On 11/5/2021 10:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
>>>> I.e. - only with all of them.
>>> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
>>> require different settings should have his license revoked.
>>
>> Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
>> and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
>> understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
>> for "confirming" your religious mumble and
>> brainwash school children.
>
> No, there are other applications as well. It’s not black and white, though.
> Not just “for physics only” or “for everything”. I’m shocked — SHOCKED, I
> tell you! — that an engineer cannot find his way to use cases in between
> the two extremes.
>
He's a janitor, not an engineer. He seems to think he's an engineer
because he cleans the toilets of engineers and the shit rubs off on him.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 11/5/2021 10:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
>>>>> I.e. - only with all of them.
>>>> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
>>>> require different settings should have his license revoked.
>>>
>>> Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
>>> and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
>>> understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
>>> for "confirming" your religious mumble and
>>> brainwash school children.
>>
>> No, there are other applications as well. It’s not black and white, though.
>> Not just “for physics only” or “for everything”. I’m shocked — SHOCKED, I
>> tell you! — that an engineer cannot find his way to use cases in between
>> the two extremes.
>>
> He's a janitor, not an engineer. He seems to think he's an engineer
> because he cleans the toilets of engineers and the shit rubs off on him.
>

He doesn’t seem to be fit for an engineer. Maybe he had a career at one
time, but something has gone dramatically wrong upstairs. I wouldn’t hire
him to design a paper airplane.

As it is, he seems to think it’s sensible engaging in a battle of wits
while being unarmed, let alone declaring victory as he drops trousers.

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

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 16:57:35 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/5/2021 10:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
> >>>> I.e. - only with all of them.
> >>> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
> >>> require different settings should have his license revoked.
> >>
> >> Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
> >> and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
> >> understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
> >> for "confirming" your religious mumble and
> >> brainwash school children.
> >
> > No, there are other applications as well. It’s not black and white, though.
> > Not just “for physics only” or “for everything”. I’m shocked — SHOCKED, I
> > tell you! — that an engineer cannot find his way to use cases in between
> > the two extremes.
> >
> He's a janitor, not an engineer. He seems to think he's an engineer
> because he cleans the toilets of engineers and the shit rubs off on him.

Keep barking and slandering, trash. In the meantime in the
real world, forbidden by your moronic religion GPS clocks
will keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.

On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 17:59:45 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 11/5/2021 10:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:05:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Sure, Bod, only with clocks aimed to count/measure time.
> >>>>> I.e. - only with all of them.
> >>>> Any engineer that cannot figure out that different applications will
> >>>> require different settings should have his license revoked.
> >>>
> >>> Sure; unfortunately, your idiot gurus are no engineers
> >>> and have no license to revoke. At least you seem
> >>> understand, that your idiocy can only be applied
> >>> for "confirming" your religious mumble and
> >>> brainwash school children.
> >>
> >> No, there are other applications as well. It’s not black and white, though.
> >> Not just “for physics only” or “for everything”. I’m shocked — SHOCKED, I
> >> tell you! — that an engineer cannot find his way to use cases in between
> >> the two extremes.
> >>
> > He's a janitor, not an engineer. He seems to think he's an engineer
> > because he cleans the toilets of engineers and the shit rubs off on him..
> >
> He doesn’t seem to be fit for an engineer.

You, on the other hand, seem obviously to be just
perfectly fit for a fanatic, barking idiot you are.

On November 4, Townes Olson wrote:
>> From the train, the track length (circumference) contracts.
>
> As already explained, "the train" is not a single entity at rest in any inertial frame,
> it consists of cars moving in all different directions, and in terms of the inertial
> coordinates in which one of the cars is momentarily at rest the track is contracted
> into an ellipse shape, and the cars one quarter of the way around are moving at
> speed v in this frame and those half way around are moving at speed 2v, and the
> net effect is exactly the same, i.e., the total spatial length of the train at a given
> instant of this system is less than the length of the (elliptical) track at a given instant
> of this system.

The distorted shape of the track, seen by a moving car, isn't apposite.
The question is its length, relative to the train; whether any such
measured distortion is physical, or merely a co-ordinate projection.

Considering that an ellipse's circumference cannot be easily calculated,
but must be done numerically, such a naive appeal is dubious.

> The same applies to the inertial coordinates in which any other car is momentarily at rest.
> Of course, each car is accelerating (as also mentioned).

The Wikipedia article includes cites which note the the acceleration,
and consequential time dilations. So this does appear critical.

> All scenarios like this are trivial, just apply the Lorentz transformation and you won't go wrong.

Lorentz transformation, trivial, OK

As seen by an inertial observer co-moving with a short train segment,
the corresponding track segment appears contracted. Therefore the
weaker train link fractures under compression.

As seen by a static track short segment, the corresponding train segment
appears contracted. Therefore the train link fractures under tension.

Well, that settles that, thanks to Lorentz!

Far from trivial, it's been debated for a hundred years, and the arguments
cannot be summarized in a single paragraph.

--
Rich

On November 4, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> the length of the train is the sum of the lengths of the cars.
>>> A train that is moving along a curved track is not a single object at rest in
>>> any inertial coordinate system, since each car is moving in a different direction
>>> (and accelerating).
>>> To explain length contraction in this case, consider a circular track, one mile
>>> in length as measured around the track, and suppose we have a set of
>>> 100 stationary train cars, connected bumper-to-bumper all the way around
>>> the track. Now suppose we slowly accelerate this ring of cars up to speed v.
>>> The cars must break apart (or be stretched) at some point, because they
>>> are contracted in the direction of their motion by  the factor sqrt(1-v^2), so the
>>> sum of the lengths of the un-stretched cars is just sqrt(1-v^2) mile.
>
>> Does this example produce another paradox?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments#Non-Euclidean_geometry_and_the_rotating_disk

Quote: "Since spinning up disk A would cause the material to contract in the
circumferential direction but not in the radial direction, a rigid disk would become
fragmented from the induced stresses."

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which is effectively proof by
assertion.  The point under debate is whether the disc's contraction is merely
a co-ordinate projection, or a physical effect.  Assertion is unconvincing.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

The references exhibit the complexity of the model, with new analyses
continuing to the present.

What I find appealing is that Einstein and others point out that a
clock at any point of the disc will tick less than a corresponding point
on the fixed track, during one revolution. It's the twins paradox, in
disguise! One paradox involves time, the other involves length, but
they're related. Not too surprising, considering the symmetry of time
and space.

>> Seen from the track frame, the train tries to contract. But
>> it's fixed at one mile by the track, hence it stretches, until
>> it fractures at the weakest points.
>> From the train, the track length (circumference) contracts.
>> Attached to the train wheels, it forces the train to contract, until
>> it fractures, under compression.

--
Rich