"The Overton window is a political concept that describes how the public's opinion on a subject can be changed. It states that ideas that were previously considered preposterous can become accepted in the long run." https://exploringyourmind.com/overton-
window/

Any 1904 intellectual would find the claims in the following text preposterous, idiotic, etc:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken
experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can
jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can
experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Nowadays the claim that "a sentient being can jump, within a minute (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead" is universally acceptable.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"In the first stage, cannibalism is in the lowest acceptance level in the Overton window. Society considers it immoral. It's considered disgusting and preposterous. At this point, the window is closed and unmoving. To begin changing public opinion,
scientists start studying it. For scientists, there shouldn't be any taboo subjects...After stage 1, the idea has gone from being unthinkable to being discussed. In the second stage, people begin to accept the idea. With scientists' conclusions, society
views those who refuse to acquire knowledge about the subject intransigent. People who resist will start to be seen as fanatics who oppose science." https://exploringyourmind.com/overton-window/

Similarly, "speed of light independent of the speed of the observer" was preposterous nonsense initially. Einstein wrestled with his conscience "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" before positing it:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem
over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

Poincaré also suffered, went through confusion, but in the end succumbed to his conscience and did not accept the nonsense:

"From his [Poincaré's] point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities." https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/430652

Nowadays "speed of light independent of the speed of the observer" is a universally accepted truth. Anyone who opposes it automatically becomes crackpot, crank, troll etc.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)