usenet weirdness

Do you want me to find the quote where you explicitly insist that what happens with the clocks there can't be considered as an error? See, stupid scum - you're too dumb to keep the consistency of your s***ty lies.

If you could, of course, they would be still absurd. You've got a link to the text of your SR s*it. Show me where the idiot is writing/predicting "the clock of the observer X is erroneous and will require a correction". Or anything alike. Will you? No, you won't. You will just bark fiercely.

You didn't admit - exactly as I predicted, trash.

It is. And the way relativistic fanatics claim GPS system works is a lie.

Dilation is not classical, clock error is classical, if it's dilation they're not, if it's error they are. So - error or dilation, trash?

He wouldn't. And you lied he has done it, as expected from a very stupid piece of lying, fanatic s*it.

Of course I've heard of Occam's Razor.

William of Occam (1287-1347) didn't enuciate it as a guide to programmers. There weren't any around back then.

You seem to think that it means that if reality is more complicated than you like, you should ignore the complications.

In reality one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible causes, factors, or variables. That's exactly what relativity does. Observation had established that the simple Newtonian rules left some observations unexplained, and special and general relativity provided a more complicated explanation that did include the aberrant observations.

Don't feed that leering menace.

But, accidentally, somehow it matched what we were doing 700 years later. And, also accidentally, the rules we invented later for us fit science.

Separate time variable not just for any of 8 billions of observers, but also for any fucken muon. Fewest possible, poor trash? Really? Are you sure?

It really means that one can believe what they want, or do.

I'm not a religious zealot, yet also I won't abandon the ideas of religion and organized religion to religious zealots, nor to those who abuse such associations.

Then as with regards to canon and dogma and doctrine of _reason_, while it's usually thoroughly given to Aristotle and Zeno and like accounts of classical expositions, then as well there are accounts like the Vedas as can be read for matters of projection and perspective, then for example about Medieval Scholasticism from where arrive Aquinas and Occam and here especially Duns Scotus with univocity and haeccity, that simply some of the accounts of reason have their roots in what even for atheists are historical dialog.

The old adage "one's right to swing their fist ends at the nose of the next", is about equal _rights_ and equal _protections_. Then, "freedom of religion" is basically "freedom of will", then though that some have that in their religion that it's not so.

Since freedom of will is a _right_, then also the responsibilities of actions are upon the wielder.

According to "reading the law", ....

hell?srsltid=AfmBOoqXbl1b0Nzjq6DT4W34azsHr0PlOGVvn2ZCmZRoortf22Yiq4VA>

Perhaps, but the core of the book was originally delivered as a series of lectures at the University of Amsterdam, for Dutch audiences. BTW, Nadler also wrote a volume on Spinoza for the Cambridge Introductions to Key Philosophical Texts. This is Cambridge, England, of course. Being an American doesn't imply that your writings are aimed at American audiences.

Jan

You might enjoy Daniel Cohen's "Equations from God: Pure Mathematics and Victorian Faith", for an account of Boole and logicist positivism.

Princeton is usually "the academically weakest Ivy League school, with the most B-school preppies".

Johns Hopkins for example, U. Chicago or Northwestern even, for examples, are usually considered "above".

I read some of Spinoza, it's really rather moralizing, then the setting up of the "us versus them" mentality, it's sort of like Calvinism and "original sin", "us versus us".

Now, Spinoza is given some great accounts of reasonings about "Infinity", or at least that "Infinity is: In, the theory", while though one may aver that Duns Scotus already has this, since it's a usual reading of Aristotle that the account of the potential and actual infinite has "infinity is out/apeiron", then that between Duns Scotus and Spinoza is given a sort of account of an "Integer Continuum", super-Archimedean.

Francisco Suarez and Marin Mersenne and Antoine Arnauld form a nice little void filled by Rene "Renatus" DesCartes.

About Judaica and influences of Judaica and the Diaspora, Spinoza is sort of the Maimonides of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, as Maimonides is sort of alike the Spinoza of the Muslim Golden Age.

The teachings of the rabbinical include to seek out the learned and wise of any faith and be as them.

The stories of "Judas" then has that there are lots of accounts of figures so named over quite a long time and as of a very long-lived account, also for example as for the historical figure of "Spinoza".

Is that really his name? Word was he was an acerbic, bull-headed drunk. Then the usual idea of computer architecture is just instructions on the left data on the right.

What I think von Neumann has as interesting, besides stuff like "Goedel/Bernays/vonNeumann" accounts of set and class theory or "ZF with classes" after ZFC with GBN, is: that there are accounts of the equi-decomposability in the planar, where Vitali makes the account for the line segment, and Vitali and Hausdorff make the account for the ball, that these days is usually called Banach-Tarski though that Vitali-Hausdorff already did it, then there's that von Neumann at least got into some interesting cases about "Zeno's graduation course: the thought experiment they don't teach you in school", in the planar, or as about the bee's travel between two oncoming trains, that von Neumann has some at least interesting "non-standard accounts", sort of like Peano has a theory of infinitesimals besides a theory of integers, then though mostly he's referenced for reductionism.

So, it's interesting for measure theory if he ever invented anything and wasn't just describing what was already there.

Some people think there are differences among Thomists and Occamites, yet Duns Scotus was a very thorough thinker, and they're all Aristotleans.

It's sort of like my idea of Ireland: "I'm not all-Irish, yet I am all-Ireland".

Oh, that piece of s*it is opening its muzzle again, and again pretending that it knows something. Tell me, poor piece of s*it, how is "select now()::interval" in sql? I mean - in sql, not in some moronic code of some brainwashed religious maniac.

There wouldn't be a lot of point in doing that. What you understand to have been written doesn't seem to have much to with what generations of physicists have understood it to mean. You reading comprehension sucks.

As if you could detect consistency in stuff you clearly can't understand.

Your grasp of what might be absurd is idiosyncratic, to put it mildly.

You were predicting that I wouldn't take you seriously. You should be aware that nobody sane would.

As if you'd have any idea how it might work.

Relativity says that moving clocks aren't wrong, rather that they tick at a rate that differs from the one that you see in a clock that stayed put. Take a pair of clocks, leave one sitting still and loft one into orbit and then bring it back, and the moved clock will have counted a predictable different number of ticks to the stationary clock.

He wouldn't have predicted any clock correction - at the time no clock could be moved fast or far enough to accumulate a enough relativistic time dilation to need correction. The 1905 paper does assert that when you could, you would find a perceptible difference, and gives a formula that would let you calculate how big that would be. The 1915 paper adds in the difference you would see if you moved one of the clocks into a different gravitational environment, and when we finally had clocks good enough to let us test his predictions, around 1970, they were found to be good.

The very stupid lying piece of s*it here is you. Because you are too ignorant to understand what you are actually saying you aren't actually lying because you don't actually understand what's going on.

There's nothing accidental about it. It was designed as guide to rational discussion - not a concept that you have yet mastered.

Perfectly sure. Some the short-lived high energy particles formed when a cosmic ray particle hits an atom at the top of the atmosphere don't have a long enough half-life to make it down to ground level, even at the speed of light, but they make it anyway because they are travelling very close to speed of light and time dilation makes the transit time look shorter to them. Lorentzian spatial contraction helps too.

It not actually a separate time variable for each muon, but rather a common physical principle that works the same for every last one of them. Calculating it for each one is a pest for us but no trouble for the particles.

Maciej Woźniak is just as sceptical as you are, if a deranged mind can actually be sceptical.

Having an American publisher does make it a whole lot more likely. Of course my wife's psycholinguistic text book was published by the MIT Press, and it is all about cross-linguistic experiments, which makes it a counter-example.

FitzGerald gave the reasoning for "time dilation" decades before, and furthermore besides "length contraction" and "time dilation", an account of them together, "space contraction".

FitzGerald gives both a reasoning and a formalism.

Always corrupted into snowman.

I was never management, though I got close. I later found out that my refusal to waste time on pointless paper-shuffling counted against me.

It doesn't work like that. The managers worry about more important stuff

- pointless paper-shuffling.

You can bet on anything you like. It's a character defect, but not yet a crime.

That's built into the system. Engineers - like British scientists -have to be on tap rather than on top.

They were well known. Going into space has always been a risky business, but you do get a lot of publicity, which strikes as even stronger demotivator.