On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:40:02 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 19:58:57 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:52:52 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > > Ritz thinks if you emit a pulse of light out into space and then
> > > > > move the emitter back and forth it will instantaneously move any
> > > > > light that has left that particular lamp back and forth.
> > > >
> > > > No, that's your nutty idea, not Ritz's. Again, Ritz was not mentally
> > > > ill. He would never even imagine such a nutty (and abundantly falsified)
> > > > idea. See above. Ritz's actual idea (that light propagates at c relative to
> > > > the standard inertial coordinates in which the emitter was at rest at the
> > > > moment of emission, and such coordinates are related by Galilean
> > > > transformations) is also falsified. See above.
> > > >
> > > > > Einstein thinks if you shine a light into space, the light will
> > > > > automatically speed up or slow down so the observer sees the light
> > > > > still going at the same speed as when it left your lamp!
> > > >
> > > > No, that is not what Einstein (or any other sentient being) ever
> > > > thought. According to special relativity, light propagates in vacuum
> > > > at the speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates,
> > > > and those systems are related by Lorentz transformations, due to the
> > > > fact that every quantity of energy E has inertia E/c^2, and all this has been
> > > > abundantly confirmed. Needless to say, it doesn't entail any "speeding
> > > > up or slowing down" of light in vacuum after emission.
> > > >
> > > > Again, neither of the completely nutty ideas you described above are
> > > > Ritz's or Einstein's, they are yours. You are a nutty loon.
> > >
> > > People who don’t understand SR think time dilation and constant speeds of
> > > light in all frames is counterintuitive.
> > Well, people who don't understand something don't understand it, and
> > the remedy is to understand it, but it's idiotic to argue that because
> > some people think science is wrong, and some people think your
> > nutty beliefs are wrong, that there's some kind of equivalence between
> > science and your nutty beliefs.
> > > And by the same token people who don’t understand Ritzian theory,
> > > think that constant speeds relative to rotating sources is also
> > > counterintuitive.
> > Again, don't attribute your nutty beliefs to Ritz, and please note that
> > your nutty belief is understood perfectly well, which is precisely why we
> > know how nutty it is, and how abundantly falsified it is by even the most
> > commonplace observations, and how devoid it is of any rational coherence,
> > as has been explained in the previous messages.
> > > But it’s not that Ritzs ideas were crazy or nutty. It’s that you don’t
> > > understand Ritzs theory.
> > Again, your nutty belief is utterly foreign to Ritz's ideas, the only thing
> > they have in common being that they are both abundantly falsified. There
> > is no lack of understanding of your nutty belief: You have admitted yourself
> > that you believe accelerations of a flash light after it has emitted a pulse
> > of light are instantaneously superimposed at a distance onto the pulse,
> > causing it to zig-zag and dipsey-doodle in all kinds of magical and acausal
> > ways. Your belief is simply insane, and on some level of your brain, you
> > must surely realize this. People who point out the nuttiness of your belief
> > do not do so because they fail to understand your belief.
> >
> > In contrast, your summary of special relativity was grossly incorrect and
> > revealed a complete misunderstanding. So, I say again, there is no symmetry
> > between a deranged nut and rational adults. There is an objective difference
> > between a knowledgeable intelligent person and an ignorant fool. Moral
> > relativism is not valid.
> My goodness. You certainly are upset about something. My advice is
> make a nice cuppa tea and sit in garden for a while and get some sun
> and relaxation. Have you ever considered trying colonic irrigation?
> It worked for Princess Di.
Lou, I must take credit for driving Legion in insane. The muons of Mt. Washington drove him over the edge. Legion is an expert algebratician. But he has no feel for what lay behind the equations. His four-event analysis of the muons of Mt. Washington was brilliant. Most quailed before its seeming complexity; Bodkin, Roberts, Paul BA. But I stuck with it and turned in on its head against Legion. He's never been the same since. For instance, he never could comprehend the ambiguity in the law of exponents that leads directly to the validly derived conclusion that 1 = -1. And 'twas I who first fell victim to his "manufactured quotes" complex. He is far more colicky of late, now that he realizes that just like everything else, relativity too is falsifiable.