Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 3:57:10 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 8:31:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:36:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 1:07:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 10:21:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 9:57:34 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 3:14:37 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My target audience is a generation that hasn't yet been brainwashed by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainstream physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, with this statement you are now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *officially* labeled a crank and a crackpot forevermore. I doubt very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much that there is anything that you can do or say to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this opinion here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My advice would be to simply go away and take up another hobby because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are pretty much finished here, you have zero relativity credibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We see a dozen or more people here every year who are just like you, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are all losers. Einstein was right and you are clueless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who appointed you the "official" crank labeler? My advice to you is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick to logical arguments and keep the opinions to yourself. It concerns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me very little that I have zero credibility with you. The feeling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mutual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s all well and good to have those little one-on-one tit-for-tats, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue issue is, you’re looking for the attention of an audience. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep going around from forum to forum, expressing your disdain for those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who critique your thinking, you will soon find yourself where you started,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with no audience and just you telling yourself you have a brilliant idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And since what you’re REALLY after is external relevance, this doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really meet the need, does it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm looking to find one collaborator, not an audience. It obviously won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a crackpot skeptic who opposes me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, that’s another common keyword. What this translates to, among those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with history here, is “I consider myself the idea guy. I don’t have all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technical skills needed to develop this myself. But with the help of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone with real physics training, I can maybe get this developed into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> viable, publishable paper. Having good ideas in physics shouldn’t be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to people with lots of physics background. It should be open to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all intelligent people with an interest in the subject, and I deserve a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little notice for at least having an interesting idea, even if I can’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry it all the way the way a professional physicist would.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are painfully obvious, even though you’re trying not to be. Also,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly routine, one of a handful who wander through here annually JUST LIKE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not a maker of common sense. Can't have that in relativity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, another keyword. There are many, many critics of relativity who say
>>>>>>>>>>>> that physics should appeal to common sense, and that theories that fly in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of common sense have something wrong with them. Indeed, a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>> hacks spend years trying to replace relativity with something that appeals
>>>>>>>>>>>> to common sense and agrees with experimental results. Hence, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> “alternative explanation” gambit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a red flag also.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think if you read the popularizations of some noted physicists, you’ll
>>>>>>>>>>>> see them all say that nature does not respect common sense. Nature is
>>>>>>>>>>>> weird. It behaves in ways that common sense says are flat-out impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This plain fact bothers a lot of amateurs deeply. They don’t want nature to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be strange, and they don’t want their common sense challenged.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's your interpretation. I don't buy it. Just because we are so
>>>>>>>>>>> arrogant to think we understand Nature and then whine about it not making
>>>>>>>>>>> sense, because, that's Nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Common sense is a set of rules extrapolated from everyday experience. This
>>>>>>>>>> extrapolation allows us to make quick, rule-of-thumb judgments that will
>>>>>>>>>> work most of the time, which is an evolutionary survival strategy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But rules of thumb are rarely generalizable to being exactly true. “The
>>>>>>>>>> same object cannot be in two different places at the same time,” is an
>>>>>>>>>> example of a rule of thumb. This works in everyday experience, but our
>>>>>>>>>> everyday experience is only a thin slice of reality, and this rule in fact
>>>>>>>>>> is not correct generally. Tunneling diodes and q-bit computers work
>>>>>>>>>> explicitly on the principle of the same thing being in two places at once,
>>>>>>>>>> and these things do in fact work, which means the rule is bad. Where the
>>>>>>>>>> common-sense man then usually objects is to say, “why then do we never see
>>>>>>>>>> it in everyday life? Why do we not see the same Buick inside and outside
>>>>>>>>>> the garage at the same time, if it is possible at all?” This is where the
>>>>>>>>>> skill of calculating is important — vital in physics, in fact. Because
>>>>>>>>>> possible does not mean commonplace, or that what is commonplace at one size
>>>>>>>>>> or energy scale is commonplace at all scales, including everyday ones. So
>>>>>>>>>> yes, it is consistent with a nature that a Buick be inside and outside the
>>>>>>>>>> garage at the same time, but it is exceedingly rare; but it is much more
>>>>>>>>>> commonplace for a neutron to be inside and outside the nucleus at the same
>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is why physics involves more than just doing the sanity check of
>>>>>>>>>> whether such things happen in everyday life. This is why experiments
>>>>>>>>>> outside the domain of everyday experience are important, why calculations
>>>>>>>>>> of rates and sizes of effects are important, and why common sense is not
>>>>>>>>>> any kind of reliable metric of reality.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given two isomorphisms, which are indistinguishable by any
>>>>>>>>> experiment or measurement,
>>>>>>>> Well, there you go, using that
>>>>>>>>> word funny, but I think I know what you’re
>>>>>>>> trying to say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I think part of the issue here is your lack of understanding of the
>>>>>>>> scope of relativity, which is a shit-ton larger than time dilation, length
>>>>>>>> contraction, and momentum/energy. For example, QED and QCD, two of the most
>>>>>>>> exquisitely tested theories of all time, are manifestly covariant,
>>>>>>>> something that is insisted by relativity. You’d have to explain how to
>>>>>>>> arrive at QED, QCD without that manifest covariance. By the way, relativity
>>>>>>>> is also behind the prediction of positrons, as well as fermionic behavior,
>>>>>>>> which in turn completely accounts for metallicity and semiconductivity.
>>>>>>>> With Newtonian physics, you can observe the existence of antimatter,
>>>>>>>> metals, and semiconductors but you can’t explain why they exist. The
>>>>>>>> discovery of W and Z bosons showed that they were right where they were
>>>>>>>> predicted to be, in an electroweak theory that would not have been possible
>>>>>>>> in a nonrelativistic world. Need I go on? There are about three dozen
>>>>>>>> things you’ve probably heard of but didn’t know stemmed from relativity.
>>>>>>>>> I'll choose the one that exhibits common sense. After all, people keep
>>>>>>>>> blathering that they are equivalent, so either choice is correct,
>>>>>>>>> by your standard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that you've given us your laundry list, please try to explain how
>>>>>>> Euclidean eigenvector decomposition contradicts them.
>>>>>> It’s your “theory”. How does it account for them? How do antiparticles
>>>>>> arise from it? (Just for starters.)
>>>>>>> You've made absurd claims, now back them up. In any case, the standard in
>>>>>>> physics is not perfection. It is, "If the numbers work, it's good
>>>>>>> enough." I have developed a geometrical interpretation which incorporates
>>>>>>> the first order effects of relativity. No dilation or contraction, just
>>>>>>> hyperbolic rotations into higher dimensions. Indistinguishable from
>>>>>>> predictions of the Lorentz Transform. By what logic does this imply that
>>>>>>> any of those properties you list are disputed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not disputed, necessarily. Just not predicted from it, like they are from
>>>>>> relativity.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> A dishonest crackpot skeptic. Always making the assumption that fits your
>>>>> facts. I qualified my statement because I haven't compared second order effects yet.
>>>>
>>>> Which are irrelevant to the impacts of relativity I cited.
>>>>
>>>> This just goes to the point that you don’t know enough physics to know
>>>> where to look. Dono points out second order effects and you think, “ok, all
>>>> I have to do is show my stuff handles the second order effects and we’re
>>>> good then”. You are wholly reliant on gaps identified by others to tell you
>>>> what to do next.
>>>>
>>>> Here’s the gap you’re missing: spending a few thousand hours learning
>>>> physics so you know the scope of relativity’s impact.
>>>>
>>>> Not interested in doing that? Fine. Then you’ve nothing to make an impact
>>>> with, just a germ of an undeveloped idea you don’t know how to carry
>>>> forward.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptic would interpret that to mean my
>>>>> theory doesn't explain 2nd order effects. Just haven't gotten around to
>>>>> it yet. But just for comparison, Newtonian physics also explains only
>>>>> first order effects. Do you reject it? Whatever. I'm done with your dissembling.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As for “dyed-in-the-wool crackpot skeptics”, I’ll just remind you that the
>>> chief complaint about your offering is not that it’s obviously invalidated
>>> by data. It’s that you are an imposter, uneducated in physics, who is
>>> pretending to know enough to say something profound or useful in physics.
>>> The fact that you cannot cite ONE person in the last 120 years who has made
>>> a recognized contribution to fundamental physics without the benefit of a
>>> physics education does not deter you from thinking you are somehow
>>> different (or that you can pull off the illusion). And you do not know
>>> enough physics to even know whether your idea is useful or not, other than
>>> that you like it because it appeals to your common sense. You don’t know
>>> the implications of of relativity in physics to tell whether yours is on
>>> par. You don’t have the foggiest idea whether your idea has any
>>> distinguishing predictions, and you take umbrage at the requirement that it
>>> do that at all.
>>>
>>> It is your status as someone who obviously does not know what he’s talking
>>> about that AUTOMATICALLY makes your idea not worth digging into, though
>>> several here have sketched out the things you didn’t know to think about.
>>>
>> As a key example of your red-flag behavior, I pointed out something that
>> should have made your eyes pop open and made you say to yourself, “hey I
>> have to find out more about that.” I told you that relativity explains why
>> metals are metals. This is such an obviously everyday impact of relativity,
>> that it should have appealed to your common sense curiosity. But instead,
>> your reaction was to become defensive, saying that I had not proven that
>> your idea does NOT explain why metals are metals, and saying that you
>> hadn’t gotten around to studying second-order effects. There was NO
>> interest on your part to understand what relativity has to do with
>> metallicity, and because of that ignorance, you’ll have no grip on whether
>> your idea accounts for it as well.
>>
>> It’s your LACK OF INTEREST IN THE PHYSICS that’s the red flag. Instead, you
>> just want attention, visibility, someone to say hey you might be onto
>> something so good for you. THAT is what pegs you as a crackpot, someone who
>> is not interested enough in the physics to learn it, for any number of
>> excuses.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> to Odd:
> <blocked>
>

Oh I see. This is a compulsion thing.

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