Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580849 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-23 16:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-03-30 12:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 16:14 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 23:48 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 17:04 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 10:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 09:55 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 16:21 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 15:12 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 21:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 22:51 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 19:39 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-26 20:27 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 12:37 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 10:38 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 17:52 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 14:47 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 19:53 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 15:18 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 20:57 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 18:50 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 14:29 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-01 16:22 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 14:37 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 21:37 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 18:20 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 01:46 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 19:02 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 19:55 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 13:41 +0000
Cretin Pat Dolan admits he's the greatest imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 07:20 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 00:35 -0400
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 22:15 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-27 14:33 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 18:53 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 13:57 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 18:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 23:08 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 23:29 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 23:48 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 00:22 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 00:39 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 06:34 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 06:45 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:27 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:27 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 09:40 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 16:54 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 10:04 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:31 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 12:36 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:46 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 20:07 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 13:26 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 21:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 22:01 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 16:04 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 17:18 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 17:26 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 17:54 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 17:59 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 18:16 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 09:12 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 09:51 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 09:55 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 17:03 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 10:09 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 17:19 +0000
Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 10:39 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 10:46 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 17:52 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 10:59 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 12:01 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 12:00 -0700
Village imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 10:38 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 12:03 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 12:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-24 18:28 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 18:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 10:01 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 10:30 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 17:37 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 11:01 -0700
Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 11:56 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 12:04 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:34 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:43 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-24 22:16 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 13:26 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 14:58 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 00:52 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-25 21:58 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-27 23:56 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 13:09 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-29 11:48 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 19:25 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 11:07 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 12:02 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 12:46 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 13:23 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 21:31 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 22:10 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-31 10:40 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:34 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:31 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-24 15:41 -0400
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 12:44 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 12:49 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 23:54 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 11:27 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-26 00:45 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 17:01 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 10:48 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 10:38 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-26 16:25 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 08:37 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-26 16:41 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 10:51 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-26 19:04 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 10:46 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 13:13 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 17:03 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 17:12 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-26 19:17 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-26 12:12 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-24 13:43 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 13:53 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:01 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:01 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 09:34 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:20 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 11:51 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-24 18:11 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 18:16 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 18:25 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-24 18:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Takabe Matsumura <tamu@frdesn.jp> - 2022-03-24 19:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Takabe Matsumura <tamu@frdesn.jp> - 2022-03-24 20:00 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-25 11:21 +1100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 12:34 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 16:14 -0700 |
| Subject | v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz |
| Message-ID | <8be36be4-97e0-4c3a-a31a-5aa7c91a261en@googlegroups.com> |
"What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: Transforms from S to S' x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] and going back the other way Transforms to S' to S x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both cases then it should be provable. I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the Transforms to S' equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. I don't think even Townes Olson has a clue how to do this. He may not even understand what I am typing about. And Bodkin? Fuhgedaboudit. With deepest sympathy for a lost cause, TMWBTLT
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1gbl5$pfk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580849 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > "What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you > would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and > only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: > > Transforms from S to S' > x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > and going back the other way > > Transforms to S' to S > x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 > > Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity > v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both > cases then it should be provable. Which I did for you already, using the Lorentz transform. Why would you need this repeated? > > I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the > Transforms to S' equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. > > I don't think even Townes Olson has a clue how to do this. He may not > even understand what I am typing about. And Bodkin? Fuhgedaboudit. > > With deepest sympathy for a lost cause, > > TMWBTLT > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <865f1456-c5fa-432e-9d19-2b9e62dae355n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580850 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:48:57 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > "What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you > > would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and > > only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: > > > > Transforms from S to S' > > x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > > > and going back the other way > > > > Transforms to S' to S > > x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 > > > > Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity > > v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both > > cases then it should be provable. > Which I did for you already, using the Lorentz transform. > Why would you need this repeated? Yes, why repeat? Give us a link to your proof. > > > > I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the > > Transforms to S' equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. > > > > I don't think even Townes Olson has a clue how to do this. He may not > > even understand what I am typing about. And Bodkin? Fuhgedaboudit. > > > > With deepest sympathy for a lost cause, > > > > TMWBTLT > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 10:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1hi2c$2ag$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580853 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:48:57 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> "What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you >>> would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and >>> only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: >>> >>> Transforms from S to S' >>> x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>> t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>> >>> and going back the other way >>> >>> Transforms to S' to S >>> x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>> t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>> >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 >>> >>> Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity >>> v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both >>> cases then it should be provable. >> Which I did for you already, using the Lorentz transform. >> Why would you need this repeated? > > Yes, why repeat? Give us a link to your proof. Who is “us”? If you can’t stay sober enough to pay attention to conversations you initiate here, whose problem is that? >>> >>> I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the >>> Transforms to S' equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. >>> >>> I don't think even Townes Olson has a clue how to do this. He may not >>> even understand what I am typing about. And Bodkin? Fuhgedaboudit. >>> >>> With deepest sympathy for a lost cause, >>> >>> TMWBTLT >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ja3f2gF2rujU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580870 |
On 3/24/2022 5:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:48:57 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> "What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you >>>> would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and >>>> only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: >>>> >>>> Transforms from S to S' >>>> x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>> t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>> >>>> and going back the other way >>>> >>>> Transforms to S' to S >>>> x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>> t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>> >>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 >>>> >>>> Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity >>>> v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both >>>> cases then it should be provable. >>> Which I did for you already, using the Lorentz transform. >>> Why would you need this repeated? >> >> Yes, why repeat? Give us a link to your proof. > > Who is “us”? Standard English usage. Get a grip already. > If you can’t stay sober enough to pay attention to conversations you > initiate here, whose problem is that? That's a question that could easily be asked about you. Without defending dolan you lack common courtesy that is expected of adults om settings like this one. >>>> >>>> I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the >>>> Transforms to S' equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. >>>> >>>> I don't think even Townes Olson has a clue how to do this. He may not >>>> even understand what I am typing about. And Bodkin? Fuhgedaboudit. >>>> >>>> With deepest sympathy for a lost cause, >>>> >>>> TMWBTLT >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1i5ph$1plp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580893 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/24/2022 5:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:48:57 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> "What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you >>>>> would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and >>>>> only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: >>>>> >>>>> Transforms from S to S' >>>>> x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>> t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>> >>>>> and going back the other way >>>>> >>>>> Transforms to S' to S >>>>> x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>> t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>> >>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 >>>>> >>>>> Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity >>>>> v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both >>>>> cases then it should be provable. >>>> Which I did for you already, using the Lorentz transform. >>>> Why would you need this repeated? >>> >>> Yes, why repeat? Give us a link to your proof. >> > > >> Who is “us”? > > Standard English usage. Get a grip already. I didn’t know he spoke for you too. I know Pat is too lazy to use his Usenet reader to find his own conversations where he last asked this question. I’m a little surprised you’re in the same boat. > >> If you can’t stay sober enough to pay attention to conversations you >> initiate here, whose problem is that? > > That's a question that could easily be asked about you. Without > defending dolan you lack common courtesy that is expected of adults > om settings like this one. > People have history here. Pat has a long one. You think this should be overlooked? Have you overlooked mine? > > >>>>> >>>>> I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the >>>>> Transforms to S' equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think even Townes Olson has a clue how to do this. He may not >>>>> even understand what I am typing about. And Bodkin? Fuhgedaboudit. >>>>> >>>>> With deepest sympathy for a lost cause, >>>>> >>>>> TMWBTLT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ja41lnF6e2gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580898 |
On 3/24/2022 11:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/24/2022 5:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:48:57 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> "What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you >>>>>> would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and >>>>>> only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: >>>>>> >>>>>> Transforms from S to S' >>>>>> x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>> t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>> >>>>>> and going back the other way >>>>>> >>>>>> Transforms to S' to S >>>>>> x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>> t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 >>>>>> >>>>>> Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity >>>>>> v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both >>>>>> cases then it should be provable. >>>>> Which I did for you already, using the Lorentz transform. >>>>> Why would you need this repeated? >>>> >>>> Yes, why repeat? Give us a link to your proof. >>> >> >> >>> Who is “us”? >> >> Standard English usage. Get a grip already. > > I didn’t know he spoke for you too. Usenet participation implies, actually demands, standard English usage. Is English your first language? Are you or are you not familiar with conventional English usage? If you are then the "who is us" response is your attempt to escalate argument in clear opposition to understanding. Another poster's poor behavior, if that's what it was, does not excuse yours. Are you an adult attempting discussion or are you participating for nefarious personal reasons? I don't expect an answer. > I know Pat is too lazy to use his > Usenet reader to find his own conversations where he last asked this > question. Have you considered any reasons for his behavior that include your behavior towards him? I am well aware that there are plenty of nutcases in Usenet. You should do a self-check or ask someone neutral to determine the quality of your posting history. > I’m a little surprised you’re in the same boat. You have a way of posting conclusions as fact absent any evidence. In fact you do that all the time. Passive aggressive isn't "cool." Consider what this reply of yours looks like to a neutral arbiter. >>> If you can’t stay sober enough to pay attention to conversations you >>> initiate here, whose problem is that? >> >> That's a question that could easily be asked about you. Without >> defending dolan you lack common courtesy that is expected of adults >> in settings like this one. >> > > People have history here. Pat has a long one. You think this should be > overlooked? Have you overlooked mine? I did my best for a very long time to overlook your posting history. Eventually it became a futile exercise. The real question is whether or not you, a quite well educated man, should get a pass for lowering yourself to some lowest common denominator in order to appear to make the less gifted foolish by using bully tactics. I found myself caught up in a long term similar exchange in another newsgroup, and I broke it off despite feeling justified for treating that crank the way I did. I will say with candor that "he started it" thinking I was a sock for some earlier opponent, but still the discussion needed an adult approach to end the bad behavior by both of us. It takes real honesty to confront oneself in such circumstances and to do the right thing. In the end the question falls to one that determines your reason(s) for participating here. Consider first why you, a self-proclaimed mathematician, picked a hobby as " Maker of fine toys, tools, tables." Usually such hobbies are undertaken to satisfy an urge to creativity not fulfilled by one's career focus. Participation here, in a sci newsgroup, is generally in order to fulfill a similar urge, whether a participant is, by academic standards, qualified or not. The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some long time ago. As I've said before, get a grip man. This discussion echoes the sorts of realizations that occurred when the academics of yesteryear abandoned these newsgroups. I think it was a mistake for them to have abandoned Usenet in lieu of revising the basis for their participation here, but that was their choice and they were entitled to solve their issues as they thought best. What it says about them, IMO, is that they lacked the self-control necessary for socially acceptable participation. They solved the problem and I applaud them for it. I would hope that your solution permits continuing participation with an improved interchange of ideas because these newsgroups would become more useful with useful knowledge driving the discussions. It is a difficult task lacking any requirements or authoritarian oversight. Any finding of success or failure lies in a future "rear view mirror." Ultimately it all boils down to what sort of a history do you want to be a part of. <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 21:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1ioob$17oh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580935 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/24/2022 11:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/24/2022 5:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:48:57 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> "What!" you howl, "There is no v' in the Transforms Lorentz!" And you >>>>>>> would be exactly correct. There is only v. All observes will always and >>>>>>> only use v when calculating the coordinate values x' and t'. This from Hyperphysics: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Transforms from S to S' >>>>>>> x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>>> t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and going back the other way >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Transforms to S' to S >>>>>>> x = ( x' + vt' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>>> t = ( t' + vx'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Conspicuous by its absence from the Transforms Lorentz is the quantity >>>>>>> v'. A great reasoner and philosopher once wrote that if v = v in both >>>>>>> cases then it should be provable. >>>>>> Which I did for you already, using the Lorentz transform. >>>>>> Why would you need this repeated? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, why repeat? Give us a link to your proof. >>>> >>> >>> >>>> Who is “us”? >>> >>> Standard English usage. Get a grip already. >> >> I didn’t know he spoke for you too. > > Usenet participation implies, actually demands, standard English usage. > Is English your first language? Are you or are you not familiar with > conventional English usage? If you are then the "who is us" response > is your attempt to escalate argument in clear opposition to > understanding. If someone says “show us”, when he means “show me,” I’m going to ask whom he’s referring to, besides himself, that needs to be shown the answer. Pat’s MO is, when he doesn’t know how to do something, to claim that it can’t be done, that no one has ever done it, even when it’s simple. Then this “prove to us that it can be done by doing it” is a cheap an disingenuous claim that others need to see it too. If you lump yourself in the category of not being able to do the 5th grade algebra that he claims can’t be done, then just say so. > > Another poster's poor behavior, if that's what it was, does not > excuse yours. Are you an adult attempting discussion or are you > participating for nefarious personal reasons? I don't expect an answer. > >> I know Pat is too lazy to use his >> Usenet reader to find his own conversations where he last asked this >> question. > > Have you considered any reasons for his behavior that include your > behavior towards him? I am well aware that there are plenty of nutcases > in Usenet. You should do a self-check or ask someone neutral to > determine the quality of your posting history. > >> I’m a little surprised you’re in the same boat. > > You have a way of posting conclusions as fact absent any evidence. In > fact you do that all the time. Passive aggressive isn't "cool." Consider > what this reply of yours looks like to a neutral arbiter. Ok, are you in the same boat as he is? Are you part of his “us”? Or not? > >>>> If you can’t stay sober enough to pay attention to conversations you >>>> initiate here, whose problem is that? >>> >>> That's a question that could easily be asked about you. Without >>> defending dolan you lack common courtesy that is expected of adults >>> in settings like this one. >>> >> >> People have history here. Pat has a long one. You think this should be >> overlooked? Have you overlooked mine? > > I did my best for a very long time to overlook your posting history. > > Eventually it became a futile exercise. The real question is whether or > not you, a quite well educated man, should get a pass for lowering > yourself to some lowest common denominator in order to appear to make > the less gifted foolish by using bully tactics. > > I found myself caught up in a long term similar exchange in another > newsgroup, and I broke it off despite feeling justified for treating > that crank the way I did. I will say with candor that "he started it" > thinking I was a sock for some earlier opponent, but still the > discussion needed an adult approach to end the bad behavior by both > of us. It takes real honesty to confront oneself in such circumstances > and to do the right thing. > > In the end the question falls to one that determines your reason(s) for > participating here. Consider first why you, a self-proclaimed > mathematician, picked a hobby as " Maker of fine toys, tools, tables." Ok, I’ll bite. Why do CEOs fly-fish? Why do architects like to rebuild old cars? Why do YOU think someone with a job as a mathematician would have woodworking as a hobby, and then decide to do that as a career? > > Usually such hobbies are undertaken to satisfy an urge to creativity not > fulfilled by one's career focus. Participation here, in a sci newsgroup, > is generally in order to fulfill a similar urge, whether a participant > is, by academic standards, qualified or not. > > The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some > long time ago. How do you define “helpful”? What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? > As I've said before, get a grip man. This discussion > echoes the sorts of realizations that occurred when the academics of > yesteryear abandoned these newsgroups. I think it was a mistake for them > to have abandoned Usenet in lieu of revising the basis for their > participation here, but that was their choice and they were entitled to > solve their issues as they thought best. What it says about them, IMO, > is that they lacked the self-control necessary for socially acceptable > participation. They solved the problem and I applaud them for it. I > would hope that your solution permits continuing participation with an > improved interchange of ideas because these newsgroups would become more > useful with useful knowledge driving the discussions. It is a difficult > task lacking any requirements or authoritarian oversight. Any finding of > success or failure lies in a future "rear view mirror." > > Ultimately it all boils down to what sort of a history do you want to be > a part of. > > <snip> > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 22:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1ism6$rc2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580938 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> >> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >> long time ago. > > How do you define “helpful”? > What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? > In fact, let’s get concrete. You earlier stated that an expanding universe is incompatible with being infinite. Given that physicists are on record having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe, how could I have been more helpful to you? I’m open for concrete feedback. (But to set an expectation, if the answer is to let people have and express opinions, whatever those may be, regardless of what physicists say, then I’m going to question the value of that. You?) -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 19:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ja4h9dF994lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580942 |
On 3/24/2022 5:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: <snip> >>> >>> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >>> long time ago. >> >> How do you define “helpful”? >> What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? >> > > In fact, let’s get concrete. You earlier stated that an expanding universe > is incompatible with being infinite. Given that physicists are on record > having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe, how could I have > been more helpful to you? I’m open for concrete feedback. As you should know, the models are complex enough that more description is necessary to resolve this sort of conflict. You write that "physicists are on record having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe," but you omit the fact that it is not "all physicists" but also that there are competing theories. And you do this repeatedly without discussing the fact that even competing theories have limits regarding their relevance. You also omit the fact that we cannot be certain that our universe is infinite or boundless and it is likely that we can never ascertain the nature of the universe le4t alone its actual size. Still you continue to insist that you have a complete command of such facts. Next we have to determine, and we cannot, whether our universe can grow internally without affecting the boundaries. Still if there are no boundaries that means the universe is infinite in size, and if there is any linearity involved, it cannot grow without affecting the "infinite" nature of the universe because as you know "infinite" means there is no possibility of a "larger infinite." Some time back I was asked in a Usenet discussion whether or not black holes had any semblance of infinity about them. My reply was that when a black hole swallows another black hole, would that then result in 2X Infinity? Is such a thing possible? Does infinity become just another mathematical variable? Nope. It goes on from there but there's no use to attempting to discuss any of this while you insist you have an understanding grasp of all of it. > (But to set an expectation, if the answer is to let people have and express > opinions, whatever those may be, regardless of what physicists say, then > I’m going to question the value of that. You?) "What physicists say" isn't a fixed set of facts. If you believe it is then your problems are truly insurmountable. But for just a short moment, let's assume you have the up-to-the-minute handle on "what physicists say." Then look at what they said two centuries ago, and what they will be saying two centuries from now. "What physicists say" is not, never has been, and never will be static. That's why I throw out only very basic conjectures, and usually spend my time asking questions. And do try to remember that every time you lay claim to what physicists say, your argument is an "appeal to authority" one of the documented fallacies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1km3q$a1a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580952 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/24/2022 5:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> >>>> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >>>> long time ago. >>> >>> How do you define “helpful”? >>> What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? >>> >> >> In fact, let’s get concrete. You earlier stated that an expanding universe >> is incompatible with being infinite. Given that physicists are on record >> having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe, how could I have >> been more helpful to you? I’m open for concrete feedback. > > As you should know, the models are complex enough that more description > is necessary to resolve this sort of conflict. You write that > "physicists are on record having no problem with an expanding, infinite > universe," but you omit the fact that it is not "all physicists" but > also that there are competing theories. Of course. But if there were an inherent incompatibility between the universe expanding and the universe being infinite, then there WOULD BE NO competing model that featured an infinite, expanding universe. But there is. As well as other models, for sure. To make it clearer for you, I am NOT claiming that an infinite, expanding universe is settled on as THE ONE accepted model. What I am explaining to you is that an infinite, expanding universe model is a completely viable one that cannot be rejected as untenable, as you said it was. You said that an expanding, infinite universe is a NONviable model because it’s inherently contradictory, when it is no such thing. > And you do this repeatedly > without discussing the fact that even competing theories have limits > regarding their relevance. You also omit the fact that we cannot be > certain that our universe is infinite or boundless and it is likely that > we can never ascertain the nature of the universe le4t alone its actual > size. Still you continue to insist that you have a complete command of > such facts. > > Next we have to determine, and we cannot, whether our universe can grow > internally without affecting the boundaries. Still if there are no > boundaries that means the universe is infinite in size, and if there is > any linearity involved, it cannot grow without affecting the "infinite" > nature of the universe because as you know "infinite" means there is no > possibility of a "larger infinite." Well, I’d ask you to reconsider that statement. There are different orders of infinitude, and you should know that. The cardinality of real numbers is different than the cardinality of the natural numbers. The former is sometimes denoted aleph-one, where the cardinality of the latter is aleph-null. Might want to look up Cantor’s uncountability theorem for more background, you may find it fascinating. But just to hone into a little closer to the case we were talking about, let’s just talk about the infinite set of integers. Those have a spacing of 1, naturally. Now consider the set of even integers. Those have the same cardinality as the set of integers, but the spacing is now 2. The cardinality if the infinity is the same, but if you witnessed landmarks that were at one time with spacing 1 and later the landmarks where with spacing 2, you would say that this universe of landmarks is expanding (the distance between the landmarks is increasing) even though the cardinality of the infinity is the unchanged. > > Some time back I was asked in a Usenet discussion whether or not black > holes had any semblance of infinity about them. My reply was that when a > black hole swallows another black hole, would that then result in 2X > Infinity? Is such a thing possible? Does infinity become just another > mathematical variable? Nope. > > It goes on from there but there's no use to attempting to discuss any of > this while you insist you have an understanding grasp of all of it. > >> (But to set an expectation, if the answer is to let people have and express >> opinions, whatever those may be, regardless of what physicists say, then >> I’m going to question the value of that. You?) > > "What physicists say" isn't a fixed set of facts. If you believe it is > then your problems are truly insurmountable. Yes, I agree that what physicists say isn’t fixed. However, what they do not say presently is that an infinite universe is incompatible with an expanding universe, which is what you say. So I guess the question to you is, what is the rationale by which you would argue your position that you think physicists have all missed, but that you think they may land on eventually? And if you have no rationale for your position and just throw it out for a conjecture, are you at all interested in why physicists would say that this conjecture is not well-considered? > > But for just a short moment, let's assume you have the up-to-the-minute > handle on "what physicists say." Then look at what they said two > centuries ago, and what they will be saying two centuries from now. > > "What physicists say" is not, never has been, and never will be static. > > That's why I throw out only very basic conjectures, and usually spend my > time asking questions. > > And do try to remember that every time you lay claim to what physicists > say, your argument is an "appeal to authority" one of the documented > fallacies. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-26 20:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ja9srjFa4fbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580977 |
On 3/25/2022 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/24/2022 5:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> >>>>> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >>>>> long time ago. >>>> >>>> How do you define “helpful”? >>>> What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? >>>> >>> >>> In fact, let’s get concrete. You earlier stated that an expanding universe >>> is incompatible with being infinite. Given that physicists are on record >>> having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe, how could I have >>> been more helpful to you? I’m open for concrete feedback. >> >> As you should know, the models are complex enough that more description >> is necessary to resolve this sort of conflict. You write that >> "physicists are on record having no problem with an expanding, infinite >> universe," but you omit the fact that it is not "all physicists" but >> also that there are competing theories. > > Of course. But if there were an inherent incompatibility between the > universe expanding and the universe being infinite, then there WOULD BE NO > competing model that featured an infinite, expanding universe. But there > is. As well as other models, for sure. > > To make it clearer for you, I am NOT claiming that an infinite, expanding > universe is settled on as THE ONE accepted model. What I am explaining to > you is that an infinite, expanding universe model is a completely viable > one that cannot be rejected as untenable, as you said it was. You said that > an expanding, infinite universe is a NONviable model because it’s > inherently contradictory, when it is no such thing. Where there are competing models there is an admission that "WE" do not have an accurate model of the universe. Claiming what amounts to some partially correct model(s) is idiotic when "WE" know that "WE" don't know, but go right ahead and make such claims because thats what I did. >> And you do this repeatedly >> without discussing the fact that even competing theories have limits >> regarding their relevance. You also omit the fact that we cannot be >> certain that our universe is infinite or boundless and it is likely that >> we can never ascertain the nature of the universe le4t alone its actual >> size. Still you continue to insist that you have a complete command of >> such facts. >> >> Next we have to determine, and we cannot, whether our universe can grow >> internally without affecting the boundaries. Still if there are no >> boundaries that means the universe is infinite in size, and if there is >> any linearity involved, it cannot grow without affecting the "infinite" >> nature of the universe because as you know "infinite" means there is no >> possibility of a "larger infinite." > > Well, I’d ask you to reconsider that statement. There are different orders > of infinitude, and you should know that. The cardinality of real numbers is > different than the cardinality of the natural numbers. The former is > sometimes denoted aleph-one, where the cardinality of the latter is > aleph-null. Might want to look up Cantor’s uncountability theorem for more > background, you may find it fascinating. > > But just to hone into a little closer to the case we were talking about, > let’s just talk about the infinite set of integers. Those have a spacing of > 1, naturally. Now consider the set of even integers. Those have the same > cardinality as the set of integers, but the spacing is now 2. The > cardinality if the infinity is the same, but if you witnessed landmarks > that were at one time with spacing 1 and later the landmarks where with > spacing 2, you would say that this universe of landmarks is expanding (the > distance between the landmarks is increasing) even though the cardinality > of the infinity is the unchanged. Please acknowledge that you spent your working years as an academician, because you behave and lecture like one. The only fault I find is that as such you've become convinced that you have a corner on all that is real and has value to humanity. I remind you of the popularity of a geocentric universe. Several times I've said I'm done arguing with you only to get sucked back into conversation. Just because you cannot see or understand my viewpoint(s) in context doesn't make them wrong. You apparently even go so far as to assign psuedo-quantative values to infinities, another ideology that doesn't work for me. Carry on as you must and will. >> Some time back I was asked in a Usenet discussion whether or not black >> holes had any semblance of infinity about them. My reply was that when a >> black hole swallows another black hole, would that then result in 2X >> Infinity? Is such a thing possible? Does infinity become just another >> mathematical variable? Nope. >> >> It goes on from there but there's no use to attempting to discuss any of >> this while you insist you have an understanding grasp of all of it. >> >>> (But to set an expectation, if the answer is to let people have and express >>> opinions, whatever those may be, regardless of what physicists say, then >>> I’m going to question the value of that. You?) >> >> "What physicists say" isn't a fixed set of facts. If you believe it is >> then your problems are truly insurmountable. > > Yes, I agree that what physicists say isn’t fixed. However, what they do > not say presently is that an infinite universe is incompatible with an > expanding universe, which is what you say. So I guess the question to you > is, what is the rationale by which you would argue your position that you > think physicists have all missed, but that you think they may land on > eventually? > > And if you have no rationale for your position and just throw it out for a > conjecture, are you at all interested in why physicists would say that this > conjecture is not well-considered? > >> >> But for just a short moment, let's assume you have the up-to-the-minute >> handle on "what physicists say." Then look at what they said two >> centuries ago, and what they will be saying two centuries from now. >> >> "What physicists say" is not, never has been, and never will be static. >> >> That's why I throw out only very basic conjectures, and usually spend my >> time asking questions. >> >> And do try to remember that every time you lay claim to what physicists >> say, your argument is an "appeal to authority" one of the documented >> fallacies. >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-27 12:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1plr4$o8q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581075 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/25/2022 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/24/2022 5:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >>>>>> long time ago. >>>>> >>>>> How do you define “helpful”? >>>>> What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? >>>>> >>>> >>>> In fact, let’s get concrete. You earlier stated that an expanding universe >>>> is incompatible with being infinite. Given that physicists are on record >>>> having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe, how could I have >>>> been more helpful to you? I’m open for concrete feedback. >>> >>> As you should know, the models are complex enough that more description >>> is necessary to resolve this sort of conflict. You write that >>> "physicists are on record having no problem with an expanding, infinite >>> universe," but you omit the fact that it is not "all physicists" but >>> also that there are competing theories. >> >> Of course. But if there were an inherent incompatibility between the >> universe expanding and the universe being infinite, then there WOULD BE NO >> competing model that featured an infinite, expanding universe. But there >> is. As well as other models, for sure. >> >> To make it clearer for you, I am NOT claiming that an infinite, expanding >> universe is settled on as THE ONE accepted model. What I am explaining to >> you is that an infinite, expanding universe model is a completely viable >> one that cannot be rejected as untenable, as you said it was. You said that >> an expanding, infinite universe is a NONviable model because it’s >> inherently contradictory, when it is no such thing. > > > Where there are competing models there is an admission that "WE" do not > have an accurate model of the universe. I don’t understand your claim here. Are you saying that where there are two or more models that are being investigated, then this is a guarantee that all of them are wrong? > Claiming what amounts to some > partially correct model(s) is idiotic when "WE" know that "WE" don't > know, but go right ahead and make such claims because thats what I did. > > > >>> And you do this repeatedly >>> without discussing the fact that even competing theories have limits >>> regarding their relevance. You also omit the fact that we cannot be >>> certain that our universe is infinite or boundless and it is likely that >>> we can never ascertain the nature of the universe le4t alone its actual >>> size. Still you continue to insist that you have a complete command of >>> such facts. >>> >>> Next we have to determine, and we cannot, whether our universe can grow >>> internally without affecting the boundaries. Still if there are no >>> boundaries that means the universe is infinite in size, and if there is >>> any linearity involved, it cannot grow without affecting the "infinite" >>> nature of the universe because as you know "infinite" means there is no >>> possibility of a "larger infinite." >> >> Well, I’d ask you to reconsider that statement. There are different orders >> of infinitude, and you should know that. The cardinality of real numbers is >> different than the cardinality of the natural numbers. The former is >> sometimes denoted aleph-one, where the cardinality of the latter is >> aleph-null. Might want to look up Cantor’s uncountability theorem for more >> background, you may find it fascinating. >> >> But just to hone into a little closer to the case we were talking about, >> let’s just talk about the infinite set of integers. Those have a spacing of >> 1, naturally. Now consider the set of even integers. Those have the same >> cardinality as the set of integers, but the spacing is now 2. The >> cardinality if the infinity is the same, but if you witnessed landmarks >> that were at one time with spacing 1 and later the landmarks where with >> spacing 2, you would say that this universe of landmarks is expanding (the >> distance between the landmarks is increasing) even though the cardinality >> of the infinity is the unchanged. > > > > Please acknowledge that you spent your working years as an academician, > because you behave and lecture like one. Well, perhaps I missed my calling entirely. But no sir, you have read me wrong. > The only fault I find is that > as such you've become convinced that you have a corner on all that is > real and has value to humanity. You seem to think that I am representing a personal physics view, when in fact I have been trying to convey what *physicists* say in their writings. You in response have simply offered, “well, they’re likely wrong too.” That well may be true, but let’s get one things straight. In a sea of ideas, not all are on a level playing field, nor is it sensible to pretend that they are. You may have your favorite ideas or strongly held assumptions (like the finiteness of the universe, or possibly it’s stasis, I can’t tell which), but I do think that everyone here should assume that the thinking of physicists is the most informed thinking. This does not mean that they are necessarily correct, but that it does obligate one to understand thoroughly why they think what they do. > I remind you of the popularity of a > geocentric universe. Several times I've said I'm done arguing with you > only to get sucked back into conversation. Just because you cannot see > or understand my viewpoint(s) in context doesn't make them wrong. You > apparently even go so far as to assign psuedo-quantative values to > infinities, another ideology that doesn't work for me. Carry on as you > must and will. And here’s another example where you simply state that a well-established notion by mathematicians “doesn’t work for” you, but without any indication of interest on your part to understand why mathematicians do think so. Does their view just not interest you? If not, why not? > > > > >>> Some time back I was asked in a Usenet discussion whether or not black >>> holes had any semblance of infinity about them. My reply was that when a >>> black hole swallows another black hole, would that then result in 2X >>> Infinity? Is such a thing possible? Does infinity become just another >>> mathematical variable? Nope. >>> >>> It goes on from there but there's no use to attempting to discuss any of >>> this while you insist you have an understanding grasp of all of it. >>> >>>> (But to set an expectation, if the answer is to let people have and express >>>> opinions, whatever those may be, regardless of what physicists say, then >>>> I’m going to question the value of that. You?) >>> >>> "What physicists say" isn't a fixed set of facts. If you believe it is >>> then your problems are truly insurmountable. >> >> Yes, I agree that what physicists say isn’t fixed. However, what they do >> not say presently is that an infinite universe is incompatible with an >> expanding universe, which is what you say. So I guess the question to you >> is, what is the rationale by which you would argue your position that you >> think physicists have all missed, but that you think they may land on >> eventually? >> >> And if you have no rationale for your position and just throw it out for a >> conjecture, are you at all interested in why physicists would say that this >> conjecture is not well-considered? >> >>> >>> But for just a short moment, let's assume you have the up-to-the-minute >>> handle on "what physicists say." Then look at what they said two >>> centuries ago, and what they will be saying two centuries from now. >>> >>> "What physicists say" is not, never has been, and never will be static. >>> >>> That's why I throw out only very basic conjectures, and usually spend my >>> time asking questions. >>> >>> And do try to remember that every time you lay claim to what physicists >>> say, your argument is an "appeal to authority" one of the documented >>> fallacies. >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 10:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jagngfFjm7lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #581090 |
On 3/27/2022 7:37 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/25/2022 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/24/2022 5:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >>>>>>> long time ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you define “helpful”? >>>>>> What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In fact, let’s get concrete. You earlier stated that an expanding universe >>>>> is incompatible with being infinite. Given that physicists are on record >>>>> having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe, how could I have >>>>> been more helpful to you? I’m open for concrete feedback. >>>> >>>> As you should know, the models are complex enough that more description >>>> is necessary to resolve this sort of conflict. You write that >>>> "physicists are on record having no problem with an expanding, infinite >>>> universe," but you omit the fact that it is not "all physicists" but >>>> also that there are competing theories. >>> >>> Of course. But if there were an inherent incompatibility between the >>> universe expanding and the universe being infinite, then there WOULD BE NO >>> competing model that featured an infinite, expanding universe. But there >>> is. As well as other models, for sure. >>> >>> To make it clearer for you, I am NOT claiming that an infinite, expanding >>> universe is settled on as THE ONE accepted model. What I am explaining to >>> you is that an infinite, expanding universe model is a completely viable >>> one that cannot be rejected as untenable, as you said it was. You said that >>> an expanding, infinite universe is a NONviable model because it’s >>> inherently contradictory, when it is no such thing. >> >> >> Where there are competing models there is an admission that "WE" do not >> have an accurate model of the universe. > I don’t understand your claim here. Are you saying that where there are two > or more models that are being investigated, then this is a guarantee that > all of them are wrong? Are you actually so stupid that you don't understand that multiple models effectively state that some universal truth is not understood and remains ill defined? I'll chalk this interchange up to "you're arguing for the sake of arguing." >> Claiming what amounts to some >> partially correct model(s) is idiotic when "WE" know that "WE" don't >> know, but go right ahead and make such claims because thats what I did. >> >> >> >>>> And you do this repeatedly >>>> without discussing the fact that even competing theories have limits >>>> regarding their relevance. You also omit the fact that we cannot be >>>> certain that our universe is infinite or boundless and it is likely that >>>> we can never ascertain the nature of the universe le4t alone its actual >>>> size. Still you continue to insist that you have a complete command of >>>> such facts. >>>> >>>> Next we have to determine, and we cannot, whether our universe can grow >>>> internally without affecting the boundaries. Still if there are no >>>> boundaries that means the universe is infinite in size, and if there is >>>> any linearity involved, it cannot grow without affecting the "infinite" >>>> nature of the universe because as you know "infinite" means there is no >>>> possibility of a "larger infinite." >>> >>> Well, I’d ask you to reconsider that statement. There are different orders >>> of infinitude, and you should know that. The cardinality of real numbers is >>> different than the cardinality of the natural numbers. The former is >>> sometimes denoted aleph-one, where the cardinality of the latter is >>> aleph-null. Might want to look up Cantor’s uncountability theorem for more >>> background, you may find it fascinating. >>> >>> But just to hone into a little closer to the case we were talking about, >>> let’s just talk about the infinite set of integers. Those have a spacing of >>> 1, naturally. Now consider the set of even integers. Those have the same >>> cardinality as the set of integers, but the spacing is now 2. The >>> cardinality if the infinity is the same, but if you witnessed landmarks >>> that were at one time with spacing 1 and later the landmarks where with >>> spacing 2, you would say that this universe of landmarks is expanding (the >>> distance between the landmarks is increasing) even though the cardinality >>> of the infinity is the unchanged. >> >> >> >> Please acknowledge that you spent your working years as an academician, >> because you behave and lecture like one. > > Well, perhaps I missed my calling entirely. But no sir, you have read me > wrong. I don't mind you not wanting to disclose personal detail, but presenting what is meant to appear as though you are answering without actually giving any pertinent information is disingenuous. Chalk up another "arguing for the sake of arguing." >> The only fault I find is that >> as such you've become convinced that you have a corner on all that is >> real and has value to humanity. > > You seem to think that I am representing a personal physics view, when in > fact I have been trying to convey what *physicists* say in their writings. The statement to which you are replying has not been countered. > You in response have simply offered, “well, they’re likely wrong too.” > That well may be true, but let’s get one things straight. In a sea of > ideas, not all are on a level playing field, nor is it sensible to pretend > that they are. You may have your favorite ideas or strongly held > assumptions (like the finiteness of the universe, I only accept as fact that which is provable. I don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite. Although I don't care for the author in many ways, the concept of "fairwitness" is what I demand in science. OTOH you seem to accept anything that is published by "professionals" in the various scientific disciplines. or possibly it’s stasis, Define stasis in this context. > I can’t tell which), but I do think that everyone here should assume that > the thinking of physicists is the most informed thinking. And still you frame "what physicists say" to be fact. See "appeal to authority" as a fallacy. "What physicists say" is, in every case, a thesis followed by a bunch of argument even if couched in mathematical terms. > This does not > mean that they are necessarily correct, but that it does obligate one to > understand thoroughly why they think what they do. Nope. Once it is evident that we cannot determine the infinite/finite nature of the universe I am not obligated to look any further or to understand the arguments people have as a basis for their *opinions.* > >> I remind you of the popularity of a >> geocentric universe. Several times I've said I'm done arguing with you >> only to get sucked back into conversation. Just because you cannot see >> or understand my viewpoint(s) in context doesn't make them wrong. You >> apparently even go so far as to assign psuedo-quantative values to >> infinities, another ideology that doesn't work for me. Carry on as you >> must and will. > > And here’s another example where you simply state that a well-established > notion by mathematicians “doesn’t work for” you, but without any indication > of interest on your part to understand why mathematicians do think so. Does > their view just not interest you? If not, why not? A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. When I was a child, radio station WOR used to carry a morning program called "breakfast with Dorthy and Dick." It came on after I had to leave to walk to the school bus a long block away. I did manage to catch the show on the few sick days I experienced as a youth. Dorthy, of course, was Dorthy Kilgallen who also appeared on a Sunday night TV show called "What's my line." Episodes of that show are available on Youtube. In that day I liked Dorthy, as did many others. I am presently reading a book about her (highly disputed) death. The author connects her death to Dorthy's investigation of the Kennedy Assassination. I will read that book till my sense of intrigue is satisfied, and then I will pass it on to "the little library" in Rhinelander Wisconsin. As a consequence of my reading I have discovered, as is the usual case, that my former heroine had feet of clay. Similar, though uniquely different, paradigms are encountered every time I look at any topic in depth. I've seen enough in my lifetime that I don't have to follow every story to its ultimate conclusion. Getting the gist of a topic has become enough. I achieved this viewpoint after I got excited about "cold fusion" when that topic grew hot. Similarly I do not have any calling to the sort of missionary work that appears to be your burden/bane. And I'll go to my grave not giving a whit about what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. >>>> Some time back I was asked in a Usenet discussion whether or not black >>>> holes had any semblance of infinity about them. My reply was that when a >>>> black hole swallows another black hole, would that then result in 2X >>>> Infinity? Is such a thing possible? Does infinity become just another >>>> mathematical variable? Nope. >>>> >>>> It goes on from there but there's no use to attempting to discuss any of >>>> this while you insist you have an understanding grasp of all of it. >>>> >>>>> (But to set an expectation, if the answer is to let people have and express >>>>> opinions, whatever those may be, regardless of what physicists say, then >>>>> I’m going to question the value of that. You?) >>>> >>>> "What physicists say" isn't a fixed set of facts. If you believe it is >>>> then your problems are truly insurmountable. >>> >>> Yes, I agree that what physicists say isn’t fixed. However, what they do >>> not say presently is that an infinite universe is incompatible with an >>> expanding universe, which is what you say. So I guess the question to you >>> is, what is the rationale by which you would argue your position that you >>> think physicists have all missed, but that you think they may land on >>> eventually? >>> >>> And if you have no rationale for your position and just throw it out for a >>> conjecture, are you at all interested in why physicists would say that this >>> conjecture is not well-considered? >>> >>>> >>>> But for just a short moment, let's assume you have the up-to-the-minute >>>> handle on "what physicists say." Then look at what they said two >>>> centuries ago, and what they will be saying two centuries from now. >>>> >>>> "What physicists say" is not, never has been, and never will be static. >>>> >>>> That's why I throw out only very basic conjectures, and usually spend my >>>> time asking questions. >>>> >>>> And do try to remember that every time you lay claim to what physicists >>>> say, your argument is an "appeal to authority" one of the documented >>>> fallacies. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1vh19$otv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581292 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/27/2022 7:37 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/25/2022 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/24/2022 5:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >>>>>>>> long time ago. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How do you define “helpful”? >>>>>>> What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact, let’s get concrete. You earlier stated that an expanding universe >>>>>> is incompatible with being infinite. Given that physicists are on record >>>>>> having no problem with an expanding, infinite universe, how could I have >>>>>> been more helpful to you? I’m open for concrete feedback. >>>>> >>>>> As you should know, the models are complex enough that more description >>>>> is necessary to resolve this sort of conflict. You write that >>>>> "physicists are on record having no problem with an expanding, infinite >>>>> universe," but you omit the fact that it is not "all physicists" but >>>>> also that there are competing theories. >>>> >>>> Of course. But if there were an inherent incompatibility between the >>>> universe expanding and the universe being infinite, then there WOULD BE NO >>>> competing model that featured an infinite, expanding universe. But there >>>> is. As well as other models, for sure. >>>> >>>> To make it clearer for you, I am NOT claiming that an infinite, expanding >>>> universe is settled on as THE ONE accepted model. What I am explaining to >>>> you is that an infinite, expanding universe model is a completely viable >>>> one that cannot be rejected as untenable, as you said it was. You said that >>>> an expanding, infinite universe is a NONviable model because it’s >>>> inherently contradictory, when it is no such thing. >>> >>> >>> Where there are competing models there is an admission that "WE" do not >>> have an accurate model of the universe. > >> I don’t understand your claim here. Are you saying that where there are two >> or more models that are being investigated, then this is a guarantee that >> all of them are wrong? > > > Are you actually so stupid that you don't understand that multiple > models effectively state that some universal truth is not understood > and remains ill defined? I disagree that this is equivalency. At the time that Einstein wrote his paper, there were three competing ideas: that light speed depended on the speed of the source relative to the receiver (so-called ballistic theories), that light speed depended on the speed of the receiver relative to a medium (aether theories), and that light speed depended on neither the speed of the source or the receiver relative to anything (relativity). In 1905, it wasn’t clear which of these would survive. To the extent that it was yet to be settled by experiment, there was uncertainty about how nature actually behaved. But that does NOT mean that all three of them are wrong. It also does not mean that generally believing that all theories are likely to be superseded at some point in the future, prohibits the provisional acceptance of one of the models as being correct as far as we know. It also does not mean that if there is a replacement theory sometime in the distant future, then we can dismiss any or all of the current models as patently wrong. If the evidence gathered so far is consistent with the best theory known TO DATE, then scientists consider that theory worthy of being labeled as provisionally accepted. > > I'll chalk this interchange up to "you're arguing for the sake of > arguing." > >>> Claiming what amounts to some >>> partially correct model(s) is idiotic when "WE" know that "WE" don't >>> know, but go right ahead and make such claims because thats what I did. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> And you do this repeatedly >>>>> without discussing the fact that even competing theories have limits >>>>> regarding their relevance. You also omit the fact that we cannot be >>>>> certain that our universe is infinite or boundless and it is likely that >>>>> we can never ascertain the nature of the universe le4t alone its actual >>>>> size. Still you continue to insist that you have a complete command of >>>>> such facts. >>>>> >>>>> Next we have to determine, and we cannot, whether our universe can grow >>>>> internally without affecting the boundaries. Still if there are no >>>>> boundaries that means the universe is infinite in size, and if there is >>>>> any linearity involved, it cannot grow without affecting the "infinite" >>>>> nature of the universe because as you know "infinite" means there is no >>>>> possibility of a "larger infinite." >>>> >>>> Well, I’d ask you to reconsider that statement. There are different orders >>>> of infinitude, and you should know that. The cardinality of real numbers is >>>> different than the cardinality of the natural numbers. The former is >>>> sometimes denoted aleph-one, where the cardinality of the latter is >>>> aleph-null. Might want to look up Cantor’s uncountability theorem for more >>>> background, you may find it fascinating. >>>> >>>> But just to hone into a little closer to the case we were talking about, >>>> let’s just talk about the infinite set of integers. Those have a spacing of >>>> 1, naturally. Now consider the set of even integers. Those have the same >>>> cardinality as the set of integers, but the spacing is now 2. The >>>> cardinality if the infinity is the same, but if you witnessed landmarks >>>> that were at one time with spacing 1 and later the landmarks where with >>>> spacing 2, you would say that this universe of landmarks is expanding (the >>>> distance between the landmarks is increasing) even though the cardinality >>>> of the infinity is the unchanged. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please acknowledge that you spent your working years as an academician, >>> because you behave and lecture like one. >> >> Well, perhaps I missed my calling entirely. But no sir, you have read me >> wrong. > > I don't mind you not wanting to disclose personal detail, but presenting > what is meant to appear as though you are answering without actually > giving any pertinent information is disingenuous. Chalk up another > "arguing for the sake of arguing." > Why would I feel the need to counter your guess with additional information? > > > >>> The only fault I find is that >>> as such you've become convinced that you have a corner on all that is >>> real and has value to humanity. >> >> You seem to think that I am representing a personal physics view, when in >> fact I have been trying to convey what *physicists* say in their writings. > > > The statement to which you are replying has not been countered. I point to what I said elsewhere. I do believe that while physicists do not know everything about reality as modeled by physics, I do think they are the most informed of anyone about that, and so those that are interested in this reality or want to form some physics opinion should make a point to understand what physicists say about it. I do think that I-haven’t-studied-physics-but-here’s-what-I-think opinions are intrinsically less valuable and less reliable, for obvious reasons. > > >> You in response have simply offered, “well, they’re likely wrong too.” >> That well may be true, but let’s get one things straight. In a sea of >> ideas, not all are on a level playing field, nor is it sensible to pretend >> that they are. You may have your favorite ideas or strongly held >> assumptions (like the finiteness of the universe, > > > I only accept as fact that which is provable. I don't know whether the > universe is finite or infinite. Again, the infinitude of the universe is not claimed to be a fact. What it is that I challenged was your conclusion that, if the expansion of the universe is taken as fact, then the finiteness of the universe is a consequence. If your claim is, we can only see a finite portion of the universe, and therefore one should assume that the universe is finite, then I challenge that logic as well. > Although I don't care for the author in > many ways, the concept of "fairwitness" is what I demand in science. > OTOH you seem to accept anything that is published by "professionals" in > the various scientific disciplines. > I generally take their position to be more reliable than the positions of those uneducated in the subject, yes. Not infallible. More reliable. > > or possibly it’s stasis, > > > Define stasis in this context. Static universe, not expanding. > > > >> I can’t tell which), but I do think that everyone here should assume that >> the thinking of physicists is the most informed thinking. > > > And still you frame "what physicists say" to be fact. See "appeal to > authority" as a fallacy. "What physicists say" is, in every case, a > thesis followed by a bunch of argument even if couched in mathematical > terms. > No sir, there is much more to it. There is an acquaintance with vast amounts of experimental data that rule out some alternative models already. And a lot of those results, casual thinkers do not know about. There is the historical recall of what theoretical models have already been tried, and what problems were encountered with them. There are also impacts on other models that casual thinkers will not realize, and which provide both additional constraints and often additional support. As an example of this, the fact that quantum theories - all of them to date that have met well with experiment - are manifestly covariant. This gives tremendous support to relativity, even apart from direct tests of relativity, but those casually interested in relativity will be oblivious to that. > > > >> This does not >> mean that they are necessarily correct, but that it does obligate one to >> understand thoroughly why they think what they do. > > > > > Nope. Once it is evident that we cannot determine the infinite/finite > nature of the universe I am not obligated to look any further or to > understand the arguments people have as a basis for their *opinions.* > > I disagree, because there are testable implications of both that can be researched, completely apart from “seeing the edge” directly. > >> >>> I remind you of the popularity of a >>> geocentric universe. Several times I've said I'm done arguing with you >>> only to get sucked back into conversation. Just because you cannot see >>> or understand my viewpoint(s) in context doesn't make them wrong. You >>> apparently even go so far as to assign psuedo-quantative values to >>> infinities, another ideology that doesn't work for me. Carry on as you >>> must and will. >> >> And here’s another example where you simply state that a well-established >> notion by mathematicians “doesn’t work for” you, but without any indication >> of interest on your part to understand why mathematicians do think so. Does >> their view just not interest you? If not, why not? > > > A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same > level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. I think you’re selling things a little short. > When I > was a child, radio station WOR used to carry a morning program called > "breakfast with Dorthy and Dick." It came on after I had to leave to > walk to the school bus a long block away. I did manage to catch the show > on the few sick days I experienced as a youth. > > Dorthy, of course, was Dorthy Kilgallen who also appeared on a Sunday > night TV show called "What's my line." Episodes of that show are > available on Youtube. > > In that day I liked Dorthy, as did many others. I am presently reading a > book about her (highly disputed) death. The author connects her death to > Dorthy's investigation of the Kennedy Assassination. I will read that > book till my sense of intrigue is satisfied, and then I will pass it on > to "the little library" in Rhinelander Wisconsin. > > As a consequence of my reading I have discovered, as is the usual case, > that my former heroine had feet of clay. Similar, though uniquely > different, paradigms are encountered every time I look at any topic in > depth. I've seen enough in my lifetime that I don't have to follow every > story to its ultimate conclusion. Getting the gist of a topic has become > enough. I achieved this viewpoint after I got excited about "cold > fusion" when that topic grew hot. > > Similarly I do not have any calling to the sort of missionary > work that appears to be your burden/bane. And I'll go to my grave not > giving a whit about what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. > > > > >>>>> Some time back I was asked in a Usenet discussion whether or not black >>>>> holes had any semblance of infinity about them. My reply was that when a >>>>> black hole swallows another black hole, would that then result in 2X >>>>> Infinity? Is such a thing possible? Does infinity become just another >>>>> mathematical variable? Nope. >>>>> >>>>> It goes on from there but there's no use to attempting to discuss any of >>>>> this while you insist you have an understanding grasp of all of it. >>>>> >>>>>> (But to set an expectation, if the answer is to let people have and express >>>>>> opinions, whatever those may be, regardless of what physicists say, then >>>>>> I’m going to question the value of that. You?) >>>>> >>>>> "What physicists say" isn't a fixed set of facts. If you believe it is >>>>> then your problems are truly insurmountable. >>>> >>>> Yes, I agree that what physicists say isn’t fixed. However, what they do >>>> not say presently is that an infinite universe is incompatible with an >>>> expanding universe, which is what you say. So I guess the question to you >>>> is, what is the rationale by which you would argue your position that you >>>> think physicists have all missed, but that you think they may land on >>>> eventually? >>>> >>>> And if you have no rationale for your position and just throw it out for a >>>> conjecture, are you at all interested in why physicists would say that this >>>> conjecture is not well-considered? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But for just a short moment, let's assume you have the up-to-the-minute >>>>> handle on "what physicists say." Then look at what they said two >>>>> centuries ago, and what they will be saying two centuries from now. >>>>> >>>>> "What physicists say" is not, never has been, and never will be static. >>>>> >>>>> That's why I throw out only very basic conjectures, and usually spend my >>>>> time asking questions. >>>>> >>>>> And do try to remember that every time you lay claim to what physicists >>>>> say, your argument is an "appeal to authority" one of the documented >>>>> fallacies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 14:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jah62nFmdosU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #581300 |
On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: <snip> >> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. > Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model > is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how > nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with > the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the > Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in > hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of > proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. > > I think you’re selling things a little short. And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is usually indistinguishable from fact. That concludes my *opinion* on the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1vo4c$2ai$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581312 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. > >> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >> >> I think you’re selling things a little short. > > And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- > credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is > usually indistinguishable from fact. Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and wide knowledge base. > That concludes my *opinion* on > the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." > > There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful > technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary > that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. > Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a strawman is not particularly useful. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 15:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jah7t9FmnuuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #581314 |
On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >> >>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>> >>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >> >> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >> usually indistinguishable from fact. > > Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. > > It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and > wide knowledge base. > >> That concludes my *opinion* on >> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >> >> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >> > > Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a > strawman is not particularly useful. Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 20:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1vrqs$1mmu$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581319 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >>> >>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>>> >>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >>> >>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >>> usually indistinguishable from fact. >> >> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. >> >> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and >> wide knowledge base. >> >>> That concludes my *opinion* on >>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >>> >>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >>> >> >> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a >> strawman is not particularly useful. > > Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I > have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no > ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. > Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read physicists think. Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 18:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jahkaqFp102U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #581323 |
On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >>>> >>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>>>> >>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >>>> >>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. >>> >>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. >>> >>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and >>> wide knowledge base. >>> >>>> That concludes my *opinion* on >>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >>>> >>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >>>> >>> >>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a >>> strawman is not particularly useful. >> >> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I >> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no >> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. >> > > Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. > And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read > physicists think. I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. > Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. > QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their > creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a > subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient IMO. My answer to that question is yes. I'll remind you that John Nash was a multiple prize winning schizophrenic. Mental illness does not preclude societal value of the suffering individual. Such value is rare in the general population. Please read about Nash at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.> Demonstrated genius and mental illness are shown not to be mutually exclusive. There are many articles on the internet discussing this topic, so please don't be dismissive out of hand. OTOH I've known several self-proclaimed geniuses who lacked productivity, let alone productivity worthy of note. They've all been similar to the cranks who post here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web