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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 11:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0410738a-c344-4996-8336-888ced4e4f13n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579689 |
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 yours. 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 note (correctly) that this is a different value than the interval between the spark events, and you think this reveals a contradictions... 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's what 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. (I'm overlooking your rounding errors, etc.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t051tc$14k7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579651 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > > 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. > Pat, you agreed to work through this textbook, and there’s no good reason to stop doing that, other than you fearing lack of control over the conversation. This is why we are using a third source. Are you ready to move on to Section 1.3? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 09:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19527ca5-3319-4e8e-8f36-43cc2f798fben@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579669 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:38:55 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > Pat, you agreed to work through this textbook, and there’s no good reason > to stop doing that, other than you fearing lack of control over the > conversation. This is why we are using a third source. Are you ready to > move on to Section 1.3? > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables C'mon, Bodkin. Do some smash-mouth calculations that prove your case. Like I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05hbm$1kv2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579688 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:38:55 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> Bodkin, >>> >>> That Townes is a fool and his crazy-ass theories of special relativity >>> are kook-meat, is as apparent as his claim that the same muon >>> scintillates several times according to the same lab clock. >>> >>> But at least Townes had the courage to provide counterexamples to TMWBST. >>> Now it is your turn. Skip the rest of the chapters in your book and >>> provide a response, including calculations, to my calculation that prove >>> different values for the spacetime interval between the same two events. I dare you. >>> >> Pat, you agreed to work through this textbook, and there’s no good reason >> to stop doing that, other than you fearing lack of control over the >> conversation. This is why we are using a third source. Are you ready to >> move on to Section 1.3? >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > C'mon, Bodkin. Do some smash-mouth calculations that prove your case. Like I do. > We are. Let’s do the calculations in the exercises in the book. We will be doing them explicitly, since you’re learning how to do them right. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 13:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t050rs$j8f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579641 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> 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.
And you are reacting to it because this is not how you think about the
problem, because you have one and only one way of thinking about or
presenting the problem, which you also believe is the only correct or
sensible way to think about or present the problem, and so you get
distracted and miss the whole point of what is being done there. And you’re
more than happy to drag other people off into the weeds with you.
As I said earlier, I’d you believe yours is the only good way to present
relativity, then write it up and publish it with a respectable higher ed
publishing house. That way you won’t scoff that there isn’t a single
relativity book that gets it right, because at least there will be yours,
which you understand and endorse.
> 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.
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 06:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c123fd11-a2f7-4d8c-841d-fb8242ba57f7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579667 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:21:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> 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.
>
> And [nothing].
So, you can find no fault in the sample criticisms of your brain-dead book.
> [ignoring the explanation]
You'll never make any progress as long as you habitually ignore all explanations of your misconceptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t056p2$1q6g$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579673 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:21:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> And [nothing].
>
> So, you can find no fault in the sample criticisms of your brain-dead book.
As I said, you have completely MISSED THE POINT of the presentation in this
book, and so you have wandered off into the weeds, happily taking other
people with you. This you do not own for yourself, and instead are obsessed
with being right.
And also as I said, if you believe that your presentation is the best and
in fact the only good way to present relativity, then should you not write
it up and submit it for publication? The only risk in doing that is that
you will get comments about pedagogical efficacy from people who teach the
subject for a living. I mean be that you do not actually want to hear those
comments, as you are completely convinced that your approach is the best
one, regardless of what anyone else says. (And what does that behavior
remind you of?)
>
>> [ignoring the explanation]
>
> You'll never make any progress as long as you habitually ignore all
> explanations of your misconceptions.
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 09:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66861402-f66b-4760-9942-16ab71ec220cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579676 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05hep$1nb7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579692 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> 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, Period, end of story. > whereas Pat is talking about Something irrelevant to the example in the book. Period. > 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. Which it does not need to do for the pedagogical intent that you persistently miss. Give it up, you’re off track. Better yet, write YOUR book. > 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. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e395570-3ebe-4813-acd6-de8041a9e115n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579700 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:04:13 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> 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, > Period, end of story. > > whereas Pat is talking about > Something irrelevant to the example in the book. Period. > > 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. > Which it does not need to do for the pedagogical intent that you > persistently miss. > > Give it up, you’re off track. Well Townes, that pretty much ends things for you around here. You are now an official outcast, a leper of Relativity. I am all that is left to you. Your Damien of Molokai. I will listen to, but not absolve you of your sins against relativity. Quick now, give me the muon ( or John & Mary ) example in terms of E1-E3 and i0-i3. Yes, Bodkin is a wordy fool for relativity. Here is your chance to prove him as such. Though it will be at the cost of your own beliefs. I would translate the muon ( or John & Mary ) into your system myself, if I understood it. It is best that it comes from you directly. > > Better yet, write YOUR book. > > 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. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05nk3$qfe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579706 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:04:13 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> 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, >> Period, end of story. >>> whereas Pat is talking about >> Something irrelevant to the example in the book. Period. >>> 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. >> Which it does not need to do for the pedagogical intent that you >> persistently miss. >> >> Give it up, you’re off track. > > Well Townes, that pretty much ends things for you around here. You are > now an official outcast, a leper of Relativity. I am all that is left to > you. Your Damien of Molokai. I will listen to, but not absolve you of > your sins against relativity. Quick now, give me the muon ( or John & > Mary ) example in terms of E1-E3 and i0-i3. > > Yes, Bodkin is a wordy fool for relativity. Here is your chance to prove > him as such. Though it will be at the cost of your own beliefs. > > I would translate the muon ( or John & Mary ) into your system myself, if > I understood it. It is best that it comes from you directly. Let me know when you’re ready to flip a page in a book and keep going. We’re only in section 2 of Chapter 1, mind you. You want to accept defeat that early? >> >> Better yet, write YOUR book. >>> 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. >>> >> -- >> 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 11:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71a498f8-e19d-4fde-9bee-ec24fc2345b2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579700 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:04:13 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 > > 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, i.e., the example in the book is irrelevant to what Pat asked. (You say "Sorry, Pat, your question is irrelevant to the answer I'm giving you!" Where do people like you come from?) Since you are unable to answer Pat's question, you try to divert his attention to a simpler trivial question that you can answer, even though he already demonstrated in his very first post the answer to that trivial question. The whole point of the original post was the one interval calculation that gives a different result than the others. That's the one you don't want to discuss, because you can't explain it, so Pat has successfully shown that you don't understand the subject. That's fine, but for you to then spend so much effort trying to get him to ignore the actual answer... that is very strange.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05oal$14se$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579711 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:04:13 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 >> >> 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. That’s the value of the pedagogical focus. You, on the other hand, have become distracted, fretting that things have not yet been addressed and zipping right off the road to obsess about these irrelevant details. And instead of directing Pat BACK to the pedagogical focus of the book (which you don’t perceive and don’t care about anyway), you were more than happy to INDULGE his question to mine the distraction, because you are ALSO distracted. You two feed off each other and cannot focus. Pat’s more than happy to tell you, “Congratulations! You have derailed the book’s presentation, and now that the book is no longer central, I can tell YOU (Townes) that I am confused by the things you say as well. You see? It’s all a bloody mess, no relativist can explain it without wandering off into the weeds and becoming impenetrable.” And you have just fed into that FOR HIM. Now, here’s a thought: What if two people who have agreed to work through a few chapters of a book to see if it is illuminating are actually ALLOWED TO DO THAT without you inserting yourself into it, insisting that the book is crap and that you and ONLY YOU have a good way to explain it? Wouldn’t that be novel for you? > i.e., the example in the book is irrelevant to what Pat asked. (You say > "Sorry, Pat, your question is irrelevant to the answer I'm giving you!" > Where do people like you come from?) Since you are unable to answer > Pat's question, you try to divert his attention to a simpler trivial > question that you can answer, even though he already demonstrated in his > very first post the answer to that trivial question. > > The whole point of the original post was the one interval calculation > that gives a different result than the others. That's the one you don't > want to discuss, because you can't explain it, so Pat has successfully > shown that you don't understand the subject. That's fine, but for you to > then spend so much effort trying to get him to ignore the actual > answer... that is very strange. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 12:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb783015-b890-4f84-90b4-6ac1a0cd44ddn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579715 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:01:28 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05pp5$1rvv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579717 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:01:28 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. You’ve read the book, right? Where does the discussion of length contraction *start*, with that term used? (Hint: it’s in the middle of the last chapter that Pat and I agreed to work through. Note the Lorentz transform isn’t until Chapter 4, which I’m sure just drives you BUGGY.) If you’d like to work through the book with Pat and me, without you waving your hand vigorously all the time, saying “Oooh! I know! I know! Let ME answer” — I’m sure we can accommodate. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05pv0$1u5v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579718 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:01:28 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. You’ve read the book, right? Where does the discussion of > length contraction *start*, with that term used? (Hint: it’s in the middle > of the last chapter that Pat and I agreed to work through. Note the Lorentz > transform isn’t until Chapter 4, which I’m sure just drives you BUGGY.) > > If you’d like to work through the book with Pat and me, without you waving > your hand vigorously all the time, saying “Oooh! I know! I know! Let ME > answer” — I’m sure we can accommodate. > The ADHD telethon just called. They want their poster-children back. Should I tell them that you and Pat are busy right now but you’ll be in touch? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8869a28-f375-49a6-bbce-ba36adec3486n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579719 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:29:24 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > The ADHD telethon just called. They want their poster-children back. Should > I tell them that you and Pat are busy right now but you’ll be in touch? Now THAT'S funny! Perfect!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a885a90-cc75-4c7a-ab4d-9d7715711df2n@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 is this answered in that book? > Where does the discussion of length contraction *start*? No, Pat correctly computed the distance between first spark and 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.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 22:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t060gc$tpf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579724 |
Townes Olson <townesolson7@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 in the accounting of length contraction, where the student will have a better understanding later of how to do that properly. There’s a reason why it’s in chapter 3 and not in this example in chapter 1, though for the life of you that seems to be impenetrable. > > No, Pat correctly computed the distance between first spark and > 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.) > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 16:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <274965ce-1ce0-40dd-8d94-011e107ee5bdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579730 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web