On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 5:27:38 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You misrepresent what I say or simply deny it for specious reasons.

I've not misrepresented anything you have said. I've quoted you verbatim, and then I've carefully and patiently explain why what you've said is wrong.. (You're welcome.) If you think I have misrepresented something you have said, go ahead and point it out.

> I can sum up your position as "It is what it is because that's what it is.."

What on earth are you talking about? You have not asked me to explain *why* the universe is locally Lorentz invariant, you have simply expressed a load of misconceptions about what local Lorentz invariance means, and I've been explaining what it means. Before you can understand why the world is Lorentz invariant -- or claim that it isn't -- you must first understand what Lorentz invariance means, i.e., you must become acquainted with the objective empirical facts.

Look, your idiocy boils down to your claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to the claim that sqrt(1-v^2) = cos(tilt), which amounts to the claim that v = sin(tilt), so all you are doing is defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.

Meanwhile, the empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this in terms of hyperbolic trig functions as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t. This is a hyperbolic rotation. Do you dispute this?

If you insist on writing the relation in terms of your silly parameter "tilt", it is t'=(t-invsin(tilt)x)/cos(tilt), x'=(x-invsin(tilt)t)/cos(tilt). This is pointless, and it doesn't change Lorentz invariance at all, it just writes a simple relation in a needlessly complicated and senseless way..

On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 04:06:14 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:

> Meanwhile, the empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2).

Meanwhile, in the real world, forbidden by your
insane Shit GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>
> > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the empirically
> > verified facts
> >
> gedanken by some insane fanatics.
>
> > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements with a grid of
> > standard rulers and clocks
> >
> And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> poor idiot?

OK, if you want practicalities.
Rulers are obsolete.
All distances are nowadays defined and measured
in terms of light travel time.
(so from femtoseconds up to 10 billion lightyears or so)

See the definition of the SI meter.

Jan

On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> >
> > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the empirically
> > > verified facts
> > >
> > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> >
> > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements with a grid of
> > > standard rulers and clocks
> > >
> > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > poor idiot?
> OK, if you want practicalities.
> Rulers are obsolete.

They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
reality.

> All distances are nowadays defined and measured
> in terms of light travel time.
> (so from femtoseconds up to 10 billion lightyears or so)

10 billions years of light travelling - between what?
You've heard of gravitational lensing, haven't you?
Light my travel between the same points in different
times... Your terms are simply not consistent.
One of must-be consequences of violating common
sense.

Am 12.06.2022 um 19:50 schrieb Tom Capizzi:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 1:26:12 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 11.06.2022 um 08:34 schrieb Tom Capizzi:
>>> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 12:47:33 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:38 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>> On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:28:18 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Appartently the universe 'speaks' in a mathematical language, which is
>>>>>> also known as 'geometric algebra'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The universe is silent, like it always was. If you're
>>>>> applying some mathematical language to it - that's
>>>>> because you're trained to try.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, the universe is not silent.
>>>>
>>>> We see things all around us, which are somehow produced by the universe.
>>>>
>>>> Now we could think, the universe itself would operate on a mathematical
>>>> foundation and acts like a large analoge computer.
>>>>
>>>> This was more or less my own assumption, which I have used in my 'book'
>>>> about 'structured spacetime':
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This concept works quite well and was based on the assumption, that the
>>>> universe itself uses a certain kind of math, by which pointlike elements
>>>> of spacetime are interconnected.
>>>>
>>>> This would create certain patterns, which we call 'matter' in case of
>>>> they are timelike stable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is actually a relatively simple concept, streight forward and based
>>>> on a small set of plausible assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> The only problem is, that these assumptions are not very intuitive and
>>>> difficult to understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> In my own musings, I have considered a similar system. I noticed that through several isomorphisms of spacetime coordinates (I say isomorphisms because there is no combination of Lorentz transforms that can map one to another) the invariant s² and the rapidity w were the same in all of the isomorphisms. I realized it was because s is the hyperbolic magnitude and rapidity is the hyperbolic rotation angle. They are the coordinates of a point in a Cartesian orthogonal coordinate system. Since this grid is orthogonal, the two coordinates are independent, resulting in what we call invariance. In other words, after passing local coordinates through the transform that maps hyperbolic coordinates to another frame, the relationship that restores the hyperbolic magnitude associated with any point in hyperbolic spacetime is just the inverse of the coordinate transform that created the map. Despite the fact that the axes are no longer orthogonal, the inverse transform reconstructs the hype
rb
>> olic magnitude. The property of invariance implies an isomorphism to hyperbolic trigonometry, in which hyperbolic magnitude and rotation angle are orthogonal. This seems to imply that the universe prefers hyperbolic coordinate systems. In the hyperbolic coordinate system, the Lorentz transform takes on an especially simple form. If the hyperbolic rotation angle is w, then w1 is initial angle, w2 is the angle associated with a Lorentz boost and w3 is the result. Then, (s,w3) = (0,w2) + (s,w1). In the Minkowski isomorphism, the first and last points are replaced by column vectors, and the boost is a 2x2 matrix. In the Euclidean isomorphism, the 2x2 matrix is diagonal, because the axes are the real eigenvectors of the Lorentz matrix. The elements of the diagonal matrix are the two real eigenvalues of the Lorentz matrix, while in the Minkowski isomorphism, the elements are hyperbolic functions of the rotation angle, the magnitude of which is the natural log of the eigenvalue. The int
eres
>> ting thing about the eigenvector isomorphism is that it cannot be reached by any combination of Lorentz boosts. A single Lorentz boost can take a point that is stationary and boost it to any finite velocity, less than c. For the eigenvector frame to be unreachable by any combination of Lorentz boosts implies that it, like the eigenvectors which are the worldlines of photons, is the frame of lightspeed. How many questions have gone unanswered because we can't transform to the light frame? But this frame maps to both the hyperbolic grid and Minkowski spacetime. As isomorphisms, any disturbance in any one of them produces ripples in all of them. Not necessarily similar, though.
>>>
>>> What caught my attention was the idea of a set of points being in a fixed geometric pattern. Magnitudes in hyperbolic coordinates are unaffected by relative velocity. So a set of points in a line represents a set of magnitudes that all share the same velocity, and are invariant as a set over all rapidities. These could be structures like atoms or molecules. Does any of this sync with what you're doing?
>> First:
>>
>> you should add some white space into your text, what would make it much
>> more readable.
>>
>> Second:
>>
>> yes actually, but I had a different approach.
>>
>> I wanted to find use for a certain quaternion equation, because I wanted
>> to take spacetime as real physical entity and model it as quaternion
>> field. These 'elements of spacetime' are assumed to interact with their
>> direct neighbors in a certain way, which generates certain patterns.
>> These patterns are, what we regard as the real world, while they are in
>> fact internal structure of spacetime.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> I have also looked into quaternions. But my model of the universe requires more than 4 dimensions. One of the options is to extend the quaternions to 8 dimensions. There are two popular choices, the biquaternions and the octonions. At the beginning of relativity, it was actually modeled with biquaternions (in addition to quaternions). Much more recently, octonions have been demonstrated to exhibit the properties of subatomic particles. Although the octonion multiplication is commonly represented by the Fano plane (a triangle) or cube, they actually employ the same 8x8 checkerboard Cayley table as the biquaternions, and both are the same underlying table as the Walsh sequency multiplication table. The only difference is the pattern of minus signs in front of the product units, and the patterns of the minus signs are themselves Walsh sequencies. The Walsh table has no minus signs at all, and sequency multiplication is both commutative and associative, unlike the other two. The hyper
complex sets are both isomorphisms of the Walsh sequencies. It turns out that all of them are intimately related to the Klein 4-group, and the Sierpinski triangle and tetrahedron.

I promote bi-quaternions, which have eight entries. They have an
equivalent contruct called 'complex four vectors'.

(The octonions are not related to this type of objects.)

I have written this 'book' some years ago, which is about my idea called
'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

I gave up the topic, because there was nobody showing any interest.

But still I think, the concept works quite well.

....

TH

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the empirically
> > > > verified facts
> > > >
> > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > >
> > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements with a grid of
> > > > standard rulers and clocks
> > > >
> > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > poor idiot?
> > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > Rulers are obsolete.
>
> They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> reality.

Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
for people to look at.
The practical meter is defined -as a secondary standard-
in terms of the wavelength of a stabilised He-Ne laser.
Your tape measure is calibrated in terms of that,

Jan

On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 13:43:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the empirically
> > > > > verified facts
> > > > >
> > > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > > >
> > > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements with a grid of
> > > > > standard rulers and clocks
> > > > >
> > > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > > poor idiot?
> > > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > > Rulers are obsolete.
> >
> > They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> > and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> > reality.
> Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
> as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
> for people to look at.

Usual rulers are of wood or plastic. There are also
tapes. And they're used millions (maybe billions)
of times every day.
Still, of course, the mumble of "a grid of
standard rulers and clocks " is nothing but some
wild imagination of a fanatic moron.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 13:43:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the empirically
> > > > > > verified facts
> > > > > >
> > > > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > > > >
> > > > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements with a
> > > > > > grid of standard rulers and clocks
> > > > > >
> > > > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > > > poor idiot?
> > > > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > > > Rulers are obsolete.
> > >
> > > They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> > > and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> > > reality.
> > Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
> > as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
> > for people to look at.
>
> Usual rulers are of wood or plastic. There are also
> tapes. And they're used millions (maybe billions)
> of times every day.

Certainly , and wildly inaccurate.
Remember though that a 'measurement' isn't a measurent
unless it can be traced back (at least in principle)
to a realisation of the definition of the unit.

> Still, of course, the mumble of "a grid of
> standard rulers and clocks " is nothing but some
> wild imagination of a fanatic moron.

Sure, that is only didactic talk,
for people who are less dumb that you.

Others do understand anyway,

Jan

On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 18:56:06 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 13:43:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the empirically
> > > > > > > verified facts
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements with a
> > > > > > > grid of standard rulers and clocks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > > > > poor idiot?
> > > > > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > > > > Rulers are obsolete.
> > > >
> > > > They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> > > > and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> > > > reality.
> > > Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
> > > as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
> > > for people to look at.
> >
> > Usual rulers are of wood or plastic. There are also
> > tapes. And they're used millions (maybe billions)
> > of times every day.
> Certainly , and wildly inaccurate.
> Remember though that a 'measurement' isn't a measurent
> unless it can be traced back (at least in principle)
> to a realisation of the definition of the unit.

How about - the first moments of Big Bang,
when no Cs atom existed?
A measurement is a procedure generating
a number, somehow related to something
you want to describe. How, precisely? No
direct limitations. It's your knowledge and
your skill - and your responsibility if the result
is useless.

> > Still, of course, the mumble of "a grid of
> > standard rulers and clocks " is nothing but some
> > wild imagination of a fanatic moron.
> Sure, that is only didactic talk,
> for people who are less dumb that you.

For people dumb enough to believe that
your "empirical facts" are something more
than some gedanken bullshit.

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 10:06:14 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 5:27:38 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You misrepresent what I say or simply deny it for specious reasons.
> I've not misrepresented anything you have said. I've quoted you verbatim, and then I've carefully and patiently explain why what you've said is wrong. (You're welcome.) If you think I have misrepresented something you have said, go ahead and point it out.
> > I can sum up your position as "It is what it is because that's what it is."
> What on earth are you talking about? You have not asked me to explain *why* the universe is locally Lorentz invariant, you have simply expressed a load of misconceptions about what local Lorentz invariance means, and I've been explaining what it means. Before you can understand why the world is Lorentz invariant -- or claim that it isn't -- you must first understand what Lorentz invariance means, i.e., you must become acquainted with the objective empirical facts.
>
> Look, your idiocy boils down to your claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to the claim that sqrt(1-v^2) = cos(tilt), which amounts to the claim that v = sin(tilt), so all you are doing is defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
>
> Meanwhile, the empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this in terms of hyperbolic trig functions as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t. This is a hyperbolic rotation. Do you dispute this?
>
> If you insist on writing the relation in terms of your silly parameter "tilt", it is t'=(t-invsin(tilt)x)/cos(tilt), x'=(x-invsin(tilt)t)/cos(tilt). This is pointless, and it doesn't change Lorentz invariance at all, it just writes a simple relation in a needlessly complicated and senseless way.
All I have to say to you is that without the ad hominem attacks, you wouldn't have much to say.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 6:13:33 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You misrepresent what I say or simply deny it for specious reasons.
> > I've not misrepresented anything you have said. I've quoted you verbatim, and then I've carefully and patiently explain why what you've said is wrong. (You're welcome.) If you think I have misrepresented something you have said, go ahead and point it out.
> > > I can sum up your position as "It is what it is because that's what it is."
> > What on earth are you talking about? You have not asked me to explain *why* the universe is locally Lorentz invariant, you have simply expressed a load of misconceptions about what local Lorentz invariance means, and I've been explaining what it means. Before you can understand why the world is Lorentz invariant -- or claim that it isn't -- you must first understand what Lorentz invariance means, i.e., you must become acquainted with the objective empirical facts.
> >
> > Look, your idiocy boils down to your claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to the claim that sqrt(1-v^2) = cos(tilt), which amounts to the claim that v = sin(tilt), so all you are doing is defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this in terms of hyperbolic trig functions as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t. This is a hyperbolic rotation. Do you dispute this?
> >
> > If you insist on writing the relation in terms of your silly parameter "tilt", it is t'=(t-invsin(tilt)x)/cos(tilt), x'=(x-invsin(tilt)t)/cos(tilt). This is pointless, and it doesn't change Lorentz invariance at all, it just writes a simple relation in a needlessly complicated and senseless way.
>
> All I have to say to you is that without the ad hominem attacks, you wouldn't have much to say.

First, you should learn the meaning of the phrase "ad hominem". (Hint: There was no ad hominem in my message.) Second, along with the explanation of your errors, I have given a clear and complete debunking of each of your claims, and since you can't even *attempt* to rationally refute what I have said, your claims stand debunked. See above.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 18:56:06 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 13:43:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the
> > > > > > > > empirically verified facts
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements
> > > > > > > > with a grid of standard rulers and clocks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > > > > > poor idiot?
> > > > > > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > > > > > Rulers are obsolete.
> > > > >
> > > > > They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> > > > > and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> > > > > reality.
> > > > Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
> > > > as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
> > > > for people to look at.
> > >
> > > Usual rulers are of wood or plastic. There are also
> > > tapes. And they're used millions (maybe billions)
> > > of times every day.
> > Certainly , and wildly inaccurate.
> > Remember though that a 'measurement' isn't a measurent
> > unless it can be traced back (at least in principle)
> > to a realisation of the definition of the unit.
>
> How about - the first moments of Big Bang,
> when no Cs atom existed?
> A measurement is a procedure generating
> a number, somehow related to something
> you want to describe. How, precisely? No
> direct limitations. It's your knowledge and
> your skill - and your responsibility if the result
> is useless.
>
>
> > > Still, of course, the mumble of "a grid of
> > > standard rulers and clocks " is nothing but some
> > > wild imagination of a fanatic moron.
> > Sure, that is only didactic talk,
> > for people who are less dumb that you.
>
> For people dumb enough to believe that
> your "empirical facts" are something more
> than some gedanken bullshit.

Have you told them, at NIST?

Jan

On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 09:28:24 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 18:56:06 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 13:43:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the
> > > > > > > > > empirically verified facts
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements
> > > > > > > > > with a grid of standard rulers and clocks
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > > > > > > poor idiot?
> > > > > > > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > > > > > > Rulers are obsolete.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> > > > > > and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> > > > > > reality.
> > > > > Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
> > > > > as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
> > > > > for people to look at.
> > > >
> > > > Usual rulers are of wood or plastic. There are also
> > > > tapes. And they're used millions (maybe billions)
> > > > of times every day.
> > > Certainly , and wildly inaccurate.
> > > Remember though that a 'measurement' isn't a measurent
> > > unless it can be traced back (at least in principle)
> > > to a realisation of the definition of the unit.
> >
> > How about - the first moments of Big Bang,
> > when no Cs atom existed?
> > A measurement is a procedure generating
> > a number, somehow related to something
> > you want to describe. How, precisely? No
> > direct limitations. It's your knowledge and
> > your skill - and your responsibility if the result
> > is useless.
> >
> >
> > > > Still, of course, the mumble of "a grid of
> > > > standard rulers and clocks " is nothing but some
> > > > wild imagination of a fanatic moron.
> > > Sure, that is only didactic talk,
> > > for people who are less dumb that you.
> >
> > For people dumb enough to believe that
> > your "empirical facts" are something more
> > than some gedanken bullshit.
> Have you told them, at NIST?

Have I told them what? That there was never any
"grid of standard rulers and clocks " where measurements
match the Shit of your idiot guru?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 09:28:24 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 18:56:06 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 13:43:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the
> > > > > > > > > > empirically verified facts
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements
> > > > > > > > > > with a grid of standard rulers and clocks
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > > > > > > > poor idiot?
> > > > > > > > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > > > > > > > Rulers are obsolete.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> > > > > > > and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> > > > > > > reality.
> > > > > > Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
> > > > > > as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
> > > > > > for people to look at.
> > > > >
> > > > > Usual rulers are of wood or plastic. There are also
> > > > > tapes. And they're used millions (maybe billions)
> > > > > of times every day.
> > > > Certainly , and wildly inaccurate.
> > > > Remember though that a 'measurement' isn't a measurent
> > > > unless it can be traced back (at least in principle)
> > > > to a realisation of the definition of the unit.
> > >
> > > How about - the first moments of Big Bang,
> > > when no Cs atom existed?
> > > A measurement is a procedure generating
> > > a number, somehow related to something
> > > you want to describe. How, precisely? No
> > > direct limitations. It's your knowledge and
> > > your skill - and your responsibility if the result
> > > is useless.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Still, of course, the mumble of "a grid of
> > > > > standard rulers and clocks " is nothing but some
> > > > > wild imagination of a fanatic moron.
> > > > Sure, that is only didactic talk,
> > > > for people who are less dumb that you.
> > >
> > > For people dumb enough to believe that
> > > your "empirical facts" are something more
> > > than some gedanken bullshit.
> > Have you told them, at NIST?
>
> Have I told them what?

That their "empirical facts" are nothing more
than some 'gedanken bullshit',

Jan

On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 18:16:47 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 09:28:24 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 18:56:06 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 13:43:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 13 June 2022 at 09:26:56 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 20:50:06 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Again, the invariant spacetime intervals are among the
> > > > > > > > > > > empirically verified facts
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > gedanken by some insane fanatics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No, that is incorrect. We can certainly make measurements
> > > > > > > > > > > with a grid of standard rulers and clocks
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And what is the longest ruler you've ever seen,
> > > > > > > > > > poor idiot?
> > > > > > > > > OK, if you want practicalities.
> > > > > > > > > Rulers are obsolete.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They're not, it's just that their usage is limited,
> > > > > > > > and your fellow is lacking any contact with the
> > > > > > > > reality.
> > > > > > > Sure. Platinum-Iridium bars do have their uses,
> > > > > > > as museum pieces, to fill up otherwise empty glass cases
> > > > > > > for people to look at.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Usual rulers are of wood or plastic. There are also
> > > > > > tapes. And they're used millions (maybe billions)
> > > > > > of times every day.
> > > > > Certainly , and wildly inaccurate.
> > > > > Remember though that a 'measurement' isn't a measurent
> > > > > unless it can be traced back (at least in principle)
> > > > > to a realisation of the definition of the unit.
> > > >
> > > > How about - the first moments of Big Bang,
> > > > when no Cs atom existed?
> > > > A measurement is a procedure generating
> > > > a number, somehow related to something
> > > > you want to describe. How, precisely? No
> > > > direct limitations. It's your knowledge and
> > > > your skill - and your responsibility if the result
> > > > is useless.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Still, of course, the mumble of "a grid of
> > > > > > standard rulers and clocks " is nothing but some
> > > > > > wild imagination of a fanatic moron.
> > > > > Sure, that is only didactic talk,
> > > > > for people who are less dumb that you.
> > > >
> > > > For people dumb enough to believe that
> > > > your "empirical facts" are something more
> > > > than some gedanken bullshit.
> > > Have you told them, at NIST?
> >
> > Have I told them what?
> That their "empirical facts" are nothing more
> than some 'gedanken bullshit',

If they're invoking "a grid of standard rulers
and clocks" for a "didactic talk" to new generations
of idiots believing that their gedanken delusions
are much better than the reality...

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 9:35:20 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 6:13:33 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > You misrepresent what I say or simply deny it for specious reasons.
> > > I've not misrepresented anything you have said. I've quoted you verbatim, and then I've carefully and patiently explain why what you've said is wrong. (You're welcome.) If you think I have misrepresented something you have said, go ahead and point it out.
> > > > I can sum up your position as "It is what it is because that's what it is."
> > > What on earth are you talking about? You have not asked me to explain *why* the universe is locally Lorentz invariant, you have simply expressed a load of misconceptions about what local Lorentz invariance means, and I've been explaining what it means. Before you can understand why the world is Lorentz invariant -- or claim that it isn't -- you must first understand what Lorentz invariance means, i.e., you must become acquainted with the objective empirical facts.
> > >
> > > Look, your idiocy boils down to your claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to the claim that sqrt(1-v^2) = cos(tilt), which amounts to the claim that v = sin(tilt), so all you are doing is defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation.. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, the empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this in terms of hyperbolic trig functions as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t. This is a hyperbolic rotation. Do you dispute this?
> > >
> > > If you insist on writing the relation in terms of your silly parameter "tilt", it is t'=(t-invsin(tilt)x)/cos(tilt), x'=(x-invsin(tilt)t)/cos(tilt). This is pointless, and it doesn't change Lorentz invariance at all, it just writes a simple relation in a needlessly complicated and senseless way.
> >
> > All I have to say to you is that without the ad hominem attacks, you wouldn't have much to say.
> First, you should learn the meaning of the phrase "ad hominem". (Hint: There was no ad hominem in my message.) Second, along with the explanation of your errors, I have given a clear and complete debunking of each of your claims, and since you can't even *attempt* to rationally refute what I have said, your claims stand debunked. See above.
I almost fell out of my chair from laughing. You didn't debunk anything. You regurgitated dogma from an illogical fairy tale. Doesn't work for me. And you must have a very selective memory: "your idiocy", "The silliness of this", "like a grown-up"... I did not mean that there was any of that crap in the very last comment, just in gemeral. And you are a liar, too.
"> The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.

Right, whereas the inner-product in spacetime is not, which is precisely why it is a pseudo-metric manifold (triangle inequality not satisfied, etc.).

> The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.

Huh? You contradict yourself. As you said above, the dot product in Euclidean space is positive definite."

If you put on your reading glasses, you will note that I explicitly did not say "the dot product in Euclidean space is positive definite." I said that about the inner product, which is not identical to the dot product. But you can "win" a lot of arguments by making shit up.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 5:33:51 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> >
> > Right, whereas the inner-product in spacetime is not, which is precisely why it is a
> > pseudo-metric manifold (triangle inequality not satisfied, etc.).
> >
> > > The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.
> >
> > Huh? You contradict yourself. As you said above, the dot product in Euclidean
> > space is positive definite.
>
> I did not say "the dot product in Euclidean space is positive definite." I said that about
> the inner product, which is not identical to the dot product.

In Euclidean space, the inner product and the dot product are synonymous. So I say again: You contradict yourself. First you say it is positive definite, then you say it is not. Your statements are incoherent.

> > Look, you claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression
> > ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v).
> > The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not
> > represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining
> > a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> >
> > The empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where
> > g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as
> > t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v).
> >
> > If you insist on writing the relation in terms of your silly parameter "tilt", it is
> > t'=(t-invsin(tilt)x)/cos(tilt), x'=(x-invsin(tilt)t)/cos(tilt). This is pointless, and it
> > doesn't change Lorentz invariance at all, it just writes a simple relation in a
> > needlessly complicated and senseless way.
>
> But you can "win" a lot of arguments by making shit up.

I wish I could take credit for it, but I did not "make up" special relativity. I've merely been explaining it to you, and pointing out the silliness of your verbiage. I keep stating the facts and asking if you dispute any of it, and you never do. So the facts stand unchallenged, and your silly nonsense stands debunked. Agreed?

On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 04:17:03 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:

> I wish I could take credit for it, but I did not "make up" special relativity. I've merely been explaining it to you, and pointing out the silliness of your verbiage. I keep stating the facts and

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your insane religion GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:17:03 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 5:33:51 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> > >
> > > Right, whereas the inner-product in spacetime is not, which is precisely why it is a
> > > pseudo-metric manifold (triangle inequality not satisfied, etc.).
> > >
> > > > The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.
> > >
> > > Huh? You contradict yourself. As you said above, the dot product in Euclidean
> > > space is positive definite.
> >
> > I did not say "the dot product in Euclidean space is positive definite." I said that about
> > the inner product, which is not identical to the dot product.
> In Euclidean space, the inner product and the dot product are synonymous. So I say again: You contradict yourself. First you say it is positive definite, then you say it is not. Your statements are incoherent.
>
> > > Look, you claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression
> > > ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v).
> > > The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not
> > > represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining
> > > a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> > >
> > > The empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where
> > > g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as
> > > t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v).
> > >
> > > If you insist on writing the relation in terms of your silly parameter "tilt", it is
> > > t'=(t-invsin(tilt)x)/cos(tilt), x'=(x-invsin(tilt)t)/cos(tilt). This is pointless, and it
> > > doesn't change Lorentz invariance at all, it just writes a simple relation in a
> > > needlessly complicated and senseless way.
> >
> > But you can "win" a lot of arguments by making shit up.
> I wish I could take credit for it, but I did not "make up" special relativity. I've merely been explaining it to you, and pointing out the silliness of your verbiage. I keep stating the facts and asking if you dispute any of it, and you never do. So the facts stand unchallenged, and your silly nonsense stands debunked. Agreed?
No. I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source. The "facts" are self-contradictory, and I do not agree with your pronouncement that I present "silly nonsense". So, nothing has been debunked by you. Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis. Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics uses against all critics. Most others are wrong, but gaslighting doesn't prove it. You may as well be talking to the wall from here on.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 1:00:54 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.

In Euclidean space, the inner product and dot product are synonymous, so you contradict yourself. First you say it is positive definite, then you say it is not. Your statements are incoherent.

Look, you claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.

The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v).

> I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source.

The facts I've presented to you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.

> The "facts" are self-contradictory...

Great... please tell me what is contradictory about the facts that I have carefully explained to you. [Prediction: You won't.]

> I do not agree with your pronouncement that I present "silly nonsense".
> So, nothing has been debunked by you.

Not true. The person who spouts silly nonsense rarely if ever agrees that he is spouting silly nonsense, but this doesn't change the fact that he are spouting silly nonsense, for the reason explained above. You see, I have not simply declared it, I have explained it in detail, exposing the idiocy of your statements, and you have not offered any coherent defense of your silly claims.

> Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis.

Declaring that your mind is irrevocably closed is not good. And, again, (1) I have not merely asserted things, I have explained them in detail (see above), and (2) you have not presented any analysis, but simply a string of silly nonsensical assertions.

> Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics
> uses against all critics.

Wait ... first you discount what I say because you claim I'm not a reliable representative
of mainstream physics, and now you complain that I am completely typical of mainstream physics. You contradict yourself.

>You may as well be talking to the wall from here on.

From here on? LOL. All your claims have been conclusively debunked. See above.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 8:05:15 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 1:00:54 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> > The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.
> In Euclidean space, the inner product and dot product are synonymous, so you contradict yourself. First you say it is positive definite, then you say it is not. Your statements are incoherent.
> Look, you claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v).
> > I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source.
> The facts I've presented to you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.
>
> > The "facts" are self-contradictory...
>
> Great... please tell me what is contradictory about the facts that I have carefully explained to you. [Prediction: You won't.]
> > I do not agree with your pronouncement that I present "silly nonsense".
> > So, nothing has been debunked by you.
> Not true. The person who spouts silly nonsense rarely if ever agrees that he is spouting silly nonsense, but this doesn't change the fact that he are spouting silly nonsense, for the reason explained above. You see, I have not simply declared it, I have explained it in detail, exposing the idiocy of your statements, and you have not offered any coherent defense of your silly claims.
> > Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis.
> Declaring that your mind is irrevocably closed is not good. And, again, (1) I have not merely asserted things, I have explained them in detail (see above), and (2) you have not presented any analysis, but simply a string of silly nonsensical assertions.
> > Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics
> > uses against all critics.
> Wait ... first you discount what I say because you claim I'm not a reliable representative
> of mainstream physics, and now you complain that I am completely typical of mainstream physics. You contradict yourself.
> >You may as well be talking to the wall from here on.
> From here on? LOL. All your claims have been conclusively debunked. See above.
Must be you favorite catch-phrase.
I guess you missed the part about Einstein using a false premise to create special relativity, making all those beginner text books worthless. And, my mind isn't closed. I have had much more productive exchanges with others. I just don't value repetition of dogma no matter how many text books it's in. In any case, you can't even copy text that's in a message correctly and I do not trust your paraphrasing of everything else. Just google inner product and dot product. The math encyclopedia sites are in agreement that a dot product is a form of inner product, but there are other forms of inner product besides the conventional dot product. I did not contradict myself. And where did you get the idea that I thought you were a representative of mainstream physics? All I said was you were an unreliable source. Your pronouncements are faulty, and you are quick to jump to conclusions. I also notice you didn't take the opportunity to deny that mainstream physics gaslights critics of relativity. You probably will now, but I think it's telling that you let that slip by.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 8:05:15 PM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 1:00:54 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> > The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.
> In Euclidean space, the inner product and dot product are synonymous, so you contradict yourself. First you say it is positive definite, then you say it is not. Your statements are incoherent.
> Look, you claim that the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
> The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v).
> > I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source.
> The facts I've presented to you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.
>
> > The "facts" are self-contradictory...
>
> Great... please tell me what is contradictory about the facts that I have carefully explained to you. [Prediction: You won't.]
> > I do not agree with your pronouncement that I present "silly nonsense".
> > So, nothing has been debunked by you.
> Not true. The person who spouts silly nonsense rarely if ever agrees that he is spouting silly nonsense, but this doesn't change the fact that he are spouting silly nonsense, for the reason explained above. You see, I have not simply declared it, I have explained it in detail, exposing the idiocy of your statements, and you have not offered any coherent defense of your silly claims.
> > Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis.
> Declaring that your mind is irrevocably closed is not good. And, again, (1) I have not merely asserted things, I have explained them in detail (see above), and (2) you have not presented any analysis, but simply a string of silly nonsensical assertions.
> > Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics
> > uses against all critics.
> Wait ... first you discount what I say because you claim I'm not a reliable representative
> of mainstream physics, and now you complain that I am completely typical of mainstream physics. You contradict yourself.
> >You may as well be talking to the wall from here on.
> From here on? LOL. All your claims have been conclusively debunked. See above.
Here's another example:
"The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v)."
t'=(t-vx)g is supposed to be γ(t-vx) = γ(t-βx) = γt-γβx = cosh(q)t-sinh(q)x, and x'=(x-vt)g is
γ(x-vt) = γ(x-βt) = γx-γβt = cosh(q)x-sinh(q)t. Couldn't bother to proof-read your post?

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 3:28:58 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.

Again, in Euclidean space (which you specified), the inner product and dot product are synonymous, so you contradict yourself.

You claim the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.

The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v) [with the missing negative sign restored].

> I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source.

The facts I've given you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.

> The "facts" are self-contradictory...

Great... please tell me what's contradictory about the facts that I have carefully explained to you. [Prediction: You won't.]

> Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis... My mind isn't closed.

LOL.

> Einstein using a false premise to create special relativity...

What false premise was that? [Prediction: You will not answer.]

> Where did you get the idea that I thought you were a representative of
> mainstream physics?

You said: "Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics uses against all critics", and that I am repeating the standard "dogma", and you conceded that what I am telling you is in all the standard text books. So, yes, you are conceding that I am representing mainstream physics, which you reject. But then you also assert, based on nothing, that I'm not reliably representing mainstream physics so there's no need for you to respond to what I am telling you. You contradict yourself.

> Your pronouncements are faulty...

But I've asked you repeatedly to point out any fault in anything I have explained to you... and you never do. [Prediction: You never will.]

> You didn't deny that mainstream physics gaslights critics of relativity.

To the contrary, I've repeatedly asked you to identify any flaw in what I've been telling you. Again, you never have [and you never will]. Just check your next message, and you will see that it still contains no actually response to any of the technical points that have been made. The thorough debunking of your claims stands unchallenged.

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 15:49:49 UTC+2, Stan Fultoni wrote:

> The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2).

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

> The facts I've given you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.

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

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:49:49 AM UTC-4, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 3:28:58 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The inner product of a vector with itself in Euclidean geometry is positive definite.
> > The dot product is allowed to be positive negative or 0, not the inner product.
> Again, in Euclidean space (which you specified), the inner product and dot product are synonymous, so you contradict yourself.
>
> You claim the expression ct = γct' is the same as the expression ct' = ct cos(tilt)", which just amounts to defining the term "tilt" as invsin(v). The silliness of this is exceeded only by its utter pointlessness. It does not represent any kind of theory, nor even an interpretation. You are just defining a useless symbol in a senseless way.
>
> The well-known empirical fact is that x,t and x',t' are related by t'=(t-vx)g, x'=(x-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Naturally we can express this as a hyperbolic rotation as t'=-sinh(q)x + cosh(q)t, x'=cosh(q)x - sinh(q)t where q = invtanh(v) [with the missing negative sign restored].
> > I will not dispute any of your so-called "facts" because you are an unreliable source.
> The facts I've given you are common knowledge and irrefutable, available in countless introductory books on special relativity.
>
> > The "facts" are self-contradictory...
>
> Great... please tell me what's contradictory about the facts that I have carefully explained to you. [Prediction: You won't.]
>
> > Nor will anything else you assert change my analysis... My mind isn't closed.
>
> LOL.
>
> > Einstein using a false premise to create special relativity...
>
> What false premise was that? [Prediction: You will not answer.]
>
> > Where did you get the idea that I thought you were a representative of
> > mainstream physics?
>
> You said: "Your position is typical of the gaslighting that mainstream physics uses against all critics", and that I am repeating the standard "dogma", and you conceded that what I am telling you is in all the standard text books. So, yes, you are conceding that I am representing mainstream physics, which you reject. But then you also assert, based on nothing, that I'm not reliably representing mainstream physics so there's no need for you to respond to what I am telling you. You contradict yourself.
>
> > Your pronouncements are faulty...
>
> But I've asked you repeatedly to point out any fault in anything I have explained to you... and you never do. [Prediction: You never will.]
>
> > You didn't deny that mainstream physics gaslights critics of relativity..
>
> To the contrary, I've repeatedly asked you to identify any flaw in what I've been telling you. Again, you never have [and you never will]. Just check your next message, and you will see that it still contains no actually response to any of the technical points that have been made. The thorough debunking of your claims stands unchallenged.
You're right about one thing. I never will yield to your frivolous demands. I told you, this conversation is over. You can make whatever ludicrous demands you want. There is no debating with you, as you keep repeating the same dogma over and over and then concluding that you have debunked my argument. Rather than use logic to show that my position leads to a contradiction, you reiterate junk science. Of course, when I point out the contradictions inherent in the Einstein fairy tale, you are blind. Why don't you lurk somewhere else?