On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 10:20:02 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> ... you used language that sailed clear over his head ...

What language was that? There was nothing is my messages that couldn't be understood by any normal person.

> what did you expect him to say?

It would be good if he continued to ask questions, as he has been doing for several messages, pointing out parts of the explanations that are unclear to him. Usually he can do that for about 8 rounds before he runs off... but that's partly because he is swamped with extraneous replies, all telling his contradictory things... such as...

> Here you have an assumption going on that is false. You are ASSUMING that
> time dilation has something to do with changing the way an atom functions,
> actually slowing it down.

That's not an unambiguously false assumption. It's necessary to distinguish between passive and active changes. In terms of any single system of inertial coordinates, changing the state of motion of an atom by subjecting it to acceleration does indeed change its rate of proper time (as well as the intrinsic phase relations, etc.). This is distinct from describing an atom in a single state of motion in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates. In the latter case, the rate of proper time does not change in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, but in the former case it changes in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

This is not a nit, it is the very essence of the subject, because if relativistic effects were purely coordinate effects, as you imagine, having nothing to do with "the way an atom functions", they would have no physical significance. That's why anti-relativity cranks know you are wrong, and why people like Ed waste so much time trying to show you that real scientists say time dilation is a physically real effect, tacitly referring to active changes. Lorentz invariance is not just an artifact of our free choice of coordinate systems, it is a dynamical fact, and we choose coordinate systems to conform with it, so the passive transformations match the active.

> When Townes replies to you, he’s not trying to explain anything to you.

Not true. When I reply to people like you and Ed, I explain things in ways that you *could* understand, in the simplest possible terms -- but no simpler. An example is above. Yes, you and Ed don't understand the actual physics explanations, but it's not due to them being cast at a level that's impossible for you to understand. It's just due to stubborn adherence to your own pre-conceived notions.

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

<snip>

> Working from ignorance, as you do, is HOPELESS. Just making stuff up and
> pretending it is true does not give any answers, only delusions....
>
> Tom Roberts

Except you're a consummated con man like Einstein, have a powerful network of friends and
patrons who fund you, then you can succeed working from ignorance and make up idiotic stuff
like "the space curves due to matter".

The difference is that the con man didn't believe his crappy thoughts. As a chameleon, his adaptive
behavior changed from one context to the other (without shame) in order to agreed with everyone.
One day had a version to satisfy group A of people and next day, with feedback inserted, moved to
a version to satisfy group B.

Mathematics? too difficult to use (for him). So he left the work of fitting a square into a circle by hammering
it hard enough, to a plethora of "helpers" who did the tricks. And enough complexity artificially added to
scare most people who didn't understand non-linearities.

So, Ed, my best advice: contract a mathematician, tell him what you want, and he will find a way to mathematize
your thoughts with enough "complexity and class" to make you a champion in physics. Only promise him fame
and money, as Einstein did.

If you try hard and make VERY complex mathematical stuff, you'll win. 99.99999% of people is too idiot and lazy
to prove your theory wrong. Also, get a PR person (a spokesman), who will spread the word on MSM. You win.

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:16:59 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz posted fresh imbecilities:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

> Except you're a consummated con man like Einstein, have a powerful network of friends and
> patrons who fund you, then you can succeed working from ignorance and make up idiotic stuff
> like "the space curves due to matter".
Nurse,

Nutter Richard Hertz has pissed his pampers again.

Where there is the right aether in the right space there is gravity.
Einstein became an Aether scientist in the 1920's But the
world did not like it...

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Where there is the right aether in the right space there is gravity.
> Einstein became an Aether scientist in the 1920's But the world did not
> like it...

with aether the 1915 GR paper is not even possible. You have things
upside-down, meine liebe.

Poor Ed, trying to work with photons!

You can't beat the crap that emerged from QFT/QED, Ed. You are not powerful enough
to fight against people who, after WWII and the disasters that it caused, decided to
re-write history of science, leaving behind Coulomb, Maxwell, Newton, Planck and so
many other pillars of physics (and I don't include chemistry, to make this simple).

How do you fight against the definition of VIRTUAL PHOTONS?

Read this excerpt, Ed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum electrodynamics, commonly referred to as QED, is a quantum field theory of the electromagnetic
force. Taking the example of the force between two electrons, the classical theory of electromagnetism would
describe it as arising from the electric field produced by each electron at the position of the other. The force
can be calculated from Coulomb's law.

The quantum field theory approach visualizes the force between the electrons as an exchange force arising
from the exchange of VIRTUAL PHOTONS. It is represented by a series of Feynman diagrams.

The diagram describes the electron interaction in which two electrons enter, exchange a photon, and then emerge.
Using a mathematical approach known as the Feynman calculus, the strength of the force can be calculated in a
series of steps which assign contributions to each of the types of Feynman diagrams associated with the force.

QED applies to all electromagnetic phenomena associated with charged fundamental particles such as electrons and
positrons, and the associated phenomena such as pair production, electron-positron annihilation, Compton scattering, etc.
It was used to precisely model some quantum phenomena which HAD NO CLASSICAL ANALOGS, such as the Lamb shift
and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. QED was the first successful quantum field theory, incorporating
such ideas as particle creation and annihilation into a self-consistent framework.

The development of the theory was the basis of the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics, awarded to Richard Feynman,
Julian Schwinger and Sin-itero Tomonaga.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Ed? Inventing a VIRTUAL PHOTON can make you to win a Nobel Prize in physics.

How come do you fight against establishment, which thought that a VIRTUAL PHOTON was not a crazy idea, but
a good one, which deserved a Nobel Prize?

Does it mean that Nobel committee members are MORE capable and knowledgeable than the awarded with the Prize?
Or they are a bunch of IDIOTS and partners in crime, who are INFLUENCED in so many ways?

What do you think, Ed?

Try to drop the word PHOTONS, which has lost its value. Try the same concepts, but use "holo photons", "pseudo photons"
or similar terms. If somebody argues with you, just tell: "You don't know physics enough" or "You aren't able to understand
the math involved. Go back to school and learn from square one".

Remember: the best defense is an attack. It worked out for thousand of years.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 10:20:02 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ... you used language that sailed clear over his head ...
>
> What language was that? There was nothing is my messages that couldn't
> be understood by any normal person.

And by implication, if he does not understand it, he’s not normal. Well
done.

Perhaps you’re just not sensitive to the lack of background and
unfamiliarity with language in some of the people you engage with. Perhaps
you are simply not aware that you talk over the heads of a lot of the hacks
here. Or perhaps you ARE aware, and that you do it on purpose.

>
>> what did you expect him to say?
>
> It would be good if he continued to ask questions, as he has been doing
> for several messages, pointing out parts of the explanations that are unclear to him.

And you don’t think he just tires of getting answers that teach him nothing
because he doesn’t understand the words you’re using?

> Usually he can do that for about 8 rounds before he runs off... but
> that's partly because he is swamped with extraneous replies, all telling
> his contradictory things... such as...
>
>> Here you have an assumption going on that is false. You are ASSUMING that
>> time dilation has something to do with changing the way an atom functions,
>> actually slowing it down.
>
> That's not an unambiguously false assumption. It's necessary to
> distinguish between passive and active changes.

As a case in point, do you have ANY expectation that someone in Ed’s
position will have ANY idea what “passive” and “active” changes mean? Are
you completely unaware that this will sail over his head? Are you really
that oblivious?

> In terms of any single system of inertial coordinates, changing the state
> of motion of an atom by subjecting it to acceleration does indeed change
> its rate of proper time (as well as the intrinsic phase relations, etc.).

Same thing with “rate of proper time” and “intrinsic phase relations”. Do
you REALLY think Ed will have any idea what those things mean? Are you
really that oblivious?

> This is distinct from describing an atom in a single state of motion in
> terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates. In the latter
> case, the rate of proper time does not change in terms of any system of
> inertial coordinates,

Same goes with “rate of proper time does not change”. You think he has the
foggiest idea what that means? Same for “inertial coordinates”.

Read the room, man!! Read the room!

> but in the former case it changes in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.
>
> This is not a nit, it is the very essence of the subject, because if
> relativistic effects were purely coordinate effects, as you imagine,
> having nothing to do with "the way an atom functions", they would have no
> physical significance. That's why anti-relativity cranks know you are
> wrong, and why people like Ed waste so much time trying to show you that
> real scientists say time dilation is a physically real effect, tacitly
> referring to active changes. Lorentz invariance is not just an artifact
> of our free choice of coordinate systems, it is a dynamical fact, and we
> choose coordinate systems to conform with it, so the passive
> transformations match the active.
>
>> When Townes replies to you, he’s not trying to explain anything to you.
>
> Not true. When I reply to people like you and Ed, I explain things in
> ways that you *could* understand, in the simplest possible terms -- but
> no simpler. An example is above. Yes, you and Ed don't understand the
> actual physics explanations, but it's not due to them being cast at a
> level that's impossible for you to understand. It's just due to stubborn
> adherence to your own pre-conceived notions.
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:45:06 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Working from ignorance, as you do, is HOPELESS. Just making stuff up and
>> pretending it is true does not give any answers, only delusions....
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Except you're a consummated con man like Einstein, have a powerful network of friends and
> patrons who fund you,

The only people who fund me are customers who buy my furniture and other
goods. Who do you think you’re talking to?

> then you can succeed working from ignorance and make up idiotic stuff
> like "the space curves due to matter".
>
> The difference is that the con man didn't believe his crappy thoughts. As
> a chameleon, his adaptive
> behavior changed from one context to the other (without shame) in order
> to agreed with everyone.
> One day had a version to satisfy group A of people and next day, with
> feedback inserted, moved to
> a version to satisfy group B.
>
> Mathematics? too difficult to use (for him). So he left the work of
> fitting a square into a circle by hammering
> it hard enough, to a plethora of "helpers" who did the tricks. And enough
> complexity artificially added to
> scare most people who didn't understand non-linearities.
>
> So, Ed, my best advice: contract a mathematician, tell him what you want,
> and he will find a way to mathematize
> your thoughts with enough "complexity and class" to make you a champion
> in physics. Only promise him fame
> and money, as Einstein did.
>
> If you try hard and make VERY complex mathematical stuff, you'll win.
> 99.99999% of people is too idiot and lazy
> to prove your theory wrong. Also, get a PR person (a spokesman), who will
> spread the word on MSM. You win.
>
>

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

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> ... you used language that sailed clear over his head ...
> >
> > What language was that? There was nothing is my messages that couldn't
> > be understood by any normal person.
>
> And by implication, if he does not understand it, he’s not normal.. Well done.

You're confusing "couldn't understand" with "doesn't understand". As I said, Ed doesn't understand the explanations, but it's not due to them being cast at a level that's impossible for him to understand. It's just due to his stubborn adherence to his pet pre-conceived notions. He has populated his brain with a large number of interlocking fantasies, the central one being his belief in the fabled "oscillating photon", which is fundamentally incompatible with any rational account of relativity and quantum theory. When the logical inconsistencies in his beliefs are repeatedly exposed, he gets frustrated and flees.

> And you don’t think he just tires of getting answers that teach him nothing
> because he doesn’t understand the words you’re using?

He understands the words I'm using, and he often understands whole sentences, but he rarely understands whole paragraphs. That's not because the explanations are being presented at too high a level, it's just because they contradict his pet beliefs, and he has no interest in objectively assessing whether he is wrong or everyone else in the world is wrong.

> As a case in point, do you have ANY expectation that someone in Ed’s
> position will have ANY idea what “passive” and “active” changes mean?

The difficulty of explaining that distinction to Ed is not that he's unfamiliar with those terms, it's that "coordinate" is one of his trigger words (as is "wave", etc.), that will make him immediately baulk, so that isn't the way one would describe it to Ed, but you see, Ed isn't the one who needs to learn about that, because he already knows that time dilation is not just an artifact of coordinate systems. The cited explanation was not for Ed, it was for you, correcting your statement to Ed. If you tell me it went over your head, I'll believe you.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> ... you used language that sailed clear over his head ...
>>>
>>> What language was that? There was nothing is my messages that couldn't
>>> be understood by any normal person.
>>
>> And by implication, if he does not understand it, he’s not normal. Well done.
>
> You're confusing "couldn't understand" with "doesn't understand". As I
> said, Ed doesn't understand the explanations, but it's not due to them
> being cast at a level that's impossible for him to understand. It's just
> due to his stubborn adherence to his pet pre-conceived notions. He has
> populated his brain with a large number of interlocking fantasies, the
> central one being his belief in the fabled "oscillating photon", which is
> fundamentally incompatible with any rational account of relativity and
> quantum theory. When the logical inconsistencies in his beliefs are
> repeatedly exposed, he gets frustrated and flees.

No, I meant he DOESN’T understand the words you’re using and I enumerated
several examples if you care to look. This isn’t to be taken as “not even
potentially able to understand them with a lot of additional coaching”. It
means that he does not understand what you mean by those words TODAY. And
when you do that, you are deliberately talking over his head.

>
>> And you don’t think he just tires of getting answers that teach him nothing
>> because he doesn’t understand the words you’re using?
>
> He understands the words I'm using,

I really don’t think so. Here’s a suggestion to do something unaccustomed
to you. How about if you ASK him whether he understands what “inertial
coordinates” or “elapsed proper times” means, and ASK him to say what he
thinks they mean. I know you don’t like asking questions other than “What’s
wrong with you?” and “Are you insane?”, but perhaps it might benefit you to
ASK to see if you are in fact talking over his head rather than just
insisting that he does already know what the words you’re using mean, and
the problem is elsewhere. It COULD be that you are misjudging and thereby
making a mistake. (Horrors!)

> and he often understands whole sentences, but he rarely understands whole
> paragraphs. That's not because the explanations are being presented at
> too high a level, it's just because they contradict his pet beliefs, and
> he has no interest in objectively assessing whether he is wrong or
> everyone else in the world is wrong.
>
>> As a case in point, do you have ANY expectation that someone in Ed’s
>> position will have ANY idea what “passive” and “active” changes mean?
>
> The difficulty of explaining that distinction to Ed is not that he's
> unfamiliar with those terms, it's that "coordinate" is one of his trigger
> words (as is "wave", etc.), that will make him immediately baulk, so that
> isn't the way one would describe it to Ed, but you see, Ed isn't the one
> who needs to learn about that, because he already knows that time
> dilation is not just an artifact of coordinate systems. The cited
> explanation was not for Ed, it was for you, correcting your statement to
> Ed. If you tell me it went over your head, I'll believe you.

:) Well, see, just a minute ago you were saying that it’s not you talking
over anyone’s head that’s the problem.

>

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

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 6:15:20 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, I meant he DOESN’T understand the words you’re using and I enumerated
> several examples if you care to look.

No, the examples you mistakenly gave were words I used in explaining your error to you, not in my explanations to Ed. Remember, after you accused me of using explanations above Ed's head, I asked you twice to tell me what - in my explanations to Ed - you believe was above his head... and both times you were unable to cite anything.

Nothing (or very little) in my explanations to Ed is above his head. If he wasn't wedded to so many misconceptions and pet theories, centered around the idea of an "oscillating photon", and was just approaching the subject with a clean slate and no agenda, I think he probably could understand the simple and clear explanations (but only in the absence of all the wrong explanations that swamp any open forum). After all, he came up with the "pulsar paradox" that stumped you, so he's at least as cognitively capable as you are. The problem is quite common: People are loath to contemplate the possibility that cherished and long-held beliefs are wrong... especially if they have proclaimed them as loudly and confidently as Ed has proclaimed his..

> I really don’t think so. Here’s a suggestion to do something unaccustomed
> to you. How about if you ASK him whether he understands what “inertial
> coordinates”...

Everyone knows that words like "coordinate" are triggers for Ed (because they smack of mathematics), as are words like "wave" (because Feynman told him photons are particles not waves), etc. If you had actually looked at my explanations to Ed, you notice that such words are either absent or else accompanied by suitable palliative care. (Please note that things like "elapsed proper time" are both correct and not triggering to Ed, even though he doesn't fully understand it.) Again, if you want to cite some specific explanation I've given to Ed, and point out what you think is "above his head", then go ahead. Failing that, there's no substance to your complaint.

> > The cited explanation was not for Ed, it was for you, correcting your statement to
> > Ed. If you tell me it went over your head, I'll believe you.
>
> :) Well, see, just a minute ago you were saying that it’s not you talking
> over anyone’s head that’s the problem.

Right, I don't think it is. As with Ed, my guess is that the real reason you don't understand is stubborn adherence to your pre-conceived notions. But if you tell me that special relativity is genuinely over your head, I won't disagree.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 6:15:20 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>> I really don’t think so. Here’s a suggestion to do something unaccustomed
>> to you. How about if you ASK him whether he understands what “inertial
>> coordinates”...
>
> Everyone knows that words like "coordinate" are triggers for Ed (because
> they smack of mathematics), as are words like "wave" (because Feynman
> told him photons are particles not waves), etc.

Who cares if they are triggers? The question to you is whether he
understands that term when you use it. If not, then it’s over his head. And
the only way you’ll know if he understands them or not is if you ASK him
whether he does or not. Unless you really don’t care whether you’re talking
over his head or not.

> If you had actually looked at my explanations to Ed, you notice that such
> words are either absent or else accompanied by suitable palliative care.

It’s only suitable if it works. If he doesn’t know what the term means,
then it wasn’t suitable, was it?

> (Please note that things like "elapsed proper time" are both correct and
> not triggering to Ed, even though he doesn't fully understand it.)

Who CARES if it’s triggering or not? The question is whether he understands
it or not, and you observe that he doesn’t, and so when you use it in any
response to him, you’re deliberately talking over his head.

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

On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 00:22:36 UTC+2, Townes Olson wrote:

> He understands the words I'm using, and he often understands whole sentences, but he rarely understands whole paragraphs. That's not because the explanations are being presented at too high a level, it's just because they contradict his pet beliefs, and he has no interest in objectively assessing whether he is wrong or everyone else in the world is wrong.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, poor brainwashed halfbrain, but your
bunch of idiots for sure is not "everyone else in the world [apart of
Ed]".

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> It’s only suitable if it works. If he doesn’t know what the term means,
> then it wasn’t suitable, was it?

By "suitable" I meant he understands it well enough, i.e., "elapsed proper time" is the change in time showing on the clock, and this suffices for purposes of the explanation, and it also (although this is unknown to him) is consistent in other more abstract contexts, which he doesn't need to know about for purposes of the immediate explanation. This should all be self-evident to you instantly. The fact that I have to spell out to you what "suitable" means in excruciating detail is indicative of the real problem underlying your weird complaints.

> > If you had actually looked at my explanations to Ed, you notice that such
> > words are either absent or else accompanied by suitable palliative care..
>
> Who CARES if it’s triggering or not? The question is whether he understands
> it or not, and you observe that he doesn’t, and so when you use it in any
> response to him, you’re deliberately talking over his head.

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. When I say triggering words are "either absent or else accompanied by suitable palliative care", that means I carefully avoid using triggering words, modulo the exceptional cases when such a word is itself the subject of explanation, in which cases it is suitably (yes, suitably) framed.

You see, we have here a good example of the problem with crackpots such as yourself not understanding: You are having all kinds of trouble understanding the above quoted sentence, and yet the sentence is perfectly simple and clear, and any normal person could understand it, i.e., that I clearly stated that I carefully *avoid* using his well-known triggering words (when talking to him), and yet you respond with a characteristically mis-loaded and nit-witted question followed by an accusation that I deliberately use triggering words to talk over his head... after you have just quoted me explaining that I do the opposite.

You charge that I don't ask enough, but I've asked you over and over to actually cite my explanations to Ed wherein you think I cast the explanation over his head... and over and over again you refuse, so we've established that your accusation is completely baseless. The problem here is not that my explanations of not talking over Ed's head are "over your head", the problem is that, like all cranks, you are just not paying attention, and you are stubbornly clinging to your own thoroughly falsified pre-conceived notions..

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It’s only suitable if it works. If he doesn’t know what the term means,
>> then it wasn’t suitable, was it?
>
> By "suitable" I meant he understands it well enough

You are ASSUMING that he understands it well enough based on information
you think you have clearly provided. You have not TESTED your assumption by
asking. I will reiterate that you do not ASK people questions, you simply
talk at them, with an occasional “What’s wrong with you?” or “Are you
insane?” sometimes sprinkled in.

> , i.e., "elapsed proper time" is the change in time showing on the clock,
> and this suffices for purposes of the explanation, and it also (although
> this is unknown to him) is consistent in other more abstract contexts,
> which he doesn't need to know about for purposes of the immediate
> explanation. This should all be self-evident to you instantly. The fact
> that I have to spell out to you what "suitable" means in excruciating
> detail is indicative of the real problem underlying your weird complaints.
>
>>> If you had actually looked at my explanations to Ed, you notice that such
>>> words are either absent or else accompanied by suitable palliative care.
>>
>> Who CARES if it’s triggering or not? The question is whether he understands
>> it or not, and you observe that he doesn’t, and so when you use it in any
>> response to him, you’re deliberately talking over his head.
>
> Your reading comprehension is abysmal. When I say triggering words are
> "either absent or else accompanied by suitable palliative care", that
> means I carefully avoid using triggering words, modulo the exceptional
> cases when such a word is itself the subject of explanation, in which
> cases it is suitably (yes, suitably) framed.

And yet you HAVE used “inertial coordinates” and “elapsed proper time” with
Ed, knowing full well that the first is triggering for him and knowing full
well that he does not understand the latter, and you have NOT validated
that your “suitable palliative care” is either suitable or palliative
enough to establish understanding by ASKING him. And so when you say you
AVOID using such terms, you are either clearly lying or trying to excuse
it. And when you say you supply suitable palliative care, you are making an
unsubstantiated claim that the care has been either suitable or palliative
to Ed’s benefit. And as you have mentioned explicitly stated before, you
don’t actually intend for your replies to Ed to be to Ed’s benefit, as you
have no hopes that he himself will learn anything from the exchange.

What DOES seem apparent to me is that someone suggesting to you that your
approach to communication maybe ineffective and unproductive and therefore
a mistake is something abhorrent to you, as you fight imperiously to be
right, always right, never wrong, never off base. Consider the possibility
that if someone does not improve their understanding as a result of a
response from you, that part of the responsibility for that rests with you.

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

On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 17:45:55 UTC+2, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It’s only suitable if it works. If he doesn’t know what the term means,
> > then it wasn’t suitable, was it?
> By "suitable" I meant he understands it well enough, i.e., "elapsed proper time" is the change in time showing on the clock

In your moronic gedankenwelt. The clocks of the real
GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
You're talking about your delusions, sorry, poor
halfbrain.

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 9:15:51 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > By "suitable" I meant he understands it well enough
>
> You are ASSUMING that he understands it well enough based on information
> you think you have clearly provided.

So, your belief is that if you asked Ed if he thinks the "elapsed proper time of a clock" is the elapsed time shown on the clock, he would say no. My belief is that he would say yes, and that this is so obviously the case that it is one of the infinitely many things that must be assumed in any given circumstance for any actual communication between sentient beings to be possible. Furthermore, the offending expression did not even appear in the subject explanations to Ed that you complained about. Remember, he asked "Why don't you DESCRIBE some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks that are separated"?", and I replied:

====To compare the rates of separate clocks we need to determine what those clocks read "at the same time", so we must first decide what we mean by "at the same time", and it obviously can't be based on the readings of the clocks whose rates we are trying to compare.

Now, establishing simultaneity at separate locations can be (and is) done in a variety of ways, notably with the ECI system used in your GPS devices. However, statements about "reciprocal time dilation" don't refer to ECI time, they refer to one particular meaning of simultaneity, namely, inertial simultaneity. This means that "at the same time" is defined such that the laws of physics take their standard form. So, we can (for example) tap the midpoint of a solid rod, and we say the acoustic pulses in the rod reach the ends of the rod "at the same time". There are many other ways (e.g., shooting identical bullets from identical guns resting at the midpoint of the rod), and they all give the same inertial simultaneity.

The key point is that, using any of these methods of establishing inertial simultaneity, the results depend on the state of motion of the rod. That's called the relativity of simultaneity. Two events that are simultaneous using sound waves in a rod in one state of motion are not simultaneous using sound waves in a rod in another state of motion. So, using those two different meanings of "at the same time", we get two different comparisons of the rates of separate clocks. Using a rod co-moving with clock A, the event at which A reads 10 sec is at the same time as the event at which B reads 9 sec, so clock B is running slower. However, using a rod co-moving with clock B, the event of B reading 10 sec is "at the same time" as the event of A reading 9 sec, so clock A is running slower. (The underlying reason for this is that energy has inertia.)
====
So, please tell me what part of this explanation is intentionally written above Ed's head. Likewise, here was my explanation (in the same post) of why, with Ed's model of an "oscillating photon" following a singular path, the behavior of a "photon" going through the left slit depends on whether the right slit is open or closed:

====Your beliefs don't work, for the following reason: When both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped pattern", and there are dark spots on the screen where no photons ever land. Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.
=====
Again, please tell me what part of this you believe was intentionally written to be above Ed's head. What part do you think he is cognitively incapable of understanding?

> I will reiterate that you do not ASK people questions...

As always, you are mistaken. I incessantly ask people to tell me (or at least give me some hint) what they disagree with or what they think is unclear in the explanations. But these questions usually end up going unanswered, because (as you continue to demonstrate in this thread) crackpots usually refuse to actually answer any of the relevant requests for clarification. For example, I predict that you will (for the 4th time) refuse to tell me what part of the above explanations to Ed you think were written intentionally above his head.

> you simply talk at them, with an occasional "What is wrong with you?" and “Are you insane?”

Again, you are mistaken, on multiple counts. First, I don't believe I have ever asked someone if they are insane. I have pointed out insanity, but I've not asked the source of the insanity if they agree that they had said something insane. (That would be insane.) Second, and more importantly, I incessantly ask people if they understand my explanations, or if they disagree with them or think they need to be clarified. I strongly encourage people at every opportunity to tell me if they think something I've said is unclear or wrong. Even a cursory familiarity with my posts will show this, so a very relevant question here is, What is wrong with you? (Do you understand this?)

> When you say you AVOID using such terms, you are either clearly lying or
> trying to excuse it.

As always, you are mistaken. When I've spoken to Ed about coordinate systems, equations, numbers, or any kind of quantification of the descriptions of phenomena, it has been in the full light of awareness that his brain will try to evade any such discussion by dismissing such things as the devil's (mathematician's) tools, having nothing to do with REALITY, etc., and I've occasionally engaged with him about this very point, noting (for example) that math is logical, and quantitative descriptions of real phenomena have to do with reality, and that Einstein's 1905 paper is overflowing with discussions of coordinate systems, and that indeed the very propositions that he (Ed) is challenging explicitly pertain to coordinate systems, so if he has no interest in such things, then he has no interest in the propositions, and hence he should just say he has no interest, rather than claiming they are wrong. He never responds to these points, but I don't think they are "above his head".

And I've carefully explained to him (at times) the physical meaning of coordinates in general, and inertial coordinates in particular, in very rudimentary terms that a child of four could understand, and so on. This is not tackled in every discussion, but it is tackled in some. If I posted one of those explanations (no, I don't save them, but google saves them, you dolt), I would defy you to point out what part you think was intentionally over his head. And you would not be able to answer, just as you can't answer about the subject explanations quoted above. There is simply no factual basis for your complaints.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 9:15:51 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> By "suitable" I meant he understands it well enough
>>
>> You are ASSUMING that he understands it well enough based on information
>> you think you have clearly provided.
>
> So, your belief is that if you asked Ed if he thinks the "elapsed proper
> time of a clock" is the elapsed time shown on the clock, he would say no.

Please don’t act like an obtuse idiot. You do not come off well doing that.

My belief is that if you asked Ed what he thinks “elapsed proper time”
means, without cuing him with an answer you’re hoping for, he’d come
nowhere close. That would be a good indication that he does not know what
the term means, and that would in turn mean that when you use it in your
“careful” responses to him, you are carefully talking over his head.

And the fact that you are insisting on just ASSUMING that he understands it
(as a “must be assumed…for any actual communication…between sentient
beings”), rather than ASKING him, makes it clear that you do not actually
know how to effectively communicate with sentient beings, which is what
I’ve been repeatedly pointing out to you. I’m guessing that you live alone.

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

On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 20:45:59 UTC+2, Townes Olson wrote:

> Now, establishing simultaneity at separate locations can be (and is) done in a variety of ways, notably with the ECI system used in your GPS devices.. However, statements about "reciprocal time dilation" don't refer to ECI time, they refer to one particular meaning of simultaneity, namely, inertial simultaneity. This means that "at the same time" is defined such that the laws of physics take their standard form. So, we can (for example) tap the midpoint of a solid rod, and we say the acoustic pulses in the rod reach the ends of the rod "at the same time". There are many other ways (e.g., shooting identical bullets from identical guns resting at the midpoint of the rod), and they all give the same inertial simultaneity.
>
> The key point is that, using any of these methods of establishing inertial simultaneity, the results depend on the state of motion of the rod.

The key point is that that makes any of these methods completely worthless.

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 11:59:29 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> My belief is that if you asked Ed what he thinks “elapsed proper time”
> means, without cuing him with an answer you’re hoping for, he’d come
> nowhere close.

That's insane. The context was a sentence in an explanation referring to the elapsed time showing on a clock as "the elapsed proper time of the clock", and your claim is that Ed would misunderstand this, i.e., he would think it means something other than the elapsed time showing on the clock, so you think that by including the word "proper" rather than omitting it, I would be intentionally trying to confuse him and cast the explanation "above his head". I simply disagree. This is an example of a word that is suitable for the context, and not triggering for Ed (although the word "proper" is one of the main triggers for another crackpot here, along with "falsified", "inertial", "Pythagoras", etc.).

More importantly, as I predicted, for the fifth time you have refused to actually address anything in the actual explanation that you denigrated. And you've failed to address all the falsifications of your claims, e.g., you say I never ask if people understand what I've said or if anything I've said is unclear, and I point out that I *incessantly* ask people that very thing, in nearly every message. And so on. Your complaints against me are completely baseless.

On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 21:18:52 UTC+2, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 11:59:29 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > My belief is that if you asked Ed what he thinks “elapsed proper time”
> > means, without cuing him with an answer you’re hoping for, he’d come
> > nowhere close.
> That's insane. The context was a sentence in an explanation referring to the elapsed time showing on a clock as "the elapsed proper time of the clock", and your claim is that Ed would misunderstand this, i.e., he would think it means something other than the elapsed time showing on the clock

Ed probably wouldn't, but any of your fellow idiots would,
samely as you, for GPS.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 11:59:29 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> My belief is that if you asked Ed what he thinks “elapsed proper time”
>> means, without cuing him with an answer you’re hoping for, he’d come
>> nowhere close.
>
> That's insane. The context was a sentence in an explanation referring to
> the elapsed time showing on a clock as "the elapsed proper time of the
> clock", and your claim is that Ed would misunderstand this, i.e., he
> would think it means something other than the elapsed time showing on the
> clock, so you think that by including the word "proper" rather than
> omitting it, I would be intentionally trying to confuse him and cast the
> explanation "above his head". I simply disagree.

You and I could argue pointlessly about this for a week without you ever
asking him what he thinks it meant and finding out for sure. And because
you are mostly here to hear yourself speak and defend at all cost your
self-assessed status of being correct, you have absolutely no interest in
asking a question other than a pointless rhetorical one. And as a result,
you have completely inhibited your ability to effectively communicate with
other human beings, whether that’s actually important to you or not.

As I said, you likely live alone, and it’s probably better that way.

Good day.

> This is an example of a word that is suitable for the context, and not
> triggering for Ed (although the word "proper" is one of the main triggers
> for another crackpot here, along with "falsified", "inertial", "Pythagoras", etc.).
>
> More importantly, as I predicted, for the fifth time you have refused to
> actually address anything in the actual explanation that you denigrated.
> And you've failed to address all the falsifications of your claims, e.g.,
> you say I never ask if people understand what I've said or if anything
> I've said is unclear, and I point out that I *incessantly* ask people
> that very thing, in nearly every message. And so on. Your complaints
> against me are completely baseless.
>

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

On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 1:41:38 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> My belief is that if you asked Ed what he thinks “elapsed proper time”
> >> means, without cuing him with an answer you’re hoping for, he’d come
> >> nowhere close.
> >
> > That's insane. The [putative] context was a sentence in an explanation referring
> > to the elapsed time showing on a clock as "the elapsed proper time of the
> > clock", and your claim is that Ed would misunderstand this, i.e., he
> > would think it means something other than the elapsed time showing on the
> > clock, so you think that by including the word "proper" rather than
> > omitting it, I would be intentionally trying to confuse him and cast the
> > explanation "above his head". I simply disagree.
>
> You and I could argue pointlessly about this for a week...

It isn't much of an "argument". What you're saying simply makes no sense. First, the phrase "proper time" never even appeared in the explanation that triggered your accusation, so it's irrelevant, and second, you know perfectly well that referring to the elapsed proper time on a clock would be understood by Ed as the elapsed time shown on the clock (denial of this is not Ed's particular mania, as it is of some others here, since Ed is not a t'=t person), and third, in nearly every one of my messages I ask him if he understands what I said, and if not, could he point out what part he doesn't understand. Naturally, his response to such questions is always the same: "I understand that what you said is NONSENSE". Others will respond with "What I don't understand is [repeat original question verbatim]", without even mentioning anything about the explanation. Fourth, I have actually, in the past, given Ed explanations of proper time as distinct from coordinate time in terms that could be understood by any grade school kid, and he simply dismisses it unheard, since it smacks of mathematics. Fifth... well, suffice it to say there is zero validity in your complaint, from any point of view.

Like you, Ed doesn't even read most of the message, he just scans for anything that does not agree with his pre-conceived notions (e.g., something that doesn't pre-suppose an "oscillating photon"), and as soon as he sees something, he stops reading and declares it all to be nonsense (because "oscillating photons" are REALITY). You do exactly the same thing. It isn't that the explanations are "above your heads", it's that you refuse to even entertain anything that differs from your cherished pre-conceived beliefs. And when I ask you repeatedly to actually address the content that you were supposedly criticizing, there are crickets. Lastly, unlike Ed, you resort to disgraceful ad hominem.

On September 1, tjrob137 wrote:
>> So, let's imagine a double slit experiment, with a detector at each slit.
>> The detector clicks each time a photon passes.
>
> This is simply not possible. In interacting with the detector to make it
> click, the photon is destroyed, so it cannot propagate to the screen to
> contribute to the pattern there.

>> Next, we repeat the experiment, except this time both detectors are
>> powered off. No clicks.
>> I don't know if anyone has performed this experiment,
>
> Nobody has, because it is impossible.

Why is it, this double slit experiment can be performed with electrons,
but not photons? Both governed by the same quantum theory; one
ring to rule them all, one ring to find them...

They differ only in their quantum numbers. Otherwise, they're both
"excitations of the field" (whatever that means). So, in principle, one
should be able to do parallel experiments, substituting one for the other.
Why not?

--
Rich

On 9/7/21 7:46 PM, RichD wrote:
> On September 1, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> So, let's imagine a double slit experiment, with a detector at each slit.
>>> The detector clicks each time a photon passes.
>>
>> This is simply not possible. In interacting with the detector to make it
>> click, the photon is destroyed, so it cannot propagate to the screen to
>> contribute to the pattern there.
>
>>> Next, we repeat the experiment, except this time both detectors are
>>> powered off. No clicks.
>>> I don't know if anyone has performed this experiment,
>>
>> Nobody has, because it is impossible.
>
> Why is it, this double slit experiment can be performed with electrons,
> but not photons?

Because one can detect an electron without destroying it, just
perturbing it a bit. Detecting a photon necessarily destroys it.

> Both governed by the same quantum theory;

Not really. QED describes both photons and electrons, but they behave
quite differently.

Tom Roberts