On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> 1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
> 2. Synchronize them.
> 3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
> 4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
> 5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
> -- One-way speed of light between O and A.
> --One-way speed of light between O and B then
> If Einstein's P2 is correct then
> The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
> If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
> The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..

Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The synchronisation
is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no such thing as simultaneity
at a distance, there is only a useful convention for that). This is probably
worth posting about in more detail sometime soon.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:48:44 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:27:34 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> > On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > It is make believe physics...
> > > to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
> > > (or at least could have been derived, in principle)
> > > It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
> > Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience
> Not at all, The principles of physics are derived from postulates and postulates are assumed statements.
> For example: P2 is an assumed statement, No one-way speed of light ever been measured.
> .
> .>https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:25556228-4404-3c67-b0cb-3d04d2636aaeOf course, the induction is always incomplete, e.g.., in every closed system we've ever observed, momentum is conserved, but we can never observe every closed system for all time, so when constructing a physical theory we assume the principle of momentum conservation, but this is not an arbitrary or conventional assumption, it is the most firmly of all empirically-founded propositions. Similarly for the principle of relativity, which leaves only a single degree of freedom in the relationship between the standard inertial coordinate systems (operationally established), and that degree of freedom is fixed by any one of many empirial facts, which unambiguously establish special relativity.
That is a good point. That light speed is always just c can only be proved by measuring one-way speed. That is not admitted.

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 9:01:51 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
>
> Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
> require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The synchronisation
> is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no such thing as simultaneity
> at a distance, there is only a useful convention for that). This is probably
> worth posting about in more detail sometime soon.
>
> --
> Jan

Although there's no such thing as general simultaneity between inertial frames,
events that are common to points in different inertial frames exist. Two points
in different frames momentarily adjacent can have their times synchronized, but
that means two other points some distance away will not be synchronized. This
seems to indicate that nonsimultaneity is a basic property of spacetime.
However, all points in any given inertial frame seem to have a built-in simultaneity
which we humans can determine only after the fact (because simultaneity cannot
be determined instantaneously by an observer). And, of course, such points aren't
(or don't remain) synchronous when observed from a different frame.

Gary

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> (or any other geometry, for that matter)
>
> Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,

Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of
spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
have done.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf

On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 09:54:36 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> > the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> > (or any other geometry, for that matter)
> >
> > Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
> Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of
> spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
> have done.

Oh, a fanatic idiot claims! He claims he has falsified
basic [Euclidean] math! Must be true.

On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 22:54:02 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> And a postulate is needed there too.
> There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> (or any other geometry, for that matter)

Right. It's just a word of your idiot guru and his indoctrinated
minions against Euclid's math, the wielder of about a quarter
of the whole math's authority.

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> > the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> > (or any other geometry, for that matter)
> >
> > Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
>
> Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of
> spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
> have done.
> https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf

Huh? You must indeed be misreading. Robertson starts out with:
======================================================================
KINEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
We --postulate-- [emp. Robertson] that there exists a reference frame
\Sigma--Einstein's "rest system"-- [again, emp. Robertson]
in which light is propagated rectilinearly and isotropically
in free space with constant speed c.
======================================================================

So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
of space-time geometry from experiment,

Jan
(Who holds that you cannot 'derive' anything at all from experiment.
The best you can do is to build theories that are empirically adequate)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:29:33 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> > > the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> > > (or any other geometry, for that matter)
> > >
> > > Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
> >
> > Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of
> > spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
> > have done.
> > https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf
> Huh? You must indeed be misreading. Robertson starts out with:
> ======================================================================
> KINEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
> We --postulate-- [emp. Robertson] that there exists a reference frame
> \Sigma--Einstein's "rest system"-- [again, emp. Robertson]
> in which light is propagated rectilinearly and isotropically
> in free space with constant speed c.
> ======================================================================
>
> So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
> of space-time geometry from experiment,
>
> Jan
> (Who holds that you cannot 'derive' anything at all from experiment.
> The best you can do is to build theories that are empirically adequate)

You are misreading what I wrote. I did -not- write that Robertson
was "postulate-free". Robertson's initial postulate is insufficient to
derive the geometry of spacetime or the Lorentz transformation.
Starting from this minimal framework, he uses MMX, KTX and ISX
to establish that the relationship between moving frames and rest
frames, i.e. what he terms "the kinematics im kleinen of physical
space-time", is governed by the Minkowski metric.

On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 11:29:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > > There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> > > the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> > > (or any other geometry, for that matter)
> > >
> > > Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
> >
> > Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of
> > spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
> > have done.
> > https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf
> Huh? You must indeed be misreading. Robertson starts out with:
> ======================================================================
> KINEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
> We --postulate-- [emp. Robertson] that there exists a reference frame
> \Sigma--Einstein's "rest system"-- [again, emp. Robertson]
> in which light is propagated rectilinearly and isotropically
> in free space with constant speed c.
> ======================================================================
>
> So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
> of space-time geometry from experiment,

That's right: iit's just POSTULATES of your bunch of
idiots against basic math (also postulate based, true).

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
>> of space-time geometry from experiment,
>
> That's right: iit's just POSTULATES of your bunch of idiots against
> basic math (also postulate based, true).

free space is lack of resistance force when you move. It doesn't mean it's
empty. An "empty" space is euphemism, which doesn't really exists. How big
is your country.

Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:54:02?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > It is make believe physics...
> > > > to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
> > > > (or at least could have been derived, in principle)
> > > > It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
> > >
> > > Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of
> > > relativity, are all derived from experience.
>
> > Yes, and so what?
>
> You said relativity couldn't be derived from experiments, and I pointed
> out that you were mistaken, and explained why. You're welcome.

You are playing false.
What you said was 'derived from experience'.

> > > Of course, the induction is always incomplete, e.g., in every closed
> > > system we've ever observed, momentum is conserved, but we can never
> > > observe every closed system for all time, so when constructing a
> > > physical theory we assume the principle of momentum conservation, but
> > > this is not an arbitrary or conventional assumption, it is the most
> > > firmly of all empirically-founded propositions.
> >
> > So you need to postulate it.
>
> If by "postulate" you are referring to the fundamental process of
> incomplete induction on which all empiricism and indeed all rational
> thought is based, then your assertion is self-contradictory, because you
> are saying principles of physics can't be derived from experiment, whereas
> the very meaning of "derived from experiment" is the process of incomplete
> induction.

So you -are- a naive empiricist. A very naive one even.

> We always observe that momentum is conserved, and from this we
> infer the principle of conservation of momentum, which we have thereby
> derived from experience. If, on the other hand, you are just saying
> solipsism can't be disproven, well, grow up.

You really should learn to avoid those straw men of yours.

> > > Similarly for the principle of relativity, which leaves only a single
> > > degree of freedom in the relationship between the standard inertial
> > > coordinate systems (operationally established), and that degree of freedom
> >
> > And a postulate is needed there too.
>
> Nope, not in any grown-up meaningful sense. You just don't understand
> special relativity.

You need a mirror. Your problem seems to be
that you think that you understand relativity
because you can do the excercises in the textbooks.

> > There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> > the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> > (or any other geometry, for that matter)
>
> I've not asserted anything about "geometry". I've pointed out that we can
> operationally construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at
> rest and inertially synchronized, and then by direct observation we can
> determine that the readings on two such grids are related by a Lorentz
> transformation. This is an operational procedure with specific
> operational results.

How are you going to do that without postulating something?

> Of course, we can't do this infinitely many times in infinitely many
> places, etc., but we can do it enough times in enough places to become as
> convinced as it is possible to be of anything that this is a general
> result, which is what grown-ups call deriving Lorentz invariance from
> experience.

I have no doubt at all about your ability to convince yourself about
anything you want to convince yourself of,
as convinced as it is possible to be even.

> If you do not call this deriving from experience, then you
> are denying that deriving from experience has any meaning, and you just
> are a juvenile solipsist.

I don't mind, being in good company, such as Einstein 1905,

Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06?PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > 1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
> > 2. Synchronize them.
> > 3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
> > 4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and s
> > top them at distance L away from O.
> > 5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
> > -- One-way speed of light between O and A.
> > --One-way speed of light between O and B then
> > If Einstein's P2 is correct then
> > The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between
> > OB.
> > If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
> > The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between
> > OA..
>
> Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
> require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The synchronisation
> is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no such thing as simultaneity
> at a distance, there is only a useful convention for that). This is probably
> worth posting about in more detail sometime soon.

Indeed. That is part of the didactics.
My take on it:
One can wonder what the flash of insight was
that seems to have hit Einstein, sometime in spring 1905.
(after worrying about it all for about ten years)

My personal guess is that Einstein's flash of insight was
that the answer to the question:
In which inertial system are Maxwell's equations valid?
must be:
All of them!
(and hence an entirely new and original view of space-time)

From there on it is development, and didactic exposition,
(clocks, rulers, etc.) to get back to the starting point.
Einstein wrote the relativity paper in a very short time.

There were some bonus points along the way, such as velocity addition,
time dilation, transverse Doppler shift, and somewhat later,
mass-energy equivalence.

It is 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' with good reason,
(and not 'On laying out rulers and synchronising clocks')

Jan

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:29:33?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > > There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> > > > the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> > > > (or any other geometry, for that matter)
> > > >
> > > > Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
> > >
> > > Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of
> > > spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
> > > have done.
> > > https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf
> > Huh? You must indeed be misreading. Robertson starts out with:
> > ======================================================================
> > KINEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
> > We --postulate-- [emp. Robertson] that there exists a reference frame
> > \Sigma--Einstein's "rest system"-- [again, emp. Robertson]
> > in which light is propagated rectilinearly and isotropically
> > in free space with constant speed c.
> > ======================================================================
> >
> > So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
> > of space-time geometry from experiment,
> >
> > Jan
> > (Who holds that you cannot 'derive' anything at all from experiment.
> > The best you can do is to build theories that are empirically adequate)
>
> You are misreading what I wrote. I did -not- write that Robertson
> was "postulate-free".

You claimed worse, on behalf of Robinson:
====
......, the derivation of the geometry of spacetime from experiment is
precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to have done.
====
See above, still there.

AFAICS Robinson claimed no such thing.

Jan

On 9/13/23 3:51 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
>> require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The
>> synchronisation is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no
>> such thing as simultaneity at a distance, there is only a useful
>> convention for that). This is probably worth posting about in more
>> detail sometime soon.
>
> Indeed. That is part of the didactics.

I think it goes deeper than that -- without clock synchronization, what
does 'moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the
determined velocity c' mean without being able to measure it (which
requires synchronized clocks)?

On the other hand, that quote is from Einstein's second postulate, and a
modern derivation of the theory replaces the second postulate with any
one of many experimental results.

> My take on it: One can wonder what the flash of insight was that
> seems to have hit Einstein, sometime in spring 1905. (after worrying
> about it all for about ten years)
>
> My personal guess is that Einstein's flash of insight was that the
> answer to the question: In which inertial system are Maxwell's
> equations valid? must be: All of them! (and hence an entirely new
> and original view of space-time)

Yes, Stated differently, his insight was that Maxwell's equations are a
law of physics, and thus subject to the PoR. And his genius was that
this requires a complete revision of how we view space and time.

> It is 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' with good reason,
> (and not 'On laying out rulers and synchronising clocks')

Yes.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:37:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/13/23 3:51 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
> >> require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The
> >> synchronisation is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no
> >> such thing as simultaneity at a distance, there is only a useful
> >> convention for that). This is probably worth posting about in more
> >> detail sometime soon.
> >
> > Indeed. That is part of the didactics.
> I think it goes deeper than that -- without clock synchronization, what
> does 'moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the
> determined velocity c' mean without being able to measure it (which
> requires synchronized clocks)?

I think it's sufficient to observe that certain clock proper time relationships
hold, with no clock sync required for that.

> > My take on it: One can wonder what the flash of insight was that
> > seems to have hit Einstein, sometime in spring 1905. (after worrying
> > about it all for about ten years)
> >
> > My personal guess is that Einstein's flash of insight was that the
> > answer to the question: In which inertial system are Maxwell's
> > equations valid? must be: All of them! (and hence an entirely new
> > and original view of space-time)
>
> Yes, Stated differently, his insight was that Maxwell's equations are a
> law of physics, and thus subject to the PoR.

This probably wasn't enough for him because it's "just" a convenient
requirement. If only left at that, nobody would pay any attention to the
theory because there appeared no shred of evidence otherwise that
e.g. Lorentz's "abstract time coordinate" was in any way physical.

> And his genius was that
> this requires a complete revision of how we view space and time.

I have no way of knowing, of course, but I suspect the big breakthrough
moment for Einstein was noticing that the Lorentz transform could be
derived just from the simple "tB - tA = tA' - tB" condition and not really
much more. This is what provided the needed "physicality" to
Lorentz's "time parameter".

> > It is 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' with good reason,
> > (and not 'On laying out rulers and synchronising clocks')
>
> Yes.

When Einstein wrote his paper, he (again, I have no way of knowing for sure)
considered the key result of the paper to be the physical reality of the
transformed E and B fields and the time coordinate.

The full import of the kinematics part probably hit him very quickly but AFTER
the paper was printed (probably within a couple of weeks or so), that's why
it didn't occur to him at first that there was a contradiction
in the way the paper selected the "stationary" system originally
(fixed in later reprints by that footnote "that is, to the first order").

--
Jan

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:51:11 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity,
> > are all derived from experience.
> >
> > > Yes, and so what?
> >
> > You said relativity couldn't be derived from experiments, and I pointed
> > out that you were mistaken, and explained why. You're welcome.
>
> You are playing false.
> What you said was 'derived from experience'.

What falseness are you referring to? Are you struggling with the fact that experiments are experience? Or with the English meanings of "derive"?

> > If by "postulate" you are referring to the fundamental process of
> > incomplete induction on which all empiricism and indeed all rational
> > thought is based, then your assertion is self-contradictory, because you
> > are saying principles of physics can't be derived from experiment, whereas
> > the very meaning of "derived from experiment" is the process of incomplete
> > induction.
>
> So you -are- a naive empiricist. A very naive one even.

Again, the very meaning of "derived from experiment" is the process of incomplete induction, and, as you agreed above, the principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience. Then you deny it, then you agree with it, then you deny it... Clearly you aren't able to articulate a coherent poisition, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Agreed?

> > We always observe that momentum is conserved, and from this we
> > infer the principle of conservation of momentum, which we have thereby
> > derived from experience. If, on the other hand, you are just saying
> > solipsism can't be disproven, well, grow up.
>
> You really should learn to avoid those straw men of yours.

Again, if you are just saying solipsism can't be disproven, well, grow up. If that isn't what you are saying, and if you are not retracting your agreement that the principles of physics are derived from experience, and you ARE retracting your denials of this, then we're now in agreement that, indeed, special relativity is derived from experience.

> > > There just is no way in which you can -derive-
> > > the geometry of spacetime from experience.
> > > (or any other geometry, for that matter)
> >
> > I've not asserted anything about "geometry". I've pointed out that we can
> > operationally construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at
> > rest and inertially synchronized, and then by direct observation we can
> > determine that the readings on two such grids are related by a Lorentz
> > transformation. This is an operational procedure with specific
> > operational results.
>
> How are you going to do that without postulating something?

How am I going to construct a grid of standard rulers? Remember, you assured me you aren't engaging in juvenile solipsism, you are approaching this like a grown-up who knows what is meant by rulers and clocks. If the unfounded postulate you are saying is necessary is the postulate that the world exists, etc., then you are just invoking a crude solipsism. Again, scientific induction is always incomplete, so after a trillion demonstrations of some regularity, we adopt it as a principle, so if this kind of adoption is what you are referring to as "postulating something", then you're just referring to the normal process of incomplete induction on which all science (and indeed all rational thought) is based. This is not what grown-ups are referring to when they make a statement like "we need to postulate something, we can't base our conclusion on experience". There are cases where that is true, but not the deriving of fundamental physical principles... which you already agreed.

To put this another way, it is misleading for you to say "special relativity can't be derived from experience, it relies on a postulate", if in fact your thesis has nothing in particular to do with special relativity, and what you mean is that NOTHING can be derived from experience, and everything relies on a postulate, and you are NOT talking about the postulate that the world exists, etc., in which case you are sliding back toward juvenile solipsism.

To clarify your position, go ahead and state what you think must be postulated (NOT in the sense of incomplete induction, which underlies everything) in order to arrive at special relativity in particular.

> > Of course, we can't do this infinitely many times in infinitely many
> > places, etc., but we can do it enough times in enough places to become as
> > convinced as it is possible to be of anything that this is a general
> > result, which is what grown-ups call deriving Lorentz invariance from
> > experience. If you do not call this deriving from experience, then you
> > are denying that deriving from experience has any meaning, and you just
> > are a juvenile solipsist.
>
> I don't mind, being in good company, such as Einstein 1905,

Please don't attribute your misunderstandings to Einstein. As he said, the transition to special relativity "is by no means merely a conventional step, but implies certain hypotheses concerning the actual behavior of moving measuring rods and clocks which can be experimentally confirmed or disproved".

On Thursday, 14 September 2023 at 06:06:41 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:51:11 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity,
> > > are all derived from experience.
> > >
> > > > Yes, and so what?
> > >
> > > You said relativity couldn't be derived from experiments, and I pointed
> > > out that you were mistaken, and explained why. You're welcome.
> >
> > You are playing false.
> > What you said was 'derived from experience'.
> What falseness are you referring to? Are you struggling with the fact that experiments are experience? Or with the English meanings of "derive"?

Kookfight!
Sorry, trash, if the postulate of your idiot guru was derived
from experiments - it wouldn't be a postulate. Even
such an idiot should understand that. But, well, he doesn't.

On 9/11/23 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Relativity is like a hydra with many heads because it is totally
> inconsistent nonsense.

Not true.

Crossen is like a hydra with many heads because he repeats his nonsense
without understanding.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 17:08:29 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/11/23 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > Relativity is like a hydra with many heads because it is totally
> > inconsistent nonsense.
> Not true.

True, true, trash, it's been proven here many times and
the only yhing you can do about is is - pretending you
haven't noticed.
Not that inconsistency is making The Shit similiar
somehow to a hydra, of course.