Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The first postulate is a truism.
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:45:37 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <103ds41$1ufdu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <cb971eee2e20fc0f69a1dadc4d899edd@www.novabbs.com> <10338b9$m1ka$1@dont-email.me> <1786a56f3c3f680197990cda9f3d3851@www.novabbs.com> <103615d$10qts$1@dont-email.me> <13f616da2e423d7ef29273c8778c62d1@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:45:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3fdcce268bc98759ad6ce4f513657deb";
	logging-data="2047422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/cl+0t/Nxa+8pKGslLhdVu"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vNL2dYR4bCbuDsospbhfQKFfjdg=

On 2025-06-23 21:29:39 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

> On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:22:37 +0000, Mikko wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-06-21 01:28:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 9:06:49 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2025-06-19 17:37:29 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Perplexity:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "The First Postulate of Special Relativity
>>>>> 
>>>>> Statement of the First Postulate
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first postulate of special relativity, also known as the principle
>>>>> of relativity, states:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
>>>>> reference."
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "truism
>>>>> /ˈtrˌizƏm/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
>>>>> or interesting. —truistic/trˈistik/ adj." -Oxford American.
>>>> 
>>>> The first postulate is not a truism. It is possible to imagine a world
>>>> where it is not true and to believe that we actually live in a such
>>>> world.
>>> Do you think it is warranted for critics to interpret the first
>>> postulate as including the assumption that all motion is relative?
>> 
>> That all motion is relative is a consequence of the first postulate.

> Then you equate the first postulate with an assertion that the aether
> does not exist? If all motion is relative to a stationary aether what
> motion is not relative?

It is not clear what "does not exist" actually means and how that could
be known. But Einstein clearly said that no aether is relevant to the
phenomena discussed in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

-- 
Mikko