From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Python  wrote:   
      
   > Le 28/10/2025 à 08:54, Ross Finlayson a écrit :   
   > > On 10/27/2025 03:51 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > >> On 10/27/2025 03:02 PM, Python wrote:   
   > >>> Le 27/10/2025 à 22:45, Ross Finlayson a écrit :   
   > >>>> On 10/27/2025 01:44 PM, Python wrote:   
   > >>>>> Le 27/10/2025 à 21:33, Ross Finlayson a écrit :   
   > >>>>>> On 10/27/2025 01:22 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > >>>>>>> chine.bleu  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>> The metric below defines The Special Theory of Relativity (SR).   
   > >>>>>>>>> What can be deduced from this metric is what SR predicts.   
   > >>>>>>>>>      (c?d?)? = (c?dt)? ? dx? ? dy? ? dz?   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>> The theory Einstein defined in "On the electrodynamics of moving   
   > >>>>>>>>> bodies" is identical to the theory defined by the metric above.   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> He did not understand differential geometry and tensors at that   
   > >>>>>>>> time. He   
   > >>>>>>>> had to educate himself between SR and GR.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> Differential geometry and tensors are irrelevant to special   
   > >>>>>>> relativity.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> Just geometry will do, like for Euclidean geometry,   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> Jan   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Anything length-contraction or time-dilation is "tensors".   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Anything not Galilean-frame is "tensors".   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> If you formulate SR in its full four-dimensional form (four-vectors,   
   > >>>>> four-tensors),   
   > >>>>> everything becomes tensorial. But this not the only way, so you're   
   > >>>>> claim   
   > >>>>> is half-true, half-misleading.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>> "What's wrong with you?"   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> What's about you?   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>> You know people are always h * v, but what about h / v?   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> h/v = hm/p : action per velocity   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> m*lambda = h/v : wave phase velocity vs particle velocity, de Broglie.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>> (Linear fractional equation.)   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Idiot.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> In deep space, ..., in a vacuum, ..., at absolute zero, ...,   
   > >>>> if you tilt it right.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> The idea about wave velocity and particle velocity being   
   > >>>> any different, then about the linear fractional equation   
   > >>>> as for example usually diffraction, and about the three   
   > >>>> different constants called 'c' with regards to electro   
   > >>>> statics and dynamics and light, each derived their own   
   > >>>> way, then as with regards to the massy, or rather,   
   > >>>> charge-to-mass-ratio'y, and massless, helps show   
   > >>>> that SR is not Galilean-frame any the interactions these.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> As usual: a brain?melting stew of highbrow words slapped together at   
   > >>> random, making absolutely no sense   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> Of course there's a simple case where it's dumb,   
   > >>>> not saying anything.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Who's dumb here?   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>   
   > >> Well, if we're talking past each other,   
   > >> instead of speaking to each other for   
   > >> ourselves and each other, and to the   
   > >> wider dialogue, then we'd both be dumb,   
   > >> not saying anything.   
   > >>   
   > >> Then, perhaps we can repair the dialog,   
   > >> and start with what really are matters of   
   > >> agreement and _comprehension_ not "understanding",   
   > >> changing out the frictious and fractious   
   > >> for what we all admire for the philosophy   
   > >> including philosophy of science, and the arete   
   > >> and both the pure and applied, then about the   
   > >> super-classical, as we're all aware otherwise   
   > >> that any old paradox at all destroys any old theory.   
   > >>   
   > >> So, the point about the classical, and that   
   > >> the classical is geometric and plainly vector   
   > >> addition, and about the ubiquity of success   
   > >> of addition formulae, is that the physics itself   
   > >> _is_ super-classical. So, then for example   
   > >> that's called "tensors". "What are tensor?",   
   > >> one might ask, "it's whatever works to make   
   > >> vectors". "So, Einstein gives the formulation   
   > >> of tensorial products to implement non-classical   
   > >> mechanics?" "No, he just says they exist."   
   > >> (Then, there are some particulars that are   
   > >> given to refine forms what otherwise would   
   > >> be "classical" or here "Galilean" for example.)   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> Then, for example about the "half-right and half-confusing",   
   > >> is that given that there's a super-classical,   
   > >> then the classical is only a half-account.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> It's like, what do you get when a glass that's   
   > >> half-full of hope and half-full of fear? It's half-full.   
   > >>   
   > >> So, then about something like light's speed as constant   
   > >> and for example that Earth in the galaxy that it's   
   > >> about half of Earth's absolute velocity which would   
   > >> be unfalsifiable from all observations ever from Earth,   
   > >> that's an example of something that would change the   
   > >> interpretation of the observations. Here it's similar   
   > >> about the 'invincible ignorance' of the half-account:   
   > >> it's "invincible", yet, it's "ignorant", so,   
   > >> "understanding" is all wrong according to "comprehension",   
   > >> then that as you might imagine, I think it's in my   
   > >> interest to understand the super-classical, in more   
   > >> than a half-account, since for example then I can   
   > >> show there are bigger ideas that are relevant and   
   > >> even profound, since I already showed myself I could   
   > >> "shut up and compute" long ago, and, that results   
   > >> "shut up it's computed", that the only way to "say"   
   > >> anything at all is is to give not just a rote regurgitation,   
   > >> yet overall about the super-classical, logic and mathematics,   
   > >> and physics and all its fields.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> So, then perhaps we don't have to be dumb, and of course   
   > >> nobody wants to be wrong, also the invincibly ignorant   
   > >> half-account is definitely deaf.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > > Another way to put it is that I'm an anti-reductionist,   
   > > where if you study the history of mechanics as was physics   
   > > and what's arrived at as "the severe abstraction the mechanical   
   > > reduction", it's by definition a sort of half-account. So,   
   > > then after the electron-reduction and the entropy-reduction,   
   > > the reductionists have painted themselves into a corner,   
   > > and the best way to resolve that now the room's spinning,   
   > > is to trace their steps backwards and revisit how they got   
   > > there.   
   > >   
   > > So, reductionism has left you with a truncated, partial,   
   > > half-account, and, if you don't really think that over   
   > > then you wouldn't know the difference, yet it was arrived   
   > > at incrementally many times, while also anti-reductionism,   
   > > complex analysis comes to mind or inner and outer products   
   > > (geometric algebras, tensors themselves, matroids, wave/particle   
   > > or dualities generally enough), these expansions or anti-reductions,   
   > > then align anti-reductionism with expansion of comprehension,   
   > > which is free.   
   > >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)