Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The first postulate is a truism.
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 21:16:23 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <dea14ca700f12625a51187a06e37c738@www.novabbs.com>
References: <cb971eee2e20fc0f69a1dadc4d899edd@www.novabbs.com> <10338b9$m1ka$1@dont-email.me> <1rebyzy.1pjth4x1bl89p4N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <103b444$155i6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1755026"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$Gqv2UmFsb8LcdbBrHntJA.0gQ/FBmNtn6QPL.DGV3sRJFwENjPABW
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:43:48 +0000, Mikko wrote:

> On 2025-06-22 11:25:52 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> 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
>>>> /?tr?iz?m/  n. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new
>>>> or interesting. —truistic/tr?istik/ 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.
>>
>> Applying 'truism' to postulate is a category error anyway,
>> (but what do we expect from dear Laurence?)
>
> I think the (mistaken) idea was that if it is a truism it is wrong
> to call it a postulate.
I agree. It is mistaken to think a truism cannot be a postulate. Look at
the first postulate.