On 02/28/2026 01:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet
always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
Lense-Thirring disagrees.
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet
always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
On 02/28/2026 03:17 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/28/2026 01:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Lense-Thirring disagrees.
There is nobody named "Lense-Thirring" who could disagree.
The Lense--Thirring effect (named after Josef Lense and Hans Thirring)
is a frame-dragging effect. It has nothing to do with an aether:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession>
You are merely arguing from your ignorance.
No, I think that's "I'm arguing from _your_ ignorance".
About why Lense-Thirring, the experiment, measured frame-dragging:
it's the same as aether drift.
You, sir, are not-quite-invincibly ignorant.
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR but also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet
always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND >>>> ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet
always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone came up >>>> with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results >>>> would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order experiments >>>> should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
Agreeing is not the point.
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND >>>> ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet
always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone came up >>>> with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results >>>> would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order experiments >>>> should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
Agreeing is not the point.
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
Jan
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND >>>>> ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet >>>>> always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone
came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results >>>>> would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order
experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR but >>> also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
Agreeing is not the point.
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
Jan
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and Finlay-Freundlich
and Feynman and the list goes on, each of which
involves in their discussions different energies and configurations
of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
electromagnetic radiation are different, that radiation
and current are different, that the kinetic and kinematic
are different, about that wave-speed and wave-velocity
are different, there are lots of ways to setup F-Lorentzians,
and those each to see them fall apart.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators, and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
On 03/02/2026 07:02 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) >>>>>> AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet >>>>>> always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone
came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null
results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order
experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR
but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
Agreeing is not the point.
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
Jan
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and Finlay-Freundlich
and Feynman and the list goes on, each of which
involves in their discussions different energies and configurations
of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
electromagnetic radiation are different, that radiation
and current are different, that the kinetic and kinematic
are different, about that wave-speed and wave-velocity
are different, there are lots of ways to setup F-Lorentzians,
and those each to see them fall apart.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators, and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Of course, that many accounts are only "first-order approximations"
those being _partial_ and simply absent analyticity at the corners
makes for that gyroscopic effects and effects in the viscoelastic
and so on are plentifully scattered around as above the "quadratic",
i.e. second-order, third-order.
Lorentzians are partial, and the quadratic is a sort of "Flat Earth".
On 03/02/2026 07:36 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 07:02 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Agreeing is not the point.
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) >>>>>>> AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet >>>>>>> always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone
came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null
results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order
experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR >>>>> but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)? >>>>
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
Jan
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and Finlay-Freundlich >>> and Feynman and the list goes on, each of which
involves in their discussions different energies and configurations
of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
electromagnetic radiation are different, that radiation
and current are different, that the kinetic and kinematic
are different, about that wave-speed and wave-velocity
are different, there are lots of ways to setup F-Lorentzians,
and those each to see them fall apart.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators, and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Of course, that many accounts are only "first-order approximations"
those being _partial_ and simply absent analyticity at the corners
makes for that gyroscopic effects and effects in the viscoelastic
and so on are plentifully scattered around as above the "quadratic",
i.e. second-order, third-order.
Lorentzians are partial, and the quadratic is a sort of "Flat Earth".
https://www.google.com/search?q=Faraday+and+Fresnel+and+Fizeau+and+FitzGerald+and+Finlay-Freundlich+and+Feynman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists#F
The Fuchsian has a lot going on, for example about Phythian.
Heh, Fock-Ivanenko.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_Dirac_equation
"Two common examples
are the massive Thirring model
and the Soler model. "
The Fuchsian though has a lot going on with near-field/far-field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Fuchs
The regular singular points of the hypergeometric
are zero, one: and infinity.
How about an SU^N gauge theory, Poincare completion,
the meromorphic and differintegro/integrodiffer,
original analysis, and the like.
It's a common enough thing to say "physics is a gauge theory".
Generally considered to be somehow a "Lagrangian", then for
along the lines of "T-Lagrangians" for "F-Lorentzians", about
forces/fields F and time T. Maybe better C-Lagrangians for
the "chronometry".
Time symmetry never having been falsified and all, ....
The idea of organizing physicists alphabetically
to represent lettered categorizations is more a mnemonic device
than any way more than an alphabetical coincidence. It's
apropos for forces and fields and F-Lorentzians.
The Fuchsian has a lot going on, about regular singular
points of the integral variety. Goes well with Haar and
the convolutional setting, about Parseval/Plancherel
instead of L'Hopital/Rodrigues, not that there's anything
wrong with Rodrigues, then about pointing out that de Moivre's
identity about the Eulerian/Gaussian doesn't much make Gauss'
account of "a hypergeometric" as being anything less than
highly contrived.
https://www.google.com/search?Fuchsian+near-field+far-field https://www.google.com/search?Fuchsian+spectral+gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
I.e., "complex-analytic is not real-analytic".
Why yes, I'd rather expect to collect these as sequential
and paste them unexpurgated into a document and feed it
to mechanical reasoners, to taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues%27_formula
About Legendre and into the convolutional setting,
is for deconstructing Rodrigues formula also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendre_polynomials
There are lots of Legendre polynomials.
Anyways, physics is beholden to what mathematics says
about it.
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND >>>>> ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet >>>>> always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone came up >>>>> with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results >>>>> would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order experiments >>>>> should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR but >>> also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
Agreeing is not the point.
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and
Finlay-Freundlich and Feynman and the list goes on,
each of which involves in their discussions different energies
and configurations of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
electromagnetic radiation are different,
that radiation and current are different,
that the kinetic and kinematic are different,
about that wave-speed and wave-velocity are different,
there are lots of ways to setup
F-Lorentzians, and those each to see them fall apart.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators,
and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Ross Finlayson wrote:
that the kinetic and kinematic are different,
"The kinetic" and "the kinematic" (your the wording implies the second
"the") are not proper scientific terms. Those are terms that you invented, and they have no meaning to anyone else. "kinetic" and "kinematic" are adjectives, and there is no noun or verb in your text to go with them.--
On 03/02/2026 09:09 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 07:36 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 07:02 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Agreeing is not the point.
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) >>>>>>>> AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of >>>>>>>> yet
always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone >>>>>>>> came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null >>>>>>>> results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order
experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
Jan
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR >>>>>> but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)? >>>>>
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
Jan
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and
Finlay-Freundlich
and Feynman and the list goes on, each of which
involves in their discussions different energies and configurations
of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
electromagnetic radiation are different, that radiation
and current are different, that the kinetic and kinematic
are different, about that wave-speed and wave-velocity
are different, there are lots of ways to setup F-Lorentzians,
and those each to see them fall apart.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators, and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Of course, that many accounts are only "first-order approximations"
those being _partial_ and simply absent analyticity at the corners
makes for that gyroscopic effects and effects in the viscoelastic
and so on are plentifully scattered around as above the "quadratic",
i.e. second-order, third-order.
Lorentzians are partial, and the quadratic is a sort of "Flat Earth".
https://www.google.com/search?q=Faraday+and+Fresnel+and+Fizeau+and+FitzGerald+and+Finlay-Freundlich+and+Feynman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicists#F
The Fuchsian has a lot going on, for example about Phythian.
Heh, Fock-Ivanenko.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_Dirac_equation
"Two common examples
are the massive Thirring model
and the Soler model. "
The Fuchsian though has a lot going on with near-field/far-field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Fuchs
The regular singular points of the hypergeometric
are zero, one: and infinity.
How about an SU^N gauge theory, Poincare completion,
the meromorphic and differintegro/integrodiffer,
original analysis, and the like.
It's a common enough thing to say "physics is a gauge theory".
Generally considered to be somehow a "Lagrangian", then for
along the lines of "T-Lagrangians" for "F-Lorentzians", about
forces/fields F and time T. Maybe better C-Lagrangians for
the "chronometry".
Time symmetry never having been falsified and all, ....
The idea of organizing physicists alphabetically
to represent lettered categorizations is more a mnemonic device
than any way more than an alphabetical coincidence. It's
apropos for forces and fields and F-Lorentzians.
The Fuchsian has a lot going on, about regular singular
points of the integral variety. Goes well with Haar and
the convolutional setting, about Parseval/Plancherel
instead of L'Hopital/Rodrigues, not that there's anything
wrong with Rodrigues, then about pointing out that de Moivre's
identity about the Eulerian/Gaussian doesn't much make Gauss'
account of "a hypergeometric" as being anything less than
highly contrived.
https://www.google.com/search?Fuchsian+near-field+far-field
https://www.google.com/search?Fuchsian+spectral+gap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
I.e., "complex-analytic is not real-analytic".
Why yes, I'd rather expect to collect these as sequential
and paste them unexpurgated into a document and feed it
to mechanical reasoners, to taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues%27_formula
About Legendre and into the convolutional setting,
is for deconstructing Rodrigues formula also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendre_polynomials
There are lots of Legendre polynomials.
Anyways, physics is beholden to what mathematics says
about it.
"It was only when Einstein
combined the work of Fresnel
with that of Hippolyte Fizeau
that the aether was ultimately banished." --
Ever pick up "Problem Book in Relativity"
and find a problem about boost addition in it?
Boost ain't velocity.
Addition-formulae are very convenient,
about usual attributes of arithmetizations.
One time I picked up "Problem Book in Relativity
and Gravitation" and found an inconsistent in it
in about twenty or thirty, or less, minutes of reading.
I suppose that was in that "Open Letter to Ross A. Finlayson"
thread, who is pretty great.
Of course, I'd already read a lot, ....
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX, Hammar) AND >>>>>> ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet >>>>>> always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone came up >>>>>> with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null results >>>>>> would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order experiments >>>>>> should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with SR but >>>> also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)?
Agreeing is not the point.
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
von Laue's analysis of what was later called "the Sagnac effect" might indicate that it is not.
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
That statement does not make sense. It is not even a complete sentence.
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
There is no such thing as a "Lorentzian" outside your very confused mind.
One would use such a term in order to describe a function (like
"Hamiltonian" instead of "Hamiltonian function" or -- less common -- Hamilton's function), but there is no function that is called "Lorentzian" *itself*.
That only leaves "Lorentzian" as an adjective, and your statement is missing a noun that goes with it, as in "Lorentzian _manifold_" (which is actually a proper term, and a concept in mathematics and theoretical physics: any spacetime is an example of a Lorentzian manifold).
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
Word salad. The term "analytical setting" has no meaning, and the correct term is "Lorentz invariance" (which means "invariant under a Lorentz transformation").
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and
Finlay-Freundlich and Feynman and the list goes on,
Only in your very confused mind. It is an example of clanging:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging>
each of which involves in their discussions different energies
and configurations of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Nonsense.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
You do not know what that term means, so you should really stop using it until you do:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics>
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
"for examples, then that..." is grammatically wrong.
electromagnetic radiation are different,
You do not know what you are talking about.
"c" is the (SI) symbol for _the speed_ of light, not for light itself.
that radiation and current are different,
Yes, they are, but not in the way you think:
In physics, the first one is a phenomenon, and the second one is a physical quantity.
that the kinetic and kinematic are different,
"The kinetic" and "the kinematic" (your the wording implies the second
"the") are not proper scientific terms. Those are terms that you invented, and they have no meaning to anyone else. "kinetic" and "kinematic" are adjectives, and there is no noun or verb in your text to go with them.
It is all just pseudoscientific word salad, bereft of meaning. You just
keep on babbling, or in this case, writing words. And again, this could be an example of clanging: "kinetic" and "kinematic" *sound* similar, that is why your confused mind attempts to connect them *somehow*.
about that wave-speed and wave-velocity are different,
They are, but not in the way you think: Speed is simply the norm (put
simply: the magnitude) of velocity. Velocity is in general a vector (quantity), while speed is a scalar (quantity).
there are lots of ways to setup
The correct spelling is _set up_ (a verb), while "setup" is the
corresponding noun.
F-Lorentzians, and those each to see them fall apart.
Grammatically confused word salad.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
There is no (one) such theory. For example, Lorentz had a theory of electrons and of a luminiferous aether. (Lorentz Ether Theory is NOT
what Lorentz postulated.)
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
Pseudoscientific word salad. "partial differential" is a noun, but it does not go with "account" as a compound word. "partial differential" is also an adjective, but it also does not go with the noun "account". Finally, the term "differential account" has no meaning. So there is no interpretation
in which the term "partial differential account" has a meaning. It is just pseudoscientific word salad.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
He does not. The word "indefiniteness" does not occur in that book, so that is a false quote to begin with:
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125084/page/n7/mode/2up?q=indefiniteness>
What does occur on page 141 of the book, for example, is the phrase "Remarks on the case of an indefinite ds^2":
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125084/page/141/mode/2up?q=indefinite>
Unfortunately, I strongly doubt that you have any clue as to what that means as you bring it up even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. It is just an example of you writing down, without
being able to consider whether it would be relevant, what pops into your confused mind.
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators,
Grammatically confused word salad.
and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
You do not know what you are talking, or talking about.
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
*facepalm*
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Clanging and word salad again.
You are obviously mentally not well. Please see a psychologist, maybe even
a psychiatrist.
On 03/02/2026 10:29 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Agreeing is not the point.
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX,
Hammar) AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of yet >>>>>>> always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone
came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null
results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order
experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with
SR but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)? >>>>
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
von Laue's analysis of what was later called "the Sagnac effect" might
indicate that it is not.
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
That statement does not make sense. It is not even a complete sentence.
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
There is no such thing as a "Lorentzian" outside your very confused mind.
One would use such a term in order to describe a function (like
"Hamiltonian" instead of "Hamiltonian function" or -- less common --
Hamilton's function), but there is no function that is called
"Lorentzian"
*itself*.
That only leaves "Lorentzian" as an adjective, and your statement is
missing
a noun that goes with it, as in "Lorentzian _manifold_" (which is
actually a
proper term, and a concept in mathematics and theoretical physics: any
spacetime is an example of a Lorentzian manifold).
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
Word salad. The term "analytical setting" has no meaning, and the
correct
term is "Lorentz invariance" (which means "invariant under a Lorentz
transformation").
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and
Finlay-Freundlich and Feynman and the list goes on,
Only in your very confused mind. It is an example of clanging:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging>
each of which involves in their discussions different energies
and configurations of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Nonsense.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
You do not know what that term means, so you should really stop using it
until you do:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics>
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
"for examples, then that..." is grammatically wrong.
electromagnetic radiation are different,
You do not know what you are talking about.
"c" is the (SI) symbol for _the speed_ of light, not for light itself.
that radiation and current are different,
Yes, they are, but not in the way you think:
In physics, the first one is a phenomenon, and the second one is a
physical
quantity.
that the kinetic and kinematic are different,
"The kinetic" and "the kinematic" (your the wording implies the second
"the") are not proper scientific terms. Those are terms that you
invented,
and they have no meaning to anyone else. "kinetic" and "kinematic" are
adjectives, and there is no noun or verb in your text to go with them.
It is all just pseudoscientific word salad, bereft of meaning. You just
keep on babbling, or in this case, writing words. And again, this
could be
an example of clanging: "kinetic" and "kinematic" *sound* similar,
that is
why your confused mind attempts to connect them *somehow*.
about that wave-speed and wave-velocity are different,
They are, but not in the way you think: Speed is simply the norm (put
simply: the magnitude) of velocity. Velocity is in general a vector
(quantity), while speed is a scalar (quantity).
there are lots of ways to setup
The correct spelling is _set up_ (a verb), while "setup" is the
corresponding noun.
F-Lorentzians, and those each to see them fall apart.
Grammatically confused word salad.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
There is no (one) such theory. For example, Lorentz had a theory of
electrons and of a luminiferous aether. (Lorentz Ether Theory is NOT
what Lorentz postulated.)
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
Pseudoscientific word salad. "partial differential" is a noun, but it
does
not go with "account" as a compound word. "partial differential" is
also an
adjective, but it also does not go with the noun "account". Finally, the
term "differential account" has no meaning. So there is no
interpretation
in which the term "partial differential account" has a meaning. It is
just
pseudoscientific word salad.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
He does not. The word "indefiniteness" does not occur in that book,
so that
is a false quote to begin with:
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125084/page/n7/mode/2up?q=indefiniteness>
What does occur on page 141 of the book, for example, is the phrase
"Remarks
on the case of an indefinite ds^2":
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125084/page/141/mode/2up?q=indefinite>
Unfortunately, I strongly doubt that you have any clue as to what that
means
as you bring it up even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the
current discussion. It is just an example of you writing down, without
being able to consider whether it would be relevant, what pops into your
confused mind.
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators,
Grammatically confused word salad.
and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
You do not know what you are talking, or talking about.
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
*facepalm*
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Clanging and word salad again.
You are obviously mentally not well. Please see a psychologist, maybe
even
a psychiatrist.
You don't get to define language,
and I'm "obviously" mentally happy and sound,
and kind and nice.
The _soundness_ here is the key concept,
the _soundness_ for the _validity_, which
for example according to this kind of _language_
that I readily enjoin _mechanical reasoners_
to converge on not only its correctness yet
furthermore about the uniqueness.
My sentences are quite usually perfectly grammatical,
complete, and nice.
The kinetics and kinematics are matters of mechanics,
and different ones, one essentially linear the other
essentially rotational, that's simple, and it's known
for example that "momentum gets lost in the kinematic wash"
with "wash" itself being a technical term.
A usual sort of philologist's account of language, like
George Steiner's, for examples (generally for examples,
plural, and, for example), makes for notions like the
Wortbuch, a usual idea of a dictionary of all the languages
in the world, makes for that then the history of the
development of physics about fields and forces, then as
to get into "continuum mechanics" and "continuity equations"
and "continuity conditions" and "continuity constraints"
and the like, the history of the development of the field
makes for that the fields and forces have their own settings,
where "settings" and "accounts" are quite generic terms for
the "surrounds" the "analysis", in definition, there's then
that "F-Lorentzians" is apropos a mnemonic.
About Noether theorem and conservation law, and invariance
theories or invariant theories or the notions of symmetry
and conservation law as being the same as there existing
an invariant, then there's a greater account for something
like Shech of continuity law, that Noether theorem was
merely another partial-ist reductionism instead of a
potential-ist completion. I.e. there's "symmetry-flex
not "symmetry-breaking".
Then, about conjugation the singular/plural and about
that there's an implicit quoting context then as well
about the _language talking about itself_, it's a free
milieu for the structure(s) of language, and a structure
of language, here that being usually an idea of a Comenius
language that's perfectly true and a Coleridge language
that's metaphor instead of strong metonymy, as with regards
to "eternal basic text" and utterances like these.
Besides strong mathematical platonism, then in weak old
logicist positivism I can make up anything I want,
that's all you claim to do, either.
Instead, there's a strong mathematical platonism
for a stronger logicist postivism as reflecting
on the _structure_ after a _deconstructive account_
of what reductionism lost along the way.
So, "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2" is a thing,
which you can find in a brief passage in "The Absolute
Differential Calculus", then "Lorentzians" are just
like "Laplacians" with the signature the space-like
and time-like exactly the expression itself, and
it _is_ "merely partial" and has _lost_ the higher order.
Any real change in velocity at all is nominally non-zero
infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration.
Ah, I did find an, "inconsistency", in the usual usage,
vis-a-vis an "inconsistent", where adjectival force
naturally results that would be a noun to be read as
correct, in "The Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation",
that, I'm not going to language-cop you, then here though
my command of English _is_ the law.
So, read it generously with something like a certification
from all the great AI reasoners of the day that:
_it must somehow be right_, so,
if you're reading as wrong: you're reading it wrong(ly).
Yes, having a great certum of a verum of what I say
from all the hugest offered AI reasoners of the day
is rather gratifying.
Primum non nocere / Doctor, heal thyself.
On 03/02/2026 11:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 10:29 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/02/2026 04:22 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Agreeing is not the point.
amirjf nin <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
Should all second-order experiments so far (e.g. MMX, KTX,
Hammar) AND
ones that may exist in the future that haven't been conceived of >>>>>>>> yet
always get null results?
Or is it something specific about these experiments? If someone >>>>>>>> came up
with a second-order experiment in the future that got non-null >>>>>>>> results
would that mean past other kinds/categories of second-order
experiments
should be revisited?
'second order' is a red herring.
After Einstein 1905 it was understood that the aether drift
will unobservable to all orders of v/c.
The aether is just unobservable, period.
What if giving a chance the fact that Sagnac agrees not only with
SR but
also agrees with ether (I am a supporter of dragged/entrained/local)? >>>>>
-All- of physics agrees with aether theory,
because Lorentz aether theory is indistinguishable
from special relativity. (to all orders in v/c)
von Laue's analysis of what was later called "the Sagnac effect" might
indicate that it is not.
To demonstrate an effect of the aether you need
to show a physical effect that -does not agree-
with Lorentz aether theory.
Puzzling, isn't it?
It's simply enough "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2".
That statement does not make sense. It is not even a complete sentence. >>>
I.e., there are lots of ways to arrive at Lorentzians,
There is no such thing as a "Lorentzian" outside your very confused
mind.
One would use such a term in order to describe a function (like
"Hamiltonian" instead of "Hamiltonian function" or -- less common --
Hamilton's function), but there is no function that is called
"Lorentzian"
*itself*.
That only leaves "Lorentzian" as an adjective, and your statement is
missing
a noun that goes with it, as in "Lorentzian _manifold_" (which is
actually a
proper term, and a concept in mathematics and theoretical physics: any
spacetime is an example of a Lorentzian manifold).
i.e., analytical settings establishing Lorentzian invariance,
Word salad. The term "analytical setting" has no meaning, and the
correct
term is "Lorentz invariance" (which means "invariant under a Lorentz
transformation").
here that's called "F-Lorentzians" about the forces and fields
associated with various names in physics that start with "F",
like Faraday and Fresnel and Fizeau and FitzGerald and
Finlay-Freundlich and Feynman and the list goes on,
Only in your very confused mind. It is an example of clanging:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging>
each of which involves in their discussions different energies
and configurations of experiments in different forces and/or fields.
Nonsense.
Then it's a matter of continuum mechanics.
You do not know what that term means, so you should really stop using it >>> until you do:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics>
There's Richardson's three descriptions of 'c',
for examples, then that visible light and otherwise
"for examples, then that..." is grammatically wrong.
electromagnetic radiation are different,
You do not know what you are talking about.
"c" is the (SI) symbol for _the speed_ of light, not for light itself.
that radiation and current are different,
Yes, they are, but not in the way you think:
In physics, the first one is a phenomenon, and the second one is a
physical
quantity.
that the kinetic and kinematic are different,
"The kinetic" and "the kinematic" (your the wording implies the second
"the") are not proper scientific terms. Those are terms that you
invented,
and they have no meaning to anyone else. "kinetic" and "kinematic" are
adjectives, and there is no noun or verb in your text to go with them.
It is all just pseudoscientific word salad, bereft of meaning. You just >>> keep on babbling, or in this case, writing words. And again, this
could be
an example of clanging: "kinetic" and "kinematic" *sound* similar,
that is
why your confused mind attempts to connect them *somehow*.
about that wave-speed and wave-velocity are different,
They are, but not in the way you think: Speed is simply the norm (put
simply: the magnitude) of velocity. Velocity is in general a vector
(quantity), while speed is a scalar (quantity).
there are lots of ways to setup
The correct spelling is _set up_ (a verb), while "setup" is the
corresponding noun.
F-Lorentzians, and those each to see them fall apart.
Grammatically confused word salad.
These each all "agree" with "Lorentz theory",
There is no (one) such theory. For example, Lorentz had a theory of
electrons and of a luminiferous aether. (Lorentz Ether Theory is NOT
what Lorentz postulated.)
which basically says nothing except that
it's a _partial_ differential account.
Pseudoscientific word salad. "partial differential" is a noun, but it
does
not go with "account" as a compound word. "partial differential" is
also an
adjective, but it also does not go with the noun "account". Finally,
the
term "differential account" has no meaning. So there is no
interpretation
in which the term "partial differential account" has a meaning. It is
just
pseudoscientific word salad.
So, Levi-Civita in "The Absolute Differential Calculus"
already at least mentions "the indefiniteness of ds^2",
He does not. The word "indefiniteness" does not occur in that book,
so that
is a false quote to begin with:
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125084/page/n7/mode/2up?q=indefiniteness>
What does occur on page 141 of the book, for example, is the phrase
"Remarks
on the case of an indefinite ds^2":
<https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125084/page/141/mode/2up?q=indefinite>
Unfortunately, I strongly doubt that you have any clue as to what that
means
as you bring it up even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the
current discussion. It is just an example of you writing down, without
being able to consider whether it would be relevant, what pops into your >>> confused mind.
then there's that it's of a system of _partial_ differential
operators,
Grammatically confused word salad.
and says nothing at all about interacting terms
or otherwise anything "non-linear".
You do not know what you are talking, or talking about.
It's un-linear, ..., it's a continuum mechanics.
*facepalm*
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Clanging and word salad again.
You are obviously mentally not well. Please see a psychologist, maybe
even
a psychiatrist.
You don't get to define language,
and I'm "obviously" mentally happy and sound,
and kind and nice.
The _soundness_ here is the key concept,
the _soundness_ for the _validity_, which
for example according to this kind of _language_
that I readily enjoin _mechanical reasoners_
to converge on not only its correctness yet
furthermore about the uniqueness.
My sentences are quite usually perfectly grammatical,
complete, and nice.
The kinetics and kinematics are matters of mechanics,
and different ones, one essentially linear the other
essentially rotational, that's simple, and it's known
for example that "momentum gets lost in the kinematic wash"
with "wash" itself being a technical term.
A usual sort of philologist's account of language, like
George Steiner's, for examples (generally for examples,
plural, and, for example), makes for notions like the
Wortbuch, a usual idea of a dictionary of all the languages
in the world, makes for that then the history of the
development of physics about fields and forces, then as
to get into "continuum mechanics" and "continuity equations"
and "continuity conditions" and "continuity constraints"
and the like, the history of the development of the field
makes for that the fields and forces have their own settings,
where "settings" and "accounts" are quite generic terms for
the "surrounds" the "analysis", in definition, there's then
that "F-Lorentzians" is apropos a mnemonic.
About Noether theorem and conservation law, and invariance
theories or invariant theories or the notions of symmetry
and conservation law as being the same as there existing
an invariant, then there's a greater account for something
like Shech of continuity law, that Noether theorem was
merely another partial-ist reductionism instead of a
potential-ist completion. I.e. there's "symmetry-flex
not "symmetry-breaking".
Then, about conjugation the singular/plural and about
that there's an implicit quoting context then as well
about the _language talking about itself_, it's a free
milieu for the structure(s) of language, and a structure
of language, here that being usually an idea of a Comenius
language that's perfectly true and a Coleridge language
that's metaphor instead of strong metonymy, as with regards
to "eternal basic text" and utterances like these.
Besides strong mathematical platonism, then in weak old
logicist positivism I can make up anything I want,
that's all you claim to do, either.
Instead, there's a strong mathematical platonism
for a stronger logicist postivism as reflecting
on the _structure_ after a _deconstructive account_
of what reductionism lost along the way.
So, "Levi-Civita's indefiniteness of ds^2" is a thing,
which you can find in a brief passage in "The Absolute
Differential Calculus", then "Lorentzians" are just
like "Laplacians" with the signature the space-like
and time-like exactly the expression itself, and
it _is_ "merely partial" and has _lost_ the higher order.
Any real change in velocity at all is nominally non-zero
infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration.
Ah, I did find an, "inconsistency", in the usual usage,
vis-a-vis an "inconsistent", where adjectival force
naturally results that would be a noun to be read as
correct, in "The Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation",
that, I'm not going to language-cop you, then here though
my command of English _is_ the law.
So, read it generously with something like a certification
from all the great AI reasoners of the day that:
_it must somehow be right_, so,
if you're reading as wrong: you're reading it wrong(ly).
Yes, having a great certum of a verum of what I say
from all the hugest offered AI reasoners of the day
is rather gratifying.
Primum non nocere / Doctor, heal thyself.
Inference is as inference does.
[more than 200 (!) lines of full quote]
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Clanging and word salad again.
You are obviously mentally not well. Please see a psychologist, maybe even >> a psychiatrist.
You don't get to define language,
and I'm "obviously" mentally happy and sound,
and kind and nice.
The _soundness_ here is the key concept,
the _soundness_ for the _validity_, which
for example according to this kind of _language_
that I readily enjoin _mechanical reasoners_
to converge on not only its correctness yet
furthermore about the uniqueness.
My sentences are quite usually perfectly grammatical, [...]
The kinetics and kinematics are matters of mechanics,
and different ones,
one essentially linear the other essentially rotational,
[more than 200 (!) lines of full quote]
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Clanging and word salad again.
You are obviously mentally not well. Please see a psychologist, maybe even >> a psychiatrist.
You don't get to define language,
and I'm "obviously" mentally happy and sound,
and kind and nice.
The _soundness_ here is the key concept,
the _soundness_ for the _validity_, which
for example according to this kind of _language_
that I readily enjoin _mechanical reasoners_
to converge on not only its correctness yet
furthermore about the uniqueness.
My sentences are quite usually perfectly grammatical, [...]
The kinetics and kinematics are matters of mechanics,
and different ones,
one essentially linear the other essentially rotational,
Ross Finlayson wrote:
[more than 200 (!) lines of full quote]
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Clanging and word salad again.
You are obviously mentally not well. Please see a psychologist, maybe even >>> a psychiatrist.
You don't get to define language,
That is correct. I am merely telling you what dictionary writers and
English teachers, for example, are saying, or rather what they would be saying if they read your texts. Not to mention psychiatrists.
and I'm "obviously" mentally happy and sound,
You might well be happy (ignorance is bliss), but you are *obvously* NOT mentally *sane*. It does not take a psychologist or psychiatrist to notice that. I am sorry to break this to you, and I really mean it.
*Please* see a psychiatrist.
and kind and nice.
Nobody claimed otherwise. Your personality is not the issue, but how you communicate or rather fail to communicate.
The _soundness_ here is the key concept,
the _soundness_ for the _validity_, which
for example according to this kind of _language_
that I readily enjoin _mechanical reasoners_
to converge on not only its correctness yet
furthermore about the uniqueness.
Unfortunately, that is word salad again, and it does not get any better in the subsequent paragraphs.
My sentences are quite usually perfectly grammatical, [...]
No, they are not, on the contrary.
The kinetics and kinematics are matters of mechanics,
and different ones,
Yes.
one essentially linear the other essentially rotational,
No:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetics> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics>
Also "kinetic" is not the same as "kinetics", and "kinematic" is not the
same as "kinematics". You did not write "kinetics" which would make sense (in the right context); but, for example, "the kinetic" as a *noun* which does not make any sense.
At least you cannot say that I have not tried to reason with you.
But I cannot afford to waste more precious free time this way.
Get well soon.
*PLONK*
On 03/02/2026 01:11 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
[more than 200 (!) lines of full quote]
So, ..., "E-energy and F-Lorentzians".
Clanging and word salad again.
You are obviously mentally not well. Please see a psychologist,
maybe even
a psychiatrist.
You don't get to define language,
That is correct. I am merely telling you what dictionary writers and
English teachers, for example, are saying, or rather what they would be
saying if they read your texts. Not to mention psychiatrists.
and I'm "obviously" mentally happy and sound,
You might well be happy (ignorance is bliss), but you are *obvously* NOT
mentally *sane*. It does not take a psychologist or psychiatrist to
notice
that. I am sorry to break this to you, and I really mean it.
*Please* see a psychiatrist.
and kind and nice.
Nobody claimed otherwise. Your personality is not the issue, but how you
communicate or rather fail to communicate.
The _soundness_ here is the key concept,
the _soundness_ for the _validity_, which
for example according to this kind of _language_
that I readily enjoin _mechanical reasoners_
to converge on not only its correctness yet
furthermore about the uniqueness.
Unfortunately, that is word salad again, and it does not get any
better in
the subsequent paragraphs.
My sentences are quite usually perfectly grammatical, [...]
No, they are not, on the contrary.
The kinetics and kinematics are matters of mechanics,
and different ones,
Yes.
one essentially linear the other essentially rotational,
No:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetics>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics>
Also "kinetic" is not the same as "kinetics", and "kinematic" is not the
same as "kinematics". You did not write "kinetics" which would make
sense
(in the right context); but, for example, "the kinetic" as a *noun* which
does not make any sense.
At least you cannot say that I have not tried to reason with you.
But I cannot afford to waste more precious free time this way.
Get well soon.
*PLONK*
I'll suggest that you have not reasoned _with_ me.
Instead you seem to think, or rather, it seems to me
you think, that reasoning _at_ is the same
as reasoning _with_.
Hm. Being that I'm not very familiar with psychiatrics,
or bariatrics or geriatrics, those sorts of collective nouns
reflecting "the study" or "the practice" of the field,
perhaps you might detail what works for you.
Rather than suggesting you're projecting, then I
wonder if you find that a usual coping mechanism,
to interpret or settle matters of dispute variously.
I saw a psychiatrist once, he let me go.
Though, the door's always open.
I'd suggest that any point of matters of reason
is addressed, and that you drop things like that
dark matter/energy falsifies the theories without,
and isn't measurable so is non-scientific itself,
it's a matter of being conscientious, or fair,
that matters of disagreement see a thorough debate,
and furthermore that for any two putative theories
that disagree, there's another that contains them
as examples and of all their involved definitions and
derivations, and where they are relevant to each other,
and where they are not.
May I ask, what's your problem?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:01:02 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,148 |