Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #578891 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-26 12:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 12:30 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan flunks basic exercise "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 12:38 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-26 20:50 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 21:25 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-26 22:02 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:16 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Effego Banos <uiwa@nntcpatc.jp> - 2022-02-27 12:59 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 21:25 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 15:58 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 16:01 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:42 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:45 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-27 16:42 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 08:07 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-27 17:20 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 08:22 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-27 18:11 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 15:29 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 09:16 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 00:17 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 16:22 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-27 02:22 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 18:35 -0800
Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 18:54 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 19:37 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 20:00 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 20:49 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 22:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:57 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 02:25 -0500
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:26 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:43 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:45 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:52 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:45 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 15:25 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 16:43 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 18:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 19:06 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:27 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-28 20:46 -0800
"Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 10:39 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 10:53 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 20:02 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 21:00 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 21:15 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-01 20:36 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-01 12:28 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-02 10:47 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 01:51 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-02 11:41 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-04 21:20 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 21:46 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-05 11:36 +0000
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-03-05 09:03 -0600
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 09:57 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-05 12:01 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 12:16 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-05 21:25 +0100
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 22:51 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 07:37 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-07 12:03 -0500
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 09:39 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:06 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-07 20:54 -0800
Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-08 01:45 -0500
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 08:59 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 17:03 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 09:27 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 17:41 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 09:56 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 20:15 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 04:22 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 12:18 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 12:47 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 21:02 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 13:35 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 21:51 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 22:28 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 16:09 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 16:52 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 01:11 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 17:30 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 02:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 17:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:01 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:12 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 02:14 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:20 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 02:24 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:39 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 19:05 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 19:19 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 19:35 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 03:47 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-28 18:57 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 03:15 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 21:02 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 07:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 07:49 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-27 15:05 -0500
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 20:13 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-27 15:18 +0100
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:32 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-27 20:02 +0100
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:33 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 14:43 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:46 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:50 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:38 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 15:28 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 07:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 07:47 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 19:45 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-27 06:44 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:55 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 23:05 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 23:11 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-02-26 23:16 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 07:28 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:47 +0000
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 06:07 -0800
Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-26 20:41 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 12:09 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:47 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 22:32 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:27 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-27 22:06 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 22:11 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-27 22:46 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-02-27 20:04 -0600
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-28 03:53 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 21:49 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-28 12:04 +0000
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-28 15:02 +0100
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 09:48 -0800
Re: Yet Another Man Who Broke Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 12:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <6223C198.7D81@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579493 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 3/4/22 11:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > According to: Spacetime Physics (Taylor and Wheeler) > > https://phys.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/Spacetime_Physics_(Taylor_and_Wheeler)/01%3A_Spacetime-_Overview/1.03%3A_Events_and_Intervals_Alone > > > > "In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time..." > > > > And according to Einstein more accurate description... > > > > the time on your very own watch is the proper time. > > > > > > So that would have to mean your Apple Watch (on your own wrist) time > > is the Proper Time. > > > > > > Or, the time on your very own Apple wristwatch is the Proper Time. > > Nope. The Apple watch ultimately gets its time from Apple timeservers, > which accurately repeat UTC obtained from the GPS [#]. So it does NOT > display its own proper time, it displays UTC. > > [#] GPS time is not UTC. But GPS messages include the > conversion, which is the current number of leap seconds > between GPS time and UTC. > > The wristwatch referred to by Taylor and Wheeler is itself a clock, not > a repeater of UTC. Every clock displays its own proper time, with a > given accuracy and resolution. > > Apple watches are not clocks, they are repeaters of UTC. For its > intended use, the Apple approach is better, because it is VASTLY more > accurate, especially over long times (months to years). But that > approach was not available when _Spacetime_Physics_ was written. > > (The presence of a local clock inside the watch does > not change this, as that clock is steered via NTP > to display UTC, not proper time.) > > Tom Roberts You just explained the machinery behind out solar system. No need to explain to me where a wristwatch gets it time from... I can throw it on the floor and find out myself. -- 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 | 2022-03-05 12:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <3a4e6a24-34fd-482b-8f51-bfe7b91f6850n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579550 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 12:01:22 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > On 3/4/22 11:46 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > According to: Spacetime Physics (Taylor and Wheeler) > > > https://phys.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/Spacetime_Physics_(Taylor_and_Wheeler)/01%3A_Spacetime-_Overview/1.03%3A_Events_and_Intervals_Alone > > > > > > "In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time..." > > > > > > And according to Einstein more accurate description... > > > > > > the time on your very own watch is the proper time. > > > > > > > > > So that would have to mean your Apple Watch (on your own wrist) time > > > is the Proper Time. > > > > > > > > > Or, the time on your very own Apple wristwatch is the Proper Time. > > > > Nope. The Apple watch ultimately gets its time from Apple timeservers, > > which accurately repeat UTC obtained from the GPS [#]. So it does NOT > > display its own proper time, it displays UTC. > > > > [#] GPS time is not UTC. But GPS messages include the > > conversion, which is the current number of leap seconds > > between GPS time and UTC. > > > > The wristwatch referred to by Taylor and Wheeler is itself a clock, not > > a repeater of UTC. Every clock displays its own proper time, with a > > given accuracy and resolution. > > > > Apple watches are not clocks, they are repeaters of UTC. For its > > intended use, the Apple approach is better, because it is VASTLY more > > accurate, especially over long times (months to years). But that > > approach was not available when _Spacetime_Physics_ was written. > > > > (The presence of a local clock inside the watch does > > not change this, as that clock is steered via NTP > > to display UTC, not proper time.) > > > > Tom Roberts > You just explained the machinery behind out solar system. Ha! > > No need to explain to me where a wristwatch gets it time from... > > I can throw it on the floor and find out myself. > -- > 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 | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 21:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <1pod0ug.kgafw611tb12rN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #579480 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dono. wrote: > > > > > > >You will never get past chapter 1 of Spacetime Physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot get pass the Title of the book... > > > > > > > > > > > > what does physics (about matter and energy) have to do with > > > > > > > > > > > > space or time? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no evidence spacetime exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or time itself... > > > > > > > > > > > > or space. > > > > > > > > > > > > Spacetime is a madeup idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing to do with real physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > You will never get past the Title page Spacetime Physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing physics about spacetime. > > > > > > > > > > > > or wristwatch time... > > > > > > > > > > > > Wristwatchtime Physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > are you people kidding???? > > > > > > > > > > According to these two crooks just out to put their hands into their > > > > > students pockets... > > > > > > > > > > "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always knew I had the proper time on my wristwatch! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My wristwatch is slow, anybody got the ...proper time? > > > > > > > > Sure. You've got a dumb watch. Get an Apple Watch. > > > > It will lock to the time on your iPhone, > > > > which will lock to network time, > > > > which is locked to UTC, > > > > which is locked to TAI, > > > > which is proper time for all of us. > > > > (up to relativistic corrections) > > > > > > > > See, it is simple. > > > > You may now even swing your arms, > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > Oh, I get it..you updated > > > "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." -Spacetime Physics, Second Edition. by > > > Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler to > > > > > > "Apple Watch time is Proper Time." -Spacetime Physics, Second Edition. by > > > Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler > > > > > > > > > Apple Watch time is Proper Time, is that correct, Jan? > > > > Nope. It is TAI. That is the -average- Proper Time for all of us. > > (as measured by atomic clocks in standards laboratories) > > There will be tiny, but observable differences > > if you carry an atomic clock along with you, > > like Hafele and Keating did. > > > > Subtleties like these are not suitable subjects > > for an introductory textbook such as Taylor and Wheeler. > > > > Jan > > > What do you mean..."Nope."???? What part of Nope don't you understand? > According to: Spacetime Physics (Taylor and Wheeler) > https://phys.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/Spacetime_Physics_(Taylor_and_W heeler)/01%3A_Spacetime-_Overview/1.03%3A_Events_and_Intervals_Alone > > "In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time..." That is just a flippant way of speaking. Your own private proper time is the time that you can read off on a clock that is travelling along with you. [1] (so on nearly the same world line) > And according to Einstein more accurate description... > the time on your very own watch is the proper time. > > So that would have to mean your Apple Watch (on your own wrist) time is > the Proper Time. > > Or, the time on your very own Apple wristwatch is the Proper Time. Nope again. Apple watch time is the average proper time for all of us. (it mirrors UTC/TAI) Progress: Hafele and Keating could only compare their travelling atomic clock with their stationary master clock when they were home again. With today's means they could have compared their portable atomic clock with UTC while on the way. (to see the differences accumulating) > Does Spacetime Physics ( by Taylor and Wheeler) belong in the garbage > can???? Of course not. When T&W was written network time was not yet available to all of us. A new edition if T&W, if ever, may contain a short explanatory paragraph on it. (it is beside their main point) Jan [1] Don't despair, true (so not radio-controlled) atomic time wristwatches are in the prototype stage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-05 22:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <2030042b-dff1-46c7-a150-91b6208ac2edn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579557 |
On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 21:25:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Progress: Hafele and Keating could only compare their travelling atomic > clock with their stationary master clock when they were home again. > With today's means they could have compared their portable atomic clock > with UTC while on the way. (to see the differences accumulating) Unfortunately, as anyone can check on sertious GPS/TAI clocks - there are no differences; they were only accumulating on the worthless toys of your bunch of idiots:(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 07:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <1c580b2a-a86a-4c33-bd9a-cc78e9058220n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579557 |
On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 3:25:14 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dono. wrote: > > > > > > > >You will never get past chapter 1 of Spacetime Physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot get pass the Title of the book... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what does physics (about matter and energy) have to do with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > space or time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no evidence spacetime exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or time itself... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spacetime is a madeup idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing to do with real physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You will never get past the Title page Spacetime Physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing physics about spacetime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or wristwatch time... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wristwatchtime Physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are you people kidding???? > > > > > > > > > > > > According to these two crooks just out to put their hands into their > > > > > > students pockets... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always knew I had the proper time on my wristwatch! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My wristwatch is slow, anybody got the ...proper time? > > > > > > > > > > Sure. You've got a dumb watch. Get an Apple Watch. > > > > > It will lock to the time on your iPhone, > > > > > which will lock to network time, > > > > > which is locked to UTC, > > > > > which is locked to TAI, > > > > > which is proper time for all of us. > > > > > (up to relativistic corrections) > > > > > > > > > > See, it is simple. > > > > > You may now even swing your arms, > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Oh, I get it..you updated > > > > "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." -Spacetime Physics, Second Edition. by > > > > Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler to > > > > > > > > "Apple Watch time is Proper Time." -Spacetime Physics, Second Edition. by > > > > Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler > > > > > > > > > > > > Apple Watch time is Proper Time, is that correct, Jan? > > > > > > Nope. It is TAI. That is the -average- Proper Time for all of us. > > > (as measured by atomic clocks in standards laboratories) > > > There will be tiny, but observable differences > > > if you carry an atomic clock along with you, > > > like Hafele and Keating did. > > > > > > Subtleties like these are not suitable subjects > > > for an introductory textbook such as Taylor and Wheeler. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > What do you mean..."Nope."???? > What part of Nope don't you understand? > > According to: Spacetime Physics (Taylor and Wheeler) > > https://phys.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/Spacetime_Physics_(Taylor_and_W > heeler)/01%3A_Spacetime-_Overview/1.03%3A_Events_and_Intervals_Alone > > > > "In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time..." > That is just a flippant way of speaking. > Your own private proper time is the time that you can read off > on a clock that is travelling along with you. [1] > (so on nearly the same world line) > > And according to Einstein more accurate description... > > the time on your very own watch is the proper time. > > > > So that would have to mean your Apple Watch (on your own wrist) time is > > the Proper Time. > > > > Or, the time on your very own Apple wristwatch is the Proper Time. > Nope again. Apple watch time is the average proper time for all of us. > (it mirrors UTC/TAI) > > Progress: Hafele and Keating could only compare their travelling atomic > clock with their stationary master clock when they were home again. > With today's means they could have compared their portable atomic clock > with UTC while on the way. (to see the differences accumulating) > > Does Spacetime Physics ( by Taylor and Wheeler) belong in the garbage > > can???? > Of course not. > When T&W was written network time was not yet available to all of us. > A new edition if T&W, if ever, may contain > a short explanatory paragraph on it. (it is beside their main point) , An UTC second is represented by 9,192,631,770 transitions of the Cs 133 atom at the hyper fine level. This means that a UTC second represents a specific interval of absolute time (proper time). The GPS accumulating clock second at a faster rate than the UTC clock. To correct this, the GPS second is redefined to have 9,192,631, 774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom. This makes the redefined GPS second contain the same interval of absolute time (proper time) as an UTC second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time (proper time).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 12:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <t05dtp$1q7i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579680 |
On 3/7/2022 10:37 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 3:25:14 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dono. wrote: >>>>>>>>> You will never get past chapter 1 of Spacetime Physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I cannot get pass the Title of the book... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what does physics (about matter and energy) have to do with >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> space or time? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no evidence spacetime exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or time itself... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Spacetime is a madeup idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nothing to do with real physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You will never get past the Title page Spacetime Physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is nothing physics about spacetime. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or wristwatch time... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wristwatchtime Physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are you people kidding???? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to these two crooks just out to put their hands into their >>>>>>> students pockets... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I always knew I had the proper time on my wristwatch! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My wristwatch is slow, anybody got the ...proper time? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. You've got a dumb watch. Get an Apple Watch. >>>>>> It will lock to the time on your iPhone, >>>>>> which will lock to network time, >>>>>> which is locked to UTC, >>>>>> which is locked to TAI, >>>>>> which is proper time for all of us. >>>>>> (up to relativistic corrections) >>>>>> >>>>>> See, it is simple. >>>>>> You may now even swing your arms, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I get it..you updated >>>>> "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." -Spacetime Physics, Second Edition. by >>>>> Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler to >>>>> >>>>> "Apple Watch time is Proper Time." -Spacetime Physics, Second Edition. by >>>>> Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Apple Watch time is Proper Time, is that correct, Jan? >>>> >>>> Nope. It is TAI. That is the -average- Proper Time for all of us. >>>> (as measured by atomic clocks in standards laboratories) >>>> There will be tiny, but observable differences >>>> if you carry an atomic clock along with you, >>>> like Hafele and Keating did. >>>> >>>> Subtleties like these are not suitable subjects >>>> for an introductory textbook such as Taylor and Wheeler. >>>> >>>> Jan >>> >>> >>> What do you mean..."Nope."???? >> What part of Nope don't you understand? >>> According to: Spacetime Physics (Taylor and Wheeler) >>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/Spacetime_Physics_(Taylor_and_W >> heeler)/01%3A_Spacetime-_Overview/1.03%3A_Events_and_Intervals_Alone >>> >>> "In this book we often call the proper time the wristwatch time..." >> That is just a flippant way of speaking. >> Your own private proper time is the time that you can read off >> on a clock that is travelling along with you. [1] >> (so on nearly the same world line) >>> And according to Einstein more accurate description... >>> the time on your very own watch is the proper time. >>> >>> So that would have to mean your Apple Watch (on your own wrist) time is >>> the Proper Time. >>> >>> Or, the time on your very own Apple wristwatch is the Proper Time. >> Nope again. Apple watch time is the average proper time for all of us. >> (it mirrors UTC/TAI) >> >> Progress: Hafele and Keating could only compare their travelling atomic >> clock with their stationary master clock when they were home again. >> With today's means they could have compared their portable atomic clock >> with UTC while on the way. (to see the differences accumulating) >>> Does Spacetime Physics ( by Taylor and Wheeler) belong in the garbage >>> can???? >> Of course not. >> When T&W was written network time was not yet available to all of us. >> A new edition if T&W, if ever, may contain >> a short explanatory paragraph on it. (it is beside their main point) > , > An UTC second is represented by 9,192,631,770 transitions of the Cs 133 atom at the hyper fine level. Stupid Ken, there are no different "UTC seconds". ALL seconds are 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs 133 hyperfine transition on a local clock. > This means that a UTC second represents a specific interval of absolute time (proper time). Stupid Ken, you don't know the meaning of words. Proper time in this context is the time experienced by something along its worldline, and has nothing to do with nonexistent "absolute time". Don't try to redefine physics terms. > The GPS accumulating clock second at a faster rate than the UTC clock. To correct this, the GPS second is redefined Stupid Ken, yet again there are no different kinds of second, and the second is not "redefined" anywhere. > to have 9,192,631, 774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom. That's not a second, as an observer local to it (meaning at the satellite) would tell you that. > This makes the redefined GPS second No such thing, Stupid Ken. > contain the same interval of absolute time (proper time) Proper time has a specific definition, which is not nonexisting "absolute time". > as an UTC second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time (proper time). > Stupid Ken, the reason the satellites use an "improper" timebase for their signals is to counteract the effects on GR when the signal is received on earth. The signals are RECEIVED at the correct frequency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 09:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <4bcc4ae8-e3c3-43cd-a74e-2eea555eaef0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579687 |
On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 18:03:57 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > Stupid Ken, yet again there are no different kinds of second, and the > second is not "redefined" anywhere. Stupid Mike, it's an impudent lie easy to check in any dictionary. Of course, Ken is wrong, the redefined second is not the one from GPS. Your bunch of idiots has tried to redefine second to make your Shit less idiotic. It didn't work, of course, and no serious timekeeping system is relying on your madness. > > to have 9,192,631, 774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom. > That's not a second, as Yes, it is, as GPS documentation can tell you, stupid Mike. > Proper time has a specific definition, which is not nonexisting > "absolute time". > > as an UTC second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time (proper time). > > > Stupid Ken, the reason the satellites use an "improper" timebase for > their signals is to counteract the effects on GR when the signal is Is that your "proper" nonsense is just some insane ideology, completely unusable for anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <896e647b-27ae-41f4-bd84-c977d7fa5a2fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579695 |
re are runny the ng on absolute timeOn Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-5, mallow...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 18:03:57 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: r > > > Stupid Ken, yet again there are no different kinds of second, and the > > second is not "redefined" anywhere. > Stupid Mike, it's an impudent lie easy to check in any > dictionary. Of course, Ken is wrong, the redefined second > is not the one from GPS. Your bunch of idiots has tried > to redefine second to make your Shit less idiotic. It > didn't work, of course, and no serious timekeeping > system is relying on your madness. > > > to have 9,192,631, 774.1617 transitions of the Cs 133 atom. > > That's not a second, as > Yes, it is, as GPS documentation can tell you, stupid Mike. > > Proper time has a specific definition, which is not nonexisting > > "absolute time". > > > as an UTC second. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time (proper time). > > > > > Stupid Ken, the reason the satellites use an "improper" timebase for > > their signals is to counteract the effects on GR when the signal is > Is that your "proper" nonsense is just some insane > ideology, completely unusollows:able for anything. Stupid moron Mike, all the processes of nature are operating on absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames and it is not affected by motion or gravity. Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That’s why we had to use the LT to calculate the clock time value for an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second on the observer’s clock) to the clock time value on a moving clock. The resulting calculations are as follows: A is the observer clock and B is the moving clock: tA=(1/gamma)*tB This equation says that tA and (1/gamma)tB represent the same amount of absolute time. Or one-second of tA is worth 1/gamma second on the B clock in term of absolute time. I think this is too complicated for stupid Mike......so I give up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:54 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <6226E189.63C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579742 |
Ken Seto wrote: > Stupid moron Mike, Stupid and Moron are both the same meaning. The definition of moron is stupid. >all the processes of nature are operating on absolute time. There is no such thing as absolute time. The definition of absolute is..perfect. So, there is no perfect time. Like Albert Einstein once said: "I never said I was an absolute pacifist." -- 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 | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 01:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: "Wristwatch time is Proper Time." |
| Message-ID | <t06u1n$1thp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579742 |
On 3/7/2022 11:06 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > re are runny the ng on absolute timeOn Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:39:45 PM UTC-5, mallow...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 18:03:57 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: r >> >>> Stupid Ken, the reason the satellites use an "improper" timebase for >>> their signals is to counteract the effects on GR when the signal is >> Is that your "proper" nonsense is just some insane >> ideology, completely unusollows:able for anything. > > Stupid moron Mike, all the processes of nature are operating on absolute time. Assertions are not evidence. > The rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames Assertions are not evidence. > and it is not affected by motion or gravity. Assertions are not evidence. > Unfortunately, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. Assertions are not evidence. > That’s why we We who? You are just one lone crank, Seto. > had to use the LT Assertions are not evidence. > to calculate You can't calculate anything. You can't even do fourth grade math. > the clock time value for an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second on the observer’s clock) to the clock time value on a moving clock. Assertions are not evidence. > The resulting calculations You can't calculate. > are as follows: Assertions are not evidence. > A is the observer clock and B is the moving clock: Assertions are not evidence. > tA=(1/gamma)*tB Assertions are not evidence. > This equation says that tA and (1/gamma)tB represent the same amount of absolute time. Assertions are not evidence. > Or one-second of tA is worth 1/gamma second on the B clock in term of absolute time. Assertions are not evidence. > I think this is too complicated for stupid Mike......so I give up. Assertions are not evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <svir7o$v1p$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579058 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:25:10 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: >> >>> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate >>> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious >>> when gamma = 2? If not, why not? >> Because Mary, unlike the creyin Pat Dolan, doen't use length >> contraction, she uses the full Lorentz transform, as explained many >> times to cretin Pat Dolan. > For Mary the distance between John's pocket pen and the fire extinguisher > is exactly 1.0 m. Who can gainsay her measurement? Mary's measurement > is every bit as real, every bit as mathematically legitimate as John's > measurement of 2.0m between the same two points. That's what relativity > says. Therefore Mary is entitled and required to use 1m when calculating > John's sti between the two spark events. See my previous long reply to this. Your attempt to use an LCR here is ill-fated, because relativity does not have an LCR in the way you think it does. > > As I have already said, Mary uses 0.0 m when calculating her own sti > between the two spark events. > > With the warmest regards to this forum, > > The MWBTSTI > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 08:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <29af90b4-9ad3-42f7-982f-d7fbccb7af16n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579100 |
On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:25:10 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: > >> > >>> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate > >>> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious > >>> when gamma = 2? If not, why not? > >> Because Mary, unlike the creyin Pat Dolan, doen't use length > >> contraction, she uses the full Lorentz transform, as explained many > >> times to cretin Pat Dolan. > > For Mary the distance between John's pocket pen and the fire extinguisher > > is exactly 1.0 m. Who can gainsay her measurement? Mary's measurement > > is every bit as real, every bit as mathematically legitimate as John's > > measurement of 2.0m between the same two points. That's what relativity > > says. Therefore Mary is entitled and required to use 1m when calculating > > John's sti between the two spark events. > See my previous long reply to this. Your attempt to use an LCR here is > ill-fated, because relativity does not have an LCR in the way you think it > does. > > > > As I have already said, Mary uses 0.0 m when calculating her own sti > > between the two spark events. > > > > With the warmest regards to this forum, > > > > The MWBTSTI > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables What is an LCR? Regards, The MWBTSTI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 17:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <sviv9a$177g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579114 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:25:10 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: >>>> >>>>> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate >>>>> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious >>>>> when gamma = 2? If not, why not? >>>> Because Mary, unlike the creyin Pat Dolan, doen't use length >>>> contraction, she uses the full Lorentz transform, as explained many >>>> times to cretin Pat Dolan. >>> For Mary the distance between John's pocket pen and the fire extinguisher >>> is exactly 1.0 m. Who can gainsay her measurement? Mary's measurement >>> is every bit as real, every bit as mathematically legitimate as John's >>> measurement of 2.0m between the same two points. That's what relativity >>> says. Therefore Mary is entitled and required to use 1m when calculating >>> John's sti between the two spark events. >> See my previous long reply to this. Your attempt to use an LCR here is >> ill-fated, because relativity does not have an LCR in the way you think it >> does. >>> >>> As I have already said, Mary uses 0.0 m when calculating her own sti >>> between the two spark events. >>> >>> With the warmest regards to this forum, >>> >>> The MWBTSTI >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > What is an LCR? > > Regards, > > The MWBTSTI > As I said, Pat, ready my previous long reply to this. Dig in. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 09:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <32a5fce9-b27f-4708-9a09-3fbf2be9011dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579116 |
On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:03:41 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:25:10 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate > >>>>> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious > >>>>> when gamma = 2? If not, why not? > >>>> Because Mary, unlike the creyin Pat Dolan, doen't use length > >>>> contraction, she uses the full Lorentz transform, as explained many > >>>> times to cretin Pat Dolan. > >>> For Mary the distance between John's pocket pen and the fire extinguisher > >>> is exactly 1.0 m. Who can gainsay her measurement? Mary's measurement > >>> is every bit as real, every bit as mathematically legitimate as John's > >>> measurement of 2.0m between the same two points. That's what relativity > >>> says. Therefore Mary is entitled and required to use 1m when calculating > >>> John's sti between the two spark events. > >> See my previous long reply to this. Your attempt to use an LCR here is > >> ill-fated, because relativity does not have an LCR in the way you think it > >> does. > >>> > >>> As I have already said, Mary uses 0.0 m when calculating her own sti > >>> between the two spark events. > >>> > >>> With the warmest regards to this forum, > >>> > >>> The MWBTSTI > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > What is an LCR? > > > > Regards, > > > > The MWBTSTI > > > As I said, Pat, ready my previous long reply to this. Dig in. > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Too many Bodkin posts to search. For now I'm going to assign LCR to your imagination as a figment therein, and nothing more. Respectfully, The MWBTSTI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 17:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <svj1g0$fb3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579119 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:03:41 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:25:10 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate >>>>>>> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious >>>>>>> when gamma = 2? If not, why not? >>>>>> Because Mary, unlike the creyin Pat Dolan, doen't use length >>>>>> contraction, she uses the full Lorentz transform, as explained many >>>>>> times to cretin Pat Dolan. >>>>> For Mary the distance between John's pocket pen and the fire extinguisher >>>>> is exactly 1.0 m. Who can gainsay her measurement? Mary's measurement >>>>> is every bit as real, every bit as mathematically legitimate as John's >>>>> measurement of 2.0m between the same two points. That's what relativity >>>>> says. Therefore Mary is entitled and required to use 1m when calculating >>>>> John's sti between the two spark events. >>>> See my previous long reply to this. Your attempt to use an LCR here is >>>> ill-fated, because relativity does not have an LCR in the way you think it >>>> does. >>>>> >>>>> As I have already said, Mary uses 0.0 m when calculating her own sti >>>>> between the two spark events. >>>>> >>>>> With the warmest regards to this forum, >>>>> >>>>> The MWBTSTI >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> What is an LCR? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> The MWBTSTI >>> >> As I said, Pat, ready my previous long reply to this. Dig in. >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > Too many Bodkin posts to search. For now I'm going to assign LCR to your > imagination as a figment therein, and nothing more. Oh come on, Pat. It was posted just this morning. Don’t tell me you’re THAT lazy/incapable. > > Respectfully, > > The MWBTSTI > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 09:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <d7677bbb-b111-43d4-8658-395f4bf7c695n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579121 |
On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:41:23 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:03:41 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:25:10 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate > >>>>>>> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious > >>>>>>> when gamma = 2? If not, why not? > >>>>>> Because Mary, unlike the creyin Pat Dolan, doen't use length > >>>>>> contraction, she uses the full Lorentz transform, as explained many > >>>>>> times to cretin Pat Dolan. > >>>>> For Mary the distance between John's pocket pen and the fire extinguisher > >>>>> is exactly 1.0 m. Who can gainsay her measurement? Mary's measurement > >>>>> is every bit as real, every bit as mathematically legitimate as John's > >>>>> measurement of 2.0m between the same two points. That's what relativity > >>>>> says. Therefore Mary is entitled and required to use 1m when calculating > >>>>> John's sti between the two spark events. > >>>> See my previous long reply to this. Your attempt to use an LCR here is > >>>> ill-fated, because relativity does not have an LCR in the way you think it > >>>> does. > >>>>> > >>>>> As I have already said, Mary uses 0.0 m when calculating her own sti > >>>>> between the two spark events. > >>>>> > >>>>> With the warmest regards to this forum, > >>>>> > >>>>> The MWBTSTI > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> What is an LCR? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> The MWBTSTI > >>> > >> As I said, Pat, ready my previous long reply to this. Dig in. > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Too many Bodkin posts to search. For now I'm going to assign LCR to your > > imagination as a figment therein, and nothing more. > Oh come on, Pat. It was posted just this morning. > Don’t tell me you’re THAT lazy/incapable. Okay, I found it. I'm going to have to brace myself with some breakfast and strong coffee before I tackle your wall of words Bodkin. Have you ever done any rock climbing Bodkin? If you have, then you'll know what I'm feeling looking up at your word wall with nary an equation for a handhold. But I'll climb your 5.1 wall. Looks like there's a big crack from the bottom all the way to the top. It will be easy, but oh-so long. > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > The MWBTSTI > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 18:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <svj3dt$1g4g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579121 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:03:41 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:23:45 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:25:10 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate >>>>>>>> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious >>>>>>>> when gamma = 2? If not, why not? >>>>>>> Because Mary, unlike the creyin Pat Dolan, doen't use length >>>>>>> contraction, she uses the full Lorentz transform, as explained many >>>>>>> times to cretin Pat Dolan. >>>>>> For Mary the distance between John's pocket pen and the fire extinguisher >>>>>> is exactly 1.0 m. Who can gainsay her measurement? Mary's measurement >>>>>> is every bit as real, every bit as mathematically legitimate as John's >>>>>> measurement of 2.0m between the same two points. That's what relativity >>>>>> says. Therefore Mary is entitled and required to use 1m when calculating >>>>>> John's sti between the two spark events. >>>>> See my previous long reply to this. Your attempt to use an LCR here is >>>>> ill-fated, because relativity does not have an LCR in the way you think it >>>>> does. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I have already said, Mary uses 0.0 m when calculating her own sti >>>>>> between the two spark events. >>>>>> >>>>>> With the warmest regards to this forum, >>>>>> >>>>>> The MWBTSTI >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> What is an LCR? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> The MWBTSTI >>>> >>> As I said, Pat, ready my previous long reply to this. Dig in. >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> Too many Bodkin posts to search. For now I'm going to assign LCR to your >> imagination as a figment therein, and nothing more. > > Oh come on, Pat. It was posted just this morning. > Don’t tell me you’re THAT lazy/incapable. > >> >> Respectfully, >> >> The MWBTSTI >> > > > I just bumped it up for you. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 15:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <svir7o$v1p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579053 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:45:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:45:28 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:25:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/27/2022 1:50 AM, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks good so far, but don't get your hopes up >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now John's sti: (drum roll please) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sqrt[(1m/259820130 m/s) x c)^2 - 1m^2] = .57564 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why the 1m^2 term? It looks like you made the exact same error you made >>>>>>> in the muon problem, you measured the muon's speed in a different frame, >>>>>>> not its own. >>>>>> >>>>>> The principle of relativity assures its readers that there is no >>>>>> privileged system of co-moving coordinates. Mary's measurement of the >>>>>> distance between the two sparking events is as valid as John's >>>>>> measurement between the two sparking events. So when John calculate the >>>>>> sti for each of them he used 2m as the distance between John's pen and >>>>>> the fire extinguisher. And when Mary calculates the sti for each of them >>>>>> she uses 1m for the distance between the pen and the fire extinguisher >>>>>> with equal justification, according to the principle of relativity. >>> >>>>> >>>>> No. They happen AT THE SAME PLACE for Mary. Really got at the tip of her >>>>> antenna. >>> >>>> Right there at the tip of her antenna. Sorry for autocorrect mangle. >>>>> >>> >>> Whose arguing? I agree. >> No you don’t. You said she uses 1 m for the distance between the pen and >> the fire extinguisher. The two EVENTS, one spark at the pen and the other >> spark at the fire extinguisher, happen at the SAME place for Mary. The >> distance part of the spacetime interval between those events is ZERO, not 1 > > I should have used my words a little better. Breaking the spacetime > interval for the first time needs a little more care in my method of > explanation. Let me revise and extend my explanation: > > When Mary calculates her own spacetime interval in her co-moving > coordinate system she uses zero distance between each spark event, just > as you point out she should. > > BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate > system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious when > gamma = 2? If not, why not? I’m going to write a lot here, so I hope you have the stamina to follow me. If Mary wanted to calculate spacetime intervals from John’s frame, she’d need the space and time coordinates of the two events in John’s frame. If she didn’t want to ask him what he measured, she could get them by using the Lorentz transforms to get x’ and t’ for each event in John’s frame, knowing x and t of each event in her own frame. But we haven’t gotten to Lorentz transforms yet; that doesn’t come until Chapter 4. Don’t jump ahead. I know you’re looking for a shortcut. You don’t want to map each coordinate of the events. You just figure all you need is how to get the DISTANCE piece of the interval in John’s frame, and the DURATION piece of the interval in John’s frame. And so you’re trying to use something I’ll call the Length Contraction Rule (LCR): “Given any two landmarks that have a distance L between them in my frame, then the distance between the same landmarks in any relatively moving frame will be L’=L/gamma.” Unfortunately, there is no such LCR rule in relativity. It doesn’t work. To prove to you it cannot work, let’s just use the simple case where there are two landmarks separated by 16.00 meters in John’s frame, and Mary’s frame is moving relative to John’s with a speed of c*sqrt(3)/2, so that gamma=2. The LCR would then say that the landmarks are separated by 8.00 meters in Mary’s frame. Since John’s frame is moving relative to Mary, then Mary could say then that the landmarks are separated by 4.00 meters in John’s frame. Since Mary’s frame is moving relative to John, then John could say then that the landmarks are separated by 2.00 meters in Mary’s frame. Then Mary says they’re separated by 1.00 meter in John’s frame, John says they’re separated by 0.500 meters in Mary’s frame, on and on in a process we’ll call Ping-Pong to Nothingness (PPN). Since PPN is not a subtle problem that has gone undiscovered by physicists for a century, it’s not likely that you’ve stumbled on the key flaw with relativity. Instead, the truth is that the LCR is not really a rule in relativity at all. “Now wait a second,” Pat Dolan jumps up, “I know I’ve seen that expression L’=L/gamma in lots of relativity things. Don’t tell me it’s not part of relativity!” And indeed that equation does appear there, but not with the meaning of the words in the LCR. In fact, the right context of L’=L/gamma is so constrained that it’s immediately obviously why PPN cannot follow. But you don’t know that right context yet. So suffice it to say, you are trying to use an LCR (not to mention a TDR) that you don’t know how to use correctly, and it’s going to give you wrong results. So it’s best just to see that tool down and remind yourself to refrain from picking it back up until you know exactly under which conditions it might apply. This is why we’re learning relativity correctly, using a book, which as of Chapter 1.2 has ONLY shown you the invariant interval, and that is the ONLY relativity tool you should be trying to use, until you learn other tools and how to use them properly. We won’t even get to the real Lorentz transforms (and the LCR is NOT a Lorentz transform) until Chapter 4. That being said, do you see now how to calculate an invariant interval of 9.900 meters for both John and Mary in the example in the book? > >> m. Look right there in Table 1-3. Do you have question about this? >>>>> Look at the book. Look at what is there for her distance between the >>>>> sparks. >>>>> >>>>> Do you not understand why it is zero? >>>>> >>>>>> Mary's moving frame pen-to-fire extinguisher distance is no less "real" >>>>>> than John's rest frame pen-to-fire extinguisher distance. To say that it >>>>>> is less real violates the principle of relativity. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is "real" and constant between these two measurers is the relative >>>>>> velocity they share, 259820130 m/s in my example. Less in Taylor & >>>>>> Wheeler's. 259820130 m/s is a constant for the John & Mary fly-by >>>>>> problem; as much a constant as c. x'/t' = x/t, this is the fundamental >>>>>> fallacy of special relativity. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 18:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <svj3do$1g4g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579099 |
Here Pat is my long reply to you. Scroll down to markers Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:45:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:45:28 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:25:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/27/2022 1:50 AM, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Looks good so far, but don't get your hopes up >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now John's sti: (drum roll please) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sqrt[(1m/259820130 m/s) x c)^2 - 1m^2] = .57564 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why the 1m^2 term? It looks like you made the exact same error you made >>>>>>>> in the muon problem, you measured the muon's speed in a different frame, >>>>>>>> not its own. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The principle of relativity assures its readers that there is no >>>>>>> privileged system of co-moving coordinates. Mary's measurement of the >>>>>>> distance between the two sparking events is as valid as John's >>>>>>> measurement between the two sparking events. So when John calculate the >>>>>>> sti for each of them he used 2m as the distance between John's pen and >>>>>>> the fire extinguisher. And when Mary calculates the sti for each of them >>>>>>> she uses 1m for the distance between the pen and the fire extinguisher >>>>>>> with equal justification, according to the principle of relativity. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No. They happen AT THE SAME PLACE for Mary. Really got at the tip of her >>>>>> antenna. >>>> >>>>> Right there at the tip of her antenna. Sorry for autocorrect mangle. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Whose arguing? I agree. >>> No you don’t. You said she uses 1 m for the distance between the pen and >>> the fire extinguisher. The two EVENTS, one spark at the pen and the other >>> spark at the fire extinguisher, happen at the SAME place for Mary. The >>> distance part of the spacetime interval between those events is ZERO, not 1 >> >> I should have used my words a little better. Breaking the spacetime >> interval for the first time needs a little more care in my method of >> explanation. Let me revise and extend my explanation: >> >> When Mary calculates her own spacetime interval in her co-moving >> coordinate system she uses zero distance between each spark event, just >> as you point out she should. >> Here’s your question. >> BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate >> system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious when >> gamma = 2? If not, why not? Here’s my long reply. > > I’m going to write a lot here, so I hope you have the stamina to follow me. > > If Mary wanted to calculate spacetime intervals from John’s frame, she’d > need the space and time coordinates of the two events in John’s frame. If > she didn’t want to ask him what he measured, she could get them by using > the Lorentz transforms to get x’ and t’ for each event in John’s frame, > knowing x and t of each event in her own frame. But we haven’t gotten to > Lorentz transforms yet; that doesn’t come until Chapter 4. Don’t jump > ahead. > > I know you’re looking for a shortcut. You don’t want to map each coordinate > of the events. You just figure all you need is how to get the DISTANCE > piece of the interval in John’s frame, and the DURATION piece of the > interval in John’s frame. And so you’re trying to use something I’ll call > the Length Contraction Rule (LCR): “Given any two landmarks that have a > distance L between them in my frame, then the distance between the same > landmarks in any relatively moving frame will be L’=L/gamma.” > Unfortunately, there is no such LCR rule in relativity. It doesn’t work. > > To prove to you it cannot work, let’s just use the simple case where there > are two landmarks separated by 16.00 meters in John’s frame, and Mary’s > frame is moving relative to John’s with a speed of c*sqrt(3)/2, so that > gamma=2. The LCR would then say that the landmarks are separated by 8.00 > meters in Mary’s frame. Since John’s frame is moving relative to Mary, then > Mary could say then that the landmarks are separated by 4.00 meters in > John’s frame. Since Mary’s frame is moving relative to John, then John > could say then that the landmarks are separated by 2.00 meters in Mary’s > frame. Then Mary says they’re separated by 1.00 meter in John’s frame, John > says they’re separated by 0.500 meters in Mary’s frame, on and on in a > process we’ll call Ping-Pong to Nothingness (PPN). > > Since PPN is not a subtle problem that has gone undiscovered by physicists > for a century, it’s not likely that you’ve stumbled on the key flaw with > relativity. Instead, the truth is that the LCR is not really a rule in > relativity at all. > > “Now wait a second,” Pat Dolan jumps up, “I know I’ve seen that expression > L’=L/gamma in lots of relativity things. Don’t tell me it’s not part of > relativity!” And indeed that equation does appear there, but not with the > meaning of the words in the LCR. In fact, the right context of L’=L/gamma > is so constrained that it’s immediately obviously why PPN cannot follow. > But you don’t know that right context yet. > > So suffice it to say, you are trying to use an LCR (not to mention a TDR) > that you don’t know how to use correctly, and it’s going to give you wrong > results. So it’s best just to see that tool down and remind yourself to > refrain from picking it back up until you know exactly under which > conditions it might apply. > > This is why we’re learning relativity correctly, using a book, which as of > Chapter 1.2 has ONLY shown you the invariant interval, and that is the ONLY > relativity tool you should be trying to use, until you learn other tools > and how to use them properly. We won’t even get to the real Lorentz > transforms (and the LCR is NOT a Lorentz transform) until Chapter 4. > > That being said, do you see now how to calculate an invariant interval of > 9.900 meters for both John and Mary in the example in the book? > >> >>> m. Look right there in Table 1-3. Do you have question about this? >>>>>> Look at the book. Look at what is there for her distance between the >>>>>> sparks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you not understand why it is zero? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mary's moving frame pen-to-fire extinguisher distance is no less "real" >>>>>>> than John's rest frame pen-to-fire extinguisher distance. To say that it >>>>>>> is less real violates the principle of relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is "real" and constant between these two measurers is the relative >>>>>>> velocity they share, 259820130 m/s in my example. Less in Taylor & >>>>>>> Wheeler's. 259820130 m/s is a constant for the John & Mary fly-by >>>>>>> problem; as much a constant as c. x'/t' = x/t, this is the fundamental >>>>>>> fallacy of special relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-28 20:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Pat Dolan's full of shit |
| Message-ID | <740a8b64-b321-4e8f-a32f-8f356dc014a5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579099 |
On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:54:34 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:45:11 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 6:45:28 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:25:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>> On 2/27/2022 1:50 AM, patdolan wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Looks good so far, but don't get your hopes up > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now John's sti: (drum roll please) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> sqrt[(1m/259820130 m/s) x c)^2 - 1m^2] = .57564 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why the 1m^2 term? It looks like you made the exact same error you made > >>>>>>> in the muon problem, you measured the muon's speed in a different frame, > >>>>>>> not its own. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The principle of relativity assures its readers that there is no > >>>>>> privileged system of co-moving coordinates. Mary's measurement of the > >>>>>> distance between the two sparking events is as valid as John's > >>>>>> measurement between the two sparking events. So when John calculate the > >>>>>> sti for each of them he used 2m as the distance between John's pen and > >>>>>> the fire extinguisher. And when Mary calculates the sti for each of them > >>>>>> she uses 1m for the distance between the pen and the fire extinguisher > >>>>>> with equal justification, according to the principle of relativity. > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> No. They happen AT THE SAME PLACE for Mary. Really got at the tip of her > >>>>> antenna. > >>> > >>>> Right there at the tip of her antenna. Sorry for autocorrect mangle. > >>>>> > >>> > >>> Whose arguing? I agree. > >> No you don’t. You said she uses 1 m for the distance between the pen and > >> the fire extinguisher. The two EVENTS, one spark at the pen and the other > >> spark at the fire extinguisher, happen at the SAME place for Mary. The > >> distance part of the spacetime interval between those events is ZERO, not 1 > > > > I should have used my words a little better. Breaking the spacetime > > interval for the first time needs a little more care in my method of > > explanation. Let me revise and extend my explanation: > > > > When Mary calculates her own spacetime interval in her co-moving > > coordinate system she uses zero distance between each spark event, just > > as you point out she should. > > > > BUT when she calculates the sti for John in HER co-moving coordinate > > system she uses 1m between the two spark events. Isn't this obvious when > > gamma = 2? If not, why not? > I’m going to write a lot here, so I hope you have the stamina to follow me. > > If Mary wanted to calculate spacetime intervals from John’s frame, she’d > need the space and time coordinates of the two events in John’s frame. If > she didn’t want to ask him what he measured, she could get them by using > the Lorentz transforms to get x’ and t’ for each event in John’s frame, > knowing x and t of each event in her own frame. But we haven’t gotten to > Lorentz transforms yet; that doesn’t come until Chapter 4. Don’t jump > ahead. > > I know you’re looking for a shortcut. You don’t want to map each coordinate > of the events. You just figure all you need is how to get the DISTANCE > piece of the interval in John’s frame, and the DURATION piece of the > interval in John’s frame. And so you’re trying to use something I’ll call > the Length Contraction Rule (LCR): “Given any two landmarks that have a > distance L between them in my frame, then the distance between the same > landmarks in any relatively moving frame will be L’=L/gamma.” > Unfortunately, there is no such LCR rule in relativity. It doesn’t work. > > To prove to you it cannot work, let’s just use the simple case where there > are two landmarks separated by 16.00 meters in John’s frame, and Mary’s > frame is moving relative to John’s with a speed of c*sqrt(3)/2, so that > gamma=2. The LCR would then say that the landmarks are separated by 8.00 > meters in Mary’s frame. Since John’s frame is moving relative to Mary, then > Mary could say then that the landmarks are separated by 4.00 meters in > John’s frame. Since Mary’s frame is moving relative to John, then John > could say then that the landmarks are separated by 2.00 meters in Mary’s > frame. Then Mary says they’re separated by 1.00 meter in John’s frame, John > says they’re separated by 0.500 meters in Mary’s frame, on and on in a > process we’ll call Ping-Pong to Nothingness (PPN). > > Since PPN is not a subtle problem that has gone undiscovered by physicists > for a century, it’s not likely that you’ve stumbled on the key flaw with > relativity. Instead, the truth is that the LCR is not really a rule in > relativity at all. > > “Now wait a second,” Pat Dolan jumps up, “I know I’ve seen that expression > L’=L/gamma in lots of relativity things. Don’t tell me it’s not part of > relativity!” And indeed that equation does appear there, but not with the > meaning of the words in the LCR. In fact, the right context of L’=L/gamma > is so constrained that it’s immediately obviously why PPN cannot follow. > But you don’t know that right context yet. > > So suffice it to say, you are trying to use an LCR (not to mention a TDR) > that you don’t know how to use correctly, and it’s going to give you wrong > results. So it’s best just to see that tool down and remind yourself to > refrain from picking it back up until you know exactly under which > conditions it might apply. > > This is why we’re learning relativity correctly, using a book, which as of > Chapter 1.2 has ONLY shown you the invariant interval, and that is the ONLY > relativity tool you should be trying to use, until you learn other tools > and how to use them properly. We won’t even get to the real Lorentz > transforms (and the LCR is NOT a Lorentz transform) until Chapter 4. > > That being said, do you see now how to calculate an invariant interval of > 9.900 meters for both John and Mary in the example in the book? Bodkin, I decided to stop at two vodka martinis and one Mac & Jacks. So my considerable powers of ratiocination have already returned to over 95%. This missive of yours reminds me of that part of the "Confessions" where St. Augustine is promised by the Manichaeans that if he just waits until their potentate Mani comes to town, all will be made clear to him. Your promises are as empty as the Manichaeans. In fact, I think I shall start referring to you as Ye Olde Einsteinichaean. At least Townes is honest about the algebra of the situation. But he is just too relativity-drunk to realize his own absurdity. I'll bet he only drinks tea. Still, I will use a few of his quotes in my new and concise, hard hitting version of my concept. A fourth Nobel, Bodkin....I'm going to run out of mantle space. TMWBA, TMWBTSTI > > > >> m. Look right there in Table 1-3. Do you have question about this? > >>>>> Look at the book. Look at what is there for her distance between the > >>>>> sparks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you not understand why it is zero? > >>>>> > >>>>>> Mary's moving frame pen-to-fire extinguisher distance is no less "real" > >>>>>> than John's rest frame pen-to-fire extinguisher distance. To say that it > >>>>>> is less real violates the principle of relativity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What is "real" and constant between these two measurers is the relative > >>>>>> velocity they share, 259820130 m/s in my example. Less in Taylor & > >>>>>> Wheeler's. 259820130 m/s is a constant for the John & Mary fly-by > >>>>>> problem; as much a constant as c. x'/t' = x/t, this is the fundamental > >>>>>> fallacy of special relativity. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web