Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum

On 3/27/25 17:40, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:59:47 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
 

On 3/26/25 17:33, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:08:24 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
>

On 3/12/25 16:05, Bertitaylor wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 15:40:27 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
>

On 3/11/25 16:19, Bertitaylor wrote:

They have corrupted not just physics. And humanity too
with moral relativism, setting up wrongs as rights and rights as
wrongs.

>
The relativism you hate didn't come from Einstein.  It was there
all along in Newton's physics.  Strange that you selectively hate
Einstein but not Newton.

>
Quote Newton on that. Did he say that light velocity did not vary with
that of what emitted it? That is the first postulate of Einsteinian
relativity and absolutely nonsense.

>
Actually it's the second postulate.  You should actually KNOW
SOMETHING about the theory you criticize, instead of sounding
off ignorantly.

 Tch tch.

>
The first postulate is this: The laws of physics take the same
form in all inertial frames of reference.  This is known as
the principle of relativity.  It means that the equations of
physics have the same form for all observers in any inertial
state of motion.  That's the relativism that is shared by both
Newton and Einstein.

 So far so good. Nothing original.

>
If you  think that the coordinate-system relativism of Newton
and Einstein is somehow deeply connected to moral relativism
because their descriptions both contain the word relativism,
you should also expect sun dogs to bark.

 The moral relativism comes from corruption of the thought process by
making right and wrong equally valid.
 What about the second postulate about the invariance of light speed. Did
Newton say that?
 That is the corruption underlying moral relativism. Making lies truth.

The first postulate is that the equations of dynamics, the motions of
bodies influenced by forces, stay the same in the coordinate systems
that all inertial observers construct for themselves.  The second
postulate extends this to optics.  The goal is for Maxwell's equations
to remain the same for all inertial observers, hence the speed of
light must, when measured by an inertial observer, always be the
same.
Now how does that second postulate make something true and something
false equivalent?  What are the true thing and the false thing that
the second postulate makes equivalent?  And how do you tell which
one is true and which one is false?

The worst possible reason to believe something is that somebody
will morally disapprove of you if you don't believe it.

--
David Canzi             | Humanity's survival may depend on answering the
                         | question, "how can we deprogram a country?"