Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #579488 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-05 05:02 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-03-05 08:14 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 88 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 05:02 -0800
Can't fix cretin Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 07:08 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 15:12 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 15:33 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 08:12 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 17:24 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 09:54 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 13:10 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 13:20 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 07:09 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 08:08 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 13:20 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-06 19:56 -0800
Imbecile Pat Dolan digs himself deeper "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:52 -0800
Re: Imbecile Pat Dolan digs himself deeper The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-07 09:20 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 21:08 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-07 04:30 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 06:43 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-07 09:13 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 11:57 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 13:38 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-07 09:08 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 18:02 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 13:21 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 06:50 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 09:28 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 18:04 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-07 10:35 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 19:49 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 11:47 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:01 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 12:10 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:26 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:29 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:17 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 13:56 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 22:21 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 16:07 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 00:52 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 18:44 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 14:06 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 06:59 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 07:30 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 15:44 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-08 12:23 +0100
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 13:59 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 10:16 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 22:07 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-07 20:21 +0100
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:01 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-08 10:19 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-07 12:58 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 21:41 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-07 13:52 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-07 14:14 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 22:20 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 16:14 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 08:26 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 08:43 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 09:07 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 09:11 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 09:21 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 09:27 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 09:28 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 09:42 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 10:53 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 11:08 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 11:46 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 11:56 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 12:18 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 12:22 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 13:17 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 14:10 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 14:36 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 14:59 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 15:23 -0800
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 12:08 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan at work Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 22:52 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 12:00 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 17:27 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 17:24 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 09:41 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 13:10 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Darin Herr <dh@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-05 15:46 +0000
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 07:53 -0800
Re: The Man Who Broke Spacetime patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 08:14 -0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 05:02 -0800 |
| Subject | The Man Who Broke Spacetime |
| Message-ID | <d3acb43f-2b8e-4564-8b93-ea7f3d980865n@googlegroups.com> |
The LCR (Length Contraction Rule) is a fundamental fact of the universe. It is logically prior to the principle of relativity. The principle of relativity depends upon, and precedes from the LCR. The LCR was unknowingly discovered by Michelson and Morely and then quantified by Lorentz; in much the same way that the falling bodies rule was first discovered by Galileo and then quantified by Newton in his theory of gravity. But most of the gravitational phenomenon we observe--spiral arms, the three body problem, the rings of Saturn, etc.--are not explainable in terms of Newton's theory. Likewise, much of what we observe is not explainable in terms of Einstein's principle of relativity. Take the spacetime interval for instance. The STI is one of the most sacrosanct quantities in all of relativity. It is the basis of the sacred "metric" which not only gives life and meaning to special relativity, but is also the very foundation on which Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, is based. The author now demolishes the STI and exposes it as a mere chimera of mathematical relativity. The author invokes a famous example from relativity literature: the parable of John & Mary beginning on page 5 of Taylor & Wheeler Spacetime Physics (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) The author has taken the liberty of increasing the relative velocity in the parable from 5.91 x 10^7 m/s to 2.60 x 10^8 m/s to reduce the number of significant digits used in the calculations, thus minimizing the impact of calculator roundoff error. In the famous parable we begin on MONDAY in John's inertial frame of reference and observe with him the approach of Mary who rides a rocket with a relative velocity of 2.6 x 10^8 m/s. As Mary passes John, a spark jumps from Mary's antenna to John's pocket pen. At this event in spacetime, call it E0, both Mary and John start their stopwatches. Two meters away from John, as John measures the distance, another spark jumps from Mary's antenna to a fire extinguisher, call this E1, at which Both Mary and John stop their stopwatches. Later that day John and Mary meet to compare their respective stopwatch readings and to calculate their respective spacetime interval values between E0 and E1. John calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 2.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 7.7 nsecs s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (2.0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 -( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m On TUESDAY John and Mary repeat the high speed encounter to prove that the principle of relativity applies and that there are no favored inertial frames of reference. This time we ride along with Mary. Mary and John start their stopwatches at E0, just like on Monday. Mary stops her stopwatch at E1 after 3.85 nsec just like on Monday. John stops his stopwatch at E1 just like on Monday, after Mary has traveled the 1.0 m to the fire extinguisher. What! Only 1 m???? YES. The distance between John and the fire extinguisher is precisely ONE METER. This is not an optical illusion or some relativistic version of the distance between John and the fire extinguisher. The distance IS IN FACT ONE METER. That's what the LCR proves to us. There is no favored inertial frame where a particular distance is more real than all the other distances. That is the sum total of the principle of relativity. We proceed with John's Tuesday calculation. John calculates the spacetime interval on Tuesday: Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 3.85 nsecs s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 0.58 m Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Tuesday: Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 -( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m Thus we find that the concept of the invariant spacetime interval does not survive the principle of relativity. Spacetime intervals for the same two spacetime events do not agree when calculated by the same observer in different inertial frames of reference. Sincerely, TMWBST PS-- there exists one man, one wizard of spacetime who might concoct an argument to save the spacetime interval by the waving of his magic wand which can produce four, five, hell even 8 events from two. That man, that wizard is the one and only Townes Olsen. It is for he that the author chose the E0 and E1 labels.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 07:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Can't fix cretin Pat Dolan |
| Message-ID | <28de58be-614e-4695-a7b3-c5edbb72276en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579488 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 5:02:10 AM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: > John calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: > Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 2.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 7.7 nsecs > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (2.0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m > > Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: > Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 -( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m > Pattycakes, Once you are a cretin, you cannot be fixed, you die a cretin. Thanks for the entertainment, stubborn imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svvul1$1k03$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579488 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > The LCR (Length Contraction Rule) is a fundamental fact of the universe. Now that you’re sober, how about we go back to section 1.2 of the book? > It is logically prior to the principle of relativity. The principle of > relativity depends upon, and precedes from the LCR. The LCR was > unknowingly discovered by Michelson and Morely and then quantified by > Lorentz; in much the same way that the falling bodies rule was first > discovered by Galileo and then quantified by Newton in his theory of gravity. > > But most of the gravitational phenomenon we observe--spiral arms, the > three body problem, the rings of Saturn, etc.--are not explainable in > terms of Newton's theory. Likewise, much of what we observe is not > explainable in terms of Einstein's principle of relativity. Take the > spacetime interval for instance. The STI is one of the most sacrosanct > quantities in all of relativity. It is the basis of the sacred "metric" > which not only gives life and meaning to special relativity, but is also > the very foundation on which Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, is based. > > The author now demolishes the STI and exposes it as a mere chimera of > mathematical relativity. The author invokes a famous example from > relativity literature: the parable of John & Mary beginning on page 5 of > Taylor & Wheeler Spacetime Physics > (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) > The author has taken the liberty of increasing the relative velocity in > the parable from 5.91 x 10^7 m/s to 2.60 x 10^8 m/s to reduce the number > of significant digits used in the calculations, thus minimizing the > impact of calculator roundoff error. > > In the famous parable we begin on MONDAY in John's inertial frame of > reference and observe with him the approach of Mary who rides a rocket > with a relative velocity of 2.6 x 10^8 m/s. As Mary passes John, a spark > jumps from Mary's antenna to John's pocket pen. At this event in > spacetime, call it E0, both Mary and John start their stopwatches. Two > meters away from John, as John measures the distance, another spark jumps > from Mary's antenna to a fire extinguisher, call this E1, at which Both > Mary and John stop their stopwatches. > > Later that day John and Mary meet to compare their respective stopwatch > readings and to calculate their respective spacetime interval values between E0 and E1. > > John calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: > Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 2.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 7.7 nsecs > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (2.0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m > > Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: > Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 -( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m > > On TUESDAY John and Mary repeat the high speed encounter to prove that > the principle of relativity applies and that there are no favored > inertial frames of reference. This time we ride along with Mary. Mary > and John start their stopwatches at E0, just like on Monday. Mary stops > her stopwatch at E1 after 3.85 nsec just like on Monday. John stops his > stopwatch at E1 just like on Monday, after Mary has traveled the 1.0 m to > the fire extinguisher. What! Only 1 m???? YES. The distance between > John and the fire extinguisher is precisely ONE METER. This is not an > optical illusion or some relativistic version of the distance between > John and the fire extinguisher. The distance IS IN FACT ONE METER. > That's what the LCR proves to us. There is no favored inertial frame > where a particular distance is more real than all the other distances. > That is the sum total of the principle of relativity. We proceed with > John's Tuesday calculation. > > John calculates the spacetime interval on Tuesday: > Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 3.85 nsecs > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 0.58 m > > Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Tuesday: > Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 -( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m > > Thus we find that the concept of the invariant spacetime interval does > not survive the principle of relativity. Spacetime intervals for the > same two spacetime events do not agree when calculated by the same > observer in different inertial frames of reference. > > Sincerely, > > TMWBST > > PS-- there exists one man, one wizard of spacetime who might concoct an > argument to save the spacetime interval by the waving of his magic wand > which can produce four, five, hell even 8 events from two. That man, > that wizard is the one and only Townes Olsen. It is for he that the > author chose the E0 and E1 labels. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svvvsc$65l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579495 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >> The LCR (Length Contraction Rule) is a fundamental fact of the universe. > > Now that you’re sober, how about we go back to section 1.2 of the book? > >> It is logically prior to the principle of relativity. The principle of >> relativity depends upon, and precedes from the LCR. The LCR was >> unknowingly discovered by Michelson and Morely and then quantified by >> Lorentz; in much the same way that the falling bodies rule was first >> discovered by Galileo and then quantified by Newton in his theory of gravity. >> >> But most of the gravitational phenomenon we observe--spiral arms, the >> three body problem, the rings of Saturn, etc.--are not explainable in >> terms of Newton's theory. Likewise, much of what we observe is not >> explainable in terms of Einstein's principle of relativity. Take the >> spacetime interval for instance. The STI is one of the most sacrosanct >> quantities in all of relativity. It is the basis of the sacred "metric" >> which not only gives life and meaning to special relativity, but is also >> the very foundation on which Einstein's theory of gravity, general relativity, is based. >> >> The author now demolishes the STI and exposes it as a mere chimera of >> mathematical relativity. The author invokes a famous example from >> relativity literature: the parable of John & Mary beginning on page 5 of >> Taylor & Wheeler Spacetime Physics >> (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) >> The author has taken the liberty of increasing the relative velocity in >> the parable from 5.91 x 10^7 m/s to 2.60 x 10^8 m/s to reduce the number >> of significant digits used in the calculations, thus minimizing the >> impact of calculator roundoff error. >> >> In the famous parable we begin on MONDAY in John's inertial frame of >> reference and observe with him the approach of Mary who rides a rocket >> with a relative velocity of 2.6 x 10^8 m/s. As Mary passes John, a spark >> jumps from Mary's antenna to John's pocket pen. At this event in >> spacetime, call it E0, both Mary and John start their stopwatches. Two >> meters away from John, as John measures the distance, another spark jumps >> from Mary's antenna to a fire extinguisher, call this E1, at which Both >> Mary and John stop their stopwatches. >> >> Later that day John and Mary meet to compare their respective stopwatch >> readings and to calculate their respective spacetime interval values between E0 and E1. >> >> John calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: >> Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 2.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 7.7 nsecs >> s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (2.0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m >> >> Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: >> Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs >> s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 -( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m >> >> On TUESDAY John and Mary repeat the high speed encounter to prove that >> the principle of relativity applies and that there are no favored >> inertial frames of reference. This time we ride along with Mary. Mary >> and John start their stopwatches at E0, just like on Monday. Mary stops >> her stopwatch at E1 after 3.85 nsec just like on Monday. John stops his >> stopwatch at E1 just like on Monday, after Mary has traveled the 1.0 m to >> the fire extinguisher. What! Only 1 m???? YES. The distance between >> John and the fire extinguisher is precisely ONE METER. While you were drunk, I explained to you why this LCR is a tool you should not pick up because you don’t know how to use it. And an example is right here. You are on the path to Ping Pong to Nothingness, which is obviously stupid. Because, as we said earlier, applying the LCR as you are now, John says the distance between the two landmarks is 2.000 m, but Mary says that in johns frame it should be 1.000m. And then John says that on Mary’s frame it should be 0.500 m. And the Mary says that in John’s frame it should be 0.250 m. Etc to PPN. This being an artifact of using an LCR rule that doesn’t actually exist in relativity, perhaps Pat Dolan should remind himself that every time he tries to use the LCR so far, he is making a mistake, and perhaps he should stop trying to use it then and focus on the book. Is Pat Dolan ready to move on to 1.3? > This is not an >> optical illusion or some relativistic version of the distance between >> John and the fire extinguisher. The distance IS IN FACT ONE METER. >> That's what the LCR proves to us. There is no favored inertial frame >> where a particular distance is more real than all the other distances. >> That is the sum total of the principle of relativity. We proceed with >> John's Tuesday calculation. >> >> John calculates the spacetime interval on Tuesday: >> Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 3.85 nsecs >> s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 0.58 m >> >> Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Tuesday: >> Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs >> s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 -( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m >> >> Thus we find that the concept of the invariant spacetime interval does >> not survive the principle of relativity. Spacetime intervals for the >> same two spacetime events do not agree when calculated by the same >> observer in different inertial frames of reference. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> TMWBST >> >> PS-- there exists one man, one wizard of spacetime who might concoct an >> argument to save the spacetime interval by the waving of his magic wand >> which can produce four, five, hell even 8 events from two. That man, >> that wizard is the one and only Townes Olsen. It is for he that the >> author chose the E0 and E1 labels. >> >> >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 08:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9b510874-5c37-4e99-abd2-72a3dd42e33en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579496 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> This time we ride along with Mary.... The distance between > >> John and the fire extinguisher is precisely ONE METER. That is correct, in terms of Mary's co-moving system of inertial coordinates. > perhaps Pat Dolan should remind himself that every time he > tries to use the LCR so far, he is making a mistake, and perhaps > he should stop trying to use it then and focus on the book. That is not his mistake. In terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinates, the spatial distance traveled by John from the coordinate time of the first spark to the coordinate time of the second spark is indeed 1 meter, and the temporal component is indeed Mary's elapsed time, and John's interval from those two events is indeed D/(vg^2), which does indeed differ from Mary's elapsed time between those two coordinate times. All of this is correct. What you and Pat fail to grasp (and what Python and Paul also failed to grasp) is the fact that this is a different interval than the interval from E0 to E1. What Pat (and every other newbie who bumps into the muon connundrum) is struggling with is not invariance, it is symmetry, i.e., he imagines (albeit without being able to articulate it clearly) that the principle of relativity implies that "John's interval described by Mary ought to be the same as Mary's interval described by John", which is the same as the muon connundrum based on the notion that the lab and the muon intervals are symmetrical. But they are not symmetrical, as has been explained repeatedly. Again, his problem is not length contraction and not interval calculations, it is fundamentally failing to grasp the different events entailed in the scenario. You will search in vain through your pedagogically worse-than-useless text for the explanation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t006bp$19sv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579501 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> This time we ride along with Mary.... The distance between >>>> John and the fire extinguisher is precisely ONE METER. > > That is correct, in terms of Mary's co-moving system of inertial coordinates. > >> perhaps Pat Dolan should remind himself that every time he >> tries to use the LCR so far, he is making a mistake, and perhaps >> he should stop trying to use it then and focus on the book. > > That is not his mistake. In terms of Mary's co-moving inertial > coordinates, the spatial distance traveled by John from the coordinate > time of the first spark to the coordinate time of the second spark is > indeed 1 meter, and the temporal component is indeed Mary's elapsed time, > and John's interval from those two events is indeed D/(vg^2), which does > indeed differ from Mary's elapsed time between those two coordinate > times. All of this is correct. What you and Pat fail to grasp (and what > Python and Paul also failed to grasp) is the fact that this is a > different interval than the interval from E0 to E1. > I have no problem with what you claim I have a problem with. Pat’s confusion is precisely why I’m steering the conversation back to the example given in the book he is looking at, which is focused on a SINGLE PAIR OF EVENTS. This is where John and Mary and the pen and the fire extinguisher are all set up for him and where the sole pair of events being used in the lesson are the two sparks. You, on the other hand, are happy to deviate from the point of the lesson and introduce other events, which Pat has already told you is confusing to him, and which in turn suits you fine because you LIKE to take him in directions where he finds himself confused. So while you may not be confused yourself, you are ably confusing Pat and distracting from the agreed-upon arrangement of discussing the example given in this book. Why you feel it is necessary or helpful in any way to do that, is beyond rational comprehension. But your motives are known to you, and not particularly obscure to others either. > What Pat (and every other newbie who bumps into the muon connundrum) is > struggling with is not invariance, it is symmetry, i.e., he imagines > (albeit without being able to articulate it clearly) that the principle > of relativity implies that "John's interval described by Mary ought to be > the same as Mary's interval described by John", which is the same as the > muon connundrum based on the notion that the lab and the muon intervals > are symmetrical. But they are not symmetrical, as has been explained > repeatedly. Again, his problem is not length contraction and not > interval calculations, it is fundamentally failing to grasp the different > events entailed in the scenario. You will search in vain through your > pedagogically worse-than-useless text for the explanation. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 09:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74da4ebd-5fc4-4334-9409-df0449dca576n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579514 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:24:13 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Pat’s confusion is precisely why I’m steering the conversation back to the > example given in the book he is looking at, which is focused on a SINGLE > PAIR OF EVENTS. The standard muon conundrum that Pat is reciting, now re-expressed in terms of John and Mary, does not involve just a single pair of events. That is the entire problem. Pat has already conceded (and computed) that the interval between the sparks is D/(vg), whether this is done using the dx and dt from John's co-moving coordinate system or using the dx' and dt' from Mary's co-moving coordinate system. So that is not the issue. The issue is that he thinks (like every newbie when they first hear about the muons) that by symmetry (principle of relativity) we ought to be able to say that John's interval "between the sparks" in terms of Mary's coordinates is the same as Mary's intervals "between the sparks" in terms of John's inertial coordinates. The well-known resolution of the fallacy is that the phrase "between the sparks" points to two different events for John, depending on the simultaneity of the two systems. This is not explained in the book you like, so you are just wasting time. And your efforts to persuade Pat he should ignore the actual explanation and instead indulge you in your nitwit book club are not helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t02brq$ebk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579523 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:24:13 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Pat’s confusion is precisely why I’m steering the conversation back to the >> example given in the book he is looking at, which is focused on a SINGLE >> PAIR OF EVENTS. > > The standard muon conundrum that Pat is reciting, now re-expressed in > terms of John and Mary, does not involve just a single pair of events. And this is where you simply deny the pedagogical intent of the authors to focus on a single pair of events, and thus become obstructive and distracting. You have one, obsessive way of thinking about it and presenting it, and you think all other ways of presenting it are problematic. And yet, your way seems to be especially pedagogically ineffective, and you blame this on your correspondents. It does not occur to you, and probably CANNOT occur to you, that perhaps some adjustment on your side might be indicated. > That is the entire problem. Pat has already conceded (and computed) that > the interval between the sparks is D/(vg), whether this is done using the > dx and dt from John's co-moving coordinate system or using the dx' and > dt' from Mary's co-moving coordinate system. So that is not the issue. > > The issue is that he thinks (like every newbie when they first hear about > the muons) that by symmetry (principle of relativity) we ought to be able > to say that John's interval "between the sparks" in terms of Mary's > coordinates is the same as Mary's intervals "between the sparks" in terms > of John's inertial coordinates. The well-known resolution of the fallacy > is that the phrase "between the sparks" points to two different events > for John, depending on the simultaneity of the two systems. This is not > explained in the book you like, so you are just wasting time. And your > efforts to persuade Pat he should ignore the actual explanation and > instead indulge you in your nitwit book club are not helpful. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 13:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t02cfl$n6i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579606 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:24:13 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Pat’s confusion is precisely why I’m steering the conversation back to the >>> example given in the book he is looking at, which is focused on a SINGLE >>> PAIR OF EVENTS. >> >> The standard muon conundrum that Pat is reciting, now re-expressed in >> terms of John and Mary, does not involve just a single pair of events. > > And this is where you simply deny the pedagogical intent of the authors to > focus on a single pair of events, and thus become obstructive and > distracting. You have one, obsessive way of thinking about it and > presenting it, and you think all other ways of presenting it are > problematic. And yet, your way seems to be especially pedagogically > ineffective, and you blame this on your correspondents. It does not occur > to you, and probably CANNOT occur to you, that perhaps some adjustment on > your side might be indicated. > >> That is the entire problem. Pat has already conceded (and computed) that >> the interval between the sparks is D/(vg), whether this is done using the >> dx and dt from John's co-moving coordinate system or using the dx' and >> dt' from Mary's co-moving coordinate system. So that is not the issue. >> >> The issue is that he thinks (like every newbie when they first hear about >> the muons) that by symmetry (principle of relativity) we ought to be able >> to say that John's interval "between the sparks" in terms of Mary's >> coordinates is the same as Mary's intervals "between the sparks" in terms >> of John's inertial coordinates. The well-known resolution of the fallacy >> is that the phrase "between the sparks" points to two different events >> for John, depending on the simultaneity of the two systems. This is not >> explained in the book you like, so you are just wasting time. And your >> efforts to persuade Pat he should ignore the actual explanation and >> instead indulge you in your nitwit book club are not helpful. >> > > Look, Townes, how about a concrete suggestion for you. You have time in your hands and a strong opinion that your way of presenting or teaching relativity is better than anything out there now. So perhaps you should seek a higher education publisher like Addison Wesley or Norton or Wiley & Sons, and submit a sample chapter or two and a prospectus, and see what they say? They’ll have development editors look at it, they’ll shop it around to a few of their favorite physicist reviewers, and you’ll have a clear message about the value and clarity of your approach. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 07:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3639a5c2-a0d1-4e94-bac8-df22adc2b825n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579606 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Pat’s confusion is precisely why I’m steering the conversation back to the > >> example given in the book he is looking at, which is focused on a SINGLE > >> PAIR OF EVENTS. > > > > The standard muon conundrum that Pat is reciting, now re-expressed in > > terms of John and Mary, does not involve just a single pair of events. > > And this is where you simply deny the pedagogical intent of the authors to > focus on a single pair of events... That brain-dead book says "John and Mary each measure the lapse of time between pen-spark and extinguisher-spark. They use accurate and fast electronic clocks. John measures 33.690 nanosec and Mary measures 33.0228 nanosec." Do you see? Based on this, can you blame Pat for saying that John and Mary can each start their stopwatches at the pen-spark and stop their stopwatches at the extinguisher-spark? Of course, the first thing to note is that although Mary can do this (because she is present at both sparks), John cannot, because John is not present at the extinguisher spark. So... To avoid being brain-dead, the book would need to explain what it means for John to measure (with his accurate and fast electronic clock) a lapse of time of 33.690 nanosec "between the sparks". (Likewise it would need to explain how the surveyors determined their respective east-west directions.) True, John's stopwatch reads 33.690 nanosec when he is simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of his co-moving system of inertial coordinates... but how he determines this is not explained, and of course his clock reads less than Mary's clock at the time that is simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinates. This is how the reciprocal time dilation and length contraction are reconciled, i.e., the resolution of the standard muon "paradox" that Pat is asking about. Your brain-dead book is worse than useless... as are all your posts. Look... Pat's original post in this thread correctly computed the interval between the two sparks, both in terms of John's co-moving inertial coordinate system, and in terms of Mary's. For his chosen example, he says the interval in terms of John's system has dt = 7.7 nsec and dx = 2 meters, and in terms of Mary's system has dt'=3.85 nsec and dx'=0 meters. He then correctly (aside from some typo-/rounding errors) computes the same correct interval for each. Of course, he makes the same mistake as your brain-dead book in blithely glossing over how John actually measures that elapsed time, and that John's clock reads that time at a different event, but never mind. The point is, he correctly shows the invariance of the interval. He calls this the Monday calculation. The problem appears in what he calls the Tuesday calculation. He still gets the same dx, dt, and interval in terms of Mary's system, but now he says for John's system we have dx=1 meter and dt=3.85 nsec, and with these components he gets the smaller interval for John "between the sparks"... contradiction! Well, what is he actually computing here? He says the Tuesday calculations are done with us riding along with Mary, and sure enough, in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system John moves a distance of dx' = 1 meter and has an elapsed coordinate time of dt'=3.85 nsecs "between the sparks", and John's interval "between the sparks" is indeed the smaller value that Pat calculates. Needless to say, this is not a contradiction, because it is not the interval between the two sparks, it is the interval between the first spark and the John-event simultaneous with the second spark in terms of Mary's co-moving coordinate system. This is the standard resolution of the muon "paradox", and your persistent efforts to encourage Pat to ignore the actual explanation, and instead join your brain-dead book club (thereby doubling it's membership) are not helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 08:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f6b4ed8-b587-4377-9279-55ee19625082n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579612 |
On Sunday, 6 March 2022 at 16:09:08 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote: > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> Pat’s confusion is precisely why I’m steering the conversation back to the > > >> example given in the book he is looking at, which is focused on a SINGLE > > >> PAIR OF EVENTS. > > > > > > The standard muon conundrum that Pat is reciting, now re-expressed in > > > terms of John and Mary, does not involve just a single pair of events. > > > > And this is where you simply deny the pedagogical intent of the authors to > > focus on a single pair of events... > > That brain-dead book says "John and Mary each measure the lapse of time between pen-spark and extinguisher-spark. They use accurate and fast electronic clocks. John measures 33.690 nanosec and Mary measures 33.0228 nanosec." Do you see? Based on this, can you blame Pat for saying that John and Mary can each start their stopwatches at the pen-spark and stop their stopwatches at the extinguisher-spark? Of course, the first thing to note is that although Mary can do this (because she is present at both sparks), John cannot, because John is not present at the extinguisher spark. So... > > To avoid being brain-dead Avoid the books of brainwashed fanatics and look at real clocks of TAI or GPS, keeping measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0349e$1rpl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579612 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Pat’s confusion is precisely why I’m steering the conversation back to the >>>> example given in the book he is looking at, which is focused on a SINGLE >>>> PAIR OF EVENTS. >>> >>> The standard muon conundrum that Pat is reciting, now re-expressed in >>> terms of John and Mary, does not involve just a single pair of events. >> >> And this is where you simply deny the pedagogical intent of the authors to >> focus on a single pair of events... > > That brain-dead book says "John and Mary each measure the lapse of time > between pen-spark and extinguisher-spark. They use accurate and fast > electronic clocks. John measures 33.690 nanosec and Mary measures 33.0228 > nanosec." Do you see? Based on this, can you blame Pat for saying that > John and Mary can each start their stopwatches at the pen-spark and stop > their stopwatches at the extinguisher-spark? No, it does not follow. The method of measurement is not specified and should not be guessed. The point, which you seem to be missing, is that these are measured numbers, not hypothetical ones. From measurements, one makes discoveries of regularities, just as was discovered by the surveyor. Instead, you decided to get diverted from the WHOLE POINT of the lesson pedagogically, and insist that because you got distracted by concerns about the measurement, then the focus on two new only two events was I’ll-conceived. Fine. If you ALSO cannot follow a presentation in the second section of the first chapter, and you lose track of the point being made, then perhaps the subject is not for you. Or, perhaps you ONLY KNOW HOW to present it one way, your way, and it’s time for you to put your thoughts on paper for a manuscript on the One True Way to teach relativity. Submit the manuscript and let’s see where it goes, with people interested in physics pedagogy. > Of course, the first thing to note is that although Mary can do this > (because she is present at both sparks), John cannot, because John is not > present at the extinguisher spark. So... > > To avoid being brain-dead, the book would need to explain what it means > for John to measure (with his accurate and fast electronic clock) a lapse > of time of 33.690 nanosec "between the sparks". (Likewise it would need > to explain how the surveyors determined their respective east-west > directions.) True, John's stopwatch reads 33.690 nanosec when he is > simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of his co-moving system > of inertial coordinates... but how he determines this is not explained, > and of course his clock reads less than Mary's clock at the time that is > simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of Mary's co-moving > inertial coordinates. This is how the reciprocal time dilation and > length contraction are reconciled, i.e., the resolution of the standard > muon "paradox" that Pat is asking about. Your brain-dead book is worse > than useless... as are all your posts. Look... > > Pat's original post in this thread correctly computed the interval > between the two sparks, both in terms of John's co-moving inertial > coordinate system, and in terms of Mary's. For his chosen example, he > says the interval in terms of John's system has dt = 7.7 nsec and dx = 2 > meters, and in terms of Mary's system has dt'=3.85 nsec and dx'=0 meters. > He then correctly (aside from some typo-/rounding errors) computes the > same correct interval for each. Of course, he makes the same mistake as > your brain-dead book in blithely glossing over how John actually measures > that elapsed time, and that John's clock reads that time at a different > event, but never mind. The point is, he correctly shows the invariance > of the interval. He calls this the Monday calculation. > > The problem appears in what he calls the Tuesday calculation. He still > gets the same dx, dt, and interval in terms of Mary's system, but now he > says for John's system we have dx=1 meter and dt=3.85 nsec, and with > these components he gets the smaller interval for John "between the > sparks"... contradiction! Well, what is he actually computing here? He > says the Tuesday calculations are done with us riding along with Mary, > and sure enough, in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system > John moves a distance of dx' = 1 meter and has an elapsed coordinate time > of dt'=3.85 nsecs "between the sparks", and John's interval "between the > sparks" is indeed the smaller value that Pat calculates. Needless to > say, this is not a contradiction, because it is not the interval between > the two sparks, it is the interval between the first spark and the > John-event simultaneous with the second spark in terms of Mary's > co-moving coordinate system. > > This is the standard resolution of the muon "paradox", and your > persistent efforts to encourage Pat to ignore the actual explanation, and > instead join your brain-dead book club (thereby doubling it's membership) are not helpful. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 13:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <089470ff-3a96-46a3-9ffa-02914769b0e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579628 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 12:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That brain-dead book says "John and Mary each measure the lapse of time
> > between pen-spark and extinguisher-spark. They use accurate and fast
> > electronic clocks. John measures 33.690 nanosec and Mary measures 33.0228
> > nanosec." Do you see? Based on this, can you blame Pat for saying that
> > John and Mary can each start their stopwatches at the pen-spark and stop
> > their stopwatches at the extinguisher-spark?
>
> The method of measurement is not specified...
That would be bad enough, but it's actually even worse... first because it pretends that it has specified it ("John and Mary each measure the lapse of time using accurate and fast(?) clocks"), and more importantly because without specifying the "method of measurement" it is effectively not even specifying what is being measured. That's the whole problem. It is not approaching the subject from a rational standpoint at all. It's a book written for pliable idiots. You see, it talks about the lapse of time between the sparks, but the standard conundrum that Pat is wrestling with pertains to the concept of "John's lapse of time between the sparks as judged from Mary's system of coordinates". This has a well-defined meaning, as does "Mary's lapse of time between the sparks as judged from John's system of coordinates", but of course these are two different intervals. That's how the "paradox" is resolved.
I remind you that, at the very start, Pat already correctly computed the interval between the sparks, both in terms of John's coordinate system and in terms of Mary's coordinate system, so that is not the issue. The brain-deadedness of your book's exposition is really beside the point, because what it's trying (and abysmally failing) to explain is not at issue in this discussion.
> these are measured numbers, not hypothetical ones...
No, they are neither, because they are undefined, even as to what is being measured. The student is simply being fed some statements whose meanings are not defined, by exploiting convenient verbal ambiguities involving plural versus singular, etc., and he's being encouraged to assume that these ambiguities must not be relevant, because they are being ignored. Just awful.
> just as was discovered by the surveyor.
Right, the surveyor discussion is just as brain-dead. For example, how did they define the east-west direction? Also, the idiotic introduction of sacredness is terrible, and the idea that converting from one unit of spatial distance to another is the same as blithely converting from a temporal to a spatial unit is incredibly stupid, and the offered justification is completely inadequate. Any intelligent person, even knowing nothing about relativity, would baulk at every sentence - and rightly so.
> ...you decided to get diverted from the WHOLE POINT of the lesson
Once again, Pat began the thread by positing the computation of the interval between the sparks in terms of the two different coordinate systems... so there is no point to that "lesson" at all... even if it wasn't utterly brain-dead.
The remainder of my post, that you ignored, explained your misconceptions about the situation very clearly. As always, you ignored the explanation, which is why you never learn anything. But it's not too late:
To avoid being brain-dead, the book would need to explain what it means for John to measure (with his accurate and fast electronic clock) a lapse of time of 33.690 nanosec "between the sparks". (Likewise it would need to explain how the surveyors determined their respective east-west directions.) True, John's stopwatch reads 33.690 nanosec when he is simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of his co-moving system of inertial coordinates... but how he determines this is not explained, and of course his clock reads less than Mary's clock at the time that is simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinates. This is how the reciprocal time dilation and length contraction are reconciled, i.e., the resolution of the standard muon "paradox" that Pat is asking about. Your brain-dead book is worse than useless... as are all your posts. Look...
Pat's original post in this thread correctly computed the interval between the two sparks, both in terms of John's co-moving inertial coordinate system, and in terms of Mary's. For his chosen example, he says the interval in terms of John's system has dt = 7.7 nsec and dx = 2 meters, and in terms of Mary's system has dt'=3.85 nsec and dx'=0 meters. He then correctly (aside from some typo-/rounding errors) computes the same correct interval for each. Of course, he makes the same mistake as your brain-dead book in blithely glossing over how John actually measures that elapsed time, and that John's clock reads that time at a different event, but never mind. The point is, he correctly shows the invariance of the interval. He calls this the Monday calculation.
The problem appears in what he calls the Tuesday calculation. He still gets the same dx, dt, and interval in terms of Mary's system, but now he says for John's system we have dx=1 meter and dt=3.85 nsec, and with these components he gets the smaller interval for John "between the sparks"... contradiction! Well, what is he actually computing here? He says the Tuesday calculations are done with us riding along with Mary, and sure enough, in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system John moves a distance of dx' = 1 meter and has an elapsed coordinate time of dt'=3.85 nsecs "between the sparks", and John's interval "between the sparks" is indeed the smaller value that Pat calculates. Needless to say, this is not a contradiction, because it is not the interval between the two sparks, it is the interval between the first spark and the John-event simultaneous with the second spark in terms of Mary's co-moving coordinate system.
This is the standard resolution of the muon "paradox", and your persistent efforts to encourage Pat to ignore the actual explanation, and instead join your brain-dead book club (thereby doubling it's membership) are not helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 19:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f08fa8f-6b2f-428a-8061-431576841eb6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579641 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 1:21:00 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 12:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > That brain-dead book says "John and Mary each measure the lapse of time
> > > between pen-spark and extinguisher-spark. They use accurate and fast
> > > electronic clocks. John measures 33.690 nanosec and Mary measures 33.0228
> > > nanosec." Do you see? Based on this, can you blame Pat for saying that
> > > John and Mary can each start their stopwatches at the pen-spark and stop
> > > their stopwatches at the extinguisher-spark?
> >
> > The method of measurement is not specified...
>
> That would be bad enough, but it's actually even worse... first because it pretends that it has specified it ("John and Mary each measure the lapse of time using accurate and fast(?) clocks"), and more importantly because without specifying the "method of measurement" it is effectively not even specifying what is being measured. That's the whole problem. It is not approaching the subject from a rational standpoint at all. It's a book written for pliable idiots. You see, it talks about the lapse of time between the sparks, but the standard conundrum that Pat is wrestling with pertains to the concept of "John's lapse of time between the sparks as judged from Mary's system of coordinates". This has a well-defined meaning, as does "Mary's lapse of time between the sparks as judged from John's system of coordinates", but of course these are two different intervals. That's how the "paradox" is resolved.
>
> I remind you that, at the very start, Pat already correctly computed the interval between the sparks, both in terms of John's coordinate system and in terms of Mary's coordinate system, so that is not the issue. The brain-deadedness of your book's exposition is really beside the point, because what it's trying (and abysmally failing) to explain is not at issue in this discussion.
>
> > these are measured numbers, not hypothetical ones...
>
> No, they are neither, because they are undefined, even as to what is being measured. The student is simply being fed some statements whose meanings are not defined, by exploiting convenient verbal ambiguities involving plural versus singular, etc., and he's being encouraged to assume that these ambiguities must not be relevant, because they are being ignored. Just awful.
> > just as was discovered by the surveyor.
> Right, the surveyor discussion is just as brain-dead. For example, how did they define the east-west direction? Also, the idiotic introduction of sacredness is terrible, and the idea that converting from one unit of spatial distance to another is the same as blithely converting from a temporal to a spatial unit is incredibly stupid, and the offered justification is completely inadequate. Any intelligent person, even knowing nothing about relativity, would baulk at every sentence - and rightly so.
>
> > ...you decided to get diverted from the WHOLE POINT of the lesson
>
> Once again, Pat began the thread by positing the computation of the interval between the sparks in terms of the two different coordinate systems... so there is no point to that "lesson" at all... even if it wasn't utterly brain-dead.
>
> The remainder of my post, that you ignored, explained your misconceptions about the situation very clearly. As always, you ignored the explanation, which is why you never learn anything. But it's not too late:
> To avoid being brain-dead, the book would need to explain what it means for John to measure (with his accurate and fast electronic clock) a lapse of time of 33.690 nanosec "between the sparks". (Likewise it would need to explain how the surveyors determined their respective east-west directions.) True, John's stopwatch reads 33.690 nanosec when he is simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of his co-moving system of inertial coordinates... but how he determines this is not explained, and of course his clock reads less than Mary's clock at the time that is simultaneous with the extinguisher-spark in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinates. This is how the reciprocal time dilation and length contraction are reconciled, i.e., the resolution of the standard muon "paradox" that Pat is asking about. Your brain-dead book is worse than useless... as are all your posts. Look...
>
> Pat's original post in this thread correctly computed the interval between the two sparks, both in terms of John's co-moving inertial coordinate system, and in terms of Mary's. For his chosen example, he says the interval in terms of John's system has dt = 7.7 nsec and dx = 2 meters, and in terms of Mary's system has dt'=3.85 nsec and dx'=0 meters. He then correctly (aside from some typo-/rounding errors) computes the same correct interval for each. Of course, he makes the same mistake as your brain-dead book in blithely glossing over how John actually measures that elapsed time, and that John's clock reads that time at a different event, but never mind. The point is, he correctly shows the invariance of the interval. He calls this the Monday calculation.
>
> The problem appears in what he calls the Tuesday calculation. He still gets the same dx, dt, and interval in terms of Mary's system, but now he says for John's system we have dx=1 meter and dt=3.85 nsec, and with these components he gets the smaller interval for John "between the sparks"... contradiction! Well, what is he actually computing here? He says the Tuesday calculations are done with us riding along with Mary, and sure enough, in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system John moves a distance of dx' = 1 meter and has an elapsed coordinate time of dt'=3.85 nsecs "between the sparks", and John's interval "between the sparks" is indeed the smaller value that Pat calculates. Needless to say, this is not a contradiction, because it is not the interval between the two sparks, it is the interval between the first spark and the John-event simultaneous with the second spark in terms of Mary's co-moving coordinate system.
>
> This is the standard resolution of the muon "paradox", and your persistent efforts to encourage Pat to ignore the actual explanation, and instead join your brain-dead book club (thereby doubling it's membership) are not helpful.
Bodkin,
That Townes is a fool and his crazy-ass theories of special relativity are kook-meat, is as apparent as his claim that the same muon scintillates several times according to the same lab clock.
But at least Townes had the courage to provide counterexamples to TMWBST. Now it is your turn. Skip the rest of the chapters in your book and provide a response, including calculations, to my calculation that prove different values for the spacetime interval between the same two events. I dare you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 20:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Imbecile Pat Dolan digs himself deeper |
| Message-ID | <b47af454-6c64-46f7-a412-828d3c498502n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579651 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:56:50 PM UTC-8, imbecile pat dolan wrote: > my calculation that prove different values for the spacetime interval between the same two events. Pattycakes, The saying "can't fix imbecile" fully applies to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 09:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Imbecile Pat Dolan digs himself deeper |
| Message-ID | <62263EEE.39A5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579654 |
Dono. wrote: > > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:56:50 PM UTC-8, imbecile pat dolan wrote: > > my calculation that prove different values for the spacetime interval between the same two events. > > Pattycakes, > > The saying "can't fix imbecile" fully applies to you. There is no such saying "can't fix imbecile", did you just made that up? It certaintly not commonplace. Are you coming in here LYING to others??? I will not accept that. But I do notice the 'tone' of the sayings you just made up... are you Jewish? Cause you talk like ...them people. -- 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 | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 21:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62084b8f-7775-4400-b095-380d7ca60e60n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579651 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:56:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > ...his claim that the same muon scintillates several times according to the same lab clock. As you know, no such claim has been made. To the contrary, the collision event (E4) is unique, as are each of the other events in the standard muon scenario, and the unique spatio-temporals relations between each event have been clearly explained to you. Remember? > my calculation that prove different values for the spacetime interval between the same two events. Nope, you calculated the intervals between two different pairs of events, one between the two sparks, and one between the first spark and John's event at the t' value of the second spark. Those are obviously two different intervals. And you're unable to dispute this plain fact... remember?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 04:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9438161-0ed6-45fe-a374-53c33c98912dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579655 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 9:08:35 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote: > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:56:50 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > ...his claim that the same muon scintillates several times according to the same lab clock. > > As you know, no such claim has been made. To the contrary, the collision event (E4) is unique, as are each of the other events in the standard muon scenario, and the unique spatio-temporals relations between each event have been clearly explained to you. Remember? > > my calculation that prove different values for the spacetime interval between the same two events. Townes.... > Nope, you calculated the intervals between two different pairs of events, one between the two sparks, and one between the first spark and John's event at the t' value of the second spark. Those are obviously two different intervals. And you're unable to dispute this plain fact... remember? I carefully constructed Venn diagrams of the spark events, John and Mary. According to the Venn diagrams your construct does not lead to a universe in which there are only two sparks. Try it and you will find that your mental construct necessarily requires 3 sparks in spacetime. The problem you are having in failing to grasp the basic inconsistency in the spacetime modeling is the limitations that algebra imposes on your analysis. You need to step out of the algebra and look at the situation using another tool, Venn diagrams. Algebra fails to capture much of reality. Don't believe me? Try solving the three body problem. Bodkin is right, you need to stop plowing ahead pig-headily in the algebraic dead end you now reside. This should help you overcome the difficulties you continue to have understanding me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 06:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <afcc09bb-6d8f-45bb-8f0c-0990e30cd3d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579664 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:30:36 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > The collision event is unique, as are each of the other events in the standard muon scenario, and the unique spatio-temporal relations between each event have been clearly explained to you. You calculated the intervals between two different pairs of events, one between the two sparks, and one between the first spark and John's event at the t' value of the second spark. Those are obviously two different intervals. > > Your construct does not lead to a universe in which there are only two sparks. It isn't my construct, it is yours, i.e., we are discussing the scenario in which there are two - and only two - spark events. The problem is that you also introduce another event, namely, John's event that is simultaneous with the second spark according to Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system. In your original post in this thread, the interval that you computed is between the first spark and this other John-event. That's the same fallacy behind the standard "muon paradox" discussed previously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b81083d3-ebea-4599-ac7a-425952a49e0dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579672 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 6:43:24 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:30:36 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > The collision event is unique, as are each of the other events in the standard muon scenario, and the unique spatio-temporal relations between each event have been clearly explained to you. You calculated the intervals between two different pairs of events, one between the two sparks, and one between the first spark and John's event at the t' value of the second spark. Those are obviously two different intervals. > > > > Your construct does not lead to a universe in which there are only two sparks. > > It isn't my construct, it is yours, i.e., we are discussing the scenario in which there are two - and only two - spark events. The problem is that you also introduce another event, namely, John's event that is simultaneous with the second spark according to Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system. In your original post in this thread, the interval that you computed is between the first spark and this other John-event. That's the same fallacy behind the standard "muon paradox" discussed previously. Townes, pick John & Mary or the muon. Then redo your calculations, using your E0 thru E3 convention for events, plus i0 - i3 to identify your spacetime intervals. This should be enough for the MWBST to finally pin you down in center ring of this forum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web