On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:37:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@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.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 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.

How, long ears. How?
>
> >> 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

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > 1^4 = i^4
> >
> > That much is true.
> >
> > > sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]

> > Your logic is flawed.

> How, long ears. How?

Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...

On Saturday, 20 November 2021 at 07:24:32 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1^4 = i^4
> > >
> > > That much is true.
> > >
> > > > sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
> > > Your logic is flawed.
>
> > How, long ears. How?
> Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1',

:) And how is "the square root" defined, Al,
poor halfbrain?

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:24:32 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1^4 = i^4
> > >
> > > That much is true.
> > >
> > > > sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
> > > Your logic is flawed.
>
> > How, long ears. How?
> Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...

[ This is going to be fun, tee-hee-hee...] So Paul A. #2, when you multiply a number by a definition is the product a number or another definition?

Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1^4 = i^4
>>>
>>> That much is true.
>>>
>>>> sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
>
>>> Your logic is flawed.
>
>> How, long ears. How?
>
> Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...
>

There is a more rigorous definition for i than "the square root of -1"
in term of equivalence classes of polynomials. Of course patdolan
claims are dead in the water since in C sqrt is a multi-valued
function (ask Demented Woz for details, he discovered this concept
recently).

On Saturday, 20 November 2021 at 14:18:35 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1^4 = i^4
> >>>
> >>> That much is true.
> >>>
> >>>> sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
> >
> >>> Your logic is flawed.
> >
> >> How, long ears. How?
> >
> > Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...
> >
> There is a more rigorous definition for i than "the square root of -1"
> in term of equivalence classes of polynomials. Of course patdolan
> claims are dead in the water since in C sqrt is a multi-valued
> function (ask Demented Woz for details, he discovered this concept
> recently).

It's not true it was recently, but anyway poor halfbrain Al
may always start asking a wiser one about some explainations.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:18:35 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1^4 = i^4
> >>>
> >>> That much is true.
> >>>
> >>>> sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
> >
> >>> Your logic is flawed.
> >
> >> How, long ears. How?
> >
> > Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...
> >

> There is a more rigorous definition for i than "the square root of -1"
> in term of equivalence classes of polynomials. Of course patdolan
> claims are dead in the water since in C sqrt is a multi-valued
> function (ask Demented Woz for details, he discovered this concept
> recently).

I have accounted for both branches of the double branch sqrt function in my derivation and conclusion and made the correct branch cuts:

+/-1 = -/+1

Just as I would have accounted for all three branches of the cube root function, four branches for the...

I am an algebraic King Cobra. You are just a python. Never mess with the king.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:37:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@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.
>
> No synchronization required. The muon's clock doesn't even enter into
> the argument at all. Who said that the lab clock was ever at t=0 or any
> other value. E. L. A. P. S. E. D. T. I. M. E., Bodkin.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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.
>
> How, long ears. How?

If you’re invoking the square root on complex numbers then you have to
follow the rules of that function on the foliated complex plane, not the
rules you would apply on the real number line.

See a book on complex variables and the square root foliation.

Idiot.

Half-ignorant idiot.

Blissfully ignorant of being ignorant, half-ignorant idiot.

>>
>>>> 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
>

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

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:56:31 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > How, long ears. How?

> If you’re invoking the square root on complex numbers then you have to
> follow the rules of that function on the foliated complex plane, not the
> rules you would apply on the real number line.
>
> See a book on complex variables and the square root foliation.
>
I did follow the foliation rules to the letter. I made two branch cuts on the complex plane and solved. You didn't recognize this. I will be more explicit in my conclusion:

+/-1+/-i0 = -/+1-/+i0

> Idiot.
>
> Half-ignorant idiot.
>
> Blissfully ignorant of being ignorant, half-ignorant idiot.
> >>
> >>>> 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
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:43:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:37:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@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.
> >
> > No synchronization required. The muon's clock doesn't even enter into
> > the argument at all. Who said that the lab clock was ever at t=0 or any
> > other value. E. L. A. P. S. E. D. T. I. M. E., Bodkin.
> Elapsed from what moment? How does the lab clock know when to start
> ticking. It isn’t anywhere near the collision of the hadron and the
> atmospheric molecule. Is it supposed to get an instantaneous signal from
> that event?
>
> This is what I mean when I say you haven’t bothered to read any book about
> relativity. Your “argument” is based on two and only two clocks passing
> each other, both deeming the other slowed, because that’s the comic book
> version of relativity. But that isn’t what relativity says. Ask yourself
> why relativity talks about a *lattice* of synchronized clocks in each
> frame. Why would you need the lattice?
>
> It’s so that there is a clock NEAR the event that you’re tracking the time
> of.
> > Quantities of elapsed time are easily determined in special relativity.
> > Synchronization of clocks doesn't even enter into the argument It's all
> > about one clock, the lab clock. One clock, two observers (the muon and
> > the lab scientists), TWO elapsed time. Quite brilliant on my part, n'es pas?
> >
> > Tell us how synchronization has any bearing on the argument. The muon
> > sees the lab clock tick off 1.1 microseconds on it's trip down.
> No, it doesn’t. How is it supposed to “see” that? It isn’t ANYWHERE NEAR
> the lab clock. The best the muon can do is either a) monitor its own clock,
> because its own clock is at ONE location in its own frame, or b) have a
> LATTICE of synchronized clocks traveling along with the muon, where one of
> them is far away from the muon, near the lab clock at the time the muon is
> created.
>
> If you have two events that occur at DIFFERENT PLACES in some frame of
> reference, you need two DIFFERENT clocks near those events. If those clocks
> are synchronized in this frame, THEN you can measure the elapsed time
> between the events.
>
> You can’t measure the elapsed time between two events that occur in
> different places with ONE clock.
>
> You, Pat Dolan, don’t understand the first thing about relativity.. And it
> shows.
>
> And yet you bluster simultaneously that a) you understand relativity very
> well, and b) that it is incomprehensible.
> > The lab scientists, using relativity and the standard muon life-span,
> > calculate the same lab clock ticks off 4.4 seconds for the same trip.
> >
> > Now take a deep breath and form an argument that addresses the facts of
> > the case, not imaginary t=0 stuff.
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> “What?” Pat Dolan protests, “the lab clock and the clock up by the
> >> atmosphere are perfectly synchronized beforehand. They are still
> >> synchronized now.” But the question then is, “In what frame were they
> >> synchronized?” Pat Dolan splutters, “What difference does THAT make?” And
> >> the answer is, “It matters a lot. The same two clocks may be synchronized
> >> in one frame, but they’re not synchronized in the muon’s frame, or any
> >> other frame in fact. This is one of the foundational observations of
> >> special relativity.”
> >>
> >> “But, but, but….,” fumes Pat Dolan, “I had an EXCELLENT hand!”
> >>
> >> No, Pat, you don’t have an excellent hand. You have crap cards, all because
> >> you have never bothered to read a book that talks about muons IN DETAIL.
> >> Instead, you came here with a poor and slippery grasp on a simple and
> >> common example, and you thought somehow that something SO SIMPLE had been
> >> missed in ALL THOSE presentations that you never read.
> >>
> >> You, Pat, are a persistent idiot, thinking you have good cards, when you’ve
> >> never even bothered to learn how to play poker.
> >>
> >>> 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 ).
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
The muon is bathed in the light cone from the lab clock a the moment of it's inception. The muon notes what the light cone is indicating at that moment while it still 572m/1143m away from the clock. The muon notes the light from the lab clock again when it is in the scintillator. This is T1. From T1 the muon subtracts 2.2 microseconds to get the elapsed time on the lab clock for the muon's trip. This elapsed time will be 1.1 microseconds according to relativity and the muon. No lattice of clocks, no synchronization no nothing. Easy-peasy Bodkin.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:40:41 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:43:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:37:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> patdolan <patd...@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.
> > >
> > > No synchronization required. The muon's clock doesn't even enter into
> > > the argument at all. Who said that the lab clock was ever at t=0 or any
> > > other value. E. L. A. P. S. E. D. T. I. M. E., Bodkin.
> > Elapsed from what moment? How does the lab clock know when to start
> > ticking. It isn’t anywhere near the collision of the hadron and the
> > atmospheric molecule. Is it supposed to get an instantaneous signal from
> > that event?
> >
> > This is what I mean when I say you haven’t bothered to read any book about
> > relativity. Your “argument” is based on two and only two clocks passing
> > each other, both deeming the other slowed, because that’s the comic book
> > version of relativity. But that isn’t what relativity says. Ask yourself
> > why relativity talks about a *lattice* of synchronized clocks in each
> > frame. Why would you need the lattice?
> >
> > It’s so that there is a clock NEAR the event that you’re tracking the time
> > of.
> > > Quantities of elapsed time are easily determined in special relativity.
> > > Synchronization of clocks doesn't even enter into the argument It's all
> > > about one clock, the lab clock. One clock, two observers (the muon and
> > > the lab scientists), TWO elapsed time. Quite brilliant on my part, n'es pas?
> > >
> > > Tell us how synchronization has any bearing on the argument. The muon
> > > sees the lab clock tick off 1.1 microseconds on it's trip down.
> > No, it doesn’t. How is it supposed to “see” that? It isn’t ANYWHERE NEAR
> > the lab clock. The best the muon can do is either a) monitor its own clock,
> > because its own clock is at ONE location in its own frame, or b) have a
> > LATTICE of synchronized clocks traveling along with the muon, where one of
> > them is far away from the muon, near the lab clock at the time the muon is
> > created.
> >
> > If you have two events that occur at DIFFERENT PLACES in some frame of
> > reference, you need two DIFFERENT clocks near those events. If those clocks
> > are synchronized in this frame, THEN you can measure the elapsed time
> > between the events.
> >
> > You can’t measure the elapsed time between two events that occur in
> > different places with ONE clock.
> >
> > You, Pat Dolan, don’t understand the first thing about relativity. And it
> > shows.
> >
> > And yet you bluster simultaneously that a) you understand relativity very
> > well, and b) that it is incomprehensible.
> > > The lab scientists, using relativity and the standard muon life-span,
> > > calculate the same lab clock ticks off 4.4 seconds for the same trip.
> > >
> > > Now take a deep breath and form an argument that addresses the facts of
> > > the case, not imaginary t=0 stuff.
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> “What?” Pat Dolan protests, “the lab clock and the clock up by the
> > >> atmosphere are perfectly synchronized beforehand. They are still
> > >> synchronized now.” But the question then is, “In what frame were they
> > >> synchronized?” Pat Dolan splutters, “What difference does THAT make?” And
> > >> the answer is, “It matters a lot. The same two clocks may be synchronized
> > >> in one frame, but they’re not synchronized in the muon’s frame, or any
> > >> other frame in fact. This is one of the foundational observations of
> > >> special relativity.”
> > >>
> > >> “But, but, but….,” fumes Pat Dolan, “I had an EXCELLENT hand!”
> > >>
> > >> No, Pat, you don’t have an excellent hand. You have crap cards, all because
> > >> you have never bothered to read a book that talks about muons IN DETAIL.
> > >> Instead, you came here with a poor and slippery grasp on a simple and
> > >> common example, and you thought somehow that something SO SIMPLE had been
> > >> missed in ALL THOSE presentations that you never read.
> > >>
> > >> You, Pat, are a persistent idiot, thinking you have good cards, when you’ve
> > >> never even bothered to learn how to play poker.
> > >>
> > >>> 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 )..
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> The muon is bathed in the light cone from the lab clock a the moment of it's inception. The muon notes what the light cone is indicating at that moment while it still 572m/1143m away from the clock. The muon notes the light from the lab clock again when it is in the scintillator. This is T1. From T1 the muon subtracts 2.2 microseconds to get the elapsed time on the lab clock for the muon's trip. This elapsed time will be 1.1 microseconds according to relativity and the muon. No lattice of clocks, no synchronization no nothing. Easy-peasy Bodkin.
*the difference of the times is T1: light cone time at inception - light cone in scintillator = T1

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:43:56 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:40:41 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:43:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:37:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> patdolan <patd...@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.
> > > >
> > > > No synchronization required. The muon's clock doesn't even enter into
> > > > the argument at all. Who said that the lab clock was ever at t=0 or any
> > > > other value. E. L. A. P. S. E. D. T. I. M. E., Bodkin.
> > > Elapsed from what moment? How does the lab clock know when to start
> > > ticking. It isn’t anywhere near the collision of the hadron and the
> > > atmospheric molecule. Is it supposed to get an instantaneous signal from
> > > that event?
> > >
> > > This is what I mean when I say you haven’t bothered to read any book about
> > > relativity. Your “argument” is based on two and only two clocks passing
> > > each other, both deeming the other slowed, because that’s the comic book
> > > version of relativity. But that isn’t what relativity says. Ask yourself
> > > why relativity talks about a *lattice* of synchronized clocks in each
> > > frame. Why would you need the lattice?
> > >
> > > It’s so that there is a clock NEAR the event that you’re tracking the time
> > > of.
> > > > Quantities of elapsed time are easily determined in special relativity.
> > > > Synchronization of clocks doesn't even enter into the argument It's all
> > > > about one clock, the lab clock. One clock, two observers (the muon and
> > > > the lab scientists), TWO elapsed time. Quite brilliant on my part, n'es pas?
> > > >
> > > > Tell us how synchronization has any bearing on the argument. The muon
> > > > sees the lab clock tick off 1.1 microseconds on it's trip down.
> > > No, it doesn’t. How is it supposed to “see” that? It isn’t ANYWHERE NEAR
> > > the lab clock. The best the muon can do is either a) monitor its own clock,
> > > because its own clock is at ONE location in its own frame, or b) have a
> > > LATTICE of synchronized clocks traveling along with the muon, where one of
> > > them is far away from the muon, near the lab clock at the time the muon is
> > > created.
> > >
> > > If you have two events that occur at DIFFERENT PLACES in some frame of
> > > reference, you need two DIFFERENT clocks near those events. If those clocks
> > > are synchronized in this frame, THEN you can measure the elapsed time
> > > between the events.
> > >
> > > You can’t measure the elapsed time between two events that occur in
> > > different places with ONE clock.
> > >
> > > You, Pat Dolan, don’t understand the first thing about relativity. And it
> > > shows.
> > >
> > > And yet you bluster simultaneously that a) you understand relativity very
> > > well, and b) that it is incomprehensible.
> > > > The lab scientists, using relativity and the standard muon life-span,
> > > > calculate the same lab clock ticks off 4.4 seconds for the same trip.
> > > >
> > > > Now take a deep breath and form an argument that addresses the facts of
> > > > the case, not imaginary t=0 stuff.
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >> “What?” Pat Dolan protests, “the lab clock and the clock up by the
> > > >> atmosphere are perfectly synchronized beforehand. They are still
> > > >> synchronized now.” But the question then is, “In what frame were they
> > > >> synchronized?” Pat Dolan splutters, “What difference does THAT make?” And
> > > >> the answer is, “It matters a lot. The same two clocks may be synchronized
> > > >> in one frame, but they’re not synchronized in the muon’s frame, or any
> > > >> other frame in fact. This is one of the foundational observations of
> > > >> special relativity.”
> > > >>
> > > >> “But, but, but….,” fumes Pat Dolan, “I had an EXCELLENT hand!”
> > > >>
> > > >> No, Pat, you don’t have an excellent hand. You have crap cards, all because
> > > >> you have never bothered to read a book that talks about muons IN DETAIL.
> > > >> Instead, you came here with a poor and slippery grasp on a simple and
> > > >> common example, and you thought somehow that something SO SIMPLE had been
> > > >> missed in ALL THOSE presentations that you never read.
> > > >>
> > > >> You, Pat, are a persistent idiot, thinking you have good cards, when you’ve
> > > >> never even bothered to learn how to play poker.
> > > >>
> > > >>> 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 ).
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > The muon is bathed in the light cone from the lab clock a the moment of it's inception. The muon notes what the light cone is indicating at that moment while it still 572m/1143m away from the clock. The muon notes the light from the lab clock again when it is in the scintillator. This is T1. From T1 the muon subtracts 2.2 microseconds to get the elapsed time on the lab clock for the muon's trip. This elapsed time will be 1.1 microseconds according to relativity and the muon. No lattice of clocks, no synchronization no nothing. Easy-peasy Bodkin.
> *the difference of the times is T1: light cone time at inception - light cone in scintillator = T1

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:01:57 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:18:35 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1^4 = i^4
> > >>>
> > >>> That much is true.
> > >>>
> > >>>> sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
> > >
> > >>> Your logic is flawed.
> > >
> > >> How, long ears. How?
> > >
> > > Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...
> > >
>
> > There is a more rigorous definition for i than "the square root of -1"
> > in term of equivalence classes of polynomials. Of course patdolan
> > claims are dead in the water since in C sqrt is a multi-valued
> > function (ask Demented Woz for details, he discovered this concept
> > recently).
> I have accounted for both branches of the double branch sqrt function in my derivation and conclusion and made the correct branch cuts:
>
> +/-1 = -/+1
>
> Just as I would have accounted for all three branches of the cube root function, four branches for the...
>
> I am an algebraic King Cobra. You are just a python. Never mess with the king.

Well, the *king* is dead... dead wrong!

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:06:58 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:01:57 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:18:35 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 1^4 = i^4
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That much is true.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
> > > >
> > > >>> Your logic is flawed.
> > > >
> > > >> How, long ears. How?
> > > >
> > > > Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number.... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...
> > > >
> >
> > > There is a more rigorous definition for i than "the square root of -1"
> > > in term of equivalence classes of polynomials. Of course patdolan
> > > claims are dead in the water since in C sqrt is a multi-valued
> > > function (ask Demented Woz for details, he discovered this concept
> > > recently).
> > I have accounted for both branches of the double branch sqrt function in my derivation and conclusion and made the correct branch cuts:
> >
> > +/-1 = -/+1
> >
> > Just as I would have accounted for all three branches of the cube root function, four branches for the...
> >
> > I am an algebraic King Cobra. You are just a python. Never mess with the king.

> Well, the *king* is dead... dead wrong!

Very cheeky, Paul A#2. I recall that Paul A#1 used to be quite cheeky also until he was put in his place. Paul A#1 lives in a country that still respects Kings and Queens.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:20:15 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:06:58 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:01:57 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:18:35 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > > > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > >> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 1^4 = i^4
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That much is true.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
> > > > >
> > > > >>> Your logic is flawed.
> > > > >
> > > > >> How, long ears. How?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because i is not a number, it is a definition. The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1', and therefore cannot be manipulated the way you are claiming. It is not a real number, it is an imaginary number... just like infinity, which is a definition and absolutely NOT a number. You are pretty much dead in the water... as everyone already knows...
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > There is a more rigorous definition for i than "the square root of -1"
> > > > in term of equivalence classes of polynomials. Of course patdolan
> > > > claims are dead in the water since in C sqrt is a multi-valued
> > > > function (ask Demented Woz for details, he discovered this concept
> > > > recently).
> > > I have accounted for both branches of the double branch sqrt function in my derivation and conclusion and made the correct branch cuts:
> > >
> > > +/-1 = -/+1
> > >
> > > Just as I would have accounted for all three branches of the cube root function, four branches for the...
> > >
> > > I am an algebraic King Cobra. You are just a python. Never mess with the king.
>
> > Well, the *king* is dead... dead wrong!
> Very cheeky, Paul A#2. I recall that Paul A#1 used to be quite cheeky also until he was put in his place. Paul A#1 lives in a country that still respects Kings and Queens.

Ya know, when you have both feet in your mouth at the same time, you don't have a leg to stand on...

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:43:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:37:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@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.
> >
> > No synchronization required. The muon's clock doesn't even enter into
> > the argument at all. Who said that the lab clock was ever at t=0 or any
> > other value. E. L. A. P. S. E. D. T. I. M. E., Bodkin.
> Elapsed from what moment? How does the lab clock know when to start
> ticking. It isn’t anywhere near the collision of the hadron and the
> atmospheric molecule. Is it supposed to get an instantaneous signal from
> that event?
>

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:43:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:37:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@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.
>>>
>>> No synchronization required. The muon's clock doesn't even enter into
>>> the argument at all. Who said that the lab clock was ever at t=0 or any
>>> other value. E. L. A. P. S. E. D. T. I. M. E., Bodkin.
>> Elapsed from what moment? How does the lab clock know when to start
>> ticking. It isn’t anywhere near the collision of the hadron and the
>> atmospheric molecule. Is it supposed to get an instantaneous signal from
>> that event?
>>
>> This is what I mean when I say you haven’t bothered to read any book about
>> relativity. Your “argument” is based on two and only two clocks passing
>> each other, both deeming the other slowed, because that’s the comic book
>> version of relativity. But that isn’t what relativity says. Ask yourself
>> why relativity talks about a *lattice* of synchronized clocks in each
>> frame. Why would you need the lattice?
>>
>> It’s so that there is a clock NEAR the event that you’re tracking the time
>> of.
>>> Quantities of elapsed time are easily determined in special relativity.
>>> Synchronization of clocks doesn't even enter into the argument It's all
>>> about one clock, the lab clock. One clock, two observers (the muon and
>>> the lab scientists), TWO elapsed time. Quite brilliant on my part, n'es pas?
>>>
>>> Tell us how synchronization has any bearing on the argument. The muon
>>> sees the lab clock tick off 1.1 microseconds on it's trip down.
>> No, it doesn’t. How is it supposed to “see” that? It isn’t ANYWHERE NEAR
>> the lab clock. The best the muon can do is either a) monitor its own clock,
>> because its own clock is at ONE location in its own frame, or b) have a
>> LATTICE of synchronized clocks traveling along with the muon, where one of
>> them is far away from the muon, near the lab clock at the time the muon is
>> created.
>>
>> If you have two events that occur at DIFFERENT PLACES in some frame of
>> reference, you need two DIFFERENT clocks near those events. If those clocks
>> are synchronized in this frame, THEN you can measure the elapsed time
>> between the events.
>>
>> You can’t measure the elapsed time between two events that occur in
>> different places with ONE clock.
>>
>> You, Pat Dolan, don’t understand the first thing about relativity. And it
>> shows.
>>
>> And yet you bluster simultaneously that a) you understand relativity very
>> well, and b) that it is incomprehensible.
>>> The lab scientists, using relativity and the standard muon life-span,
>>> calculate the same lab clock ticks off 4.4 seconds for the same trip.
>>>
>>> Now take a deep breath and form an argument that addresses the facts of
>>> the case, not imaginary t=0 stuff.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> “What?” Pat Dolan protests, “the lab clock and the clock up by the
>>>> atmosphere are perfectly synchronized beforehand. They are still
>>>> synchronized now.” But the question then is, “In what frame were they
>>>> synchronized?” Pat Dolan splutters, “What difference does THAT make?” And
>>>> the answer is, “It matters a lot. The same two clocks may be synchronized
>>>> in one frame, but they’re not synchronized in the muon’s frame, or any
>>>> other frame in fact. This is one of the foundational observations of
>>>> special relativity.”
>>>>
>>>> “But, but, but….,” fumes Pat Dolan, “I had an EXCELLENT hand!”
>>>>
>>>> No, Pat, you don’t have an excellent hand. You have crap cards, all because
>>>> you have never bothered to read a book that talks about muons IN DETAIL.
>>>> Instead, you came here with a poor and slippery grasp on a simple and
>>>> common example, and you thought somehow that something SO SIMPLE had been
>>>> missed in ALL THOSE presentations that you never read.
>>>>
>>>> You, Pat, are a persistent idiot, thinking you have good cards, when you’ve
>>>> never even bothered to learn how to play poker.
>>>>
>>>>> 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 ).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> The muon is bathed in the light cone from the lab clock a the moment of
> it's inception. The muon notes what the light cone is indicating at that
> moment while it still 572m/1143m away from the clock.

Le 19/11/2021 à 00:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :

>
> LOL.
> R.H.
>

Tu devrais inviter Pencho Valev à boire le thé chez toi. Ca ferait des
vacances à usenet.

--
"...sois ouvert aux idées des autres pour peu qu'elles aillent dans le
même sens que les tiennes.", ST sur fr.bio.medecine

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:47:54 PM UTC-8, pehache wrote:
> Le 19/11/2021 à 00:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
> >
> > LOL.
> > R.H.
> >
>
> Tu devrais inviter Pencho Valev à boire le thé chez toi. Ca ferait des
> vacances à usenet.
>
Pencho et moi buvons et mangeons de la relativité pour le petit-déjeuner, le déjeuner et le dîner. Toi et Bodkin pouvez prendre le thé avec vos assiettes de corbeau.
> --
> "...sois ouvert aux idées des autres pour peu qu'elles aillent dans le
> même sens que les tiennes.", ST sur fr.bio.medecine

Le 20/11/2021 à 21:47, pehache a écrit :
> Le 19/11/2021 à 00:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
>>
>> LOL.
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Tu devrais inviter Pencho Valev à boire le thé chez toi. Ca ferait des
> vacances à usenet.

Le 20/11/2021 à 21:47, pehache a écrit :
> Le 19/11/2021 à 00:21, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>
>>
>> LOL.
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Tu devrais inviter Pencho Valev à boire le thé chez toi. Ca ferait des
> vacances à usenet.

Nan écoute pehache, soit un peu beau joueur.

Et même si je racontais des conneries comme Pencho Valev, comme tu dis,
pffff... Ca nuirait en quoi à usenet, et à un forum qui ne fait parfois
même plus un post par jour.

Je dis ça, je dis rien.

R.H.

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> Lahn wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 1^4 = i^4
>> >
>> > That much is true.
>> >
>> > > sqrt[ 1^4 ] = sqrt[ i^4 ]
>
>> > Your logic is flawed.
>
>> How, long ears. How?
>
> Because i is not a number, it is a definition.

No; that statement is

1. utterly wrong;
2. not the reason.

> The term *i* is "defined" to be 'the square root of -1',

No, it is NOT; that is a common misconception (unfortunately, it can also be
found in otherwise great textbooks such as Griffiths’ “Introduction to
Quantum Mechanics”, at least in the second edition).

Instead, 𝕚 is defined to be the solution (*historically*: “root”) of the
equation
x² + 1 = 0.

[This equation does not have a solution in the real numbers, because the
square of every real number is non-negative. Thus, the set of complex
numbers were invented as a solution to the problem, as it had been done
with ℝ for ℚ, ℚ for ℤ, and ℤ for ℕ, before.]

This means that 𝕚 is defined as a number whose square is −1: 𝕚² ≔ −1. This
is not the same thing because there are *two* complex numbers which satisfy
this condition: 𝕚 and −𝕚.

By definition, 𝕚² = −1. Then (−𝕚)² = (−1 · 𝕚)² = (−1)² i² = 1 · (−1) = −1.
∎

Concisely, we can write this as √(−1) = ±𝕚. However, care must be taken how
the “±” notation is used; and *that* is why Pat Dolan’s logic is flawed.

> It is not a real number,

True.

> it is an imaginary number...

Yes, but: “imaginary” does NOT mean “not real” in the sense of “does not
exist” in mathematics; it means that it is not an element of the set of real
numbers, ℝ: 𝕚 ∉ ℝ. It is an element of a superset of the real numbers, the
set of complex numbers ℂ ⊃ ℝ, where ℂ ≔ {a + b 𝕚 | a, b ∈ ℝ; 𝕚² = −1}:
𝕚 ∈ ℂ∖ℝ.

PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Instead, 𝕚 is defined to be the solution (*historically*: “root”) of the
> equation
>
> x² + 1 = 0.
> [This equation does not have a solution in the real numbers, because
> [the square of every real number is non-negative. Thus, the set of
> complex numbers were invented as a solution to the problem, as it
> had been done with ℝ for ℚ, ℚ for ℤ, and ℤ for ℕ, before.]
>
> This means that 𝕚 is defined as a number whose square is −1: 𝕚² ≔ −1.
> This is not the same thing because there are *two* complex numbers which
> satisfy this condition: 𝕚 and −𝕚.
>
> By definition, 𝕚² = −1. Then (−𝕚)² = (−1 · 𝕚)² = (−1)² i² = 1 · (−1) =
> −1. ∎

Therefore, I should have been more precise and should have written
“_a_ solution” instead.

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)