On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> 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.
No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You need to stop making up shit (and eating it)

Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> 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.
> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You need to stop
> making up shit (and eating it)

LOL.

R.H.

Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> 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.
>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>
> LOL.

Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...

ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
hasard?

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 02:57:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> > Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >
> > LOL.
> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...

sqrt, of course, is a multivalue function, returning a set of
numbers; right, poor halfbrain?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 02:57:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>>>
>>> LOL.
>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
>
> sqrt, of course, is a multivalue function, returning a set of
> numbers; right,

A multivalued function is NOT a function returning a set of numbers.
BTW, this is off-topic.

> poor halfbrain?

Nice sig, Woz.

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 12:20:52 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 02:57:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>
> >>> LOL.
> >> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >
> > sqrt, of course, is a multivalue function, returning a set of
> > numbers; right,
> A multivalued function is NOT a function returning a set of numbers.
> BTW, this is off-topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivalued_function
quoting
"also called [..], set-valued function"
No, I can't agree it's off topic, since sqrt, a well-known multivalued
function is invoked.

Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>>
>> LOL.
>
> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
>
> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> hasard?

Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.

J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
coeur.

Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
simultanéité.

Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.

Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
durées.

J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
correctement sinon moi).

Les bonnes formules sont :
x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
recopiage.

Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.

L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
les prennent à la plaisanterie.

R.H.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> > Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>
> >> LOL.
> >
> > Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> > le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >
> > ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> > hasard?
> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
>
> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> coeur.
>
> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> simultanéité.
>
> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
>
> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> durées.
>
> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> correctement sinon moi).
>
> Les bonnes formules sont :
> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>
> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> recopiage.
>
> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
>
> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
>
> R.H.
This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German, Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>>>>
>>>> LOL.
>>>
>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
>>>
>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
>>> hasard?
>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
>>
>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
>> coeur.
>>
>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
>> simultanéité.
>>
>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
>>
>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
>> durées.
>>
>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
>> correctement sinon moi).
>>
>> Les bonnes formules sont :
>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>
>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
>> recopiage.
>>
>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
>>
>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
>>
>> R.H.
> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
>

Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
Have you considered reading a good book about it?
Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?

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

Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> 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.
> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You need to stop
> making up shit (and eating it)

Formule d'addition générale des vitesses relativistes.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?KOAY_Ps7TstyxoZ8n1LolayUV30@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> >>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>>
> >>>> LOL.
> >>>
> >>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >>>
> >>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> >>> hasard?
> >> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
> >>
> >> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> >> coeur.
> >>
> >> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> >> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> >> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> >> simultanéité.
> >>
> >> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
> >>
> >> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> >> durées.
> >>
> >> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> >> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> >> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> >> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> >> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> >> correctement sinon moi).
> >>
> >> Les bonnes formules sont :
> >> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> >> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>
> >> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> >> recopiage.
> >>
> >> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
> >>
> >> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> >> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> >> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> >> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> >> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
> >>
> >> R.H.
> > This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> > Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
> >
> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.. Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you; that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge: Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:43:42 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >> 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.
> > No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You need to stop
> > making up shit (and eating it)
> Formule d'addition générale des vitesses relativistes.
>
Rubbish

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
>>>>>
>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
>>>>> hasard?
>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
>>>>
>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
>>>> coeur.
>>>>
>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
>>>> simultanéité.
>>>>
>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
>>>>
>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
>>>> durées.
>>>>
>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
>>>> correctement sinon moi).
>>>>
>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>>>
>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
>>>> recopiage.
>>>>
>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
>>>>
>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
>>>>
>>>> R.H.
>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
>>>
>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.

There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
good book about it.

Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.

> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
>

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

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 18:19:45 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> >>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LOL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> >>>>> hasard?
> >>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
> >>>>
> >>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> >>>> coeur.
> >>>>
> >>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> >>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> >>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> >>>> simultanéité.
> >>>>
> >>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> >>>> durées.
> >>>>
> >>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> >>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> >>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> >>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> >>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> >>>> correctement sinon moi).
> >>>>
> >>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
> >>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> >>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>>>
> >>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> >>>> recopiage.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
> >>>>
> >>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> >>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> >>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> >>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> >>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
> >>>>
> >>>> R.H.
> >>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> >>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
> >>>
> >> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
> >> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
> >> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
> good book about it.
>
> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.

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.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> >>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LOL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> >>>>> hasard?
> >>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
> >>>>
> >>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> >>>> coeur.
> >>>>
> >>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> >>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> >>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> >>>> simultanéité.
> >>>>
> >>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> >>>> durées.
> >>>>
> >>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> >>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> >>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> >>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> >>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> >>>> correctement sinon moi).
> >>>>
> >>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
> >>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> >>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>>>
> >>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> >>>> recopiage.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
> >>>>
> >>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> >>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> >>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> >>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> >>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
> >>>>
> >>>> R.H.
> >>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> >>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
> >>>
> >> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
> >> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
> >> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >

> > So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
> good book about it.
>
> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
> > Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
> > that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
> > Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
> > much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.

I request a voice vote of this forum. Who knows relativity better? Me or Einstein & Bodkin?

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>>>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
>>>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
>>>>>>> hasard?
>>>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
>>>>>> coeur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
>>>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
>>>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
>>>>>> simultanéité.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
>>>>>> durées.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
>>>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
>>>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
>>>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
>>>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
>>>>>> correctement sinon moi).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
>>>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>>>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
>>>>>> recopiage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
>>>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
>>>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
>>>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
>>>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R.H.
>>>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
>>>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
>>>>>
>>>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
>>>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
>>>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>
>
>>> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
>> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
>> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
>> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
>> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
>> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
>> good book about it.
>>
>> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
>> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
>> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
>> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
>> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
>>> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
>>> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
>>> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
>>> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS
> demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.

No, Pat, you don’t. And your burlap gauntlet, which you have thrown
vigorously to the ground with a lot of chest-thumping, is a rather silly
token of hubris.

So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you spend more time reading a good
book about this subject and a little less time making a fool of yourself on
an internet backwater? What’s really your objective?Entertaining yourself
with a little rain dance? Or actually coming to a better understanding of
relativity? (As you probably know, rain dances are not effective.)

>
> I request a voice vote of this forum. Who knows relativity better? Me
> or Einstein & Bodkin?
>

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

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 19:02:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >>>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LOL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >>>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> >>>>>>> hasard?
> >>>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> >>>>>> coeur.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> >>>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> >>>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> >>>>>> simultanéité.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> >>>>>> durées.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> >>>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> >>>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> >>>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> >>>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> >>>>>> correctement sinon moi).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
> >>>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> >>>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> >>>>>> recopiage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> >>>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> >>>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> >>>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> >>>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> R.H.
> >>>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> >>>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
> >>>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
> >>>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >
> >
> >>> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
> >> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
> >> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
> >> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
> >> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
> >> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
> >> good book about it.
> >>
> >> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
> >> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
> >> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
> >> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
> >> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
> >>> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
> >>> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
> >>> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
> >>> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS
> > demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.
> No, Pat, you don’t. And your burlap gauntlet, which you have thrown
> vigorously to the ground with a lot of chest-thumping, is a rather silly
> token of hubris.
>
> So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you spend more time reading a good
> book about this subject and a little less time making a fool of yourself on
> an internet backwater? What’s really your objective?Entertaining yourself
> with a little rain dance? Or actually coming to a better understanding of
> relativity? (As you probably know, rain dances are not effective.)

They're not, indeed; that's why forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
> >>>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LOL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >>>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> >>>>>>> hasard?
> >>>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> >>>>>> coeur.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> >>>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> >>>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> >>>>>> simultanéité.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> >>>>>> durées.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> >>>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> >>>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> >>>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> >>>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> >>>>>> correctement sinon moi).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
> >>>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> >>>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> >>>>>> recopiage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> >>>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> >>>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> >>>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> >>>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> R.H.
> >>>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> >>>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
> >>>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
> >>>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >
> >
> >>> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
> >> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
> >> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
> >> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
> >> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
> >> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
> >> good book about it.
> >>
> >> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
> >> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
> >> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
> >> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
> >> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
> >>> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
> >>> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
> >>> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
> >>> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS
> > demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.
> No, Pat, you don’t. And your burlap gauntlet, which you have thrown
> vigorously to the ground with a lot of chest-thumping, is a rather silly
> token of hubris.
>
> So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you spend more time reading a good
> book about this subject and a little less time making a fool of yourself on

> an internet backwater? What’s really your objective?Entertaining yourself
> with a little rain dance? Or actually coming to a better understanding of
> relativity? (As you probably know, rain dances are not effective.)

You are quite a dance expert yourself, Bodkin. You specialty is the fan dance but you never get quite naked when it comes to showing what you can and cannot do with relativity.
> >
> > I request a voice vote of this forum. Who knows relativity better? Me
> > or Einstein & Bodkin?
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>>>>>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
>>>>>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
>>>>>>>>> hasard?
>>>>>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
>>>>>>>> coeur.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
>>>>>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
>>>>>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
>>>>>>>> simultanéité.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
>>>>>>>> durées.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
>>>>>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
>>>>>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
>>>>>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
>>>>>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
>>>>>>>> correctement sinon moi).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
>>>>>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>>>>>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
>>>>>>>> recopiage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
>>>>>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
>>>>>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
>>>>>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
>>>>>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
>>>>>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
>>>>>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
>>>>>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
>>>> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
>>>> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
>>>> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
>>>> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
>>>> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
>>>> good book about it.
>>>>
>>>> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
>>>> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
>>>> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
>>>> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
>>>> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
>>>>> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
>>>>> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
>>>>> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
>>>>> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS
>>> demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.
>> No, Pat, you don’t. And your burlap gauntlet, which you have thrown
>> vigorously to the ground with a lot of chest-thumping, is a rather silly
>> token of hubris.
>>
>> So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you spend more time reading a good
>> book about this subject and a little less time making a fool of yourself on
>
>> an internet backwater? What’s really your objective?Entertaining yourself
>> with a little rain dance? Or actually coming to a better understanding of
>> relativity? (As you probably know, rain dances are not effective.)
>
> You are quite a dance expert yourself, Bodkin. You specialty is the fan
> dance but you never get quite naked when it comes to showing what you can
> and cannot do with relativity.

And this is where your game is silly. This isn’t a game of poker, with
hidden cards and a lot of bluffing. Relativity is fully documented and
thoroughly described in a century’s worth of textbooks. So when you say
something and declare “This is relativity”, it’s OBVIOUS when you say
something stupid. It’s OBVIOUS when you haven’t read textbooks.

So here you are, pretending to play poker, and you’ve laid out your cards,
a 2, a 5, a 7, a Jack, and a Queen, and you announce “Straight flush”. And
you do this in a room full of people who instantly know you are an idiot
and don’t know what you’re talking about. And then you double down and say,
“So what cards have YOU got, chump?”

>>>
>>> I request a voice vote of this forum. Who knows relativity better? Me
>>> or Einstein & Bodkin?
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works.. You
> >>>>>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> LOL.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >>>>>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> >>>>>>>>> hasard?
> >>>>>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> >>>>>>>> coeur.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> >>>>>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> >>>>>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> >>>>>>>> simultanéité.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> >>>>>>>> durées.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> >>>>>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> >>>>>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> >>>>>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> >>>>>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> >>>>>>>> correctement sinon moi).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
> >>>>>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> >>>>>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> >>>>>>>> recopiage.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> >>>>>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> >>>>>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> >>>>>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> >>>>>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> R.H.
> >>>>>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> >>>>>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
> >>>>>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
> >>>>>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
> >>>> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
> >>>> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
> >>>> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
> >>>> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
> >>>> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
> >>>> good book about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
> >>>> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
> >>>> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
> >>>> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
> >>>> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
> >>>>> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
> >>>>> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
> >>>>> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
> >>>>> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS
> >>> demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.
> >> No, Pat, you don’t. And your burlap gauntlet, which you have thrown
> >> vigorously to the ground with a lot of chest-thumping, is a rather silly
> >> token of hubris.
> >>
> >> So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you spend more time reading a good
> >> book about this subject and a little less time making a fool of yourself on
> >
> >> an internet backwater? What’s really your objective?Entertaining yourself
> >> with a little rain dance? Or actually coming to a better understanding of
> >> relativity? (As you probably know, rain dances are not effective.)
> >
> > You are quite a dance expert yourself, Bodkin. You specialty is the fan
> > dance but you never get quite naked when it comes to showing what you can
> > and cannot do with relativity.
> And this is where your game is silly. This isn’t a game of poker, with
> hidden cards and a lot of bluffing. Relativity is fully documented and
> thoroughly described in a century’s worth of textbooks. So when you say
> something and declare “This is relativity”, it’s OBVIOUS when you say
> something stupid. It’s OBVIOUS when you haven’t read textbooks.
>

On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 19:45:26 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works.. You
> >>>>>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> LOL.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
> >>>>>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
> >>>>>>>>> hasard?
> >>>>>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
> >>>>>>>> coeur.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
> >>>>>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
> >>>>>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
> >>>>>>>> simultanéité.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
> >>>>>>>> durées.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
> >>>>>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
> >>>>>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
> >>>>>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
> >>>>>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
> >>>>>>>> correctement sinon moi).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
> >>>>>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
> >>>>>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
> >>>>>>>> recopiage.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
> >>>>>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
> >>>>>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
> >>>>>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
> >>>>>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> R.H.
> >>>>>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
> >>>>>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
> >>>>>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
> >>>>>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
> >>>> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
> >>>> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
> >>>> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
> >>>> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
> >>>> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
> >>>> good book about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
> >>>> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
> >>>> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
> >>>> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
> >>>> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
> >>>>> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
> >>>>> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
> >>>>> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
> >>>>> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS
> >>> demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.
> >> No, Pat, you don’t. And your burlap gauntlet, which you have thrown
> >> vigorously to the ground with a lot of chest-thumping, is a rather silly
> >> token of hubris.
> >>
> >> So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you spend more time reading a good
> >> book about this subject and a little less time making a fool of yourself on
> >
> >> an internet backwater? What’s really your objective?Entertaining yourself
> >> with a little rain dance? Or actually coming to a better understanding of
> >> relativity? (As you probably know, rain dances are not effective.)
> >
> > You are quite a dance expert yourself, Bodkin. You specialty is the fan
> > dance but you never get quite naked when it comes to showing what you can
> > and cannot do with relativity.
> And this is where your game is silly. This isn’t a game of poker, with
> hidden cards and a lot of bluffing. Relativity is fully documented and

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

patdolan wrote:

> Bodkin, this is one of your most penetrating insights. It accurately
> portrays this, and every other difference of opinion in Science. In
> fact,
> it is Science itself! You are right, I do have an excellent hand. And
> I've laid it down on the table. I call.
>
> But you have phrased it better. In your own words "So what cards do you
> have, chump?"

tensors, 4D.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:45:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:15:09 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:19:39 AM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 19/11/2021 à 02:57, Python a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> Lengrand, aka Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/11/2021 à 23:52, "Dono." a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-8, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No cretinoid, this not not the way velocity composition works. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to stop making up shit (and eating it)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ouais, elle est peu chelou ta formule avec une racine dont tu prends
>>>>>>>>>>> le carré "sqrt(1-v²/c²)²" imbriquée dans une autre racine carrée...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ça ressemble de loin à la bonne, tu t'es pas vautré en recopiant par
>>>>>>>>>>> hasard?
>>>>>>>>>> Ben non, c'est la même que je donne depuis des décennies déjà.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> J'avais recommandé à tous les physiciens relativistes de l'apprendre par
>>>>>>>>>> coeur.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Comme je leur avais recommandé, de bien examiner ma description du
>>>>>>>>>> Langevin, mes transformations de Lorentz "revisitées", et ma façon
>>>>>>>>>> littéraire de définir l'anisochronie spatiale, et la notion de
>>>>>>>>>> simultanéité.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le temps n'érode pas les choses justes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Il en va de même pour la contraction des distances et la dilatation des
>>>>>>>>>> durées.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> J'ai toujours demandé aux physicien d'abandonner leurs deux équations
>>>>>>>>>> simplificatrices (et qui ne marchent que pour les mouvements transversaux)
>>>>>>>>>> t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) et x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²), comme je leur ai demandé de
>>>>>>>>>> porter aux distances ce qu'ils donnaient pour les longueurs (d'où
>>>>>>>>>> l'explication de l'effet-zoom relativiste que personne n'a jamais décrit
>>>>>>>>>> correctement sinon moi).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Les bonnes formules sont :
>>>>>>>>>> x'=x.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>>>>>>>>>> t'=t(1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tu peux dire que ça rejoint de loin "les vraies" ou que c'est du
>>>>>>>>>> recopiage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ca n'a aucune espèce d'intérêt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> L'intérêt n'est pas là. Il est qu'il faut les apprendre par coeur, et
>>>>>>>>>> qu'il est inadmissible aujourd'hui,
>>>>>>>>>> cent-vingt ans après les premières idées de Poincaré sur cette
>>>>>>>>>> magnifique théorie, les étudiants ne les connaissent pas encore, voire
>>>>>>>>>> les prennent à la plaisanterie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> R.H.
>>>>>>>>> This just goes to prove that whether it's French, English, German,
>>>>>>>>> Swahili, or any other language, relativity just doesn't make sense. C'est pas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Poor Pat. Still find it confusing?
>>>>>>>> Have you considered reading a good book about it?
>>>>>>>> Or do you think that a little chat by the fireplace should do it?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So Bodkin...why don't you have a try at solving the MUON, SCHMUON challenge.
>>>>>> There’s no challenge to solve here. What you have done is simply to lay out
>>>>>> your poorly grasped understanding of what relativity says (which is wrong),
>>>>>> and inviting people to try to teach you the right way to understand how
>>>>>> muons behave. So the only CHALLENGE here is to erase your confusion. This
>>>>>> is why I suggested that maybe a less silly approach of actually reading a
>>>>>> good book about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really the puzzle for me is, why do you think it’s more fun to come here,
>>>>>> demonstrate how poorly you understand relativity, and then slap on a bunch
>>>>>> of bluster and bravado while you dare people to make you understand it — as
>>>>>> opposed to just sitting down with a decent book, which is done without
>>>>>> exposing yourself as a blustering idiot.
>>>>>>> Not worth your time? Or perhaps the challenge is just too much for you;
>>>>>>> that's what I and everyone else suspect. To remind you of the challenge:
>>>>>>> Prove that special relativity provides only one, unique solution for how
>>>>>>> much time elapses on the laboratory clock. Choose which one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand relativity far better than you Bodkin. MUONS, SCHMUONS
>>>>> demonstrates exactly how much better I understand it than either you or Einstein.
>>>> No, Pat, you don’t. And your burlap gauntlet, which you have thrown
>>>> vigorously to the ground with a lot of chest-thumping, is a rather silly
>>>> token of hubris.
>>>>
>>>> So I’ll ask you one more time. Why don’t you spend more time reading a good
>>>> book about this subject and a little less time making a fool of yourself on
>>>
>>>> an internet backwater? What’s really your objective?Entertaining yourself
>>>> with a little rain dance? Or actually coming to a better understanding of
>>>> relativity? (As you probably know, rain dances are not effective.)
>>>
>>> You are quite a dance expert yourself, Bodkin. You specialty is the fan
>>> dance but you never get quite naked when it comes to showing what you can
>>> and cannot do with relativity.
>> And this is where your game is silly. This isn’t a game of poker, with
>> hidden cards and a lot of bluffing. Relativity is fully documented and
>> thoroughly described in a century’s worth of textbooks. So when you say
>> something and declare “This is relativity”, it’s OBVIOUS when you say
>> something stupid. It’s OBVIOUS when you haven’t read textbooks.
>>
>
>> So here you are, pretending to play poker, and you’ve laid out your cards,
>> a 2, a 5, a 7, a Jack, and a Queen, and you announce “Straight flush”. And
>> you do this in a room full of people who instantly know you are an idiot
>> and don’t know what you’re talking about. And then you double down and say,
>> “So what cards have YOU got, chump?”
>>>>>
>
> Bodkin, this is one of your most penetrating insights. It accurately
> portrays this, and every other difference of opinion in Science. In
> fact, it is Science itself! You are right, I do have an excellent hand.
> And I've laid it down on the table. I call.

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.
>
> 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.

You are an idiot. “You” the hadron cannot see the “lab clock” at t=0. “You”
can see the clock adjacent to you, which is 572 m above the lab clock. And,
by the way, the one adjacent to you and the lab clock are not synchronized,
according to “you”, and so “you” wouldn’t dream of subtracting the readings
on the two clocks at rest in the earth frame to come up with an elapsed
time according to the lab clocks.

patdolan wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:09:39 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> patdolan wrote:
>> > […] 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

That much is true.
> sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
>
> +/-( 1^2 ) = +/-( i^2 )
>
> +/-( 1 ) = +/-( -1 )
>
> +/- 1 = -/+ 1

Your logic is flawed.

>> 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.

I know that you did. Feynman explains there why your request cannot be
fulfilled.

> See MUONS, SCHMUONS! at the bottom of my post. Read through it slow,
> Long Ears.

I have better things to do than discussing with you at this low a level.

> [tl;dr]

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven