Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #579756 > unrolled thread

Mary, John and his twin brother Lon

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-08 00:17 -0800
    Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000
      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-08 12:35 -0800
        Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 21:41 +0000
    Utter cretin Pat Dolan at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 06:32 -0800
    Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 06:53 -0800
      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-08 09:43 -0800
        Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 11:44 -0800
          Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-08 12:31 -0800
            Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-08 12:49 -0800
              Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-09 11:04 -0800
                Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-10 11:26 -0800
            Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 16:25 -0800
              Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-08 17:08 -0800
                Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 17:33 -0800
                  Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-08 17:51 -0800
                    Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 18:08 -0800
                      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-08 21:24 -0800
                        Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 22:21 -0800
                          Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 05:27 -0800
                          Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 05:29 -0800
                            Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 05:36 -0800
                              Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 06:01 -0800
                                Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 09:02 -0800
                                  Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 10:13 -0800
                                    Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 10:34 -0800
                                      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 19:17 +0000
                                        Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 11:39 -0800
                                          Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 21:17 +0000
                                            Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 17:09 -0800
                                              Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 18:39 -0800
                                                Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-09 22:11 -0800
                                                  Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 00:33 -0800
                                                    Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-10 11:20 -0800
                                                      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 11:42 -0800
                                                      Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 12:06 -0800
                                                      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 20:50 +0000
                                                  Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 10:39 +0000
                                                    Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 06:32 -0800
                                                      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 16:34 +0000
                                                        Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-10 10:06 -0800
                                                          Piece of shit Pat Dolan lies shamelessly "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 10:16 -0800
                                                          Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-10 18:35 +0000
                                      Re: Mary, John and his twin brother Lon Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 11:35 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#579756 — Mary, John and his twin brother Lon

Again we borrow from the famous parable of John & Mary beginning on page 5 of Taylor & Wheeler Spacetime Physics (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) with two modifications: 1) The author has taken the liberty of increasing the relative velocity in the parable from 5.91 x 10^7 m/s to 2.60 x 10^8 m/s to reduce the number of significant digits used in the calculations, thus minimizing the impact of calculator roundoff error;  And 2) The author has also added an additional observer at the point of the fire extinguisher--this is how Einstein counseled his students to do it.

We begin on MONDAY in John's & Lon's inertial frame of reference.  Each of them has a clock synchronized with UTC. We observe with them the approach of Mary who rides a rocket with a relative velocity of 2.6 x 10^8 m/s. As Mary passes John, a spark jumps from Mary's antenna to John's pocket pen. At this event in spacetime, call it E0, John observers on his clock that it is exactly 12:00:000000000 UTC.  Mary starts her stopwatch and notes John's pupils contract from the light of the spark.  Two meters away from John, as John & Lon measures the distance, another spark jumps from Mary's antenna to a fire extinguisher next to Lon, call this E1, at which Mary both stops her stop watch and notes Lon's pupils contract from the second spark. Lon notes the time on his clock. 

Later that day John, Lon and Mary meet to compare their respective clock and stopwatch readings and to calculate their respective spacetime interval values between E0 and E1. 

John & Lon calculate the spacetime interval on Monday: 
The difference between John's and Lon's clock readings for E0 and E1 is 2.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 7.7 nsecs 
s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (2.0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m 

Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Monday: 
Mary's elapsed time on her stopwatch is 3.85 nsecs 
s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 - ( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m 

On TUESDAY John, Lon and Mary repeat the high speed encounter to prove that the principle of relativity applies and that there are no favored inertial frames of reference. This time we ride along with Mary. Mary starts her stopwatch at E0, just like on Monday and notes John's pupils contract again just like on Monday as John logs the time on his clock. Mary stops her stopwatch at E1 after 3.85 nsec just like on Monday and notes Lon's pupils contract again. Lon logs the time at E1 just like on Monday, after Mary has traveled the 1.0 m to the fire extinguisher. What! Only 1 m???? YES. The distance between John and Lon is precisely ONE METER. This is not an optical illusion or some relativistic version of the distance between John and Lon. The distance IS IN FACT ONE METER. That's what special relativity emphatically states to us. There is no favored inertial frame where a particular distance is more real than all the other distances. That is the sum total of the principle of relativity. We proceed with John's & Lon's Tuesday calculation. 

John & Lon calculate the spacetime interval on Tuesday: 
Elapsed time between E0 and E1 is 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s = 3.85 nsecs 
s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 0.58 m. 

Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks are not synchronized anymore. Mine is running 3.85 nsec behind yours".  The always agreeable John recalculates the spacetime interval according to this new relativistic revelation an gets

[ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs 
s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m

Mary calculates the spacetime interval on Tuesday: 
Mary's elapsed time is 3.85 nsecs 
s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 3.85 nsec)^2 - ( 0 m)^2 ] = 1.15 m 

General confusion ensues between them with no less than THREE different spacetime intervals calculated between the same two events. 

Thus we find AGAIN that the concept of the invariant spacetime interval does not survive the principle of relativity. Spacetime intervals for the same two spacetime events do not agree when calculated by a sufficient number of observers in different inertial frames of reference. 

(The above is a masterwork.  Signed and framed copies are available on Amazon.)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#579771

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> Again we borrow from the famous parable of John & Mary beginning on page
> 5 of Taylor & Wheeler Spacetime Physics
> (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf)
> with two modifications: 1) The author has taken the liberty of increasing
> the relative velocity in the parable from 5.91 x 10^7 m/s to 2.60 x 10^8
> m/s to reduce the number of significant digits used in the calculations,
> thus minimizing the impact of calculator roundoff error;  And 2) The
> author has also added an additional observer at the point of the fire
> extinguisher--this is how Einstein counseled his students to do it.

Nope, let’s make sure you can do the ones in the book before you run off
the road into the weeds. 
Why do you find it difficult to concentrate on the exercises at hand?


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579805

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:52:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: 
> > Again we borrow from the famous parable of John & Mary beginning on page 
> > 5 of Taylor & Wheeler Spacetime Physics 
> > (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) 
> > with two modifications: 1) The author has taken the liberty of increasing 
> > the relative velocity in the parable from 5.91 x 10^7 m/s to 2.60 x 10^8 
> > m/s to reduce the number of significant digits used in the calculations, 
> > thus minimizing the impact of calculator roundoff error; And 2) The 
> > author has also added an additional observer at the point of the fire 
> > extinguisher--this is how Einstein counseled his students to do it.
> Nope, let’s make sure you can do the ones in the book before you run off 
> the road into the weeds. 
> Why do you find it difficult to concentrate on the exercises at hand? 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, I suspect you are delaying for more time by this ploy of yours where you keep assuring me that the solution to my conundrum lies but a few more chapters down the road.

Prove to this forum that you in fact do have a solution, any solution.  Ignore me for the moment and type out your solution to those denizens of this forum whom you feel have the requisite experience to understand your solution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579824

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:52:27 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: 
>>> Again we borrow from the famous parable of John & Mary beginning on page 
>>> 5 of Taylor & Wheeler Spacetime Physics 
>>> (https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/0000_spacetime_physics.pdf) 
>>> with two modifications: 1) The author has taken the liberty of increasing 
>>> the relative velocity in the parable from 5.91 x 10^7 m/s to 2.60 x 10^8 
>>> m/s to reduce the number of significant digits used in the calculations, 
>>> thus minimizing the impact of calculator roundoff error; And 2) The 
>>> author has also added an additional observer at the point of the fire 
>>> extinguisher--this is how Einstein counseled his students to do it.
>> Nope, let’s make sure you can do the ones in the book before you run off 
>> the road into the weeds. 
>> Why do you find it difficult to concentrate on the exercises at hand? 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Bodkin, I suspect you are delaying for more time by this ploy of yours
> where you keep assuring me that the solution to my conundrum lies but a
> few more chapters down the road.

Pat, this must frustrate you to no end, but studying from a book means
starting from the beginning and going page by page in successive order,
working problems in the order they are presented. It may be your ADHD habit
to flip to random pages and scan some content on each to see if it grabs
your immediate attention, but that’s not a habit I would indulge, as it’s a
waste of time. 

I can tell you that if you try doing arpeggios on a guitar without learning
to do scales first, then thirds and fifths and sevenths, and basic chord
fingering, that will continue to be a “conundrum”. 

Now, did you do Sample Problem 1-1? Why not?

> 
> Prove to this forum that you in fact do have a solution, any solution. 
> Ignore me for the moment and type out your solution to those denizens of
> this forum whom you feel have the requisite experience to understand your solution.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579778 — Utter cretin Pat Dolan at work

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-8, cretin  pat dolan brainfarted:

> General confusion ensues between them with no less than THREE different spacetime intervals calculated between the same two events. 
> 
Cretin. Incurable. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579779

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> The author has also added an additional observer... Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks 
> are not synchronized anymore. Mine is running 3.85 nsec behind yours". John 
> recalculates the spacetime interval and gets
>
> [ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs
> s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m

That's a calculation mistake (which you had avoided up until now). Lon and John are both at rest in the same system of inertial coordinates, so the spatial and temporal components of each interval are the same for both of them, regardless of whether they use inertial coordinate systems offset with different origins. In your new calculation you're computing sqrt(dt^2 - dx'^2), combining dt and dx', which is gibberish. Remember, you are claiming to be describing the consequences of special relativity, but according to special relativity the interval between two events is given by the expression with time and space components from the same system of inertial coordinates, not with a space component from one system and a time component from another.  So what you are describing is not consistent with special relativity, it's just your own blunder.

Of course, as explained in the very first reply in the other thread, there are indeed three different intervals in this scenario, one of which you had omitted up to now.  Again, using your nomenclature, the sparks are at E0 and E1, and according to Mary's co-moving coordinates John is simultaneous with the second spark at E2, whereas according to John's (and Len's) co-moving inertial coordinates John is simultaneous with the second spark at E3.  The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). 

These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario, because this is essentially the identical scenario, in reverse with different names.  Remember?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579785

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:53:57 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 12:17:34 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: 
> > The author has also added an additional observer... Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks 
> > are not synchronized anymore. Mine is running 3.85 nsec behind yours". John 
> > recalculates the spacetime interval and gets
> > 
> > [ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs 
> > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m
> That's a calculation mistake (which you had avoided up until now). Lon and John are both at rest in the same system of inertial coordinates, so the spatial and temporal components of each interval are the same for both of them, regardless of whether they use inertial coordinate systems offset with different origins.
This is Tueday's experiment Townes, remember?  From Mary's frame John's and Lon's clocks are not synchronized.  This is not an illusion or some time of flight artifact.  Special relativity assures us that their clocks REALLY ARE not synchronized anymore.  To assert that they are is to claim that the frame in which John's and Lon's clocks are synchronized is some how more real than Mary's frame.  This is the biggest no-no in all of relativity.

I don't think you can correlate your extra events E2 and E3 to the facts on the ground, now that I've introduced Lon.  I've out-thought you Townes.  I dare you to try to map E2 and E3 onto this truth-saying of mine.

 In your new calculation you're computing sqrt(dt^2 - dx'^2), combining dt and dx', which is gibberish. Remember, you are claiming to be describing the consequences of special relativity, but according to special relativity the interval between two events is given by the expression with time and space components from the same system of inertial coordinates, not with a space component from one system and a time component from another. So what you are describing is not consistent with special relativity, it's just your own blunder. 
> 
> Of course, as explained in the very first reply in the other thread, there are indeed three different intervals in this scenario, one of which you had omitted up to now. Again, using your nomenclature, the sparks are at E0 and E1, and according to Mary's co-moving coordinates John is simultaneous with the second spark at E2, whereas according to John's (and Len's) co-moving inertial coordinates John is simultaneous with the second spark at E3. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). 
> 
> These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario, because this is essentially the identical scenario, in reverse with different names. Remember?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579793

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:43:26 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks are not synchronized anymore. Mine is 
> > > running 3.85 nsec behind yours". John recalculates the spacetime interval 
> > > and gets 
> > > [ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs 
> > > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m 
> >
> > That's a calculation mistake (which you had avoided up until now). Lon and John are both at rest in the same system of inertial coordinates, so the spatial and temporal components of each interval are the same for both of them, regardless of whether they use inertial coordinate systems offset with different origins.
>
> From Mary's frame John's and Lon's clocks are not synchronized.

If they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then yes, they are not synchronized in terms of Mary's co-moving system of inertial coordinates.  On the other hand, if they are synchronized in terms of Mary's system, they are not synchronized in terms of John/Len's system.  They are free to synchronize clocks in any way they like.  This doesn't change anything about the physical phenomena.

> Special relativity assures us that their clocks REALLY ARE not synchronized anymore.

No, special relativity says if they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then they are not synchronized in terms of any other (relatively moving) system of inertial coordinates... and vice versa. 

> I don't think you can correlate your extra events E2 and E3 to the facts on the ground...

Again, they are not *my* events, they are events that *you* are referring to in the scenario you are asking about.  And they have already been fully "correlated", meaning you've been given the explicit coordinates of each event in terms of each system of coordinates, and you've been shown how to compute each of the six pairwise intervals between those four events.  You've also now been shown that your latest calculation is erroneous, because you're computing sqrt(dt^2 - dx'^2), combining dt and dx', which is gibberish. 

Of course, there are indeed three different intervals in this scenario, one of which you had omitted up to now. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters).  These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario, because this is essentially the identical scenario, in reverse, with different names. We covered this before.  Remember?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579803

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:45:01 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:43:26 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks are not synchronized anymore. Mine is 
> > > > running 3.85 nsec behind yours". John recalculates the spacetime interval 
> > > > and gets 
> > > > [ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs 
> > > > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m 
> > > 
> > > That's a calculation mistake (which you had avoided up until now). Lon and John are both at rest in the same system of inertial coordinates, so the spatial and temporal components of each interval are the same for both of them, regardless of whether they use inertial coordinate systems offset with different origins. 
> >
> > From Mary's frame John's and Lon's clocks are not synchronized.
> If they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then yes, they are not synchronized in terms of Mary's co-moving system of inertial coordinates. On the other hand, if they are synchronized in terms of Mary's system, they are not synchronized in terms of John/Len's system. They are free to synchronize clocks in any way they like. This doesn't change anything about the physical phenomena.
> > Special relativity assures us that their clocks REALLY ARE not synchronized anymore.
> No, special relativity says if they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then they are not synchronized in terms of any other (relatively moving) system of inertial coordinates... and vice versa. 
> 
> > I don't think you can correlate your extra events E2 and E3 to the facts on the ground... 
> 
> Again, they are not *my* events, they are events that *you* are referring to in the scenario you are asking about. And they have already been fully "correlated", meaning you've been given the explicit coordinates of each event in terms of each system of coordinates, and you've been shown how to compute each of the six pairwise intervals between those four events. You've also now been shown that your latest calculation is erroneous, because you're computing sqrt(dt^2 - dx'^2), combining dt and dx', which is gibberish. 
> 
> Of course, there are indeed three different intervals in this scenario, one of which you had omitted up to now. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario, because this is essentially the identical scenario, in reverse, with different names. We covered this before. Remember?
In this example from Taylor and Wheeler there are only TWO events in spacetime, that is to say in the Universe, the are of concern.

Please list any other event you discern in addition to these two, along with an explicit description of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579807

patdolan wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:45:01 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:43:26 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks are not synchronized anymore. Mine is
> > > > > running 3.85 nsec behind yours". John recalculates the spacetime interval
> > > > > and gets
> > > > > [ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs
> > > > > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m
> > > >
> > > > That's a calculation mistake (which you had avoided up until now). Lon and John are both at rest in the same system of inertial coordinates, so the spatial and temporal components of each interval are the same for both of them, regardless of whether they use inertial coordinate systems offset with different origins.
> > >
> > > From Mary's frame John's and Lon's clocks are not synchronized.
> > If they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then yes, they are not synchronized in terms of Mary's co-moving system of inertial coordinates. On the other hand, if they are synchronized in terms of Mary's system, they are not synchronized in terms of John/Len's system. They are free to synchronize clocks in any way they like. This doesn't change anything about the physical phenomena.
> > > Special relativity assures us that their clocks REALLY ARE not synchronized anymore.
> > No, special relativity says if they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then they are not synchronized in terms of any other (relatively moving) system of inertial coordinates... and vice versa.
> >
> > > I don't think you can correlate your extra events E2 and E3 to the facts on the ground...
> >
> > Again, they are not *my* events, they are events that *you* are referring to in the scenario you are asking about. And they have already been fully "correlated", meaning you've been given the explicit coordinates of each event in terms of each system of coordinates, and you've been shown how to compute each of the six pairwise intervals between those four events. You've also now been shown that your latest calculation is erroneous, because you're computing sqrt(dt^2 - dx'^2), combining dt and
> >
> > Of course, there are indeed three different intervals in this scenario, one of which you had omitted up to now. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario, be
> In this example from Taylor and Wheeler there are only TWO events in spacetime, that is to say in the Universe, the are of concern.
> 
> Please list any other event you discern in addition to these two, along with an explicit description of it.

There are events 'between' events that are inmeasurable.






-- 
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]

#579901

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:45:01 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:43:26 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks are not synchronized anymore. Mine is
> > > > > > running 3.85 nsec behind yours". John recalculates the spacetime interval
> > > > > > and gets
> > > > > > [ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs
> > > > > > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a calculation mistake (which you had avoided up until now). Lon and John are both at rest in the same system of inertial coordinates, so the spatial and temporal components of each interval are the same for both of them, regardless of whether they use inertial coordinate systems offset with different origins.
> > > >
> > > > From Mary's frame John's and Lon's clocks are not synchronized.
> > > If they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then yes, they are not synchronized in terms of Mary's co-moving system of inertial coordinates. On the other hand, if they are synchronized in terms of Mary's system, they are not synchronized in terms of John/Len's system. They are free to synchronize clocks in any way they like. This doesn't change anything about the physical phenomena.
> > > > Special relativity assures us that their clocks REALLY ARE not synchronized anymore.
> > > No, special relativity says if they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then they are not synchronized in terms of any other (relatively moving) system of inertial coordinates... and vice versa.
> > >
> > > > I don't think you can correlate your extra events E2 and E3 to the facts on the ground...
> > >
> > > Again, they are not *my* events, they are events that *you* are referring to in the scenario you are asking about. And they have already been fully "correlated", meaning you've been given the explicit coordinates of each event in terms of each system of coordinates, and you've been shown how to compute each of the six pairwise intervals between those four events. You've also now been shown that your latest calculation is erroneous, because you're computing sqrt(dt^2 - dx'^2), combining dt an
> > >
> > > Of course, there are indeed three different intervals in this scenario, one of which you had omitted up to now. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario,
> > In this example from Taylor and Wheeler there are only TWO events in spacetime, that is to say in the Universe, the are of concern.
> >
> > Please list any other event you discern in addition to these two, along with an explicit description of it.
> 
> There are events 'between' events that are inmeasurable.
>

I's knows it's differcults fors yous tos understands...

but they say: Time itself passes slower for an object is in motion.

But, if I remain motionless...staring at a clock.. Time itself seems to passes verrrrryyyyyyyyyy sloooowlllllyyyy and neither one of us objects are in motion.





-- 
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]

#579962

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > patdolan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:45:01 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:43:26 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > Lon cries "Wait John! Our clocks are not synchronized anymore. Mine is
> > > > > > > running 3.85 nsec behind yours". John recalculates the spacetime interval
> > > > > > > and gets
> > > > > > > [ 1.0 m/2.6 x 10^8 m/s ] + 3.85 nsecs = 7.7 nsecs
> > > > > > > s = sqrt[ (3.0 x 10^8 m/s x 7.7 nsec)^2 - (1.0 m)^2 ] = 2.08 m
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a calculation mistake (which you had avoided up until now). Lon and John are both at rest in the same system of inertial coordinates, so the spatial and temporal components of each interval are the same for both of them, regardless of whether they use inertial coordinate systems offset with different origins.
> > > > >
> > > > > From Mary's frame John's and Lon's clocks are not synchronized.
> > > > If they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then yes, they are not synchronized in terms of Mary's co-moving system of inertial coordinates. On the other hand, if they are synchronized in terms of Mary's system, they are not synchronized in terms of John/Len's system. They are free to synchronize clocks in any way they like. This doesn't change anything about the physical phenomena.
> > > > > Special relativity assures us that their clocks REALLY ARE not synchronized anymore.
> > > > No, special relativity says if they are synchronized in terms of their co-moving system of inertial coordinates, then they are not synchronized in terms of any other (relatively moving) system of inertial coordinates... and vice versa.
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think you can correlate your extra events E2 and E3 to the facts on the ground...
> > > >
> > > > Again, they are not *my* events, they are events that *you* are referring to in the scenario you are asking about. And they have already been fully "correlated", meaning you've been given the explicit coordinates of each event in terms of each system of coordinates, and you've been shown how to compute each of the six pairwise intervals between those four events. You've also now been shown that your latest calculation is erroneous, because you're computing sqrt(dt^2 - dx'^2), combining dt
> > > >
> > > > Of course, there are indeed three different intervals in this scenario, one of which you had omitted up to now. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario
> > > In this example from Taylor and Wheeler there are only TWO events in spacetime, that is to say in the Universe, the are of concern.
> > >
> > > Please list any other event you discern in addition to these two, along with an explicit description of it.
> >
> > There are events 'between' events that are inmeasurable.
> >
> 
> I's knows it's differcults fors yous tos understands...
> 
> but they say: Time itself passes slower for an object is in motion.
> 
> But, if I remain motionless...staring at a clock.. Time itself seems to passes verrrrryyyyyyyyyy sloooowlllllyyyy and neither one of us objects are in motion.
> 

Now what about that startement? "Time itself passes slower for an object is in motion." comes from from Taylor and Wheeler textbook...

Looks like there is an error in the English language  "is in"? spel checker don't verk? There must be a million errors in dat book! 


It's time to evaluate the teachers...



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579847

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 12:31:51 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > There are indeed three different intervals in this scenario. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario, because this is essentially the identical scenario, in reverse, with different names. We covered this before.
>
> In this example from Taylor and Wheeler there are only TWO events in spacetime...

The "Monday and Tuesday" scenario you described is not in that book.  Remember, you already confirmed that the invariant interval between the sparks, as described in that book (with your parameters) is 1.155 meters, regardless of whether it is evaluated in terms of John's co-moving inertial coordinate system, or in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system.  So, up to that point, you are The Man Who Unwittingly Confirmed Special Relativity (TMWUCSP).

Where you first went off the rails was confusing the second spark event with John's event simultaneous with the second spark in terms of Mary's co-moving system.  Once you realized your mistake, you committed an even dumber blunder by miscalculating the interval between sparks (that you previously calculated correctly!) by mixing dt from John and Len's system with dx' from Mary's.  That's just an elementary blunder.  So you became The Man Who Couldn't Think His Way Out Of A Paper Bag (TMWCTHWOOAPB).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579851

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 4:25:21 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 12:31:51 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: 
> > > There are indeed three different intervals in this scenario. The invariant interval from E0 to E1 is D/(vg) meters (which with your parameters is 1.155 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E2 is D/(vg^2) meters (which with your parameters is 0.577 meters), and the invariant interval from E0 to E3 is D/v meters (which with your parameters is 2.309 meters). These are in proportion to the 2.2, 1.1, and 4.4, usec in the muon scenario, because this is essentially the identical scenario, in reverse, with different names. We covered this before. 
> > 
> > In this example from Taylor and Wheeler there are only TWO events in spacetime... 
> 
> The "Monday and Tuesday" scenario you described is not in that book. Remember, you already confirmed that the invariant interval between the sparks, as described in that book (with your parameters) is 1.155 meters, regardless of whether it is evaluated in terms of John's co-moving inertial coordinate system, or in terms of Mary's co-moving inertial coordinate system. So, up to that point, you are The Man Who Unwittingly Confirmed Special Relativity (TMWUCSP). 
> 
> Where you first went off the rails was confusing the second spark event with John's event simultaneous with the second spark in terms of Mary's co-moving system. Once you realized your mistake, you committed an even dumber blunder by miscalculating the interval between sparks (that you previously calculated correctly!) by mixing dt from John and Len's system with dx' from Mary's. That's just an elementary blunder. So you became The Man Who Couldn't Think His Way Out Of A Paper Bag (TMWCTHWOOAPB).

Townes you have (strategically?) left Lon out of your analysis.  Why?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579853

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:08:19 PM UTC-8, patdolan (TMWCTHWOOAPB) wrote:
> You have left Lon out of your analysis. Why?

Not true...  the effect was Lon's presence on the phenomena was explained previously, namely, no effect at all.  Lon is at rest in John's co-moving system of inertial coordinates.  Again, you are stupidly combined dt and dx' to compute an interval, which is invalid.  You can't mix a time component from one system with the space component of another system.  Duh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579855

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:33:41 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:08:19 PM UTC-8, patdolan (TMWCTHWOOAPB) wrote: 
> > You have left Lon out of your analysis. Why? 
> 
> Not true... the effect was Lon's presence on the phenomena was explained previously, namely, no effect at all. Lon is at rest in John's co-moving system of inertial coordinates. Again, you are stupidly combined dt and dx' to compute an interval, which is invalid. You can't mix a time component from one system with the space component of another system. Duh.

Doesn't Lon's presence, logging the same UTC that John does, eliminate your extra events E2 and E3?  If not, why not?  Lon's event E1 is now John's event E1 too.  Everything is all synced up.  Your construct collapses. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579856

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > You are stupidly combining dt and dx' to compute an interval, which is invalid. You can't
> > mix a time component from one system with the space component of another system.
>
> Doesn't Lon's presence, logging the same UTC that John does...

Logging UTC?  Please sober up before positing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579860

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:08:27 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:51:35 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: 
> > > You are stupidly combining dt and dx' to compute an interval, which is invalid. You can't
> > > mix a time component from one system with the space component of another system. 
> >
> > Doesn't Lon's presence, logging the same UTC that John does... 
> 
> Logging UTC? Please sober up before positing.
Damned straight, Townes.  On Monday John and Lon are using the time o' day courtesy of universal coordinated time.  John is at the first spark, E0. And Lon is at the second spark, E1.  All they have to do is subtract the time o' day that John observed the first spark from the time o' day that Lon observed the second spark.  No need for your phony E2, E3 shell game.  I caught you Townes.  Ya know what the tell was?  Your last post---it reeks of desperation in its brevity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579863

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:24:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> John and Lon are using the time o' day courtesy of universal coordinated time. 

The proposition about invariant intervals in special relativity refers to necessarily local inertia-based coordinate systems (not UTC), and you are considering two such systems, one in which John and Lon are both at rest, and one in which Mary is at rest.  In terms of the former, the components of the interval between the sparks are dx = 2 meters and dt = 7.7 nanosecs, giving an interval 1.155 meters. In terms of the latter, the components of the interval between the sparks are dx' = 0 meters and dt' = 3.85 nanosecs, giving again an interval of 1.155 meters.  This is true on Monday, and Tuesday, and Wednesday, and ...  Computing this interval in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates gives the same result.  So you've confirmed the invariance of the spacetime interval.

Your latest blunder is now two-fold, since you are still confusing the second spark event with John's event that is simultaneous with the second spark, albeit now in terms of John and Lon's co-moving inertial coordinate system (E3 instead of E2), and you are trying to compute that interval (E0 to E3) using the components dx' = 1 meter and dt = 7.7 meters (even though I gave you the correct value long ago).  So you are miscomputing this interval by mixing time and space components from different systems, and you are erroneously conflating this miscomputed interval with the interval between the sparks.

You're making negative progress.  You started out computing the intervals correctly, and your only mistake was failing to recognize that you were computing different intervals between different pairs of events.  But now, in addition to that mistake, you are mis-computing the mis-identified intervals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#579871

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:24:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: 
> > John and Lon are using the time o' day courtesy of universal coordinated time.
> The proposition about invariant intervals in special relativity refers to necessarily local inertia-based coordinate systems (not UTC), and you are considering two such systems, one in which John and Lon are both at rest, and one in which Mary is at rest. In terms of the former, the components of the interval between the sparks are dx = 2 meters and dt = 7.7 nanosecs, giving an interval 1.155 meters. In terms of the latter, the components of the interval between the sparks are dx' = 0 meters and dt' = 3.85 nanosecs, giving again an interval of 1.155 meters. This is true on Monday, and Tuesday, and Wednesday, and ... Computing this interval in terms of any other system of inertial coordinates gives the same result. So you've confirmed the invariance of the spacetime interval. 
> 
> Your latest blunder is now two-fold, since you are still confusing the second spark event with John's event that is simultaneous with the second spark, albeit now in terms of John and Lon's co-moving inertial coordinate system (E3 instead of E2), and you are trying to compute that interval (E0 to E3)
Gibberish! using the components dx' = 1 meter and dt = 7.7 meters (even though I gave you the correct value long ago). So you are miscomputing this interval by mixing time and space components from different systems, and you are erroneously conflating this miscomputed interval with the interval between the sparks. 
> 
> You're making negative progress. You started out computing the intervals correctly, and your only mistake was failing to recognize that you were computing different intervals between different pairs of events. But now, in addition to that mistake, you are mis-computing the mis-identified intervals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web