Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #578891 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-26 12:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 12:30 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan flunks basic exercise "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 12:38 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-26 20:50 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 21:25 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-26 22:02 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:16 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Effego Banos <uiwa@nntcpatc.jp> - 2022-02-27 12:59 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 21:25 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 15:58 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 16:01 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:42 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:45 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-27 16:42 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 08:07 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-27 17:20 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 08:22 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-27 18:11 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 15:29 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 09:16 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 00:17 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 16:22 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-27 02:22 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 18:35 -0800
Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 18:54 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 19:37 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 20:00 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 20:49 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 22:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:57 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 02:25 -0500
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:26 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:43 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:45 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:52 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:45 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 15:25 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 16:43 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 18:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 19:06 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:27 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-28 20:46 -0800
"Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 10:39 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 10:53 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 20:02 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 21:00 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 21:15 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 20:36 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 12:28 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-02 10:47 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 01:51 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-02 11:41 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-04 21:20 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 21:46 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-05 11:36 +0000
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-03-05 09:03 -0600
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 09:57 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-05 12:01 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 12:16 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-05 21:25 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 22:51 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 07:37 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-07 12:03 -0500
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 09:39 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:06 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-07 20:54 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-08 01:45 -0500
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 08:59 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 17:03 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 09:27 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 17:41 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 09:56 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 20:15 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 04:22 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 12:18 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 12:47 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 21:02 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 13:35 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 21:51 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 22:28 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 16:09 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 16:52 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 01:11 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 17:30 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 02:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 17:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:01 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:12 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 02:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:20 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 02:24 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:39 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 19:05 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 19:19 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 19:35 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 03:47 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:57 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 03:15 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 21:02 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 07:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 07:49 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 15:05 -0500
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 20:13 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-27 15:18 +0100
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:32 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-27 20:02 +0100
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:33 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:43 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:46 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:38 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 15:28 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 07:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 07:47 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:45 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:55 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 23:05 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 23:11 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 23:16 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 07:28 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:47 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 06:07 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-26 20:41 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 12:09 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:47 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:32 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-27 22:06 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 22:11 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-27 22:46 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-02-27 20:04 -0600
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-28 03:53 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 21:49 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-28 12:04 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-28 15:02 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 09:48 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 07:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <11fe47f7-8dc7-4053-8a20-9cb033224077n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579008 |
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:28:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:18:57 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> Den 27.02.2022 07:50, skrev patdolan: > >>>>> > >>>>> But rather than play around with Taylor & Wheeler's piddling little > >>>>> velocities, let soup up Mary's rocket so that it travels at my favorite > >>>>> velocity where gamma = 2. That would be 259820130 m/s. Now we can > >>>>> really see how badly the spacetime interval concept fails. > >>>> When you specify something with 9 significant digits, > >>>> all the digits should be correct. > >>>> v = 259627884 m/s > >>>>> > >>>>> Lets repeat the sti calculation from John's pov: > >>>>> > >>>>> Elapsed time from reference spark to fire extinguisher spark 2m away, > >>>>> for John is 7.6976x10-9 sec. So sqrt[(ct)^2 - 2^2] = 1.15128 > >>>> x = 2 m, t = x/v = 7.70333e-9 s, > >>>> > >>>> Since the spacetime interval is time like: > >>>> c⋅τ₁ = √((c⋅t)²- x²) = 1.15470 m > >>>> τ₁ = 3.85167 ns > >>>>> > >>>>> Elapsed time for ref spark to FE spark for Mary is 3.8488x10^-9 sec x c = 1.15128. > >>>> t' = γ(t - vx/c²) = 3.85167 ns > >>>>> > >>>>> So far, so Einstein. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now let's look at the situation from Mary's pov: > >>>>> > >>>>> Again Mary gets an sti of 1.15128 > >>>>> > >>>>> Looks good so far, but don't get your hopes up > >>>>> > >>>>> Now John's sti: (drum roll please) > >>>>> > >>>>> sqrt[(1m/259820130 m/s) x c)^2 - 1m^2] = .57564 > >>>> The distance from the tip of the antenna to > >>>> the tip of the antenna is 1 m? :-D > >>> > >>> Yes, it is, for John in Mary's frame. > >> What is it for Mary? > > Correction, the distance from the tip of the pen to the fire extinguisher > > is 1 m. In Mary's frame. Antenna to antenna is still zero in Mary's > > calculations. Please excuse. > This is the kind of casual mistake that following the book will help you > avoid. > > Notice that the focus of section 1.2 is on the spacetime coordinates of > EVENTS, instead of worrying about THINGS. Let’s do that so that these > little mistakes are less prevalent. Bodkin, I challenge you to show this forum, the world and its posterity exactly how Mary will calculate the spacetime intervals for John and herself between the two sparking events. Go. Same challenge to Paul, Paul#2 and Moroney. > >>>> > >>>> x' = 0 m, obviously! > >>>> > >>>> c⋅τ₂ = √((c⋅t')²- x'²) = c⋅t' = 1.15470 m > >>>> τ₂ = t' = 3.85167 ns > >>>>> > >>>>> Back to the drawing board Professor Minchumpski. > >>>>> > >>>>> So can anyone spot the problem here? > >>>> It's glaring obvious. > >>>> The distance between a point and the same point is 1m. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Paul > >>>> > >>>> https://paulba.no/ > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 07:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <ba6840d5-9d26-4ed1-9b70-e5e0abf64621n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579011 |
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:45:00 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:28:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:18:57 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >>>> Den 27.02.2022 07:50, skrev patdolan: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> But rather than play around with Taylor & Wheeler's piddling little > > >>>>> velocities, let soup up Mary's rocket so that it travels at my favorite > > >>>>> velocity where gamma = 2. That would be 259820130 m/s. Now we can > > >>>>> really see how badly the spacetime interval concept fails. > > >>>> When you specify something with 9 significant digits, > > >>>> all the digits should be correct. > > >>>> v = 259627884 m/s > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Lets repeat the sti calculation from John's pov: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Elapsed time from reference spark to fire extinguisher spark 2m away, > > >>>>> for John is 7.6976x10-9 sec. So sqrt[(ct)^2 - 2^2] = 1.15128 > > >>>> x = 2 m, t = x/v = 7.70333e-9 s, > > >>>> > > >>>> Since the spacetime interval is time like: > > >>>> c⋅τ₁ = √((c⋅t)²- x²) = 1.15470 m > > >>>> τ₁ = 3.85167 ns > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Elapsed time for ref spark to FE spark for Mary is 3.8488x10^-9 sec x c = 1.15128. > > >>>> t' = γ(t - vx/c²) = 3.85167 ns > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So far, so Einstein. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Now let's look at the situation from Mary's pov: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Again Mary gets an sti of 1.15128 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Looks good so far, but don't get your hopes up > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Now John's sti: (drum roll please) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> sqrt[(1m/259820130 m/s) x c)^2 - 1m^2] = .57564 > > >>>> The distance from the tip of the antenna to > > >>>> the tip of the antenna is 1 m? :-D > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it is, for John in Mary's frame. > > >> What is it for Mary? > > > Correction, the distance from the tip of the pen to the fire extinguisher > > > is 1 m. In Mary's frame. Antenna to antenna is still zero in Mary's > > > calculations. Please excuse. > > This is the kind of casual mistake that following the book will help you > > avoid. > > > > Notice that the focus of section 1.2 is on the spacetime coordinates of > > EVENTS, instead of worrying about THINGS. Let’s do that so that these > > little mistakes are less prevalent. > Bodkin, I challenge you to show this forum, the world and its posterity exactly how Mary will calculate the spacetime intervals for John and herself between the two sparking events. Go. > > Same challenge to Paul, Paul#2 and Moroney. Sylvia too. > > >>>> > > >>>> x' = 0 m, obviously! > > >>>> > > >>>> c⋅τ₂ = √((c⋅t')²- x'²) = c⋅t' = 1.15470 m > > >>>> τ₂ = t' = 3.85167 ns > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Back to the drawing board Professor Minchumpski. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So can anyone spot the problem here? > > >>>> It's glaring obvious. > > >>>> The distance between a point and the same point is 1m. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Paul > > >>>> > > >>>> https://paulba.no/ > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 19:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <svgkc4$3ue$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579011 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:28:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:18:57 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>>> Den 27.02.2022 07:50, skrev patdolan: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But rather than play around with Taylor & Wheeler's piddling little >>>>>>> velocities, let soup up Mary's rocket so that it travels at my favorite >>>>>>> velocity where gamma = 2. That would be 259820130 m/s. Now we can >>>>>>> really see how badly the spacetime interval concept fails. >>>>>> When you specify something with 9 significant digits, >>>>>> all the digits should be correct. >>>>>> v = 259627884 m/s >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lets repeat the sti calculation from John's pov: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Elapsed time from reference spark to fire extinguisher spark 2m away, >>>>>>> for John is 7.6976x10-9 sec. So sqrt[(ct)^2 - 2^2] = 1.15128 >>>>>> x = 2 m, t = x/v = 7.70333e-9 s, >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the spacetime interval is time like: >>>>>> c⋅τ₁ = √((c⋅t)²- x²) = 1.15470 m >>>>>> τ₁ = 3.85167 ns >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Elapsed time for ref spark to FE spark for Mary is 3.8488x10^-9 sec x c = 1.15128. >>>>>> t' = γ(t - vx/c²) = 3.85167 ns >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far, so Einstein. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now let's look at the situation from Mary's pov: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again Mary gets an sti of 1.15128 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks good so far, but don't get your hopes up >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now John's sti: (drum roll please) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sqrt[(1m/259820130 m/s) x c)^2 - 1m^2] = .57564 >>>>>> The distance from the tip of the antenna to >>>>>> the tip of the antenna is 1 m? :-D >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it is, for John in Mary's frame. >>>> What is it for Mary? >>> Correction, the distance from the tip of the pen to the fire extinguisher >>> is 1 m. In Mary's frame. Antenna to antenna is still zero in Mary's >>> calculations. Please excuse. >> This is the kind of casual mistake that following the book will help you >> avoid. >> >> Notice that the focus of section 1.2 is on the spacetime coordinates of >> EVENTS, instead of worrying about THINGS. Let’s do that so that these >> little mistakes are less prevalent. > > Bodkin, I challenge you to show this forum, the world and its posterity > exactly how Mary will calculate the spacetime intervals for John and > herself between the two sparking events. Go. The calculations for the spacetime intervals between the two sparking events are right there in Table 1-4 in Section 1.2 of the book we’re using. It uses the numbers from Table 1-3. What part of this don’t you follow? The pen spark coordinates for both John and Mary are listed there. Do you see them? > > Same challenge to Paul, Paul#2 and Moroney. >>>>>> >>>>>> x' = 0 m, obviously! >>>>>> >>>>>> c⋅τ₂ = √((c⋅t')²- x'²) = c⋅t' = 1.15470 m >>>>>> τ₂ = t' = 3.85167 ns >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Back to the drawing board Professor Minchumpski. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So can anyone spot the problem here? >>>>>> It's glaring obvious. >>>>>> The distance between a point and the same point is 1m. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> https://paulba.no/ >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 06:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <1587e179-c8c6-449b-ab21-56f4e27c0219n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578995 |
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:33:18 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:18:57 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 27.02.2022 07:50, skrev patdolan: > > > > > > But rather than play around with Taylor & Wheeler's piddling little velocities, let soup up Mary's rocket so that it travels at my favorite velocity where gamma = 2. That would be 259820130 m/s. Now we can really see how badly the spacetime interval concept fails. > > When you specify something with 9 significant digits, > > all the digits should be correct. > > v = 259627884 m/s > > > > > > Lets repeat the sti calculation from John's pov: > > > > > > Elapsed time from reference spark to fire extinguisher spark 2m away, for John is 7.6976x10-9 sec. So sqrt[(ct)^2 - 2^2] = 1.15128 > > x = 2 m, t = x/v = 7.70333e-9 s, > > > > Since the spacetime interval is time like: > > c⋅τ₁ = √((c⋅t)²- x²) = 1.15470 m > > τ₁ = 3.85167 ns > > > > > > Elapsed time for ref spark to FE spark for Mary is 3.8488x10^-9 sec x c = 1.15128. > > t' = γ(t - vx/c²) = 3.85167 ns > > > > > > So far, so Einstein. > > > > > > Now let's look at the situation from Mary's pov: > > > > > > Again Mary gets an sti of 1.15128 > > > > > > Looks good so far, but don't get your hopes up > > > > > > Now John's sti: (drum roll please) > > > > > > sqrt[(1m/259820130 m/s) x c)^2 - 1m^2] = .57564 > > The distance from the tip of the antenna to > > the tip of the antenna is 1 m? :-D > Yes, it is, for John in Mary's frame. Correction, the distance from the tip of the pen to the fire extinguisher is 1 m. In Mary's frame. Antenna to antenna is still zero in Mary's calculations. Please excuse. > > > > x' = 0 m, obviously! > > > > c⋅τ₂ = √((c⋅t')²- x'²) = c⋅t' = 1.15470 m > > τ₂ = t' = 3.85167 ns > > > > > > Back to the drawing board Professor Minchumpski. > > > > > > So can anyone spot the problem here? > > It's glaring obvious. > > The distance between a point and the same point is 1m. > > > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-26 22:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <5add9e1e-0b83-4f9d-acd0-d99d38e32effn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578945 |
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan persevered: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:00:47 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 7:37:04 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan insertedd both his feet into his mouth: > > > We already know from the principle of relativity that this new elapsed time must be less than Mary's elapsed time. > > > > > Nope. Cretin. > I'll accept that Dono. Even though it's wrong according to the Lorentz transforms. But let's run with it. According to the calculations on table 1-4 on page 7, the new spacetime interval for the Laboratory is not going to turn out to be 9.9m: > > 102.010 m^2 - 3.87168238501 m^2 = 98.138317615 m^2 = 9.9065m > That is because you are both a liar and an imbecile. You are a liar because Table 1-4 clearly shows that the two spacetime intervals are the same. You are an imbecile because the time and space intervals are not simply divided by gamma, this is an idiocy that most cranks (you and Richard Hertz) do routinely. You need to use the full Lorentz transforms: x'=gamma(x-vt) t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) that means that the space interval is: dx'=gamma(dx-vdt) The time interval is: dt'=gamma(dt-vdx/c^2) Therefore : (cdt')^2-dx'^2=gamma^2[(c^2(dt-vdx/c^2)^2-(dx-vdt)^2)] If you do all the algebra in the right term (something that you cannot do being a cretin) one gets: (cdt')^2-dx'^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2 > The above space time interval for John is no longer the same as for Mary. That is because you are a liar and an imbecile >Why don't you try shortening John's elapsed time by 1/gamma and see if that helps, Dono. Why don't you go eat some more shit. Your fellow crank Richard Hertz is waiting for you to dine together.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-26 23:05 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <de5aab77-4df8-4123-a197-0cbb160338d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578952 |
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan persevered: > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:00:47 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 7:37:04 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan insertedd both his feet into his mouth: > > > > We already know from the principle of relativity that this new elapsed time must be less than Mary's elapsed time. > > > > > > > Nope. Cretin. > > I'll accept that Dono. Even though it's wrong according to the Lorentz transforms. But let's run with it. According to the calculations on table 1-4 on page 7, the new spacetime interval for the Laboratory is not going to turn out to be 9.9m: > > > > 102.010 m^2 - 3.87168238501 m^2 = 98.138317615 m^2 = 9.9065m > > > That is because you are both a liar and an imbecile. > You are a liar because Table 1-4 clearly shows that the two spacetime intervals are the same. > You are an imbecile because the time and space intervals are not simply divided by gamma, this is an idiocy that most cranks (you and Richard Hertz) do routinely. You need to use the full Lorentz transforms: > > x'=gamma(x-vt) > t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) > > that means that the space interval is: > > dx'=gamma(dx-vdt) > > The time interval is: > > dt'=gamma(dt-vdx/c^2) > > Therefore : > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=gamma^2[(c^2(dt-vdx/c^2)^2-(dx-vdt)^2)] > > If you do all the algebra in the right term (something that you cannot do being a cretin) one gets: > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2 > > The above space time interval for John is no longer the same as for Mary. > That is because you are a liar and an imbecile > >Why don't you try shortening John's elapsed time by 1/gamma and see if that helps, Dono. > Why don't you go eat some more shit. Your fellow crank Richard Hertz is waiting for you to dine together. Dono, you algebra is wrong. Don't believe me? Then try to make all 4 sti's equal using 2m in the lab frame and v=.867c. I dare you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-26 23:11 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <a13a9b86-c7bf-41d2-8922-6e4b3062f97an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578954 |
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan kept eating shit: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan persevered: > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:00:47 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 7:37:04 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan insertedd both his feet into his mouth: > > > > > We already know from the principle of relativity that this new elapsed time must be less than Mary's elapsed time. > > > > > > > > > Nope. Cretin. > > > I'll accept that Dono. Even though it's wrong according to the Lorentz transforms. But let's run with it. According to the calculations on table 1-4 on page 7, the new spacetime interval for the Laboratory is not going to turn out to be 9.9m: > > > > > > 102.010 m^2 - 3.87168238501 m^2 = 98.138317615 m^2 = 9.9065m > > > > > That is because you are both a liar and an imbecile. > > You are a liar because Table 1-4 clearly shows that the two spacetime intervals are the same. > > You are an imbecile because the time and space intervals are not simply divided by gamma, this is an idiocy that most cranks (you and Richard Hertz) do routinely. You need to use the full Lorentz transforms: > > > > x'=gamma(x-vt) > > t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) > > > > that means that the space interval is: > > > > dx'=gamma(dx-vdt) > > > > The time interval is: > > > > dt'=gamma(dt-vdx/c^2) > > > > Therefore : > > > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=gamma^2[(c^2(dt-vdx/c^2)^2-(dx-vdt)^2)] > > > > If you do all the algebra in the right term (something that you cannot do being a cretin) one gets: > > > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2 > > > The above space time interval for John is no longer the same as for Mary. > > That is because you are a liar and an imbecile > > >Why don't you try shortening John's elapsed time by 1/gamma and see if that helps, Dono. > > Why don't you go eat some more shit. Your fellow crank Richard Hertz is waiting for you to dine together. > Dono, you algebra is wrong. It is not "my" algebra, it is the TEXTBOOK SR algebra. > Don't believe me? Nope, you are a cretin and a liar. Both incurable. Keep basking in your imbecility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-26 23:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <6f48dc6b-5dc6-4185-adcd-00ea617a84f9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578955 |
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:11:29 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan kept eating shit: > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan persevered: > > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:00:47 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 7:37:04 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan insertedd both his feet into his mouth: > > > > > > We already know from the principle of relativity that this new elapsed time must be less than Mary's elapsed time. > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Cretin. > > > > I'll accept that Dono. Even though it's wrong according to the Lorentz transforms. But let's run with it. According to the calculations on table 1-4 on page 7, the new spacetime interval for the Laboratory is not going to turn out to be 9.9m: > > > > > > > > 102.010 m^2 - 3.87168238501 m^2 = 98.138317615 m^2 = 9.9065m > > > > > > > That is because you are both a liar and an imbecile. > > > You are a liar because Table 1-4 clearly shows that the two spacetime intervals are the same. > > > You are an imbecile because the time and space intervals are not simply divided by gamma, this is an idiocy that most cranks (you and Richard Hertz) do routinely. You need to use the full Lorentz transforms: > > > > > > x'=gamma(x-vt) > > > t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) > > > > > > that means that the space interval is: > > > > > > dx'=gamma(dx-vdt) > > > > > > The time interval is: > > > > > > dt'=gamma(dt-vdx/c^2) > > > > > > Therefore : > > > > > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=gamma^2[(c^2(dt-vdx/c^2)^2-(dx-vdt)^2)] > > > > > > If you do all the algebra in the right term (something that you cannot do being a cretin) one gets: > > > > > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2 > > > > The above space time interval for John is no longer the same as for Mary. > > > That is because you are a liar and an imbecile > > > >Why don't you try shortening John's elapsed time by 1/gamma and see if that helps, Dono. > > > Why don't you go eat some more shit. Your fellow crank Richard Hertz is waiting for you to dine together. > > Dono, you algebra is wrong. > It is not "my" algebra, it is the TEXTBOOK SR algebra. > > > > > > Don't believe me? > > Nope, you are a cretin and a liar. Both incurable. Keep basking in your imbecility. Like Starmaker told you, Dono, this is no way to address the MWBTSTI (man who broke the spacetime interval)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 07:28 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <1322bab1-a9f6-40ca-83c8-a5d0ee2d8bd1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578956 |
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:16:28 PM UTC-8, delusional cretin patdolan wrote: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:11:29 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:05:57 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan kept eating shit: > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan persevered: > > > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:00:47 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 7:37:04 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan insertedd both his feet into his mouth: > > > > > > > We already know from the principle of relativity that this new elapsed time must be less than Mary's elapsed time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Cretin. > > > > > I'll accept that Dono. Even though it's wrong according to the Lorentz transforms. But let's run with it. According to the calculations on table 1-4 on page 7, the new spacetime interval for the Laboratory is not going to turn out to be 9.9m: > > > > > > > > > > 102.010 m^2 - 3.87168238501 m^2 = 98.138317615 m^2 = 9.9065m > > > > > > > > > That is because you are both a liar and an imbecile. > > > > You are a liar because Table 1-4 clearly shows that the two spacetime intervals are the same. > > > > You are an imbecile because the time and space intervals are not simply divided by gamma, this is an idiocy that most cranks (you and Richard Hertz) do routinely. You need to use the full Lorentz transforms: > > > > > > > > x'=gamma(x-vt) > > > > t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) > > > > > > > > that means that the space interval is: > > > > > > > > dx'=gamma(dx-vdt) > > > > > > > > The time interval is: > > > > > > > > dt'=gamma(dt-vdx/c^2) > > > > > > > > Therefore : > > > > > > > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=gamma^2[(c^2(dt-vdx/c^2)^2-(dx-vdt)^2)] > > > > > > > > If you do all the algebra in the right term (something that you cannot do being a cretin) one gets: > > > > > > > > (cdt')^2-dx'^2=(cdt)^2-dx^2 > > > > > The above space time interval for John is no longer the same as for Mary. > > > > That is because you are a liar and an imbecile > > > > >Why don't you try shortening John's elapsed time by 1/gamma and see if that helps, Dono. > > > > Why don't you go eat some more shit. Your fellow crank Richard Hertz is waiting for you to dine together. > > > Dono, you algebra is wrong. > > It is not "my" algebra, it is the TEXTBOOK SR algebra. > > > > > > > > > > > Don't believe me? > > > > Nope, you are a cretin and a liar. Both incurable. Keep basking in your imbecility. > Like Starmaker told you, Dono, this is no way to address the MWBTSTI (man who broke the spacetime interval) Pattycakes, You are the CRETIN who thought that.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 13:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <svfvec$1fko$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #578939 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:35:17 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: >> do you guys smell something? >> >> Yes, you are full of shit , Pattycakes. So , you stink. > > I would like to proceed to reconstruct the calculations in Taylor & > Wheeler Table 1-4 on page 7. We have a new distance for the distance > between the reference spark and the fire extinguisher spark according to > Mary. That distance is > > 2.000000 meters x 1/gamma = 2.00000000 x 0.9838295565 = 1.96765911301 meters. No, Pat. Let’s remove your hand from the food processor and actually look at what the book says. > > If the reader is dedicated to the principle of relativity then we also > have a new elapsed time between the reference spark and the fire > extinguisher spark, which still needs to be calculated. We already know > from the principle of relativity that this new elapsed time must be less > than Mary's elapsed time. The reader of this book has not been introduced to anything called the principle of relativity, and is certainly not going to jump to conclusions other than what’s written there. Please note that the time that Mary notes between the sparks is 33.0228 ns. The time that John reports to Mary about the time between the sparks is 33.6900 ns. What does Mary say when John reports his time, which is greater than Mary’s? She says, “OK”. She does NOT say what Pat Dolan says (hand in food processor), “But moving clocks run slow! And John’s clock is moving relative to Mary!” Mary has not been told anything stupid like “Moving clocks run slow” and so she notes that John’s time between these events is indeed longer than her time. She does NOT say what Pat Dolan says (tongue in toaster), “But t=t’/gamma!” Mary has not been given that rule and certainly hasn’t been told the conditions under which that rule applies, and so she notes that John’s time between the events is indeed longer than her time. What John and Mary do both notice are three things: 1. The person for whom the events happened at the same place does measure the shortest time between them. Mary’s time is shorter than John’s time, and for Mary the two events happened in the same place. 2. The interval, as calculated in Table 1-1, yields the same number always between the same pair of events. 3. If Mary were ambitious, she would be able to calculate how far John moved in her frame during the time between the two spark events. It’s simply d=vt = (5.9365*10^7 m/s)(33.0228*10^-9 s) = 1.9604 m. This is different than the 2 meters that John reported as the distance between the sparks, but that’s irrelevant, because John isn’t at both spark events and so how far he moves isn’t saying anything about the distance between the events in Mary’s frame. In Mary’s frame, the two events happen in the same place; there is no distance between them. This is a reminder to Mary (and hopefully to Pat Dolan) to keep track of which events we’re talking about here. (Pat’s memory is tickled about something Townes said about different pairs of events.) Now, Pat, at the end of section 1.2 is a worked example with an even faster rocket. Do you have any questions about the answers worked in that example? > > Quite ironic, isn't it. After all these years of urging me to walk to > the library and get a book, I go get the very book Bodkin suggests and > now it is turning out to be his and relativity's downfall. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 06:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <fe363384-736f-4ba9-989a-197236e85d12n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578985 |
On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 14:48:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:35:17 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: > >> do you guys smell something? > >> > >> Yes, you are full of shit , Pattycakes. So , you stink. > > > > I would like to proceed to reconstruct the calculations in Taylor & > > Wheeler Table 1-4 on page 7. We have a new distance for the distance > > between the reference spark and the fire extinguisher spark according to > > Mary. That distance is > > > > 2.000000 meters x 1/gamma = 2.00000000 x 0.9838295565 = 1.96765911301 meters. > No, Pat. > > Let’s remove your hand from the food processor and actually look at what > the book says. > > > > If the reader is dedicated to the principle of relativity then we also > > have a new elapsed time between the reference spark and the fire > > extinguisher spark, which still needs to be calculated. We already know > > from the principle of relativity that this new elapsed time must be less > > than Mary's elapsed time. > The reader of this book has not been introduced to anything called the > principle of relativity, and is certainly not going to jump to conclusions > other than what’s written there. > > Please note that the time that Mary notes between the sparks is 33.0228 ns. > The time that John reports to Mary about the time between the sparks is > 33.6900 ns. What does Mary say when John reports his time, which is greater > than Mary’s? She says, “OK”. > > She does NOT say what Pat Dolan says (hand in food processor), “But moving > clocks run slow! And John’s clock is moving relative to Mary!” Mary has not > been told anything stupid like “Moving clocks run slow” and so she notes > that John’s time between these events is indeed longer than her time. > > She does NOT say what Pat Dolan says (tongue in toaster), “But t=t’/gamma!” > Mary has not been given that rule and certainly hasn’t been told the > conditions under which that rule applies, and so she notes that John’s time > between the events is indeed longer than her time. > > What John and Mary do both notice are three things: > > 1. The person for whom the events happened at the same place does measure > the shortest time between them. Mary’s time is shorter than John’s time, > and for Mary the two events happened in the same place. > > 2. The interval, as calculated in Table 1-1, yields the same number always > between the same pair of events. > > 3. If Mary were ambitious, she would be able to calculate how far John > moved in her frame during the time between the two spark events. It’s > simply d=vt = (5.9365*10^7 m/s)(33.0228*10^-9 s) = 1.9604 m. This is > different than the 2 meters that John reported as the distance between the > sparks, but that’s irrelevant, because John isn’t at both spark events and > so how far he moves isn’t saying anything about the distance between the > events in Mary’s frame. In Mary’s frame, the two events happen in the same > place; there is no distance between them. This is a reminder to Mary (and > hopefully to Pat Dolan) to keep track of which events we’re talking about > here. (Pat’s memory is tickled about something Townes said about different > pairs of events.) The problem is - that both John and Mary exists only in the delusions of a brainwashed fanatic idiot, and the real observation of real people didn't have anything in common with relativistic mumble even in Galileo's time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-26 20:41 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <621B0104.2990@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #578937 |
Dono. wrote: > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:35:17 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: > do you guys smell something? > > Yes, you are full of shit , Pattycakes. So , you stink. dat is a nono dono I'm sure you don't want your neighbors to know you talk that way to pat. what happens if your neighbors find out they are living next to an insane person in the house? how can they sleep at night knowing you're foaming at the mouth... what are those strange sounds coming out of your house? eeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svfplb$q93$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #578934 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 5:22:03 PM UTC-8, Python wrote: >> patdolan wrote: >> ... >>> You also seem to be forgetting that I am the Man Who Broke Arithmetic >>> and who formulated the Lorentz Contraction Velocity formula and who >>> discovered the Einstein One, Kepler Three contradiction. You sound as >>> if it is YOU who are the teacher here instead of ME. What have you ever >>> discovered or formulated?? >> Oh come on! Pat, how can you be so deluded? You broke nothing, you >> formulated nothing, you are only a laughing stock like Maciej, Ken, >> Pentcho, Richard (both of them), etc. > > Thank you Python for volunteering to stand in for the cowardly Bodkin. > > Let's check in once again with Taylor and Wheeler to confirm Mary's elapsed time: > > "Mary measures a slightly different value for the time lapse between the > two sparks, 33.0228 nanoseconds." -- Taylor & Wheeler > > In our new scenario where John is flying past Mary, John's elapsed time > between the two sparks will be less than Mary's by a factor of 1/gamma > because that's what relativity says it will be. No it doesn’t. The time between the > That is exactly the factor by which Mary's elapsed time was less than > John's in the original scenario. So we know it is correct....wait a > minute...do you guys smell something? Can it be? Yes, I can definitely > detect the scent of recursion. How thick is this recursion smoke going > to get? Stay tuned. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svfvee$1fko$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #578969 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 5:22:03 PM UTC-8, Python wrote: >>> patdolan wrote: >>> ... >>>> You also seem to be forgetting that I am the Man Who Broke Arithmetic >>>> and who formulated the Lorentz Contraction Velocity formula and who >>>> discovered the Einstein One, Kepler Three contradiction. You sound as >>>> if it is YOU who are the teacher here instead of ME. What have you ever >>>> discovered or formulated?? >>> Oh come on! Pat, how can you be so deluded? You broke nothing, you >>> formulated nothing, you are only a laughing stock like Maciej, Ken, >>> Pentcho, Richard (both of them), etc. >> >> Thank you Python for volunteering to stand in for the cowardly Bodkin. >> >> Let's check in once again with Taylor and Wheeler to confirm Mary's elapsed time: >> >> "Mary measures a slightly different value for the time lapse between the >> two sparks, 33.0228 nanoseconds." -- Taylor & Wheeler >> >> In our new scenario where John is flying past Mary, John's elapsed time >> between the two sparks will be less than Mary's by a factor of 1/gamma >> because that's what relativity says it will be. > No, relativity doesn’t say that, Pat. Relativity says what’s in the book, that Mary acknowledges that John’s time is 33.6900 ns, which is larger than Mary’s time of 33.0228 ns. If you had the impression that Mary should insist that John’s time is smaller than Mary’s because “moving clocks run slow” or that “t=t’/gamma is the Lorentz transform”, then that impression is wrong, and that’s why we are going through an actual book that describes what relativity actually says. Now, do you want to proceed understanding what a relativity actually says, following the recipe, or are you still obsessed with putting you hand in the food processor and your tongue in the toaster on a quest to be The Man Who Broke Cooking? > >> That is exactly the factor by which Mary's elapsed time was less than >> John's in the original scenario. So we know it is correct....wait a >> minute...do you guys smell something? Can it be? Yes, I can definitely >> detect the scent of recursion. How thick is this recursion smoke going >> to get? Stay tuned. >> >> >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-26 22:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f5c0d3a5-65ef-4fde-916f-c20134144349n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578931 |
On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 02:22:03 UTC+1, Python wrote: > patdolan wrote: > ... > > You also seem to be forgetting that I am the Man Who Broke Arithmetic and who formulated the Lorentz Contraction Velocity formula and who discovered the Einstein One, Kepler Three contradiction. You sound as if it is YOU who are the teacher here instead of ME. What have you ever discovered or formulated?? > Oh come on! Pat, how can you be so deluded? You broke nothing, you Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again. Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, it has to be formulable in the language of the theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for thaty, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svfu7k$tq5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #578927 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:22:52 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:17:32 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:25:26 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> Bodkin my boy, let's get the preliminaries out of the way. First, I >>>>>> didn't find the parable of the surveyor, section 1.1 of Taylor & Wheeler >>>>>> Spacetime Physics >>>>>> (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) to >>>>>> be very allegoric nor very metaphoric to special relativity. >>>>> There’s more there than you think. The surveyor parable includes the >>>>> invariance with coordinate transformation — a Euclidean rotation no less. >>>>> This has direct relation to the boost, which is a hyperbolic rotation. Your >>>>> little version lacks those elements. >>>>>> My own balloon version of the parable would have been far more illustrative. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I did find section 1.2 to be a suitable ground on which to carry out >>>>>> our much anticipated duel. >>>>>> >>>>>> In sec. 1.2 we find the rocket-riding Mary whizzing past the >>>>>> pen-in-pocket John who is standing in the laboratory door. Sparks fly >>>>>> between Mary & John, the story tells us. Taylor & Wheeler assure us that >>>>>> John accurately measures 33.6900 x 10^-9 seconds between the first and >>>>>> second spark (see the text) Whilst Mary accurately measures only 33.0228 >>>>>> x 10^-9 secs between the two spark events. >>>>>> >>>>>> Taking the ratio of these two time intervals and then applying the >>>>>> Lorentz transforms, I calculate that John and Mary share a relative >>>>>> velocity of 5.91 x 10^7 m/s between them. Do you accept this result, >>>>>> sir? If not, then what is your value of the relative velocity between >>>>>> Taylor & Wheeler's two lovers? >>>>> First of all, you are confused on what the Lorentz transform is. You refer >>>>> to delta(t’) = gamma*delta(t). That’s not the Lorentz transform. >>>>> >>>>> Second, you have much simpler information available to you. John has a >>>>> straightforward time of flight measurement. Mary’s antenna moves 2.0000 >>>>> meters in 33.6900*10^-9 seconds. That means Mary’s speed relative to John >>>>> is 5.3695*10^7 meters/second. >>>>> >>>>> This will also be the speed of John past Mary. >>>>> >>>>> Now here’s an interesting question. For Mary, the two sparks happen at the >>>>> same location: the tip of her antenna. For her, the time between them is >>>>> 33.0228*10^-9 seconds. So how far does John move between those two spark >>>>> events, according to Mary? >>>>> >>>>> Note that those two locations for John are NOT the two spark events. The >>>>> two spark events do not both happen where John stands. >>>> >>>> I am asking all the questions for the time being, Bodkin. >>>> >>>> Taylor and Wheeler have observed the interaction of the two lovers from >>>> the standpoint of John. This may be a controversial and hard saying for >>>> many. But it is true, as we shall see. >>>> >>>> Let us now apply the principle of relativity, which states that there are >>>> no privileged co-moving coordinate systems. We now find Mary at rest >>>> when the lab with her lover John in the doorway comes flying past her at >>>> 5.3695*10^7 meters/second. First we will calculate the distance between >>>> the pocket pen near her lover's heart and the fire extinguisher, according to Mary: >>> Let’s not jump ahead, shall we? What you’re trying to do is a later >>> chapter. The point of this section is just about two events and the >>> interval between them. As I asked, do you have any questions about the >>> actual content if this section? There is no gamma mentioned anywhere there. >>> >>> >>> And if we are going to discuss this chapter together, we are going to take >>> turns asking questions of each other and answering what the other has >>> asked. >>> >>> I answered you’re earlier question and asked you one. Do me the good grace >>> to participate evenly. >> This is not a colloquy Bodkin. I have already made it clear that this is >> a duel. And a greatly anticipated one to boot. I know your tells, >> Bodkin. You are beginning to quail in fear at the prospect of what lies >> ahead for you. If you have already had enough and your honor has be >> satisfied then fire your shot into the air and walk off the field. I >> will continue with another duelist. Perhaps Townes. > > You also seem to be forgetting that I am the Man Who Broke Arithmetic and > who formulated the Lorentz Contraction Velocity formula and who > discovered the Einstein One, Kepler Three contradiction. You sound as if > it is YOU who are the teacher here instead of ME. What have you ever > discovered or formulated?? I’m not teaching you anything. We’re both looking at a book that aims to teach both of us. Are you not interested in going through the book? Or are you only interested in sticking your tongue in the toaster and running your thumb against chef’s knife blades? >>>> >>>> 2.000000 meters x 1/gamma = 2.00000000 x 0.9838295565 = 1.96765911301 meters. >>>> >>>> Let's square that for use as Mary's x^2 component when she performs her >>>> spacetime interval calculation. We get 3.871682385 meters^2. >>>> >>>> Do you agree with this Bodkin? >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svfu7j$tq5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #578926 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:17:32 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:25:26 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> Bodkin my boy, let's get the preliminaries out of the way. First, I >>>>> didn't find the parable of the surveyor, section 1.1 of Taylor & Wheeler >>>>> Spacetime Physics >>>>> (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) to >>>>> be very allegoric nor very metaphoric to special relativity. >>>> There’s more there than you think. The surveyor parable includes the >>>> invariance with coordinate transformation — a Euclidean rotation no less. >>>> This has direct relation to the boost, which is a hyperbolic rotation. Your >>>> little version lacks those elements. >>>>> My own balloon version of the parable would have been far more illustrative. >>>>> >>>>> But I did find section 1.2 to be a suitable ground on which to carry out >>>>> our much anticipated duel. >>>>> >>>>> In sec. 1.2 we find the rocket-riding Mary whizzing past the >>>>> pen-in-pocket John who is standing in the laboratory door. Sparks fly >>>>> between Mary & John, the story tells us. Taylor & Wheeler assure us that >>>>> John accurately measures 33.6900 x 10^-9 seconds between the first and >>>>> second spark (see the text) Whilst Mary accurately measures only 33.0228 >>>>> x 10^-9 secs between the two spark events. >>>>> >>>>> Taking the ratio of these two time intervals and then applying the >>>>> Lorentz transforms, I calculate that John and Mary share a relative >>>>> velocity of 5.91 x 10^7 m/s between them. Do you accept this result, >>>>> sir? If not, then what is your value of the relative velocity between >>>>> Taylor & Wheeler's two lovers? >>>> First of all, you are confused on what the Lorentz transform is. You refer >>>> to delta(t’) = gamma*delta(t). That’s not the Lorentz transform. >>>> >>>> Second, you have much simpler information available to you. John has a >>>> straightforward time of flight measurement. Mary’s antenna moves 2.0000 >>>> meters in 33.6900*10^-9 seconds. That means Mary’s speed relative to John >>>> is 5.3695*10^7 meters/second. >>>> >>>> This will also be the speed of John past Mary. >>>> >>>> Now here’s an interesting question. For Mary, the two sparks happen at the >>>> same location: the tip of her antenna. For her, the time between them is >>>> 33.0228*10^-9 seconds. So how far does John move between those two spark >>>> events, according to Mary? >>>> >>>> Note that those two locations for John are NOT the two spark events. The >>>> two spark events do not both happen where John stands. >>> >>> I am asking all the questions for the time being, Bodkin. >>> >>> Taylor and Wheeler have observed the interaction of the two lovers from >>> the standpoint of John. This may be a controversial and hard saying for >>> many. But it is true, as we shall see. >>> >>> Let us now apply the principle of relativity, which states that there are >>> no privileged co-moving coordinate systems. We now find Mary at rest >>> when the lab with her lover John in the doorway comes flying past her at >>> 5.3695*10^7 meters/second. First we will calculate the distance between >>> the pocket pen near her lover's heart and the fire extinguisher, according to Mary: >> Let’s not jump ahead, shall we? What you’re trying to do is a later >> chapter. The point of this section is just about two events and the >> interval between them. As I asked, do you have any questions about the >> actual content if this section? There is no gamma mentioned anywhere there. >> >> >> And if we are going to discuss this chapter together, we are going to take >> turns asking questions of each other and answering what the other has >> asked. >> >> I answered you’re earlier question and asked you one. Do me the good grace >> to participate evenly. > > This is not a colloquy Bodkin. I have already made it clear that this is > a duel. And a greatly anticipated one to boot. I know your tells, > Bodkin. You are beginning to quail in fear at the prospect of what lies > ahead for you. If you have already had enough and your honor has be > satisfied then fire your shot into the air and walk off the field. I > will continue with another duelist. Perhaps Townes. Pat, we are in a kitchen, following a recipe in a book to make a meal together. You do no good to the process by sticking your hand into a plugged-in food processor, boasting to me how you are The Man Who Broke Cooking and you’re about to show me how. Did we not agree to do the book, at least through chapter 3? And you seem to be stuck in Section 2 of Chapter 1, and you’ve got your hand in a live food processor. >>> >>> 2.000000 meters x 1/gamma = 2.00000000 x 0.9838295565 = 1.96765911301 meters. >>> >>> Let's square that for use as Mary's x^2 component when she performs her >>> spacetime interval calculation. We get 3.871682385 meters^2. >>> >>> Do you agree with this Bodkin? >>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ISMm7w29HXtNKxAFWmjZMZ2nHM@jntp> |
| In reply to | #578922 |
Le 27/02/2022 à 00:58, patdolan a écrit : > Let us now apply the principle of relativity, which states that there are no > privileged co-moving coordinate systems. Yes, that's what the principle says. And I 100% agree on that. There is no preferred repository. Notion of covariance. It is even so true that a confusing conclusion will have a terrible time entering the mind of human beings in general and relativists in particular. "If a rocket is heading towards me at 0.8c, it will seem three times larger to me". Already that, he has trouble understanding. And it takes him at least two minutes and a pencil to calculate that it's true. But his effort can go no further, and he risks fainting and going into convulsions if he also has to understand that there is a notion of COVARIANCE in all this. And that the subject placed in his rocket, sees him, if he arrives in a straight line on the earth-moon axis, an earth-moon space three times larger. Human beings (apart from me it seems and I don't know where this deficiency comes from in others) are not able to swallow this. It's incredible. This intellectual deficiency in humans is incredible. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svgsve$c1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579046 |
Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote: > Le 27/02/2022 à 00:58, patdolan a écrit : > >> Let us now apply the principle of relativity, which states that there are no >> privileged co-moving coordinate systems. > > Yes, that's what the principle says. > And I 100% agree on that. > There is no preferred repository. > > Notion of covariance. > > It is even so true that a confusing conclusion will have a terrible time > entering the mind of human beings in general and relativists in > particular. > "If a rocket is heading towards me at 0.8c, it will seem three times > larger to me". Who told you this? It seems like something you have fabricated, or you no longer remember accurately what was said. It’s going to be important to separate what relativity says from what you THINK it says. So be prepared to back up statements like this with a reference. > Already that, he has trouble understanding. And it takes him at least two > minutes and a pencil to calculate that it's true. > But his effort can go no further, and he risks fainting and going into > convulsions if he also has to understand that there is a notion of > COVARIANCE in all this. > And that the subject placed in his rocket, sees him, if he arrives in a > straight line on the earth-moon axis, an earth-moon space three times > larger. > > Human beings (apart from me it seems and I don't know where this > deficiency comes from in others) are not able to swallow this. > > It's incredible. > > This intellectual deficiency in humans is incredible. > > R.H. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-27 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ddgZSQwPZA5pdSYgw-zwm03rptk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #579048 |
Le 27/02/2022 à 23:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit : >> It is even so true that a confusing conclusion will have a terrible time >> entering the mind of human beings in general and relativists in >> particular. >> "If a rocket is heading towards me at 0.8c, it will seem three times >> larger to me". > > Who told you this? It seems like something you have fabricated, or you no > longer remember accurately what was said. > > It’s going to be important to separate what relativity says from what you > THINK it says. So be prepared to back up statements like this with a > reference. I appreciate you very much Odd Bodkin, because you are an excellent contributor. There are also a few others here. Even if I don't agree with them, I recognize that they are excellent contributors. As for the elasticity of distances, I have spoken about it a great deal here, and you are sure to know what I said about it. I said that the theory of relativity imagined by Henri Poincaré at the end of the XIX° century and at the beginning of the XX° was an exact theory. Simply that it was poorly understood, and that in particular distances and lengths did not contract according to L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) but according to L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c) It comes from there that a rocket of 30 meters which comes on us at 0.8c, will appear to us to measure 90 meters. That is to say, it will appear three times larger. I am surprised to have to constantly repeat it like a parrot. Simply, to me, this elasticity is real (by anisochony). This is NOT a Doppler effect, it is a real effect. As becomes real the fact that the observer placed in his rocket, by covariance will see the same real effect on the distance moon-earth towards which he will move in a straight line. The earth-moon distance will appear to him three times longer. It's the same formula, it's the same covariance, it's the same logic (which means that in the Langevin we have x=Vapp.Tr or 36 al = 4c*9years) This theory is of a prodigious logic and of a great evidence if one understands it correctly and without paradox. Thank you for listening. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web