• The extraordinary popular delusion of relativity and the madness of cro

    From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 20 20:47:11 2023
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016
    by Gustav Le Bon (Author)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Aug 20 20:56:12 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016
    by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    The closest parallel evidently was the Tulip Bulb mania in Holland: "Tulip mania was a period during the Dutch Golden Age when contract prices for some bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable tulip reached extraordinarily high levels. The major
    acceleration started in 1634 and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637.Wikipedia"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Aug 20 23:56:20 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016
    by Gustav Le Bon (Author)

    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 21 10:40:06 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016
    by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Did you say, "What is irrational about relativity?" No. I guess you're dodging the issue.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 21 10:41:47 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016
    by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Why is it that groups of people act irrationally? We know they do. Why would you be so sure relativity is rational when it has so many irrational claims? Science is not exempt from being irrational.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 21 11:04:37 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016
    by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    "Rational thinkers" have not always been the most insightful and open-minded of people. Throughout history, "thinking rationally" has often become a guise for repressive attitudes toward the new or unconventional." & "Indeed, science and rational
    thinking have had a dubious and ragged history in our culture. . . . Louis Pasteur was widely ridiculed for his speculations about invisible creatures that caused illnesses." & "Ultimately, what we call rational thinking may just be a highly
    sophisticated and powerful method of self-delusion." =
    Rob Wipond, "The World is Round (and Other Mythologies of Modern Science)," The Humanist (March/April 1998) https://robwipond.com/archives/325

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 15:22:21 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:41:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Why is it that groups of people act irrationally? We know they do. Why would you be so sure relativity is rational when it has so many irrational claims? Science is not exempt from being irrational.

    It makes no more irrational claims than any other theory in physics.
    But you got stuck with this relativity monomania because you don't
    know any physics, so you have no idea why relativity is the way it is.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 15:20:33 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Did you say, "What is irrational about relativity?" No. I guess you're dodging the issue.

    What issue?

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 21 20:10:06 2023
    On 8/21/2023 5:20 PM, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 >>>> by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Did you say, "What is irrational about relativity?" No. I guess you're dodging the issue.

    What issue?

    You can't get Laurence to nail this down because bizarro doesn't
    translate into real.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 21 20:31:11 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:20:35 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Did you say, "What is irrational about relativity?" No. I guess you're dodging the issue.
    What issue?

    --
    Jan
    What is rational about relativity? Ad hoc reasoning?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 20:46:47 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,

    "History" of a subject is not the subject.

    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it must be wrong?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 21 20:32:28 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:22:24 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:41:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Why is it that groups of people act irrationally? We know they do. Why would you be so sure relativity is rational when it has so many irrational claims? Science is not exempt from being irrational.
    It makes no more irrational claims than any other theory in physics.
    But you got stuck with this relativity monomania because you don't
    know any physics, so you have no idea why relativity is the way it is.

    --
    Jan
    I know some of the history, and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Aug 21 21:15:05 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,
    "History" of a subject is not the subject.
    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.
    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it must be wrong?

    The infection is where everything is built on it.
    It is an assumption. There is no way to measure it.
    How do you measure the difference of absolute
    or relative?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 21 21:56:34 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 00:22:24 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:41:50 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016 by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Why is it that groups of people act irrationally? We know they do. Why would you be so sure relativity is rational when it has so many irrational claims? Science is not exempt from being irrational.
    It makes no more irrational claims than any other theory in physics.

    If you knew what "rational" means you wouldn't
    fool yourself with such an absurd claim.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 09:46:16 2023
    On 8/21/2023 10:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>

    What is rational about relativity? Ad hoc reasoning?

    By definition nature is rational while human understanding may or
    might not be. AFAIK you're taking exception to nature and good luck
    with that!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to whodat on Tue Aug 22 09:28:41 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 16:46:24 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 10:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    What is rational about relativity? Ad hoc reasoning?
    By definition nature is rational

    Pfff.
    By WHAT definition, poor halfbrain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Aug 22 13:29:44 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,
    "History" of a subject is not the subject.
    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.
    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it must be wrong?
    Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Tue Aug 22 13:31:24 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:15:08 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,
    "History" of a subject is not the subject.
    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.
    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?
    The infection is where everything is built on it.
    It is an assumption. There is no way to measure it.
    How do you measure the difference of absolute
    or relative?
    I guess it is just an assumption.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 16:49:48 2023
    On 8/22/2023 3:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:15:08 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,
    "History" of a subject is not the subject.
    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.
    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the
    "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of >>> source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it >>> nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?
    The infection is where everything is built on it.
    It is an assumption. There is no way to measure it.
    How do you measure the difference of absolute
    or relative?
    I guess it is just an assumption.

    There comes a time when all "argument" dissipates and
    all that is offered in rebuttal is taunting. Might as
    well start treating "Laurence" the same way these
    newsgroups have worked with Valev, just let both of
    them blather because there is no legitimacy to what
    they write and neither will ever run out of stupid
    things to say. I would reply, "Thanks for the
    memories" if any of them were worth remembering.
    Alas they're not. "Laurence" you've finally made i
    into my killfile.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 15:43:33 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:31:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 3:20:35 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:56:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:47:14 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Please see:
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: All Volumes, Complete and Unabridged (illustrated) Kindle Edition
    by Charles MacKay (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


    The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Paperback – November 15, 2016
    by Gustav Le Bon (Author)
    Another deranged monomaniac.

    --
    Jan
    Did you say, "What is irrational about relativity?" No. I guess you're dodging the issue.
    What issue?

    --
    Jan
    What is rational about relativity? Ad hoc reasoning?

    But it's not ad hoc. You simply don't know what went on before the year
    1905 in physics (or after, but that's another matter).

    The problem that relativity has is that unlike, say, Newtonian mechanics, it does not require any mathematical prerequisites (FAPP). On the other hand to start doing anything in Newtonian mechanics, you already need a bit of
    calculus (F=dp/dt is a differential equation) and if you add constraints to the mix, it requires even more.

    That's because in Newtonian mechanics certain fundamental concepts are
    not even discussed, they are simply taken as they appear from everyday experience (time and space).

    But relativity starts earlier: it starts with formulating precisely a certain type
    of kinematics, and this comes before any "F=dp/dt" even enters the room.
    And it so happens that this new kinematics can be done without much mathematical (or any other really) preparation.

    This opens the doors wide to various wannabes with a raging inferiority complex and the arrogance to match.

    The only cure for such deluded person is to set aside the arrogance and pride, roll up the sleeves and learn physics. Without it, you'll be forever condemned to
    this string of endless mirages leading nowhere.

    None of your posts addresses relativity even remotely, in fact.

    That's why neither I nor anybody else familiar with the theory is ever
    bothered by posts like yours in the least. It's been always just an
    interesting lunchtime entertainment.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Aug 22 21:46:56 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 00:43:37 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

    But relativity starts earlier: it starts with formulating precisely a certain type
    of kinematics, and this comes before any "F=dp/dt" even enters the room.
    And it so happens that this new kinematics can be done without much mathematical (or any other really) preparation.

    Well, yes. It takes nothing to worship The Shit and
    chant "whoever doesn't is a stupid crank", indeed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 13:11:17 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,

    "History" of a subject is not the subject.

    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?

    Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong.

    Poor Little Larry, so befuddled he can't come up with a rational reason for his infantile behavior.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Aug 23 13:19:17 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,

    "History" of a subject is not the subject.

    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it
    nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?

    Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong.
    Poor Little Larry, so befuddled he can't come up with a rational reason for his
    infantile behaviour
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong. In fact, it's highly irrational. For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations, which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding
    the ether. So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 13:58:26 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:19:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,

    "History" of a subject is not the subject.

    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of
    source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it
    nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?

    Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong.
    Poor Little Larry, so befuddled he can't come up with a rational reason for his
    infantile behaviour
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

    No, none of those reasons are in any way "excellent". There is one obvious objection to GR in that it ignores quantum phenomena (and thus it's quite likely spacetime singularities don't exist). OTOH there is not even that kind of objection available against SR (except as far as it's a special case of GR).

    In fact, it's highly irrational.

    Meh, just words. You simply don't understand physics in general. You just
    read a bit about relativity (only) and pretend nothing else in physics and science exists. This is called ignorance and cherrypicking, it leads nowhere.

    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,

    He didn't "keep" them, he derived them from a different set of assumptions
    than Lorentz. Einstein's assumptions are very general and minimal, expressed
    in terms of very fundamental concepts, unlike Lorentz who derived the transformation equations from Maxwell's equations while assuming that
    aether was a linear dielectric. Einstein makes no such assumption.

    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.

    No, read Lorentz's paper. He assumes the macroscopic Maxwell's
    equations with aether as the (presumed linear dielectric) medium.

    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

    Calm down, you just don't understand this stuff. The problem is with you,
    not with relativity.

    Get over it. You have no case.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Aug 23 15:08:25 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:19:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,

    "History" of a subject is not the subject.

    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of
    source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it
    nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?

    Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong.
    Poor Little Larry, so befuddled he can't come up with a rational reason for his
    infantile behaviour
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    No, none of those reasons are in any way "excellent". There is one obvious objection to GR in that it ignores quantum phenomena (and thus it's quite likely spacetime singularities don't exist). OTOH there is not even that kind
    of objection available against SR (except as far as it's a special case of GR).
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Meh, just words. You simply don't understand physics in general. You just read a bit about relativity (only) and pretend nothing else in physics and science exists. This is called ignorance and cherrypicking, it leads nowhere.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    He didn't "keep" them, he derived them from a different set of assumptions than Lorentz. Einstein's assumptions are very general and minimal, expressed in terms of very fundamental concepts, unlike Lorentz who derived the transformation equations from Maxwell's equations while assuming that
    aether was a linear dielectric. Einstein makes no such assumption.
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    No, read Lorentz's paper. He assumes the macroscopic Maxwell's
    equations with aether as the (presumed linear dielectric) medium.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    Calm down, you just don't understand this stuff. The problem is with you, not with relativity.

    Get over it. You have no case.

    --
    Jan
    It is simple math you deny because Einstein kept the math for the ether wind. That is stupid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 16:51:33 2023
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is
    entirely wrong.

    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to
    refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.

    In fact, it's highly irrational.

    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To
    date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.

    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while
    discarding the ether.

    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.

    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Aug 23 15:12:39 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is
    entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to
    refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    If you are done jumping up and down, could you listen? The rate of fluctuations of electrons in lithium in particle accelerators is slower at .333 c than when still. No one disputes that. When you say people will also age slower, that is an unwarranted
    inference. Then, time dilation is a non sequitur. Time dilation has always been patent nonsense, as is relativity through and through.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 19:44:48 2023
    On 8/23/23 5:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The rate of fluctuations of electrons in lithium in particle
    accelerators is slower at .333 c than when still. No one disputes
    that. When you say people will also age slower, that is an
    unwarranted inference.

    No, it is fully warranted by both experimental evidence and the
    theoretical underpinnings.

    A) there is evidence for "time dilation" in literally billions of
    measurements, for hundreds of different particles, and for macroscopic
    atomic clocks carried in spacecraft, airplanes, and automobiles on the
    highway.

    B) the theoretical basis for "time dilation" is as a geometrical
    projection between frames. It is related to THE GEOMETRY OF THE WORLD WE INHABIT, and not any specific measurement or particle (like Lithium).

    You just keep displaying your comprehensive IGNORANCE of basic physics.
    Grow up. Learn something about the topic before attempting to write
    about it. Stop acting like an idiot, or people will think you are an idiot.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 21:09:19 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:08:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:58:29 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:19:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,

    "History" of a subject is not the subject.

    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the
    "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of
    source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it
    nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?

    Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong.
    Poor Little Larry, so befuddled he can't come up with a rational reason for his
    infantile behaviour
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    No, none of those reasons are in any way "excellent". There is one obvious objection to GR in that it ignores quantum phenomena (and thus it's quite likely spacetime singularities don't exist). OTOH there is not even that kind
    of objection available against SR (except as far as it's a special case of GR).
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Meh, just words. You simply don't understand physics in general. You just read a bit about relativity (only) and pretend nothing else in physics and science exists. This is called ignorance and cherrypicking, it leads nowhere.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    He didn't "keep" them, he derived them from a different set of assumptions than Lorentz. Einstein's assumptions are very general and minimal, expressed
    in terms of very fundamental concepts, unlike Lorentz who derived the transformation equations from Maxwell's equations while assuming that aether was a linear dielectric. Einstein makes no such assumption.
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    No, read Lorentz's paper. He assumes the macroscopic Maxwell's
    equations with aether as the (presumed linear dielectric) medium.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    Calm down, you just don't understand this stuff. The problem is with you, not with relativity.

    Get over it. You have no case.

    --
    Jan
    It is simple math you deny because Einstein kept the math for the ether wind. That is stupid.

    Word salad. You just throw technical words at random.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 21:10:57 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 3:12:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to
    refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    If you are done jumping up and down, could you listen? The rate of fluctuations of electrons in lithium in particle accelerators is slower at .333 c than when still. No one disputes that. When you say people will also age slower, that is an unwarranted
    inference. Then, time dilation is a non sequitur. Time dilation has always been patent nonsense, as is relativity through and through.

    An arrogant ignoramus trying to appear equal to an expert who did
    actual particle experiments. You are such an intellectual zero.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 21:16:16 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:19:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

    "Reasons" are not the same as "evidence". Exactly what :evidence" have any of these superheroes provided? Be specific!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 21:35:46 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:19:19 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:29:46 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:46:49 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:32:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I know some of the history,

    "History" of a subject is not the subject.

    and so far as the rest of physics is infected with relativity, it is pathetic.

    Wishy-washy assertion devoid of content. State specifically what the "infection" consists of. Is it that the speed of light is independent of
    source and receiver? Is it time dilation? Is it length contraction? Is it
    nonsimultaneity? Or is it just that little Larry doesn't understand it so it
    must be wrong?

    Poor Gary can't understand all of relativity is wrong.

    Poor Little Larry, so befuddled he can't come up with a rational reason for his
    infantile behaviour

    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

    Perhaps it's because they can't count.

    In fact, it's highly irrational. For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation
    equations, which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding
    the ether. So, it was absurd to keep those formulas,

    It would be absurd to discard an equation if it describes what nature does, wouldn't you agree?

    which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

    You seem to imply that the LT "makes" light behave "irrationally" :-)

    “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
    thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
    rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
    -- Lawrence M. Krauss

    "Rationality" refers to human thought. Nature doesn't care what humans think.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Aug 23 22:20:08 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 06:16:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:19:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    "Reasons" are not the same as "evidence". Exactly what :evidence" have any of these superheroes provided? Be specific!

    Come on, trash, providing you evidence is
    only making you spitting with Polish jokes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Aug 23 22:19:02 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 23:51:45 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is
    entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand r

    that they're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

    See, trash - your Shit wasn't even consistent. And
    the only thing you and your fellolw idiots can
    do about the proof - is pretending you don't
    see.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 24 02:37:25 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 11:26:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    [-]
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.

    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    Not really happenstance. In fact, not happenstance at all.
    Lorentz was almost there.

    More precisely - where, trash?

    It was only the final insight that failed him.
    Once added, Lorentz and Einsteins versions became identical,
    as far as physics is concerned.

    A pity that something more important
    is involved here.

    The x'and t' then become real time and space, for a moving observer.
    For Lorentz the dilated time was merely a calculation device,
    and the Lorentz contraction was a real physical effect.
    (caused by rods plowing through the aether)

    It doesn't matter, his final result, known as Lorentz Aether Theory
    (after correction of some minor errors)
    is physically indistingushable from Einsteinian relativity.

    So - is i t "experimentally confirmed", trash?
    Well, considering real clocks of GPS or TAI it is
    "confirmed" much better than your SR shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 11:26:38 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    [-]
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while
    discarding the ether.

    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.

    Not really happenstance. In fact, not happenstance at all.
    Lorentz was almost there.
    It was only the final insight that failed him.
    Once added, Lorentz and Einsteins versions became identical,
    as far as physics is concerned.

    I guess you are blinded here by your failure to see what Einstein saw. Einsteins insight in 1905 was that at the core
    you need to see that it is the space-time kinematics
    that is at the root of it all, not just Maxwellian electrodynamics.
    The x'and t' then become real time and space, for a moving observer.
    For Lorentz the dilated time was merely a calculation device,
    and the Lorentz contraction was a real physical effect.
    (caused by rods plowing through the aether)

    It doesn't matter, his final result, known as Lorentz Aether Theory
    (after correction of some minor errors)
    is physically indistingushable from Einsteinian relativity.
    (and Lorentz, Einstein, and everybody else who mattered, like Planck
    saw that shortly after Einstein 1905)
    They lumped it as Einstein-Lorentz theory in those days,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 11:07:52 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:44:57 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 5:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The rate of fluctuations of electrons in lithium in particle
    accelerators is slower at .333 c than when still. No one disputes
    that. When you say people will also age slower, that is an
    unwarranted inference.
    No, it is fully warranted by both experimental evidence and the
    theoretical underpinnings.

    A) there is evidence for "time dilation" in literally billions of measurements, for hundreds of different particles, and for macroscopic atomic clocks carried in spacecraft, airplanes, and automobiles on the highway.

    B) the theoretical basis for "time dilation" is as a geometrical
    projection between frames. It is related to THE GEOMETRY OF THE WORLD WE INHABIT, and not any specific measurement or particle (like Lithium).

    You just keep displaying your comprehensive IGNORANCE of basic physics.
    Grow up. Learn something about the topic before attempting to write
    about it. Stop acting like an idiot, or people will think you are an idiot.

    Tom Roberts
    You failed to reply to my point. It doesn't matter how many particles fluctuate more slowly at high speeds because that doesn't warrant the inference that aging (and many other processes) would also proceed more slowly. This is elementary reasoning that
    you all fail at. It is incredible how such stupid and ignorant nonsense can be taught in prestigious universities. You fail to explain how the geometry of the allows you to make this leap of logic. As usual, the defenders of relativity here fail
    completely in defending it. Period.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 11:16:14 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is
    entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to
    refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations. Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory. When a
    sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether wind
    formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced from physics par exellance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 12:00:45 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:16:16 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to
    refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.

    In fact, it's highly irrational.

    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.

    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.

    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.

    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts

    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.

    Nope. Einstein's version has no "ether wind" in it. Just because he concludes with the same equation as Lorentz 's doesn't mean he had the same postulates
    as Lorentz.

    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.

    Einstein's theory didn't require an either wind, and by relativity, the null result of the
    MMX was obvious because neither light source nor detector were in relative motion.
    The result is null by ballistic theory as well.

    And the existence of an ether wind has been refuted by other experiments, e.g., starlight aberration.

    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation,
    not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros,
    totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced
    from physics par exellance.

    Au contraire. The postulates Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transform were different
    from those used by Lorentz. You ARE familiar with them, aren't you? They are very well
    confirmed nowadays, less so in Saint Albert's time but still pretty convincing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Aug 24 13:15:57 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 21:00:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    Au contraire. The postulates Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transform were different
    from those used by Lorentz. You ARE familiar with them, aren't you? They are very well
    confirmed nowadays, less so in Saint Albert's time but still pretty convincing.

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
    your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Aug 24 14:12:29 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:15:59 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 21:00:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    Au contraire. The postulates Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transform were different
    from those used by Lorentz. You ARE familiar with them, aren't you? They are very well
    confirmed nowadays, less so in Saint Albert's time but still pretty convincing.

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
    your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    Any engineer should know that clocks can be designed to keep ANY time. The first GPS
    bird was designed with a switch to keep Newtonian time or the time predicted by GR.
    It was initiated in the Newtonian mode and was found to be useless for its intended use.
    It was switched to GR time and became a useful device. You KNOW this Wozzy, yet you
    keep making disingenuous posts. Do you need to see a shrink. or are you just a congenital
    liar?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Aug 24 17:51:58 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:00:48 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:16:16 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.

    In fact, it's highly irrational.

    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so, more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.

    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.

    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.

    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts

    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind
    formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    Nope. Einstein's version has no "ether wind" in it. Just because he concludes
    with the same equation as Lorentz 's doesn't mean he had the same postulates as Lorentz.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Einstein's theory didn't require an either wind, and by relativity, the null result of the
    MMX was obvious because neither light source nor detector were in relative motion.
    The result is null by ballistic theory as well.

    And the existence of an ether wind has been refuted by other experiments, e.g.,
    starlight aberration.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation,
    not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros,
    totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced
    from physics par exellance.
    Au contraire. The postulates Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transform were different
    from those used by Lorentz. You ARE familiar with them, aren't you? They are very well
    confirmed nowadays, less so in Saint Albert's time but still pretty convincing.
    You must be hard of hearing because Einstein used the same equations and Lorentz's had the equation for saving the ether wind from the null result.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 19:30:18 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to
    refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.

    There is no ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.

    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.

    Ergo, not even wrong.

    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced from physics par exellance.

    Don't bother with physics. It's not your métier.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 19:32:04 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 5:52:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:00:48 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:16:16 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.

    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the
    authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own
    misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.

    In fact, it's highly irrational.

    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so, more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To
    date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that
    refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.

    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations, which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.

    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.

    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.

    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts

    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind
    formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    Nope. Einstein's version has no "ether wind" in it. Just because he concludes
    with the same equation as Lorentz 's doesn't mean he had the same postulates
    as Lorentz.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and
    would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Einstein's theory didn't require an either wind, and by relativity, the null result of the
    MMX was obvious because neither light source nor detector were in relative motion.
    The result is null by ballistic theory as well.

    And the existence of an ether wind has been refuted by other experiments, e.g.,
    starlight aberration.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation,
    not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros,
    totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced
    from physics par exellance.
    Au contraire. The postulates Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transform were different
    from those used by Lorentz. You ARE familiar with them, aren't you? They are very well
    confirmed nowadays, less so in Saint Albert's time but still pretty convincing.

    You must be hard of hearing because Einstein used the same equations and Lorentz's had the equation for saving the ether wind from the null result.

    Einstein did not use the same equations to derive the transformation.
    That was one of the big points of his 1905 paper. And there is no ether
    and no ether wind in Einstein's paper.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Aug 24 23:10:30 2023
    On 8/24/2023 5:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:15:59 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 21:00:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    Au contraire. The postulates Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transform were different
    from those used by Lorentz. You ARE familiar with them, aren't you? They are very well
    confirmed nowadays, less so in Saint Albert's time but still pretty convincing.

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
    your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    Any engineer should know that clocks can be designed to keep ANY time. The first GPS
    bird was designed with a switch to keep Newtonian time or the time predicted by GR.
    It was initiated in the Newtonian mode and was found to be useless for its intended use.
    It was switched to GR time and became a useful device. You KNOW this Wozzy, yet you
    keep making disingenuous posts. Do you need to see a shrink. or are you just a congenital
    liar?

    Maciej has some sort of mental defect where he gets the switch settings
    and their effects exactly backwards. Be kind to him, he's a poor halfbrain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Thu Aug 24 20:14:54 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:30:20 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so, more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations,
    which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in
    irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    There is no ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Ergo, not even wrong.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the ether
    wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced from physics par exellance.
    Don't bother with physics. It's not your métier.

    --
    Jan
    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas. Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your
    stupid denials and lies,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 20:56:03 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 9:10:33 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

    On 8/24/2023 5:12 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 2:15:59 PM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 21:00:48 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    Au contraire. The postulates Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transform were different
    from those used by Lorentz. You ARE familiar with them, aren't you? They are very well
    confirmed nowadays, less so in Saint Albert's time but still pretty convincing.

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
    your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    Any engineer should know that clocks can be designed to keep ANY time. The first GPS
    bird was designed with a switch to keep Newtonian time or the time predicted by GR.
    It was initiated in the Newtonian mode and was found to be useless for its intended use.
    It was switched to GR time and became a useful device. You KNOW this Wozzy, yet you
    keep making disingenuous posts. Do you need to see a shrink. or are you just a congenital
    liar?

    Maciej has some sort of mental defect where he gets the switch settings
    and their effects exactly backwards. Be kind to him, he's a poor halfbrain.

    Perhaps he should stop posting baloney here and go out looking for the other half of his brain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 22:08:17 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not
    subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms
    of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate
    systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of
    change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force
    (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity
    exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion
    ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a
    pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the
    pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change? Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very
    conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Don’t forget you can’t use ether.

    We dont use ether, we use inertia and momentum. See above.

    How do you use inertia and momentum in the source frame?

    A pulse of light maintains constant momentum by moving (in vacuum) on an inertial trajectory, meaning it moves at constant speed in a straight line
    in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, just as does a material particle. If the object that emitted the pulse, perhaps millions of years
    ago, is accelerating (i.e., deviating from inertial motion), or no longer exists,
    then it doesn't have 'a' frame (singular). The nutty idea that the trajectories of free objects would be unaccelerated in terms of accelerating coordinates
    is sheer idiocy, for all the reasons explained before.

    In a Classical Newtonian model the gravitational field is instantaneous,
    so the field will follow [sic] the source even if the source rotates [sic]
    in a circle. Why is this acceptable but not a similar effect for light?

    Well, instantaneous action at a distance ISN'T considered acceptable, for
    many of the reasons that Newton himself recognized, but even that counter- factual premise is a model of conceptual coherence compared with your nutty belief. Changing the magnitude of a force applied to an object doesn't cause the object to move in lock-step with the source, and it could not maintain undiminished strength out to infinity, and it would have no magical effect
    that ignores every laser pointer except the one that emitted it, and of course that particular laser pointer could have been destroyed years ago, etc. And
    of course you assured me that you were NOT suggesting the pulse of light
    is dragged, so your mendacity is astounding. Your nutty idea isn't just wrong, it's childishness and stupidity is nearly beyond belief.

    Again, you've already conceded that all material objects behave in
    exactly the way (inertial motion) that you pretend is inconceivable.
    And now you have tacitly agreed that a pulse of light has momentum, and therefore follows an inertial trajectory in vacuum, and therefore your
    nutty idea has been thoroughly exploded. It's very strange that you continue to spout your nutty claims, now that you've seen them thoroughly debunked.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 01:58:44 2023
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The
    similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than
    his own theory.

    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 23:13:17 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 07:58:47 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS.

    No, stupid Mike. They both came up with the same because it's
    Maxwell's.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 02:50:46 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:30:20 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the
    authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own
    misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so, more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To
    date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that
    refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations, which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    There is no ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Ergo, not even wrong.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
    ether wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced from physics par exellance.
    Don't bother with physics. It's not your métier.

    --
    Jan
    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    Einstein didn't "keep" them, he re-derived them in a different way that
    did not use ether or any of ether's properties.

    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies.

    I just tell you the truth. You have no standing to say anything about my claims.

    What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    They are neither denials nor lies. You simply don't understand the theory and don't understand physics in general, that's why you cannot understand the correct explanations. This cannot be fixed unless you decide to be
    honest with yourself and stop pretending you are able to make any valid criticism of relativity.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Aug 25 07:13:03 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:08:19 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not
    subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms
    of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate
    systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of
    change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force
    (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity
    exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion
    ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a
    pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the
    pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change?
    Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very
    conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty
    belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Don’t forget you can’t use ether.

    We dont use ether, we use inertia and momentum. See above.

    How do you use inertia and momentum in the source frame?

    A pulse of light maintains constant momentum by moving (in vacuum) on an inertial trajectory, meaning it moves at constant speed in a straight line in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, just as does a material particle. If the object that emitted the pulse, perhaps millions of years ago, is accelerating (i.e., deviating from inertial motion), or no longer exists,
    then it doesn't have 'a' frame (singular). The nutty idea that the trajectories
    of free objects would be unaccelerated in terms of accelerating coordinates is sheer idiocy, for all the reasons explained before.

    In a Classical Newtonian model the gravitational field is instantaneous, so the field will follow [sic] the source even if the source rotates [sic] in a circle. Why is this acceptable but not a similar effect for light?

    Well, instantaneous action at a distance ISN'T considered acceptable, for many of the reasons that Newton himself recognized, but even that counter- factual premise is a model of conceptual coherence compared with your nutty belief. Changing the magnitude of a force applied to an object doesn't cause the object to move in lock-step with the source, and it could not maintain undiminished strength out to infinity, and it would have no magical effect that ignores every laser pointer except the one that emitted it, and of course
    that particular laser pointer could have been destroyed years ago, etc. And of course you assured me that you were NOT suggesting the pulse of light
    is dragged, so your mendacity is astounding. Your nutty idea isn't just wrong,
    it's childishness and stupidity is nearly beyond belief.

    Again, you've already conceded that all material objects behave in
    exactly the way (inertial motion) that you pretend is inconceivable.
    And now you have tacitly agreed that a pulse of light has momentum, and therefore follows an inertial trajectory in vacuum, and therefore your
    nutty idea has been thoroughly exploded. It's very strange that you continue to spout your nutty claims, now that you've seen them thoroughly debunked.
    THAT IS NOT A QUOTE FROM ME AND NOT ME YOU ARE REPLYING TO.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 10:24:59 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 7:13:05 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not
    subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms
    of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate
    systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of
    change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force
    (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity
    exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion
    ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a
    pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the
    pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the
    emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change?
    Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very
    conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty
    belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Don’t forget you can’t use ether.

    We dont use ether, we use inertia and momentum. See above.

    How do you use inertia and momentum in the source frame?

    A pulse of light maintains constant momentum by moving (in vacuum) on an inertial trajectory, meaning it moves at constant speed in a straight line in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, just as does a material particle. If the object that emitted the pulse, perhaps millions of years ago, is accelerating (i.e., deviating from inertial motion), or no longer exists,
    then it doesn't have 'a' frame (singular). The nutty idea that the trajectories
    of free objects would be unaccelerated in terms of accelerating coordinates
    is sheer idiocy, for all the reasons explained before.

    In a Classical Newtonian model the gravitational field is instantaneous, so the field will follow [sic] the source even if the source rotates [sic]
    in a circle. Why is this acceptable but not a similar effect for light?

    Well, instantaneous action at a distance ISN'T considered acceptable, for many of the reasons that Newton himself recognized, but even that counter- factual premise is a model of conceptual coherence compared with your nutty
    belief. Changing the magnitude of a force applied to an object doesn't cause
    the object to move in lock-step with the source, and it could not maintain undiminished strength out to infinity, and it would have no magical effect that ignores every laser pointer except the one that emitted it, and of course
    that particular laser pointer could have been destroyed years ago, etc. And
    of course you assured me that you were NOT suggesting the pulse of light is dragged, so your mendacity is astounding. Your nutty idea isn't just wrong,
    it's childishness and stupidity is nearly beyond belief.

    Again, you've already conceded that all material objects behave in
    exactly the way (inertial motion) that you pretend is inconceivable.
    And now you have tacitly agreed that a pulse of light has momentum, and therefore follows an inertial trajectory in vacuum, and therefore your nutty idea has been thoroughly exploded. It's very strange that you continue
    to spout your nutty claims, now that you've seen them thoroughly debunked.

    THAT IS NOT A QUOTE FROM ME...

    Which of the quotes attributed to you do you disagree with?

    AND NOT ME YOU ARE REPLYING TO.

    Not true, my message was definitely a reply to you, explaning that your beliefs rest on the denial of inertial trajectories and conservation of momentum, etc., and pointing out numerous nutty implications of your nutty belief. If you think anything I've
    said is wrong, I encourage you to point it out, and give some rational basis for your belief. Failing that, you are tacitly admitting you can't defend your nutty belief, and are just running away. (It's ironic that you claimed people are trying to
    silence you, when in fact the opposite is true... I'm pleading with you to speak up and provide some rational defense of your belief, and you just cover your ears and run away.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Aug 25 13:35:20 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 10:25:01 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 7:13:05 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    We've agreed that in a Galilean/Newtonian context all material entities not
    subject to any external force move at constant speed in a straight line in terms
    of inertial coordinate systems, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate
    systems (Newton's first law of motion). We've also agreed that the rate of
    change of momentum of a material entity is proportional to any applied force
    (Newton's second law of motion), and you agree that if one material entity
    exerts a force on another, the latter entity exerts an equal and opposite force
    on the former (Newton's third law of motion). Together, these laws of motion
    ensure that momentum is conserved.

    Now we can turn to the propagation of a pulse of light: Do you agree that a
    pulse of light has momentum? For example, if an object emits a pulse of light,
    does the emitting object experience a recoil at that moment? And when the
    pulse is later absorbed by a receiver, does it impart momentum to the receiver?
    Does the pulse carry momentum from emitter to receiver? Between the
    emission and reception events, does the momentum of the pulse change?
    Your inability to even attempt to respond to these simple questions is very
    conspicuous. You've obviously realized that you can't defend your nutty
    belief, and now you are just running away. Case closed.

    Don’t forget you can’t use ether.

    We dont use ether, we use inertia and momentum. See above.

    How do you use inertia and momentum in the source frame?

    A pulse of light maintains constant momentum by moving (in vacuum) on an inertial trajectory, meaning it moves at constant speed in a straight line
    in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, just as does a material particle. If the object that emitted the pulse, perhaps millions of years
    ago, is accelerating (i.e., deviating from inertial motion), or no longer exists,
    then it doesn't have 'a' frame (singular). The nutty idea that the trajectories
    of free objects would be unaccelerated in terms of accelerating coordinates
    is sheer idiocy, for all the reasons explained before.

    In a Classical Newtonian model the gravitational field is instantaneous,
    so the field will follow [sic] the source even if the source rotates [sic]
    in a circle. Why is this acceptable but not a similar effect for light?

    Well, instantaneous action at a distance ISN'T considered acceptable, for
    many of the reasons that Newton himself recognized, but even that counter-
    factual premise is a model of conceptual coherence compared with your nutty
    belief. Changing the magnitude of a force applied to an object doesn't cause
    the object to move in lock-step with the source, and it could not maintain
    undiminished strength out to infinity, and it would have no magical effect
    that ignores every laser pointer except the one that emitted it, and of course
    that particular laser pointer could have been destroyed years ago, etc. And
    of course you assured me that you were NOT suggesting the pulse of light is dragged, so your mendacity is astounding. Your nutty idea isn't just wrong,
    it's childishness and stupidity is nearly beyond belief.

    Again, you've already conceded that all material objects behave in exactly the way (inertial motion) that you pretend is inconceivable.
    And now you have tacitly agreed that a pulse of light has momentum, and therefore follows an inertial trajectory in vacuum, and therefore your nutty idea has been thoroughly exploded. It's very strange that you continue
    to spout your nutty claims, now that you've seen them thoroughly debunked.

    THAT IS NOT A QUOTE FROM ME...

    Which of the quotes attributed to you do you disagree with?
    AND NOT ME YOU ARE REPLYING TO.
    Not true, my message was definitely a reply to you, explaning that your beliefs rest on the denial of inertial trajectories and conservation of momentum, etc., and pointing out numerous nutty implications of your nutty belief. If you think anything I'
    ve said is wrong, I encourage you to point it out, and give some rational basis for your belief. Failing that, you are tacitly admitting you can't defend your nutty belief, and are just running away. (It's ironic that you claimed people are trying to
    silence you, when in fact the opposite is true... I'm pleading with you to speak up and provide some rational defense of your belief, and you just cover your ears and run away.)
    The principle of Galileo, that everything shares the velocity of the source, totally includes conservation of momentum. The idea that light does not share the velocity of the source (second postulate) denies it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 13:38:13 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than
    his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz (with a different derivation) and cannot understand Lorentz' formulas for saving the ether from the null result necessarily requires a
    formula for that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Aug 25 13:39:58 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:50:48 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:30:20 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the
    authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own
    misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To
    date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that
    refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations, which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    There is no ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Ergo, not even wrong.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
    ether wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced from physics par exellance.
    Don't bother with physics. It's not your métier.

    --
    Jan
    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Einstein didn't "keep" them, he re-derived them in a different way that
    did not use ether or any of ether's properties.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies.
    I just tell you the truth. You have no standing to say anything about my claims.
    What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    They are neither denials nor lies. You simply don't understand the theory and
    don't understand physics in general, that's why you cannot understand the correct explanations. This cannot be fixed unless you decide to be
    honest with yourself and stop pretending you are able to make any valid criticism of relativity.

    --
    Jan
    They remained the same formulas and you have no standing among reasonable people. Who cares about your credentials. I've seen no evidence for any capability to defend relativity from you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Aug 25 13:56:58 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:50:48 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:14:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:30:20 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/23/23 3:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Countless critics have given excellent reasons why relativity is entirely wrong.
    I have investigated dozens of these. They share one common property: the
    authors simply do not understand relativity, and argue against their own
    misconceptions, not the actual theory. This includes EVERY claim to refute relativity around here, including everything Crossen has written.

    None are "excellent", and there's good reason to expect all are faulty.
    In fact, it's highly irrational.
    Only to people who do not understand it. Over the past century or so,
    more than 100,000 physicists have understood and accepted relativity. To
    date, NOBODY has presented a believable and reproducible experiment that
    refutes either SR or FR.

    Hint: this is physics, and "rationality" is irrelevant,
    what matters is correspondence between predictions and
    experiments.
    For example, Einstein kept the Lorentz transformation equations, which were designed to save the ether from the null result while discarding the ether.
    Happenstance, which is not so rare as you think.
    So, it was absurd to keep those formulas, which resulted in irrational accounts of the behavior of light.
    The absurdity and irrationality are all YOURS.

    Tom Roberts
    The derivation does not pertain to this point as there is still an ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    There is no ether wind formula in Einstein's Lorentz transformations.
    Since he discards the ether wind, they have no purpose for his theory and would not represent the physics of his theory.
    Ergo, not even wrong.
    When a sniper takes a long shot on a windy day, he requires a wind calculation, not when there is no wind. If he insisted on using it, he would have to employ zeros, totally negating it. This would be pointless. The problem is Einstein uses the
    ether wind formula without using zeros. Kindly explain. It seems to me this is math divorced from physics par exellance.
    Don't bother with physics. It's not your métier.

    --
    Jan
    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    Einstein didn't "keep" them, he re-derived them in a different way that
    did not use ether or any of ether's properties.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies.
    I just tell you the truth. You have no standing to say anything about my claims.
    What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    They are neither denials nor lies. You simply don't understand the theory and
    don't understand physics in general, that's why you cannot understand the correct explanations. This cannot be fixed unless you decide to be
    honest with yourself and stop pretending you are able to make any valid criticism of relativity.

    --
    Jan
    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 17:02:47 2023
    On 8/25/2023 4:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The
    similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than
    his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.

    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't USE Lorentz's work. He DERIVED the formulas in a
    completely independent way. Specifically in a way not involving the
    ether, as he stated right up front.

    (with a different derivation)

    That's the only thing you got correct.

    and cannot understand Lorentz' formulas for saving the ether from the null result necessarily requires a formula for that.

    In Lorentz's theory, yes. In Einstein's theory, nope.
    Lorentz simply got the right answer for the wrong reason. Don't forget
    Lorentz himself stated Einstein's SR was better than his own LET.
    (my guess is that Lorentz stumbled on the math which worked correctly
    and tried to work "backwards" trying to come up with a reason to get
    that answer using the ether.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 17:10:01 2023
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 15:03:46 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:38:15 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means.
    Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula
    and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same
    in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.

    (with a different derivation) and cannot understand Lorentz' formulas for saving the ether from the null result necessarily requires a formula for that.

    Irrelevant.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 15:14:48 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 19:15:06 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:35:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The principle of Galileo, that everything shares the velocity of the source...

    You're confusing Galileo's principle of relativity with Galilean transformations.
    Those are two completely different things. Galileo's principle is that
    the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every standard
    system of *inertial* coordinates -- NOT in terms of accelerating coordinates. So, your nutty belief entails the complete rejection of Galileo's principle.

    Now, how standard inertial coordinate systems are related to each other is
    a separate question, but given Galileo's principle it can be shown that the relationship has only a single degree of freedom, which can be represented
    by a constant k, and that every quantity of energy E has inertia kE. Galileo knew that k was either zero or else extremely close to zero, so he (and Newton) assumed it was exactly zero, which would imply that standard
    inertial coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations.
    However, it turns out that it isn't exactly zero, it is 1/c^2. As a result, standard
    inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations, but Galileo's principle is still valid. Understand?

    totally includes conservation of momentum.

    Galileo's principle entails conservation of momentum, but your nutjob belief is
    totally contrary to Galileo's principle, and blatantly violates conservation of
    momentum, not to mention every other fundamental physical law.

    Remember, you already agreed that it would be insane to think that
    you can affect the inertial trajectory of a bullet or a basketball
    by moving the gun or the player's arm *after* the projectile has
    been emitted. They follow inertial trajectories in accord with
    conservation of momentum and Galileo's principle... and yet when
    it comes to a pulse of light (which you agree also has momentum)
    you foolishly claim it is incomprehensible for a pulse to follow
    an inertial trajectory... while all the while claiming to agree
    with Galileo's principle! To borrow a line from a Cohn brothers
    movie, "Do you have any idea how crazy you are?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 20:21:08 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
    It remains the fact that Einstein and relativity today still employ an ether wind equation so that is absolutely ridiculous.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Aug 25 20:23:59 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

    --
    Jan
    It is irrelevant that it is Einstein. It is relevant it is still today's relativity equations that include the ether wind equation regardless of your empty denials.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Aug 25 20:31:14 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 7:15:07 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:35:21 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The principle of Galileo, that everything shares the velocity of the source...

    You're confusing Galileo's principle of relativity with Galilean transformations.
    Those are two completely different things. Galileo's principle is that
    the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every standard
    system of *inertial* coordinates -
    No. I'm not talking about Galilean transformations, even though they do presume everything shares the velocity of the source. I'm talking of the fact that excellent relativists say the first postulate really refers to Galileo's defense of his claim the
    Earth moves. He defended that by pointing out that everything in a ship's cabin shares the velocity of the ship when it moves with a uniform linear velocity. This is the best steelman of the first postulate. This is why the second postulate contradicts
    it by claiming light does not share the velocity of the source (breaking these laws of motion).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Aug 25 22:00:27 2023
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:31:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The principle of Galileo, that everything shares the velocity of the source...

    You're confusing Galileo's principle of relativity with Galilean transformations.
    Those are two completely different things. Galileo's principle is that
    the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every standard
    system of *inertial* coordinates - NOT in terms of accelerating coordinates.

    I'm not talking about Galilean transformations...

    Well, what you're usually talking about, overall, is your completely nutty belief
    that inertial trajectories are not inertial, and that conservation of momentum entails gross violation of conservation of momentum, and so on. In other words,
    you're spouting infantile gibberish. However, in your statement quoted above, you were indeed talking about Galilean transformations, and confusing them with Galileo's principle of relativity.

    You see, your statement amounts to saying that the compositions of velocities in terms of relatively moving standard systems of inertial coordinates is additive,
    which is just another way of saying that those coordinate systems are related by
    Galilean transformations. But empirically they are not. So, you were taking a vacation from the realm of utter insantiy into the realm of simply wrong.

    [Rational adults] say the first postulate really refers to Galileo's defense of
    his claim the Earth moves. He defended that by pointing out that everything in
    a ship's cabin shares the velocity of the ship when it moves with a uniform linear velocity.

    Please note that this applies only when the system of coordinates is in uniform motion, and in terms of such coordinate systems inertial tractories have constant
    speed in a straight line, which explodes your insane belief that you can make a distant light pulse run around in circles simply by moving one particular laser
    pointer around in circles. Do you grasp the insanity of your belief?

    The second postulate contradicts this...

    Not at all. Galileo's principle of relativity is fully satisfied in special relativity. All the laws of physics take the simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates, meaning that
    free objects move at uniform speed in straight lines in terms of these coordinate systems, etc. NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate systems. Special relativity differs from Galilean relativity in how standard inertial coordinate systems are related to each other. And this depends on whether energy has inertia. (Hint: It does.) Now do you understand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Aug 26 01:12:05 2023
    On 8/25/2023 6:14 PM, JanPB wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

    Remember, when dealing with the likes of Laurence, Dick etc. we are
    dealing with the insane. Don't expect the insane to act sanely!

    Laurence has the additional drawback that his insanity is likely inherited.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Aug 26 01:28:58 2023
    On 8/25/2023 11:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
    It remains the fact that Einstein and relativity today still employ an ether wind equation so that is absolutely ridiculous.

    And it remains a fact that you are too stupid to understand that
    Einstein derived SR totally INDEPENDENTLY from LET, so nothing from LET
    is part of SR.

    And it remains a fact that trying to say that SR, explicitly derived
    without using the concept of an ether, would have any such thing as an
    "ether wind", or angels dancing on the head of pins, or invisible pink
    fairies etc. is just plain STOOOOPID.

    Tell us, which way do hurricanes on the moon rotate?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 22:30:14 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 07:12:09 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 6:14 PM, JanPB wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
    Remember, when dealing with the likes of Laurence, Dick etc. we are
    dealing with the insane. Don't expect the insane to act sanely!

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Aug 25 22:29:31 2023
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:02:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The
    similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than >> his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.

    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz
    Einstein didn't USE Lorentz's work. He DERIVED the formulas in a
    completely independent way.

    No, stupid Mike, they both were basing on Maxwell, that's
    the reason of their results.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Aug 26 05:14:15 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 13:47:20 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:38:15?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any
    regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand
    that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the
    same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Sure, sure, The Shit is a historical necessity.


    'All' he did was split off the kinematics from the dynamics.
    He also denied repeatedly that special relativity constituted
    'a revolution in science'.
    It was for others to see that Einstein's was an act of genius
    that changes our whole way of looking at physics, (and the universe)

    Poor mumbling morons worshipping poor mumbling
    idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Aug 26 13:47:17 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:38:15?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula
    and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies.
    What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any
    regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand
    that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely
    different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the
    same.

    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    'All' he did was split off the kinematics from the dynamics.
    He also denied repeatedly that special relativity constituted
    'a revolution in science'.
    It was for others to see that Einstein's was an act of genius
    that changes our whole way of looking at physics, (and the universe)

    Jan

    PS You really shouldn't allow those nutters here
    with their harping on aether wind to distort your vision
    of what really happened.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Aug 26 14:05:22 2023
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:38:15?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than
    his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is
    simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    'All' he did was split off the kinematics from the dynamics.

    Yes. Of course it was a non-trivial insight to realise that this
    was in fact a useful thing to do! :-)

    He also denied repeatedly that special relativity constituted
    'a revolution in science'.
    It was for others to see that Einstein's was an act of genius
    that changes our whole way of looking at physics, (and the universe)

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Aug 26 19:48:23 2023
    On 8/26/2023 1:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:02:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He
    came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The
    similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than >>>> his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.

    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz
    Einstein didn't USE Lorentz's work. He DERIVED the formulas in a
    completely independent way.

    No, stupid Mike, they both were basing on Maxwell, that's
    the reason of their results.

    Wrong, janitor. Einstein did NOT use Maxwell's Equations other than to
    check if his results were consistent with them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Aug 26 23:05:13 2023
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 01:48:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/26/2023 1:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:02:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He >>>> came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The
    similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than >>>> his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.

    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz
    Einstein didn't USE Lorentz's work. He DERIVED the formulas in a
    completely independent way.

    No, stupid Mike, they both were basing on Maxwell, that's
    the reason of their results.
    Wrong, janitor. Einstein did NOT use Maxwell's Equations other than to
    check if his results were consistent with them.

    Pfffff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Aug 27 13:24:48 2023
    On 8/27/2023 2:05 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 01:48:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/26/2023 1:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:02:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He >>>>>> came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The >>>>>> similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than >>>>>> his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.

    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz
    Einstein didn't USE Lorentz's work. He DERIVED the formulas in a
    completely independent way.

    No, stupid Mike, they both were basing on Maxwell, that's
    the reason of their results.

    Wrong, janitor. Einstein did NOT use Maxwell's Equations other than to
    check if his results were consistent with them.

    Pfffff.

    Fart as much as you want (just not near me), janitor, but it remains
    true that Einstein didn't use Maxwell's Equations in his SR theory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 27 10:57:16 2023
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 19:24:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/27/2023 2:05 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 01:48:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/26/2023 1:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:02:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:38 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.
    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He >>>>>> came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The >>>>>> similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than
    his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,
    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.

    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz
    Einstein didn't USE Lorentz's work. He DERIVED the formulas in a
    completely independent way.

    No, stupid Mike, they both were basing on Maxwell, that's
    the reason of their results.

    Wrong, janitor. Einstein did NOT use Maxwell's Equations other than to
    check if his results were consistent with them.

    Pfffff.
    Fart as much as you want (just not near me), janitor, but it remains
    true that Einstein didn't use Maxwell's Equations in his SR theory.

    And your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode".
    Whetever nonsense you're asserting, stupid Mike.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 28 09:57:15 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:38:15?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind
    formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work.
    He came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS.
    The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are
    lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET. Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both
    formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is
    simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and
    Einstein's".
    That is a very strange statement indeed.

    'All' he did was split off the kinematics from the dynamics.

    Yes. Of course it was a non-trivial insight to realise that this
    was in fact a useful thing to do! :-)

    With the wisdom of hindsight it all could have been done much earlier.
    It started out with Weber and Kohlrausch, (1856)
    who measured the ratio of electrostatic to electromagnetic units,
    and found it to be c, the speed of light,
    as it was known from astronomy.
    (it is obvious that this ratio must have the dimension of a velocity)

    Then Maxwell built his equations to accomodate the fact.
    Then Einstein gave that special velocity its proper place,
    as kinematics, nothing but a ratio of units.
    Fifty years of sleepwalking and groping for the truth in between.

    And now finally, 100+ years later, we have at long last
    incorporated that fact into our the very basis of our unit system,
    by abolishing independent length units altogether.

    So, again with the wisdom of hindsight:
    how could it have been otherwise?
    It is very hard to imagine a kind of world
    in which the ratio of electric to magnetic units
    would depend on the state of motion of the laboratory
    in which it is has been measured.

    It is all so simple, if you know the answer,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Aug 28 01:21:17 2023
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 09:57:18 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:38:15?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET.
    Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between
    Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both
    formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion
    regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is
    simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.
    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and
    Einstein's".
    That is a very strange statement indeed.
    'All' he did was split off the kinematics from the dynamics.

    Yes. Of course it was a non-trivial insight to realise that this
    was in fact a useful thing to do! :-)
    With the wisdom of hindsight it all could have been done much earlier.
    It started out with Weber and Kohlrausch, (1856)
    who measured the ratio of electrostatic to electromagnetic units,
    and found it to be c, the speed of light,
    as it was known from astronomy.
    (it is obvious that this ratio must have the dimension of a velocity)

    Then Maxwell built his equations to accomodate the fact.
    Then Einstein gave that special velocity its proper place,
    as kinematics, nothing but a ratio of units.
    Fifty years of sleepwalking and groping for the truth in between.

    And now finally, 100+ years later, we have at long last
    incorporated that fact into our the very basis of our unit system,
    by abolishing independent length units altogether.

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
    by your insane cult improper clocks keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Aug 28 12:01:44 2023
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:38:15?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 10:58:47?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/24/2023 11:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    It is universally recognized that Lorentz had an ether wind formula and Einstein kept the same formulas.

    That is false and a lie.

    Einstein derived the SR formulas INDEPENDENTLY of Lorentz's work. He came up with the same answer as LET but for DIFFERENT REASONS. The similarities end there. Lorentz even said Einstein's SR was better than his own theory.
    Your denials are stupid and everyone can understand they are lies. What I can't understand is how you people think anyone has any regard for your stupid denials and lies,

    No denials; just facts. Einstein didn't use anything from the LET.
    Nothing.
    You are evidently the only person in the world who cannot understand that Einstein used the same formula as Lorentz

    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between
    Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both
    formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion
    regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is
    simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and
    Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when Einstein
    wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was not 100% sure
    if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's just not at
    all obvious that this should be so without doing the little calculation.
    Of course at that point he probably had a strong suspicion this was the case.

    The fact that this time equation alone (FAPP) produced the Lorentz
    formula was probably the major "aha!" moment that convinced
    Einstein he had a publishable result.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 28 22:30:10 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using
    entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are
    confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac
    effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is
    simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when Einstein
    wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was not 100% sure
    if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's just not at
    all obvious that this should be so without doing the little calculation.
    Of course at that point he probably had a strong suspicion this was the case.

    Come on, this is Einstein.
    He would have been familiar with analytic geometry and hyperboles
    from his undergraduate classes, if not from his gymnasium years.

    But it is even more surprising that you seem to think
    that Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations for himself.
    He was familiar with them (and with the state of the art in general)
    before he got started.

    He merely rederived them in another (and much easier) way.
    The really new thing that he did was to reinterpret Lorentz,
    making that t' not just something convenient mathematical
    entity to calculate with, like it was with Lorentz,
    but instead a really real time. (for some observer with a clock)

    The fact that this time equation alone (FAPP) produced the Lorentz
    formula was probably the major "aha!" moment that convinced
    Einstein he had a publishable result.

    By surviving accounts it was the velocity addition formula,
    with the 'natural' and inevitable prediction of Fizeau dragging
    that did it.
    But Einstein's whole 'aha erlebnis' seems to have been overwhelming,
    about the thing as a whole. All at once everything fell into place.

    If you dont mind, I think that you misunderstand the whole situation
    because you don't appreciate what publishing was like in those days.
    People (and theoretical physicists in particular)
    didn't write papers to claim a discovery of some trivial result.
    They wrote papers (shock, imagine the horror of it)
    to actually communicate with each other.
    Just imagine, communicate.
    And not just trivial 'facts', but ideas and understandings.
    They did also read each others papers, get it, read.

    Einstein's 1905 produced a new understanding of Maxwell's equations
    and Lorentz' Electron Theory, and that was more than enough to publish.

    Max Planck, as editor of the Annalen,
    would not as himself: does this present a new result?
    He asked himself: would my collegues want to read this?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Aug 28 19:48:54 2023
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:30:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when Einstein wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was not 100% sure if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's just not at
    all obvious that this should be so without doing the little calculation. Of course at that point he probably had a strong suspicion this was the case.
    Come on, this is Einstein.
    He would have been familiar with analytic geometry and hyperboles
    from his undergraduate classes, if not from his gymnasium years.

    I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said that it's not immediately
    obvious that the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" formula should yield the
    Lorentz transform. It just isn't.

    But it is even more surprising that you seem to think
    that Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations for himself.

    Not sure what you mean?

    He was familiar with them (and with the state of the art in general)
    before he got started.

    Of course he was familiar with them. Again, it looks like you
    didn't read what I wrote.

    He merely rederived them in another (and much easier) way.

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    The really new thing that he did was to reinterpret Lorentz,

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    making that t' not just something convenient mathematical
    entity to calculate with, like it was with Lorentz,
    but instead a really real time. (for some observer with a clock)

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Mon Aug 28 23:16:09 2023
    On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 04:48:57 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:30:14 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the
    end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when Einstein wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was not 100% sure
    if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's just not at
    all obvious that this should be so without doing the little calculation. Of course at that point he probably had a strong suspicion this was the case.
    Come on, this is Einstein.
    He would have been familiar with analytic geometry and hyperboles
    from his undergraduate classes, if not from his gymnasium years.
    I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said that it's not immediately

    Kookfight!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Aug 29 22:36:43 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

    But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
    that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
    and of course also Freud himself,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 2 13:34:55 2023
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
    But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
    that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
    and of course also Freud himself,

    Jan
    Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion by Frederick Crews.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 2 23:00:20 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
    But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
    that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
    and of course also Freud himself,

    Jan
    Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion
    by Frederick Crews.

    Not everybody agrees, and as long as people keep trying to 'debunk' him
    it cannot be over,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 2 13:41:56 2023
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
    But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
    that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
    and of course also Freud himself,

    Jan
    Personally, I fully embrace Darwin. I just don't think the existence of evolution can positively rule out some other extraordinary factor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 2 20:38:38 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:00:23 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he
    derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
    But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
    that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
    and of course also Freud himself,

    Jan
    Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion by Frederick Crews.

    Not everybody agrees, and as long as people keep trying to 'debunk' him
    it cannot be over,

    Jan
    If you can't give up on Freud, no wonder you can't give up on Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 3 11:18:24 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.

    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
    But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
    that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
    and of course also Freud himself,

    Jan
    Personally, I fully embrace Darwin. I just don't think the existence of evolution can positively rule out some other extraordinary factor.

    Ruling out extraordinary fantasies isn't what science is for,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 3 13:01:04 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:00:23?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:36:47?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas,
    then he > derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous. > That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.

    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would be much
    more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be the
    fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules. But no,
    in both cases it's a person selected on the basis of... what
    exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
    definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.
    But of course there is: It is the overpowering father figure
    that needs to be destroyed, Darwin, Einstein,
    and of course also Freud himself,

    Jan
    Yes, Freud has been completely debunked: Freud The Making of an Illusion by Frederick Crews.

    Not everybody agrees, and as long as people keep trying to 'debunk' him
    it cannot be over,

    Jan
    If you can't give up on Freud, no wonder you can't give up on Einstein.

    Why me? The problem is you, with your 'down with Einstein' mania.

    As for Freud: do a reality check, on Amazon for example.
    All of Freuds original books are still available,
    and there are hundreds if not thousands of books about Freud,
    in many ways, about all kinds of aspects.

    Freud certainly isn't someone who has been debunked once and for all,
    to be forgotten about,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 3 21:58:25 2023
    On 26-Aug-23 1:23 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:10:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/25/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Logically, since relativists admit he had the same formulas, then he derived an ether wind formula without an ether. Ridiculous.
    That's really, really stupid, even for you. If he derived a formula
    without an ether, there's no ether wind in it, either.

    You may as well be discussing windstorms on the moon.
    Sometimes I think people like Laurence just live in some sort of
    different "logic space". It seems a bit like the TDS except this
    is revolving around the person of Einstein instead. And it's
    equally random: in the first case one would think that by any
    sane and honest measure Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would
    be much more vilified for their war crimes by intellectuals, and
    in the second (Einstein) case one would think that it would be
    the fathers of _quantum mechanics_ who would be much more
    vilified for their destruction of certain type of certainty and rules.
    But no, in both cases it's a person selected on the basis
    of... what exactly? It's just bizarre but I guess it's practically by
    definition with all derangements: there is no rhyme or reason to
    them, it's more like hysteria or hypnosis or something.

    --
    Jan
    It is irrelevant that it is Einstein. It is relevant it is still today's relativity equations that include the ether wind equation regardless of your empty denials.

    If Einstein had come up with the equations first, what would you be
    saying about Lorentz's work? That he was putting an ether wind where one
    didn't belong?

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 3 04:16:28 2023
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 11:18:27 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Ruling out extraordinary fantasies isn't what science is for,

    A pity your idiot guru wasn't informed about that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Tue Sep 5 11:02:56 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:30:14?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when
    Einstein wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was
    not 100% sure if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's
    just not at all obvious that this should be so without doing the
    little calculation. Of course at that point he probably had a strong suspicion this was the case.
    Come on, this is Einstein.
    He would have been familiar with analytic geometry and hyperboles
    from his undergraduate classes, if not from his gymnasium years.

    I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said that it's not immediately obvious that the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" formula should yield the
    Lorentz transform. It just isn't.

    But it is even more surprising that you seem to think
    that Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations for himself.

    Not sure what you mean?

    He was familiar with them (and with the state of the art in general)
    before he got started.

    Of course he was familiar with them. Again, it looks like you
    didn't read what I wrote.

    He merely rederived them in another (and much easier) way.

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    The really new thing that he did was to reinterpret Lorentz,

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    making that t' not just something convenient mathematical
    entity to calculate with, like it was with Lorentz,
    but instead a really real time. (for some observer with a clock)

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    Our difference seems to be that you look
    on all that t - t stuff as a derivation.
    I see it as expository material, didactic in purpose.
    After all, it was the ingrained idea of absolute time
    that needed to be broken,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Sep 5 02:18:34 2023
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 11:02:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    I see it as expository material, didactic in purpose.
    After all, it was the ingrained idea of absolute time
    that needed to be broken,

    Just like rotten capitalism; they both needed to be
    broken by any means possible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Sep 5 16:21:26 2023
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 2:02:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:30:14?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no
    connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the
    end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and
    relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity
    to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development
    of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is
    only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when Einstein wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was not 100% sure if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's just not at all obvious that this should be so without doing the little calculation. Of course at that point he probably had a strong suspicion this was the case.
    Come on, this is Einstein.
    He would have been familiar with analytic geometry and hyperboles
    from his undergraduate classes, if not from his gymnasium years.

    I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said that it's not immediately obvious that the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" formula should yield the
    Lorentz transform. It just isn't.

    But it is even more surprising that you seem to think
    that Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations for himself.

    Not sure what you mean?

    He was familiar with them (and with the state of the art in general) before he got started.

    Of course he was familiar with them. Again, it looks like you
    didn't read what I wrote.

    He merely rederived them in another (and much easier) way.

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    The really new thing that he did was to reinterpret Lorentz,

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    making that t' not just something convenient mathematical
    entity to calculate with, like it was with Lorentz,
    but instead a really real time. (for some observer with a clock)

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]
    Our difference seems to be that you look
    on all that t - t stuff as a derivation.

    Well, it is. I mean Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform
    is based on that equation directly (pp. 44-46 of the Dover ed.)
    in the form of "1/2 * (tau0 +tau2) = tau1" (p. 44) plus the second
    postulate in K.

    I see it as expository material, didactic in purpose.

    It's not only didactic, it's the basis for the derivation of the
    Lorentz transform, using the eternally-confusing-in-this-NG
    substitution of x' for x-vt and then using a bit of trivial
    calculus to speed the derivation up a bit to get the
    coefficients of the transform.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Sep 5 20:21:24 2023
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 2:18:37 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 11:02:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    I see it as expository material, didactic in purpose.
    After all, it was the ingrained idea of absolute time
    that needed to be broken,
    Just like rotten capitalism; they both needed to be
    broken by any means possible.
    Lodder is right. Relativity broke it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Sep 6 10:27:50 2023
    JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 2:02:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:30:14?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there
    is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking
    the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be
    derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when Einstein wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was not 100% sure if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's just not at all obvious that this should be so without doing the little calculation. Of course at that point he probably had a strong suspicion this was the case.
    Come on, this is Einstein.
    He would have been familiar with analytic geometry and hyperboles
    from his undergraduate classes, if not from his gymnasium years.

    I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said that it's not immediately obvious that the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" formula should yield the
    Lorentz transform. It just isn't.

    But it is even more surprising that you seem to think
    that Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations for himself.

    Not sure what you mean?

    He was familiar with them (and with the state of the art in general) before he got started.

    Of course he was familiar with them. Again, it looks like you
    didn't read what I wrote.

    He merely rederived them in another (and much easier) way.

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    The really new thing that he did was to reinterpret Lorentz,

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    making that t' not just something convenient mathematical
    entity to calculate with, like it was with Lorentz,
    but instead a really real time. (for some observer with a clock)

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]
    Our difference seems to be that you look
    on all that t - t stuff as a derivation.

    Well, it is. I mean Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform
    is based on that equation directly (pp. 44-46 of the Dover ed.)
    in the form of "1/2 * (tau0 +tau2) = tau1" (p. 44) plus the second
    postulate in K.

    I see it as expository material, didactic in purpose.

    It's not only didactic, it's the basis for the derivation of the
    Lorentz transform, using the eternally-confusing-in-this-NG
    substitution of x' for x-vt and then using a bit of trivial
    calculus to speed the derivation up a bit to get the
    coefficients of the transform.

    No matter how you turn it, something must be postulated somewhere,
    and then you can derive the rest.
    Einstein must have turned everything over and over again,
    if only in his mind, until he finally chose
    what seemed the most convincing presentation,
    to him, at the time.

    Jan
    (who tends to prefer oher choices)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 6 01:37:54 2023
    On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 10:27:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 2:02:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:30:14?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:57:18?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 4:47:20?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
    JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Einstein didn't "use" it. He DERIVED it from scratch using entirely different means. Thus, by definition, that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's. You are confused by the accident of both formulas looking the same in the end. There is similar endless confusion regarding the Sagnac effect formula which can also be derived by pre-relativistic and relativistic methods, also ending up looking the same.
    Einstein himself didn't agree with you at all.
    He has said on many occasions that he considered special relativity to be a necessary, natural, and ultimately inevitable development of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons.
    He just happened to be the one to see it first.

    Yes. Why do you think this means we disagree? The argument is only about Einstein's not using ether for his derivation. This is
    simply a fact, it's right there in the paper.

    Well, you did say that: (see above)
    ".... that there is no connection between Lorentz's formula and Einstein's".

    I meant no *a priori* connection. I'm fairly certain that when Einstein wrote "tB - tA = tA' - tB" for the *very first time*, he was
    not 100% sure if this would produce the Lorentz transformation, it's
    just not at all obvious that this should be so without doing the little calculation. Of course at that point he probably had a strong
    suspicion this was the case.
    Come on, this is Einstein.
    He would have been familiar with analytic geometry and hyperboles from his undergraduate classes, if not from his gymnasium years.

    I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said that it's not immediately obvious that the "tB - tA = tA' - tB" formula should yield the
    Lorentz transform. It just isn't.

    But it is even more surprising that you seem to think
    that Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations for himself.

    Not sure what you mean?

    He was familiar with them (and with the state of the art in general) before he got started.

    Of course he was familiar with them. Again, it looks like you
    didn't read what I wrote.

    He merely rederived them in another (and much easier) way.

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    The really new thing that he did was to reinterpret Lorentz,

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]

    making that t' not just something convenient mathematical
    entity to calculate with, like it was with Lorentz,
    but instead a really real time. (for some observer with a clock)

    That's exactly what I said. Again, [etc.]
    Our difference seems to be that you look
    on all that t - t stuff as a derivation.

    Well, it is. I mean Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform
    is based on that equation directly (pp. 44-46 of the Dover ed.)
    in the form of "1/2 * (tau0 +tau2) = tau1" (p. 44) plus the second postulate in K.

    I see it as expository material, didactic in purpose.

    It's not only didactic, it's the basis for the derivation of the
    Lorentz transform, using the eternally-confusing-in-this-NG
    substitution of x' for x-vt and then using a bit of trivial
    calculus to speed the derivation up a bit to get the
    coefficients of the transform.
    No matter how you turn it, something must be postulated somewhere,
    and then you can derive the rest.

    And your screams of "Laws of Nature", "the world we
    inhabit" and so on - are lies, lies, lies.

    Einstein must have turned everything over and over again,
    if only in his mind, until he finally chose
    what seemed the most convincing presentation,
    to him, at the time.

    The bottom of the hell is paved with idiots finally
    choosing what seemed to be.

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