On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:54:47 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:32:58 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:19:48 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > At laboratory event e2, which is simultaneous with e1 in the lab's frame,
> > > > > the scientist start's the lab's one and only stopwatch.
> > > > So, at e2 the lab guy initializes his stopwatch to 0.0 and lets it run.
> > > > > At laboratory event e3, which is simultaneous with e1 in the muon's frame,
> > > > > the scientist starts the lab's one and only stopwatch.
> > > > So, by the time he reaches e3, the stopwatch will have ticked off 3..3 usec, and you are saying at this point he re-initializes the stop watch to 0.0 and lets it run.
> > > > > What does that stopwatch read at the muon's disintegration at e4?
> > > > It reads 1.1 usec, consistent with the fact that the elapsed proper time from e2 to e3 is 3.3 usec, and the elapsed proper time from e3 to e4 is 1.1 usec, and the total elapsed proper time from e2 to e4 is 4.4 usec. Also, the elapsed proper time on the muon's clock from e1 to e4 is 2.2 usec. Is anything still unclear to you?
> > >
> > > Yes. Please teach me the "many worlds" interpretation of SR which you have just propounded.
> >
> > There is no "many worlds" interpretation of special relativity, and I obviously have not propounded any such thing. What specifically is unclear to you about the spatio-temporal relations in the above scenario?
> >
> > > And now I present you with it's flaw: [then.... crickets]
> >
> > Apparently your message was truncated at this crucial point, just as you were about to point out a flaw in the simple and clear explanation of the scenario. Could you try posting again, and this time be sure to actually present the flaw?
> >
> > [I know, I know... you'll get to it tomorrow... as always. yawn]
> Rest up Legion. You'll have a big day ahead of you Monday...maybe Sunday night. I'm headed to the Hen in Green Lake to hear music that is too old played by a band that is too young. Come up from Renton if you like. It will only take you 20 minutes this time of night. You will recognize me instantly. You too Ross. I'll buy you guys a drink. But nothing fancy. I only buy well.

The magnitude of the spacetime interval between e1 and e2 in terms of lab coordinate system S is D = 2.2(vg) = 3.8 x 10^-6 light seconds = 1144m

Magnitude of interval from e1 to e3 in S' is sqrt[ 0 - (572m)^2 ] = 572m = 1.9 x 10^-6 light seconds

Magnitude of interval from e1 to e4 in S (the lab frame) is sqrt[ c^2(4.4 usec)^2 - (1144m)^2 ] = 660m = 2.2 x 10^-6 light seconds

Magnitude of interval from e1 to e4 in S' (the muon's frame) is sqrt[ c^2(2..2 usec)^2 - 0 ] = 660m = 2.2 x 10^-6 light seconds

So far, so good for SR.

But you have given us e3 simultaneous e1 in S' so we can now check to see if the interval e3 to e4 in S' is equivalent to the interval e1 to e4 in S'. They should be equivalent. Here we go...

Magnitude of interval from e3 to e4 in S' is sqrt[ { (3x10^8m/s) x (2.2 x10^-6 usec) }^2 - { 572m }^2 ] = 330m = 1.1 x 10^-6 light seconds

Two different spacetime interval values for simultaneous muon formation and disintegration events in S'. Read it and weep, Legion. Your four event strategy was brilliant. Brilliant enough to fool Bodkin, Roberts, Sylvia and Paul B. Anderson. But it was also a double edged sword that ended up lopping off your SR-filled head. Just like Dirk, you are destroyed. And like Dirk, you will never be the same.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> The magnitude of the spacetime interval between e1 and e2 [in terms of lab coordinate system S] is

Delete the words in square brackets. The magnitude of the interval between any two events is invariant, i.e., it's value doesn't depend on a system of coordinates. The magnitude is sqrt[(x2-x1)^2 - (t2-t1)^2], and if you transform to the primed coordinates you find that sqrt[(x2'-x1')^2 - (t2'-t1')^2] has exactly the same value. So, you should just say the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e2 is:

> D = 2.2(vg) = 3.8 x 10^-6 light seconds = 1144m

> Magnitude of interval from e1 to e3 in S' is sqrt[ 0 - (572m)^2 ] = 572m = 1.9 x 10^-6 light seconds

Same comment: Delete the [in S'].

> Magnitude of interval from e1 to e4 in S (the lab frame) is
> sqrt[ c^2(4.4 usec)^2 - (1144m)^2 ] = 660m = 2.2 x 10^-6 light seconds

And again, delete the [in S (the lab frame)].

> Magnitude of interval from e1 to e4 in S' (the muon's frame) is
> sqrt[ c^2(2.2 usec)^2 - 0 ] = 660m = 2.2 x 10^-6 light seconds

And again, delete [in S' (the muon's frame)]. Interval magnitudes are invariant.

> But you have given us e3 simultaneous e1 in S'

I wouldn't say I've given this to you, I've simply noted that e3 is the lab event that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of S'.

> We can now check to see if the interval e3 to e4 [in S'] is equivalent to the interval e1 to e4 [in S'].

Again, the words in square brackets are senseless, because the magnitudes of those intervals are invariant, as explained above, and of course they are completely different intervals with completely different magnitudes. The first has magnitude 1.1 usec, and the second has magnitude 2.2 usec. We covered this before.

> They should be equivalent.

Huh? No, they should not be equal, and they are not equal. See above.

If this completely clears things up for you, you've welcome. If you still have any unanswered questions, go ahead and ask.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 4:43:25 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > The magnitude of the spacetime interval between e1 and e2 [in terms of lab coordinate system S] is
> Delete the words in square brackets. The magnitude of the interval between any two events is invariant, i.e., it's value doesn't depend on a system of coordinates. The magnitude is sqrt[(x2-x1)^2 - (t2-t1)^2], and if you transform to the primed coordinates you find that sqrt[(x2'-x1')^2 - (t2'-t1')^2] has exactly the same value. So, you should just say the magnitude of the interval from e1 to e2 is:
> > D = 2.2(vg) = 3.8 x 10^-6 light seconds = 1144m
>
> > Magnitude of interval from e1 to e3 in S' is sqrt[ 0 - (572m)^2 ] = 572m = 1.9 x 10^-6 light seconds
> Same comment: Delete the [in S'].
> > Magnitude of interval from e1 to e4 in S (the lab frame) is
> > sqrt[ c^2(4.4 usec)^2 - (1144m)^2 ] = 660m = 2.2 x 10^-6 light seconds
> And again, delete the [in S (the lab frame)].
> > Magnitude of interval from e1 to e4 in S' (the muon's frame) is
> > sqrt[ c^2(2.2 usec)^2 - 0 ] = 660m = 2.2 x 10^-6 light seconds
> And again, delete [in S' (the muon's frame)]. Interval magnitudes are invariant.
> > But you have given us e3 simultaneous e1 in S'
> I wouldn't say I've given this to you, I've simply noted that e3 is the lab event that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of S'.
>
> > We can now check to see if the interval e3 to e4 [in S'] is equivalent to the interval e1 to e4 [in S'].
>
> Again, the words in square brackets are senseless, because the magnitudes of those intervals are invariant, as explained above, and of course they are completely different intervals with completely different magnitudes. The first has magnitude 1.1 usec, and the second has magnitude 2.2 usec. We covered this before.
>
> > They should be equivalent.
>
> Huh? No, they should not be equal, and they are not equal. See above.
>
> If this completely clears things up for you, you've welcome. If you still have any unanswered questions, go ahead and ask.
Weak Legion. Weak. And yes, I know that intervals frame independent. Let me spell this out for you slowly.

I have ingeniously used your own terms and terminology to equate the interval e1-e4 to the interval e3-e4. Prove me wrong. You didn't see that one coming, did you. I knew the inconsistency was there. All I needed to do was look for it long enough. But I still to give you credit for the four event obfuscation. You just didn't have the discipline to check out your 4-event proposal thoroughly enough.

Know that the relativity critic always goes into battle with the knowledge that, whatever the scenario, the contradiction is out there. You just have to keep looking for it.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:32:14 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> I have used your own terms and terminology to equate the interval e1-e4
> to the interval e3-e4.

Again, the interval from e1 to e4 (2.2 usec) is completely different from the interval from e3 to e4 (1.1 usec).

> Prove me wrong.

Already done. The correct determinations of the values of those intervals (2.2 and 1.1 usec) was provided to you repeatedly up above. Which part didn't you understand?

> Let me spell this out...

LOL. As always, you grandly announce that you are going to spell something out... and then flee as fast as your little legs can carry you.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:32:14 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> I have used your own terms and terminology to equate the interval e1-e4
> to the interval e3-e4.

Again, the interval from e1 to e4 (2.2 usec) is completely different from the interval from e3 to e4 (1.1 usec).

> Prove me wrong.

Already done. The correct determinations of the values of those intervals (2.2 and 1.1 usec) was provided to you repeatedly up above. Which part didn't you understand?

> Let me spell this out...

LOL. As always, you grandly announce that you are going to spell something out... and then flee as fast as your little legs can carry you.

Look, since you are incapable of articulating the standard newbie question, let me do it for you:

Standard Newbie Question: Since the muon event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event that is 1.1 usec from the collision, by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision. Is that correct?

Answer: Yes, of course. See for yourself.

Now do you finally understand?

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 8:14:04 PM UTC+5, patdolan wrote:
> A very typical atmospheric muon simultaneously comes to rest and disintegrates in a laboratory scintillator on the surface of the earth just as the laboratory clock strikes 0.000 hours. Let's explore the history of this spacetime event. The muon's trajectory was normal to the surface of the earth.
>
> The muon's velocity relative to the earth was measured to be 0.867c which results in gamma = 2. The muon's clock showed an elapsed proper time of 2.2 microseconds between the spacetime event corresponding to its creation and the spacetime event corresponding to its disintegration in the lab scintillator.
>
> 1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?
>
> 2) What did the scientists in the scintillator lab calculate the muon's altitude to be at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?
>
> 3) What did the lab scientist read on the scintillator lab's clock at the spacetime event corresponding to the muon's creation?

In the inertial frame of reference in which the lab is at rest:

Answers:

(2) 0.867c multiplied by the time the muon was in existence in the lab frame, call this

0.867c x muon_lifetime_in_lab_frame.

(3) muon_lifetime_in_lab_frame.

> 1) What did the muon calculate its proper altitude above the earth to be at the spacetime event corresponding to its creation?

You mean in the frame of reference in which the muon is at rest, what altitude (I call it self-referencing altitude, instead of proper altitude, which does no sound proper)

The Earth is moving relative to the Muon for 2.2 microseconds. The Earth is moving at 0.867c

Therefore:

Altitude in inertial frame of reference that the muon is at rest in:

2.2 microseconds x 0.867c

Now we have to ask if the two calculated altitudes are equal. Of course distances are also relative in Special Relativity. Ask ChatGPT.
A ray of light measured by a moving observer will be calculated to come from a point further than it actually has, since the observer will assume he has not covered any distance between him and the light source since it was emitted.

0.867c x muon_lifetime_in_lab_frame = 2.2 microseconds x 0.867c

muon_lifetime_in_lab_frame = 2.2 microseconds

According the the theory of Special Relativity these values are not equal. Therefore the altitudes are not equal.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:37:35 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:32:14 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > I have used your own terms and terminology to equate the interval e1-e4
> > to the interval e3-e4.
>
> Again, the interval from e1 to e4 (2.2 usec) is completely different from the interval from e3 to e4 (1.1 usec).
>
> > Prove me wrong.
>
> Already done. The correct determinations of the values of those intervals (2.2 and 1.1 usec) was provided to you repeatedly up above. Which part didn't you understand?
>
> > Let me spell this out...
>
> LOL. As always, you grandly announce that you are going to spell something out... and then flee as fast as your little legs can carry you.
>
> Look, since you are incapable of articulating the standard newbie question, let me do it for you:
>
> Standard Newbie Question: Since the muon event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event that is 1.1 usec from the collision, by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision. Is that correct?
>
> Answer: Yes, of course. See for yourself.
>
> Now do you finally understand?
Legion, you need some work on calculating *invariant* spacetime intervals. You postulated an event in the lab, e3, which is simultaneous to the creation of the muon at event e1. We now consider e3, which is 572m away from e1 whilst also being simultaneous with e1. And we ask what is the magnitude of the interval between e3 and e4; remembering that e4 is at the location of e1 and 572m away from e3. We use the Minkowski spacetime interval formula and discover to our delight (or horror, in your case) the the interval is half the value it needs to be in order for the theory of invariant spacetime intervals to be consistent. Is there anything about this explanation that you fail to understand?

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 7:17:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> You postulated an event in the lab, e3, which is simultaneous to
> the creation of the muon at event e1.

No, I designated as e3 the lab event that is simultaneous in terms of S' with e1.

> We now consider e3, which is 572m away from e1 whilst also being
> simultaneous with e1.

Again, the magnitude of the spacelike interval betrween e1 and e3 is D/g. We covered this before.

> What is the magnitude of the interval between e3 and e4?

You were given all the magnitudes of all the intervals between every pair of events. What is wrong with you? Again, the timelike interval from e3 to e4 is D/(vg^2). Remember?

> e4 is at the location of e1 and 572m away from e3.

Correction: e4 is at the same x' value as e1, but it certainly isn't at the same x value. Duh. Likewise e4 is at the same x value as e3, but not at the same x' value. The coordinate dependence of "at the same place at different times" is just as present in Galilean kinematics, and in everyday life. The fact that you are not conscious of this is truly odd. Duh^2.

Now that you've been reminded of all the facts, hopefully this clears things up fpor you. Do you have any remaining questions?

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 7:58:54 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 7:17:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > You postulated an event in the lab, e3, which is simultaneous to
> > the creation of the muon at event e1.
> No, I designated as e3 the lab event that is simultaneous in terms of S' with e1.
> > We now consider e3, which is 572m away from e1 whilst also being
> > simultaneous with e1.
> Again, the magnitude of the spacelike interval betrween e1 and e3 is D/g. We covered this before.
>
> > What is the magnitude of the interval between e3 and e4?
>
> You were given all the magnitudes of all the intervals between every pair of events. What is wrong with you? Again, the timelike interval from e3 to e4 is D/(vg^2). Remember?
> > e4 is at the location of e1 and 572m away from e3.
> Correction: e4 is at the same x' value as e1, but it certainly isn't at the same x value. Duh.
How childish. Legion, I am not prepared to spend the whole evening playing word games with dunderhead who has managed to paint hizself into an inescapable predicament. Is that much at least clear to you?

Likewise e4 is at the same x value as e3, but not at the same x' value. The coordinate dependence of "at the same place at different times" is just as present in Galilean kinematics, and in everyday life. The fact that you are not conscious of this is truly odd. Duh^2.
>
> Now that you've been reminded of all the facts, hopefully this clears things up fpor you. Do you have any remaining questions?

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 8:10:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > You postulated an event in the lab, e3, which is simultaneous to
> > > the creation of the muon at event e1.
> > No, I designated as e3 the lab event that is simultaneous in terms of S' with e1.
> > > We now consider e3, which is 572m away from e1 whilst also being
> > > simultaneous with e1.
> > Again, the magnitude of the spacelike interval betrween e1 and e3 is D/g. We covered this before.
> > > What is the magnitude of the interval between e3 and e4?
> > You were given all the magnitudes of all the intervals between every pair of events. What is wrong with you? Again, the timelike interval from e3 to e4 is D/(vg^2). Remember?
> > > e4 is at the location of e1 and 572m away from e3.
> > Correction: e4 is at the same x' value as e1, but it certainly isn't at the same x value. Duh.
> > Likewise e4 is at the same x value as e3, but not at the same x' value. The coordinate dependence of "at the same place at different times" is just as present in Galilean kinematics, and in everyday life. The fact that you are not conscious of this is truly odd. Now that you've been reminded of all the facts, hopefully this clears things up for you. Do you have any remaining questions?
>
> I am not prepared...

And off he goes, as always, running away as fast as his little legs can carry him. To sum up, the question he was struggling (unsuccessfully) to ask was:

Standard Newbie Question: Since the muon event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event that is 1.1 usec from the collision, by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision. Is that correct?

Answer: Yes, of course.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 8:27:44 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 8:10:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > You postulated an event in the lab, e3, which is simultaneous to
> > > > the creation of the muon at event e1.
> > > No, I designated as e3 the lab event that is simultaneous in terms of S' with e1.
> > > > We now consider e3, which is 572m away from e1 whilst also being
> > > > simultaneous with e1.
> > > Again, the magnitude of the spacelike interval betrween e1 and e3 is D/g. We covered this before.
> > > > What is the magnitude of the interval between e3 and e4?
> > > You were given all the magnitudes of all the intervals between every pair of events. What is wrong with you? Again, the timelike interval from e3 to e4 is D/(vg^2). Remember?
> > > > e4 is at the location of e1 and 572m away from e3.
> > > Correction: e4 is at the same x' value as e1, but it certainly isn't at the same x value. Duh.
> > > Likewise e4 is at the same x value as e3, but not at the same x' value. The coordinate dependence of "at the same place at different times" is just as present in Galilean kinematics, and in everyday life. The fact that you are not conscious of this is truly odd. Now that you've been reminded of all the facts, hopefully this clears things up for you. Do you have any remaining questions?
> >
> > I am not prepared...
>
> And off he goes, as always, running away as fast as his little legs can carry him. To sum up, the question he was struggling (unsuccessfully) to ask was:
> Standard Newbie Question: Since the muon event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event that is 1.1 usec from the collision, by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision. Is that correct?
>
> Answer: Yes, of course.
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Legion, you slippery fellow:

"Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
>
> Answer: Yes, of course."

Please fill in '?' and "??" so I can pin you down even better.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:01:27 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> >
> > Answer: Yes, of course."
>
> Please fill in '?' and "??"

So, you can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.

Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:50:50 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:01:27 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > >
> > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> >
> > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> So, you can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange.. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
>
> Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.

Legion, in full view of this forum, in full throated voice, I now dare you to assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph, found below. I have mapped all but two of YOUR labels to YOUR events. Go.

"Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?"

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:50:50 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:01:27 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > >
> > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > >
> > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > So, you can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> >
> > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> Legion, in full view of this forum, in full throated voice, I now dare you to assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph, found below. I have mapped all but two of YOUR labels to YOUR events. Go.
> "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?"

The initial conditions of space time were not an asymmetric energy singularity.
Expanding Dimension came first.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:50:50 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:01:27 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > > >
> > > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > > So, you can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S.. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> > >
> > > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> > Legion, in full view of this forum, in full throated voice, I now dare you to assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph, found below. I have mapped all but two of YOUR labels to YOUR events. Go.
> > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?"
> The initial conditions of space time were not an asymmetric energy singularity.
> Expanding Dimension came first.
Is that what Legion Lange told you to type, Mitch?

I warned Legion that he would never be the same after I sussed out his algebraic chicanery the first time. This morning's debacle makes twice in one week. I'm monitoring the Seattle local news, incase there's a jumper on the Aurora Bridge or the Space Needle.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:50:50 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:01:27 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > > > >
> > > > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > > > So, you can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> > > >
> > > > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> > > Legion, in full view of this forum, in full throated voice, I now dare you to assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph, found below. I have mapped all but two of YOUR labels to YOUR events. Go.
> > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?"
> > The initial conditions of space time were not an asymmetric energy singularity.
> > Expanding Dimension came first.
> Is that what Legion Lange told you to type, Mitch?
>
> I warned Legion that he would never be the same after I sussed out his algebraic chicanery the first time. This morning's debacle makes twice in one week. I'm monitoring the Seattle local news, incase there's a jumper on the Aurora Bridge or the Space Needle.
I remember Bodkin giving me a tongue-lashing for joking about scientist suicide. Apparently its a common thing. Boltzman being the prime example. And isn't it fascinating how many young men want to BIRG physics. The more gnostic the physics, the more the BIRGing. Einstein and his two relativities being the prime examples here. Poor Legion is perhaps the finest algebraic relativists, not only in this forum, but the entire world. He handles it's quatities and algebraic schema with the deftness of a violin virtuoso playing Paganini. Dono and the rest of them to lesser extents. They have poured not hours, but years of their lives into studying SR. [ No one actually studies GR because no one really agrees on what it even is. ] Yet they never took to time to determine if it was true, consistent, and even worth more than the amount of study to falsify it. Hell, gravity falsified SR right out of the shoot! But that stopped nobody because Big Science had chosen SR as its vehicle into the heart of the culture....All this typing has made me hungry. I'm going to make some lunch.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:50:50 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:01:27 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > > > >
> > > > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > > > So, you can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> > > >
> > > > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> > > Legion, in full view of this forum, in full throated voice, I now dare you to assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph, found below. I have mapped all but two of YOUR labels to YOUR events. Go.
> > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?"
> > The initial conditions of space time were not an asymmetric energy singularity.
> > Expanding Dimension came first.
> Is that what Legion Lange told you to type, Mitch?
>
> I warned Legion that he would never be the same after I sussed out his algebraic chicanery the first time. This morning's debacle makes twice in one week. I'm monitoring the Seattle local news, incase there's a jumper on the Aurora Bridge or the Space Needle.
I remember Bodkin giving me a tongue-lashing for joking about scientist suicide. Apparently its a common thing. Boltzman being the prime example. And isn't it fascinating how many young men want to BIRG physics. The more gnostic the physics, the more the BIRGing. Einstein and his two relativities being the prime examples here. Poor Legion is perhaps the finest algebraic relativists, not only in this forum, but the entire world. He handles it's quatities and algebraic schema with the deftness of a violin virtuoso playing Paganini. Dono and the rest of them to lesser extents. They have poured not hours, but years of their lives into studying SR. [ No one actually studies GR because no one really agrees on what it even is. ] Yet they never took to time to determine if it was true, consistent, and even worth more than the amount of study necessary to falsify it. Hell, gravity falsified SR right out of the chute! But that stopped nobody because Big Science had chosen SR as its vehicle into the heart of the culture....All this typing has made me hungry. I'm going to make some lunch.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > >
> > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > >
> > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> >
> > You can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> >
> > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
>
> Please assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph.

Again? What was wrong with the labels assigned above?

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 10:48:04 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:50:50 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:01:27 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > > > >
> > > > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > > > So, you can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> > > >
> > > > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> > > Legion, in full view of this forum, in full throated voice, I now dare you to assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph, found below. I have mapped all but two of YOUR labels to YOUR events. Go.
> > > "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?"
> > The initial conditions of space time were not an asymmetric energy singularity.
> > Expanding Dimension came first.
> Is that what Legion Lange told you to type, Mitch?
>
> I warned Legion that he would never be the same after I sussed out his algebraic chicanery the first time. This morning's debacle makes twice in one week. I'm monitoring the Seattle local news, incase there's a jumper on the Aurora Bridge or the Space Needle.

People go overboard on space time.
It is the boundary of the hypersphere.
Dark energy does not expand it....

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:36:14 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ].. Is that correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > > >
> > > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > >
> > > You can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange.. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> > >
> > > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> >
> > Please assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph.
>
> Again? What was wrong with the labels assigned above?

Legion,

Your Fq3TZ/frank = your e1, correct?
Your J7H5b/sally = your e2, correct?
Your mark = your e3, correct?
Your blamange = your e4, correct?

So lets have another go at your infamous paragraph using your new sets of labels. We do this to bring to light your obfuscations to cover your failed argument.

Legion Lange wrote:
"Since the muon event [ frank ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ blamange ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ mark ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ blamange ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ ? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ ?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ blamage ]. Is that correct?"

I now repeat my dare that you supply what you believe to be the correct labels for the two unlabeled events [ ? ] and [ ?? ]. You may use any of the 2.5 sets of variables that you have submitted so far.

Parenthetically Legion Lange, I must register a note of deep disgust, which I'm sure is shared by many other members of this forum, at your shameless obfuscations of your clearly untenable situation.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:03:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > > > >
> > > > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > > >
> > > > You can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> > > >
> > > > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> > >
> > > Please assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph.
> >
> > Again? What was wrong with the labels assigned above?
>
> Your Fq3TZ/frank = your e1, correct?

No, of course not. The labels "frank" (not to be confused with a person) and "e1" refer to the same event (the creation of the muon, which is 2.2 usec away from the collision), but Fq3TZ is the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision.

> Your J7H5b/sally = your e2, correct?

No, of course not. The labels "sally" (not to be confused with a person) and "e2" refer to the same event (the lab event simultaneous in terms of S with the creation of the muon), but J7H5b is the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision.

> Your mark = your e3, correct?

Yes! The labels "mark" (not to be confused with a person) and "e3" refer to the same event (the lab event simultaneous in terms of S' with the creation of the muon).

> Your blamange = your e4, correct?

Yes! The labels "blamange" (not to be confused with a person) and "e4" refer to the same event (the collision event).

> So lets have another go at your paragraph using your new sets of labels.
> > "Since the muon event [ frank ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ blamange ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ mark ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ blamange ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ ? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ ?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ blamage ]. Is that correct?"
>
> Please supply the correct labels for the two unlabeled events [ ? ] and [ ?? ].

Again? Okay: Fq3TZ is the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision. J7H5b is the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision. These labels were provided to you several times before.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:34:00 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:03:00 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Answer: Yes, of course."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > > > >
> > > > > You can't understand the statement unless we assign labels to the events? LOL. Okay, let's refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and let's refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b. So, Fq3TZ is simultaneous with J7H5b in terms of S.. Also, let's change the labels e1,e2,e3,e4 to frank, sally, mark, and blamange. These are all just labels, to make it easy to refer to them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is your whole confusion really due to the fact that you don't grasp the concept of labeling things for ease of reference? Wow. That never would have occurred to me. Interesting.
> > > >
> > > > Please assign your own labels to your own events in your own paragraph.
> > >
> > > Again? What was wrong with the labels assigned above?
> >
> > Your Fq3TZ/frank = your e1, correct?
> No, of course not. The labels "frank" (not to be confused with a person) and "e1" refer to the same event (the creation of the muon, which is 2.2 usec away from the collision), but Fq3TZ is the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision.
> > Your J7H5b/sally = your e2, correct?
> No, of course not. The labels "sally" (not to be confused with a person) and "e2" refer to the same event (the lab event simultaneous in terms of S with the creation of the muon), but J7H5b is the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision.
> > Your mark = your e3, correct?
> Yes! The labels "mark" (not to be confused with a person) and "e3" refer to the same event (the lab event simultaneous in terms of S' with the creation of the muon).
> > Your blamange = your e4, correct?
> Yes! The labels "blamange" (not to be confused with a person) and "e4" refer to the same event (the collision event).
>
> > So lets have another go at your paragraph using your new sets of labels..
> > > "Since the muon event [ frank ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ blamange ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ mark ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ blamange ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ ? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ ?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ blamage ]. Is that correct?"
> >
> > Please supply the correct labels for the two unlabeled events [ ? ] and [ ?? ].
>
> Again? Okay: Fq3TZ is the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision. J7H5b is the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision. These labels were provided to you several times before.

Do you acknowledge that you have now added two new events to your original e1, e2, e3, e4 ( aka frank, sally, mark, blamage ) events? And that those two new events are

Fq3TZ = event [ ? ] in your paragraph
J7H5b = event [ ?? ] in your paragraph

Do either of the above events correspond to any of the previous events e1, e2, e3, e4 ( aka frank, sally, mark, blamage ) or are they separate from the other four spacetime events?

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > Standard Newbie Question: "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?" Answer: Yes, of course."
> >
> > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> >
> > > Labels are arbitrary. If you like, you can refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b.
>
> Do either of the above events correspond to any of the previous events e1, e2, e3, e4, or are they separate from the other four spacetime events?

A sentient being could not possibly imagine that the muon event half-way between the muon's creation and annihilation is the same event as either the creation or the annihilation event -- let alone the same as a lab event. Duh. Likewise, no sentient being could posibly imagine that the lab event half-way between e1 and e4, and 1.1 usec prior to e3, is the same event as any of those events -- let alone the same as any muon event. What is wrong with you? Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?

On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 8:44:27 AM UTC+5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Standard Newbie Question: "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?" Answer: Yes, of course."
> > >
> > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > >
> > > > Labels are arbitrary. If you like, you can refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b.
> >
> > Do either of the above events correspond to any of the previous events e1, e2, e3, e4, or are they separate from the other four spacetime events?
>
> A sentient being could not possibly imagine that the muon event half-way between the muon's creation and annihilation is the same event as either the creation or the annihilation event -- let alone the same as a lab event. Duh. Likewise, no sentient being could posibly imagine that the lab event half-way between e1 and e4, and 1.1 usec prior to e3, is the same event as any of those events -- let alone the same as any muon event. What is wrong with you? Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?

You opinion is that a sentient being cannot believe in Special Relativity is still being formed. You will get there one day.

It is only words.

You have totally ignored my proof. Is it because it is true or because it is incorrect, in which case where is the mistake?

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:44:27 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > Standard Newbie Question: "Since the muon event [ e1 ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision [ e4 ] is simultaneous in terms of S' with a lab event [ e3 ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ], by symmetry we ought to be able to say that a lab event [ e? ] that is 2.2 usec from the collision is simultaneous in terms of S with a muon event [ e?? ] that is 1.1 usec from the collision [ e4 ]. Is that correct?" Answer: Yes, of course."
> > >
> > > Please fill in '?' and "??"
> > >
> > > > Labels are arbitrary. If you like, you can refer to the lab event that is 2.2 usec from the collision as Fq3TZ, and refer to the muon event that is 1.1 usec from the collision as J7H5b.
> >
> > Do either of the above events correspond to any of the previous events e1, e2, e3, e4, or are they separate from the other four spacetime events?
>
> A sentient being could not possibly imagine that the muon event half-way between the muon's creation and annihilation is the same event as either the creation or the annihilation event -- let alone the same as a lab event. Duh.
Your very first post referred to four events; two of which were creation and annihilation events and two of which were lab events. The above sentence refers to a fifth event, not belonging to the set of lab events or the creation or annihilation event. Based on this analysis, do you agree that you have introduced a fifth event into your original four event scenario?

Likewise, no sentient being could posibly imagine that the lab event half-way between e1 and e4, and 1.1 usec prior to e3, is the same event as any of those events -- let alone the same as any muon event.

Continuing my line of reasoning, do you agree with my contention that in the sentence above you have introduced yet a sixth event into your original four event scenario?

I carefully ask these questions of you Legion so that hopefully at some point I will be able to reconstruct your original four event scenario in terms of your new six event scenario--a task you are struggling to avoid at all costs. This is quite understandable. Because your six event scenario, once laid bare in simple, concise language will be utterly destroyed even quicker than your foolish four event scenario.

What is wrong with you? Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?