Critical Theory comes in several flavors: Critical Law Theory, Critical Literature Theory, Critical History Theory, Critical Race Theory. To these we now add Critical Relativity Theory!

In the spirit of Derrida we shall deconstruct the clumsy reasoning of special relativity and separate said reasoning from the algebraic symbols and equations that express it, keeping in mind that mathematics is just another form of rhetorical expression wherein falsity can be expressed every bit as plausibly as the truth.

“There is only the text.”— J. Derrida

According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect to each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also disagree on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on the velocity they have with respect to one another. This is exceedingly strange. How can it be that two relative quantities, space and time, combine to produce an absolute quantity called relative velocity? It is true that SR does have a formula for calculating coordinate velocity; just like it has formulas for calculating coordinate space and coordinate time. But the Einstein velocity addition formula ONLY applies to a third object in motion wrt a pair of FoRs. If that third object happens to be at rest wrt one of the FoRs then Einsteinian velocity reduces to Galilean velocity, albeit subject to the speed limit c. Relativists simply assumed without further justification that if FoR-1 measures a velocity v between itself and FoR-2 then FoR-2 must measure the same numerical value v for the velocity between itself and FoR-1. Trivial? Nope. Seemingly trivial assumptions can be monumental when constructing a theory of motion. But a 26 year old would probably not yet have the requisite philosophical sophistication needed to recognize this.

Einstein’s choice to make velocity strictly Galilean when calculating the velocity between pairs of FoRs ( yes, it is a choice because it does not follow from either the first or the second postulates ) can be expressed mathematically as

∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v (1)

I now raise equation (1) to the level of a postulate and declare it to be the third, and heretofore hidden, postulate of special relativity. In recognizing its own structural Galileanism through this new postulate, special relativity can finally claim to be woke.

The problem with the third postulate is that even though it is already assumed in every equation of special relativity, it turns out to be true only when v = c ( the second postulate ) or when v = 0. The third postulate can be demonstrated invalid for all values of v in between. The invalidity of the third postulate causes special relativity fall on it’s algebraic face. Big Bang move over…Not recognizing and acknowledging the third postulate was Einstein’s biggest blunder.

Time for some examples.

DIRK & DONO

Consider two FoRs whose x-axes are parallel and lie very close to one another. The relative velocity between these two FoRs is .866c (γ = 2). Dirk assumes the Lotus position at the origin of one FoR whilst Dono assumes the fetal position at the origin of the other. Both Dirk and Dono and their clocks are glued to the origins of their respective FoRs.

Dirk opens one eye and takes note of the meter marks on Dono’s contracted x-axis as they whiz by. Dirk apprehends that Dono’s meter marks are contracted to only half as long as his own meter marks. Dirk opens the other eye and observes that Dono’s clock is ticking at only half the rate of his own clock. Dirk begins to count Dono’s meter marks as they race past Dirk’s position. After one year (by Dirk’s clock) of counting Dono’s meter marks, Dirk has tallied 1.64e+16 Dono meters ( 9.5e+15 meter marks/Ly x .866Ly x γ ). Dirk has also observed that only 0.5 years have elapsed on Dono’s clock. Dirk now calculates what his coordinate velocity should be according to Dono

( 1.64e+16 Dono meters ) / ( 1.58e+7 Dono seconds ) = 1.04e+9 m/s = 3.5c (2)

[ shortcut: ∆x’/∆t’ = (∆x/∆t)(γ^2) = v(γ^2) ] (3)

“Stop!” You cry, “Dirk’s and Dono’s relative velocity was already stipulated to be an absolute .866c with respect to one another, when measured in either FoR.”

That is true, according to (1). But remember that (1) is an arbitrary choice made by Einstein when he built his theory. It is no more legitimate a choice than the Dolan FoR coordinate velocity transform (3) for determining one’s FoR coordinate velocity. It is also no less inconsistent. For we immediately see by inspection that the Dolan FoR coordinate velocity is always greater than the relative velocity by a factor of γ^2. But Einstein’s choice for requiring Galilean FoR pair velocities clangs with just as much antinomy as Dolan’s transform, as we shall see. Special relativity’s dirty little secret is that it’s hidden third postulate (1) destroys the theory from within.

I can see by Dono’s tightening fetal position that he still doesn’t believe me. Very well. We shall prove SR’s mathematical inconsistency in the next example.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY COLLAPSES UNDER THE WEIGHT OF ITS ALGEBRAIC ORIGINAL SIN

Consider a pair of FoRs whose relative velocity v is some value other than c and other than zero. This is expressed mathematically as

v = ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t != c (4)

and

v = ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t != 0 (5)

The Lorentz transforms allow us to construct the FoR coordinate velocities for pairs of FoRs

∆x’ = γ( ∆x - v∆t )

∆t’ = γ( ∆t - ∆xv/c^2 )

∆x’/∆t’ = [ γ( ∆x - v∆t ) ] / [ γ( ∆t - ∆xv/c^2 ) ] (6)

We now endeavor to solve (6) for v in hopes of demonstrating the internal consistency of special relativity, i.e, that v = v for all pair of FoRs. We saw how this was not the case in DIRK & DONO.

The reader will find that trying to solve for v is hopeless unless we make the substitution

v = ∆x/∆t or v = ∆x’/∆t’

It does not matter which we use—either substitution is permitted by the third postulate (1).

With the substitution made, we eventually arrive at the preposterous results

∆x’/∆t’ = c (7)

or

∆x’/∆t’ = 0 (8)

The derivation is left as an exercise for the reader. For those needing help with the derivation ( I'm looking at you, Dono ) I will be happy to provide it in another post.

The laughable results (7) and (8) directly contradict our assumptions (4) and (5). Furthermore, the results impose the requirement that v is not even a variable—v turns out to be a constant always equal to c or zero. Absolutely absurd.

QED.

Algebraic relativity is thus reduced to ridiculous rubble by means mathematical reductio ad absurdum. The root cause of special relativity’s spectacular algebraic failure lies in the propositional calculus. I am happy to expatiate on that subject in another post if there is interest.

Let’s do one more example—this one ripped from the headlines of experimental physics.

MUONS, SCHMUONS!

Imagine that you are a hadron in deep space minding your own business when all of a sudden you turn to see a Lorentz-flattened earth coming at you at a velocity of .866c. In the impending collision the first thing to strike you is an air molecule high in the earth’s atmosphere. That molecules knocks the stuffing out of you. What is left of you is now a muon which means that you only have 2.2 microseconds more to live.

It turns out that the surface of the flattened earth is exactly 571.56 meters away from you, according to your own muon FoR. By a remarkable coincidence there is a flattened scintillator and a flattened clock in a flattened laboratory directly below you on the surface of the flattened earth. You note the time on the flattened lab clock. Because you are a muon, you are your own 2.2 microsecond alarm clock.

The surface of the flattened earth continues to speed towards you at .866c. 2.2 microseconds later the flattened earth, lab and scintillator smash into you. Just as you expire in the scintillator you note that only 1.1 microseconds has elapsed on the lab clock. Nothing strange here; the labs clock is traveling at γ=2 with respect to you so it only logs half as much elapsed time as you.

One of the lab scientists now cries out “Just a minute! That’s not how this story goes. First of all, it is the hadron that is Lorentz-flattened, not us. And second of all, that hadron used it’s flattened FoR to determine that is was only 571.56 meters away from our scintillator at the point it became a muon. Our unflattened earth FoR clearly indicated that the hadron was actually 1143.12 meters away when it became a muon. That’s why it took 4.4 microseconds, traveling at .866 c, to reach our scintillator. And that’s what our lab clock shows. Not 1..1 microseconds, like that dumb muon is claiming.”

Special relativity leaves us in a quandary. How much time actually did elapse on the lab clock from the moment of the muon’s inception to the moment of its scintillating demise? Was it 1.1 microseconds? Or was it 4.4 microseconds? It has to be one or the other, it can’t be both. However, different elapsed times on the same lab clock can be calculated by the muon and by the earthbound scientists with equal justification. Special relativity is incapable of providing a unique elapsed time on the lab clock. I challenge anyone to show that special relativity can provide a unique elapsed time in the preceding case.

Special relativity’s greatest experimental confirmation turns out to be it’s second greatest falsification. Gravity has been special relativity’s greatest falsification since 1907 ( check out the author’s brilliant post on special relativity vs. Kepler’s 3rd law ).

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:43:32 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> Critical Theory comes in several flavors: Critical Law Theory, Critical Literature Theory, Critical History Theory, Critical Race Theory. To these we now add Critical Relativity Theory!
>
> In the spirit of Derrida we shall deconstruct the clumsy reasoning of special relativity and separate said reasoning from the algebraic symbols and equations that express it, keeping in mind that mathematics is just another form of rhetorical expression wherein falsity can be expressed every bit as plausibly as the truth.
>
> “There is only the text.”— J. Derrida
>
> According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect to each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also disagree on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on the velocity they have with respect to one another. This is exceedingly strange. How can it be that two relative quantities, space and time, combine to produce an absolute quantity called relative velocity? It is true that SR does have a formula for calculating coordinate velocity; just like it has formulas for calculating coordinate space and coordinate time. But the Einstein velocity addition formula ONLY applies to a third object in motion wrt a pair of FoRs. If that third object happens to be at rest wrt one of the FoRs then Einsteinian velocity reduces to Galilean velocity, albeit subject to the speed limit c. Relativists simply assumed without further justification that if FoR-1 measures a velocity v between itself and FoR-2 then FoR-2 must measure the same numerical value v for the velocity between itself and FoR-1. Trivial? Nope. Seemingly trivial assumptions can be monumental when constructing a theory of motion. But a 26 year old would probably not yet have the requisite philosophical sophistication needed to recognize this.
>
> Einstein’s choice to make velocity strictly Galilean when calculating the velocity between pairs of FoRs ( yes, it is a choice because it does not follow from either the first or the second postulates ) can be expressed mathematically as
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v (1)
>
> I now raise equation (1) to the level of a postulate and declare it to be the third, and heretofore hidden, postulate of special relativity. In recognizing its own structural Galileanism through this new postulate, special relativity can finally claim to be woke.
>
> The problem with the third postulate is that even though it is already assumed in every equation of special relativity, it turns out to be true only when v = c ( the second postulate ) or when v = 0. The third postulate can be demonstrated invalid for all values of v in between. The invalidity of the third postulate causes special relativity fall on it’s algebraic face. Big Bang move over…Not recognizing and acknowledging the third postulate was Einstein’s biggest blunder.
>
> Time for some examples.
>
>
> DIRK & DONO
>
> Consider two FoRs whose x-axes are parallel and lie very close to one another. The relative velocity between these two FoRs is .866c (γ = 2). Dirk assumes the Lotus position at the origin of one FoR whilst Dono assumes the fetal position at the origin of the other. Both Dirk and Dono and their clocks are glued to the origins of their respective FoRs.
>
> Dirk opens one eye and takes note of the meter marks on Dono’s contracted x-axis as they whiz by. Dirk apprehends that Dono’s meter marks are contracted to only half as long as his own meter marks. Dirk opens the other eye and observes that Dono’s clock is ticking at only half the rate of his own clock. Dirk begins to count Dono’s meter marks as they race past Dirk’s position. After one year (by Dirk’s clock) of counting Dono’s meter marks, Dirk has tallied 1.64e+16 Dono meters ( 9.5e+15 meter marks/Ly x .866Ly x γ ). Dirk has also observed that only 0.5 years have elapsed on Dono’s clock. Dirk now calculates what his coordinate velocity should be according to Dono
>
> ( 1.64e+16 Dono meters ) / ( 1.58e+7 Dono seconds ) = 1.04e+9 m/s = 3..5c (2)
>
> [ shortcut: ∆x’/∆t’ = (∆x/∆t)(γ^2) = v(γ^2) ] (3)
>
> “Stop!” You cry, “Dirk’s and Dono’s relative velocity was already stipulated to be an absolute .866c with respect to one another, when measured in either FoR.”
>
> That is true, according to (1). But remember that (1) is an arbitrary choice made by Einstein when he built his theory. It is no more legitimate a choice than the Dolan FoR coordinate velocity transform (3) for determining one’s FoR coordinate velocity. It is also no less inconsistent. For we immediately see by inspection that the Dolan FoR coordinate velocity is always greater than the relative velocity by a factor of γ^2. But Einstein’s choice for requiring Galilean FoR pair velocities clangs with just as much antinomy as Dolan’s transform, as we shall see. Special relativity’s dirty little secret is that it’s hidden third postulate (1) destroys the theory from within.
>
> I can see by Dono’s tightening fetal position that he still doesn’t believe me. Very well. We shall prove SR’s mathematical inconsistency in the next example.
>
>
> SPECIAL RELATIVITY COLLAPSES UNDER THE WEIGHT OF ITS ALGEBRAIC ORIGINAL SIN
>
> Consider a pair of FoRs whose relative velocity v is some value other than c and other than zero. This is expressed mathematically as
>
> v = ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t != c (4)
>
> and
>
> v = ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t != 0 (5)
>
> The Lorentz transforms allow us to construct the FoR coordinate velocities for pairs of FoRs
>
> ∆x’ = γ( ∆x - v∆t )
>
> ∆t’ = γ( ∆t - ∆xv/c^2 )
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = [ γ( ∆x - v∆t ) ] / [ γ( ∆t - ∆xv/c^2 ) ] (6)
>
> We now endeavor to solve (6) for v in hopes of demonstrating the internal consistency of special relativity, i.e, that v = v for all pair of FoRs. We saw how this was not the case in DIRK & DONO.
>
> The reader will find that trying to solve for v is hopeless unless we make the substitution
>
> v = ∆x/∆t or v = ∆x’/∆t’
>
> It does not matter which we use—either substitution is permitted by the third postulate (1).
>
> With the substitution made, we eventually arrive at the preposterous results
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = c (7)
>
> or
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = 0 (8)
>
> The derivation is left as an exercise for the reader. For those needing help with the derivation ( I'm looking at you, Dono ) I will be happy to provide it in another post.
>
> The laughable results (7) and (8) directly contradict our assumptions (4) and (5). Furthermore, the results impose the requirement that v is not even a variable—v turns out to be a constant always equal to c or zero.. Absolutely absurd.
>
> QED.
>
> Algebraic relativity is thus reduced to ridiculous rubble by means mathematical reductio ad absurdum. The root cause of special relativity’s spectacular algebraic failure lies in the propositional calculus. I am happy to expatiate on that subject in another post if there is interest.
>
> Let’s do one more example—this one ripped from the headlines of experimental physics.
>
>
> MUONS, SCHMUONS!
>
> Imagine that you are a hadron in deep space minding your own business when all of a sudden you turn to see a Lorentz-flattened earth coming at you at a velocity of .866c. In the impending collision the first thing to strike you is an air molecule high in the earth’s atmosphere. That molecules knocks the stuffing out of you. What is left of you is now a muon which means that you only have 2.2 microseconds more to live.
>
> It turns out that the surface of the flattened earth is exactly 571.56 meters away from you, according to your own muon FoR. By a remarkable coincidence there is a flattened scintillator and a flattened clock in a flattened laboratory directly below you on the surface of the flattened earth. You note the time on the flattened lab clock. Because you are a muon, you are your own 2.2 microsecond alarm clock.
>
> The surface of the flattened earth continues to speed towards you at .866c. 2.2 microseconds later the flattened earth, lab and scintillator smash into you. Just as you expire in the scintillator you note that only 1.1 microseconds has elapsed on the lab clock. Nothing strange here; the labs clock is traveling at γ=2 with respect to you so it only logs half as much elapsed time as you.
>
> One of the lab scientists now cries out “Just a minute! That’s not how this story goes. First of all, it is the hadron that is Lorentz-flattened, not us. And second of all, that hadron used it’s flattened FoR to determine that is was only 571.56 meters away from our scintillator at the point it became a muon. Our unflattened earth FoR clearly indicated that the hadron was actually 1143.12 meters away when it became a muon. That’s why it took 4.4 microseconds, traveling at .866 c, to reach our scintillator. And that’s what our lab clock shows. Not 1.1 microseconds, like that dumb muon is claiming.”
>
> Special relativity leaves us in a quandary. How much time actually did elapse on the lab clock from the moment of the muon’s inception to the moment of its scintillating demise? Was it 1.1 microseconds? Or was it 4.4 microseconds? It has to be one or the other, it can’t be both. However, different elapsed times on the same lab clock can be calculated by the muon and by the earthbound scientists with equal justification. Special relativity is incapable of providing a unique elapsed time on the lab clock.. I challenge anyone to show that special relativity can provide a unique elapsed time in the preceding case.
>
> Special relativity’s greatest experimental confirmation turns out to be it’s second greatest falsification. Gravity has been special relativity’s greatest falsification since 1907 ( check out the author’s brilliant post on special relativity vs. Kepler’s 3rd law ).

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> Critical Theory comes in several flavors: Critical Law Theory, Critical
> Literature Theory, Critical History Theory, Critical Race Theory. To
> these we now add Critical Relativity Theory!
>
> In the spirit of Derrida we shall deconstruct the clumsy reasoning of
> special relativity and separate said reasoning from the algebraic symbols
> and equations that express it, keeping in mind that mathematics is just
> another form of rhetorical expression wherein falsity can be expressed
> every bit as plausibly as the truth.
>
> “There is only the text.”— J. Derrida
>
> According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect to
> each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also disagree
> on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on the velocity
> they have with respect to one another. This is exceedingly strange. How
> can it be that two relative quantities, space and time, combine to
> produce an absolute quantity called relative velocity? It is true that SR
> does have a formula for calculating coordinate velocity; just like it has
> formulas for calculating coordinate space and coordinate time. But the
> Einstein velocity addition formula ONLY applies to a third object in
> motion wrt a pair of FoRs. If that third object happens to be at rest
> wrt one of the FoRs then Einsteinian velocity reduces to Galilean
> velocity, albeit subject to the speed limit c. Relativists simply
> assumed without further justification that if FoR-1 measures a velocity v
> between itself and FoR-2 then FoR-2 must measure the same numerical value
> v for the velocity between itself and FoR-1. Trivial? Nope. Seemingly
> trivial assumptions can be monumental when constructing a theory of
> motion. But a 26 year old would probably not yet have the requisite
> philosophical sophistication needed to recognize this.

This was discussed recently here about a month or so ago, which you can
find by searching for postulate in thread titles. You have missed all the
clear explanation why this is a non-issue.

Rather than assuming you’re the first to arrive at this thought, why don’t
you take the time to research if anyone else has already thought about it?

Oh I know why. Because then you wouldn’t get an attention fix.

>
> Einstein’s choice to make velocity strictly Galilean when calculating the
> velocity between pairs of FoRs ( yes, it is a choice because it does not
> follow from either the first or the second postulates ) can be expressed mathematically as
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v (1)
>
> I now raise equation (1) to the level of a postulate and declare it to be
> the third, and heretofore hidden, postulate of special relativity. In
> recognizing its own structural Galileanism through this new postulate,
> special relativity can finally claim to be woke.
>
> The problem with the third postulate is that even though it is already
> assumed in every equation of special relativity, it turns out to be true
> only when v = c ( the second postulate ) or when v = 0. The third
> postulate can be demonstrated invalid for all values of v in between.
> The invalidity of the third postulate causes special relativity fall on
> it’s algebraic face. Big Bang move over…Not recognizing and
> acknowledging the third postulate was Einstein’s biggest blunder.
>
> Time for some examples.
>
>
> DIRK & DONO
>
> Consider two FoRs whose x-axes are parallel and lie very close to one
> another. The relative velocity between these two FoRs is .866c (γ = 2).
> Dirk assumes the Lotus position at the origin of one FoR whilst Dono
> assumes the fetal position at the origin of the other. Both Dirk and
> Dono and their clocks are glued to the origins of their respective FoRs.
>
> Dirk opens one eye and takes note of the meter marks on Dono’s contracted
> x-axis as they whiz by. Dirk apprehends that Dono’s meter marks are
> contracted to only half as long as his own meter marks. Dirk opens the
> other eye and observes that Dono’s clock is ticking at only half the rate
> of his own clock. Dirk begins to count Dono’s meter marks as they race
> past Dirk’s position. After one year (by Dirk’s clock) of counting
> Dono’s meter marks, Dirk has tallied 1.64e+16 Dono meters ( 9.5e+15 meter
> marks/Ly x .866Ly x γ ). Dirk has also observed that only 0.5 years have
> elapsed on Dono’s clock. Dirk now calculates what his coordinate
> velocity should be according to Dono
>
> ( 1.64e+16 Dono meters ) / ( 1.58e+7 Dono seconds ) = 1.04e+9 m/s = 3.5c (2)
>
> [ shortcut: ∆x’/∆t’ = (∆x/∆t)(γ^2) = v(γ^2) ] (3)
>
> “Stop!” You cry, “Dirk’s and Dono’s relative velocity was already
> stipulated to be an absolute .866c with respect to one another, when
> measured in either FoR.”
>
> That is true, according to (1). But remember that (1) is an arbitrary
> choice made by Einstein when he built his theory. It is no more
> legitimate a choice than the Dolan FoR coordinate velocity transform (3)
> for determining one’s FoR coordinate velocity. It is also no less
> inconsistent. For we immediately see by inspection that the Dolan FoR
> coordinate velocity is always greater than the relative velocity by a
> factor of γ^2. But Einstein’s choice for requiring Galilean FoR pair
> velocities clangs with just as much antinomy as Dolan’s transform, as we
> shall see. Special relativity’s dirty little secret is that it’s hidden
> third postulate (1) destroys the theory from within.
>
> I can see by Dono’s tightening fetal position that he still doesn’t
> believe me. Very well. We shall prove SR’s mathematical inconsistency
> in the next example.
>
>
> SPECIAL RELATIVITY COLLAPSES UNDER THE WEIGHT OF ITS ALGEBRAIC ORIGINAL SIN
>
> Consider a pair of FoRs whose relative velocity v is some value other
> than c and other than zero. This is expressed mathematically as
>
> v = ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t != c (4)
>
> and
>
> v = ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t != 0 (5)
>
> The Lorentz transforms allow us to construct the FoR coordinate
> velocities for pairs of FoRs
>
> ∆x’ = γ( ∆x - v∆t )
>
> ∆t’ = γ( ∆t - ∆xv/c^2 )
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = [ γ( ∆x - v∆t ) ] / [ γ( ∆t - ∆xv/c^2 ) ] (6)
>
> We now endeavor to solve (6) for v in hopes of demonstrating the internal
> consistency of special relativity, i.e, that v = v for all pair of FoRs.
> We saw how this was not the case in DIRK & DONO.
>
> The reader will find that trying to solve for v is hopeless unless we make the substitution
>
> v = ∆x/∆t or v = ∆x’/∆t’
>
> It does not matter which we use—either substitution is permitted by the
> third postulate (1).
>
> With the substitution made, we eventually arrive at the preposterous results
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = c (7)
>
> or
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = 0 (8)
>
> The derivation is left as an exercise for the reader. For those needing
> help with the derivation ( I'm looking at you, Dono ) I will be happy to
> provide it in another post.
>
> The laughable results (7) and (8) directly contradict our assumptions (4)
> and (5). Furthermore, the results impose the requirement that v is not
> even a variable—v turns out to be a constant always equal to c or zero. Absolutely absurd.
>
> QED.
>
> Algebraic relativity is thus reduced to ridiculous rubble by means
> mathematical reductio ad absurdum. The root cause of special relativity’s
> spectacular algebraic failure lies in the propositional calculus. I am
> happy to expatiate on that subject in another post if there is interest.
>
> Let’s do one more example—this one ripped from the headlines of experimental physics.
>
>
> MUONS, SCHMUONS!
>
> Imagine that you are a hadron in deep space minding your own business
> when all of a sudden you turn to see a Lorentz-flattened earth coming at
> you at a velocity of .866c. In the impending collision the first thing
> to strike you is an air molecule high in the earth’s atmosphere. That
> molecules knocks the stuffing out of you. What is left of you is now a
> muon which means that you only have 2.2 microseconds more to live.
>
> It turns out that the surface of the flattened earth is exactly 571.56
> meters away from you, according to your own muon FoR. By a remarkable
> coincidence there is a flattened scintillator and a flattened clock in a
> flattened laboratory directly below you on the surface of the flattened
> earth. You note the time on the flattened lab clock. Because you are a
> muon, you are your own 2.2 microsecond alarm clock.
>
> The surface of the flattened earth continues to speed towards you at
> .866c. 2.2 microseconds later the flattened earth, lab and scintillator
> smash into you. Just as you expire in the scintillator you note that
> only 1.1 microseconds has elapsed on the lab clock. Nothing strange
> here; the labs clock is traveling at γ=2 with respect to you so it only
> logs half as much elapsed time as you.
>
> One of the lab scientists now cries out “Just a minute! That’s not how
> this story goes. First of all, it is the hadron that is
> Lorentz-flattened, not us. And second of all, that hadron used it’s
> flattened FoR to determine that is was only 571.56 meters away from our
> scintillator at the point it became a muon. Our unflattened earth FoR
> clearly indicated that the hadron was actually 1143.12 meters away when
> it became a muon. That’s why it took 4.4 microseconds, traveling at .866
> c, to reach our scintillator. And that’s what our lab clock shows. Not
> 1.1 microseconds, like that dumb muon is claiming.”
>
> Special relativity leaves us in a quandary. How much time actually did
> elapse on the lab clock from the moment of the muon’s inception to the
> moment of its scintillating demise? Was it 1.1 microseconds? Or was it
> 4.4 microseconds? It has to be one or the other, it can’t be both.
> However, different elapsed times on the same lab clock can be calculated
> by the muon and by the earthbound scientists with equal justification.
> Special relativity is incapable of providing a unique elapsed time on the
> lab clock. I challenge anyone to show that special relativity can
> provide a unique elapsed time in the preceding case.
>
> Special relativity’s greatest experimental confirmation turns out to be
> it’s second greatest falsification. Gravity has been special
> relativity’s greatest falsification since 1907 ( check out the author’s
> brilliant post on special relativity vs. Kepler’s 3rd law ).
>

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:43:32 PM UTC-8, cretin patyycakes dolan wrote:
> snip imbecilities<

Op 16-nov.-2021 om 04:43 schreef patdolan:
> Critical Theory comes in several flavors: Critical Law Theory,
> Critical Literature Theory, Critical History Theory, Critical Race
> Theory. To these we now add Critical Relativity Theory!
>
> In the spirit of Derrida we shall deconstruct the clumsy reasoning of
> special relativity and separate said reasoning from the algebraic
> symbols and equations that express it, keeping in mind that
> mathematics is just another form of rhetorical expression wherein
> falsity can be expressed every bit as plausibly as the truth.
>
> “There is only the text.”— J. Derrida
>
> According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect
> to each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also
> disagree on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on
> the velocity they have with respect to one another. This is
> exceedingly strange. How can it be that two relative quantities,
> space and time, combine to produce an absolute quantity called
> relative velocity? It is true that SR does have a formula for
> calculating coordinate velocity; just like it has formulas for
> calculating coordinate space and coordinate time. But the Einstein
> velocity addition formula ONLY applies to a third object in motion
> wrt a pair of FoRs. If that third object happens to be at rest wrt
> one of the FoRs then Einsteinian velocity reduces to Galilean
> velocity, albeit subject to the speed limit c. Relativists simply
> assumed without further justification that if FoR-1 measures a
> velocity v between itself and FoR-2 then FoR-2 must measure the same
> numerical value v for the velocity between itself and FoR-1. Trivial?
> Nope. Seemingly trivial assumptions can be monumental when
> constructing a theory of motion. But a 26 year old would probably
> not yet have the requisite philosophical sophistication needed to
> recognize this.
>
> Einstein’s choice to make velocity strictly Galilean when calculating
> the velocity between pairs of FoRs ( yes, it is a choice because it
> does not follow from either the first or the second postulates ) can
> be expressed mathematically as
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v (1)

You can only write
∆x’/∆t’ = v
for events taking place on an object at rest in FoR-1, i.o.w.
for events taking place a the same location in For-1, i.o.w.
for events that satisfy
∆x = 0.

You can only write
∆x/∆t = v
for events taking place on an object at rest in FoR-2, i.o.w.
for events taking place a the same location in For-2, i.o.w.
for events that satisfy
∆x' = 0.

Unless v = 0 (and thus FoR-1 = FoR-2), there are no objects
that are at rest in both FoR-1 and FoR-2, i.o.w. there are
no distinct events that happen at the same place in both
FoR-1 and FoR-2.

So, yes
0/∆t’ = 0/∆t = 0
for all values of ∆t' and ∆t.
A profound discovery, congratulations!

So when you write
∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,
you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

But by the way, perhaps you just want to say that the origins
of FoR-1 and FoR-2 have mutual velocity v w.r.t. each other.
So you want to say that
∆x’/∆t’ = v
for events taking place on an object at rest in FoR-1 (∆x=0)
and that
∆x/∆t = v
for events taking place on an object at rest in FoR-2 (∆x'=0)
*without* combining the equations?

In that case you have the x and x' axes pointing in different
directions, and the standard Lorentz transformation then takes
the form
∆x’ = - g ( ∆x - v ∆t )
∆t’ = g ( ∆t - v/c^2 ∆x )
and the inverse
∆x = - g ( ∆x' - v ∆t' )
∆t = g ( ∆t' - v/c^2 ∆x' )
where
g = 1 / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

See if this helps.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> n that case you have the x and x' axes pointing in different directions,
> and the standard Lorentz transformation then takes the form
> ∆x’ = - g ( ∆x - v ∆t ) ∆t’ = g ( ∆t - v/c^2 ∆x )
> and the inverse
> ∆x = - g ( ∆x' - v ∆t' ) ∆t = g ( ∆t' - v/c^2 ∆x' )
> where
> g = 1 / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
>
> See if this helps.

not sure, you are working in 3D, meanwhile the g is 1D.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

Bodkin, I searched on the word "postulate" as you suggested. From Aug 1, 2021 until today. I am the only poster that the search returned.

> So when you write
> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,
> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
>
c is a velocity too.

∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c, aka the second postulate. Now do I know what I am talking about?

Prove to this forum that a pair of observers glued to the origins of their respective FoRs measure the same relative velocity between their FoRs. I have disproved this in three different ways.

You need to think about this a little more, Dirk. Why don't you try assuming the Lotus position. See if that helps.
> See if this helps.
>
> Dirk Vdm

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:27:43 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > So when you write
> > ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,
> > you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
> >
> c is a velocity too.
>
> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c, aka the second postulate. Now do I know what I am talking about?
>
> Prove to this forum that a pair of observers glued to the origins of their respective FoRs measure the same relative velocity between their FoRs. I have disproved this in three different ways.
>
> You need to think about this a little more, Dirk. Why don't you try assuming the Lotus position. See if that helps.
> > See if this helps.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
Oh, and nice pick up on my removing the "-" from my derivation. It is the one and only liberty I took for the sake of clarity. So, yes, you did at least prove that the x-axes do point in opposite directions. At least you can feel good about that.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:27:43 AM UTC-8, pattycakes dolan wrote:
> I have disproved this in three different ways.

Three different way, one common imbecility

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Bodkin, I searched on the word "postulate" as you suggested. From Aug 1,
> 2021 until today. I am the only poster that the search returned.
>

Search for “unstated special relativity axiom”.

Would the next spoon feeding require a rubber-coated spoon?

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

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:43:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Bodkin, I searched on the word "postulate" as you suggested. From Aug 1,
> > 2021 until today. I am the only poster that the search returned.
> >
> Search for “unstated special relativity axiom”.
>
> Would the next spoon feeding require a rubber-coated spoon?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Bodkin,

I give Ricardo Jimenez priority as being first to publish. But I reserver for myself the claim of being first to rigorously prove what the brilliant and far-sighted Ricardo only suspected.

PS--I certainly enjoyed Ricardo exposing that blowhard Robert's circular reasoning on this issue. And rotchm! rotchm had an absolute panic attack and started delivering a course on vector algebra in order to avoid the subject entirely.

I should like to meet the Jimenez fellow online sometime.

PPS--how's the re-think going Dirk? Let me know if you get stuck again.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:43:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Bodkin, I searched on the word "postulate" as you suggested. From Aug 1,
>>> 2021 until today. I am the only poster that the search returned.
>>>
>> Search for “unstated special relativity axiom”.
>>
>> Would the next spoon feeding require a rubber-coated spoon?
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Bodkin,
>
> I give Ricardo Jimenez priority as being first to publish.

And you seem not to have read anything in the thread showing Ricardo where
he was astray.

> But I reserver for myself the claim of being first to rigorously prove
> what the brilliant and far-sighted Ricardo only suspected.
>
> PS--I certainly enjoyed Ricardo exposing that blowhard Robert's circular
> reasoning on this issue. And rotchm! rotchm had an absolute panic
> attack and started delivering a course on vector algebra in order to
> avoid the subject entirely.
>
> I should like to meet the Jimenez fellow online sometime.
>
> PPS--how's the re-think going Dirk? Let me know if you get stuck again.
>

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

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 9:10:40 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:43:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, I searched on the word "postulate" as you suggested. From Aug 1,
> >>> 2021 until today. I am the only poster that the search returned.
> >>>
> >> Search for “unstated special relativity axiom”.
> >>
> >> Would the next spoon feeding require a rubber-coated spoon?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Bodkin,
> >
> > I give Ricardo Jimenez priority as being first to publish.
> And you seem not to have read anything in the thread showing Ricardo where
> he was astray.

That's is correct Bodkin. Because RJ appears to have answered every objection and parried every passe'. Do you disagree?

Bodkin: Yes.
Dolan: Where?
Bodkin: I won't spoon feed you.

> > But I reserver for myself the claim of being first to rigorously prove
> > what the brilliant and far-sighted Ricardo only suspected.
> >
> > PS--I certainly enjoyed Ricardo exposing that blowhard Robert's circular
> > reasoning on this issue. And rotchm! rotchm had an absolute panic
> > attack and started delivering a course on vector algebra in order to
> > avoid the subject entirely.
> >
> > I should like to meet the Jimenez fellow online sometime.
> >
> > PPS--how's the re-think going Dirk? Let me know if you get stuck again.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 9:10:40 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:43:21 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, I searched on the word "postulate" as you suggested. From Aug 1,
>>>>> 2021 until today. I am the only poster that the search returned.
>>>>>
>>>> Search for “unstated special relativity axiom”.
>>>>
>>>> Would the next spoon feeding require a rubber-coated spoon?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Bodkin,
>>>
>>> I give Ricardo Jimenez priority as being first to publish.
>> And you seem not to have read anything in the thread showing Ricardo where
>> he was astray.
>
> That's is correct Bodkin. Because RJ appears to have answered every
> objection and parried every passe'. Do you disagree?

Yes. Read the conversation.

>
> Bodkin: Yes.
> Dolan: Where?
> Bodkin: I won't spoon feed you.

Well, I’m not going to read for you.

>
>>> But I reserver for myself the claim of being first to rigorously prove
>>> what the brilliant and far-sighted Ricardo only suspected.
>>>
>>> PS--I certainly enjoyed Ricardo exposing that blowhard Robert's circular
>>> reasoning on this issue. And rotchm! rotchm had an absolute panic
>>> attack and started delivering a course on vector algebra in order to
>>> avoid the subject entirely.
>>>
>>> I should like to meet the Jimenez fellow online sometime.
>>>
>>> PPS--how's the re-think going Dirk? Let me know if you get stuck again.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Op 16-nov.-2021 om 17:27 schreef patdolan:
>
>> So when you write ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , you clearly have no idea
>> what you are talking about.
>>
> c is a velocity too.
>
> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c, aka the second postulate. Now do I know what I
> am talking about?
>
> Prove to this forum that a pair of observers glued to the origins of
> their respective FoRs measure the same relative velocity between
> their FoRs. I have disproved this in three different ways.

After all these years, you still haven't got the faintest clue.
In three different ways you've shown again what a MEGA-duncehead
you are.

Dirk Vdm

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 9:33:01 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 16-nov.-2021 om 17:27 schreef patdolan:
> >
> >> So when you write ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , you clearly have no idea
> >> what you are talking about.
> >>
> > c is a velocity too.
> >
> > ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c, aka the second postulate. Now do I know what I
> > am talking about?
> >
> > Prove to this forum that a pair of observers glued to the origins of
> > their respective FoRs measure the same relative velocity between
> > their FoRs. I have disproved this in three different ways.
> After all these years, you still haven't got the faintest clue.
> In three different ways you've shown again what a MEGA-duncehead
> you are.
>
> Dirk Vdm

That's all ya got Dirk? Okaaaaaaaay.....my paper has just passed it's first (sub-)peer review. On to bigger venues!

Op 16-nov.-2021 om 18:50 schreef patdolan:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 9:33:01 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de
> moortel wrote:
>> Op 16-nov.-2021 om 17:27 schreef patdolan:
>>>
>>>> So when you write ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v , you clearly have no
>>>> idea what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>> c is a velocity too.
>>>
>>> ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t = c, aka the second postulate. Now do I know what
>>> I am talking about?
>>>
>>> Prove to this forum that a pair of observers glued to the origins
>>> of their respective FoRs measure the same relative velocity
>>> between their FoRs. I have disproved this in three different
>>> ways.
>> After all these years, you still haven't got the faintest clue. In
>> three different ways you've shown again what a MEGA-duncehead you
>> are.

Make that four.

Dirk Vdm

>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> That's all ya got Dirk? Okaaaaaaaay.....my paper has just passed
> it's first (sub-)peer review. On to bigger venues!
>

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>>>> Prove to this forum that a pair of observers glued to the origins of
>>>> their respective FoRs measure the same relative velocity between
>>>> their FoRs. I have disproved this in three different ways.
>>> After all these years, you still haven't got the faintest clue. In
>>> three different ways you've shown again what a MEGA-duncehead you are.
>
> Make that four.

you don't understand, look

So the conspiracy theorists were right again
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zw87PJZ3pea9/

patdolan wrote:

> Critical Theory comes in several flavors: Critical Law Theory, Critical
> Literature Theory, Critical History Theory, Critical Race Theory. To
> these we now add Critical Relativity Theory!
>
> In the spirit of Derrida we shall deconstruct the clumsy reasoning of
> special relativity

LOL.

> and separate said reasoning from the algebraic symbols and equations
> that express it,

Since it is fundamentally based in geometry, namely frames of reference
which can understood as (moving) coordinate systems, that approach is
hopeless.

> keeping in mind that mathematics is just another form of rhetorical
> expression wherein falsity can be expressed every bit as plausibly
> as the truth.

Not true. Natural language is ambiguous and rather loose; it is why
(despite knowing logic) it is so easy to commit fallacies using natural
language. Mathematics, in its symbols, terms, and reasoning is (given a
context) unambiguous and unforgivingly strict.

In the words of Richard Feynman:

‘You might say, “All right, then, there’s no explanation of the law;
at least tell me what the law is — why not tell me in words instead of
in the symbols? Mathematics is just a language, and I want to be able
to translate the language." And, in fact, I can — and with patience,
I think I partly did. I could go a little further and explain more
detail — that this means if it’s twice as far away the force is
one-fourth as much, and so on — and can convert all these into words.
I would be, in other words, kind to the layman, as they all sit, hopeful
that you will explain something. Various different people get different
reputations for their skill at explaining to the layman in layman’s
language these difficult and abstruse subjects.

The layman then searches for book after book with the hope that he will
avoid the complexity which ultimately sets in, even by the best expositor
of this type. He reads the things, hoping — he finds, as he reads, a
generally increased confusion, one complicated statement after the other,
one difficult-to-understand thing after the other, all apparently
disconnected from one another — and it becomes a little obscure, and
he hopes that maybe in some other book there’s some explanation which
avoids — I mean, the man almost made it, you see — maybe another fellow
makes it right.

I don’t think it’s possible, because there’s another feature: mathematics
is not just a language; mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it’s
like a language plus logic. Mathematics is a tool for reasoning. It’s in
fact a big collection of the results of some person’s careful thought and
reasoning. […]’

<https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>

> “There is only the text.”— J. Derrida

LOL.
> According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect to
> each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also disagree
> on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on the velocity
> they have with respect to one another.

No, the velocity that observer A ascribes to observer B is necessarily the
arithmetic inverse of the velocity that observer ascribes to observer B,
provided that they are both looking in the same direction and choose their
coordinate systems such that the positive part in on the same (usually
right-hand) side.

> This is exceedingly strange.

There is nothing strange about it.

> How can it be that two relative quantities, space and time, combine to
> produce an absolute quantity called relative velocity?

It is not absolute at all. If it were absolute, then every observer would
assign the same velocity to the same object, regardless of their relative
state of motion. The very point of the theories of relativity is that this
is not so.

However, if you consider the relevant equations of the (inverse) Lorentz
transformation for relative (inertial) motion *only* along the x-axis,

t = γ (t' + v/c² x')
x = γ (x' + v t'),

where for simplicity we say that v would be the velocity (usually just a
speed, but this particular motion is one-dimensional) that an observer that
we define as stationary would assign to a clock that, at rest in its own
frame shows time t, then you can see that for the temporal interval

Δt = γ (Δt' + v/c² Δx') = γ Δt'

and for the spatial interval

Δx = γ (Δx' + v Δt') = γ v Δt',

then the velocity of that moving clock for the stationary observer is still

Δx/Δt = v.

Similarly for an observer at rest in the "moving" frame, when they are
talking about a clock that is at rest in the stationary frame, they
transform the coordinates by the (original) Lorentz transformation

t' = γ (t − v/c² x)
x' = γ (x − v t),

– you can obtain that by solving the equations for the other quantity, not
just by arbitrary substitution – which for (their) time intervals becomes

Δt' = γ (Δt − v/c² Δx) = γ Δt
Δx' = γ (Δx − v Δt) = −γ v Δt.

Then the velocity that they assign to the stationary clock is

Δx'/Δt' = −v,

as we would expect.

> It is true that SR does have a formula for calculating coordinate
> velocity; just like it has formulas for calculating coordinate space
> and coordinate time. But the Einstein velocity addition formula ONLY
> applies to a third object in motion wrt a pair of FoRs.

But the second FoR is implied when we are talking about a velocity. There
has to be some frame of reference relative to which we are defining the
value.

> If that third object happens to be at rest wrt one of the FoRs then
> Einsteinian velocity reduces to Galilean velocity,

Yes, but that is a rather pointless statement because “at rest” means that
the relative velocity is zero.

It is more useful to realize that as one of the relative speeds *approaches*
zero the composed velocity *approaches* the Galilean term:

u(v, u') = (v + u')/(1 + v u'/c²)

lim_{v u' → 0} u(v, u') = v + u',

as v u'/c² → 0 then due to the large value of c.

[This equation did not simply fell out of the sky. It is, again, a
(mathematical) *consequence* of the Lorentz transformation, and Einstein
derives it in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905). I have
also derived it here many times.]

> albeit subject to the speed limit c.

That is a contradiction in terms.

> Relativists simply assumed without further justification that if FoR-1
> measures a velocity v between itself and FoR-2 then FoR-2 must measure
> the same numerical value v for the velocity between itself and FoR-1.

No.

> Einstein’s choice to make velocity strictly Galilean when calculating the
> velocity between pairs of FoRs ( yes, it is a choice because it does not
> follow from either the first or the second postulates ) can be expressed
> mathematically as
>
> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v (1)

Wrong, see above.
> I now raise equation (1) to the level of a postulate and declare it to be
> the third, and heretofore hidden, postulate of special relativity.

But you do not understand special relativity correctly (yet).
Your/an argument/conclusions from your ignorance is a useless fallacy.

> [tl;dr]

PointedEars
--
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> patdolan wrote:
>> According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect to
>> each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also disagree
>> on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on the velocity
>> they have with respect to one another.
>
> No, the velocity that observer A ascribes to observer B is necessarily the
> arithmetic inverse of the velocity that observer ascribes to observer B,

I meant to write

„No, the velocity that observer A ascribes to observer B is necessarily the
arithmetic inverse of the velocity that observer B ascribes to observer A,“

> provided that they are both looking in the same direction and choose their
> coordinate systems such that the positive part in on the same (usually
> right-hand) side.

PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:09:39 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
>
> > Critical Theory comes in several flavors: Critical Law Theory, Critical
> > Literature Theory, Critical History Theory, Critical Race Theory. To
> > these we now add Critical Relativity Theory!
> >
> > In the spirit of Derrida we shall deconstruct the clumsy reasoning of
> > special relativity
> LOL.
> > and separate said reasoning from the algebraic symbols and equations
> > that express it,
> Since it is fundamentally based in geometry, namely frames of reference
> which can understood as (moving) coordinate systems, that approach is
> hopeless.
> > keeping in mind that mathematics is just another form of rhetorical
> > expression wherein falsity can be expressed every bit as plausibly
> > as the truth.

> Not true. Natural language is ambiguous and rather loose; it is why
> (despite knowing logic) it is so easy to commit fallacies using natural
> language. Mathematics, in its symbols, terms, and reasoning is (given a
> context) unambiguous and unforgivingly strict.

1^4 = i^4

sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]

+/-( 1^2 ) = +/-( i^2 )

+/-( 1 ) = +/-( -1 )

+/- 1 = -/+ 1

>
> In the words of Richard Feynman:
>
> ‘You might say, “All right, then, there’s no explanation of the law;
> at least tell me what the law is — why not tell me in words instead of
> in the symbols?

I did this. See MUONS, SCHMUONS! at the bottom of my post. Read through it slow, Long Ears. Then take up my challenge if you dare: Prove that relativity provides only one and unique answer for the elapsed time on the lab clock. I can assure the world and posterity that you can't and won't do prove one, unique time.

Mathematics is just a language, and I want to be able
> to translate the language." And, in fact, I can — and with patience,
> I think I partly did. I could go a little further and explain more
> detail — that this means if it’s twice as far away the force is
> one-fourth as much, and so on — and can convert all these into words.
> I would be, in other words, kind to the layman, as they all sit, hopeful
> that you will explain something. Various different people get different
> reputations for their skill at explaining to the layman in layman’s
> language these difficult and abstruse subjects.
>
> The layman then searches for book after book with the hope that he will
> avoid the complexity which ultimately sets in, even by the best expositor
> of this type. He reads the things, hoping — he finds, as he reads, a
> generally increased confusion, one complicated statement after the other,
> one difficult-to-understand thing after the other, all apparently
> disconnected from one another — and it becomes a little obscure, and
> he hopes that maybe in some other book there’s some explanation which
> avoids — I mean, the man almost made it, you see — maybe another fellow
> makes it right.
>
> I don’t think it’s possible, because there’s another feature: mathematics
> is not just a language; mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it’s
> like a language plus logic. Mathematics is a tool for reasoning. It’s in
> fact a big collection of the results of some person’s careful thought and
> reasoning. […]’
>
> <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
> > “There is only the text.”— J. Derrida
> LOL.
> > According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect to
> > each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also disagree
> > on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on the velocity
> > they have with respect to one another.
> No, the velocity that observer A ascribes to observer B is necessarily the
> arithmetic inverse of the velocity that observer ascribes to observer B,
> provided that they are both looking in the same direction and choose their
> coordinate systems such that the positive part in on the same (usually
> right-hand) side.
>
> > This is exceedingly strange.
>
> There is nothing strange about it.
> > How can it be that two relative quantities, space and time, combine to
> > produce an absolute quantity called relative velocity?
> It is not absolute at all. If it were absolute, then every observer would
> assign the same velocity to the same object, regardless of their relative
> state of motion. The very point of the theories of relativity is that this
> is not so.
>
> However, if you consider the relevant equations of the (inverse) Lorentz
> transformation for relative (inertial) motion *only* along the x-axis,
>
> t = γ (t' + v/c² x')
> x = γ (x' + v t'),
>
> where for simplicity we say that v would be the velocity (usually just a
> speed, but this particular motion is one-dimensional) that an observer that
> we define as stationary would assign to a clock that, at rest in its own
> frame shows time t, then you can see that for the temporal interval
>
> Δt = γ (Δt' + v/c² Δx') = γ Δt'
>
> and for the spatial interval
>
> Δx = γ (Δx' + v Δt') = γ v Δt',
>
> then the velocity of that moving clock for the stationary observer is still
>
> Δx/Δt = v.
>
> Similarly for an observer at rest in the "moving" frame, when they are
> talking about a clock that is at rest in the stationary frame, they
> transform the coordinates by the (original) Lorentz transformation
>
> t' = γ (t − v/c² x)
> x' = γ (x − v t),
>
> – you can obtain that by solving the equations for the other quantity, not
> just by arbitrary substitution – which for (their) time intervals becomes
>
> Δt' = γ (Δt − v/c² Δx) = γ Δt
> Δx' = γ (Δx − v Δt) = −γ v Δt.
>
> Then the velocity that they assign to the stationary clock is
>
> Δx'/Δt' = −v,
>
> as we would expect.
> > It is true that SR does have a formula for calculating coordinate
> > velocity; just like it has formulas for calculating coordinate space
> > and coordinate time. But the Einstein velocity addition formula ONLY
> > applies to a third object in motion wrt a pair of FoRs.
> But the second FoR is implied when we are talking about a velocity. There
> has to be some frame of reference relative to which we are defining the
> value.
> > If that third object happens to be at rest wrt one of the FoRs then
> > Einsteinian velocity reduces to Galilean velocity,
> Yes, but that is a rather pointless statement because “at rest” means that
> the relative velocity is zero.
>
> It is more useful to realize that as one of the relative speeds *approaches*
> zero the composed velocity *approaches* the Galilean term:
>
> u(v, u') = (v + u')/(1 + v u'/c²)
>
> lim_{v u' → 0} u(v, u') = v + u',
>
> as v u'/c² → 0 then due to the large value of c.
>
> [This equation did not simply fell out of the sky. It is, again, a
> (mathematical) *consequence* of the Lorentz transformation, and Einstein
> derives it in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905). I have
> also derived it here many times.]
> > albeit subject to the speed limit c.
> That is a contradiction in terms.
> > Relativists simply assumed without further justification that if FoR-1
> > measures a velocity v between itself and FoR-2 then FoR-2 must measure
> > the same numerical value v for the velocity between itself and FoR-1.
> No.
> > Einstein’s choice to make velocity strictly Galilean when calculating the
> > velocity between pairs of FoRs ( yes, it is a choice because it does not
> > follow from either the first or the second postulates ) can be expressed
> > mathematically as
> >
> > ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v (1)
> Wrong, see above.
> > I now raise equation (1) to the level of a postulate and declare it to be
> > the third, and heretofore hidden, postulate of special relativity.
> But you do not understand special relativity correctly (yet).
> Your/an argument/conclusions from your ignorance is a useless fallacy.
>
> > [tl;dr]
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> “Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
> so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
> of the entire tapestry.”
> —Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

Thomas, I have no interest in debating the algebra with you. You are not appreciating the meta-algebra involved. Nor will you anytime soon. Just address the MUONS, SCHMUONS! challenge. Or go silent. You have always been a second stringer in this forum.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 00:09:39 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
>
> > Critical Theory comes in several flavors: Critical Law Theory, Critical
> > Literature Theory, Critical History Theory, Critical Race Theory. To
> > these we now add Critical Relativity Theory!
> >
> > In the spirit of Derrida we shall deconstruct the clumsy reasoning of
> > special relativity
> LOL.
> > and separate said reasoning from the algebraic symbols and equations
> > that express it,
> Since it is fundamentally based in geometry, namely frames of reference
> which can understood as (moving) coordinate systems, that approach is
> hopeless.
> > keeping in mind that mathematics is just another form of rhetorical
> > expression wherein falsity can be expressed every bit as plausibly
> > as the truth.
> Not true. Natural language is ambiguous and rather loose; it is why
> (despite knowing logic) it is so easy to commit fallacies using natural
> language. Mathematics, in its symbols, terms, and reasoning is (given a
> context) unambiguous and unforgivingly strict.

Wishes.

> I don’t think it’s possible, because there’s another feature: mathematics
> is not just a language; mathematics is a language plus reasoning

So is natural language. It's just that it can use complicated terms
and complicated rules.

> No, the velocity that observer A ascribes to observer B is necessarily the
> arithmetic inverse of the velocity that observer ascribes to observer B,

In the meantime in the reral world, both observers observe
GPS clocks measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

> It is not absolute at all. If it were absolute, then every observer would
> assign the same velocity to the same object, regardless of their relative
> state of motion. The very point of the theories of relativity is that this
> is not so.

Your tales of observers assigning this and that didn't match the real
observers even in Galileo's time. Your little theories are - simply - too
primitive; or, as you wish, the real observers are too complcated.

> “Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
> so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
> of the entire tapestry.”
> —Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

Mystical bullshit.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 00:35:02 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > patdolan wrote:
> >> According to special relativity two observers in motion with respect to
> >> each other will disagree on each other’s length. They will also disagree
> >> on the proper flow of time. But they will always agree on the velocity
> >> they have with respect to one another.
> >
> > No, the velocity that observer A ascribes to observer B is necessarily the
> > arithmetic inverse of the velocity that observer ascribes to observer B,
> I meant to write
>
> „No, the velocity that observer A ascribes to observer B is necessarily the
> arithmetic inverse of the velocity that observer B ascribes to observer A,“

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

Le 18/11/2021 à 00:09, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

> u(v, u') = (v + u')/(1 + v u'/c²)

Yes, linear addition (because µ=0° and cosµ=1).

and perpendicular addition µ=90° cosµ=0 --->
u=sqrt|v²+u'²-v²u'²/c²]

-----

otherwise : speeds general addition :

u(v, u') = sqrt[(v+cosµ.u')²+(sinµ.u'sqrt(1-v²/c²)²)] /
(1+cosµ.u'.v/c²)

R.H.