Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism.
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:How is stating something already known and accepted any basis of a new
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:How so?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative?
That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate.
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for his
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new
that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:19:43 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for his
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
new theory? That he accepted the consensus view since Newton?
Le 21/06/2025 à 23:14, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) aécrit :
principleOn Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:19:43 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the
nothing newof relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says
worldor interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a
nothing newwhere it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and
meaning of the time coordinate in an inertial frame.So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for histhat wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
new theory? That he accepted the consensus view since Newton?
Read paragraph I.1. in Einstein paper. This is the main point : the
some "universal time". Einstein asked for the time coordinate to bedefined physically
and proposed a procedure (the same one Poincaré proposed before) andhe proved that such a procedure is in conflict with absolute simultaneity.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:19:43 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for his
new theory? That he accepted the consensus view since Newton?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:22:37 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:How so?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative?
That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate.
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Le 21/06/2025 à 23:14, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritSo the first postulate says the physics formulas are the same in all
:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:19:43 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for his
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
new theory? That he accepted the consensus view since Newton?
Read paragraph I.1. in Einstein paper. This is the main point : the
meaning of the time coordinate in an inertial frame.
Up to Einstein (well, it started before with Poincaré and others) it was taken for granted that you don't have to care about the time label of a
given event, without justification but the prejudice of existence of
some
"universal time". Einstein asked for the time coordinate to be defined physically and proposed a procedure (the same one Poincaré proposed
before) and he proved that such a procedure is in conflict with absolute simultaneity. Moreover it provides a way to treat space-time as a
geometric object (i.e. independent of coordinates), then comes
Minkowski,
GR, etc.
Einstein expressed for space-time what Pythagoras theorem expressed for space: a coordinate-free invariant.
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Jan
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:So, Jan, which is it?
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
Jan
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:Then it must not be a postulate considering that the first postulate is
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
Jan
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:CORRECTION:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
Jan
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Jan
Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 22:31:48 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 21/06/2025 à 23:14, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :So the first postulate says the physics formulas are the same in all
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:19:43 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for his
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>>>> world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
new theory? That he accepted the consensus view since Newton?
Read paragraph I.1. in Einstein paper. This is the main point : the
meaning of the time coordinate in an inertial frame.
Up to Einstein (well, it started before with Poincaré and others) it was
taken for granted that you don't have to care about the time label of a
given event, without justification but the prejudice of existence of
some
"universal time". Einstein asked for the time coordinate to be defined
physically and proposed a procedure (the same one Poincaré proposed
before) and he proved that such a procedure is in conflict with absolute
simultaneity. Moreover it provides a way to treat space-time as a
geometric object (i.e. independent of coordinates), then comes
Minkowski,
GR, etc.
Einstein expressed for space-time what Pythagoras theorem expressed for
space: a coordinate-free invariant.
inertial frames, and Einstein concludes that the time coordinate is different?
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:Speaking of category errors, why didn't Einstein make his first
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
Jan
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
JanJan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?
So, before Einstein, electromagnetism was the only field of physics
believed to not apply to all frames?
Is there no other equation expressing a law of physics that is not true
in every frame of reference?
The law of free fall (v=gt) is for one frame, and Newton's gravity
formula (F= MG/r^2) for another.
Wouldn't the aether include all reference frames?
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Jan
On 2025-06-22 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:I agree. It is mistaken to think a truism cannot be a postulate. Look at
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
I think the (mistaken) idea was that if it is a truism it is wrong
to call it a postulate.
On 2025-06-21 21:14:11 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:I was obviously talking about the first postulate. It only accepts the consensus view since Newton. It adds nothing new.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:19:43 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for his
new theory? That he accepted the consensus view since Newton?
No earlier theory had both the first and the second postulate as
postulates.
On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Then you equate the first postulate with an assertion that the aether
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative?
That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate.
LaurenceClarkCrossen <[email protected]> wrote:Then relativity still modifies equations of physics using different ones
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>>>> world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Jan
Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?
Einstein was a generalist.
So, before Einstein, electromagnetism was the only field of physics
believed to not apply to all frames?
In 1900 there was Newtonian mechanics, and electromagnetism.
What other fields of theoretical physics do you see?
Is there no other equation expressing a law of physics that is not true
in every frame of reference?
The law of free fall (v=gt) is for one frame, and Newton's gravity
formula (F= MG/r^2) for another.
Wouldn't the aether include all reference frames?
Certainly, but the aether was supposed to define a preferred frame.
(its rest frame, in which Maxwell's equations were valid)
So the problem was how to modify Maxwell's equations
to predict phenomena in other frames.
Different frames required different modifications,
with mutually contradictory views on 'aether dragging'.
Einstein solved all that once and for all,
by making electromagnetism frame-independent too,
Jan
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
JanSpeaking of category errors, why didn't Einstein make his first
postulate:
"The laws of electromagnetism are the same in all frames of reference."
OR
"The equations of electromagnetism must be adjusted for multiple frames
of reference."
OR
"Without an aether we can use the Galilean transformations for light."
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 9:43:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-21 21:14:11 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:19:43 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>>>> world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
So, Einstein added nothing new. How does that provide a basis for his
new theory? That he accepted the consensus view since Newton?
No earlier theory had both the first and the second postulate as
postulates.
I was obviously talking about the first postulate. It only accepts the consensus view since Newton. It adds nothing new.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:20:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:Jan, thank you for a steel man of the first postulate.
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>>>>> world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein. >>>>>
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed >>>>> otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was >>>>> common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Jan
Was Einstein qualified to declare this for all of physics, or was he
mainly acquainted with electromagnetism?
Einstein was a generalist.
So, before Einstein, electromagnetism was the only field of physics
believed to not apply to all frames?
In 1900 there was Newtonian mechanics, and electromagnetism.
What other fields of theoretical physics do you see?
Is there no other equation expressing a law of physics that is not true
in every frame of reference?
The law of free fall (v=gt) is for one frame, and Newton's gravity
formula (F= MG/r^2) for another.
Wouldn't the aether include all reference frames?
Certainly, but the aether was supposed to define a preferred frame.
(its rest frame, in which Maxwell's equations were valid)
So the problem was how to modify Maxwell's equations
to predict phenomena in other frames.
Different frames required different modifications,
with mutually contradictory views on 'aether dragging'.
Einstein solved all that once and for all,
by making electromagnetism frame-independent too,
Jan
Then relativity still modifies equations of physics using different ones
for different irfs, making it frame-dependent.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and nothing new >>>> that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Jan
The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:22:37 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/ˈtrˌizƏm/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative?
That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate.
Then you equate the first postulate with an assertion that the aether
does not exist? If all motion is relative to a stationary aether what
motion is not relative?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:43:48 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-22 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world >>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
I think the (mistaken) idea was that if it is a truism it is wrong
to call it a postulate.
I agree. It is mistaken to think a truism cannot be a postulate. Look at
the first postulate.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle >>>> of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new >>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
world.
Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
(but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
Jan
Speaking of category errors, why didn't Einstein make his first
postulate:
"The laws of electromagnetism are the same in all frames of reference."
You, 120 years later, still have not understood,
On 2025-06-23 21:09:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Mikko <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-20 18:55:34 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
Perplexity:
"The First Postulate of Special Relativity
Statement of the First Postulate
The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the
principle
of relativity, states:
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference."
"truism
/?tr?iz?m/ n. a statement that is obviously true and says
nothing new
or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ adj." -Oxford American.
The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a
world
where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such >>>>>> world.
Your reply does not explain how it is not obviously true and
nothing new
that wasn't already known long before Einstein.
I did explain. And what I said was indeed known long before Einstein.
If the first postulate were a truism nobody would ever have believed
otherwise. But ancinet literature shows that the opposite belief was
common.
Indeed.
In particular Maxwell's equations were generally believed before 1905
to hold only in one prefered frame. (the rest frame of the aether)
Einstein's postulate applied to electromagnetism
was new and revolutionary, and seen as such at the time,
(by those who mattered)
Jan
The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
Maxwell's equations apply equally to all inertial frames that are
Because Einstein was a great physicist, and you are not.
On 24/06/2025 09:27, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You, 120 years later, still have not understood,
Nor have you, nor will you ever, you other fucking nazi-retard.
Spammers and co-spammers: I wish you all an ass cancer.
*Plonk*
JanThe laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
"AI Overview
Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
Am Montag000023, 23.06.2025 um 23:09 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
...
JanThe laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
"AI Overview
Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and
magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem from Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.
It is really important, that Maxwell himself was an 'aetherist' and
wanted to use quaternions.
Maxwell himself wrote 20 quaternion equations, which were crippled to
the current four equations by Gibbs and Heaviside.
On 2025-06-27 05:17:14 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Montag000023, 23.06.2025 um 23:09 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:
...
JanThe laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
"AI Overview
Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and >> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem from Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.
It is true. Regardless of the origin, "Maxwell's equations" is the
Common Language name of that set of equations.
Heaviside got the equations from Maxwell. Heaviside just identified the
most important equations among all that Maxwell had presented. In addition Heaviside invented vectors and demonstrated that using vectors those (and other) equations could be written in a simpler form.
It is really important, that Maxwell himself was an 'aetherist' and
wanted to use quaternions.
Hamilton's quaternions had a vector part and a scalar part. But Haviside found that the vector part alone is useful, and that vectors and scalars
can be used together without combining them into quaternions.
Maxwell himself wrote 20 quaternion equations, which were crippled to
the current four equations by Gibbs and Heaviside.
Much of the rest of 20 quaternion equations are still used. They just
are written and organized differently, and are not considered as fundamental as those known as Maxwell's equations.
The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
"AI Overview
Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set
of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and >>> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem
from Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.
It is true. Regardless of the origin, "Maxwell's equations" is the
Common Language name of that set of equations.
Heaviside got the equations from Maxwell. Heaviside just identified the
most important equations among all that Maxwell had presented. In addition Heaviside invented vectors and demonstrated that using vectors those (and other) equations could be written in a simpler form.
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted
to divert physics from true science.
...
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and
wanted to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs, however, it's
clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's character. A
good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, but there is
plenty to be learned from other sources.
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted
to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about
him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the
complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs,
however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's
character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs,
but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to
eliminate quaternions.
My guess was, that they knew, that nature would require something like quaternions and complex numbers, but wanted to divert mankind from good science.
Iow: they knew better science than what they told to the general
public, but didn't want that general public to interfere with their
hidden knowledge.
So the extremely stupid concept of additive connections between
'forces' was introduced and that was meant to eliminate ideas about
'ether', too.
People like Tait and Hertz rejected this concept, but were simply
overrun by the vector hype, which is still the dominant paradigm.
TH
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted
to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about
him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the
complete bollocks that you write on other subjects).
Am Freitag000027, 27.06.2025 um 09:54 schrieb Mikko:
The laws of electromagnetism apply to all IRFs.
Maxwell's equations do not.
Therefore, Maxwell's equations are not laws of physics.
"AI Overview
Maxwell's Equations in Electromagnetism - GeeksforGeeks
Yes, Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics. They are a set >>>> of four fundamental equations that describe the behavior of electric and >>>> magnetic fields, and how they are generated and influenced by charges
and currents. These equations are foundational to classical
electromagnetism and are used in various technologies like power
generation, electric motors, and wireless communication."
Actually this isn't true, because those four equations didn't stem from
Maxwell, but from Oliver Heaviside.
It is true. Regardless of the origin, "Maxwell's equations" is the
Common Language name of that set of equations.
Heaviside got the equations from Maxwell. Heaviside just identified the
most important equations among all that Maxwell had presented. In addition >> Heaviside invented vectors and demonstrated that using vectors those (and
other) equations could be written in a simpler form.
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted
to divert physics from true science.
On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and
wanted to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about
him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the
complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs,
however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's
character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs,
but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to
eliminate quaternions.
Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted >>>>> to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about
him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the
complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs,
however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's
character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs,
but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to
eliminate quaternions.
Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
Conspiracies are necessarily a secret.
So you cannot evaluate your guesses that easily.
But in my case I was also hindered by 'late birth'.
...
On 2025-06-30 12:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
My guess is that "Thomas Heger" is a made-up name for someone working
for Vladimir Putin to gather information about people posting to this
group. My evidence for this? None whatsoever, but what does that matter?
*Plonk*
On 2025-06-30 12:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and
wanted to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say
about him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival
the complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs,
however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about
Gibbs's character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle
on Gibbs, but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to
eliminate quaternions.
Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
Conspiracies are necessarily a secret.
So you cannot evaluate your guesses that easily.
But in my case I was also hindered by 'late birth'.
...
My guess is that "Thomas Heger" is a made-up name for someone working
for Vladimir Putin to gather information about people posting to this
group. My evidence for this? None whatsoever, but what does that matter?
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted
to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about
him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the
complete bollocks that you write on other subjects).
Yes, of course.
Everything TH writes about any historical subject is bollocks.
He makes it up as he goes along, stringing implausibilities and impossibilities together.
Heaviside was a self-made man, who did highly original
and very useful work in engineering, electromagnetism,
physics and mathematics.
His contrarian character, obscure methods of publication,
and lack of formal schooling made him less well known
than he could have been.
He liked to pester pedantic academic mathematicians
with his unorthodox methods.
(which worked only too well)
Heaviside also originated what we nowadays call
the Dirac delta-function in all but the notation.
(as the derivative of a discontinuous function with a unit step)
The nutters here love him, for he was one of the very few heavyweight scientists of his time who rejected relativity.
Jan
On 2025-06-30 12:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Sonntag000029, 29.06.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-29 04:20:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Samstag000028, 28.06.2025 um 19:18 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2025-06-28 16:22:06 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
[ … ]
Well, that's what you think.
For me it seems, that Heaviside and Gibbs were 'con-artists' and wanted >>>>>> to divert physics from true science.
...
I don't know enough about Heaviside to comment on what you say about >>>>> him (though my guess is that it's complete bollocks to rival the
complete bollocks that you write on other subjects). For Gibbs,
however, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about Gibbs's >>>>> character. A good place to start would be the Wikiparticle on Gibbs, >>>>> but there is plenty to be learned from other sources.
My guess was, that Gibbs and Heaviside cooperated in the attempt to
eliminate quaternions.
Instead of guessing, why not try to find out?
Conspiracies are necessarily a secret.
So you cannot evaluate your guesses that easily.
But in my case I was also hindered by 'late birth'.
...
My guess is that "Thomas Heger" is a made-up name for someone working
for Vladimir Putin to gather information about people posting to this
group. My evidence for this? None whatsoever, but what does that matter?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 143:01:50 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,998 |
| Messages: | 6,517,457 |