On 1/17/2024 5:15 PM, JanPB wrote:

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

Dig it, relativistic assholes, and enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU

My response seems to have disappeared and I don't feel like reposting it
all, so here is a condensed version.

The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.

It isn't.

Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.

You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested
experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
space and time are Minkowskian.

In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
an idiot.

--
Jan

My question has to do with what information is useless and consequently
is all information worthy of argument.

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

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 2:57:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: \

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:48:16 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

[Ridiculous besmirchment deleted]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU

The author of that video makes the standard mistake: he assumes that
clock sync is an essential part of special relativity.

It isn't.

Clock synchronisation is only used for the convenience of derivation.
It is NOT any fundamental defining aspect of it.

You can find the details in MTW. Basically, the only tools needed are
a bunch of identical rulers and a bunch of identical clocks (no synchronisation is assumed). Then a certain formula is tested experimentally using the above tools, and if it's confirmed, then
space and time are Minkowskian.

In general, I'd STRONGLY recommend to stop assuming everyone is
an idiot.

--
Jan

Imbecile, the main FALLACY in SR is the assertion that OWLS = AB/(tB-tA),

Can you provide evidence that it's a fallacy, rather than assertion?

As it is IMPOSSIBLE, the fallacious statement that TWLS = 2AB/(t´A -tA) = OWLS
is completely FALSE and UNPROVEN.

Your "conclusion" is based on an UNPROVEN assertion.

TE READING of B clock, which IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Clock B doesn't need to be read "remotely" - whatever that means.

So, SR is rotten since the start of the theory claiming that OWLS = TWLS, without
any fucking proof (not once in 120 years).

And without any proof, Richard makes baseless assertions. And he hasn't proven that OWLS <> TWLS. The only way that it cannot be is if AB/(tB - tA) <> BA/(tA - tB).

With TWLS, you don't need any clock synchronization since the same clock is used twice.

Yes, indeed. So why don't you believe that AB/(tB - tA) <> BA/(tA - tB)?

And this fallacy MEANS CHEATING, A MASS DECEPTION

There is a baseless assertion, and the only "fallacy" is the one you're trying to foist
on those who see through your "mass deception" :-)

for little minds like yours, prompt to adhere to collectivist thinking (AKA communism).

I try to follow this admonition:

“What I cannot create, I do not understand." -- Richard P. Feynman

I grew up in a communist country, so I know it better than you can imagine.

I test the assumptions (e.g., postulates). Although synchronizing clocks isn't a
postulate, it's important for verifying the theory. Hence, Einstein synchronization.
Can you falsify it? If you can't, then your assertion is baseless.

You are a zombie parrot, with no brain. You just BOUGHT an unsubstantiated idea

Pot, kettle, black :-))

Gary

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

On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 9:52:48 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 2:35:30 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:

The equation you quote refers to a particular property of a particular coordinate
system. This is not a defining property of special relativity, whose actual defining property is its geometry (which is Lorentzian).

This defining property is a reification fallacy. Space has no geometry.
It is imposed on it,

Just as are all laws of physics. We let go of a rock, it falls to the ground. We
ascribe a force pulls it down, or a geometry, or a fairy. The fact is, Larry, no
one really knows what "space" is. As Tom Roberts says, all we have is models.

imbecile.

Now, Larry, you KNOW that Jan is NOT an "imbecile." Calling him that is lying. Is
THAT how you want to be known -- as a liar? Have a little more respect for yourself.

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

Larry wrote:

Gary wrote:

Larry wrote:

This defining property is a reification fallacy. Space has no geometry. It is imposed on it,

Just as are all laws of physics. We let go of a rock, it falls to the ground. We
ascribe a force pulls it down, or a geometry, or a fairy. The fact is, Larry, no
one really knows what "space" is. As Tom Roberts says, all we have is models.

imbecile.

Now, Larry, you KNOW that Jan is NOT an "imbecile." Calling him that is lying. Is
THAT how you want to be known -- as a liar? Have a little more respect for yourself.

Models are not reification fallacy. A model is an abstraction, not a reification
fallacy.

Larry, you seem to have a compulsion about "reification" as if you believe you can touch
space and know everything about it. That is just bizarre pretentiousness and arrogance.

Models involving the reification fallacy are illogical and invalid models.

The fact is that you have nothing even as good as that.

Tom and you are conflating the fallacy with abstractions without the fallacy.

You are conflating reality with physics.

You two are confusing math with physics;

:-)) Larry, math is just counting. Mathematics is only a tool. Even the most sublime
mathematics reduces to that. Physics is trying to find out how the universe works. The
best we can do is observe, make models, test them, observe, modify, etc. And if the
difference between the model and the observation can't be quantified, you got nuttin!

"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
– Robert A. Heinlein

many excellent scientists have commented on this unfortunate tendency in physics over
the past 100 years.

Name one!

These mistakes are utterly stupid.

What "mistakes"? Using math? Now THAT'S utterly stupid.

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best
he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and
not make messes in the house." – Robert A. Heinlein

Accepting relativity involves making these mistakes.

You are wrong, opinion-breath. It takes someone who is fully human to use mathematics
to compare theory with experiment. I've done so. Have you?

It takes an imbecile to do that (less than 70 IQ). Even a child knows the difference,
and this gets laughs at a clown show..

Apparently, you don't know the difference between theory and experiment. What is your IQ?

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

Larry wrote:

The Left in the U.S. has long been extremely Marxist. To understand Marxism, Napoleon is instructive. He said, “Men are more easily governed through their
vices than through their virtues.” That is what Marxism is. It characterizes
those in power as oppressors, to exploit the vice of desiring power over others. Then it exploits, envy, greed... Relativity functions as an ideology.

You were going okay there, Larry, until that last brain-fart. You didn't tell the truth, but another Larry did:

“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

And THAT'S the truth!

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

On Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 16:02:03 UTC+1, gharnagel wrote:

Larry wrote:

.... Relativity functions as an ideology.

You were going okay there, Larry, until that last brain-fart. You didn't tell
the truth, but another Larry did:

“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.”

Relativistic idiots are telling the truth very seldom,

Now THAT'S the TRUTH. "Relativistic idiots" are those who deny relativity, like Wozniak the Shit.

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

On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 7:02:03 AM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:

“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

And THAT'S the truth!

Have you read Krauss' book about nothing/something
and a mathematical universe hypothesis?

Nope. I don't believe the universe came from nothing, and mathematics
is just counting.

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

gharnagel wrote:

Relativistic idiots are telling the truth very seldom,

Now THAT'S the TRUTH. "Relativistic idiots" are those who deny relativity, like Wozniak the Shit.

Nope, relativistic idiots are the worshippers
of inconsistent mumble of an insane cerazie.

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