Discussion:
"In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity."
Add Reply
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-09 19:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"

- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
Richard Hachel
2025-01-09 21:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
It's a bit true, and it's also a bit normal.
We give a calculation, an equation, a bit randomly (simply proposing the
invariance of the speed of light as a basis is good, but it doesn't
explain WHY) and we see that in some cases it works, so we're happy. We
have something fantastic and new.
All this is very normal.
Where it's no longer normal is when someone says: "Everything is
ultimately very simple, and I understood how it worked; neither Poincaré
nor Einstein could find the right explanation, and I'm going to give it to
you using a much simpler and more experimentally obvious basic
mathematical concept" and then, a real universal miracle occurs: "We spit
in his face".
Don't laugh, friends, it's not funny.
Once the principle is understood, everything is very simple.
And no more need to bother with hyperbolic geometry, ridiculous
considerations (the disk contracts at the periphery but not at the
radius), flagrant contradictions even at the base (in apparent speed the
measurements are no longer reciprocal), incomprehension of the notion of
causality, of the concreted and stupid Minkowskian block (as if space-time
were geometrically a concrete block).
No, no, the relativistic problem is not so much a scientific problem as a
human, moral, pathological problem. We have here thousands of men who see
clearly (if they look) that something is wrong, like small pebbles in an
immense grinder, but are very happy with their mathematical grinder. It
does not occur to them to change the nature of the olives (the basic
concepts), or to see if there are not pebbles in them. Pebbles made
lovable by psychological acceptance: "We do not want Doctor Hachel to give
us his opinion". We prefer to throw stones in the grinder rather than
admit that he is stronger than us on these very specific problems.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-09 21:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed
They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
as well as for some other words involved.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-09 22:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
as well as for some other words involved.
Yes, the theory of relativity has been confirmed many times, but not in
the sense that they think.
They think "we have confirmed the theory" when it should be said: "We have
confirmed that things are happening in the relationships between space and
time".

It is completely different.

And very often, the theory was introduced AFTER the observed facts and as
if to explain them. It is therefore only half valid, because it smells of
patching.

It would have been useful to predict the facts BEFORE (as I do for
rotating frames of reference, accelerated frames of reference, and the
spatial zoom effect) that cannot be predicted without a complete mastery
of the theory while using the mathematics of an average 18-year-old
student.

At this point, it goes without saying that the theory takes on incredible
strength, because it is logical and totally predictive. This is not yet
the case today, where in scientific circles these predictions cited above
do not exist and where the theory is riddled with falsehoods and
inexplicable paradoxes.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-10 07:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Maciej Wozniak
They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
as well as for some  other words involved.
Yes, the theory of relativity has been confirmed many times
It was not. It was only "confirmed in the
meaning of a relativistic idiot".


, but not in
Post by Richard Hachel
the sense that they think.
They think "we have confirmed the theory" when it should be said: "We
have confirmed that things are happening in the relationships between
space and time".
Or maybe the relationships between "time
in the meaning of a relativistic idiot"
amd "space in the meaning of a relativistic
idiot".
Poincare was right and self-appointed
"realists" are mistaken, physics is an
outcome of a word game, experiments
can only affect it indirect way.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-09 22:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed
They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
as well as for some other words involved.
Of course, they could not be confirmed because no one understood them.
The theories are not coherent or logical and make no rational
predictions. If they understood them, they would know they were pure
nonsense. The point is that they were accepted by proclamation by
charlatans pretending to understand nonsense.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-09 22:48:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed
They were not. Relativistic fanatics have just
invented some new meaning for the word "confirmed",
as well as for some other words involved.
Leon quotes Weyll as saying Einstein banished the dogma of simultaneity,
so we rank him with Copernicus. Leon says it's not a dogma and is
essential to the second law of logic.
The Starmaker
2025-01-09 22:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.



nutin at'all

nutin.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-10 00:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
The Starmaker
2025-01-10 07:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-11 20:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.


Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity.


Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.


Ding-an-Sich

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-11 21:22:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity.
Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
Ding-an-Sich
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
thing.


But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..


who's philosophy is better? His or Hers?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-11 21:51:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity.
Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
Ding-an-Sich
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
thing.
But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
His:things look different depending your point of reference

Hers:things look the same whatever your point of reference
(Ding-an-Sich)




In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...

you can see a Philosophy book...


https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096


Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...


he wanted to know The Mind Of God...



the rest are details.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-11 22:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity.
Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
Ding-an-Sich
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
thing.
But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
His:things look different depending your point of reference
Hers:things look the same whatever your point of reference
(Ding-an-Sich)
In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
you can see a Philosophy book...
https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
the rest are details.
(Ding-an-Sich)

You want to know what time it is now?

it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
will ask you what time it is now...

the time is..the present time now..

the time is now...everywhere!

don't matter if your watch
is fast or slow..or you are there
or here...

it's now.

The time now is...

what time did you say it is now???

okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.

Now?
Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you
think i'm talking about...NOW!

Now?


You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?

Now?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-12 02:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity.
Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
Ding-an-Sich
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
thing.
But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
His:things look different depending your point of reference
Hers:things look the same whatever your point of reference
(Ding-an-Sich)
In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
you can see a Philosophy book...
https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
the rest are details.
(Ding-an-Sich)
You want to know what time it is now?
it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
will ask you what time it is now...
the time is..the present time now..
the time is now...everywhere!
don't matter if your watch
is fast or slow..or you are there
or here...
it's now.
The time now is...
what time did you say it is now???
okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.
Now?
Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you
think i'm talking about...NOW!
Now?
You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?
Now?
The Fact is...when Albert Einstein uses the term..."present time", he is
not
refering to what time it is on the face of a clock now, he is refering
to
the missing Now time on the face of a clock.

Einstein does not think of "present time" having minutes, hours or even
days!

Einstein's "present time" is in fact...a universal Now.


No minutes, no hours, no days, just...NOW.


Could be yesterday in Einstein't Now time...you cannot get him to narrow
it down..cause
he is slippery as a snake.

And if you try to narrow him down he'll say something like..."I didn't
say absolutly NOW!"

"I didn't say this very minute!"


he is slippery as a snake....
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-14 03:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity.
Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
Ding-an-Sich
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
thing.
But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
His:things look different depending your point of reference
Hers:things look the same whatever your point of reference
(Ding-an-Sich)
In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
you can see a Philosophy book...
https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
the rest are details.
(Ding-an-Sich)
You want to know what time it is now?
it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
will ask you what time it is now...
the time is..the present time now..
the time is now...everywhere!
don't matter if your watch
is fast or slow..or you are there
or here...
it's now.
The time now is...
what time did you say it is now???
okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.
Now?
Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you
think i'm talking about...NOW!
Now?
You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?
Now?
The Fact is...when Albert Einstein uses the term..."present time", he is
not
refering to what time it is on the face of a clock now, he is refering
to
the missing Now time on the face of a clock.
Einstein does not think of "present time" having minutes, hours or even
days!
Einstein's "present time" is in fact...a universal Now.
No minutes, no hours, no days, just...NOW.
Could be yesterday in Einstein't Now time...you cannot get him to narrow
it down..cause
he is slippery as a snake.
And if you try to narrow him down he'll say something like..."I didn't
say absolutly NOW!"
"I didn't say this very minute!"
he is slippery as a snake....
Hell, in Einstein's mind "present time" could also mean...this century.


(which is still...now)


If you study the definition of the word..."present"

you will see 'hidden' within it's meaning...'the structure of
relativity'.


pres·ent
/'preznt/
adjective

in a particular place.
"a doctor must be present at the ringside"
synonyms: in attendance, attending, here, there, near, nearby, at
hand, close/near at hand, adjacent, available, ready, accounted for
existing or occurring now.
"she did not expect to find herself in her present situation"
synonyms: current, present-day, existing, contemporary, immediate,
instant


noun
the period of time now occurring.
"they are happy and at peace, refusing to think beyond the present"
synonyms: now, today, the present time, the here and now, this day and
age, the present moment, the time being

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+present




What is "the here and now"????



What is the Here?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
The Starmaker
2025-01-15 19:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
But you still believe, and that's what counts!
Ding-an-Sich
Einstein was inspired by Kant theory of relativity.
Relativity is philosophy...and Einstein twisted Kant theory of
relativity.
Kants's is more true than' Einstien's.
Ding-an-Sich
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+ding-an-sich
The fact is, in Einstein's day...physics and philosophy are the same
thing.
But everybody seems to have a different philosophy on things..
whose philosophy is better? His or Hers?
His:things look different depending your point of reference
Hers:things look the same whatever your point of reference
(Ding-an-Sich)
In fact, if you look at Einstein's Desk on the day he died...
you can see a Philosophy book...
https://x.com/Starmaker111/status/1668464757861683200/photo/1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyeTzX3agAEoeJU?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Einstein studied philosophy in school all the way till he died...
he wanted to know The Mind Of God...
the rest are details.
(Ding-an-Sich)
You want to know what time it is now?
it don't matter what your frame of reference is, everybody
will ask you what time it is now...
the time is..the present time now..
the time is now...everywhere!
don't matter if your watch
is fast or slow..or you are there
or here...
it's now.
The time now is...
what time did you say it is now???
okay, i was just wondering what time it is now.
Now?
Yeah, now..wat da fuck do you
think i'm talking about...NOW!
Now?
You know wat i'm going to do you to you now?
Now?
The Fact is...when Albert Einstein uses the term..."present time", he is
not
refering to what time it is on the face of a clock now, he is refering
to
the missing Now time on the face of a clock.
Einstein does not think of "present time" having minutes, hours or even
days!
Einstein's "present time" is in fact...a universal Now.
No minutes, no hours, no days, just...NOW.
Could be yesterday in Einstein't Now time...you cannot get him to narrow
it down..cause
he is slippery as a snake.
And if you try to narrow him down he'll say something like..."I didn't
say absolutly NOW!"
"I didn't say this very minute!"
he is slippery as a snake....
Hell, in Einstein's mind "present time" could also mean...this century.
(which is still...now)
If you study the definition of the word..."present"
you will see 'hidden' within it's meaning...'the structure of
relativity'.
pres·ent
/'preznt/
adjective
in a particular place.
"a doctor must be present at the ringside"
synonyms: in attendance, attending, here, there, near, nearby, at
hand, close/near at hand, adjacent, available, ready, accounted for
existing or occurring now.
"she did not expect to find herself in her present situation"
synonyms: current, present-day, existing, contemporary, immediate,
instant
noun
the period of time now occurring.
"they are happy and at peace, refusing to think beyond the present"
synonyms: now, today, the present time, the here and now, this day and
age, the present moment, the time being
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+present
What is "the here and now"????
What is the Here?
Where is Here? Is it over there??

No, it's here.

dats what I said, over there!

No, it's over here.

dat is what i said, over there!!!!

Okay, where is Here?

Here?

Yes, Here!

It's over here!

Where, there?

No, over here!

Over there!

No, right here!!!

No, here IS here!

Where?

Over here!!


No, it's over here!!!

Come on, you cannot have two here's..
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-10 01:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
Ross Finlayson
2025-01-10 20:08:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by The Starmaker
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"'When the theories of relativity were experimentally confirmed, the red
carpet was rolled out despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that
almost no one understood them.'"
- "On the empirical evidence of Special Relativity" by Antonio Leon free
pdf=
https://www.academia.edu/91707309/On_the_empirical_evidence_of_Special_Relativity?email_work_card=view-paper
dats true, i don't undersatand nuthin in the theory of relativity.
nutin at'all
nutin.
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
and then framing things in terms of perspective.

Einstein asked "what can result of a theory so minimal
as merely a negative assertion that negates that motion
is absolute instead relative?" then goes about answering
why, among the other absolutes and ideals, it's so.

Then, "mass-energy equivalency" making for space-contraction,
and, "cosmological constant" as infinitesimal, then besides
the "L-principle light's constant velocity", are basically
separate concerns altogether about when the fields come
together, that Einstein clarifies "Special is spacial not
spatial" as far as it goes.

That then there's a tetrad of quantities and those usually
a triad of force complements, is quite classical yet merely
a classical perspective of the super-classical, which is
really the fields of potentials in a sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials least-action least-gradient theory,
in itself.


It's a continuum mechanics, ....
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-10 22:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".
Ross Finlayson
2025-01-11 05:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".
There _is_ space contraction and what's involved
is "Zero-eth laws of motion" and _classical mechanics_
and under-definition in _classical mechanics_, then
that as with regards to Equivalence Principle and
gravity and G-forces, those being different, and,
the aether _not_ existing, makes way for why
the relativistic effects of _charged_ particles
are as observed, while, GR is in _front_ of SR,
with regards to mechanics.

Yes, there are definite contrivances with regards
to "the perfect balance" where various assumptions
of various extensions of "Relativity Theory" itself,
as what are contrived. Yet, space contraction is
quite real, merely various in the matter, electricity,
and the nuclear, as according to the most usual
observable, optical light.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-11 07:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".
There _is_ space contraction and what's involved
is "Zero-eth laws of motion" and _classical mechanics_
and under-definition in _classical mechanics_, then
that as with regards to Equivalence Principle and
gravity and G-forces, those being different, and,
the aether _not_ existing, makes way for why
the relativistic effects of _charged_ particles
are as observed, while, GR is in _front_ of SR,
with regards to mechanics.
As said - merely an assertion.

And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper clocks keep measurig improper
t'=t in improper seconds.
Ross Finlayson
2025-01-11 14:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".
There _is_ space contraction and what's involved
is "Zero-eth laws of motion" and _classical mechanics_
and under-definition in _classical mechanics_, then
that as with regards to Equivalence Principle and
gravity and G-forces, those being different, and,
the aether _not_ existing, makes way for why
the relativistic effects of _charged_ particles
are as observed, while, GR is in _front_ of SR,
with regards to mechanics.
As said - merely an assertion.
And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper clocks keep measurig improper
t'=t in improper seconds.
So, all you need to do is explain
everything all together.

Physics is more than "Newton's System
of the World", though causality is still
inviolable and there are no closed time-like
curves, and it's a continuum mechanics,
while a super-classical mechanics.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-11 15:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".
There _is_ space contraction and what's involved
is "Zero-eth laws of motion" and _classical mechanics_
and under-definition in _classical mechanics_, then
that as with regards to Equivalence Principle and
gravity and G-forces, those being different, and,
the aether _not_ existing, makes way for why
the relativistic effects of _charged_ particles
are as observed, while, GR is in _front_ of SR,
with regards to mechanics.
As said - merely an assertion.
And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper clocks keep measurig improper
t'=t in improper seconds.
So, all you need to do is explain
everything all together.
Wanna explaination? You won't like
it, but it's simple: sane people
(which control clocks in the reality)
don't give a damn to your beloved
"let's explain" game.
Post by Ross Finlayson
Physics is more than "Newton's System
of the World"
Well, fuck the physics. Clocks will
keep indicating t'=t and ignoring your
mad visions of what they should do,
common sense has been warning.
Ross Finlayson
2025-01-12 16:14:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".
There _is_ space contraction and what's involved
is "Zero-eth laws of motion" and _classical mechanics_
and under-definition in _classical mechanics_, then
that as with regards to Equivalence Principle and
gravity and G-forces, those being different, and,
the aether _not_ existing, makes way for why
the relativistic effects of _charged_ particles
are as observed, while, GR is in _front_ of SR,
with regards to mechanics.
As said - merely an assertion.
And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper clocks keep measurig improper
t'=t in improper seconds.
So, all you need to do is explain
everything all together.
Wanna explaination? You won't like
it, but it's simple: sane people
(which control clocks in the reality)
don't give a damn to your beloved
"let's explain" game.
Post by Ross Finlayson
Physics is more than "Newton's System
of the World"
Well, fuck the physics. Clocks will
keep indicating t'=t and ignoring your
mad visions of what they should do,
common sense has been warning.
No, because that's not explaining everything
together. Don't confuse what I'm saying with
"going along" or "toeing the line", indeed
it demands revisiting _classical mechanics_
itself, that your Newtonian isn't any better.

There's much more about this in my podcasts,
though it's usually that there's talk of
philosophy and mathematics and logic and
the philosophy of science before the mechanics
and the physics.

The point though of "Moment and Motion" to
arrive at "worlds turn" about "Zero-eth laws
of motion" is that it's a continuum mechanics
and there really _is_ mathematical infinity
in mathematical physics.

Then, Relativity is a way of looking at things,
and mass-energy equivalency is various, while
still having conserved quantities of course,
if framed as continuity laws, anyways if you're
not explaining it all together it's not physics,
if though it may be a field of physics, it's
not, "the field" of physics.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-12 17:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Ross Finlayson
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Leon has an interesting section in his free pdf book "Apparent
Relativity" on the laws of logic and relativity.
In reality the principle of Relativity is merely
a negative assertion "motion is relative not absolute"
Right, The Shit is merely an assertion.
Later on, of course, the term "confirm"
was redefined to make it "confirmed".
There _is_ space contraction and what's involved
is "Zero-eth laws of motion" and _classical mechanics_
and under-definition in _classical mechanics_, then
that as with regards to Equivalence Principle and
gravity and G-forces, those being different, and,
the aether _not_ existing, makes way for why
the relativistic effects of _charged_ particles
are as observed, while, GR is in _front_ of SR,
with regards to mechanics.
As said - merely an assertion.
And in the meantime in the real world,
forbidden by your bunch of idiots
improper clocks keep measurig improper
t'=t in improper seconds.
So, all you need to do is explain
everything all together.
Wanna explaination? You won't like
it, but it's simple: sane people
(which control clocks in the reality)
don't give a damn to your beloved
"let's explain" game.
Post by Ross Finlayson
Physics is more than "Newton's System
of the World"
Well, fuck the physics. Clocks will
keep indicating t'=t and ignoring your
mad visions of what they should do,
common sense has been  warning.
No,
Oh yes.
Post by Ross Finlayson
because that's not explaining everything
Too bad - for you and for your pretty little
formula puzzles. Clocks are not toy gadgets
invented for your fun, they're serious tools
crucial for the organization of human society.
Face it.
Loading...