RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On August 20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> As pointed out, the US high school students place in the top 3 at
> >> math/physics/chemistry Olympiads.
> >
> > Yeah, sure.
>
> Olympic athletes aren't representative of the population.
>
> > The problems with the American high school system are hardly
> > news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our
> > Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It
>
> Check this shocking yet unsurprising recent case, from NYC:
> https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=gJKhN2zgJoJVQi1n
i3dxcg==

Broken link or server.

> A white bureaucrat sued the school system, claiming discrimination.
> It's a long document, set your word processor to to search for "white"
>
> For instance:
> "White culture's values are homogeneous and supremacist; that
> the "Protestant work ethic" is an example of White Supremacy
> and "[Chislett's] interest in excellence was perfectionism and
> consistent with White Supremacy"
>
> Thus USA decays into socialist tribalism, as ethnic groups fight for
> political influence, to grab larger shares of a shrinking pie -

ROTFL. 'Socialist tribalism', sure.
Americans are completely clueless about things like 'socialism'.
(the real thing)

I will agree with you that the USA is descending into tribalism,
sectarian quarrels, and crazy and blind partisanship,
but none of it is 'socialist',
except perhaps in their perverted sense of the word,

Jan

On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 14:02:08 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:55:28?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
> > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The frequency is the primary quantity,
> > > > > > > because it is the energy in a different unit.
> > > > > > > (or just the same unit, in natural units)
> > > > > > > And energy is all there is to it, really.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
> > > > > > Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
> > > > > > The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30
> > > > > > The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is
> > > > > > The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
> > > > > Sure, you can have it your way,
> > > > > if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
> > > > > But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
> > > > > (all of which you snipped for effect)
> > > >
> > > > I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
> > > > to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
> > > You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.
> > >
> > > And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you.
> > > This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion.
> > >
> > > You really should know better,
> >
> > Jan, there are several people [-]
>
> Sorry, I am not going to have third hand discussions with others
> through you.
> I did seriously try to explain to explain the physics of it to you.
>
> All you do is snip it all, come up with a quote-mine,
> and call my attempts at explanation 'spew'.
>
> So, if you don't mind, I really don't see
> why I should waste more time on you,

Talking to a relativistic idiot is like playing
chess with pigeon.

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:11:20 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
> > inertial motion.
> No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
> > How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
> Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
> to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
> are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
> smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you
> answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

There's no absolute time dilation.There is clock time dilation because a moving clock second of moving clock second takes a larger amount of absolute.time to complete. .
There is no material length contraction. The material length of a moving meter stick remains
constant. However, the light path length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is shorter or longer than the material length of moving mater stick.
Definition: LPL the length light must travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick

> [Both are geometrical projections of aorter or longer n invariant
> quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
> > Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
>
> Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
> >>
> >>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
> >>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
> >>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
> >>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
> >> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take
> >> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
> >> fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
>
> > You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all.
> What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible
> combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no
> evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7?
>
> Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If
> they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work.
The unwarranted inference (and over-generalization) is from, e.g., Lithium to the aging process, among many other processes that do not change their rate with speed as Lithium does. There is no good reason to infer from the slower pace of Lithium at higher speeds to claim the rate of organisms aging does the same.

On August 23, Tom Rob wrote:
> >> The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this
> >> mess with electrodynamics and aether, can be
> >> resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs
> >> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
> >> with space and time treated on an equal footing.
>
>> Except they aren't.
>> Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
>> motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
>> object's direction.
>
> Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
> or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
> differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
> one time axis.

I hadn't thought of it that way.

In a universe with two time dimensions, what would time dilation look
like? And what would the Lorentz transform look like? Considering that
it's formed in terms of relative velocity, which is only sensible with a single time axis.

---
Rich

On 8/24/2023 1:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
>>>>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
>>>>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
>>>>> It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
>>>> It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take
>>>> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
>>>> fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
>>
>>> You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all.

>> What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible
>> combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no
>> evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7?
>>
>> Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If
>> they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work.

> The unwarranted inference (and over-generalization) is from, e.g., Lithium to the aging process, among many other processes that do not change their rate with speed as Lithium does. There is no good reason to infer from the slower pace of Lithium at higher speeds to claim the rate of organisms aging does the same.

So you actually are saying it needs to be tried for all possible
situations. First we have to speed some animal at .866c to see if it
ages at half the rate. Then if it does, instead of, say a rat, we'd have
to try it with a monkey. If it works with a monkey we have to try it
with a platypus. And...

Sorry, nobody's going to buy that.

On August 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > The problems with the American high school system are hardly
>> > news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our
>> > Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It
>
> > Check this shocking yet unsurprising recent case, from NYC:
> > https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=gJKhN2zgJoJVQi1n
> i3dxcg==
>
> Broken link or server.

It works. Copy it across lines, then copy it into the address bar.
Search for "white", if you're interested.

This type of thing never happened in the past, it's the result of
60 years of pseudo-intellectual liberal/socialist class war propaganda.

>> A white bureaucrat sued the school system, claiming discrimination.
>> For instance:
>> "White culture's values are homogeneous and supremacist; that
>> the "Protestant work ethic" is an example of White Supremacy
>> and "[Chislett's] interest in excellence was perfectionism and
>> consistent with White Supremacy"
>>
>> Thus USA decays into socialist tribalism, as ethnic groups fight for
>> political influence, to grab larger shares of a shrinking pie -

>> ROTFL. 'Socialist tribalism', sure.
> Americans are completely clueless about things like 'socialism'.
> (the real thing)
> I will agree with you that the USA is descending into tribalism,
> sectarian quarrels, and crazy and blind partisanship,
> but none of it is 'socialist',
> except perhaps in their perverted sense of the word.

yeah, an accurate sense of socialism is 'sharing' ...
A picture is worth a thousand words:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_lamprey#/media/File:Pacific_lamprey_facing_right.jpg
https://thakurfahad.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/noname.jpg
https://wuweixp.com/democracy-under-attack/

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
- G. Orwell: "Animal Farm"

Do Orwell's books get any traction in Europe? He was the great
prophet of the last century. They used to be popular here, but no
longer - the left doesn't approve of his blunt portrayals of their agenda -
(he was also banned in the soviet block)

--
Rich

On 8/24/2023 2:07 PM, RichD wrote:
> On August 23, Tom Rob wrote:
>>>> The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this
>>>> mess with electrodynamics and aether, can be
>>>> resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs
>>>> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
>>>> with space and time treated on an equal footing.
>>
>>> Except they aren't.
>>> Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
>>> motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
>>> object's direction.
>>
>> Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
>> or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
>> differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
>> one time axis.
>
> I hadn't thought of it that way.
>
> In a universe with two time dimensions, what would time dilation look
> like? And what would the Lorentz transform look like? Considering that
> it's formed in terms of relative velocity, which is only sensible with a single time axis.

That is an interesting thought experiment. Two time dimensions and
either three or two (in case 5 total dimensions is too complicated to
comprehend). Space-space rotations, multiple space-time transformations
and a time-time transformation.

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On August 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> > The problems with the American high school system are hardly
> >> > news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our
> >> > Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It
> >
> > > Check this shocking yet unsurprising recent case, from NYC:
> > > https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=gJKhN2zgJoJV
Qi1n
> > i3dxcg==
> >
> > Broken link or server.
>
> It works. Copy it across lines, then copy it into the address bar.
> Search for "white", if you're interested.
>
> This type of thing never happened in the past, it's the result of
> 60 years of pseudo-intellectual liberal/socialist class war propaganda.

OK,OK, Enough, enough. I really should have known better.
The good old rule of the thumb applies still.
"Never discus politics with Americans who want to.
They are all crazy."

> >> A white bureaucrat sued the school system, claiming discrimination.
> >> For instance:
> >> "White culture's values are homogeneous and supremacist; that
> >> the "Protestant work ethic" is an example of White Supremacy
> >> and "[Chislett's] interest in excellence was perfectionism and
> >> consistent with White Supremacy"
> >>
> >> Thus USA decays into socialist tribalism, as ethnic groups fight for
> >> political influence, to grab larger shares of a shrinking pie -
>
> >> ROTFL. 'Socialist tribalism', sure.
> > Americans are completely clueless about things like 'socialism'.
> > (the real thing)
> > I will agree with you that the USA is descending into tribalism,
> > sectarian quarrels, and crazy and blind partisanship,
> > but none of it is 'socialist',
> > except perhaps in their perverted sense of the word.
>
> yeah, an accurate sense of socialism is 'sharing' ...
> A picture is worth a thousand words:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_lamprey#/media/File:Pacific_lamprey_faci
ng_right.jpg
> https://thakurfahad.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/noname.jpg
> https://wuweixp.com/democracy-under-attack/
>
>
> "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
> - G. Orwell: "Animal Farm"
>
> Do Orwell's books get any traction in Europe?

Yes of course.
Orwell is still hugely popular in Europe among high school students.
They have to learn English, so they have to read English books.
The easier and the shorter the better of course.
'Animal Farm is their favorite, after Winnie the Pooh.
And '1984' too, but less so.
Too much digging in depth there, and by now too obsolete.

> He was the great prophet of the last century. They used to be popular
> here, but no longer - the left doesn't approve of his blunt portrayals of
> their agenda -
> (he was also banned in the soviet block)

Yes, yes, crazy, crazy.
No one except crazy Americans sees Orwell's books
as having anything to do with 'socialism'. (their take on it)
Orwell is obviously caricaturing Stalinism,
and ruthless power hunger in general,

Jan

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:58:21 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:

> BTW, I am not seeing any theory on the I-S experiment, I am still waiting.....

Eventually. I'm really spending most of my time catching up on
the literature on CRISPR. As I've stated elsewhere, a very simple
argument indicates that the textbook mechanism of synthesis
of a genetic element used in a recent enhancement to the basic
technique must be wrong. Since I was the senior author on the
original discovery paper, this concerns me a bit.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> List of Critics of Relativity:
>
>
> A
>
> Max Abraham
>
> B
>
> Thomas G. Barnes
> Petr Beckmann
> Tom Bethell
> Léon Brillouin
> Steven B. Bryant
>
> C
> Jeremiah Joseph Callahan
> Robert D. Carmichael
> Conservapedia
> Gago Coutinho
> Heber Doust Curtis
>
> D
>
> Deutsche Physik
> Herbert Dingle
> Hugo Dingler
> John Doan
> Edward Henry Dowdye
> Pierre Duhem
>
> E
>
> Albert Eagle
> Louis Essen
>
> F
> Thomas C Van Flandern
> Theodor Fritsch
>
> G
>
> Ernst Gehrcke
> Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
> Édouard Guillaume
>
> H
> Ronald Hatch
> Oliver Heaviside
> Robert L. Henderson
> Gerard Heymans
>
> I
> Axel Idestrom
> Herbert E. Ives
>
> K
> Kamen George Kamenov
> Wallace Kantor
> Radwan Kassir
> Nikolai Kasterin
> Oskar Kraus
>
> L
>
> Joseph Larmor
> Jean-Marie Le Roux
> Philipp Lenard
> Si-Xian Liang
> Anatoly Logunov
> Paul Lorenzen
> Arthur Oncken Lovejoy
> Otto Luther
> Arthur Lynch (politician)
>
> M
>
> James MacKaye
> William Duncan MacMillan
> Stefan Marinov
> Paul Marmet
> Ian McCausland
> Hjalmar Mellin
> Dayton Miller
> Edward Arthur Milne
> Stjepan Mohorovičić
>
> Enrique Morales-Riveira
> Forest Ray Moulton
>
> N
>
> Harald Nordenson
>
> O
>
> Alfred O'Rahilly
> Arthur S. Otis
>
> P
>
> Menyhért Palágyi
> Leonard Parish
> Arthur Patschke
> Thomas Phipps
> Charles Lane Poor
> Jermain G. Porter
> S. J. Prokhovnik
>
> R
> Alfred O'Rahilly
> L. A. Redman
> Arvid Reuterdahl
> Walther Ritz
> N. Rudakov
> Rutherford, Ernest
>
> S
>
> Georges Sagnac
> Andrew Schlafly
> Rolf Schock
> Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
> Hugo von Seeliger
> Jonas Sepetys
> Jan Slowak
> Harold Slusher
> John Alexander Smith
> Gennadiy Sokolov
> Johannes Stark
> Michael Straus

My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
incomplete theory.
>
> T
>
> Bruno Thüring
>
> V
>
> Tom Van Flandern
>
> W
>
> Max Bernhard Weinstein
> Paul Weyland
>
> XYZ
> Hans J. Zweig

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:51:04 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> >
> >
> > A
> >
> > Max Abraham
> >
> > B
> >
> > Thomas G. Barnes
> > Petr Beckmann
> > Tom Bethell
> > Léon Brillouin
> > Steven B. Bryant
> >
> > C
> > Jeremiah Joseph Callahan
> > Robert D. Carmichael
> > Conservapedia
> > Gago Coutinho
> > Heber Doust Curtis
> >
> > D
> >
> > Deutsche Physik
> > Herbert Dingle
> > Hugo Dingler
> > John Doan
> > Edward Henry Dowdye
> > Pierre Duhem
> >
> > E
> >
> > Albert Eagle
> > Louis Essen
> >
> > F
> > Thomas C Van Flandern
> > Theodor Fritsch
> >
> > G
> >
> > Ernst Gehrcke
> > Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
> > Édouard Guillaume
> >
> > H
> > Ronald Hatch
> > Oliver Heaviside
> > Robert L. Henderson
> > Gerard Heymans
> >
> > I
> > Axel Idestrom
> > Herbert E. Ives
> >
> > K
> > Kamen George Kamenov
> > Wallace Kantor
> > Radwan Kassir
> > Nikolai Kasterin
> > Oskar Kraus
> >
> > L
> >
> > Joseph Larmor
> > Jean-Marie Le Roux
> > Philipp Lenard
> > Si-Xian Liang
> > Anatoly Logunov
> > Paul Lorenzen
> > Arthur Oncken Lovejoy
> > Otto Luther
> > Arthur Lynch (politician)
> >
> > M
> >
> > James MacKaye
> > William Duncan MacMillan
> > Stefan Marinov
> > Paul Marmet
> > Ian McCausland
> > Hjalmar Mellin
> > Dayton Miller
> > Edward Arthur Milne
> > Stjepan Mohorovičić
> >
> > Enrique Morales-Riveira
> > Forest Ray Moulton
> >
> > N
> >
> > Harald Nordenson
> >
> > O
> >
> > Alfred O'Rahilly
> > Arthur S. Otis
> >
> > P
> >
> > Menyhért Palágyi
> > Leonard Parish
> > Arthur Patschke
> > Thomas Phipps
> > Charles Lane Poor
> > Jermain G. Porter
> > S. J. Prokhovnik
> >
> > R
> > Alfred O'Rahilly
> > L. A. Redman
> > Arvid Reuterdahl
> > Walther Ritz
> > N. Rudakov
> > Rutherford, Ernest
> >
> > S
> >
> > Georges Sagnac
> > Andrew Schlafly
> > Rolf Schock
> > Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
> > Hugo von Seeliger
> > Jonas Sepetys
> > Jan Slowak
> > Harold Slusher
> > John Alexander Smith
> > Gennadiy Sokolov
> > Johannes Stark
> > Michael Straus
>
> My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
> in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
> incomplete theory.
> >
> > T
> >
> > Bruno Thüring
> >
> > V
> >
> > Tom Van Flandern
> >
> > W
> >
> > Max Bernhard Weinstein
> > Paul Weyland
> >
> > XYZ
> > Hans J. Zweig
Ken H. Seto is #1434 in Hertz's list.

Ken Seto wrote:

>
> My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
> in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
> incomplete theory.

Can you post an incomplete link again?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:20:43 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >
> > My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
> > in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
> > incomplete theory.
> Can you post an incomplete link again?

I tried but failed. I can email a copy to you.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge the unchallengeable.

Ken Seto wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:20:43 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
> > > in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
> > > incomplete theory.
> > Can you post an incomplete link again?
>
> I tried but failed. I can email a copy to you.

I think you have already successfully posted many times an incomplete
link.

do it again.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

On August 23, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> once you understand that it all hangs
>>> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
>>> with space and time treated on an equal footing.
>
>> Except they aren't.
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>> Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
>> motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
>> object's direction.
>
> Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
> or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
> differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
> one time axis.

A proper time time interval can be measured by a single inertial
observer, ignoring the whole universe. By definition, he is
stationary; space interval = 0

A proper distance interval, where time interval = 0, cannot be
measured by a single observer, alone. He must communicate
with another observer on his grid, using synchronized clocks.

So there's another time-space asymmetry.

--
Rich

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On August 23, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>> once you understand that it all hangs
> >>> on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
> >>> with space and time treated on an equal footing.
> >
> >> Except they aren't.
> >
> > Yes, they are.
> >
> >> Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
> >> motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
> >> object's direction.
> >
> > Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
> > or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
> > differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
> > one time axis.
> A proper time time interval can be measured by a single inertial
> observer, ignoring the whole universe. By definition, he is
> stationary; space interval = 0
>
> A proper distance interval, where time interval = 0, cannot be
> measured by a single observer, alone. He must communicate
> with another observer on his grid, using synchronized clocks.
>
> So there's another time-space asymmetry.
>
>
> --
> Rich
Two valuable additions to the list that are very up-to-date are Mei Xiaochun and Radwan Kassir.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> List of Critics of Relativity:
>
>
> A
>
> Max Abraham
>
> B
>
> Thomas G. Barnes
> Petr Beckmann
> Tom Bethell
> Léon Brillouin
> Steven B. Bryant
>
> C
> Jeremiah Joseph Callahan
> Robert D. Carmichael
> Conservapedia
> Gago Coutinho
> Heber Doust Curtis
>
> D
>
> Deutsche Physik
> Herbert Dingle
> Hugo Dingler
> John Doan
> Edward Henry Dowdye
> Pierre Duhem
>
> E
>
> Albert Eagle
> Louis Essen
>
> F
> Thomas C Van Flandern
> Theodor Fritsch
>
> G
>
> Ernst Gehrcke
> Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
> Édouard Guillaume
>
> H
> Ronald Hatch
> Oliver Heaviside
> Robert L. Henderson
> Gerard Heymans
>
> I
> Axel Idestrom
> Herbert E. Ives
>
> K
> Kamen George Kamenov
> Wallace Kantor
> Radwan Kassir
> Nikolai Kasterin
> Oskar Kraus
>
> L
>
> Joseph Larmor
> Jean-Marie Le Roux
> Philipp Lenard
> Si-Xian Liang
> Anatoly Logunov
> Paul Lorenzen
> Arthur Oncken Lovejoy
> Otto Luther
> Arthur Lynch (politician)
>
> M
>
> James MacKaye
> William Duncan MacMillan
> Stefan Marinov
> Paul Marmet
> Ian McCausland
> Hjalmar Mellin
> Dayton Miller
> Edward Arthur Milne
> Stjepan Mohorovičić
>
> Enrique Morales-Riveira
> Forest Ray Moulton
>
> N
>
> Harald Nordenson
>
> O
>
> Alfred O'Rahilly
> Arthur S. Otis
>
> P
>
> Menyhért Palágyi
> Leonard Parish
> Arthur Patschke
> Thomas Phipps
> Charles Lane Poor
> Jermain G. Porter
> S. J. Prokhovnik
>
> R
> Alfred O'Rahilly
> L. A. Redman
> Arvid Reuterdahl
> Walther Ritz
> N. Rudakov
> Rutherford, Ernest
>
> S
>
> Georges Sagnac
> Andrew Schlafly
> Rolf Schock
> Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
> Hugo von Seeliger
> Jonas Sepetys
> Jan Slowak
> Harold Slusher
> John Alexander Smith
> Gennadiy Sokolov
> Johannes Stark
> Michael Straus
>
> T
>
> Bruno Thüring
>
> V
>
> Tom Van Flandern
>
> W
>
> Max Bernhard Weinstein
> Paul Weyland
>
> XYZ
> Hans J. Zweig
Addition to the list of critics:
Robert H. Dicke

"Gravitation without a Principle of Equivalence" Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363, 1957

I learned of him recently from Unzicker:
"The Greatest Problem of Cosmology is Solved"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpjGVNVYEg

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
> >
> >
> > A
> >
> > Max Abraham
> >
> > B
> >
> > Thomas G. Barnes
> > Petr Beckmann
> > Tom Bethell
> > Léon Brillouin
> > Steven B. Bryant
> >
> > C
> > Jeremiah Joseph Callahan
> > Robert D. Carmichael
> > Conservapedia
> > Gago Coutinho
> > Heber Doust Curtis
> >
> > D
> >
> > Deutsche Physik
> > Herbert Dingle
> > Hugo Dingler
> > John Doan
> > Edward Henry Dowdye
> > Pierre Duhem
> >
> > E
> >
> > Albert Eagle
> > Louis Essen
> >
> > F
> > Thomas C Van Flandern
> > Theodor Fritsch
> >
> > G
> >
> > Ernst Gehrcke
> > Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
> > Édouard Guillaume
> >
> > H
> > Ronald Hatch
> > Oliver Heaviside
> > Robert L. Henderson
> > Gerard Heymans
> >
> > I
> > Axel Idestrom
> > Herbert E. Ives
> >
> > K
> > Kamen George Kamenov
> > Wallace Kantor
> > Radwan Kassir
> > Nikolai Kasterin
> > Oskar Kraus
> >
> > L
> >
> > Joseph Larmor
> > Jean-Marie Le Roux
> > Philipp Lenard
> > Si-Xian Liang
> > Anatoly Logunov
> > Paul Lorenzen
> > Arthur Oncken Lovejoy
> > Otto Luther
> > Arthur Lynch (politician)
> >
> > M
> >
> > James MacKaye
> > William Duncan MacMillan
> > Stefan Marinov
> > Paul Marmet
> > Ian McCausland
> > Hjalmar Mellin
> > Dayton Miller
> > Edward Arthur Milne
> > Stjepan Mohorovičić
> >
> > Enrique Morales-Riveira
> > Forest Ray Moulton
> >
> > N
> >
> > Harald Nordenson
> >
> > O
> >
> > Alfred O'Rahilly
> > Arthur S. Otis
> >
> > P
> >
> > Menyhért Palágyi
> > Leonard Parish
> > Arthur Patschke
> > Thomas Phipps
> > Charles Lane Poor
> > Jermain G. Porter
> > S. J. Prokhovnik
> >
> > R
> > Alfred O'Rahilly
> > L. A. Redman
> > Arvid Reuterdahl
> > Walther Ritz
> > N. Rudakov
> > Rutherford, Ernest
> >
> > S
> >
> > Georges Sagnac
> > Andrew Schlafly
> > Rolf Schock
> > Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
> > Hugo von Seeliger
> > Jonas Sepetys
> > Jan Slowak
> > Harold Slusher
> > John Alexander Smith
> > Gennadiy Sokolov
> > Johannes Stark
> > Michael Straus
> >
> > T
> >
> > Bruno Thüring
> >
> > V
> >
> > Tom Van Flandern
> >
> > W
> >
> > Max Bernhard Weinstein
> > Paul Weyland
> >
> > XYZ
> > Hans J. Zweig
> Addition to the list of critics:
> Robert H. Dicke
>
> "Gravitation without a Principle of Equivalence" Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363, 1957
>
> I learned of him recently from Unzicker:
> "The Greatest Problem of Cosmology is Solved"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpjGVNVYEg
Of course, I had heard of him before, as he proposed the most respected alternative to GR, but I didn't remember immediately. He's not on Hertz's list and deserves to be, if only for contesting the equivalence principle.

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:38:41?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > List of Critics of Relativity:
[snip excessively long list, mostly nonsense]

> Addition to the list of critics:
> Robert H. Dicke
>
> "Gravitation without a Principle of Equivalence" Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363, 1957
>
> I learned of him recently from Unzicker:
> "The Greatest Problem of Cosmology is Solved"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpjGVNVYEg

That is -not- criticism, in the way reasonable people use the word.
It is the beginning of a proposal for an alternative theory of gravity.
(exploring the possibility that the energies
of the recently discovered weak interactions
might behave differently under gravity)
This developed into what is now called
the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity.

This theory is fine, as a physical theory,
but it strongly disagrees with experiment.
If not completely false, it could at best provide
a very small correction to general relativity,

Jan