I feel it in me water that all of @Terry_Sampson’s pictures (hi Terry, I did accounts for 8 years too!), are driven by the need to deny the relativity of simultaneity. To deny the fact that there can be no such thing as objective, absolute reality, including a frame of reference, in nature at least.
Au contraire mon ami. My pictures are driven by my need to present some basic features of relativity to Pseudo-relativists and Wannabe-relativists and amuse myself with their floundering attempts to correct my understanding of the basic features. My efforts also provide me with an opportunity to express my disdain for those among the religious faithful who dare to imagine that God is a Relativist and has ordained that His subjects should be mini-Relativists, parroting phrases filled with relativistic nonsense.
Excuse me??? Bless your little heart.
And yours Sweetheart. What has relativism got to do with relativity? I’m not aware of any example where a physicist is described as a relativist in their post-doctoral trade. Please alleviate my boundless ignorance in that regard. And what has any of it got to do with God?
Now I’m confused. Are you critiquing me for alleged anti-relativism or for my self-acknowledged and unabashed anti-relativity? Who said that relativism and relativity are related, much less similar or the same? I didn’t. Although it’s very probable that I don’t know what you mean by “relativism”, I suspect it’s a red herring.
Neither am I. But so what? Would you happen to know of any physicists who espouse Neo-Lorentzian Relativity and are deemed or considered credible physicists by the majority of mainstream physcists? I don’t.
Any of what? relativism or relativity?
Yes. The any is the clue.
Which “any”? the first or the second?
If the first, I’d like to know who you have in mind.
If the latter, “Yes” is an odd answer to an “either/or question” and I don’t know how to respond. Got another clue?
No, you have enough to go on.
In your dreams.
You have to make allowances for Martin – we can’t all accede to be the paragon of rationality he presumes himself to be, along with a certain assumed mystique. 
Thanks for the heads up. Paragons I can live with; dealing with feminine mystique can be very stimulating, but dealing with male mystique is kind of like playing “whack-a-mole”.
1 Like
Yeah. You got a handful oh nuthin.
Later: You used the term relativist repeatedly you see Terry old stick. If you double click on the word, right click, eight down, this amazing thing will pop up on the right of your screen showing what it means. There’s nothing to be afraid of. Hiding under the bedclothes in your confusion really isn’t necessary.
Mystique is in the eye of the beholder, sailor. And it takes rationality to perceive that too ; )
Okay, I’ll bite. I clicked on the term “relativist” in your sentence, and got nothing, then I right-clicked on the word and this menu popped up.
“Eight down” is: “Inspect Accessibility Properties”. Now that I’ve followed your guidance into your mole hole, Mr. Mole, can you tell me where the heck we’re at?
Double click. Read for understanding mate.
Eureka! I think I have finally discovered the source of your “mystique”. You think “relativist” means something that differs from the manner in which I have consistently used the term in this thread and, being unwilling or unable to comprehend my use of it, rather than ask me to define the term, you’ve decided that there is only one way to use it: yours. That, IMO, is funny.
Here’s the title of a book written by Albert Einstein in 1916 and revised in 1924: Relativity: The Special and General Theory
I have no idea what word you would use for someone who accepts and believes “Relativity”, as Einstein uses the word. Me? I’d call such a person “a Relativist”, which has a history over 100 years old. And I’d call a person who reject’s Einstein’s Relativity, “an Anti-relativist”, which has a history at least 15 years old, if not more.
My guess is that you’d be mystified by the title of Eric Poisson’s book, published in 2004, A Relativist’s Toolkit.
Some day, see if you can lay your hands on a copy of Milena Wazeck’s book: Einstein’s Opponents: The Public Controversy about the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s . Translated by Geoffrey S. Koby. xxi + 355 pp., illus., bibl., index. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Then look through and find all the uses of the word "relativists’. Here’s the first instance, in the opening page of the Introduction (Page 1):
Prague, October 1913. Oskar Kraus, an associate professor of philosophy at the
German University, sends alarming letters to Ernst Gehrcke, a physicist at the Reich
Institute of Physics and Technology in Berlin: “People are suffering from extreme fatigue, and an irritability that is due not least to the absurd theories of the relativists. I have a burning desire to see the source of error revealed for all of the absurdities that you yourself, honored sir, have accurately characterized. I also see that you have already revealed internal contradictions and absurd consequences multiple times. But where is the source of error? Because despite my calculation errors, I am still able to recognize the fact that the theory of relativity is false.”
Consistently wrongly on your part. Translated usage from over 100 years ago isn’t recorded even as obsolete in any dictionary I can access. What about you?
Why do you need to give me the title of that book?
Einstein no more believed in relativity than Newton believed in gravitation. They are parsimonious rational facts born out by every experiment performed with regard to them to date.
My niece is doing that just now. She’s had a glass of wine. And then there’s the eructation. What’s yours about? What’s set you off?
Later. Just finished Engrenage. All 8 series. 15 years. Well worth the binge. Up there with Bosch. So what do you, an accountant, know that the greatest minds of the twentieth century don’t?
Our family doctor has a file filled with data on my wife. It might include BMI, blood type and other data from blood tests, some health history, and probably more. I don’t know…I don’t have access to that file and I don’t know any of those objective facts about her.
Who “knows her better”? The doctor or me?
If that was an attempt to explain the LIGO results, I think it falls drastically short. What you need to explain is how the interference pattern fluctuates in the LIGO experiments even though the velocity of the lab has not changed.