Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #660188 > unrolled thread

"In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity."

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-09 19:43 +0000
    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of  relativity." Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-09 21:21 +0000
    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-09 22:51 +0100
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of  relativity." Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-09 22:20 +0000
        Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-10 08:01 +0100
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-09 22:17 +0000
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-09 22:48 +0000
    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-09 14:37 -0800
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-10 00:00 +0000
        Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of  relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-09 23:20 -0800
          Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 12:43 -0800
            Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 13:22 -0800
              Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 13:51 -0800
                Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 14:40 -0800
                  Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 18:08 -0800
                    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-13 19:48 -0800
                      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-15 11:16 -0800
      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-10 01:39 +0000
        Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 12:08 -0800
          Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-10 23:42 +0100
            Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 21:39 -0800
              Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-11 08:19 +0100
                Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 06:05 -0800
                  Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-11 16:46 +0100
                    Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 08:14 -0800
                      Re: "In reality there is almost nothing to understand in the theory of relativity." Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-12 18:40 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#660214

On 01/10/2025 02:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 10.01.2025 o 21:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>
>>>>
>>> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660215

W dniu 11.01.2025 o 06:39, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 01/10/2025 02:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 10.01.2025 o 21:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660228

On 01/10/2025 11:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 11.01.2025 o 06:39, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>> On 01/10/2025 02:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> W dniu 10.01.2025 o 21:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660230

W dniu 11.01.2025 o 15:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 01/10/2025 11:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 11.01.2025 o 06:39, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>> On 01/10/2025 02:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> W dniu 10.01.2025 o 21:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
> 
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660271

On 01/11/2025 07:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 11.01.2025 o 15:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>> On 01/10/2025 11:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> W dniu 11.01.2025 o 06:39, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>> On 01/10/2025 02:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> W dniu 10.01.2025 o 21:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660272

W dniu 12.01.2025 o 17:14, Ross Finlayson pisze:
> On 01/11/2025 07:46 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 11.01.2025 o 15:05, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>> On 01/10/2025 11:19 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> W dniu 11.01.2025 o 06:39, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>> On 01/10/2025 02:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> W dniu 10.01.2025 o 21:08, Ross Finlayson pisze:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web