Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #664370 > unrolled thread
| Started by | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-06-19 17:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-06-20 10:18 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-19 17:37 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-20 12:06 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-20 11:43 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-20 18:55 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-21 13:19 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 21:14 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-21 22:31 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 00:11 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 11:45 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 00:09 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-23 13:47 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-22 12:43 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:25 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:36 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-22 13:25 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-22 13:50 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Jerald Warszawski <raw@eazreizs.pl> - 2025-06-22 14:03 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 16:46 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Walid Paradjanov <awload@wlv.ru> - 2025-06-22 16:07 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:21 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-23 11:13 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-23 19:20 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:52 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-24 09:27 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:38 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:09 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:42 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-24 19:59 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-27 07:17 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-27 10:54 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-27 12:51 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-28 18:22 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-28 19:18 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-29 06:20 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-29 10:03 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-06-30 14:15 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-30 17:31 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-30 23:11 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-06-30 22:18 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-07-01 07:20 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 09:39 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-29 10:34 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-07-01 09:42 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-29 13:46 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-20 18:59 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-21 13:22 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-21 21:11 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-22 12:45 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:29 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:45 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-22 13:25 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-22 16:47 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:36 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:48 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 03:54 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-23 11:43 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 21:16 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:47 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-06-23 13:32 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-24 09:27 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Jefforey Yoshimatsu <rymaoeo@msyhua.jp> - 2025-06-24 10:02 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-06-24 13:07 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Otte Baigushev <aa@bigtghsoev.ru> - 2025-06-24 17:41 +0000
Re: The first postulate is a truism. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-06-25 12:08 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-06-24 20:03 +0200
Re: The first postulate is a truism. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-06-24 12:54 +0300
Re: The first postulate is a truism. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-06-20 10:18 +0000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-01 09:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <71ddbac51a61a23bc2621c56f0925832@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #664713 |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:31:17 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2025-06-30 12:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > >> Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>> On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>> >>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>>>> On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [ … ] >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, that's what you think. >>>>>> >>>>>> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted >>>>>> to divert physics from true science. >>>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about >>>>> him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the >>>>> complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, >>>>> however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's >>>>> character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, >>>>> but there is plenty to be learned from other sources. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to >>>> eliminate quaternions. >>> >>> Instead of guessing, why not try to find out? >> >> Conspiracies are necessarily a secret. >> >> So you cannot evaluate your guesses that easily. >> >> But in my case I was also hindered by 'late birth'. >> ... > > My guess is that "Thomas Heger" is a made-up name for someone working > for Vladimir Putin to gather information about people posting to this > group. My evidence for this? None whatsoever, but what does that matter? The esteemed nose of Athel, Lord Bow-Wow Chappie we hold in the highest esteem for its discerning quality. WOOF woof-woof woof woof woof-woof Bertietaylor > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-29 10:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rensvx.1t26iwjk3xly8N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #664645 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > > > > > [ … ] > > > > > Well, that's what you think. > > > > For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted > > to divert physics from true science. > > ... > > I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about > him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the > complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). Yes, of course. Everything TH writes about any historical subject is bollocks. He makes it up as he goes along, stringing implausibilities and impossibilities together. Heaviside was a self-made man, who did highly original and very useful work in engineering, electromagnetism, physics and mathematics. His contrarian character, obscure methods of publication, and lack of formal schooling made him less well known than he could have been. He liked to pester pedantic academic mathematicians with his unorthodox methods. (which worked only too well) Heaviside also originated what we nowadays call the Dirac delta-function in all but the notation. (as the derivative of a discontinuous function with a unit step) The nutters here love him, for he was one of the very few heavyweight scientists of his time who rejected relativity. Jan -- "This series diverges, therefore it may be of some use" (Heaviside)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-01 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7fc8528ce9115370f66b4d7b40d2c128@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #664676 |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 8:34:04 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: >> >>> >>> [ … ] >> >>> >>> Well, that's what you think. >>> >>> For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted >>> to divert physics from true science. >>> ... >> >> I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about >> him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the >> complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). > > Yes, of course. > Everything TH writes about any historical subject is bollocks. > He makes it up as he goes along, stringing implausibilities and > impossibilities together. > > Heaviside was a self-made man, who did highly original > and very useful work in engineering, electromagnetism, > physics and mathematics. > His contrarian character, obscure methods of publication, > and lack of formal schooling made him less well known > than he could have been. > He liked to pester pedantic academic mathematicians > with his unorthodox methods. > (which worked only too well) > > Heaviside also originated what we nowadays call > the Dirac delta-function in all but the notation. > (as the derivative of a discontinuous function with a unit step) > > The nutters here love him, for he was one of the very few heavyweight > scientists of his time who rejected relativity. As did Tesla. One Tesla .gt. (1000 Edisons and 1000000 Einsteins). WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof Bertietaylor > > Jan --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-29 13:46 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <103r5hu$1ftn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #664637 |
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > Am Freitag000027, 27.06.2025 um 09:54 schrieb Mikko: > >>>> The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs. >>>> Maxwell's equations do not. >>>> Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics. >>>> >>>> "AI Overview >>>> Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks >>>> Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set >>>> of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and >>>> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges >>>> and currents. These equations are foundational to classical >>>> electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power >>>> generation, electric motors, and wireless communication." >>> >>> Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem from >>> Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside. >> >> It is true. Regardless of the origin, "Maxwell's equations" is the >> Common Language name of that set of equations. >> >> Heaviside got the equations from Maxwell. Heaviside just identified the >> most important equations among all that Maxwell had presented. In addition >> Heaviside invented vectors and demonstrated that using vectors those (and >> other) equations could be written in a simpler form. > > Well, that's what you think. > > For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted > to divert physics from true science. You say it seems. Maybe it seems. Maybe not. How could we check? Who cares? For me it seems that you want to be a 'con-artist' but your skills are insufficient. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-20 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ee9fdf6f1a1c60b62d71296e07ac103b@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664389 |
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > >> Perplexity: >> >> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >> >> Statement of the First Postulate >> >> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >> of relativity, states: >> >> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >> reference." >> >> >> "truism >> /ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American. > > The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world > where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such > world. How is stating something already known and accepted any basis of a new theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 01:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1786a56f3c3f680197990cda9f3d3851@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664389 |
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > >> Perplexity: >> >> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >> >> Statement of the First Postulate >> >> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >> of relativity, states: >> >> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >> reference." >> >> >> "truism >> /ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American. > > The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world > where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such > world. Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 13:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <103615d$10qts$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #664419 |
On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote: > >> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> Perplexity: >>> >>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>> >>> Statement of the First Postulate >>> >>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states: >>> >>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>> reference." >>> >>> >>> "truism >>> /ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American. >> >> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >> world. > Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first > postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative? That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-21 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a8c92227c099b0ad16b7152330b585c7@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664428 |
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:22:37 +0000, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote: >> >>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >>> >>>> Perplexity: >>>> >>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>>> >>>> Statement of the First Postulate >>>> >>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states: >>>> >>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>>> reference." >>>> >>>> >>>> "truism >>>> /ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American. >>> >>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>> world. >> Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first >> postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative? > > That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate. How so?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 12:45 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1038jcc$esqq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #664440 |
On 2025-06-21 21:11:37 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:22:37 +0000, Mikko wrote: > >> On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >>>> >>>>> Perplexity: >>>>> >>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>>>> >>>>> Statement of the First Postulate >>>>> >>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states: >>>>> >>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>>>> reference." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "truism >>>>> /ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American. >>>> >>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>> world. >>> Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first >>> postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative? >> >> That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate. > How so? Just think what the wrods mean. How do can you measure or at least detect motion? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-23 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <13f616da2e423d7ef29273c8778c62d1@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664428 |
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:22:37 +0000, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote: >> >>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >>> >>>> Perplexity: >>>> >>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>>> >>>> Statement of the First Postulate >>>> >>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states: >>>> >>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>>> reference." >>>> >>>> >>>> "truism >>>> /ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American. >>> >>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>> world. >> Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first >> postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative? > > That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate. Then you equate the first postulate with an assertion that the aether does not exist? If all motion is relative to a stationary aether what motion is not relative?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-24 12:45 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <103ds41$1ufdu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #664516 |
On 2025-06-23 21:29:39 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:22:37 +0000, Mikko wrote: > >> On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >>>> >>>>> Perplexity: >>>>> >>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>>>> >>>>> Statement of the First Postulate >>>>> >>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states: >>>>> >>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>>>> reference." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "truism >>>>> /ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American. >>>> >>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>> world. >>> Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first >>> postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative? >> >> That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate. > Then you equate the first postulate with an assertion that the aether > does not exist? If all motion is relative to a stationary aether what > motion is not relative? It is not clear what "does not exist" actually means and how that could be known. But Einstein clearly said that no aether is relevant to the phenomena discussed in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 13:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rebyzy.1pjth4x1bl89p4N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #664389 |
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > > > Perplexity: > > > > "The First Postulate of Special Relativity > > > > Statement of the First Postulate > > > > The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle > > of relativity, states: > > > > The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of > > reference." > > > > > > "truism > > /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new > > or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. > > The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world > where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such > world. Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-22 16:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <184b64c44a94ea4c$278103$2042034$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #664464 |
On 6/22/2025 1:25 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> Perplexity: >>> >>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>> >>> Statement of the First Postulate >>> >>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states: >>> >>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>> reference." >>> >>> >>> "truism >>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >> >> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >> world. > > Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, > (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) No it is not, but who would expect our dear JJ to know that (or anything about any logic).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-23 03:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f22a8d49153078f947e8433eaf456196@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664464 |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> Perplexity: >>> >>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>> >>> Statement of the First Postulate >>> >>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states: >>> >>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>> reference." >>> >>> >>> "truism >>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >> >> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >> world. > > Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, > (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) > > Jan Then it must not be a postulate considering that the first postulate is "a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-23 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <801ffba810599fd8fb25a277462b3fb6@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664464 |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> Perplexity: >>> >>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>> >>> Statement of the First Postulate >>> >>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states: >>> >>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>> reference." >>> >>> >>> "truism >>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >> >> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >> world. > > Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, > (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) > > Jan So, Jan, which is it? a) A postulate is not something new and true. b) The first postulate is not new and true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-23 03:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e9d387b34b9908887eb2b9ae5da8f1aa@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664464 |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> Perplexity: >>> >>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>> >>> Statement of the First Postulate >>> >>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states: >>> >>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>> reference." >>> >>> >>> "truism >>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >> >> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >> world. > > Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, > (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) > > Jan CORRECTION: So, Jan, which is it? a) A postulate is not something obviously true and not new. b) The first postulate is not something obviously true and not new.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-23 11:43 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <103b444$155i6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #664464 |
On 2025-06-22 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> Perplexity: >>> >>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>> >>> Statement of the First Postulate >>> >>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states: >>> >>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>> reference." >>> >>> >>> "truism >>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >> >> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >> world. > > Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, > (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) I think the (mistaken) idea was that if it is a truism it is wrong to call it a postulate. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-23 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dea14ca700f12625a51187a06e37c738@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664494 |
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:43:48 +0000, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-22 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > >> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >> >>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >>> >>>> Perplexity: >>>> >>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>>> >>>> Statement of the First Postulate >>>> >>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states: >>>> >>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>>> reference." >>>> >>>> >>>> "truism >>>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >>> >>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>> world. >> >> Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, >> (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) > > I think the (mistaken) idea was that if it is a truism it is wrong > to call it a postulate. I agree. It is mistaken to think a truism cannot be a postulate. Look at the first postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-24 12:47 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <103ds82$1ug1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #664514 |
On 2025-06-23 21:16:23 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:43:48 +0000, Mikko wrote: > >> On 2025-06-22 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: >> >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >>>> >>>>> Perplexity: >>>>> >>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>>>> >>>>> Statement of the First Postulate >>>>> >>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states: >>>>> >>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>>>> reference." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "truism >>>>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >>>> >>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>> world. >>> >>> Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, >>> (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) >> >> I think the (mistaken) idea was that if it is a truism it is wrong >> to call it a postulate. > I agree. It is mistaken to think a truism cannot be a postulate. Look at > the first postulate. Looking at the first postulate does not help as we already determined that it is not a truism. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-23 13:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ffad851d0e1e9c9a4d0d8d1b07c72965@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #664464 |
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: >> >>> Perplexity: >>> >>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity >>> >>> Statement of the First Postulate >>> >>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states: >>> >>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of >>> reference." >>> >>> >>> "truism >>> /?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American. >> >> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >> world. > > Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway, > (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?) > > Jan Speaking of category errors, why didn't Einstein make his first postulate: "The laws of electromagnetism are the same in all frames of reference." OR "The equations of electromagnetism must be adjusted for multiple frames of reference." OR "Without an aether we can use the Galilean transformations for light."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web