On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:42 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 5:29:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > > Yet, the velocity addition formula yielding the above answer is based on the Special Relativity time and space transformation equations proved to be unviable in this book:
> > > Mathematical Conflicts in the Special Theory of Relativity: Second Edition: MS Radwan M. Kassir: 9781544691374: Amazon.com: Books' - Radwan Kassir Quora.
> > Radwan Kassir is a mechanical engineer. He has no credentials whatsoever in relativity. He may be a terrific mechanical engineer but he is lousy at relativity. Why would you seek evidence from a mechanical engineer when there are umpteen actual physicists who claim differently? These actual physicists have written tons of textbooks and written tons of actual research papers. Why don't you read what the experts have written?
> >
> > Obviously, you don't know $hit about relativity and are apparently quite proud of the fact that your huge brain can figure all of this out without *ever* having read even a single textbook! Amazing! Also, doubly amazing is that you have many clones here who think the exact same way as you do! You guys should form a club and have a meeting where you can all rant and rave at mainstream physics! I'm pretty sure that Woz would be glad to host an event in his basement!
> Omnidirectional light or a ball of light expands at 2c spherically, i.e. the
> diameter increases at 2c as the radius increases at c, of course,
> because light's speed is constant.
>
> An image from a relativistic approach exists insofar as "behind the wavefront",
> then as passing the last look and the look back, as that the look back,
> is "reverse angle", so the rear-view would only see if proceeding on the
> track the image came from, or as what image arrives in space otherwise
> as that it would go out of perspective, which would appear as having shrunk,
> but shrinking while it's observed, vanishing when it's not.
>
> I.e., something approaching directly and also meeting directly, is visible
> coming and going, while not directly, it's only visible where it was,
> as when the image arrives as when it was emitted.
>
> Loosely, ....

When watching, it's motion and in motion.

First, when talking about an irrational claim, is to make the case,
that "irrational", is about the "rational". Here, "rational" is two
things: it's both the completion of the reasoning, and, the completion
of never being irrational, the rational. So, "relativity's most irrational",
claim, would have to be so minimally irrational or directly rational,
as what's never exercised irrational, is "irrational roots in relativity,
are space and time units, their roots and rational roots and irrational roots".

This is that "linear keeps in rational roots, irrational roots are also called non-linearities".

Then, insofar as an irrational claim, then is for "what claim of Relativity actually
is reasonably or reasonatingly irrational, claim that if irrational at all goes with it,
other claims".

I.e., relativity has an "ideal" "claim of irrationality", a guarantee of the
guarantee's of its reasonings, that "if irrational at all falls down all roots",
changing "confusion about everything to do with science, or here relativity,
where I can't axiomatize integrable my integrand, that I do, what the
guarantees of non-confusion, mean in the applied, and finally to the direct
action, usually relativity's first effect, effects in light.

Then "look" is to effect perspective, and "watch" is to effect perspective,
that image is reflectively being present in the perspective, that "motion"
and "motion in real-time", is that at any instant, the light diffuses, including shine.

Clearly it's galilean as a "to light speed impulse", explaining for example chrome effects,
reflections and that in effect mirrors, where the light is reflected, participate with
the other observable incident rays at that location, going out, as reflections of sources
make for that "under the eclipse the leaves of the tree have fringes in their shadow",
that that moment of the focus, is that "look" is an effect of focus, that each location
has only one "look" at a time, and is watching what it's looking at, or looking.

I.e. "it's galilean to an infinite speed impulse, including a light speed impulse",
making "thus effectively there are no mirrors between any two points in space".

Then under "irrational roots" there finding either side "overcomplete" that not
having that, property of mutual completion, it's called "Dirichlet" and "irrational roots"
where "Dirichlet is rationals 1 irrationals 0" that "a Dirichlet function is about any
function that density properties in completion are the same everywhere, but it's
exactly two complementary domains only denseness properties and one 1 the other 0".

Or, "relativity's most irrational claim" is then "for Einstein either SR or GR, here it
is that special relativity's most irrational claim, is that light that went one meter,
did not also go less than one meter with any object in the same 1 meter or it
over 1 second".

Then, "restoring relativity's most irrational claim to a contrivance of overcompleteness,
a usual property guaranteeing what we have adds up, that light's speed is a constant
and invariant, that then it's glow and shine, the optical and geometric".

Light is always incident from all angles.

The scale of the resolution of an image, here is what it means science has achieved "20 orders
of magnitude resolution" and all the way to atomic scale "25 orders of magnitude resolution",
the entire body of observability, in the micro is micro-optical and micro-geometric, and in
the macro is macro-optical and macro-geometric, and in the meso- is optical and geometric.

So, here I have even put the needle in "I won't even hear nonsense about relativity at all",
"it's harder to actually of course validate special relativity experimentally", i.e. that point
being that of course as far as I can tell, every experience I've ever had is explained quite
well, my interpretation of having "researched special relativity" and "resolved relativity
in foundations, physics", the point being that by being academic and making an apologetics
first, then as it goes along I just point to the entire apologetics, mathematical foundations,
coming up to physical foundations, of bringing that along and bringing one along, an
entire canon and an apologetics that for "Relativity: the entire discussion and Einstein's
theories thereon, with all respects to theories real physics", that making arguments in
relativity always explaining "the light wasn't there", it's that special relativity is given
the terms in the units, and dimensionless, about why "according to SI's units its these
necessary formalisms in the Special Relativity all what may apply", is that then for
example "wherever it falls out or even loosens in contraction, SR has no irrational
claim in it, only any mistaken derivations after SR and other units, then also and
especially: that SR's reflection and imaging optical and geometric the light-like,
is built as continuity laws when not invariances, any invariance that is undercomplete".

Then this is that "any conservation law is two conservation laws, one of it".

And they have one continuity law, which least action in theory is time, t.

"Relativity's most irrational claim: SR's, that things don't move, under roots
building image, as so for each bundle of roots, that parallel transport is
the entire picture, what under optical and gometric terms is only one point
image, also only one-sided".

Think of perspective as looking from infinitely far away, it's called 2-D perspective.

This way mentally you reconstruct what you're seeing besides what's in front of the eyes -
also it's the model construct in space terms which are of course equivalent:
one mental drawing.

The point is being that for Einstein and "SR or GR themselves or both",
is that GR changes in the future, while SR is from the past, so having SR
in front, is corresponding to the contents, which in imaging are free".

So, one must separate "SR and GR" or "GR, then SR", and these days enough
it's "why yes my units are classical but SR will relativize them, SR is then say
STR and then GTR" and as Einstein's "SR, then GR, called STR then GTR".
There's though that STR-arians say as GR then "GTR...", but it is though,
"ah but now, my old GR is already Einstein's new old GR and already old SR's
GTR to SR", so in this manner it's still SR and GR to "according to the units",
that into STR are "these are our units..." then as "then it's one of Einstein's
'either SR, _or_ GR_", simply gently factoring Einstein's "SR" and "GR" among
the other resulting constructs, as of course they go together in usual boost
addition, what are frames the entire frame.

It's not irrational, though, both Special Relativity and General Relativity of course
have a no-nonsense theory, which are quite true and absolutely so in all respects.

So, any "irrational claim" about relativity must have some "how irrational is it"
and "how is it irrational", then there's "that's obviously irrational", or,
"our knowledge of the theory really ends here, picking one or the other of
the SR or GR because I don't have both, is that SR at least is computed always
as constant velocity, because everything else in the universe is moving.

"Light never moves: only glows and goes away."

Light Speed Rest Frame theory <-> Glow Speed Rest Frame theory

Then, rays over time, helps establish it's a continuous theory.