On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-8, cretin pat dolan wrote:
> snip cretinisms<

Pattycakes,

You are still struggling with basic concepts. Give that you are an old fart, you are guaranteed to never getting it. In other words, you were born an imbecile and your only consolation is that you are dying one.

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 7:30:21 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in their lab
> then F&S can also know the time of flight and velocity of the earth in the
> muon's FoR. Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?

The muon is created at E1 and it collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms of S'. In terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. Therefore, in terms of S, the events E1, E2, E3, and E4 have the (x,t) coordinates (0,0), (D,0), (D,vD), and (D,D/v) respectively. Thus in terms of S' (in which the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

What part of this do you consider to be debatable?

> Lemesee... [followed by crazed gibberish]

So, you can't find anything debatable in the answer to your question. Excellent.

> Thank you in advance.

You're welcome.

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:44:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Paul Alsing wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:47:06 PM UTC-8, Thomas
>> > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> Paul Alsing wrote:
>> >> > ... and there are thousands more, but at this point in time, I'm
>> >> > bored...
>> >> No, you are incompetent and can’t read.
>> >
>> > Like I said... you have a LOT of web pages and textbooks to set
>> > straight... so you better get busy!
>
>> Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof.
>>
>> I do not have to find sources to support my claim; *you* made the claim.
>> I showed you the problems with your claims, and their solution.
>
> And I have shown you hundreds of sources that agree with me...

No, you have NOT. You are delusional.

You have shown exactly 6 (in words: SIX) sources, and 3 OF THEM SAY EXACTLY
WHAT I HAVE SAID/EXPLAINED (in a nutshell: “𝕚 *is* a number defined by
𝕚² ≔ −1, which is NOT EQUIVALENT TO 𝕚 ≔ √(−1)”), which I have pointed out
to you.

The other 3 say something WRONG (see above), and one of the three (Wolfram
MathWorld) uses a questionable argument; both of which I have also pointed
out to you.

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 Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:44:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:

> WHAT I HAVE SAID/EXPLAINED (in a nutshell: “𝕚 *is* a number defined by
> 𝕚² ≔ −1, which is NOT EQUIVALENT TO 𝕚 ≔ √(−1)”), which I have pointed out
> to you.

No, those are exactly the same thing... and i is not a number, it is a definition!

Here you go, 8,030,000,000 results

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+i+in+math&sxsrf=AOaemvKtYDv1GdhjVTo2hiJJ9ZYTp7sP1w%3A1637555975409&ei=Bx-bYe6sGN3AytMPgLCh0Aw&ved=0ahUKEwiuzNqxk6v0AhVdoHIEHQBYCMoQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=definition+of+i+in+math&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEIAEMgQIABAeOgcIABBHELADOgYIABAHEB46BAgAEA1KBQg8EgEySgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUKAIWKcWYPIXaAJwAngAgAGcAogBiQeSAQUwLjQuMZgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

"The imaginary unit or unit imaginary number (i) is a solution to the quadratic equation x2 + 1 = 0. ... Here, the term "imaginary" is used because there is no real number having a negative square."

Again... " there is no real number having a negative square"

Get a life...

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:44:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:47:06 PM UTC-8, Thomas
> >> > 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> >> > ... and there are thousands more, but at this point in time, I'm
> >> >> > bored...
> >> >> No, you are incompetent and can’t read.
> >> >
> >> > Like I said... you have a LOT of web pages and textbooks to set
> >> > straight... so you better get busy!
> >
> >> Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof.
> >>
> >> I do not have to find sources to support my claim; *you* made the claim.
> >> I showed you the problems with your claims, and their solution.
> >
> > And I have shown you hundreds of sources that agree with me...
> No, you have NOT. You are delusional.
>
> You have shown exactly 6 (in words: SIX) sources, and 3 OF THEM SAY EXACTLY
> WHAT I HAVE SAID/EXPLAINED (in a nutshell: “𝕚 *is* a number defined by
> 𝕚² ≔ −1, which is NOT EQUIVALENT TO 𝕚 ≔ √(−1)”), which I have pointed out
> to you.
>

> The other 3 say something WRONG (see above), and one of the three (Wolfram
> MathWorld) uses a questionable argument; both of which I have also pointed
> out to you.
>
How is it possible that Wolfram could use a questionable argument when

"Mathematics, in its symbols, terms, and reasoning is (given a
context) unambiguous and unforgivingly strict. "

>
> 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

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:30:47 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Paul Alsing wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:44:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> > Lahn wrote:
>
>> WHAT I HAVE SAID/EXPLAINED (in a nutshell: “𝕚 *is* a number defined by
>> 𝕚² ≔ −1, which is NOT EQUIVALENT TO 𝕚 ≔ √(−1)”), which I have pointed
>> out to you.
>
> No, those are exactly the same thing...

No, they are not.

> and i is not a number, it is a definition!

Oh for crying out loud. Where have you studied mathematics – Instagram
University?

ALL numbers are defined.

For example, 1 (or 0) is DEFINED to be a natural NUMBER by the first Peano
axiom, and 2 (or 1) is defined as the number that is the successor of 1 (or
0), which by the sixth Peano axiom makes it a natural NUMBER, which is an
element of the set of natural NUMBERS: 1, 2 ∈ ℕ.

The set of integers (“whole NUMBERS”) is DEFINED
as ℤ ≔ {−n, …, −1, 0, 1, …, n | n ∈ ℕ ∪ {0}}.

The set of rational numbers is DEFINED as ℚ ≔ {p/q | p, q ∈ ℤ, q ≠ 0},
as I already told you before.

The set of real numbers ℝ is DEFINED in various ways, for example via
Dedekind cuts based on ℚ.

And finally, the set of complex NUMBERS is DEFINED as

ℂ ≔ {a + b 𝕚 | a, b ∈ ℝ; 𝕚² = −1},

as I already told you before.

This CLEARLY makes 𝕚 a complex NUMBER. It makes it also an imaginary
NUMBER, because its real part is 0 (and “imaginary” means NOTHING ELSE in
mathematics):

z ∈ ℂ, a = 0, b = 1 ⇒ z = 0 + 1 · 𝕚 = 𝕚 ∈ (𝕀 ≔ ℂ∖ℝ).

SHUT UP and STUDY.
> Here you go, 8,030,000,000 results

The number of Google search hits for a set of keywords means NOTHING as
MOST people HAVE NO CLUE, and are publishing MOSTLY BULLSHIT on the Web.

That would be so even if your search keywords would be correct, which they
are not.
>
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+i+in+math&sxsrf=AOaemvKtYDv1GdhjVTo2hiJJ9ZYTp7sP1w%3A1637555975409&ei=Bx-bYe6sGN3AytMPgLCh0Aw&ved=0ahUKEwiuzNqxk6v0AhVdoHIEHQBYCMoQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=definition+of+i+in+math&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEIAEMgQIABAeOgcIABBHELADOgYIABAHEB46BAgAEA1KBQg8EgEySgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUKAIWKcWYPIXaAJwAngAgAGcAogBiQeSAQUwLjQuMZgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz
>
> "The imaginary unit or unit imaginary number (i) is a solution to the
> quadratic equation x2 + 1 = 0. ...

That (if “x2” is to be “x²”) means that 𝕚² = −1, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I
SAID. And that does NOT mean that 𝕚 = √(−1); THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE SAME
THING.

> Here, the term "imaginary" is used because there is no real number having
> a negative square."

That’s BULLSHIT (see above for the correct explanation).
> Again... " there is no real number having a negative square"

Hopeless (Dunning–Kruger) case.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:47:02 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
> That (if “x2” is to be “x²”) means that 𝕚² = −1, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I
> SAID. And that does NOT mean that 𝕚 = √(−1); THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE SAME
> THING.

Well, yeah, it is...

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:04:07 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:47:02 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Paul Alsing wrote:
> > That (if “x2” is to be “x²”) means that 𝕚² = −1, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I
> > SAID. And that does NOT mean that 𝕚 = √(−1); THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE SAME
> > THING.
> Well, yeah, it is...

How is it possible that Paul A#2 and Long Ears could have a disagreement over i when:

"Mathematics, in its symbols, terms, and reasoning is (given a
context) unambiguous and unforgivingly strict. "

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
>>>>>>> surface is at rest,
>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon, directly approaching
>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>>>
>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
>>>
>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
>>>
>> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
>
> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.

This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.

If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
requirements.

> Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
> Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
> only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:50:19 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:29:54 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
>>>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
>>>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
>>>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
>>>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the
>>>>>>>>> earth’s surface is at rest,
>>>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon,
>>>>>>>>> directly approaching
>>>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at
>>>>>>>>> event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
>>>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
>>>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
>>>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
>>>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
>>>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
>>>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
>>>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
>>>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
>>>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
>>>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
>>>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
>>>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
>>>
>>> The very assumption you rely on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
>>
>> That's not the assumption, that's the conclusion of the calculation. In
>> tiny baby steps: In terms of S the events E1, E2, E3, and E4 of the
>> scenario you stipulated have the (x,t) coordinates (0,0), (D,0), (D,vD),
>> and (D,D/v) respectively. These are stipulated in your question, given
>> the speed and time of flight of the muon in terms of S. Given this, you
>> asked for the speed and time of flight of P in terms of S', which is
>> easily computed as above. What part of this do you consider to be debatable?
>
> Lemesee...Dirk foundered on ALGEBRAIC RELATIVITY'S ORIGINAL SIN...and
> Bodkin cried uncle on MUONS, SCHMUONS....

Oh, bullshit. You showed you didn’t know how the experiment was actually
done, and you showed you didn’t know how to do the Lorentz transforms to
find out what the lab clock time would read, which is unambiguous.

The more you cajole, the more pathetic you look.

Why not just read a book? Need a recommendation?

> so Townes, my boy, why don't you have a go at DIRK & DONO and see what
> you can make of that as yet unaddressed proof of my troika. In the
> spirit Derrida, try to address the text that you find--resist casting my
> examples in your own E1, E2, etc. gibberish. Now run along my boy and
> come back when you think you have something to show us.
>>
>>> ... get him off my thread...
>>
>> I don't think that's going to work, because the answer is here for all
>> to see, so even if you had the power to ban me, you can't un-ring the
>> bell. You would have to somehow get my post deleted from the servers,
>> but that would be nearly impossible. I';m afraid the jig is up.
>>
>>> Thank you in advance.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>

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

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:10:53 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
> >>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
> >>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
> >>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
> >>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
> >>>>>>> surface is at rest,
> >>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon, directly approaching
> >>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
> >>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
> >>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
> >>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
> >>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
> >>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
> >>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
> >>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
> >>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >>>>
> >>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
> >>>
> >>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
> >>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
> >>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
> >>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
> >>> of S'. Do you understand this?
> >>>
> >> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
> >

> > I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
> > relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
>
Wow! What an admission, Bodkin. You and Dirk now have an issue between you.. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.

This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.

> If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
> requirements.
> > Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
> > Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
> > only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:10:53 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
>>>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
>>>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
>>>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
>>>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
>>>>>>>>> surface is at rest,
>>>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon,
>>>>>>>>> directly approaching
>>>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at
>>>>>>>>> event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
>>>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
>>>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
>>>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
>>>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
>>>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
>>>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
>>>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
>>>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
>>>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
>>>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
>>>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
>>>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
>>>>>
>>>> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
>>>
>
>>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
>>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
>> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
>>
> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.

Why? Why do you think this is a problem?

> You and Dirk now have an issue between you. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.
>
> This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.

Well, it’s funny that this is what you’re trying to do, rather than asking
about relativity. So what are you interested in, relativity? Or trying to
generate squabbles on a backwater of the internet? (And if the latter, WHY
would anybody do that?)

>
>
>> If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
>> requirements.

See? Not a problem.

>>> Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
>>> Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
>>> only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

patdolan wrote:

> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin. You and Dirk now have an issue between
> you. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.
> This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.

not true, Kamala Harris Was the 1st *woman_PRESIDENT* For Two Hours While
Biden Got His Colonoscopy.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:10:53 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
>>>>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
>>>>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
>>>>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
>>>>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
>>>>>>>>>> surface is at rest,
>>>>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon,
>>>>>>>>>> directly approaching
>>>>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at
>>>>>>>>>> event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
>>>>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
>>>>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
>>>>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
>>>>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
>>>>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
>>>>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
>>>>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
>>>>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
>>>>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
>>>>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
>>>>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
>>>>>>
>>>>> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
>>>>
>>
>>>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
>>>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
>>> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
>>>
>> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
>
> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
>
>> You and Dirk now have an issue between you. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.
>>
>> This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.
>
> Well, it’s funny that this is what you’re trying to do, rather than asking
> about relativity. So what are you interested in, relativity? Or trying to
> generate squabbles on a backwater of the internet? (And if the latter, WHY
> would anybody do that?)
>
>>
>>
>>> If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
>>> requirements.
>
> See? Not a problem.
>
>>>> Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
>>>> Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
>>>> only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>
>
>

You know, Pat, it’s a bit of a circus, you first floundering around, not
knowing what relativity predicts for a ground clock in a muon decay
experiment; then floundering around, not knowing how the experimental
measurement with muons was actually made; then asking for and walking away
from someone else’s attempt to teach you how to use Lorentz transforms with
a handful of events in different frames; then spluttering that there might
be some problem with the symmetry of relative speeds in two frames, when
there is no such problem; then pretending that it’s all just a game to
produce infighting on the internet. And all, the whole, proclaiming
yourself king of the science hill.

Good lord, man, it’s no wonder you haven’t learned a thing. You can’t stay
focused long enough to read a few pages in a book that might actually
explain it to you.

And speaking of infighting and your claim to intellectual superiority, you
could have that discussion with Ken “I’m gifted” Seto or John “King of the
Science Hill” Armisted or Maciej “world’s best logician” Wozniak or Ed “I’m
an Analyst” Lake. Let’s see if they acknowledge your mightiness and KO
count.

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

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:10:53 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
> >>>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
> >>>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
> >>>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
> >>>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
> >>>>>>>>> surface is at rest,
> >>>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon,
> >>>>>>>>> directly approaching
> >>>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at
> >>>>>>>>> event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
> >>>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
> >>>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
> >>>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
> >>>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
> >>>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
> >>>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
> >>>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
> >>>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
> >>>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
> >>>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
> >>>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
> >>>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
> >>>>>
> >>>> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
> >>>
> >
> >>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
> >>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
> >> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
> >>
> > Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
> > You and Dirk now have an issue between you. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.
> >
> > This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.
--
> Well, it’s funny that this is what you’re trying to do, rather than asking
> about relativity. So what are you interested in, relativity? Or trying to
> generate squabbles on a backwater of the internet? (And if the latter, WHY
> would anybody do that?)
> >
> >
> >> If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
> >> requirements.
> See? Not a problem.

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

Dirk is een betere logicus dan jij, Bodkin. Dirk kent de algebraïsche catastrofe die jouw bekentenis is. Dat is waarom hij het vanaf het begin heeft vermeden.

> >>> Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
> >>> Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
> >>> only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:10:53 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
>>>>>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
>>>>>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
>>>>>>>>>>> surface is at rest,
>>>>>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon,
>>>>>>>>>>> directly approaching
>>>>>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at
>>>>>>>>>>> event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
>>>>>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
>>>>>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
>>>>>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
>>>>>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
>>>>>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
>>>>>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
>>>>>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
>>>>>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
>>>>>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
>>>>>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
>>>>>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
>>>>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
>>>> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
>>>>
>>> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
>> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
>>> You and Dirk now have an issue between you. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.
>>>
>>> This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.
> --
>> Well, it’s funny that this is what you’re trying to do, rather than asking
>> about relativity. So what are you interested in, relativity? Or trying to
>> generate squabbles on a backwater of the internet? (And if the latter, WHY
>> would anybody do that?)
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
>>>> requirements.
>> See? Not a problem.
>
> "So when you write
> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,
> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm

I don’t know why you think this is in conflict with anything I said. You
clearly don’t have no idea what you’re talking about.

>
> Dirk is een betere logicus dan jij, Bodkin. Dirk kent de algebraïsche
> catastrofe die jouw bekentenis is. Dat is waarom hij het vanaf het begin heeft vermeden.

I have no interest in conversing in Dutch. If you think there is an
algebraic catastrophe, out with it.

>
>
>>>>> Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
>>>>> Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
>>>>> only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:13:22 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:10:53 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> surface is at rest,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon,
> >>>>>>>>>>> directly approaching
> >>>>>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at
> >>>>>>>>>>> event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
> >>>>>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of events.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
> >>>>>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
> >>>>>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
> >>>>>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
> >>>>>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
> >>>>>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
> >>>>>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
> >>>>>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
> >>>>>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
> >>>>>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
> >>>>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
> >>>> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
> >>>>
> >>> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
> >> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
> >>> You and Dirk now have an issue between you. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.
> >>>
> >>> This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.
> > --
> >> Well, it’s funny that this is what you’re trying to do, rather than asking
> >> about relativity. So what are you interested in, relativity? Or trying to
> >> generate squabbles on a backwater of the internet? (And if the latter, WHY
> >> would anybody do that?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
> >>>> requirements.
> >> See? Not a problem.
> >
> > "So when you write
> > ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,
> > you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm
> I don’t know why you think this is in conflict with anything I said. You
> clearly don’t have no idea what you’re talking about.
> >
> > Dirk is een betere logicus dan jij, Bodkin. Dirk kent de algebraïsche
> > catastrofe die jouw bekentenis is. Dat is waarom hij het vanaf het begin heeft vermeden.
> I have no interest in conversing in Dutch. If you think there is an
> algebraic catastrophe, out with it.
> >
> >
> >>>>> Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
> >>>>> Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
> >>>>> only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

ダークとの意見の相違を解消し、相対性理論についての自分の立場を把握していなければ、先に進めません。

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
> >>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
> >>
> >> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
> >>
> > Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
>
> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?

He's just confusing you by posting a mangled expression, since normally when someone refers to ∆x' and ∆x, etc. they are referring to the increments of the same interval in terms of two different coordinate systems. On that basis, the equality is self-evidently false, as others noted.

However, he has fooled you into accepting a completely different meaning, such that the primed increments refer to an interval along the worldline of the muon in terms of the earth’s frame, and the unprimed increments refer to an interval along the worldline of the earth in terms of the muon’s frame. In particular, he has in mind the segments between the creation of the muon and the collision. That’s the standard sophistry, because to understand how both of those worldlines have speed v in terms of the other’s frame, you need to recognize that the event on the earth particle’s worldline that is simultaneous with the creation of the muon in terms of the muon’s frame is different than in the earth’s frame. It’s a relation between two distinct pairs of events.

So, yes, his asserted equality is mangled nonsense, and yes, each particle has speed v in terms of the other’s frame, and so on. See the previous message for the simple and direct answer to his standard canard, which he has accepted, and is hoping you won’t notice.

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:25:54 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
> > >>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
> > >>
> > >> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
> > >>
> > > Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
> >
> > Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
> He's just confusing you by posting a mangled expression, since normally when someone refers to ∆x' and ∆x, etc. they are referring to the increments of the same interval in terms of two different coordinate systems. On that basis, the equality is self-evidently false, as others noted.
>
> However, he has fooled you into accepting a completely different meaning, such that the primed increments refer to an interval along the worldline of the muon in terms of the earth’s frame, and the unprimed increments refer to an interval along the worldline of the earth in terms of the muon’s frame. In particular, he has in mind the segments between the creation of the muon and the collision. That’s the standard sophistry, because to understand how both of those worldlines have speed v in terms of the other’s frame, you need to recognize that the event on the earth particle’s worldline that is simultaneous with the creation of the muon in terms of the muon’s frame is different than in the earth’s frame. It’s a relation between two distinct pairs of events.
>
> So, yes, his asserted equality is mangled nonsense, and yes, each particle has speed v in terms of the other’s frame, and so on. See the previous message for the simple and direct answer to his standard canard, which he has accepted, and is hoping you won’t notice.

World lines have speed v??? Bodkin, do you understand this kid? Because I don't. He has managed to mangle and mix spacetime geometry with physical events. Didn't Einstein once complain that after the mathematicians laid hold of his theory, even he didn't recognize it anymore. But at least this comes through loud and clear: he agrees with Dirk and not with you.

I propose that we introduce the notation

∆x/∆t = v

and

∆x'/∆t' = v'

for the purposes of argument.

Furthermore that you, Bodkin claim that v = v' whilst Dirk and Townes do not agree with you. We will find out what the believe in due course.

Agreed?

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Dirk is een betere logicus dan jij, Bodkin. Dirk kent de algebraïsche
>> catastrofe die jouw bekentenis is. Dat is waarom hij het vanaf het
>> begin heeft vermeden.
>
> I have no interest in conversing in Dutch. If you think there is an
> algebraic catastrophe, out with it.

Dutch is gay, war criminals, protecting people from covid_19 in *2021*,
by shooting them, killing with automatic firearms. Pushing a lethal toxic
poison, in people paying their income, which is *NOT_a_vaccine*. Lying
bitches, a shame for europe. They are nothing but puppets for the global
dogmas of idiocies. They are pushing checkpoints in cities, at groceries,
at cinema etc etc, *war_criminals* trying to genocide humanity. They
poison everything, never buy food made in holland. Arrest them, prosecute
and condemn.

Latest - Finally - Medical Proof the Covid Jab is 'Murder'.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2EIc9fLDcGpX/

AUSTRIA LOCKS DOWN- MANDATORY VACCINES ARE A WAR CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WmX8zol8NSwv/

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:13:22 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:10:53 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If F&S know the time of flight and the velocity of the muons in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their lab then F&S can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also know the time of flight and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity of the earth in the muon's FoR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will you [please teach me the] calculation of the latter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let S be inertial coordinates in which a particle P on the earth’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> surface is at rest,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and let S’ be a system in which the muon is at rest. The muon,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly approaching
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P at high speed, is created at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> event E1, which is simultaneous with event E2 of P in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of S, and with event E3 of P in terms of S’... There's nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradoxical about this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two absolute space-like intervals are between two different pairs of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What does all this even mean??? Use some equations and more words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Let E4 be the event where the muon collides with particle P on
>>>>>>>>>>> earth's surface, and let v denote the mutual speed between the muon and
>>>>>>>>>>> P, and in terms of S let D denote the distance traveled by the muon
>>>>>>>>>>> from E1 to E4, so its time of flight is D/v. In terms of S' (in which
>>>>>>>>>>> the muon is at rest) the distance traveled by the earth particle P from
>>>>>>>>>>> E3 to E4 is D sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and the time of flight is (D/v) sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I ask for clarification on E1, E2 and E3. Instead I get E4!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is it that you don't understand about those events? They are
>>>>>>>>> explicitly defined above. Again, the muon is created at E1 and it
>>>>>>>>> collides with the earth particle P at E4. Event E2 of P is simultaneous
>>>>>>>>> with E1 in terms of S, and event E3 of P is simultaneous with E1 in terms
>>>>>>>>> of S'. Do you understand this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He’s walking you through something standard, Pat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
>>>>>>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
>>>>>> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
>>>> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
>>>>> You and Dirk now have an issue between you. Just like Long Ears and Paul A#2.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will be fun to watch. Relativist trying to cancel relativist.
>>> --
>>>> Well, it’s funny that this is what you’re trying to do, rather than asking
>>>> about relativity. So what are you interested in, relativity? Or trying to
>>>> generate squabbles on a backwater of the internet? (And if the latter, WHY
>>>> would anybody do that?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don’t want to start there, then it follows from linearity
>>>>>> requirements.
>>>> See? Not a problem.
>>>
>>> "So when you write
>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,
>>> you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. " -- Dirk Vdm
>> I don’t know why you think this is in conflict with anything I said. You
>> clearly don’t have no idea what you’re talking about.
>>>
>>> Dirk is een betere logicus dan jij, Bodkin. Dirk kent de algebraïsche
>>> catastrofe die jouw bekentenis is. Dat is waarom hij het vanaf het begin heeft vermeden.
>> I have no interest in conversing in Dutch. If you think there is an
>> algebraic catastrophe, out with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Use your influence to get him off my thread until he gets a clue.
>>>>>>> Naturally I would like to use young Townes for more cannon fodder; but
>>>>>>> only after he understands the topography of this battlefield.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> ダークとの意見の相違を解消し、相対性理論についての自分の立場を把握していなければ、先に進めません。
>

So you have nothing, and are just noise-making. As I said from the
beginning of this convo.

Got nothing better to do?

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

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
>>>>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
>>>>
>>>> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
>>>>
>>> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
>>
>> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
>
> He's just confusing you by posting a mangled expression, since normally
> when someone refers to ∆x' and ∆x, etc. they are referring to the
> increments of the same interval in terms of two different coordinate
> systems. On that basis, the equality is self-evidently false, as others noted.
>
> However, he has fooled you into accepting a completely different meaning,
> such that the primed increments refer to an interval along the worldline
> of the muon in terms of the earth’s frame, and the unprimed increments
> refer to an interval along the worldline of the earth in terms of the
> muon’s frame. In particular, he has in mind the segments between the
> creation of the muon and the collision. That’s the standard sophistry,
> because to understand how both of those worldlines have speed v in terms
> of the other’s frame, you need to recognize that the event on the earth
> particle’s worldline that is simultaneous with the creation of the muon
> in terms of the muon’s frame is different than in the earth’s frame.
> It’s a relation between two distinct pairs of events.

Yes, exactly. Since he was ambiguous about the meaning of the variables, I
took the sensible interpretation, between different pairs of events. As I
also said early on, any games about trying to measure an interval of time
between two spatially separated events with elapsed time on a single clock,
are stupid. As I also said, the two frames disagree on the synchronization
between any pair of spatially separated clocks, and so using this two
clocks to measure the time between events is going to give a sensible
answer only in the frame where they are synchronous. He didn’t respond to
either of these and it’s clear he doesn’t understand them at all.

>
> So, yes, his asserted equality is mangled nonsense, and yes, each
> particle has speed v in terms of the other’s frame, and so on. See the
> previous message for the simple and direct answer to his standard canard,
> which he has accepted, and is hoping you won’t notice.
>
>

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

Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:

[snip]

>> Dirk is een betere logicus dan jij, Bodkin. Dirk kent de algebraïsche
>> catastrofe die jouw bekentenis is. Dat is waarom hij het vanaf het begin heeft vermeden.
>
> I have no interest in conversing in Dutch. If you think there is an
> algebraic catastrophe, out with it.

It's a spectacularly disastrous Google-Translate-to-Dutch result.
No person who has an even elementary notion of Dutch would ever
produce such a monster.

Dirk Vdm

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:25:54 AM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 7:40:48 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I know. But it's like he doesn't understand that the very assumption he
>>>>>> relies on, namely ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t, is what we are debating.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is easy to demonstrate if you start with Lorentz transforms.
>>>>>
>>>> Wow! What an admission, Bodkin.
>>>
>>> Why? Why do you think this is a problem?
>> He's just confusing you by posting a mangled expression, since normally
>> when someone refers to ∆x' and ∆x, etc. they are referring to the
>> increments of the same interval in terms of two different coordinate
>> systems. On that basis, the equality is self-evidently false, as others noted.
>>
>> However, he has fooled you into accepting a completely different
>> meaning, such that the primed increments refer to an interval along the
>> worldline of the muon in terms of the earth’s frame, and the unprimed
>> increments refer to an interval along the worldline of the earth in
>> terms of the muon’s frame. In particular, he has in mind the segments
>> between the creation of the muon and the collision. That’s the standard
>> sophistry, because to understand how both of those worldlines have speed
>> v in terms of the other’s frame, you need to recognize that the event on
>> the earth particle’s worldline that is simultaneous with the creation of
>> the muon in terms of the muon’s frame is different than in the earth’s
>> frame. It’s a relation between two distinct pairs of events.
>>
>> So, yes, his asserted equality is mangled nonsense, and yes, each
>> particle has speed v in terms of the other’s frame, and so on. See the
>> previous message for the simple and direct answer to his standard
>> canard, which he has accepted, and is hoping you won’t notice.
>
> World lines have speed v???

Increments along a world-line do correspond to speeds. Honestly, if you
can’t read English, it’s no wonder you haven’t tried digesting a book about
relativity.

> Bodkin, do you understand this kid? Because I don't. He has managed to
> mangle and mix spacetime geometry with physical events. Didn't Einstein
> once complain that after the mathematicians laid hold of his theory, even
> he didn't recognize it anymore. But at least this comes through loud and
> clear: he agrees with Dirk and not with you.
>
> I propose that we introduce the notation
>
> ∆x/∆t = v
>
> and
>
> ∆x'/∆t' = v'
>
> for the purposes of argument.

Fine. Where the x and x’ increments correspond to which pairs of events? Be
explicit. Same with the t and t’ increments. Go ahead, drop the vagueness
so it can be discussed.

>
> Furthermore that you, Bodkin claim that v = v' whilst Dirk and Townes do
> not agree with you. We will find out what the believe in due course.
>
> Agreed?
>
>
>

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

patdolan wrote:

> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 10:04:07 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:47:02 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> Lahn wrote:
>> > Paul Alsing wrote:
>> > That (if “x2” is to be “x²”) means that 𝕚² = −1, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT
>> > I SAID. And that does NOT mean that 𝕚 = √(−1); THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE
>> > SAME THING.
>> Well, yeah, it is...
>
> How is it possible that Paul A#2 and Long Ears could have a disagreement
> over i when:
>
> "Mathematics, in its symbols, terms, and reasoning is (given a
> context) unambiguous and unforgivingly strict. "

I have studied this at a real university; I know what I am talking about.

He has studied this at Google University, and has no clue.
And neither have you.

That was easy.

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)