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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 00:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t069bs$3o4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579733 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:21:03 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:26:17 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> The book is only talking about the interval between the sparks, whereas >>>>>>>>> Pat is talking about >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Something irrelevant to the example in the book. Period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's hilarious. You've just conceded that Pat's question (see the >>>>>>> original post in this thread) is about something that is not covered in that book, >>>>>> >>>>>> At that point, yes. It comes LATER. >>>>> >>>>> Great... so please tell me the page (or section or paragraph) in that >>>>> book on which the answer to Pat's question is given. Prediction: You won't. >>>>> >>>> Wait a second. >>> >>> Take all the time you need. Again, Pat's question is why John's interval >>> between the times of the sparks (in terms of Mary's co-moving system) is >>> different than the interval between the sparks. Where is this answered in that book? >>> >>>> Where does the discussion of length contraction *start*? >> >> That happens... > > Huh? You're answering your own question rhetorical question. My answer > to your question was (and is): > >>> No, Pat correctly computed the distance between [John] and the >>> extinguisher in terms of Mary's system (1 meter), and this is indeed the >>> distance that John travels (in Mary's system) between the times of the >>> sparks. The question is as stated above (and in Pat's original post). >>> Where in the book is that question answered? >>> >>> Prediction: You will never answer this question. (The answer to Pat's >>> question is not in that book.) > > As predicted (twice), you have refused to answer (twice). The reason you > can't answer is that it is not in the book. This is really symptomatic: > All you can do is answer your own rhetorical questions to yourself. Your > brain is simply not engaging with the actual question that was raised in this thread. > Answering the specific question for the specific example is not in the book. Understanding how to apply length contraction is in the book. If one has any doubts how to answer the earlier question after learning how to do this in general later, not right at the beginning when it would have been a distraction, THEN the question will be answerable. Good Lord, man, the Lorentz transformations are not covered until chapter 4. For a particular reason as well. Are you going to have a conniption if the book does not illustrate how to go back and do the specific coordinates in this example, or do you think students might have the ability to go back and do that if they wished after they’ve done Chapter 4, and is the book crap if it doesn’t START by doing the Lorentz transforms in this first example in Chapter 1? You know NOTHING about pedagogy. Seriously. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 18:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65116d2c-7446-4ef8-b444-00e3558dc94dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579737 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Pat's question is why John's interval between the times of the sparks (in >> terms of Mary's co-moving system) is different than the interval between >> the sparks. Where is this answered in that book? > > Answering the specific question for the specific example is not in the book. Right, and this isn't just a difference of numerical values for the parameters (such as the same question with different values of v and D), it is a conceptually very distinct question from any question whose answer is in the book. > Understanding how to apply length contraction is in the book. The book may *attempt* to to provide that understanding, but notice that Pat (who never read that book) correctly applied both length contraction and time dilation to his problem, whereas you (who "learned" the subject from that book) did not. ** Recall that when Pat said the distance between John and the extinguisher was just 1 meter in terms of Mary's system, and he used that distance along with Mary's dilated time to compute John's interval, you began prattling about how one can't compute distances using that formula, and infinite ping pong, etc.,... but he was right and you were wrong. Again, Pat correctly computed the invariance of the interval between sparks in both systems, and he did not mis-apply length contraction or time dilation or the expression for the invariant interval. He got all of that correct (albeit parroting it from other sources). Indeed he got the right value for "John's interval between the [times of the] sparks in terms of Mary's co-moving coordinate system", which he noted is different than the converse - hence (so goes the sophistry) contradicting relativity. The well-known fallacy in this paradox is claiming a false symmetry between (1) Mary's interval between the times of the sparks in terms of John's system, and (2) John's interval between the times of the sparks in terms of Mary's system. The paradox is exploded simply by explaining the asymmetry between the relevant set of events. ** Prediction: You will snip the reply at this point, and thereby once again avoid learning anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t07nsg$8tc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579739 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Pat's question is why John's interval between the times of the sparks (in >>> terms of Mary's co-moving system) is different than the interval between >>> the sparks. Where is this answered in that book? >> >> Answering the specific question for the specific example is not in the book. > > Right, and this isn't just a difference of numerical values for the > parameters (such as the same question with different values of v and D), > it is a conceptually very distinct question from any question whose > answer is in the book. > >> Understanding how to apply length contraction is in the book. > > The book may *attempt* to to provide that understanding, but notice that > Pat (who never read that book) correctly applied both length contraction > and time dilation to his problem, whereas you (who "learned" the subject > from that book) did not. ** Recall that when Pat said the distance > between John and the extinguisher was just 1 meter in terms of Mary's > system, and he used that distance along with Mary's dilated time to > compute John's interval, you began prattling about how one can't compute > distances using that formula, and infinite ping pong, etc.,... but he was > right and you were wrong. > > Again, Pat correctly “Correctly”. I see. Dolan: “Per our agreement, I’ve come into the shop to make furniture.” Bodkin: “OK, so today we’re not going to cut or remove any wood. We’re just going to assemble.” Dolan: “Fair warning, I am The Man Who Broke Furniture Making.” Bodkin: “No worries, there are instructions right here. All you’re going to do this morning is attach the foot to the bottom of the pedestal using four lag bolts. See? Look at Diagram 1-4. There are four holes in pedestal and four holes in the foot. As the diagram shows, you line up the holes, insert the lag bolts until they grab, and then you tighten them down with a socket wrench until the foot is flush and firm against the pedestal. Got it?” Dolan: “Got it.” [Dawdles around and then picks up a hand drill with a 1/4” bit.] “I like drills.” [Proceeds to drill four holes in the side of the pedestal.] Olson: “No, you see you’ve drilled a separate set of holes. You’re going to attach the foot to the side of the pedestal.” Bodkin: “Oh, Dolan, you couldn’t follow those instructions?” Dolan: “No, they’re gibberish. They said to match the four holes in the pedestal to the four holes in the foot, but there are eight holes in the pedestal. How am I supposed to line up holes when there aren’t even the same number?” Bodkin: “You picked up a drill. Why did you do that?” Olson: “The instructions are brain-dead, for the brain-dead. There was no explanation where the holes in the base came from. Where in the instructions does it explain how he’s to use a drill to make those holes?” Bodkin: [Takes the drill away.] “We’ll get to drilling later. Today is Tuesday. Maybe on Friday he’ll use a drill to make holes for the dowel pins for the tabletop leaves. Today is just about assembly, not about cutting or removing any wood.” Olson: “But that makes no sense. As you can see, he correctly drilled four holes in the side of the pedestal.” Dolan: “Yeah.” Bodkin: “Are the lag bolts in the holes in the foot and pedestal?” Dolan: “Well, no.” Bodkin: “Is the foot firmly attached to the bottom of the pedestal?” Olson: “No, of course not, but why is that important?” Bodkin: “And did you ever pick up the socket wrench?” Dolan: “I like drills. Here, let me drill some holes in the top of the table. As I told you, I am The Man Who Broke Furniture Making.” Olson: “This is your fault, Bodkin.” > computed the invariance of the interval between sparks in both systems, > and he did not mis-apply length contraction or time dilation or the > expression for the invariant interval. He got all of that correct > (albeit parroting it from other sources). Indeed he got the right value > for "John's interval between the [times of the] sparks in terms of Mary's > co-moving coordinate system", which he noted is different than the > converse - hence (so goes the sophistry) contradicting relativity. The > well-known fallacy in this paradox is claiming a false symmetry between > (1) Mary's interval between the times of the sparks in terms of John's > system, and (2) John's interval between the times of the sparks in terms > of Mary's system. The paradox is exploded simply by explaining the > asymmetry between the relevant set of events. > > ** Prediction: You will snip the reply at this point, and thereby once > again avoid learning anything. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 06:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aad85c1c-98de-4293-b004-7ad56fef1733n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579775 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:06:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Pat's question is why John's interval between the times of the sparks (in > >>> terms of Mary's co-moving system) is different than the interval between > >>> the sparks. Where is this answered in that book? > >> > >> Answering the specific question for the specific example is not in the book. > > > > Right, and this isn't just a difference of numerical values for the > > parameters (such as the same question with different values of v and D), > > it is a conceptually very distinct question from any question whose > > answer is in the book. > > > >> Understanding how to apply length contraction is in the book. > > > > The book may *attempt* to to provide that understanding, but notice that > > Pat (who never read that book) correctly applied both length contraction > > and time dilation to his problem, whereas you (who "learned" the subject > > from that book) did not. Recall that when Pat said the distance > > between John and the extinguisher was just 1 meter in terms of Mary's > > system, and he used that distance along with Mary's dilated time to > > compute John's interval, you began prattling about how one can't compute > > distances using that formula, and infinite ping pong, etc.,... but he was > > right and you were wrong. > > > > Again, Pat correctly computed the invariance of the interval between sparks > > in both systems, and he did not mis-apply length contraction or time dilation > > or the expression for the invariant interval. He got all of that correct > > (albeit parroting it from other sources). Indeed he got the right value > > for "John's interval between the [times of the] sparks in terms of Mary's > > co-moving coordinate system", which he noted is different than the > > converse - hence (so goes the sophistry) contradicting relativity. The > > well-known fallacy in this paradox is claiming a false symmetry between > > (1) Mary's interval between the times of the sparks in terms of John's > > system, and (2) John's interval between the times of the sparks in terms > > of Mary's system. The paradox is exploded simply by explaining the > > asymmetry between the relevant set of events. > > > “Correctly”. I see. Do you? As explained, Pat's correct statements are correct, and his incorrect statements are incorrect. It's important to make the distinction between those two kinds of statements, and to point out (correctly) which are which... see above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 07:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe44dc6e-ea65-4a5b-bc50-78ffa6704a05n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579780 |
On Tuesday, 8 March 2022 at 15:59:57 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:06:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> Pat's question is why John's interval between the times of the sparks (in > > >>> terms of Mary's co-moving system) is different than the interval between > > >>> the sparks. Where is this answered in that book? > > >> > > >> Answering the specific question for the specific example is not in the book. > > > > > > Right, and this isn't just a difference of numerical values for the > > > parameters (such as the same question with different values of v and D), > > > it is a conceptually very distinct question from any question whose > > > answer is in the book. > > > > > >> Understanding how to apply length contraction is in the book. > > > > > > The book may *attempt* to to provide that understanding, but notice that > > > Pat (who never read that book) correctly applied both length contraction > > > and time dilation to his problem, whereas you (who "learned" the subject > > > from that book) did not. Recall that when Pat said the distance > > > between John and the extinguisher was just 1 meter in terms of Mary's > > > system, and he used that distance along with Mary's dilated time to > > > compute John's interval, you began prattling about how one can't compute > > > distances using that formula, and infinite ping pong, etc.,... but he was > > > right and you were wrong. > > > > > > Again, Pat correctly computed the invariance of the interval between sparks > > > in both systems, and he did not mis-apply length contraction or time dilation > > > or the expression for the invariant interval. He got all of that correct > > > (albeit parroting it from other sources). Indeed he got the right value > > > for "John's interval between the [times of the] sparks in terms of Mary's > > > co-moving coordinate system", which he noted is different than the > > > converse - hence (so goes the sophistry) contradicting relativity. The > > > well-known fallacy in this paradox is claiming a false symmetry between > > > (1) Mary's interval between the times of the sparks in terms of John's > > > system, and (2) John's interval between the times of the sparks in terms > > > of Mary's system. The paradox is exploded simply by explaining the > > > asymmetry between the relevant set of events. > > > > > “Correctly”. I see. > > Do you? As explained, Pat's correct statements are correct, and his incorrect statements are incorrect. It's important to make the distinction between those two kinds of statements, and to point out (correctly) which are which... see above. And a relativistc moron knows for sure, what is correct and what is not, because he is incredibly wise, and following The Shit of our Giant Guru, and has studied the M&M experiment....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t07tlh$1g56$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579780 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:06:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Pat's question is why John's interval between the times of the sparks (in >>>>> terms of Mary's co-moving system) is different than the interval between >>>>> the sparks. Where is this answered in that book? >>>> >>>> Answering the specific question for the specific example is not in the book. >>> >>> Right, and this isn't just a difference of numerical values for the >>> parameters (such as the same question with different values of v and D), >>> it is a conceptually very distinct question from any question whose >>> answer is in the book. >>> >>>> Understanding how to apply length contraction is in the book. >>> >>> The book may *attempt* to to provide that understanding, but notice that >>> Pat (who never read that book) correctly applied both length contraction >>> and time dilation to his problem, whereas you (who "learned" the subject >>> from that book) did not. Recall that when Pat said the distance >>> between John and the extinguisher was just 1 meter in terms of Mary's >>> system, and he used that distance along with Mary's dilated time to >>> compute John's interval, you began prattling about how one can't compute >>> distances using that formula, and infinite ping pong, etc.,... but he was >>> right and you were wrong. >>> >>> Again, Pat correctly computed the invariance of the interval between sparks >>> in both systems, and he did not mis-apply length contraction or time dilation >>> or the expression for the invariant interval. He got all of that correct >>> (albeit parroting it from other sources). Indeed he got the right value >>> for "John's interval between the [times of the] sparks in terms of Mary's >>> co-moving coordinate system", which he noted is different than the >>> converse - hence (so goes the sophistry) contradicting relativity. The >>> well-known fallacy in this paradox is claiming a false symmetry between >>> (1) Mary's interval between the times of the sparks in terms of John's >>> system, and (2) John's interval between the times of the sparks in terms >>> of Mary's system. The paradox is exploded simply by explaining the >>> asymmetry between the relevant set of events. >>> >> “Correctly”. I see. > > Do you? As explained, Pat's correct statements are correct, and his > incorrect statements are incorrect. It's important to make the > distinction between those two kinds of statements, and to point out > (correctly) which are which... see above. > Isn’t it fascinating that you predict that I will snip your content, and I don’t, and then you do, failing to get or even look at the point? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 12:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t07eb1$1d3t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579737 |
Op 08-mrt.-2022 om 01:52 schreef Odd Bodkin: > Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:21:03 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:26:17 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The book is only talking about the interval between the sparks, whereas >>>>>>>>>> Pat is talking about >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Something irrelevant to the example in the book. Period. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's hilarious. You've just conceded that Pat's question (see the >>>>>>>> original post in this thread) is about something that is not covered in that book, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At that point, yes. It comes LATER. >>>>>> >>>>>> Great... so please tell me the page (or section or paragraph) in that >>>>>> book on which the answer to Pat's question is given. Prediction: You won't. >>>>>> >>>>> Wait a second. >>>> >>>> Take all the time you need. Again, Pat's question is why John's interval >>>> between the times of the sparks (in terms of Mary's co-moving system) is >>>> different than the interval between the sparks. Where is this answered in that book? >>>> >>>>> Where does the discussion of length contraction *start*? >>> >>> That happens... >> >> Huh? You're answering your own question rhetorical question. My answer >> to your question was (and is): >> >>>> No, Pat correctly computed the distance between [John] and the >>>> extinguisher in terms of Mary's system (1 meter), and this is indeed the >>>> distance that John travels (in Mary's system) between the times of the >>>> sparks. The question is as stated above (and in Pat's original post). >>>> Where in the book is that question answered? >>>> >>>> Prediction: You will never answer this question. (The answer to Pat's >>>> question is not in that book.) >> >> As predicted (twice), you have refused to answer (twice). The reason you >> can't answer is that it is not in the book. This is really symptomatic: >> All you can do is answer your own rhetorical questions to yourself. Your >> brain is simply not engaging with the actual question that was raised in this thread. >> > > Answering the specific question for the specific example is not in the > book. Understanding how to apply length contraction is in the book. If one > has any doubts how to answer the earlier question after learning how to do > this in general later, not right at the beginning when it would have been a > distraction, THEN the question will be answerable. > > Good Lord, man, the Lorentz transformations are not covered until chapter > 4. For a particular reason as well. Are you going to have a conniption if > the book does not illustrate how to go back and do the specific coordinates > in this example, or do you think students might have the ability to go back > and do that if they wished after they’ve done Chapter 4, and is the book > crap if it doesn’t START by doing the Lorentz transforms in this first > example in Chapter 1? > > You know NOTHING about pedagogy. Seriously. LOL! This thread is what happens when someone, who thinks they can educate, tries to simultaneously educate someone who refuses to be educated, and someone else whom they think cannot educate and who is also trying to educate the former. And none of the involved is wired to stop and shrug away. This will not come to an end anytime soon ;-) Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 13:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e605dccd-019c-4aa5-a425-0632a00ea27fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579718 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:26:17 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> The book is only talking about the interval between the sparks, whereas > >>>>> Pat is talking about > >>>> > >>>> Something irrelevant to the example in the book. Period. > >>> > >>> That's hilarious. You've just conceded that Pat's question (see the > >>> original post in this thread) is about something that is not covered in that book, > >> > >> At that point, yes. It comes LATER. > > > > Great... so please tell me the page (or section or paragraph) in that > > book on which the answer to Pat's question is given. Prediction: You won't. > > > Wait a second. Take all the time you need. Again, Pat's question is why John's interval between the times of the sparks (in terms of Mary's co-moving system) is different than the interval between the sparks. Where in the book is this answered? > Where does the discussion of length contraction *start*? No, Pat correctly computed the distance John traveled during the time betweensparks in terms of Mary's system. The question is as stated above (and in Pat's original post). Where in the book is that question answered? Prediction: You'll never answer this question. (The answer to Pat's question is not in that book.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 10:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9feeee4-4d85-4c2b-96c3-d098ebacd84bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579692 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 7:01:57 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > You have completely MISSED THE POINT of the presentation in this book... > > We covered this before. Again, the point is three-fold: First, the book is only talking about the interval between the sparks, whereas Pat is talking about John's interval between the times of the sparks in terms of Mary's co-moving coordinate system, which the book does not address. Second, Pat already correctly computed the interval between the sparks, in terms of both systems, so he doesn't need to book to tell him how to do this. > > Third, the book is completely brain-dead, since (as you yourself admit) it doesn't even define what John is measuring, etc. Parables, allegories, invalid analogies, sacredness, fantasy worlds, failure to even define what is being measured, and implying (falsely) it is just the elapsed times on "fast" clocks (whatever a "fast" clock is), etc., etc. Only about 10% of the words actually refer to physics (poorly), and the other 90% is superfluous fantasy nonsense. Books like this try to give people the illusion that they understand something, without actually understanding anything. I also happen not to particularly like the verbosity of these initial few pages. But once you get past page five, there is very little not to like. Plus, I can't think of any other books written for autodidacts that covers rapidity. The solved problems are VERY important for learning the subject well. That's why I currently recommend Morin, since half of the problems in Special Relativity: For the Enthusiastic Beginner have detailed answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 22:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8cd77886-baf3-4b9e-9dd2-a08548591061n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579628 |
On Sunday, 6 March 2022 at 21:07:14 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > 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. A lie, of course, as expected from a relativistic stinker. Anyone can check GPS or TAI, real measuremaents are t'=t, like they always were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RWsVJ.23440$dS2.10835@fx11.ams4> |
| In reply to | #579612 |
Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> 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... Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. The scenario is precisely defined in the book. It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. This is explained later in the book. But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime intervals are not invariant. Pat wrote: "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." If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would have known that the temporal interval only can be measured by clocks present at the events, and when the events are at different spatial points, that means two clocks. And Pat wrote: "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????" Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. > > 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". ereby doubling it's membership) are not helpful. The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, the solution later. You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime interval is not invariant. Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore his calculations were nonsense. So what more is it to discuss? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05oak$14se$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579709 |
Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote: > > > Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: >> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> 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... > > Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. > > The scenario is precisely defined in the book. > It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what > spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. > This is explained later in the book. > > But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario > in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime > intervals are not invariant. > > Pat wrote: > "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." > > If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would > have known that the temporal interval only can be measured > by clocks present at the events, and when the events are > at different spatial points, that means two clocks. > > And Pat wrote: > "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????" > > Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way > John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. > > And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval > in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. > >> >> 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". ereby doubling >> it's membership) are not helpful. > > The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, > the solution later. > > You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. > > The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, > and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of > reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime > interval is not invariant. > > Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore > his calculations were nonsense. > > So what more is it to discuss? > Pat has simply deviated from the presentation in the book, jumping ahead to try invoke rules like length contraction. That’s a problem with short attention span and a little bad information infestation in his head. The good thing about a book is that it will take you through a set of pedagogically illuminating steps without you having to go pig-wild over things that are not yet covered or not particularly important for the current step. Of course, Pat also suffers from the anxiety of actually learning something, as opposed to the peace of mind he gets by throwing dirt in the air and claiming the whole thing is a mess. This is perhaps why Pat is stuck on Chapter 1, Section 2, unwilling or unable to move on — of course not helped by Townes adding to the distraction by exclaiming, “No, MINE is the only correct way to present relativity, pay attention to ME, not the book.” -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 10:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62279E4A.33B9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579714 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote: > > > > > > Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: > >> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> > >>> 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... > > > > Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. > > > > The scenario is precisely defined in the book. > > It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what > > spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. > > This is explained later in the book. > > > > But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario > > in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime > > intervals are not invariant. > > > > Pat wrote: > > "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." > > > > If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would > > have known that the temporal interval only can be measured > > by clocks present at the events, and when the events are > > at different spatial points, that means two clocks. > > > > And Pat wrote: > > "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????" > > > > Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way > > John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. > > > > And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval > > in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. > > > >> > >> 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". ereby doubling > >> it's membership) are not helpful. > > > > The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, > > the solution later. > > > > You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. > > > > The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, > > and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of > > reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime > > interval is not invariant. > > > > Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore > > his calculations were nonsense. > > > > So what more is it to discuss? > > > > Pat has simply deviated from the presentation in the book, jumping ahead to > try invoke rules like length contraction. That’s a problem with short > attention span and a little bad information infestation in his head. > > The good thing about a book is that it will take you through a set of > pedagogically illuminating steps without you having to go pig-wild over > things that are not yet covered or not particularly important for the > current step. > > Of course, Pat also suffers from the anxiety of actually learning > something, as opposed to the peace of mind he gets by throwing dirt in the > air and claiming the whole thing is a mess. This is perhaps why Pat is > stuck on Chapter 1, Section 2, unwilling or unable to move on — of course > not helped by Townes adding to the distraction by exclaiming, “No, MINE is > the only correct way to present relativity, pay attention to ME, not the > book.†> > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The 'teachers' *always* blame their incompentance on the students. It's time to 'evaluate the teachers'. -- 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 | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 12:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d403ef81-4424-405f-8f3f-96818e9cfa52n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579709 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: > > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> 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... > Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. > > The scenario is precisely defined in the book. > It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what > spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. > This is explained later in the book. > > But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario > in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime > intervals are not invariant. > > Pat wrote: > "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." > > If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would > have known that the temporal interval only can be measured > by clocks present at the events, and when the events are > at different spatial points, that means two clocks. > > And Pat wrote: > "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????" > > Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way > John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. > > And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval > in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. > > > > > 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". ereby doubling it's membership) are not helpful. > > The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, > the solution later. > > You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. > > The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, > and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of > reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime > interval is not invariant. > > Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore > his calculations were nonsense. > > So what more is it to discuss? > > -- > Paul There is this more to discuss, Paul. Give this forum the page number and problem number of an example where the calculation is performed correctly, in your opinion. > > https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05u6k$1tla$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579720 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: >>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> 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... >> Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. >> >> The scenario is precisely defined in the book. >> It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what >> spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. >> This is explained later in the book. >> >> But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario >> in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime >> intervals are not invariant. >> >> Pat wrote: >> "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." >> >> If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would >> have known that the temporal interval only can be measured >> by clocks present at the events, and when the events are >> at different spatial points, that means two clocks. >> >> And Pat wrote: >> "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????" >> >> Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way >> John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. >> >> And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval >> in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. >> >>> >>> 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". ereby doubling >>> it's membership) are not helpful. >> >> The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, >> the solution later. >> >> You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. >> >> The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, >> and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of >> reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime >> interval is not invariant. >> >> Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore >> his calculations were nonsense. >> >> So what more is it to discuss? >> >> -- >> Paul > > There is this more to discuss, Paul. Give this forum the page number and > problem number of an example where the calculation is performed correctly, in your opinion. Table 1-4, Section 2, Chapter 1, is a fine example of calculating the interval between the same pair of events from two different reference frames (John’s and Mary’s). This is followed by Sample Problem 1-1 in the same section, where the steps are walked through for a different set of numbers, but the same method. Can you read, Pat? What part of Table 1-4 are you finding hard to read? If your vision is blurred because of imbibing, at what hour do you think you’ll be able to focus your vision? >> >> https://paulba.no/ > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 13:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1bb50c9f-5596-4f70-a93f-b7f43d92edd2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579721 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: > >>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 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... > >> Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. > >> > >> The scenario is precisely defined in the book. > >> It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what > >> spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. > >> This is explained later in the book. > >> > >> But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario > >> in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime > >> intervals are not invariant. > >> > >> Pat wrote: > >> "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." > >> > >> If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would > >> have known that the temporal interval only can be measured > >> by clocks present at the events, and when the events are > >> at different spatial points, that means two clocks. > >> > >> And Pat wrote: > >> "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????" > >> > >> Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way > >> John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. > >> > >> And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval > >> in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. > >> > >>> > >>> 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". ereby doubling > >>> it's membership) are not helpful. > >> > >> The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, > >> the solution later. > >> > >> You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. > >> > >> The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, > >> and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of > >> reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime > >> interval is not invariant. > >> > >> Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore > >> his calculations were nonsense. > >> > >> So what more is it to discuss? > >> > >> -- > >> Paul > > > > There is this more to discuss, Paul. Give this forum the page number and > > problem number of an example where the calculation is performed correctly, in your opinion. > Table 1-4, Section 2, Chapter 1, is a fine example of calculating the > interval between the same pair of events from two different reference > frames (John’s and Mary’s). This is followed by Sample Problem 1-1 in the > same section, where the steps are walked through for a different set of > numbers, but the same method. > > Can you read, Pat? What part of Table 1-4 are you finding hard to read? If > your vision is blurred because of imbibing, at what hour do you think > you’ll be able to focus your vision? > That very example with its values is what I used in my demolition of the spacetime interval. I merely increased the relative velocity to .867c to get the rounding error out of the way. Give us another example Bodkin, if there is actually is in the entire remainder of the book. > >> > >> https://paulba.no/ > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 14:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <622683D7.2F87@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579723 |
patdolan wrote: > > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: > > >>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> 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... > > >> Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. > > >> > > >> The scenario is precisely defined in the book. > > >> It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what > > >> spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. > > >> This is explained later in the book. > > >> > > >> But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario > > >> in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime > > >> intervals are not invariant. > > >> > > >> Pat wrote: > > >> "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." > > >> > > >> If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would > > >> have known that the temporal interval only can be measured > > >> by clocks present at the events, and when the events are > > >> at different spatial points, that means two clocks. > > >> > > >> And Pat wrote: > > >> "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????" > > >> > > >> Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way > > >> John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. > > >> > > >> And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval > > >> in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> 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". ereby doubling > > >>> it's membership) are not helpful. > > >> > > >> The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, > > >> the solution later. > > >> > > >> You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. > > >> > > >> The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, > > >> and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of > > >> reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime > > >> interval is not invariant. > > >> > > >> Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore > > >> his calculations were nonsense. > > >> > > >> So what more is it to discuss? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Paul > > > > > > There is this more to discuss, Paul. Give this forum the page number and > > > problem number of an example where the calculation is performed correctly, in your opinion. > > Table 1-4, Section 2, Chapter 1, is a fine example of calculating the > > interval between the same pair of events from two different reference > > frames (John’s and Mary’s). This is followed by Sample Problem 1-1 in the > > same section, where the steps are walked through for a different set of > > numbers, but the same method. > > > > Can you read, Pat? What part of Table 1-4 are you finding hard to read? If > > your vision is blurred because of imbibing, at what hour do you think > > you’ll be able to focus your vision? > > > > That very example with its values is what I used in my demolition of the spacetime interval. I merely increased the relative velocity to .867c to get the rounding error out of the way. > > Give us another example Bodkin, if there is actually is in the entire remainder of the book. he's gotta check the solution manual first...if it's not in there..he's got no answer. Look at those airline pilots in the cockpit checking the solution manual right before they crash... "Oh oh, it's not in the manual!" > > > >> > > >> https://paulba.no/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- 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 | 2022-03-07 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t060ga$tpf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579723 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 06.03.2022 16:09, skrev Townes Olson: >>>>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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... >>>> Exactly! That's why Pat can be blamed for being ignorant. >>>> >>>> The scenario is precisely defined in the book. >>>> It doesn't - in this scenario - explain what >>>> spacetime intervals are, or how to calculate them. >>>> This is explained later in the book. >>>> >>>> But Pat claims that he knows, and he chose the scenario >>>> in order to demonstrate that he even can prove that spacetime >>>> intervals are not invariant. >>>> >>>> Pat wrote: >>>> "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." >>>> >>>> If Pat had known what a spacetime interval is, he would >>>> have known that the temporal interval only can be measured >>>> by clocks present at the events, and when the events are >>>> at different spatial points, that means two clocks. >>>> >>>> And Pat wrote: >>>> "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????" >>>> >>>> Pat does obviously not understand that there is no way >>>> John can start his stopwatch at E0 and stop it at E1. >>>> >>>> And it is obviously ridiculous to think that the spatial interval >>>> in John's rest frame can be measured in Mary's rest frame. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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". ereby doubling >>>>> it's membership) are not helpful. >>>> >>>> The book explains that later. The problem is presented first, >>>> the solution later. >>>> >>>> You can't blame the book for Pat's ignorance. >>>> >>>> The point is that Pat claimed to know what spacetime interval is, >>>> and to know how to calculate the interval in different frames of >>>> reference, and he even claimed that he had proven that spacetime >>>> interval is not invariant. >>>> >>>> Pat has demonstrated that he is ignorant and therefore >>>> his calculations were nonsense. >>>> >>>> So what more is it to discuss? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Paul >>> >>> There is this more to discuss, Paul. Give this forum the page number and >>> problem number of an example where the calculation is performed >>> correctly, in your opinion. >> Table 1-4, Section 2, Chapter 1, is a fine example of calculating the >> interval between the same pair of events from two different reference >> frames (John’s and Mary’s). This is followed by Sample Problem 1-1 in the >> same section, where the steps are walked through for a different set of >> numbers, but the same method. >> >> Can you read, Pat? What part of Table 1-4 are you finding hard to read? If >> your vision is blurred because of imbibing, at what hour do you think >> you’ll be able to focus your vision? >> > > That very example with its values is what I used in my demolition of the > spacetime interval. I merely increased the relative velocity to .867c to > get the rounding error out of the way. Then the use of the higher speed confused you. You will notice in the table that the values of the interval, when calculated correctly, give the same value. I see that you continue to try to calculate them incorrectly and declare them broken. Kind of like backing the Ferrari into a tree and blaming the car. When you can understand that John’s calculation of an interval involves John’s coordinates for the events, and not what you think Mary’s view of John’s coordinates are after applying some LCR you don’t know how to use, maybe the Ferrari will go forward instead of backwards. > > Give us another example Bodkin, if there is actually is in the entire > remainder of the book. I already told you, Sample Problem 1-1, same section. Want to walk me through the same steps as in Table 1-4 but for this Sample Problem so that it’s plain you know which pedal is the brake and which is the clutch? > > >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 16:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9f5bb83-e374-43a4-b4e9-3c2ba5a400e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579723 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:13:20 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. > > 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. They aren't my calculations, they are *your* calculations. Look at your original post in this thread, where your Tuesday calculation was > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 0.58 m You noted (correctly) that this is a different value than the interval between the spark events, and you think this reveals a contradiction... but it doesn't, because this interval is between the first spark and the John-event that is simultaneous with the second spark in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system. You see, in terms of Mary's system, John travels a distance of 1 meter in a time of 3.85 nsec between the time of the first spark and the time of the second spark. That is the interval you are computing. That latter event is not the second spark event, it is an event of John's, who is not present at the second spark. (By the way, I'm overlooking your rounding errors, etc.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 08:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ace4e924-3f76-454a-be91-9952a262f157n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579496 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > patdolan <patd...@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 too is another lovely neologism of yours, Bodkin, which I shall not fail to use. The "ping-pong to nothingness" theme was actually addressed by me earlier last month concerning the recursive nature of the variable "v" in the Lorentz transforms. This will be yet another avenue of attack. But I'll wait awhile until your head stops spinning from my incredibly effective salvo from which you are now reeling. Townes is so disoriented that he is firing words in every direction. You can thank me for luring him into a trap where he is now forced to reveal his favorite relativity preceptor, if indeed he has one. As the old saying goes, you know you're over the target when the flack starts flying hot and heavy. > > 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]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web