Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean (motion, Mach-ian)

On 12/16/2024 04:19 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 11:49, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>

>
The genial insight that Einstein started to have in 1905

>
The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
>
>

It is an inherent property of the space-time we find ourselves in,

>
It may be an inherent property of the space-time your
bunch of idiots find yourselves in; it is no way an
inherent property of the space-time sane people
find themselves in.

>
You should rejoice instead. Since the whole framework of the world
and all physical theories must conform to the relativity postulate
it should be real easy to find falsifications of it.
>
Easy, isn't it?
>
Jan
(not holding my breath)
>

You mean that motion is relative? That motion exists at all?
That's all that "relativity" theory is, that motion
is relative, yet as well, in the Mach-ian, is that
there's motion that's absolute, sort of about
the star and pole-star, the frames,
the frame-spaces the space-frames.
You mean the L-principle that light's speed is
constant in a deep space in vacuum? That's the
L-principle as with regards to it being part
of "relativity theory" it would have a mechanistic
reduction.
It's kind of like Fresnel said, "both aether and
not aether", as with regards to violations of
the gravitational/g-force equivalence principle
which happen all the time, and kind of like Einstein
said, "well yeah there's an aether".
Then for space-contraction and this and that, and
about mass-energy equivalency, there are a variety
of considerations for "a severe abstraction to
mechanical reduction", giving that electrons move and
all without changing the mass, per se, of things,
where though the usual idea is that it's electron-holes,
with regards to displacement current and true current
or what, and "third current".
Or, there's usually never "negative mass" in the
theory while yet electrons as the force carriers
in the electrostatic and electromagnetic, the theories,
have arbitrarily small rest mass.
It's kind of like in electron orbitals and screening,
what starts working up cases after Wigner about
degeneracy and doublings, about Beta decay and
these kinds of things, why electrons would make
orbitals if they were constantly kind of bouncing
vis-a-vis that nucleons clump and electrons do not.
You mean that motion is relative? Well, yeah,
otherwise it would be rest. Define motion, then.
Make it Mach-ian while you're at it.