Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-4, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:11:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 6:17:21 AM UTC-4, Rique Pazo wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s neither. False dichotomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no physical interaction that alters an intrinsic property (as
>>>>>> you are presuming length to be) of the meter stick. On the other hand,
>>>>>> it is not an illusion.
>>>>> so true, so true. I like my *Divergent_Matter*. For instance the gravity
>>>>> tensor in that equation is not a fictitious "gravity", but the directly
>>>>> implied matter diverging. The *matter_diverging_tensor*. Einstein was
>>>>> good, but not good enough.
>>>>
>>>> To bodkin:
>>>> You can be obtuse if you want. It's amusing. And as far as your
>>>> "operational definition of length" is concerned, it is rubbish. What you
>>>> have defined is not length, but displacement.
>>> No sir. Displacement is the difference in positions of the SAME point on a
>>> body over a SPAN of time.
>>> Length is operationally defined as the difference between locations of two
>>> different extremal points on a body, where the locations are taken at the
>>> SAME time.
>>>
>>> This is basic freshman physics. If you do not understand basic terms
>>> understood by a freshman physics student, then you are far more of an
>>> outsider than what Einstein ever was. In fact, if you do not understand the
>>> meanings of these terms, then you have some brushing up to do on the basics
>>> before you try to take on more advanced topics like relativity.
>>>> Even a cursory internet search will reveal that distance (or length) is
>>>> not the same thing as displacement. Your argument is based on a false
>>>> premise. Worthless. Typical deflection, however. Either the length
>>>> physically contracts (nope, never) or it is an illusion,
>>> As I said, this is a false dichotomy, and it’s driven by your insistence
>>> that there is an intrinsic property of length (which is what you measure at
>>> rest) and anything else is an illusion. That’s simply false. Length can
>>> certainly be measured for a non-stationary body, and the operational
>>> definition of length supports that. Like velocity, though, there is no
>>> intrinsic, frame-independent value.
>>>> because we are fooled by the inappropriate WYSIWYG paradigm, which is
>>>> only valid for Newtonian velocities. In relativistic situations, the
>>>> procedure is the dot product. And this thread is about Euclidean
>>>> relativity, in which both the dot and cross-product behave as we expect them to,
>>> You mean as YOU expect them to. Dot and cross products are perfectly well
>>> defined in non-Euclidean formalisms, even if you are neither trained in
>>> them or comfortable with them. The world, or mathematics for that matter,
>>> does not need to conform to wha you are comfortable with.
>>>> not Minkowski's, where not even the Pythagorean identity holds.
>>> Nor should the Pythagorean theorem hold. The Pythagorean theorem holds only
>>> in Euclidean spaces and in fact in zero-curvature Euclidean planes. There
>>> should not be the expectation that the Pythagorean theorem holds outside
>>> its declared domain.
>>>> This tells us that no matter how perfect our measurement grid, the
>>>> geometry only allows us to measure cosine projections of distance, i.e.
>>>> displacements. And when we do the experiments carefully, that's exactly
>>>> what we find. We can measure 100% of what the geometry says is the real
>>>> projection. Length contraction is a farce. A simple-minded, FALSE
>>>> explanation for the "failure" of measurement to record 100% of distance
>>>> between the two endpoints.
>>> No, there’s no failure. There’s no gap. The operational definition of
>>> length has been held to. It just yields a different value for an object
>>> that’s moving than when the object is stationary. Likewise, when you
>>> measure kinetic energy, you will measure a different value for different
>>> reference frames, and this tells you that kinetic energy is not an
>>> intrinsic property of the object, and neither is length.
>>>> It is not the contraction of the length of the relatively moving object.
>>>> It is the inability of measurement to record imaginary projections. This
>>>> is not Newtonian physics. To make assertions about relativistic scenarios
>>>> using Newtonian logic is about as valid as judging Euclidean geometry
>>>> using the rules of Minkowski geometry.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>> To bodkin:
>> I do not accept your pronouncements. And if you want to cling to
>> freshman physics, you are wasting my time.
>
> Upon further reading, I find more misrepresentations in every paragraph.
> You are misguided if you think that distance is not invariant.

I’m sorry, but distance as is operationally defined is EXPERIMENTALLY
demonstrated to be frame-dependent. There just isn’t much room for you to
assume that it is invariant if such a statement is inconsistent with
experimental measurements.

So I’ll just put it to you simply. It’s your task to measure the length of
a moving plane. Define a procedure that does not require changing it to be
not moving by which you can perform that measurement. Then it will be
simple to see if the procedure yields invariant results.

Now, it may be that you tell me that length is invariant but that it’s not
measurable for a moving object. In that case, you have an untestable
scientific proposition, and that in itself is unscientific.

> It is displacement that varies with relative velocity. Distance is
> invariant in magnitude, but varies in phase angle with relative velocity.
> Pathetic amateurs are married to the proposition that the cosine
> projection of distance is all that there is. Then they resort to
> pretzelogic to rationalize why it is different for every observer moving
> at a different speed. Distance only changes phase angle, not magnitude.
> This is an intrinsic property, unlike kinetic energy or the displacement projection.
>

And just HOW DO YOU KNOW (other than blind faith or by fiat) which
properties are invariant and intrinsic and which ones are not?

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

On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 15:50:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> No, that’s not quite right. What the scientific method says is that the
> ONLY way to assert what is truth is by comparison with experiment.

And thus your scientific method is worthless - according to
itself.

On Friday, 22 October 2021 at 15:53:47 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> I’m sorry, but distance as is operationally defined is EXPERIMENTALLY
> demonstrated to be frame-dependent.

I'm sorry, but since I've operationally defined "an idiot"
as any person with the nick starting with "O" - you're
EXPERIMENTALLY demonstrated to be an idiot (as
operationally defined).
There just isn’t much room for you to assume that you
are not.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:19:23 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:14:56 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Einstein's rebuttal: [Varićak] unjustifiably stated a difference of
>>> Lorentz's view and that
>>> of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction
>>> really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so
>>> far as it doesn't exist for
>>> a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be
>>> demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.
>> Right, and to understand Einstein's comment to Varićak it is important
>> to realize that the word "observer" is used in casual discussions of
>> special relativity only as sloppy shorthand for a specific system of
>> inertia-based coordinates. Thus, speaking more rigorously, Einstein is
>> pointing out that the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium (meaning
>> the spatial distance between the ends at equal values of the time
>> coordinate) has its normal rest length L in terms of the inertia-based
>> coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length
>> L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is
>> moving with speed v. Both of these are objectively correct statements
>> about what really exists, and they are not contradictory.
>>
>>> Einstein... acknowledges that the perception of length contraction is
>>> different in the two frames.
>>
>> Be careful. He is merely pointing out that the rod has different spatial
>> lengths in terms of two different systems of time and space coordinates.
>> He could have gone on to note that the relation is reciprocal, i.e.,
>> given two rods on the x axis, each one is spatially contracted in terms
>> of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest.
>> Likewise, each of two relatively moving clocks runs slow in terms of the
>> inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest. There are all
>> perfectly objective statements of verifiable fact. There are no
>> alternate realities or contradictions here at all. The key is to
>> understand how inertia-based coordinate systems are related to each
>> other (and why they are related that way).
>>
>>> While there can be an arbitrary number of different measurements, there is only one,
>>> common target of observation.
>>
>> Exactly. There is just a single objective set of phenomena, and we can
>> describe the phenomena in terms of any system of coordinates we like.
>> There is a special class of coordinate systems, called inertia-based or
>> inertial coordinates, in terms of which the equations of physics all
>> take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form. That's the principle
>> of relativity. As shorthand, unless we specify otherwise, we usually
>> refer to such coordinate systems.
>>
>>> I asked ... point blank what happens to the moving meter stick.
>>
>> You have your tenses mixed up. If a rod is moving inertially, then
>> nothing is "happening" to it, other than motion in terms of any
>> specified system of reference. Maybe you meant to ask something like
>> "What happens to a solid rod when it is subjected to a force that causes
>> it to accelerate? Does it contract?" That's really just re-asking
>> Varićak's question. As I mentioned before, this is an active
>> transformation, i.e., a single rod in two different states of motion
>> described in terms of a single system S of inertial coordinates. Yes,
>> the spatial length of the rod is reduced (in terms of S) when it is
>> gently accelerated from rest to some speed v and allowed to reach
>> equilibrium again. Note that this is conceptually different from talking
>> about the spatial length of a rod in a single state of motion, described
>> in terms of two different systems of inertial coordinates (passive
>> transformation). We choose Lorentz transformations between they make the
>> passive transformations match the active transformations, consistent
>> with the principle of relativity.
>>
>>> If the effect [length contraction] is physical, the principle of
>>> relativity results in a contradiction.
>>
>> Not at all. Length contraction is certainly "physical"... in fact,
>> already in the 1880's it was known that the equi-potential surfaces of a
>> moving charge contract in the direction of motion by the factor
>> sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This follows directly from Maxwell's equations. There
>> is no controversy (among competent physicists) about whether length
>> contraction and time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity are
>> "physical". They are all objective verifiable facts... and they do *not*
>> entail any multiple realities or subjectivist silliness. Those are just
>> misconceptions that come from many dreadful popularizations of special relativity.
>
> Typical denial by a cultist. I don't care about acceleration. Neither
> does the Lorentz Transform. The effects of relativity are the result
> of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.
>
> "... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest
> length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at
> rest, but it has the spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of
> inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."
>
> What doubletalk. The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion.

So you are saying that it is impossible to measure the length of an object
not at rest?

> The shorter length is a geometric projection from a rotated vector. It is
> merely the displacement between the endpoints, which depends on relative
> velocity and the complex rotation it is associated with. You simply
> cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0.

So you ARE saying that. Really??

> And then you attribute the contracted length to the motion of the
> object's coordinate system. But relativity says it has exactly the same
> contracted length when it is NOT moving, and it is the observer who is.
>
> I was going to address each point, but I see no purpose. You have offered
> the same regurgitated dogma I've heard before. It is no more rational
> because you wrote it than it was the first time I read it. I would say we
> can agree to disagree, but cultists never concede anything. That's what
> brainwashing does. You are so convinced that only the approved version of
> relativity can possibly be correct, you simply reject any alternative out
> of hand. If my proposition is false, it will inevitably lead to a
> contradiction. If you're correct, show me that contradiction. What are
> you afraid of? That you will have to admit you couldn't find one? Instead
> you repeat the nonsense taught by mainstream physics, expecting the
> gullible to swallow it. Not gonna happen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> The effects of relativity are the result of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.

The point of my comment was that your tenses were mixed when you asked what is "happening" to a solid rod when it is "moving" (uniformly, in equilibrium). It isn't changing it's intrinsic state when in inertial motion, so nothing intrinsic is "happening" to it. It is simply moving in terms of the specified coordinates. It's spatial length in terms of those coordinates is not changing. So I surmised that perhaps what you were trying to ask is just a repeat of the original question, i.e., is the rod's spatial length in terms of these coordinates actually less than its spatial length in terms of inertial coordinates in which it is at rest, and the answer (again) is yes. You could also have been meaning to ask if a rod physically changes when its state of motion changes from being at rest in one frame to being at rest in another frame, and the answer (again) is yes. If neither of these is your question, then could you clarify what you are asking?

> "... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest length L in terms
> of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length
> L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."
>
> The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion.

It's crucial to speak clearly and with precision: The object has a specific spatial length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, and it has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinate system in which it is moving (along its length) at the speed v. Neither of these is an illusion. They are both objectively verifiable facts.

> You simply cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0.

That's not true at all. Conceptually we can construct a rectangular grid of standard rulers with standard clocks located at each node, and we can synchronize the clocks inertially, meaning we synchronize them in such a way that inertia is isotropic in terms of these measures of position and time. This is an inertia-based coordinate system. An object moving through this grid has the speed dx/dt in terms of the x,t coordinates of the grid and clocks, and its spatial length is the difference between the x coordinates of the ends of the object at equal values of the t coordinate. The object need not have 0 velocity relative to the grid. Space and time coordinate systems would not be very useful if, as you imagine, they only applied to stationary objects!

> And then you attribute the contracted length to the motion of the object's
> coordinate system.

That has no relation to anything I said. First, I explained that, already in the 1880's it was known that the equi-potential surfaces around a moving charge contract by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the direction of motion. Second, I described passive transformations versus active transformations. Yes, if an object in a single state of motion is described in terms of two different systems of coordinates, the object is (obviously) not undergoing any physical change, and the difference in descriptions is due to the difference in coordinate systems... which by itself is not physically significant.. The reason we attribute physical significance to Lorentz transformations is because they match the effects of active transformations, i.e., the descriptions of a solid object (at equilibrium, after modding out the time translation phase shifts, etc.) in two different states of motion in terms of a single coordinate system. This is obviously undergoing a physical change (e.g., the phase relations between the ends of the object change, even in Born rigid motion), but the configurations are congruent because the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant.

> Relativity says it has exactly the same contracted length when it is NOT moving, and
> it is the observer who is.

There's no absolute distinction between being moving or stationary, but yes, if you start with two solid rods, A and B, each of spatial length L and initially at rest in S, each of these rods has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of an inertial coordinate system S' moving at speed v in terms of S. Now, if you gently accelerate rod B until it is at rest in S', the spatial length of A in S is still L, and the spatial length of B in S' is now L, and the spatial lengths of A in terms of S' and of B in terms of S are both L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Do you disagree with any of this?

> You are so convinced that only the approved version of relativity can
> possibly be correct, you simply reject any alternative out of hand.

What "alternative" are you referring to? You've said special relativity is false and entails contradictions, but when I press you to identify any contradiction, you just run away. Phrases like "approved version" are just silly. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, which is the proposition that the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of systems of coordinates related by Lorentz transformations. You've agreed to this, so I don't know what "alternative" you are talking about, nor why you continue to insist that special relativity is false and/or entails contradictions. Can you clarify?

> If my proposition is false, it will inevitably lead to a contradiction.
> If you're correct, show me that contradiction.

What is your proposition? As far as I can see, your only relevant proposition is "special relativity is false", but then you contradict this by agreeing that inertia-based coordinate systems are indeed related by Lorentz transformations. So what "proposition" are you referring to? I'll be happy to critique your "proposition" if you can tell me clearly what it is. Are you just talking about speaking in terms of rapidity rather than velocity?

There wouldn't be any gravity...

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 3:29:40 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The effects of relativity are the result of relative velocity, which is constant, i.e. no acceleration.
> The point of my comment was that your tenses were mixed when you asked what is "happening" to a solid rod when it is "moving" (uniformly, in equilibrium). It isn't changing it's intrinsic state when in inertial motion, so nothing intrinsic is "happening" to it. It is simply moving in terms of the specified coordinates. It's spatial length in terms of those coordinates is not changing. So I surmised that perhaps what you were trying to ask is just a repeat of the original question, i.e., is the rod's spatial length in terms of these coordinates actually less than its spatial length in terms of inertial coordinates in which it is at rest, and the answer (again) is yes. You could also have been meaning to ask if a rod physically changes when its state of motion changes from being at rest in one frame to being at rest in another frame, and the answer (again) is yes. If neither of these is your question, then could you clarify what you are asking?
> > "... the spatial length of the rod at equilibrium ...has its normal rest length L in terms
> > of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, but it has the spatial length
> > L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of inertia-based coordinates in which it is moving ..."
> >
> > The object has a single length at rest. Everything else is an illusion.
> It's crucial to speak clearly and with precision: The object has a specific spatial length L in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which it is at rest, and it has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinate system in which it is moving (along its length) at the speed v. Neither of these is an illusion. They are both objectively verifiable facts.
> > You simply cannot measure distance unless your relative velocity is 0.
> That's not true at all. Conceptually we can construct a rectangular grid of standard rulers with standard clocks located at each node, and we can synchronize the clocks inertially, meaning we synchronize them in such a way that inertia is isotropic in terms of these measures of position and time. This is an inertia-based coordinate system. An object moving through this grid has the speed dx/dt in terms of the x,t coordinates of the grid and clocks, and its spatial length is the difference between the x coordinates of the ends of the object at equal values of the t coordinate. The object need not have 0 velocity relative to the grid. Space and time coordinate systems would not be very useful if, as you imagine, they only applied to stationary objects!
> > And then you attribute the contracted length to the motion of the object's
> > coordinate system.
> That has no relation to anything I said. First, I explained that, already in the 1880's it was known that the equi-potential surfaces around a moving charge contract by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the direction of motion. Second, I described passive transformations versus active transformations. Yes, if an object in a single state of motion is described in terms of two different systems of coordinates, the object is (obviously) not undergoing any physical change, and the difference in descriptions is due to the difference in coordinate systems... which by itself is not physically significant. The reason we attribute physical significance to Lorentz transformations is because they match the effects of active transformations, i.e., the descriptions of a solid object (at equilibrium, after modding out the time translation phase shifts, etc.) in two different states of motion in terms of a single coordinate system. This is obviously undergoing a physical change (e.g., the phase relations between the ends of the object change, even in Born rigid motion), but the configurations are congruent because the laws of physics are locally Lorentz invariant.
>
> > Relativity says it has exactly the same contracted length when it is NOT moving, and
> > it is the observer who is.
> There's no absolute distinction between being moving or stationary, but yes, if you start with two solid rods, A and B, each of spatial length L and initially at rest in S, each of these rods has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of an inertial coordinate system S' moving at speed v in terms of S. Now, if you gently accelerate rod B until it is at rest in S', the spatial length of A in S is still L, and the spatial length of B in S' is now L, and the spatial lengths of A in terms of S' and of B in terms of S are both L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Do you disagree with any of this?
> > You are so convinced that only the approved version of relativity can
> > possibly be correct, you simply reject any alternative out of hand.
> What "alternative" are you referring to? You've said special relativity is false and entails contradictions, but when I press you to identify any contradiction, you just run away. Phrases like "approved version" are just silly. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, which is the proposition that the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of systems of coordinates related by Lorentz transformations. You've agreed to this, so I don't know what "alternative" you are talking about, nor why you continue to insist that special relativity is false and/or entails contradictions. Can you clarify?
> > If my proposition is false, it will inevitably lead to a contradiction.
> > If you're correct, show me that contradiction.
> What is your proposition? As far as I can see, your only relevant proposition is "special relativity is false", but then you contradict this by agreeing that inertia-based coordinate systems are indeed related by Lorentz transformations. So what "proposition" are you referring to? I'll be happy to critique your "proposition" if you can tell me clearly what it is. Are you just talking about speaking in terms of rapidity rather than velocity?

Every time you post, you add more misinformation. I can't keep up. And the default editor makes it awkward to address a specific comment if more than 1 has stacked up. That's how you cultists work. Keep moving the goalposts so you can always claim to be winning. Since you will disregard whatever I have to say anyway, I will be brief and selective in my reply. Let's start with your false assertion that I said special relativity is false. What I said was it is based on false premises. Logically, that means any argument based on a false assumption cannot prove anything. All conditionals that start with a false premise are true. However, the fact that the conditional is true implies nothing about the conclusion. It could be true or false. The argument is worthless.
You play games with semantics. I asked what happens to the moving meter stick. Instead of just answering the question, you create a strawman about verb tense. Then you claim both "nothing intrinsic is 'happening' to it" and " it has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based coordinate system in which it is moving". The rest of the physics community calls that length contraction, but you have your own definitions. Then you repeat the lie that length is the interval between the endpoints. I googled "displacement vs. distance" Only 175,000,000 hits. Didn't have time to read them all, but I'm sure that none of them asserted that they were the same. Here's the first clip: "Distance is a scalar quantity that refers to 'how much ground an object has covered' during its motion. Displacement is a vector quantity that refers to 'how far out of place an object is'; it is the object's overall change in position." Typically, displacement is the cosine projection of the distance. This definition is related to a path, but the concept applies to measurement as well. The rest length of an object is INVARIANT, regardless of its velocity. What changes is the phase angle, as specified by relative velocity, v = c sin(phase). When the phase angle is not 0, the cosine of the phase angle is not 1. A measurement will only measure the cosine projection, at ANY relative velocity. And that is a displacement - the fraction of the length which is parallel to the vector between the endpoints. Displacement depends on the phase angle, hence it depends on the relative velocity. But since all the experimental evidence supports a measurement which is reduced by the cosine of the phase angle, this can only be true if the distance that projects the cosine fraction is itself constant wrt velocity, an invariant. Your argument is based on a foolish definition of length, an imprecise term. Since the definition is not correct, neither is your argument.
Then you make a mountain out of a molehill with your prattling about active vs passive transformations. Special relativity does not make that distinction, as you point out, and that's a consequence of the Lorentz Transform, the guts of special relativity.
And in case you can't read, the alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition. No point in repeating several lengthy posts which you argue against, but apparently can't recognize as an alternative theory. You need to improve your reading comprehension. You read with the attitude "if it doesn't conform to dogma, it must be wrong". Then you trot out the distorted rules of Minkowski geometry to discredit Euclidean geometry. Fraud. It's the dogma which is wrong. Length is ambiguous and distance is not displacement.
By the way, I am not interested in freshman physics because I got an A in that course over 20 years ago. I've moved on to a more sophisticated approach in more than 4 dimensions. Why don't you leave the freshman stuff to the newbies?

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then you repeat the lie that length is the interval between the
> endpoints. I googled "displacement vs. distance" Only 175,000,000 hits.
> Didn't have time to read them all, but I'm sure that none of them
> asserted that they were the same. Here's the first clip: "Distance is a
> scalar quantity that refers to 'how much ground an object has covered'
> during its motion. Displacement is a vector quantity that refers to 'how
> far out of place an object is'; it is the object's overall change in
> position." Typically, displacement is the cosine projection of the distance.

Oh good grief. So you really have lost touch with basic terminology.

> By the way, I am not interested in freshman physics because I got an A in
> that course over 20 years ago.

And apparently forgotten most of it.

Sorry, but your cards are shown, and you are a rank imposter.

> I've moved on to a more sophisticated approach in more than 4 dimensions.
> Why don't you leave the freshman stuff to the newbies?
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 3:57:18 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

The problem with Joe is that unless Trump runs the only away that he will get reelected is if he starts a war with China and Trump will certainly do it if he is elected but unfortunately we would lose since the USA is certainly about to go bankrupt with 30 trillion dollar debt, inflation, corrupts officials, corporate and government administrators that are essential doing nothing except stealing your money using the stock market and the federal reverse and their fat pay checks. With the media stoking the flame and cashing in on the free for all. When we did the stimulus in the 30's during the depression cars and freeways were new but now they are an old decrepit model that we need to be going away from not to. Maybe you should ask physicists what they are doing or why aren't they doing anything beside creating paper. Maybe you could cut their spending like NASA for instants and LIGO, particle physics. It's all just garbage. All the scientific accomplishment used today came from the past. Absolutely nothing has come from modern theoretical physics. Computers come from circuit and engineering not from theoretical physics. Cars and airplanes came from thermodynamics which is 100 years old. The only thing theoretical physics has done is create hot air which may be the most damaging to global warming.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Let's start with your false assertion that I said special relativity is false.

Let's nail down our agreement here: We agree that special relativity is not false, it is correct. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, which signifies that inertia-based coordinate systems (in which the equations of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic form) are related by Lorentz transformations.

> I asked what happens to the moving meter stick.. you claim both "nothing intrinsic
> is 'happening' to it" and "it has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based
> coordinate system in which it is moving".

Right. Do you dispute this? This is elementary special relativity, and you have assured me that you agree that special relativity is correct.

> The rest of the physics community calls that length contraction, but you have your
> own definitions.

No, I call it length contraction too... although if you want to call it something else, I'm flexible.

> Then you repeat the lie that length is the interval between the endpoints..

That isn't a lie, it is a plain and elementary fact, even in Newtonian physics: The spatial length of an object -- in terms of any given system of coordinates -- is the simultaneous spatial distance between the ends of the object. Do you disagree with this? Are you aware of the distinction between proper length and length?

> Then you make a mountain out of a molehill with your prattling about active vs
> passive transformations. Special relativity does not make that distinction, as you
> point out...

I don't follow your objection. Are you saying you don't grasp the distinction between (1) an object in a single state of motion described in terms of two different coordinate systems, and (2) an object in two different states of motion described in terms of a single system of coordinates?

> The alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition [which you] apparently can't
> recognize as an alternative theory.

Well, help me recognize it. Look, special relativity consists of the fact that inertia-based coordinates (in which the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form) are related by x'=(x-vt)g, y'=y, z'=z, t'=(t-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2).

That's a single sentence, summing up the entirety of special relativity. Now, you are saying you have an "alternative" to this, and you say it gives exactly the same results, so it isn't really an "alternative" in the sense of being a different physical theory. At most you are just talking about one of the dozens of different mathematical ways of expressing the Lorentz transformation. Can you sum up your approach succinctly? For example, suppose you construct a solid rod, one meter in length, lying at rest on the x axis of an inertial coordinate system x,t, and then you set it (gently) in motion at speed v in the positive x direction. At any given time t, what is the difference between the x coordinates of the rod? How would your approach determine the answer to this question using "Euclidean eigenvector decomposition"?

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi wrote:

> And in case you can't read, the alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition.

OK

Let's see what you are capable of doing: calculate the eigenvalues of the Lorentz transform.
Once you did that, find the eigenvectors. Put up or shut up.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Let's start with your false assertion that I said special relativity is false.

Let's nail down our agreement here: We agree that special relativity is not false, it is correct. Special relativity consists of local Lorentz invariance, which signifies that inertia-based coordinate systems (in which all the equations of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic form) are related by Lorentz transformations.

> I asked what happens to the moving meter stick.. you claim both "nothing intrinsic
> is 'happening' to it" and "it has spatial length L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the inertia-based
> coordinate system in which it is moving".

Right. Do you dispute this? This is elementary special relativity, and you've assured me that you agree that special relativity is correct.

> The rest of the physics community calls that length contraction, but you have your
> own definitions.

No, I call it length contraction too... although if you want me to call it something else, I'm flexible.

> Then you repeat the lie that length is the interval between the endpoints..

That isn't a lie, it's a plain and elementary fact, even in Newtonian physics: The spatial length of an object -- in terms of any given system of coordinates -- is the simultaneous spatial distance between the ends of the object. Do you disagree with this? Are you aware of the distinction between proper length and length?

> Then you make a mountain out of a molehill with your prattling about active vs
> passive transformations. Special relativity does not make that distinction, as you
> point out...

I don't understand your objection. Are you saying you don't grasp the distinction between (1) an object in a single state of motion described in terms of two different coordinate systems, and (2) an object in two different states of motion described in terms of a single system of coordinates?

> The alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition [which you] apparently can't
> recognize as an alternative theory.

Help me recognize it. Look, special relativity consists of the fact that inertia-based coordinates (in which the laws of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form) are related by x'=(x-vt)g, y'=y, z'=z, t'=(t-vt)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). That's a single sentence, summing up the entirety of special relativity.

Now, you are saying you have an "alternative" to this, and you say it gives exactly the same results, so it isn't really an "alternative" in the sense of being a different physical theory. At most you are just talking about one of the dozens of different mathematical ways of expressing the Lorentz transformation. Can you sum up your approach succinctly? For example, suppose you construct a solid rod, one meter in length, lying at rest on the x axis of an inertial coordinate system x,t, and then you set it (gently) in motion at speed v in the positive x direction. At any given time t, what is the difference between the x coordinates of the ends of the rod? How would your approach determine the answer to this question using "Euclidean eigenvector decomposition"? I'm genuinely interested.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:25:28 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi wrote:
>
> > And in case you can't read, the alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition.
> OK
>
> Let's see what you are capable of doing: calculate the eigenvalues of the Lorentz transform.
> Once you did that, find the eigenvectors. Put up or shut up.

The eigenvalue of the Lorentz transformation is e± = 1, because geometric Lorentz transforms are:

x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t

for any application at Earth and surroundings.

Minkowski metric is mathematically false, as well as his idiotic spacetime. The same apply with the crappy GR metrics, any of them.

All of the shitty tensor based math is incorrect and useless for human purposes. If not, try with Beidou GNSS system and YOU tell
which theories the Chinese are applying, Dono the imbecile.

Demented Crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:25:28 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi wrote:
>>
>>> And in case you can't read, the alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition.
>> OK
>>
>> Let's see what you are capable of doing: calculate the eigenvalues of the Lorentz transform.
>> Once you did that, find the eigenvectors. Put up or shut up.
>
> The eigenvalue of the Lorentz transformation is e± = 1, because geometric Lorentz transforms are:

huh?

> x' = x - vt
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = t

huhuh?? "Lorentz transformation", not quite.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:27:26 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:25:28 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >
> > > And in case you can't read, the alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition.
> > OK
> >
> > Let's see what you are capable of doing: calculate the eigenvalues of the Lorentz transform.
> > Once you did that, find the eigenvectors. Put up or shut up.
> The eigenvalue of the Lorentz transformation is e± = 1, because geometric Lorentz transforms are:
>
> x' = x - vt
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = t
>

Thank you for furnishing further proof that you are a cretin. Way to go, Dick.
BTW, even for the Galilei transform that you put up, you are wrong.

On Saturday, 23 October 2021 at 03:09:55 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:27:26 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:25:28 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:29:24 PM UTC-7, crank Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > >
> > > > And in case you can't read, the alternative is Euclidean eigenvector decomposition.
> > > OK
> > >
> > > Let's see what you are capable of doing: calculate the eigenvalues of the Lorentz transform.
> > > Once you did that, find the eigenvectors. Put up or shut up.
> > The eigenvalue of the Lorentz transformation is e± = 1, because geometric Lorentz transforms are:
> >
> > x' = x - vt
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = t
> >
> Thank you for furnishing further proof that you are a cretin. Way to go, Dick.
> BTW, even for the Galilei transform that you put up, you are wrong.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:09:55 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:27:26 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:25:28 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > > Let's see what you are capable of doing: calculate the eigenvalues of the Lorentz transform.
> > > Once you did that, find the eigenvectors. Put up or shut up.
> > The eigenvalue of the Lorentz transformation is e± = 1, because geometric Lorentz transforms are:
> >
> > x' = x - vt
> > y' = y
> > z' = z
> > t' = t
> >
> Thank you for furnishing further proof that you are a cretin. Way to go, Dick.
> BTW, even for the Galilei transform that you put up, you are wrong.

IMBECILE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

I REPEAT A BREAKDOWN OF LORENTZ T. TO GALILEI T., DUE TO COMMON SENSE AND OUR REALITY:

*******************************************************************************************************************
The fucker wrote (1905 original german ADP, page 902):

"Aus dieser und aer vorhin gefundenen Relation folgt, daB sp (v) = 1 sein muB , so daB die gefundenen
Transformationsgleichungen ubergehen in:

τ = β . (t - v/V² . x),

ξ = β . (x - v.t),

η = y,

ζ = z,

wobei

β = 1/√(1 - (v/V)²),"

Now, after the EXACT QUOTE. some arrangements:

Wir denken uns nun den Raum sowohl vom ruhenden System K aus mittels des ruhenden MaBstabes als auch vom bewegten
System k mittels des mit ihm bewegten MaBstabes ausgemessen und so die Koordinaten x, y, z bez. ξ, η, ζ ermittelt.

So, systems K and k are synchronized at (x, y, z, t) = (ξ, η, ζ, τ) = (0,0,0,0), EXACTLY.

Depending on the separation speed “v” of both reference frames, time dilation in the origin of k is found by x = v.t:

τ = β . (t - v/V² . x) coordinate τ in k(0,0,0,τ)
τ = β . (1 - v²/V²) . t coordinate τ in k(0,0,0,τ)
τ = t/β coordinate τ in k(0,0,0,τ)

So, you can write Lorentz transform as:

τ = t/β,
ξ = β . (x - v.t),
η = y,
ζ = z,

with

β = 1/√(1 - (v/V)²),"

With an error lower than 9.80E-11 assuming β = 1 (at 4.2 Km/sec, the orbital velocity of GPS satellite), you have:

τ = t
ξ = x - v.t
η = y
ζ = z

which are the galilean transforms with which the fucker uaed at his point: "§ 3. Theorie der Koordinaten- und Beittransformation
von dem ruhenden auf ein relativ BU dieeem in glslclhfijrmiger Translationsbewegung beflndliches System." (original page 897).

"Setzen wir x’= x - v t, so ist klar, daB einem im System k ruhenden Punkte ein bestimmtes, von der Zeit unabhangiges
Wertsystem x’, y, z zukommt. Wir bestimmen zuerst τ als Funktion von x’, y, z und t. Zu diesem Zwecke haben wir
in Gleichungen auszudriicken, daf τ nichts anderes ist als der Inbegriff der Angaben von im System k ruhenden Uhren,
welche nach der im § 1 gegebenen Regel synchron gemacht worden sind."

*******************************************************************************************************

Now, laid some more eggs, taking care for not soiling yourself, reptilian lifeform.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:16:32 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:09:55 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 5:27:26 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 8:25:28 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > Let's see what you are capable of doing: calculate the eigenvalues of the Lorentz transform.
> > > > Once you did that, find the eigenvectors. Put up or shut up.
> > > The eigenvalue of the Lorentz transformation is e± = 1, because geometric Lorentz transforms are:
> > >
> > > x' = x - vt
> > > y' = y
> > > z' = z
> > > t' = t
> > >
> > Thank you for furnishing further proof that you are a cretin. Way to go, Dick.
> > BTW, even for the Galilei transform that you put up, you are wrong.
> IMBECILE
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>
> I REPEAT A BREAKDOWN OF LORENTZ T. TO GALILEI T., DUE TO COMMON SENSE AND OUR REALITY:
>
> *******************************************************************************************************************
> The fucker wrote (1905 original german ADP, page 902):
>
> "Aus dieser und aer vorhin gefundenen Relation folgt, daB sp (v) = 1 sein muB , so daB die gefundenen
> Transformationsgleichungen ubergehen in:
>
> τ = β . (t - v/V² . x),
>
> ξ = β . (x - v.t),
>
> η = y,
>
> ζ = z,
>
> wobei
>
> β = 1/√(1 - (v/V)²),"
>
> Now, after the EXACT QUOTE. some arrangements:
>
> Wir denken uns nun den Raum sowohl vom ruhenden System K aus mittels des ruhenden MaBstabes als auch vom bewegten
> System k mittels des mit ihm bewegten MaBstabes ausgemessen und so die Koordinaten x, y, z bez. ξ, η, ζ ermittelt.
>
> So, systems K and k are synchronized at (x, y, z, t) = (ξ, η, ζ, τ) = (0,0,0,0), EXACTLY.
>
> Depending on the separation speed “v” of both reference frames, time dilation in the origin of k is found by x = v.t:
>
> τ = β . (t - v/V² . x) coordinate τ in k(0,0,0,τ)
> τ = β . (1 - v²/V²) . t coordinate τ in k(0,0,0,τ)
> τ = t/β coordinate τ in k(0,0,0,τ)
>
> So, you can write Lorentz transform as:
>
> τ = t/β,
> ξ = β . (x - v.t),
> η = y,
> ζ = z,
>
> with
>
> β = 1/√(1 - (v/V)²),"
>
> With an error lower than 9.80E-11 assuming β = 1 (at 4.2 Km/sec, the orbital velocity of GPS satellite), you have:
>
> τ = t
> ξ = x - v.t
> η = y
> ζ = z
>
> which are the galilean transforms with which the fucker uaed at his point: "§ 3. Theorie der Koordinaten- und Beittransformation
> von dem ruhenden auf ein relativ BU dieeem in glslclhfijrmiger Translationsbewegung beflndliches System." (original page 897).
>
> "Setzen wir x’= x - v t, so ist klar, daB einem im System k ruhenden Punkte ein bestimmtes, von der Zeit unabhangiges
> Wertsystem x’, y, z zukommt. Wir bestimmen zuerst τ als Funktion von x’, y, z und t. Zu diesem Zwecke haben wir
> in Gleichungen auszudriicken, daf τ nichts anderes ist als der Inbegriff der Angaben von im System k ruhenden Uhren,
> welche nach der im § 1 gegebenen Regel synchron gemacht worden sind."
>
> *******************************************************************************************************
>
> Now, laid some more eggs, taking care for not soiling yourself, reptilian lifeform.

Seems that there is a question in here somewhere about the Lorentz matrix. The eigenvalues have not been shown in any of the other replies. Without eigenvalues, you can't identify their eigenvectors. So, for the kiddies, I will illustrate them both. For starters, there is agreement that the effects of relativistic velocity are confined to time and 1 space dimension, given the usual alignment of one dimension with the relative velocity vector. We can ignore the other two space directions, because the coordinates are invariant. Technically, the eigenvalue for them is 1, but they contain no relativistic information. So, like Einstein, we will use the 2x2 form of the transform. The procedure for finding eigenvalues is simple. Since an eigenvector does not change direction, the result of an eigenvector being projected through the matrix it came from is simple a copy of the input, scaled by the eigenvalue. Since scaling by an eigenvalue is the same as multiplying the target vector by a scaled copy of the identity matrix, we can subtract this value from both sides of the equation. Then, we can factor out the target vector, and are left with a composite matrix. The determinant of this composite must be 0 in order to satisfy the equation for arbitrary input vectors. The matrix becomes:
│(γ-λ) -βγ│
│-βγ (γ-λ)│
and its determinant is (γ-λ)²-(βγ)² = 0. This expands to γ²-2γλ+λ²-β²γ² = 0. This simplifies to λ²-2γλ+1 = 0, because γ²-β²γ² = γ²(1-β²) = sec²(θ)(1-sin²(θ)) = 1. The quadratic equation has two roots, the eigenvalues, λ = λ±√(γ²-1) = λ±√(β²γ²) = λ±βγ = cosh(w)±sinh(w) = e^w or 1/e^w. In Bondi's k-calculus, these are k and 1/k. To find the matching eigenvectors, we substitute each eigenvalue into the above matrix, and solve for the vector that projects to the 0 vector. λ only appears in the expression in parentheses. When λ = 1/e^w, (γ-λ) ½(e^w+1/e^w)-1/e^w = ½(e^w-1/e^w) = βγ, and when λ = e^w, (γ-λ) = ½(e^w+1/e^w)-e^w = -½(e^w-1/e^w) = -βγ. Substituting either term for the expression in parentheses, and it is apparent that both rows are scaled copies of the same row. By definition, the determinant is indeed 0. So, in the first case, λ = 1/e^w, and the matrix product is βγ*ct-βγ*r = 0, or ct-r = 0 and ct=r. In the second case, λ = e^w, and the product is -βγ*ct-βγ*r = 0, or ct+r = 0 and ct=-r. There you have it. Eigenvalue, 1/e^w, eigenvector, ct=r. Or, eigenvalue, e^w, eigenvector, ct=-r. These are the diagonals of the spacetime plane.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 6:29:41 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> The eigenvalues have not been shown in any of the other replies.

It is self-evident and trivial (in units with c=1) that the Lorentz transformation maps lightlines to lightlines, meaning the eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (in one space dimension, standard form) are (1,+-1), corresponding to the lightlines in the two directions (i.e., x=t and x=-t), and of course the corresponding eigenvalues are the Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-v)/(1-+v)]. This is high school stuff.

> and its determinant is (γ-λ)²-(βγ)² = 0. This expands to...

Well, there's no reason to expand it and solve the quadratic, because this equation immediately gives (γ-λ)²=(βγ)² and therefore
we have γ-λ = +-βγ and hence λ=γ(1-+β), which of course is the approaching and receding Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-β)/(1-+β)]. By the way, grown-ups note that β=v in units with c=1.

> There you have it. Eigenvalue, 1/e^w, eigenvector, ct=r. Or, eigenvalue, e^w, eigenvector, ct=-r.
> These are the diagonals of the spacetime plane.

Well, you're using "r" instead of "x", which is slightly weird, but yes, the intervals with invariant "direction" in the x,t plane (i.e., the eigenvectors) are the lightlines, t=x and t=-x. This is self-evident and trivial.

So, I ask again, what is your point? Remember, in your very first post you said "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." Okay, so like every high school student you now know the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation, but how does this support your claim that special relativity is "wrong"? And how do these elementary trivialities of special relativity constitute a "Euclidean relativity" "alternative" to special relativity? And why did you ignore and run away from the careful corrections of all your conceptual mistakes in my last message?

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 6:29:41 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>The quadratic equation has two roots, the eigenvalues, λ = λ±√(γ²-1) = λ±√(β²γ²) = λ±βγ

You just demonstrated that you are an idiot. Thank you.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:16:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I AM AN IMBECILE

Agreed

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:34:34 AM UTC-4, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 10:16:32 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I AM AN IMBECILE
>
> Agreed

To Townes:
It isn't grown-ups who insist on "note that β=v in units with c=1." It's anal retentives. Most people do not use units where c=1. Prove otherwise.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:01:30 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> It isn't grown-ups who insist on "note that β=v in units with c=1."

TO OTHERS IN THIS NEWSGROUP: Please note that Mr Capizzi, because of his inability to figure out how to manage his newsgroup reader, and lack of knowledge of Google groups, is not able to respond to any message other than the most recent one in the feed. In consideration of his disability, I'd like to suggest that everyone give Mr Capizzi the opportunity to respond to each substantive post before posting any miscellaneous messages on top of it.

> The eigenvalues have not been shown in any of the other replies.

It's self-evident and trivial (in units with c=1) that the Lorentz transformation maps lightlines to lightlines, meaning the eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (in one space dimension, standard form) are (1,+-1), corresponding to the lightlines in the two directions (i.e., x=t and x=-t), and of course the corresponding eigenvalues are the Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-v)/(1-+v)]. This is high school stuff.

> and its determinant is (γ-λ)²-(βγ)² = 0. This expands to...

Well, there is no reason to expand it and solve the quadratic, because this equation immediately gives (γ-λ)²=(βγ)² and therefore we have γ-λ = +-βγ and hence λ=γ(1-+β), which of course is the approaching and receding Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-β)/(1-+β)].

> There you have it. Eigenvalue, 1/e^w, eigenvector, ct=r. Or, eigenvalue, e^w, eigenvector, ct=-r.
> These are the diagonals of the spacetime plane.

Well, you are using "r" instead of "x", which is slightly weird, but yes, the intervals with invariant "direction" in the x,t plane (i.e., the eigenvectors) are the lightlines, t=x and t=-x. This is self-evident and trivial.

So, I ask again, what's your point? Remember, in your very first post you said "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." Okay, so like every high school student you now know the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation, but how does this support your claim that special relativity is "wrong"? And how do these elementary trivialities of special relativity constitute a "Euclidean relativity" "alternative" to special relativity? And why did you ignore and run away from the careful corrections of all your conceptual mistakes in my last message?

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 2:15:28 PM UTC-4, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 11:01:30 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It isn't grown-ups who insist on "note that β=v in units with c=1."
> TO OTHERS IN THIS NEWSGROUP: Please note that Mr Capizzi, because of his inability to figure out how to manage his newsgroup reader, and lack of knowledge of Google groups, is not able to respond to any message other than the most recent one in the feed. In consideration of his disability, I'd like to suggest that everyone give Mr Capizzi the opportunity to respond to each substantive post before posting any miscellaneous messages on top of it.
> > The eigenvalues have not been shown in any of the other replies.
> It's self-evident and trivial (in units with c=1) that the Lorentz transformation maps lightlines to lightlines, meaning the eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation (in one space dimension, standard form) are (1,+-1), corresponding to the lightlines in the two directions (i.e., x=t and x=-t), and of course the corresponding eigenvalues are the Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-v)/(1-+v)]. This is high school stuff.
> > and its determinant is (γ-λ)²-(βγ)² = 0.. This expands to...
> Well, there is no reason to expand it and solve the quadratic, because this equation immediately gives (γ-λ)²=(βγ)² and therefore we have γ-λ = +-βγ and hence λ=γ(1-+β), which of course is the approaching and receding Doppler factors sqrt[(1+-β)/(1-+β)].
> > There you have it. Eigenvalue, 1/e^w, eigenvector, ct=r. Or, eigenvalue, e^w, eigenvector, ct=-r.
> > These are the diagonals of the spacetime plane.
> Well, you are using "r" instead of "x", which is slightly weird, but yes, the intervals with invariant "direction" in the x,t plane (i.e., the eigenvectors) are the lightlines, t=x and t=-x. This is self-evident and trivial.
>
> So, I ask again, what's your point? Remember, in your very first post you said "But when I got the eigenvalues, of course, the next step is eigenvectors. And when I got them, I realized how wrong special relativity really is." Okay, so like every high school student you now know the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation, but how does this support your claim that special relativity is "wrong"? And how do these elementary trivialities of special relativity constitute a "Euclidean relativity" "alternative" to special relativity? And why did you ignore and run away from the careful corrections of all your conceptual mistakes in my last message?

I won't play your game. You deliberately misrepresented what I wrote so you can argue with your own strawman. What I said was that special relativity is based on false premises. Logically, that says nothing about special relativity itself, because an argument based on false premises is automatically true. It is irrelevant whether the conclusion itself is true or false. The only case in which an implication is false is when the premise is true AND the conclusion is false.

If you want to contribute something useful, you could either provide a link to usenet FAQs or just explain how to edit on this platform. I tried to selectively delete the extraneous comments so I could direct my reply to a single writer, but all I seem to be able to do is highlight the unwanted text.. I have copied all of the included material into my text editor program, but the procedure is too tedious. I would rather just post for posterity than argue with a bunch of scheisskopfs.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 12:22:43 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> I would rather just post for posterity than argue with a bunch of scheisskopfs.

Not only an imbecile but also a grandomaniac.