To
> > claim that you have to be really stupid. Galileo and Newton were not stupid.
> >
> And yet this is what they said. Now it’s your turn to say then they were
> stupid too because you know better.
>
> And you don’t have rational ARGUMENT for your claim that no single property
> of an object can change with observer. You just believe that should be
> true, even without good reason. And you’re not about to let go of anything
> you believe to be true, even if it means treating yourself with horse
> dewormer.
>
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

So please tell us exactly what Galileo actually said about properties of objects, such as length, (or ANY other property) changing when an observer watches that object move.

Give us the actual quotes, cite the references.

Put you money where your mouth is.

And clearly you are one of those idiots that got himself injected because the communist governments demanded compliance.
And Ivermectin is a HUMAN approved medicine, in common use world wide for over 30 years...
Your deceit is showing when you call it a horse de-wormer only.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 1:37:11 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> You continuously keep insisting that practically everything I say is wrong,
> because it's "not what SRT actually says".

Yes, and I explain precisely what is wrong with what you are saying, and precisely what special relativity actually says… and you ignore it.

> Einsteins own explanation … don't seem to be able to clearly state
> what STR actually says, according to you.

That's untrue, I have repeatedly referred you to Einstein’s papers, in which he clearly explains special relativity… and you ignore it.. (Yes, I have informed you that the brain-dead youtube videos you watch are worthless.)

> Whats wrong with my statement, "You cant ever rationally get from
> Galileo to "light must go at c in any coordinate system". Whats wrong?
> Did I leave out the magic word "inertial" and that's what offended your
> sensibilities?

It isn’t a magic word, and my sensibilities have nothing to do with it. The point is that you say special relativity makes impossible claims, and I ask you what impossible claims it makes, and you say “It claims the speed of light is c in any coordinate system”. Well, that's indeed an impossible claim, but that is not what special relativity says. It says the speed is c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates, which is not an impossible claim. In fact, we can explicitly exhibit those systems of coordinates, and confirm that indeed light propagates at speed c in terms of each of them. So you can’t be sloppy, you have to state precisely and correctly, because it makes all the difference between the impossible and the possible.

> We were already talking in terms of Inertial motion…

Again, we're not talking about “inertial motion” of objects, we are talking about a specific class of coordinate systems, that are defined such that all the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of those coordinates.

> Ok, so does "You cant ever rationally get from Galileo to "light must be
> measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system". make you satisfied?

Well, that statement is getting close to reaching the level of being wrong. Assuming you're referring to the standard inertial coordinate systems with inertial simultaneity, etc., then the response is that you are wrong, because I’ve explained to you, in detail, multiple times, how to rationally get from the Galilean principle of relativity to the fact that light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates. This just brings us all the way back to the explanations that you decided to ignore several posts ago. Remember the logical derivation of the general form of the relation between inertia-based coordinates, and remenber k is not zero, it is actually 1/c^2. And each clock in the two rows shows less elapsed time than the difference between the readings of two consecutive clocks as it passes them. Remember?

El domingo, 6 de febrero de 2022 a las 18:24:49 UTC-3, itsalllies...@gmail.com escribió:
> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 2:24:34 AM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:
>
> > >
> > That the speed of light is the same in all coordinate systems, is justified because the speed of light in vacuum is the "maximum speed of propagation of interactions" in Nature. If it were to exist a speed of propagation of interactions W greater that the speed of light c, then that speed W would assume the role c currently has. Up until today, no such speed W has been detected or observed.
> >
> That idea about the "speed of causality", is a result of STR, it cant be used as proof that STR is correct. That causuality idea only works IF you first believe that STR works.
>

Are you nuts? Way before Einstein or SRT, physicists had already characterized light and measured its speed. The "maximum speed of propagation of interactions" is a complete and logic concept and it is observed in all our universe behaviors.

> And all that math was a waste of time. Because you are basing it all on the moronic "Minkowski spacetime diagram".
>

More nonsense, as the WHERE and WHEN coordinates are what humans have been using for over 4000 years.

The equality (x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 + (z2-z1)^2 = c^2(t2-t1)^2 just reflects the fact that the distance between the emission and the reception of the light signal necessarily is equal to the distance the light ray covers in the time (t2 - t1) traveling at the speed of light. This is basic geometry.

> First. Time is not a coordinate. x.y, and z are Cartesian coordinate axies, but Time can't appear in a distance and direction system. Its independent of all origin and direction systems of measure.
>

Nonsense. Time for sure is a coordinate. Humans use rulers and clocks to determine the WHERE and WHEN of events.

> You can PLOT on a GRAPH having Time on one axis and distance on another axis, but what that gives is the VELOCITY.
> Minkowski the deceiver, idiot, moron, calls the VELOCITY vector, a "world line" which is the height of stupidity.
>

Nonsense. Speed is defined as v = dx/dt and, therefore, v is a function of both x and t. Of course from v = dx/dt it follows from basic calculus that
x = integral(vdt) which defines the path of the object.

> There can be no such thing as "spacetime" anymore that you can have a place called "colourhardness".
>
> Colour is one property, hardness in another property of an object.
> Space is simply those regions between object where nothing else is, and Time is a observation of relative motions.
>
> So, no "Spacetime", no minkowski diagrams.... so all your math is based on BS.

You are complete ignorant of basic Newtoninan physics.

everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 8:33:47 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You’re the one playing with words.
>>
>> Curved or straight, those are properties. Remember?
>>>
>> No he (Galileo) did not have one universal frame either.
>>
>> Again, I don’t know what purpose you think it serves you, to make up
>> something that he did not say, and then when called on it you just make up
>> something else.
>>
>> Is this the “alternative facts” people like you are famous for?
>>>
>> That’s not what HE said. It’s what YOU say. You have no idea what he
>> thought or said because you’ve never read what he said.
>
>>> I repeat, there is not one single property of an object that changes in
>>> any way, because of different observation from different locations. To
>>> claim that you have to be really stupid. Galileo and Newton were not stupid.
>>>
>> And yet this is what they said. Now it’s your turn to say then they were
>> stupid too because you know better.
>>
>> And you don’t have rational ARGUMENT for your claim that no single property
>> of an object can change with observer. You just believe that should be
>> true, even without good reason. And you’re not about to let go of anything
>> you believe to be true, even if it means treating yourself with horse
>> dewormer.
>>
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> So please tell us exactly what Galileo actually said about properties of
> objects, such as length, (or ANY other property) changing when an
> observer watches that object move.
>
> Give us the actual quotes, cite the references.

It’s the hackneyed tactic of people like you to come into a place like this
with your pockets empty and carrying nothing but your overconfidence and
willingness to duke it out. “I’ll take on these so-called know-something’s
and take them down a peg with nothing more than my wits. Who needs facts?
Who needs reading? I can dance circles around these people all day,” you
say.

And so it doesn’t matter to you whether what comes out of your mouth is
pure bullshit fabricated on the spot. The goal for you is just to keep ‘em
dancing, keep them busy mustering rebuttals and looking things up, while
you do nothing that costs any effort at all.

It amuses you and costs you nothing because you’re not actually interested
in the subject, you’re just interested in the verbal sparring, and if
uninformed bullshit made up on the spot serves the purpose, you’re fine
with that.

This has been understood about you for some time. Fundamentally, people
like you have lots of passions and no integrity. You’re intellectual
trailer trash and proud of it.

>
> Put you money where your mouth is.
>
> And clearly you are one of those idiots that got himself injected because
> the communist governments demanded compliance.
> And Ivermectin is a HUMAN approved medicine, in common use world wide for over 30 years...
> Your deceit is showing when you call it a horse de-wormer only.
>

Because you’ve thought about things yourself.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:13:58 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:

>....special relativity says "the speed is c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates",......
In fact, we can explicitly exhibit those systems of coordinates, and confirm that indeed light propagates at speed c in terms of each of them. > >

Well that's exactly what I said in my statement when I included the word Inertial, which was inferred in the first place.
And I don't agree that "we, (Relativists) can explicitly exhibit and confirm" these claims either. You cant exhibit the coordinate systems as you describe them, nor prove that "light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates". Never been demonstrated by anyone.

> Again, we're not talking about “inertial motion” of objects, we are talking about a specific class of coordinate systems, that are defined such that all the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of those coordinates.<<<

> > Ok, so does "You cant ever rationally get from Galileo to "light must be
> > measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system". make you satisfied?

> Well, that statement is getting close to reaching the level of being wrong.
Assuming you're referring to the standard inertial coordinate systems with inertial simultaneity, etc., then the response is that you are wrong, because I’ve explained to you, in detail, multiple times, ......<<<

>how to rationally get from the Galilean principle of relativity to the fact that "light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates". <<<<

Your word here are exactly the same as mine,,, here are your words, 'light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates" and here are mine... "light must be measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system" we are talking about vacuum speed of light, so no need to specify that...... so my definition and yours about what STR says is actually identical, despite your protestations.

>>This just brings us all the way back to the explanations that you decided to ignore several posts ago. Remember the logical derivation of the general form of the relation between inertia-based coordinates, and remenber k is not zero, it is actually 1/c^2. And each clock in the two rows shows less elapsed time than the difference between the readings of two consecutive clocks as it passes them. Remember?<<<<

I remember that what you claimed is crappy.
You never showed that two rows of clocks would or could ever have different times due to relative motion.
You made up equations based on no physicality, and with that approach math can be used to prove almost any claim.
Your (Einstein's) LOGICAL derivation of the relation between inertia-based coordinates, is not based on LOGIC or REASON or demonstrable reality. its based on the false claim that "light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates" which is a wrong statement.. That claim evolved from the two postulates, but it is an illogical jump, causing the claim to be irrational. You base your equations on an irrational belief that was the conclusion of false logic.

Show me a video of the rows of clocks, because a verbal description is much better when accompanied with a visual example.

When you were at Uni, the Professor used LOTS of diagrams and perhaps animated visuals, even models to illustrate his presentation. After all we are taking about Physics, the motion of bodies, so a visual is going to help a lot.

I should complain a bit about this sentence too...
"Again, we're not talking about “inertial motion” of objects, we are talking about a specific class of coordinate systems, that are defined such that all the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of those coordinates.>>
So you are talking about any co-ordinate systems that are inertial, either motionless or moving inertially, whether you like that definition or not. Because your elaborate words, "that are defined such that all the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of those coordinates" boils down to simply mean a coordinate system that is inertial. There is no other option.
And you cant have a valid coordinate system sans some reference point, either on some object, or mathematically associated to some object.
That is the definition of a coordinate system.
If you think you can have a coordinate system just floating free in empty space, you are delusional.
To define a system of coordinates, you MUST have two things. One is the object to associate that system with. and the other object that is required serves at a relative reference so that your new system can be located, and have a valid orientation. Actually you need 3 objects as minimum to create a valid coordinate system. Otherwise you cant fully define your new system..

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:18:02 AM UTC+11, Paparios wrote:

> >
> Are you nuts? Way before Einstein or SRT, physicists had already characterized light and measured its speed. The "maximum speed of propagation of interactions" is a complete and logic concept and it is observed in all our universe behaviors.

Not at all, this is a relatively new concept about the maxium speed of causality. And it came about after STR.

> > And all that math was a waste of time. Because you are basing it all on the moronic "Minkowski spacetime diagram".
> >
> More nonsense, as the WHERE and WHEN coordinates are what humans have been using for over 4000 years.

"Where" is LOCATION, Time is not a location. Its that simple, Time is not a part of any coordinate.
You give the coordinates, and you specify the time of you want to. But if I give the coordinates alone, that place exists, and the time is up to you. There is no intrinsic connection between Places and Time. Minkowski things irrationally that there is. He is an idiot.
>

> Nonsense. Speed is defined as v = dx/dt and, therefore, v is a function of both x and t. Of course from v = dx/dt it follows from basic calculus that
> x = integral(vdt) which defines the path of the object.

You just shot yourself in the foot without even knowing it. If you have calculated the velocity from Distance (x) over Time (t) , then as you correctly state, you get VELOCITY. And the
But you end your comment with " x = integral(vdt) which defines the path of the object".... No, it can NEVER define the PATH or trajectory of the object. All this equation can define is the DISTANCE along the X AXIS. NOT and NEVER the objects PATH or trajectory. To find the trajectory or Path you must have 3 axis of information, x.y and z.
Minkowski's major error, a deliberate lie if you ask me, is to claim that the vector on his stupid spacetime diagram, represents a PATH or WORLD LINE, along which the object is lpcated.

What the minkowski diagram can only ever be is only a graph, plotting Location and Time, giving the only possible vector which is a velocity vector. The actual object under consideration can only ever be somewhere along that horizontal x axis,, and never up in the graph working ares, which is by definition all "velocity vector" area, not magic "world lines area", or object path area of rthe graph.

Its a trick designed to fool you into believing that STR has some validity.

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> everything isalllies <itsalllies...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 8:33:47 AM UTC+11, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> You’re the one playing with words.
> >>
> >> Curved or straight, those are properties. Remember?
> >>>
> >> No he (Galileo) did not have one universal frame either.
> >>
> >> Again, I don’t know what purpose you think it serves you, to make up
> >> something that he did not say, and then when called on it you just make up
> >> something else.
> >>
> >> Is this the “alternative facts” people like you are famous for?
> >>>
> >> That’s not what HE said. It’s what YOU say. You have no idea what he
> >> thought or said because you’ve never read what he said.
> >
> >>> I repeat, there is not one single property of an object that changes in
> >>> any way, because of different observation from different locations. To
> >>> claim that you have to be really stupid. Galileo and Newton were not stupid.
> >>>
> >> And yet this is what they said. Now it’s your turn to say then they were
> >> stupid too because you know better.
> >>
> >> And you don’t have rational ARGUMENT for your claim that no single property
> >> of an object can change with observer. You just believe that should be
> >> true, even without good reason. And you’re not about to let go of anything
> >> you believe to be true, even if it means treating yourself with horse
> >> dewormer.
> >>
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > So please tell us exactly what Galileo actually said about properties of
> > objects, such as length, (or ANY other property) changing when an
> > observer watches that object move.
> >
> > Give us the actual quotes, cite the references.
> It’s the hackneyed tactic of people like you to come into a place like this
> with your pockets empty and carrying nothing but your overconfidence and
> willingness to duke it out. “I’ll take on these so-called know-something’s
> and take them down a peg with nothing more than my wits. Who needs facts?
> Who needs reading? I can dance circles around these people all day,” you
> say.
>
> And so it doesn’t matter to you whether what comes out of your mouth is
> pure bullshit fabricated on the spot. The goal for you is just to keep ‘em
> dancing, keep them busy mustering rebuttals and looking things up, while
> you do nothing that costs any effort at all.
>
> It amuses you and costs you nothing because you’re not actually interested
> in the subject, you’re just interested in the verbal sparring, and if
> uninformed bullshit made up on the spot serves the purpose, you’re fine
> with that.
>
> This has been understood about you for some time. Fundamentally, people
> like you have lots of passions and no integrity. You’re intellectual
> trailer trash and proud of it.
> >
> > Put you money where your mouth is.
> >
> > And clearly you are one of those idiots that got himself injected because
> > the communist governments demanded compliance.
> > And Ivermectin is a HUMAN approved medicine, in common use world wide for over 30 years...
> > Your deceit is showing when you call it a horse de-wormer only.
> >
> Because you’ve thought about things yourself.
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I challenged you over several things, you failed every one.
Your version of Physics cant be justified, (with rational analysis) Newtons can.
Its just that simple.

"everything isalllies" wrote:
> ... After all we are taking about Physics, the motion of bodies, so a
visual is going to help a lot.

Why do you think you deserve to be helped that much in understanding SR
that people should create videos for you?? You are insane.

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 11:29:07 AM UTC+11, Python wrote:
> "everything isalllies" wrote:
> > ... After all we are taking about Physics, the motion of bodies, so a
> visual is going to help a lot.
> Why do you think you deserve to be helped that much in understanding SR
> that people should create videos for you?? You are insane.

Python I do believe that we previously established that you are an idiot, and you confirm that again here.
There are hundreds of videos already available, I wanted to know which one was agreeable with Townes, so that we could both have the same reference material.

I fully understand STR, that's why I'm confident that it cant stand up to rational review. You dont need to teach me anything.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:36:32 PM UTC-8, imbecile itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> I fully understand STR, that's why I'm confident that it cant stand up to rational review.

Thing is, no one gives a shit what an imbecile (that is, you) thinks.

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 12:20:51 PM UTC+11, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:36:32 PM UTC-8, imbecile itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I fully understand STR, that's why I'm confident that it cant stand up to rational review.
> Thing is, no one gives a shit what an imbecile (that is, you) thinks.

Great stuff there donno,
YOU dont give a shit.... you dont speak for everybody.
And as your intelligence is in the gutter level, I don't care what you think.
If you had some rational statements to make, now that would be different.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:00:40 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>>....special relativity says "the speed is c in terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates",......
>
> Well that's exactly what I said in my statement when I included the word
> Inertial, which was inferred in the first place.

First you omitted any qualification, which was wrong; then, when your oversight was corrected (you're welcome) you added the qualification “inertial”, which is still not quite enough on your level because you conceive of an inertial coordinate system as any system of coordinates that is moving inertially. You omit the crucial requirement for inertial simultaneity necessary to satisfy the relativity condition.

> > In fact, we can explicitly exhibit those systems of coordinates, and confirm
> > that indeed light propagates at speed c in terms of each of them.
>
> You cant exhibit the coordinate systems as you describe them…

False. The canonical examples are x,t and (x-vt)g, (t-vx)g, which explicitly preserve the speed 1. You cannot rationally deny these coordinates, at most you could say that you don’t yet understand the physical reason that these are the coordinates referred to in Galileo’s principle of relativity, rather than x,t and (x-vt), t. But this too has been explained to you in detail. You just ignore the explanation.

> Your word here are exactly the same as mine,,, here are your words,
> 'light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of
> inertia-based coordinates" and here are mine... "light must be
> measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system"

No, your words are not exactly the same as mine. They differ in four significant ways. First, as explained above, specifying “inertial” doesn’t fully define the inertia-based coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit.. Second, your phrase “measured at” reveals a misconception. Delete those two words. Third, change “in” to “in terms of”, because everything is “in” every coordinate system, so that’s not expressing the require meaning. Fourth, stipulate vacuum. You see, in one brief phrase, there were four significant differences.

> You never showed that two rows of clocks would or could ever have different
> times due to relative motion.

I explained the meaning of “given two relatively moving ideal clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest”, which you had claimed implied the logically impossible proposition “a<b and b<a”. I explained why your objection was unfounded. Do you agree that it's logically possible for two rows of clocks to exhibit the behavior I described? If so, then we can dispense with your claim that special relativity is logically impossible. If not, then you need to say “I deny that it is logically possible for two rows of clocks to behave the way you described”, and then I can explain in detail and you will see your error. So what say you?

> Your (Einstein's) LOGICAL derivation of the relation between inertia-based
> coordinates, is not based on LOGIC or REASON or demonstrable reality.

You are mistaken. In fact, there are multiple distinct rational paths to arrive at special relativity, and they are all perfectly logical.

> Its based on the false claim that "light propagates in vacuum at speed c in
> terms of every system of inertia-based coordinates"…

You’re not listening. Again, starting purely from Galileo’s principle of relativity, without any other premises or assertions about the speed of light or anything else, we can apply pure logic and reason to arrive at the most general logically consistent form of the relationship between the coordinate systems referred to in Galileo’s principle. We find that the logical constraints do not suffice to narrow it down to just the Galilean transformations, as Newton and Galileo assumed. It actually has a degree of freedom, which implies that the applicable transformations could be either Euclidean, Galilean, or Lorentzian. I didn’t mention the Euclidean possibility (k < 0) before, because I didn’t want to confuse you (even more) and its easy to rule out the Euclidean alternative for other reasons.

So, from a purely logical standpoint, without assuming anything at all beyond Galileo’s principle of relativity, it can be shown quite rigorously that x’=(x-vt)g, t’=(t-kvx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-kv^2) and k is some constant. At no point in this derivation do we assume anything about the speed of light. We then (and only then) go on to determine the value of k, empirically, and it turns out to have the value 1/c^2.

> Show me a video of the rows of clocks…

Just draw a little picture or make a graph, showing the readings of each clock as they pass each other. You must have access to paper and a pencil. Or you could (horror of horrors) get a book that has good drawings in it.

> Your elaborate words, "that are defined such that all the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of those coordinates" boils down to simply mean a coordinate system that is inertial. There is no other option.

Hopefully you now understand. There are infinitely many inertial coordinate systems (in the sense of moving inertially) that are not inertia-based coordinate systems and the normal equations of physics do not hold good in terms of those “inertial” systems.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 5:29:15 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 12:20:51 PM UTC+11, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:36:32 PM UTC-8, imbecile itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I fully understand STR, that's why I'm confident that it cant stand up to rational review.
> > Thing is, no one gives a shit what an imbecile (that is, you) thinks.
> Great stuff there donno,
> YOU dont give a shit....

No one gives a shit. But you get to eat it.

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 1:46:39 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:

> So please tell us exactly what Galileo actually said about properties of objects, such as length, (or ANY other property) changing when an observer watches that object move.
>
> Give us the actual quotes, cite the references.
>
> Put you money where your mouth is.

Why don't you just look all of this up for yourself? No need for someone else to spoon-feed you... you are a Big Boy, right, and able to feed yourself? Or perhaps you are not smart enough to do this all on your own? ALL of your questions can be answered either online or in a library.

Just who was your servant last year?

Am 06.02.2022 um 17:20 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>>>
>>> Physics does not have to defend itself against people who obsess about
>>> commas. What a waste of time that would be.
>>>
>> My critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not
>> include linguistic aspects like commas or spelling errors.
>>
>> But as a native speaker of the German language I'm able to read the
>> German version, too.
>>
>> I wrote in fact a liguistic critique about 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
>> Körper', too, but havn't mentioned that here.
>>
>> Einstein's language stile is quite 'weak', because it uses in many case
>> not the best phrases possible.
>>
>> In a way I would think, it was not written in German, but is a
>> translation, most likely from English. It could also have an origin in
>> some German speaking groups in the USA, because the language is actually
>> a little 'old school', like Amish or Hutterers.
>>
>> The language is somehow interesting, because it would allow the
>> question, whether Einstein himself was actually the author.
>>
>> Einstein was not really an artistist in language,
>
> You are no artistist either,

Well, I can write quite well, even in English, what is a second language
for me.

I have actually written a few short stories, which got published (in a
rather small literature magazine).

(possibly this is a reason, why I'm 'obsessed about commas').

TH

Am 06.02.2022 um 07:19 schrieb Thomas Heger:

> I have no doubts about concentrations camps.
>
> But there were many other aspects of Naziism, which I'm sceptic about.
>
> E.g. the famous book 'Mein Kampf' seems to be the German translation of
> a book, which was orininally written in English.
>
> To understand my arguments would require to speak German fluently, what
> you don't.
>
> But in short is goes like this:
>
> any translations produces errors, because languages use in some cases
> different concepts, which may eventually have no matching counterpart in
> the other language.
>
> Now the direction English->German produces other errors than the
> direction German->English.
>
> Now you only need to search for such errors and count, which type occurs
> more often. Then you know the direction of translation.
>
> In case of 'My Struggle' the errors related to English->German are much
> more often, hence the text must have been written in english.

One such case is the use of the article 'the' (in sigular) to adress the
people of a country in English, while German uses the plural.

Now 'My struggle' uses only the sigular form, if e.g. citizens of a
country were meant ('DER Deutsche' for instance).

Another problem for translations is, that German has three linguistic
sexes, while English only two.

This makes certain translations difficult, because the neutral gender in
German has no real counterpart in English.

E.g. the neutral 'das Schiff' (the ship) is female in English, while
that would be strange in German.

Now it is possible to look for such translation problems and try to
estimate the translation direction from presence or absence of certain
errors.

Another method is kind of similar to 2nd law of thermodynamics, which
states, that entropy always increases.

Applied to translation of a text: any text gets 'weaker' by translation,
hence the weaker one must be the translation.

And 'Mein Kampf' is FAR weaker than 'My struggle'.

TH
>

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 12:42:57 PM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:00:40 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Your word here are exactly the same as mine,,, here are your words,
> > 'light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of
> > inertia-based coordinates" and here are mine... "light must be
> > measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system"

> No, your words are not exactly the same as mine. They differ in four significant ways. First, as explained above, specifying “inertial” doesn’t fully define the inertia-based coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit..

You are kidding right?
You actually think there is a difference between an "inertial coordinate system" and a "system where there are inertial based coordinates" ????
Ok, I am standing on the earth, and a guy flying overhead has inertial motions just now. I say he is in my inertial coordinate system, and he says he is in his own cabin wide inertial system. There's two inertial systems. Where all Laws of Newtonian mechanics hold good. A third guy is in deep space, in his space ship observing that the laws of physics also work there too, so he s in an inertial based system too. Now Newtonian laws allow for acceleration too , so that ok if we have some object moving with acceleration from our own points of view. So the moment we set one object of observer as "the stationary observer" at the origin of our coordinate system, then that system contains Newtonian Law obeying other objects. These are called inertial coordinate systems.
Now if we were in a rocket accelerating, and we said that we will use our rocket as the origin of a new coordinate system, that new system would not be an inertial system, but it would still be obeying Newtons Laws of Motion.

So there's a bunch of Coordinate systems, are any fitting your extra special coordinate system's rules?
Because I cant tell the difference between an inertial coordinate system, and a inertial coordinate system where the laws of Newtonian mechanics hold good. These are both talking about the exact same thing.

Please spell out the finer details that differentiate the two version of inertial coordinate systems, because i have no idea what the hell you are on about.
I not heard anyone else talk about two different inertial coordinate systems.

>Second, your phrase “measured at” reveals a misconception. Delete those two words. >
There is nothing evil about the words "measured at" If you say light propagates at c, then we ought to be able to measure that at c, so this is not as you claim a SIGNIFICANT difference.

Third, change “in” to “in terms of”, because everything is “in” every coordinate system, so that’s not expressing the require meaning.
Again, no significant difference here. "in terms of" is in meaning the same as "in" the system. Actually STR claims that any observer, whether considering himself stationary or moving, either inertially of with acceleration, will always measure light speed as c.

Fourth, stipulate vacuum. You see, in one brief phrase, there were four significant differences.
A vacuum is necessary for light to be measured at c, so no need to repeat it twice.
Again, no significant difference, that would change an argument either way.

> > You never showed that two rows of clocks would or could ever have different
> > times due to relative motion.
> I explained the meaning of “given two relatively moving ideal clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other clock is at rest”, which you had claimed implied the logically impossible proposition “a<b and b<a”. I explained why your objection was unfounded. Do you agree that it's logically possible for two rows of clocks to exhibit the behavior I described? If so, then we can dispense with your claim that special relativity is logically impossible. If not, then you need to say “I deny that it is logically possible for two rows of clocks to behave the way you described”, and then I can explain in detail and you will see your error. So what say you?

I say that its logically and rationally impossible for two rows of clocks to differ just be moving in the manner you describe.

> > Your (Einstein's) LOGICAL derivation of the relation between inertia-based
> > coordinates, is not based on LOGIC or REASON or demonstrable reality.
> You are mistaken. In fact, there are multiple distinct rational paths to arrive at special relativity, and they are all perfectly logical.
>

Lets just stick to the method Einsteisn used to present his hypothesis.
Via Kinematics.

>
> So, from a purely logical standpoint, without assuming anything at all beyond Galileo’s principle of relativity, it can be shown quite rigorously that x’=(x-vt)g, t’=(t-kvx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-kv^2) and k is some constant. At no point in this derivation do we assume anything about the speed of light. We then (and only then) go on to determine the value of k, empirically, and it turns out to have the value 1/c^2.

I bet you can NOT explaon how to rationally come up with these conclusions, where Newtonian equations end up requiring the gamma function.

>
> > Show me a video of the rows of clocks…
>
> Just draw a little picture or make a graph, showing the readings of each clock as they pass each other. You must have access to paper and a pencil. Or you could (horror of horrors) get a book that has good drawings in it.

I drew a picture, the clocks all increment in the same way with or without motion.

>
> Hopefully you now understand. There are infinitely many inertial coordinate systems (in the sense of moving inertially) that are not inertia-based coordinate systems and the normal equations of physics do not hold good in terms of those “inertial” systems.

I say you got this twisted. coordinate systems are associated with objects, if not then they cant be defined at all.
If the defining object is moving inertially or stationary , (however you are going to figure that out) then its associated coordinate system is also inertial. and relative to that defining object or origin, the laws of newtons mechanics are applicable,

There is no other type of system as you are implying. no other coordinate system other than inertial or accelerating are possible, because those two conditions cover all situations. You are either inertial or accelerating. There is no other state of motion for your additional system.

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 7:10:59 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.02.2022 um 07:19 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
> > I have no doubts about concentrations camps.
> >
> > But there were many other aspects of Naziism, which I'm sceptic about.
> >
> > E.g. the famous book 'Mein Kampf' seems to be the German translation of
> > a book, which was orininally written in English.
> >
> > To understand my arguments would require to speak German fluently, what
> > you don't.
> >
> > But in short is goes like this:
> >
> > any translations produces errors, because languages use in some cases
> > different concepts, which may eventually have no matching counterpart in
> > the other language.
> >
> > Now the direction English->German produces other errors than the
> > direction German->English.
> >
> > Now you only need to search for such errors and count, which type occurs
> > more often. Then you know the direction of translation.
> >
> > In case of 'My Struggle' the errors related to English->German are much
> > more often, hence the text must have been written in english.
>
>
> One such case is the use of the article 'the' (in sigular) to adress the
> people of a country in English, while German uses the plural.
>
> Now 'My struggle' uses only the sigular form, if e.g. citizens of a
> country were meant ('DER Deutsche' for instance).
>
> Another problem for translations is, that German has three linguistic
> sexes, while English only two.
>
> This makes certain translations difficult, because the neutral gender in
> German has no real counterpart in English.
>
> E.g. the neutral 'das Schiff' (the ship) is female in English, while
> that would be strange in German.
>
> Now it is possible to look for such translation problems and try to
> estimate the translation direction from presence or absence of certain
> errors.
>
> Another method is kind of similar to 2nd law of thermodynamics, which
> states, that entropy always increases.
>
> Applied to translation of a text: any text gets 'weaker' by translation,
> hence the weaker one must be the translation.
>
> And 'Mein Kampf' is FAR weaker than 'My struggle'.
>
>
> TH
> >
Interesting, but not going to change anyone's opinions. I was not there beside Hitler to see first hand what he was thinking and discussing with his off-siders.

So I reserve my opinions to that which makes most sense. Seems to me that war breeds liars.
I have no trust in historians unless they demonstrate a very solid case.
Many do not when I comes to the background stories of wartime.
I would rather talk about Physics that's why I'm here.

Am 06.02.2022 um 08:50 schrieb everything isalllies:
> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:54:01 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> To call Jews a race was one of the crimes of Naziism.
>>
>
>>
>> To call them a race would require, to believe in races in the first place.
>>
>> But human races are an erroneous concept of especially the 19th century
>> Brittany and especially promoted by crap-writers like Charles Darwin.
>>
>> TH
>
> Well you are way off the make here.
>
> I guess you also don't think there are only two genders?
>
> Calling a group of people who claim to be a nation, and who call themselves a race, "a race", is not a crime. Of the germans, or anyone else.
>
> Next, of course there are different races, If you cant tell the difference between Whoopie Goldberg, and Kim Basinger then I feel very sorry for you. The biggest difference is their racial uniqueness.
>
> Darwin may not be right, but that doesn't mean that there are not different races, why am I even having to point this out?
>

The theory of Darwin was crappy in many ways.

First problem: Darmin underestimated the age of planet Earth by the
gigantic factor of 15000.
In fact the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, while Darwin assumed
300.000.

Second: the assumed species could easily interbreed. Darwin forgot to
prove, that what he called species were actually different species.

third problem: his book 'on the origin of species ...' is written VERY
unscientific.
It is written more like a novel and describes his personal adventures,
rather then presenting scientific results.

Darwin had apparently written about common believes, which were present
in the British upper-class of the 19th century, which he tried to
justify by 'science'.

The term 'race' was origionally not meant as human races, but as
something what we would call 'statistical clusters' in modern terms.

This phrase was used in horse breeding and similar, while 'black' people
were not seen as different race, but as humans with darker skin.

This is of course correct, because the genetical differences within the
population of Afrca is greater than in the rest of the world.

To call Jews a race is nonsense, because jews exist in different 'colors'.

Also Germans are not a race. This is so for a number of reasons. One is,
that German is a language, which was once widely spoken in Europe by
many people of different countries.

The speakers of the German language are called 'Germans'.

The phrase itself came from ancient Rome and addressed people, who have
settled mainly in what today is Denmark.

We had a number is movements of tribes and populations in the past in
the region now called 'Germany', which mixed all kinds of people from
many different origins into one country.

This is very similar to the USA, but happened much earlier.

Germany is also very young and exists only since 150 years.

TH

Op 07-feb.-2022 om 09:14 schreef everything isalllies:
> On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 12:42:57 PM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:00:40 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Your word here are exactly the same as mine,,, here are your words,
>>> 'light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of
>>> inertia-based coordinates" and here are mine... "light must be
>>> measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system"
>
>> No, your words are not exactly the same as mine. They differ in four significant ways. First, as explained above, specifying “inertial” doesn’t fully define the inertia-based coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit.
>
> You are kidding right?

Someone is throwing a fortune worth of pearls at you,
and you sound like a swine being throat slitted.

Dirk Vdm

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 06.02.2022 um 08:50 schrieb everything isalllies:
> > On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:54:01 PM UTC+11, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> >> To call Jews a race was one of the crimes of Naziism.
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> To call them a race would require, to believe in races in the first place.
> >>
> >> But human races are an erroneous concept of especially the 19th century
> >> Brittany and especially promoted by crap-writers like Charles Darwin.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> > Well you are way off the make here.
> >
> > I guess you also don't think there are only two genders?
> >
> > Calling a group of people who claim to be a nation, and who call
> >themselves a race, "a race", is not a crime. Of the germans, or anyone
> >else.
> >
> > Next, of course there are different races, If you cant tell the
> >difference between Whoopie Goldberg, and Kim Basinger then I feel very
> >sorry for you. The biggest difference is their racial uniqueness.
> >
> > Darwin may not be right, but that doesn't mean that there are not
> >different races, why am I even having to point this out?
> >
>
> The theory of Darwin was crappy in many ways.
>
> First problem: Darmin underestimated the age of planet Earth by the
> gigantic factor of 15000.
> In fact the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, while Darwin assumed
> 300.000.

So you have gotten that wrong too.
The first door on your right leads to talk.origins
which is where they keep that kind of nutters,

Jan

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 06.02.2022 um 17:20 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
> >>>
> >>> Physics does not have to defend itself against people who obsess about
> >>> commas. What a waste of time that would be.
> >>>
> >> My critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not
> >> include linguistic aspects like commas or spelling errors.
> >>
> >> But as a native speaker of the German language I'm able to read the
> >> German version, too.
> >>
> >> I wrote in fact a liguistic critique about 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
> >> Körper', too, but havn't mentioned that here.
> >>
> >> Einstein's language stile is quite 'weak', because it uses in many case
> >> not the best phrases possible.
> >>
> >> In a way I would think, it was not written in German, but is a
> >> translation, most likely from English. It could also have an origin in
> >> some German speaking groups in the USA, because the language is actually
> >> a little 'old school', like Amish or Hutterers.
> >>
> >> The language is somehow interesting, because it would allow the
> >> question, whether Einstein himself was actually the author.
> >>
> >> Einstein was not really an artistist in language,
> >
> > You are no artistist either,
>
> Well, I can write quite well, even in English, what is a second language
> for me.
>
> I have actually written a few short stories, which got published (in a
> rather small literature magazine).

My, you must be an artististist,

Jan

Op 07-feb.-2022 om 11:51 schreef J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 06.02.2022 um 17:20 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Physics does not have to defend itself against people who obsess about
>>>>> commas. What a waste of time that would be.
>>>>>
>>>> My critique about 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not
>>>> include linguistic aspects like commas or spelling errors.
>>>>
>>>> But as a native speaker of the German language I'm able to read the
>>>> German version, too.
>>>>
>>>> I wrote in fact a liguistic critique about 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter
>>>> Körper', too, but havn't mentioned that here.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein's language stile is quite 'weak', because it uses in many case
>>>> not the best phrases possible.
>>>>
>>>> In a way I would think, it was not written in German, but is a
>>>> translation, most likely from English. It could also have an origin in
>>>> some German speaking groups in the USA, because the language is actually
>>>> a little 'old school', like Amish or Hutterers.
>>>>
>>>> The language is somehow interesting, because it would allow the
>>>> question, whether Einstein himself was actually the author.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein was not really an artistist in language,
>>>
>>> You are no artistist either,
>>
>> Well, I can write quite well, even in English, what is a second language
>> for me.
>>
>> I have actually written a few short stories, which got published (in a
>> rather small literature magazine).
>
> My, you must be an artististist,

.... one of the autististic kind, apparentititly.

Dirk Vdm

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:47:31 PM UTC+11, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 07-feb.-2022 om 09:14 schreef everything isalllies:
> > On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 12:42:57 PM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 4:00:40 PM UTC-8, itsalllies...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> Your word here are exactly the same as mine,,, here are your words,
> >>> 'light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every system of
> >>> inertia-based coordinates" and here are mine... "light must be
> >>> measured at c in any INERTIAL coordinate system"
> >
> >> No, your words are not exactly the same as mine. They differ in four significant ways. First, as explained above, specifying “inertial” doesn’t fully define the inertia-based coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit.
> >
> > You are kidding right?
> Someone is throwing a fortune worth of pearls at you,
> and you sound like a swine being throat slitted.
>
> Dirk Vdm

I would hardly call splitting hairs over the meaning of inertial coordinates (aka laws of newton apply) vs inertial coordinates where laws of newton apply, "Pearls of wisdom".