On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 1:13:00 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> I didn't say Taylor series.

I didn't say you said it was a Taylor series, or any kind of series, I only mentioned Fourier series to dispel your apparent mysticism about trigonometric functions. Look, it's elementary that the Lorentz transformation can be expressed formally as a hyperbolic rotation, and all of the trigonometric relations involving rapidity, etc., are trivial and well known, as explained in (for example) Poincare's 1906 paper, and every introductory text book.

> And shove your insults about my posting where the sun don't shine. You're lying,
> anyway. I can reply to any specific post in the middle of the queue, just like this one.

That's great... I only mentioned it because, once again, your previous message to me was actually posted as a reply to someone else's message. Was that intentional? Also, you don't seem to ever insert comments to individual statements within the quoted message, you just type at the end of the quoted message. That's why you responds just to the last few lines of the message, and essentially ignore 95% of the content of each message.

> You crackpot skeptics and your ad hominem attacks!

I haven't made any ad hominem attacks, I've just addressed the substantive facts, and occasionally noted the fact that your replies are mis-posted, making communication difficult. Again, the substance of my message was explaining the meaning of "length" in relativistic length contraction. In reply, you have not addressed the subject at all, and not comments on the clarification at all.

> I claim that ... the derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to the same time
> is Newtonian velocity.

The velocity of a particle is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt. Agreed?

> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.

Einstein already answered that in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (more kinetic energy) than when stationary.

> For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a result of relativistic mass.

No, the term relativistic mass just refers to the total energy of the object. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2. Is there anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear?

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 5:51:08 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip>

> I didn't say you said it was a Taylor series, or any kind of series, I only mentioned Fourier series to dispel your apparent mysticism about trigonometric functions. Look, it's elementary that the Lorentz transformation can be expressed formally as a hyperbolic rotation, and all of the trigonometric relations involving rapidity, etc., are trivial and well known, as explained in (for example) Poincare's 1906 paper, and every introductory text book.

<snip>

Series? Like this one?

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + ......... = - 1/12

Fact, mathematically proven and used in physics (Casimir effect, for instance).

So, what do we do? Do we believe BLINDLY in mathematics even when the results are IRRATIONAL?

Look what happened to physics because some idiots claimed that

Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.

is absolutely correct when applied to theory of gravitation as if having physical meaning.

It FORCES 3D space to bend in non-linear form under the presence of massive objects; it forces to ACCEPT that star light
bends its path by EXACTLY 1.75" when passing by the Sun's surface; it forces to ACCEPT an explanation for Mercury's perihelion
advance of EXACTLY 43"/century, which is held 100 years after; it forces to ACCEPT different forms of time dilation under massive
objects; it forces to ACCEPT the existence of gravitational waves; the few exact analytical solutions for such equation in vacuum,
except a single point-like mass in the entire universe, FORCES to accept the existence of black holes; etc; etc.

I'd try to restrain applications of advanced mathematics to physical problems, specially the developments in the last 100 years
because, as that simple example of the result of one of many series available out there shows, MATHEMATICS is the backyard
where witty and tricky persons PLAY MIND GAMES. The problem is that these MIND GAMES have been accepted as REAL, and
poisoned physics for more than 100 years.

If it weren't for Engineering, this world would be a much bigger dumping ground than actually is.

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 2:54:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz barked:
>bark, bark,bark<

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 1:13:00 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> I didn't say Taylor series.

I didn't say you said it was a Taylor series, or any kind of series, I mentioned Fourier series only to dispel your apparent mysticism about trigonometric functions. Look, it's elementary that the Lorentz transformation can be expressed formally as a hyperbolic rotation, and all of the trigonometric relations involving rapidity, etc., are trivial and well known, as explained in (for example) Poincare's 1906 paper, and every introductory text book since then.

> And shove your insults about my posting where the sun don't shine. You're lying,
> anyway. I can reply to any specific post in the middle of the queue, just like this one.

That is good... I only mentioned it because, once again, your previous message to me was actually posted as a reply to someone else's message. Also, you don't seem to ever insert comments to individual statements within the quoted message, you just type at the end of the quoted message. That (I surmise) is why you respond just to the last few lines of a message, and essentially ignore 95% of the content of each message.

> You crackpot skeptics and your ad hominem attacks!

I haven't made any ad hominem attacks, I've just addressed the substantive facts, and occasionally noted the fact that your replies are often mis-posted, making communication difficult. Again, the substance of my message was explaining the meaning of "length" in relativistic length contraction... which was the subject of this sub-thread... and (as usual) you entirely ignored it.

> I claim that ... the derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to the same time
> is Newtonian velocity.

The velocity of a particle is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt. Do you dispute this?

> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.

Einstein already answered that in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when stationary.

> For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a result of relativistic mass.

No, it has always been recognized that the term "relativistic mass" (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2. Is there anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear?

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:05:44 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip arrogant comments without substance>

> > I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.

> Einstein already answered that in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy,
> including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when
> stationary.

WRONG!. Einstein didn't prove that in his entire life. And he tried and failed six times, until he gave up in 1942.

But, assuming that Eₒ = mₒ.c², the elefant in the room is ignored.

If we are dealing with a CHARGED PARTICLE with charge e and radius R, the energy stored in its electric field is:

Eₑ = e²/(8πεₒR) = 51 MeV (assuming a radius of 10^-18 m), while his "rest mass" is

Eₒ = mₒ.c² = 0.511 MeV

Eₑ/Eₒ ≈ 1,000

What's the problem with relativists and charged particles?. Are they afraid of something for which they don't have an explanation?

I quote myself from this thread:
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/wzXD6jt2aGc/m/nwlIFW-uBwAJ

"The concept of physical radius of the electron, estimated as 10^-18 mt since the days of J.J.Thomson was ELIMINATED. Instead, something that NIST calls classic electron radius was introduced with a value 1,000 times higher, and is considered as the only
acceptable radius of electric influence of an electron. The concept of physical radius of any other particle, like protons and neutrons
were ERASED from NIST database. Fact-check it."

> > For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a result of relativistic mass.
> No, it has always been recognized that the term "relativistic mass" (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2. Is there anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear?

WRONG!. Not the total energy of an object. You forgot electrical field energy, as I wrote above.

So, your concept has to be updated to state that, for a charged particle of mass mₒ, charge e and radius R is:

Eₒ = mₒ.c² + e²/(8πεₒR)

And I mean for ANY CHARGED PARTICLE.

Now, if I produce an inertial motion at speed v for such energy Eₒ, all of your concepts about relativity and Lorentz boosts breakdown.

In short, special relativity (any of them) is useless in the real physical world.

Now, deal with it. If you have any problem with this, read Dirac+Feynman+re-normalization+complains.

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 01:05:44 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:

> The velocity of a particle is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt. Do you dispute this?

Your idiot gurus have refuted this common sense prejudice, with their
"inflation" nonsense. Do you dispute this?

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 7:28:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz repeated some of his old cretinisms:
>snip regurgitated cretinisms<

You posted these imbecilities several times before, this is getting boring, please come up with some new cretinisms. For our entertainment.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
>>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
>>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
>>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
>>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
>>>>>> know what you don't know.
>>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
>>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
>>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
>>>
>>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
>>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
>>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
>>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
>> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
>> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
>> centuries.
>>
>> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
>> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
>> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
>> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
>>
>> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
>> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
>> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
>> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
>> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
>> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
>> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
>> background.)
>>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
>>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
>>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
>>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
>>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
>>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
>>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
>>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
>>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
>>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
>>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
>>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
>>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> What rubbish. I refer to google, not because of my lack of background,
> but because of yours. I am not an authority. Nobody, especially here,
> respects my opinion. Wikipedia isn't formally an authority, either, but
> it is constantly refining its accuracy, and with millions of hits, there
> are multiple independent choices. I tell you what. Take all your
> blathering about personalities and motives, and shove them back where you
> pulled them out of.
>

What makes you think I’m lacking background?
Would it help you if we looked at what these words mean as taught in
freshman physics books? I have several of those. That way, we wouldn’t have
to rely on Google or Wikipedia. Or does the idea of physics as taught in
physics textbooks just not interest you?

And you’re absolutely right, you’re not an authority. Physicists are
authorities on physics. Do you dispute this?

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

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
>>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
>>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
>>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
>>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
>>>>>> know what you don't know.
>>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
>>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
>>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
>>>
>>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
>>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
>>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
>>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
>> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
>> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
>> centuries.
>>
>> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
>> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
>> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
>> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
>>
>> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
>> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
>> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
>> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
>> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
>> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
>> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
>> background.)
>>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
>>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
>>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
>>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
>>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
>>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
>>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
>>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
>>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
>>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
>>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
>>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
>>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the displacement between them.

No.

> It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
> displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
> like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
> ALL specify two different definitions.

Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
thing as length.

Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
physics textbooks:

Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
from its starting point.”

Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
not the actual motion.”

Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
moving object along the path of its motion.”

So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
space over an interval of time.

Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
path is made.

Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.

> Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
> some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
>
> https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
>
> The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
> you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
> back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
> relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
> that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
> Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
> distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
> as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
> whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
> qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar.
> You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
> words to prove your point.
>
> You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.

Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.

This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.

> While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
> there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
> derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
> the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
> with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
> arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
> for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
> relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
> the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the Newtonian momentum.
>
> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
> particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
> result of relativistic mass.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 5:51:08 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I didn't say you said it was a Taylor series, or any kind of series, I
>> only mentioned Fourier series to dispel your apparent mysticism about
>> trigonometric functions. Look, it's elementary that the Lorentz
>> transformation can be expressed formally as a hyperbolic rotation, and
>> all of the trigonometric relations involving rapidity, etc., are trivial
>> and well known, as explained in (for example) Poincare's 1906 paper, and
>> every introductory text book.
>
> <snip>
>
> Series? Like this one?
>
> 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + ......... = - 1/12

This is called the Rumanujan summation, which evaluates series on the basis
of partial sums. It is a way of evaluating some series that DO NOT CONVERGE
in the usual sense. Now, I suppose that an engineer would say that any
series sum that does not converge simply cannot be evaluated, period, end
of story, because that’s what engineers believe to be true. However, this
leads to the interesting question whether engineers or mathematicians are
better at mathematics. So what does this self-important engineer have to
say about that?

>
> Fact, mathematically proven and used in physics (Casimir effect, for instance).
>
> So, what do we do? Do we believe BLINDLY in mathematics even when the
> results are IRRATIONAL?

I suppose that depends on what is considered “IRRATIONAL”. Is anything that
engineers believe to be taken as the scope of rational?

>
> Look what happened to physics because some idiots claimed that
>
> Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
>
> is absolutely correct when applied to theory of gravitation as if having physical meaning.
>
> It FORCES 3D space to bend in non-linear form under the presence of
> massive objects; it forces to ACCEPT that star light
> bends its path by EXACTLY 1.75" when passing by the Sun's surface; it
> forces to ACCEPT an explanation for Mercury's perihelion
> advance of EXACTLY 43"/century, which is held 100 years after; it forces
> to ACCEPT different forms of time dilation under massive
> objects; it forces to ACCEPT the existence of gravitational waves; the
> few exact analytical solutions for such equation in vacuum,
> except a single point-like mass in the entire universe, FORCES to accept
> the existence of black holes; etc; etc.

Well, no, and here the engineer reveals that he has forgotten how science
works. A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that. However, if
observations and experimental measurements confirm the claims of the
theory, then that’s the point where scientists become convinced that a
theory is likely accurate. I suppose an engineer might look at a theory and
splutter, “But you’ve PROVEN nothing, and so I do not have to accept it.
And no, I’m not going to look at experimental measurements because those
measurements are done outside the scope and utility of everyday
applications that I work with as an engineer, and so they cannot possibly
matter.” That spluttering, of course, is the point where an engineer would
lose his grip on how science works. Some engineers — you for example — are
proud of that skid into irrelevancies.

>
> I'd try to restrain applications of advanced mathematics to physical
> problems, specially the developments in the last 100 years
> because, as that simple example of the result of one of many series
> available out there shows, MATHEMATICS is the backyard
> where witty and tricky persons PLAY MIND GAMES. The problem is that these
> MIND GAMES have been accepted as REAL, and
> poisoned physics for more than 100 years.
>
> If it weren't for Engineering, this world would be a much bigger dumping
> ground than actually is.
>
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:05:44 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:
>
> <snip arrogant comments without substance>
>
>>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.
>
>> Einstein already answered that in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on
>> its energy content. This includes all forms of energy,
>> including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when
>> moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when
>> stationary.
>
> WRONG!. Einstein didn't prove that in his entire life. And he tried and
> failed six times, until he gave up in 1942.
>
> But, assuming that Eₒ = mₒ.c², the elefant in the room is ignored.
>
> If we are dealing with a CHARGED PARTICLE with charge e and radius R, the
> energy stored in its electric field is:
>
> Eₑ = e²/(8πεₒR) = 51 MeV (assuming a radius of 10^-18 m), while his "rest mass" is

Ah, see, there’s that little problem right there, assuming a radius of
10^-18 m. Why on earth would you make that assumption, especially if it
directly leads to a rest mass that is in direct conflict with a measured
rest mass? This would normally be the point where a scientist would say,
OK, something about that calculation is wrong then. An engineer, on the
other hand, might splutter, “The whole shebang is self-contradictory!
Physics is useless!”

There’s also the question about whether that formula that leads to 51 MeV
is correct at all. It comes from a classical theory, after all. Could it be
that the classic theory is wrong? “Heck no,” says the engineer, “That
expression is sacred and unquestionable. It must be that something else is
wrong and is being COVERED UP1”

>
> Eₒ = mₒ.c² = 0.511 MeV
>
> Eₑ/Eₒ ≈ 1,000
>
> What's the problem with relativists and charged particles?. Are they
> afraid of something for which they don't have an explanation?
>
> I quote myself from this thread:
> https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/wzXD6jt2aGc/m/nwlIFW-uBwAJ
>
> "The concept of physical radius of the electron, estimated as 10^-18 mt
> since the days of J.J.Thomson was ELIMINATED. Instead, something that
> NIST calls classic electron radius was introduced with a value 1,000
> times higher, and is considered as the only
> acceptable radius of electric influence of an electron. The concept of
> physical radius of any other particle, like protons and neutrons
> were ERASED from NIST database. Fact-check it."
>
>>> For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a result of relativistic mass.
>> No, it has always been recognized that the term "relativistic mass"
>> (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the
>> object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial
>> aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of
>> localized energy E has inertia E/c^2. Is there anything about this that
>> you think is wrong or unclear?
>
> WRONG!. Not the total energy of an object. You forgot electrical field
> energy, as I wrote above.
>
> So, your concept has to be updated to state that, for a charged particle
> of mass mₒ, charge e and radius R is:
>
> Eₒ = mₒ.c² + e²/(8πεₒR)
>
> And I mean for ANY CHARGED PARTICLE.
>
> Now, if I produce an inertial motion at speed v for such energy Eₒ, all
> of your concepts about relativity and Lorentz boosts breakdown.
>
> In short, special relativity (any of them) is useless in the real physical world.
>
> Now, deal with it. If you have any problem with this, read
> Dirac+Feynman+re-normalization+complains.
>
>
>

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

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:38:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> >>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
> >>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
> >>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
> >>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
> >>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
> >>>>>> know what you don't know.
> >>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
> >>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
> >>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
> >>>
> >>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
> >>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
> >>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
> >>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
> >> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
> >> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
> >> centuries.
> >>
> >> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
> >> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
> >> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
> >> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
> >>
> >> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
> >> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
> >> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
> >> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
> >> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
> >> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
> >> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
> >> background.)
> >>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
> >>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
> >>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
> >>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
> >>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
> >>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
> >>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
> >>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
> >>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
> >>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
> >>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
> >>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
> >>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the displacement between them.
> No.
> > It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
> > displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
> > like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
> > ALL specify two different definitions.
> Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
> thing as length.
>
> Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
> physics textbooks:
>
> Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
> object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
> in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
> from its starting point.”
>
> Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
> a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
> line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
> not the actual motion.”
>
> Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
> an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
> points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
> represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
> important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
> the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
> moving object along the path of its motion.”
>
> So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
> distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
> but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
> time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
> space over an interval of time.
>
> Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
> particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
> is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
> where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
> path is made.
>
> Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
> physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
> could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.
> > Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
> > some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
> >
> > https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
> >
> > The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
> > you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
> > back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
> > relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
> > that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
> > Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
> > distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
> > as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
> > whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
> > qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar.
> > You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
> > words to prove your point.
> >
> > You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.
> Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
> TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
> generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
> think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.
>
> This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
> they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
> they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
> it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.
> > While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
> > there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
> > derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> > complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
> > the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
> > with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
> > arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
> > for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
> > relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
> > the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the Newtonian momentum.
> >
> > I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
> > particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
> > result of relativistic mass.
> When did you start asking where the “excess momentum” comes from? Because
> the shift away from relativistic mass happened in the 1960’s, which was 60
> years ago. So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
> > Until physics became enamored of 4-vectors. Then it became clear that
> > mass is a relativistic invariant. So what do crackpot skeptics claim now?
> > That the mistake was treating Newton's formula as valid. Total,
> > relativistic momentum is, in fact, just invariant mass x Proper velocity.
> > Now, they claim that this is the only correct formula for momentum. But,
> > simultaneously, they deny that Proper velocity itself has any physical
> > meaning. It is just a mathematical abstraction that simplifies some
> > calculations. True, physical, relativistic momentum is just invariant
> > mass x a fictional Proper velocity (it MUST be fictional because it
> > breaks the lightspeed commandment). Not just that, but the relationship
> > between Newtonian phase angle and total relativistic momentum is a
> > non-linear, transcendental function. Of all the possible non-linear
> > functions it could be, we are expected to pay no attention to the fact
> > that this particular non-linear function just happens to coincidentally
> > equal the secant of the phase angle which defines velocity (v=c
> > sin(phase)), the Lorentz factor, γ. If scientists had required Einstein
> > to follow your rules, there would be no special relativity, period.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:38:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> >>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
> >>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
> >>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
> >>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
> >>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
> >>>>>> know what you don't know.
> >>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
> >>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
> >>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
> >>>
> >>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
> >>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
> >>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
> >>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
> >> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
> >> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
> >> centuries.
> >>
> >> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
> >> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
> >> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
> >> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
> >>
> >> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
> >> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
> >> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
> >> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
> >> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
> >> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
> >> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
> >> background.)
> >>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
> >>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
> >>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
> >>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
> >>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
> >>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
> >>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
> >>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
> >>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
> >>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
> >>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
> >>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
> >>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the displacement between them.
> No.
> > It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
> > displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
> > like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
> > ALL specify two different definitions.
> Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
> thing as length.
>
> Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
> physics textbooks:
>
> Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
> object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
> in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
> from its starting point.”
>
> Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
> a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
> line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
> not the actual motion.”
>
> Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
> an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
> points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
> represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
> important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
> the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
> moving object along the path of its motion.”
>
> So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
> distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
> but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
> time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
> space over an interval of time.
>
> Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
> particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
> is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
> where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
> path is made.
>
> Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
> physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
> could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.
> > Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
> > some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
> >
> > https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
> >
> > The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
> > you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
> > back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
> > relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
> > that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
> > Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
> > distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
> > as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
> > whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
> > qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar.
> > You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
> > words to prove your point.
> >
> > You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.
> Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
> TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
> generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
> think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.
>
> This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
> they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
> they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
> it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.
> > While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
> > there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
> > derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> > complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
> > the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
> > with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
> > arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
> > for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
> > relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
> > the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the Newtonian momentum.
> >
> > I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
> > particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
> > result of relativistic mass.
> When did you start asking where the “excess momentum” comes from? Because
> the shift away from relativistic mass happened in the 1960’s, which was 60
> years ago. So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
> > Until physics became enamored of 4-vectors. Then it became clear that
> > mass is a relativistic invariant. So what do crackpot skeptics claim now?
> > That the mistake was treating Newton's formula as valid. Total,
> > relativistic momentum is, in fact, just invariant mass x Proper velocity.
> > Now, they claim that this is the only correct formula for momentum. But,
> > simultaneously, they deny that Proper velocity itself has any physical
> > meaning. It is just a mathematical abstraction that simplifies some
> > calculations. True, physical, relativistic momentum is just invariant
> > mass x a fictional Proper velocity (it MUST be fictional because it
> > breaks the lightspeed commandment). Not just that, but the relationship
> > between Newtonian phase angle and total relativistic momentum is a
> > non-linear, transcendental function. Of all the possible non-linear
> > functions it could be, we are expected to pay no attention to the fact
> > that this particular non-linear function just happens to coincidentally
> > equal the secant of the phase angle which defines velocity (v=c
> > sin(phase)), the Lorentz factor, γ. If scientists had required Einstein
> > to follow your rules, there would be no special relativity, period.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:38:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>>>>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
>>>>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
>>>>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
>>>>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
>>>>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
>>>>>>>> know what you don't know.
>>>>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
>>>>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
>>>>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
>>>>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
>>>>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
>>>>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
>>>> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
>>>> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
>>>> centuries.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
>>>> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
>>>> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
>>>> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
>>>>
>>>> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
>>>> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
>>>> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
>>>> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
>>>> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
>>>> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
>>>> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
>>>> background.)
>>>>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
>>>>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
>>>>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
>>>>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
>>>>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
>>>>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
>>>>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
>>>>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
>>>>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
>>>>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
>>>>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
>>>>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
>>>>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the
>>> displacement between them.
>> No.
>>> It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
>>> displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
>>> like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
>>> ALL specify two different definitions.
>> Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
>> thing as length.
>>
>> Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
>> physics textbooks:
>>
>> Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
>> object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
>> in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
>> from its starting point.”
>>
>> Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
>> a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
>> line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
>> not the actual motion.”
>>
>> Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
>> an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
>> points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
>> represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
>> important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
>> the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
>> moving object along the path of its motion.”
>>
>> So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
>> distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
>> but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
>> time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
>> space over an interval of time.
>>
>> Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
>> particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
>> is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
>> where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
>> path is made.
>>
>> Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
>> physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
>> could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.
>>> Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
>>> some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
>>>
>>> https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
>>>
>>> The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
>>> you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
>>> back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
>>> relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
>>> that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
>>> Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
>>> distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
>>> as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
>>> whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
>>> qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar.
>>> You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
>>> words to prove your point.
>>>
>>> You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.
>> Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
>> TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
>> generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
>> think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.
>>
>> This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
>> they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
>> they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
>> it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.
>>> While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
>>> there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
>>> derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
>>> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
>>> the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
>>> with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
>>> arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
>>> for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
>>> relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
>>> the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the Newtonian momentum.
>>>
>>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
>>> particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
>>> result of relativistic mass.
>> When did you start asking where the “excess momentum” comes from? Because
>> the shift away from relativistic mass happened in the 1960’s, which was 60
>> years ago. So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
>> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
>>> Until physics became enamored of 4-vectors. Then it became clear that
>>> mass is a relativistic invariant. So what do crackpot skeptics claim now?
>>> That the mistake was treating Newton's formula as valid. Total,
>>> relativistic momentum is, in fact, just invariant mass x Proper velocity.
>>> Now, they claim that this is the only correct formula for momentum. But,
>>> simultaneously, they deny that Proper velocity itself has any physical
>>> meaning. It is just a mathematical abstraction that simplifies some
>>> calculations. True, physical, relativistic momentum is just invariant
>>> mass x a fictional Proper velocity (it MUST be fictional because it
>>> breaks the lightspeed commandment). Not just that, but the relationship
>>> between Newtonian phase angle and total relativistic momentum is a
>>> non-linear, transcendental function. Of all the possible non-linear
>>> functions it could be, we are expected to pay no attention to the fact
>>> that this particular non-linear function just happens to coincidentally
>>> equal the secant of the phase angle which defines velocity (v=c
>>> sin(phase)), the Lorentz factor, γ. If scientists had required Einstein
>>> to follow your rules, there would be no special relativity, period.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> What rubbish.

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:38:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>>>>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
>>>>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
>>>>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
>>>>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
>>>>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
>>>>>>>> know what you don't know.
>>>>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
>>>>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
>>>>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
>>>>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
>>>>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
>>>>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
>>>> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
>>>> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
>>>> centuries.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
>>>> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
>>>> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
>>>> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
>>>>
>>>> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
>>>> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
>>>> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
>>>> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
>>>> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
>>>> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
>>>> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
>>>> background.)
>>>>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
>>>>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
>>>>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
>>>>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
>>>>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
>>>>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
>>>>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
>>>>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
>>>>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
>>>>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
>>>>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
>>>>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
>>>>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the
>>> displacement between them.
>> No.
>>> It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
>>> displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
>>> like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
>>> ALL specify two different definitions.
>> Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
>> thing as length.
>>
>> Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
>> physics textbooks:
>>
>> Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
>> object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
>> in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
>> from its starting point.”
>>
>> Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
>> a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
>> line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
>> not the actual motion.”
>>
>> Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
>> an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
>> points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
>> represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
>> important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
>> the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
>> moving object along the path of its motion.”
>>
>> So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
>> distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
>> but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
>> time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
>> space over an interval of time.
>>
>> Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
>> particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
>> is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
>> where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
>> path is made.
>>
>> Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
>> physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
>> could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.
>>> Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
>>> some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
>>>
>>> https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
>>>
>>> The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
>>> you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
>>> back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
>>> relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
>>> that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
>>> Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
>>> distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
>>> as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
>>> whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
>>> qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar.
>>> You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
>>> words to prove your point.
>>>
>>> You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.
>> Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
>> TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
>> generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
>> think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.
>>
>> This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
>> they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
>> they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
>> it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.
>>> While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
>>> there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
>>> derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
>>> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
>>> the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
>>> with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
>>> arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
>>> for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
>>> relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
>>> the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the Newtonian momentum.
>>>
>>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
>>> particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
>>> result of relativistic mass.
>> When did you start asking where the “excess momentum” comes from? Because
>> the shift away from relativistic mass happened in the 1960’s, which was 60
>> years ago. So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
>> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
>>> Until physics became enamored of 4-vectors. Then it became clear that
>>> mass is a relativistic invariant. So what do crackpot skeptics claim now?
>>> That the mistake was treating Newton's formula as valid. Total,
>>> relativistic momentum is, in fact, just invariant mass x Proper velocity.
>>> Now, they claim that this is the only correct formula for momentum. But,
>>> simultaneously, they deny that Proper velocity itself has any physical
>>> meaning. It is just a mathematical abstraction that simplifies some
>>> calculations. True, physical, relativistic momentum is just invariant
>>> mass x a fictional Proper velocity (it MUST be fictional because it
>>> breaks the lightspeed commandment). Not just that, but the relationship
>>> between Newtonian phase angle and total relativistic momentum is a
>>> non-linear, transcendental function. Of all the possible non-linear
>>> functions it could be, we are expected to pay no attention to the fact
>>> that this particular non-linear function just happens to coincidentally
>>> equal the secant of the phase angle which defines velocity (v=c
>>> sin(phase)), the Lorentz factor, γ. If scientists had required Einstein
>>> to follow your rules, there would be no special relativity, period.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>> So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
>> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
>
> You pompous twit. Textbooks of TODAY still make the same archaic
> reference to relativistic mass.

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 8:24:07 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> 2. You stated that at least three people were “blocked” by some action you
> took in your newsreader, which you then obviated by responding to all
> three.

I enjoy the interaction with the Tom Capizzi crank.

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:38:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> >>>>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
> >>>>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
> >>>>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
> >>>>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
> >>>>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
> >>>>>>>> know what you don't know.
> >>>>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
> >>>>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
> >>>>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
> >>>>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
> >>>>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
> >>>>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
> >>>> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
> >>>> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
> >>>> centuries.
> >>>>
> >>>> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
> >>>> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
> >>>> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
> >>>> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
> >>>>
> >>>> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
> >>>> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
> >>>> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
> >>>> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
> >>>> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
> >>>> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
> >>>> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
> >>>> background.)
> >>>>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
> >>>>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
> >>>>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
> >>>>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
> >>>>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
> >>>>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
> >>>>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
> >>>>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
> >>>>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
> >>>>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
> >>>>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
> >>>>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
> >>>>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the
> >>> displacement between them.
> >> No.
> >>> It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
> >>> displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
> >>> like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
> >>> ALL specify two different definitions.
> >> Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
> >> thing as length.
> >>
> >> Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
> >> physics textbooks:
> >>
> >> Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
> >> object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
> >> in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
> >> from its starting point.”
> >>
> >> Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
> >> a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
> >> line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
> >> not the actual motion.”
> >>
> >> Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
> >> an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
> >> points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
> >> represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
> >> important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
> >> the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
> >> moving object along the path of its motion.”
> >>
> >> So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
> >> distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
> >> but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
> >> time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
> >> space over an interval of time.
> >>
> >> Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
> >> particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
> >> is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
> >> where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
> >> path is made.
> >>
> >> Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
> >> physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
> >> could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.
> >>> Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
> >>> some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
> >>>
> >>> https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
> >>>
> >>> The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
> >>> you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
> >>> back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
> >>> relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
> >>> that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
> >>> Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
> >>> distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
> >>> as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
> >>> whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
> >>> qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar..
> >>> You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
> >>> words to prove your point.
> >>>
> >>> You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.
> >> Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
> >> TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
> >> generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
> >> think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.
> >>
> >> This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
> >> they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
> >> they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
> >> it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.
> >>> While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
> >>> there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
> >>> derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> >>> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
> >>> the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
> >>> with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
> >>> arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
> >>> for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
> >>> relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
> >>> the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the Newtonian momentum.
> >>>
> >>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
> >>> particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
> >>> result of relativistic mass.
> >> When did you start asking where the “excess momentum” comes from? Because
> >> the shift away from relativistic mass happened in the 1960’s, which was 60
> >> years ago. So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
> >> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
> >>> Until physics became enamored of 4-vectors. Then it became clear that
> >>> mass is a relativistic invariant. So what do crackpot skeptics claim now?
> >>> That the mistake was treating Newton's formula as valid. Total,
> >>> relativistic momentum is, in fact, just invariant mass x Proper velocity.
> >>> Now, they claim that this is the only correct formula for momentum. But,
> >>> simultaneously, they deny that Proper velocity itself has any physical
> >>> meaning. It is just a mathematical abstraction that simplifies some
> >>> calculations. True, physical, relativistic momentum is just invariant
> >>> mass x a fictional Proper velocity (it MUST be fictional because it
> >>> breaks the lightspeed commandment). Not just that, but the relationship
> >>> between Newtonian phase angle and total relativistic momentum is a
> >>> non-linear, transcendental function. Of all the possible non-linear
> >>> functions it could be, we are expected to pay no attention to the fact
> >>> that this particular non-linear function just happens to coincidentally
> >>> equal the secant of the phase angle which defines velocity (v=c
> >>> sin(phase)), the Lorentz factor, γ. If scientists had required Einstein
> >>> to follow your rules, there would be no special relativity, period.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > What rubbish.
> I’ll just remind you of two things:
>
> 1. You are taking the stance that basic definitions as described in
> freshman physics textbooks are “rubbish”. So either you never learned those
> basic definitions and have invented your own just by a mixture of Googling
> and “thinking about things” yourself (a hallmark of crackpot behavior), or
> you acknowledge that basic physics defines them this way but you aim to
> overturn physics from the ground up, reinventing the whole field (another
> hallmark of crackpot behavior).
> > It is trivial to imagine a single particle emitted at one extreme of an
> > object, aimed at the other extreme of the same object.
> Of course you can. But now you are not measuring the locations of the
> extremes of the object AT THE SAME TIME, which is the critical thing you
> omitted. As a simple observation of this, you could imagine walking from
> the front of a slow-moving train, to the back of the same slow-moving
> train, and measuring off the displacement you walk. This will not be the
> length of the train, of course.
>
> It seems that you’re willing to quibble endlessly about basic things to
> defend your misconceptions, rather than be willing to learn some of these
> basics. Which brings up the second thing I wanted to remind you of:
>
> 2. You stated that at least three people were “blocked” by some action you
> took in your newsreader, which you then obviated by responding to all
> three. When you did that, I noted that people like you post here precisely
> because of the social engagement and that it would be counterproductive to
> be talking to yourself, having blocked everyone else. In other words,
> arguing about silly things is more nourishing to you than the silence that
> would come from blocking criticism. You cannot help it. This, as well, is
> another hallmark of crackpot behavior: even ridicule is better than no
> interaction at all.
> > Now the length of the object is equal to the displacement of the
> > particle, your linguistic contortions notwithstanding. But relativity
> > says the length of the object contracts with relative velocity. Just like
> > the displacement of the particle. I claim that at velocities where there
> > is actually a difference between distance and displacement that the
> > "length" is still just the displacement. Relativity makes the absurd
> > assertion that the distance, which is what a co-moving observer measures,
> > is physically contracted. If you want to argue semantics, find another
> > thread. You want me to ignore physical reality because some freshman
> > textbook defines some word for freshmen in a narrow way. Maybe that's all
> > the further you got, unqualified to comment.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 8:48:46 AM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ask a Sicilian.

Old fart,

Sicilians tend to be very smart, how come you are so dumb?

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 5:51:08 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I didn't say you said it was a Taylor series, or any kind of series, I
> >> only mentioned Fourier series to dispel your apparent mysticism about
> >> trigonometric functions. Look, it's elementary that the Lorentz
> >> transformation can be expressed formally as a hyperbolic rotation, and
> >> all of the trigonometric relations involving rapidity, etc., are trivial
> >> and well known, as explained in (for example) Poincare's 1906 paper, and
> >> every introductory text book.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Series? Like this one?
> >
> > 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + ......... = - 1/12
> This is called the Rumanujan summation, which evaluates series on the basis
> of partial sums. It is a way of evaluating some series that DO NOT CONVERGE
> in the usual sense. Now, I suppose that an engineer would say that any
> series sum that does not converge simply cannot be evaluated, period, end
> of story, because that’s what engineers believe to be true. However, this
> leads to the interesting question whether engineers or mathematicians are
> better at mathematics. So what does this self-important engineer have to
> say about that?
> >
> > Fact, mathematically proven and used in physics (Casimir effect, for instance).
> >
> > So, what do we do? Do we believe BLINDLY in mathematics even when the
> > results are IRRATIONAL?
> I suppose that depends on what is considered “IRRATIONAL”.. Is anything that
> engineers believe to be taken as the scope of rational?
> >
> > Look what happened to physics because some idiots claimed that
> >
> > Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ , Hilbert-Einstein field equation for GR.
> >
> > is absolutely correct when applied to theory of gravitation as if having physical meaning.
> >
> > It FORCES 3D space to bend in non-linear form under the presence of
> > massive objects; it forces to ACCEPT that star light
> > bends its path by EXACTLY 1.75" when passing by the Sun's surface; it
> > forces to ACCEPT an explanation for Mercury's perihelion
> > advance of EXACTLY 43"/century, which is held 100 years after; it forces
> > to ACCEPT different forms of time dilation under massive
> > objects; it forces to ACCEPT the existence of gravitational waves; the
> > few exact analytical solutions for such equation in vacuum,
> > except a single point-like mass in the entire universe, FORCES to accept
> > the existence of black holes; etc; etc.
> Well, no, and here the engineer reveals that he has forgotten how science
> works.

You have no clue about the subject, Odd.

A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.

Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.

> However, if
> observations and experimental measurements confirm the claims of the

In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.

On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 1:13:00 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
> You crackpot skeptics and your ad hominem attacks!

I haven't made any ad hominem attacks, I've just addressed the substantive facts. Again, the substance of my message was explaining the meaning of "length" in relativistic length contraction... which was the subject of this sub-thread.

You commented on the meanings of the words distance and displacement, and I noted that there's more than one distinction between the colloquial English usages of those words. First, there's a distinction between scalar versus vector (with direction). Second, there is a distinction between the integrated lengths along curved versus straight path. Third, there is a distinction between timelike paths of a particle versus spacelike intervals between two particles. In scientific usage, we clearly identify (if it's not clear from the context) which side of each distinction applies.

Now, if someone asks for the "length" of your car, they are most likely referring to the straight distance between the front and back bumpers, not the integrated length of a path tracing along the exterior of your car (for example). And they don't care about the direction, they just want the magnitude of the length of the straight path between front and back. If your car is stationary in your driveway (system S) and you determine the straight distance D at any time t (of S) between front and back bumpers in terms of S, and then you set the car moving with speed v, the straight distance in terms of S is now D*sqrt(1-v^2). That is length contraction.

For another example, we can bend a long solid slender rod (at rest in S) into a circular shape of diameter D and circumferential length pi*D, and if we then gently set this ring into motion (in its own plane) at speed v (in S), the ring is contracted into an elliptical shape by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in the direction of motion, meaning that at any time t of S the distance between the leading and trailing edges of the ring in terms of S is D*sqrt(1-v^2). The distance between opposite points of the ring in the perpendicular direction is still D. If you want to talk about the circumferential length of the ring when in motion in terms of S, we can do that as well, and, sure enough, it is the length of the perimeter of the contracted ellipse, so it is no longer pi*D. This is all perfectly consistent with special relativity.

> I claim that ... the derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to the same time
> is Newtonian velocity.

Wait... the velocity of a particle is, by definition, the derivative of the position coordinate with respect to the time coordinate, i.e., the velocity in terms of a system S of inertial coordinates x,t is defined as dx/dt. Do you disagree with this?

> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic particle.

Einstein already answered that in 1905: The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. This includes all forms of energy, including kinetic energy, which is why an object has more inertia when moving (because it has more kinetic energy) than when it is stationary. It has always been understood (by scientists) that the term "relativistic mass" (also known as "inertial mass") just refers to the total energy of the object. This is just a matter of nomenclature, to convey the inertial aspect of energy. All you need to understand is that every quantity of localized energy E has inertia E/c^2.. Is there anything about this that you think is wrong or unclear?

Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:38:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
>>>>>>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
>>>>>>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
>>>>>>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
>>>>>>>>>> know what you don't know.
>>>>>>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
>>>>>>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
>>>>>>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
>>>>>>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
>>>>>>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
>>>>>>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
>>>>>> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
>>>>>> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
>>>>>> centuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
>>>>>> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
>>>>>> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
>>>>>> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
>>>>>> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
>>>>>> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
>>>>>> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
>>>>>> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
>>>>>> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
>>>>>> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
>>>>>> background.)
>>>>>>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
>>>>>>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
>>>>>>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
>>>>>>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
>>>>>>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
>>>>>>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
>>>>>>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
>>>>>>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
>>>>>>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
>>>>>>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
>>>>>>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
>>>>>>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
>>>>>>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the
>>>>> displacement between them.
>>>> No.
>>>>> It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
>>>>> displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
>>>>> like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
>>>>> ALL specify two different definitions.
>>>> Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
>>>> thing as length.
>>>>
>>>> Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
>>>> physics textbooks:
>>>>
>>>> Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
>>>> object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
>>>> in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
>>>> from its starting point.”
>>>>
>>>> Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
>>>> a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
>>>> line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
>>>> not the actual motion.”
>>>>
>>>> Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
>>>> an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
>>>> points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
>>>> represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
>>>> important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
>>>> the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
>>>> moving object along the path of its motion.”
>>>>
>>>> So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
>>>> distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
>>>> but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
>>>> time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
>>>> space over an interval of time.
>>>>
>>>> Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
>>>> particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
>>>> is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
>>>> where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
>>>> path is made.
>>>>
>>>> Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
>>>> physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
>>>> could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.
>>>>> Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
>>>>> some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
>>>>> you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
>>>>> back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
>>>>> relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
>>>>> that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
>>>>> Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
>>>>> distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
>>>>> as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
>>>>> whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
>>>>> qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar.
>>>>> You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
>>>>> words to prove your point.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.
>>>> Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
>>>> TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
>>>> generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
>>>> think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.
>>>>
>>>> This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
>>>> they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
>>>> they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
>>>> it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.
>>>>> While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
>>>>> there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
>>>>> derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
>>>>> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
>>>>> the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
>>>>> with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
>>>>> arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
>>>>> for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
>>>>> relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
>>>>> the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the
>>>>> Newtonian momentum.
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
>>>>> particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
>>>>> result of relativistic mass.
>>>> When did you start asking where the “excess momentum” comes from? Because
>>>> the shift away from relativistic mass happened in the 1960’s, which was 60
>>>> years ago. So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
>>>> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
>>>>> Until physics became enamored of 4-vectors. Then it became clear that
>>>>> mass is a relativistic invariant. So what do crackpot skeptics claim now?
>>>>> That the mistake was treating Newton's formula as valid. Total,
>>>>> relativistic momentum is, in fact, just invariant mass x Proper velocity.
>>>>> Now, they claim that this is the only correct formula for momentum. But,
>>>>> simultaneously, they deny that Proper velocity itself has any physical
>>>>> meaning. It is just a mathematical abstraction that simplifies some
>>>>> calculations. True, physical, relativistic momentum is just invariant
>>>>> mass x a fictional Proper velocity (it MUST be fictional because it
>>>>> breaks the lightspeed commandment). Not just that, but the relationship
>>>>> between Newtonian phase angle and total relativistic momentum is a
>>>>> non-linear, transcendental function. Of all the possible non-linear
>>>>> functions it could be, we are expected to pay no attention to the fact
>>>>> that this particular non-linear function just happens to coincidentally
>>>>> equal the secant of the phase angle which defines velocity (v=c
>>>>> sin(phase)), the Lorentz factor, γ. If scientists had required Einstein
>>>>> to follow your rules, there would be no special relativity, period.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> What rubbish.
>> I’ll just remind you of two things:
>>
>> 1. You are taking the stance that basic definitions as described in
>> freshman physics textbooks are “rubbish”. So either you never learned those
>> basic definitions and have invented your own just by a mixture of Googling
>> and “thinking about things” yourself (a hallmark of crackpot behavior), or
>> you acknowledge that basic physics defines them this way but you aim to
>> overturn physics from the ground up, reinventing the whole field (another
>> hallmark of crackpot behavior).
>>> It is trivial to imagine a single particle emitted at one extreme of an
>>> object, aimed at the other extreme of the same object.
>> Of course you can. But now you are not measuring the locations of the
>> extremes of the object AT THE SAME TIME, which is the critical thing you
>> omitted. As a simple observation of this, you could imagine walking from
>> the front of a slow-moving train, to the back of the same slow-moving
>> train, and measuring off the displacement you walk. This will not be the
>> length of the train, of course.
>>
>> It seems that you’re willing to quibble endlessly about basic things to
>> defend your misconceptions, rather than be willing to learn some of these
>> basics. Which brings up the second thing I wanted to remind you of:
>>
>> 2. You stated that at least three people were “blocked” by some action you
>> took in your newsreader, which you then obviated by responding to all
>> three. When you did that, I noted that people like you post here precisely
>> because of the social engagement and that it would be counterproductive to
>> be talking to yourself, having blocked everyone else. In other words,
>> arguing about silly things is more nourishing to you than the silence that
>> would come from blocking criticism. You cannot help it. This, as well, is
>> another hallmark of crackpot behavior: even ridicule is better than no
>> interaction at all.
>>> Now the length of the object is equal to the displacement of the
>>> particle, your linguistic contortions notwithstanding. But relativity
>>> says the length of the object contracts with relative velocity. Just like
>>> the displacement of the particle. I claim that at velocities where there
>>> is actually a difference between distance and displacement that the
>>> "length" is still just the displacement. Relativity makes the absurd
>>> assertion that the distance, which is what a co-moving observer measures,
>>> is physically contracted. If you want to argue semantics, find another
>>> thread. You want me to ignore physical reality because some freshman
>>> textbook defines some word for freshmen in a narrow way. Maybe that's all
>>> the further you got, unqualified to comment.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> moron.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom Capizzi <tgcapizzi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 11:24:07 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 9:38:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 9:08:09 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Capizzi <tgca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 3:38:14 PM UTC-4, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:45:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Drunken wannabee engineer, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 20:27:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 October 2021 at 18:40:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 29, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, tgca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Let me make it clear. I'm right, and the world is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are rapidly earning a vast amount of points in your race to the bottom...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I'm right and common sense is wrong" - doesn't it count
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well, poor halfbrain?
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Common sense" is a poor teacher in relativity, Woz...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Al, you know very little of common sense; if you'were
>>>>>>>>>>> a decent and responsible person you wouldn't claim about
>>>>>>>>>>> it. And also in the subject of your moronic Shit - you don't
>>>>>>>>>>> know what you don't know.
>>>>>>>>>> Woz, you are mentally degrading, fast. Sad.
>>>>>>>>> I'm glad you're sad, Pyt. Have you already learnt
>>>>>>>>> what sqrt function is, BTW?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is painfully obvious that the critics here desperately cling to the
>>>>>>>> dogma of their cult, late 19th and early 20th century relativity. They
>>>>>>>> are so unsure that it is valid that they have defined their own meanings
>>>>>>>> for words which no one is allowed to question.
>>>>>>> First of all, the operational definitions of length and displacement have
>>>>>>> origin in the late 17th and 18th centuries, not the late 19th and 20th
>>>>>>> centuries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secondly, definitions are not facts. The are consensus artifacts for the
>>>>>>> sake of precise communication. There is no point in “questioning” them, any
>>>>>>> more than it makes sense to question the definition of “lizard” or
>>>>>>> “honest”, other than to branch off and forsake effective communication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But as a matter of history here, it’s a fairly established fact that most
>>>>>>> who come here and misuse the language do so because they never learned the
>>>>>>> precise meanings in the first place. Then they attempt to cover up that
>>>>>>> lack of background by spluttering that they have made the bold and
>>>>>>> progressive move of inventing new definitions. (Though at the same time
>>>>>>> they do things like you did, referring to Google in defense of their
>>>>>>> choices, not thinking that this in itself reveals their lack of
>>>>>>> background.)
>>>>>>>> I'm trying to lead the way into 21st century relativity, and the
>>>>>>>> crackpots block the way with arguments about semantics. It is prohibited
>>>>>>>> to alter the meaning of any of their words. Meanwhile, it's okay to
>>>>>>>> pretend cranberry belongs in any post about relativity. In nearly all
>>>>>>>> cases, I have expanded the meaning of terms already in use to increase
>>>>>>>> the degree of freedom of information they can represent, and in the
>>>>>>>> limiting case of zero phase angle, reduce to the cult definition, excuse
>>>>>>>> me, standard definition. Much like special relativity enhanced Newtonian
>>>>>>>> physics and in the limit of low velocity, reduces to it. All of you are
>>>>>>>> too biased to be qualified to judge my work. But even noise contains
>>>>>>>> information, and your inane comments help me to identify low-hanging
>>>>>>>> fruit so I can refine the peer-reviewed version to avoid the simple
>>>>>>>> misconceptions. Keep it up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference in the coordinates is as you say, but that is the
>>>>>> displacement between them.
>>>>> No.
>>>>>> It is NOT the distance between them. Just google "distance vs.
>>>>>> displacement". I got nearly 200000000 hits. Here's just 1. If you don't
>>>>>> like it, choose another one. Then tell us why it is wrong, because they
>>>>>> ALL specify two different definitions.
>>>>> Yes, distance is different than displacement. NEITHER of them mean the same
>>>>> thing as length.
>>>>>
>>>>> Setting aside Google and Wikipedia, let’s take a look at a couple of
>>>>> physics textbooks:
>>>>>
>>>>> Giancoli, Physics: “We need to make a distinction between the distance an
>>>>> object has traveled, and its displacement, which is defined as the change
>>>>> in position of the object. That is, displacement is how far the object is
>>>>> from its starting point.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Resnick & Halliday, Physics: “A change in position of a particle is called
>>>>> a displacement….The path of a particle need not necessarily be a straight
>>>>> line from A to B; the arrow represents only the net effect of the motion,
>>>>> not the actual motion.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Mazur, Principles and Practice of Physics: “We can represent the motion of
>>>>> an object that moves from one position to another position by an arrow that
>>>>> points from the initial position to the final position. This arrow
>>>>> represents a physical quantity called the displacement of the object….It is
>>>>> important to distinguish between the x component of the displacement and
>>>>> the distance traveled. The distance traveled is the distance covered by a
>>>>> moving object along the path of its motion.”
>>>>>
>>>>> So you see, you’ve gone on a little persistent boondoggle about the
>>>>> distinction between distance and displacement. The two are indeed distinct,
>>>>> but both pertain to MOTION of a body through space over an interval of
>>>>> time, or more specifically, the motion of a single point of a body through
>>>>> space over an interval of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Length has nothing to do with the motion of a body. It has to do with a
>>>>> particular distance between TWO points on a body, at the SAME time. There
>>>>> is no elapsed time with the measurement of length, as there is in motion
>>>>> where the distinction between distance over a path and displacement over a
>>>>> path is made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, if you’d like to see where length is defined in basic freshman
>>>>> physics textbooks, I could point you to some page references, so that you
>>>>> could learn what physicists understand these terms to mean.
>>>>>> Further, if you google length, you will get contradictory definitions,
>>>>>> some referring to the total path, others to the straight line vector between them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://sciencing.com/kinematics-what-is-it-why-is-it-important-w-examples-13720228.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simplest example is a circle. Once around the circumference, and
>>>>>> you've traveled 2 Pi r in distance. But once around exactly, and you are
>>>>>> back to where you started, a displacement of exactly zero. In special
>>>>>> relativity, it is impossible to get exactly zero displacement, because
>>>>>> that implies lightspeed relative velocity, but the idea is the same.
>>>>>> Displacement is NOT distance, and it is the cosine projection of
>>>>>> distance, where the angle of projection is defined by relative velocity
>>>>>> as v/c = sin(angle). You may feel that the ambiguous term, length, means
>>>>>> whatever you want. I reject its usage for being too vague, unless
>>>>>> qualified by "real" or "complex" or "total" or "projected" or similar.
>>>>>> You blather about the meaning of words and then use completely ambiguous
>>>>>> words to prove your point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can pointlessly argue that I should use your choice of words that are ambiguous.
>>>>> Well, no, they’re not ambiguous. They’re very clear, when PRESENTED IN A
>>>>> TEXTBOOK ABOUT PHYSICS. The problem is that researching on the internet can
>>>>> generate a lot of noise, which can make you confused, which leads you to
>>>>> think that the specification is ambiguous, when it’s really not.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the bane of amateurs who try to learn a little physics or (if
>>>>> they’re particularly egocentric) even move physics a little ahead, because
>>>>> they very rarely rely on textbooks and use the internet instead because
>>>>> it’s free. Well, you get what you pay for.
>>>>>> While you claim that this is just a misuse of language, I claim that
>>>>>> there is physical evidence of the distinction. For example, the
>>>>>> derivative of distance with time is Proper velocity (that's TOTAL,
>>>>>> complex velocity) while the derivative of displacement with respect to
>>>>>> the same time is Newtonian velocity. What is the derivative of length
>>>>>> with respect to the same time variable? Then multiply both by the same
>>>>>> arbitrary, invariant mass. Now, the total distance, which is responsible
>>>>>> for the total Proper velocity is also responsible for the total
>>>>>> relativistic momentum. On the other hand, displacement is responsible for
>>>>>> the real projection of distance, and the Newtonian velocity, and the
>>>>>> Newtonian momentum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked where does the excess momentum come from in a relativistic
>>>>>> particle. For years, physics asserted without proof that this was a
>>>>>> result of relativistic mass.
>>>>> When did you start asking where the “excess momentum” comes from? Because
>>>>> the shift away from relativistic mass happened in the 1960’s, which was 60
>>>>> years ago. So unless you started asking this question more than 60 years
>>>>> ago, you were just using very outdated resources to learn relativity?
>>>>>> Until physics became enamored of 4-vectors. Then it became clear that
>>>>>> mass is a relativistic invariant. So what do crackpot skeptics claim now?
>>>>>> That the mistake was treating Newton's formula as valid. Total,
>>>>>> relativistic momentum is, in fact, just invariant mass x Proper velocity.
>>>>>> Now, they claim that this is the only correct formula for momentum. But,
>>>>>> simultaneously, they deny that Proper velocity itself has any physical
>>>>>> meaning. It is just a mathematical abstraction that simplifies some
>>>>>> calculations. True, physical, relativistic momentum is just invariant
>>>>>> mass x a fictional Proper velocity (it MUST be fictional because it
>>>>>> breaks the lightspeed commandment). Not just that, but the relationship
>>>>>> between Newtonian phase angle and total relativistic momentum is a
>>>>>> non-linear, transcendental function. Of all the possible non-linear
>>>>>> functions it could be, we are expected to pay no attention to the fact
>>>>>> that this particular non-linear function just happens to coincidentally
>>>>>> equal the secant of the phase angle which defines velocity (v=c
>>>>>> sin(phase)), the Lorentz factor, γ. If scientists had required Einstein
>>>>>> to follow your rules, there would be no special relativity, period.
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>> What rubbish.
>>> I’ll just remind you of two things:
>>>
>>> 1. You are taking the stance that basic definitions as described in
>>> freshman physics textbooks are “rubbish”. So either you never learned those
>>> basic definitions and have invented your own just by a mixture of Googling
>>> and “thinking about things” yourself (a hallmark of crackpot behavior), or
>>> you acknowledge that basic physics defines them this way but you aim to
>>> overturn physics from the ground up, reinventing the whole field (another
>>> hallmark of crackpot behavior).
>>>> It is trivial to imagine a single particle emitted at one extreme of an
>>>> object, aimed at the other extreme of the same object.
>>> Of course you can. But now you are not measuring the locations of the
>>> extremes of the object AT THE SAME TIME, which is the critical thing you
>>> omitted. As a simple observation of this, you could imagine walking from
>>> the front of a slow-moving train, to the back of the same slow-moving
>>> train, and measuring off the displacement you walk. This will not be the
>>> length of the train, of course.
>>>
>>> It seems that you’re willing to quibble endlessly about basic things to
>>> defend your misconceptions, rather than be willing to learn some of these
>>> basics. Which brings up the second thing I wanted to remind you of:
>>>
>>> 2. You stated that at least three people were “blocked” by some action you
>>> took in your newsreader, which you then obviated by responding to all
>>> three. When you did that, I noted that people like you post here precisely
>>> because of the social engagement and that it would be counterproductive to
>>> be talking to yourself, having blocked everyone else. In other words,
>>> arguing about silly things is more nourishing to you than the silence that
>>> would come from blocking criticism. You cannot help it. This, as well, is
>>> another hallmark of crackpot behavior: even ridicule is better than no
>>> interaction at all.
>>>> Now the length of the object is equal to the displacement of the
>>>> particle, your linguistic contortions notwithstanding. But relativity
>>>> says the length of the object contracts with relative velocity. Just like
>>>> the displacement of the particle. I claim that at velocities where there
>>>> is actually a difference between distance and displacement that the
>>>> "length" is still just the displacement. Relativity makes the absurd
>>>> assertion that the distance, which is what a co-moving observer measures,
>>>> is physically contracted. If you want to argue semantics, find another
>>>> thread. You want me to ignore physical reality because some freshman
>>>> textbook defines some word for freshmen in a narrow way. Maybe that's all
>>>> the further you got, unqualified to comment.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> moron.
>
> You should be careful about using words like this, just in case it turns
> around to bite you.
>
>> I can put a mirror at one end of the object and time the round trip from
>> a position at the other end. Since I am standing still, I am in the same
>> position at both measurements. This gives me a valid interval of
>> undilated time. Since the speed of light is unaffected by relative
>> velocity, the interval is unaffected by relative velocity. Time/2 is length.
>
> Well, let’s look at this for a second. You stand alongside the tracks and
> watch a slow-moving train approach. There is a mirror at the back end of
> the train. When the front of the train comes alongside you, you send a
> flash of light toward the back of the train. While the light propagates
> from the front of the train toward the mirror at the back, the back of the
> train continues to move. So the mirror when the light hits it is no longer
> where it was when the light was sent from the front of the train. Have you
> in fact measured the length of the train?
>
> Again, I’ll remind you that length is the distance between the extremal
> points of the train as recorded AT THE SAME TIME. This means waiting for
> some particle or from some light flash to travel from one end to the other
> is going to not actually measure the length.
>
>>
>> And I guess you just don't get how the education system works. Not
>> surprising. You apparently got a poor one. They only teach freshman
>> beginning physics. They omit the tricky stuff for later courses. So
>> objecting to freshman physics does not constitute an "overturn [of]
>> physics from the ground up," as you foolishly claim.
>
> But the definitions of length and the definitions of distance along the
> path of motion and of displacement in motion are not advanced topics. These
> are all covered in freshman physics and I quoted freshmen physics
> textbooks, not “tricky stuff” from “later courses”. So if you don’t agree
> with freshman physics definitions, then you are indeed trying to overturn
> physics from the ground up.
>
>>
>> Then, if you want me to block you permanently, I can oblige.
>
> This isn’t about what I want. It’s whether you are honest when you say
> you’re going to do something. If you say that three people have been
> blocked, then this means that you can neither see what they post nor will
> be able to respond to what they post. If this was a false gesture, then
> you’re simply not being honest.
>
>> Note that the whole comment you made was rubbish. (By the way, your
>> reading comprehension is a little weak. My initial comment, 'Rubbish' was
>> not aimed at freshman physics courses, but directly at you and your illogical crap.)
>
> Well, you clearly haven’t digested the content of freshman physics course
> materials. You seem to be confused about the difference between length of
> an object and distance along a path of motion and displacement of motion.
>
>> I am surprised that you were fooled by my comment "blocked". Anybody with
>> any degree of experience knows that I, as just another reader, cannot
>> officially block any troll,
>
> Of course you can. That’s what the “killfile” function in many newsgroup
> readers is for. Now, if you are saying that you don’t KNOW HOW to do that,
> that’s a wholly different matter.
>
>> no matter how much they deserve it. It was a statement that I refuse to
>> comment on your drivel.
>
> Well, then you did.

How can motion take away distance?
No. It is an absolute like light.
How can an atom shrink the universe
by its motion.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based
>> on its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
>
> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
>
>
> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS
> clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.

Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
autisticly repeat it.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 11/1/2021 12:41 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 14:50:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> A theory proves nothing. One is not forced to ACCEPT a theory based on
>>> its own arguments. Certainly no scientist would do that.
>>
>> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain.
>>
>>
>> In the meantime in the real world anyone can observe GPS clocks
>> measuring t'=t, just like all serial clocks always did.
>
> Assertion is not an argument, poor halfbrain. No matter how often you
> autisticly repeat it.

it is, asserting an outcome to address the opposite. You idiot.