On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> > patdolan <patd...@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
Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>> patdolan <patd...@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
> Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
>

Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?

Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?

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

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >>> patdolan <patd...@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
> > Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
> >
> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?
>
> Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He absolutely disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.

patdolan wrote:

>> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English
>> newsgroup? Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do? --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what
> difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He
> absolutely disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.

you don't understand tensors. There are 6 directions in a 3D tensor.

Australian Army Rounding People Up
https://www.brighteon.com/92a7a021-f166-468b-adbc-5410c9dc992b

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> patdolan <patd...@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
>>> Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
>>>
>> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?
>>
>> Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what
> difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He absolutely
> disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.
>

We don’t know if he disagrees or not. You haven’t answered my questions
about the pairs of events the delta-x’s and delta-t’s refer to. It could
well be that you and I are talking about two different things . Let’s see
what YOU say. If you don’t want to talk about it, then we’ll consider it a
dead discussion fizzling out in noise from you.

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

Op 22-nov.-2021 om 18:56 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@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
>>>> Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
>>>>
>>> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?
>>>
>>> Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>> I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what
>> difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He absolutely
>> disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.
>>
>
> We don’t know if he disagrees or not. You haven’t answered my questions
> about the pairs of events the delta-x’s and delta-t’s refer to. It could
> well be that you and I are talking about two different things . Let’s see
> what YOU say. If you don’t want to talk about it, then we’ll consider it a
> dead discussion fizzling out in noise from you.

Surely you're not attempting to have *live* discussion with this
twerp???

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 18:56 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@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
>>>>> Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
>>>>>
>>>> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what
>>> difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He absolutely
>>> disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.
>>>
>>
>> We don’t know if he disagrees or not. You haven’t answered my questions
>> about the pairs of events the delta-x’s and delta-t’s refer to. It could
>> well be that you and I are talking about two different things . Let’s see
>> what YOU say. If you don’t want to talk about it, then we’ll consider it a
>> dead discussion fizzling out in noise from you.
>
> Surely you're not attempting to have *live* discussion with this
> twerp???
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

Not for long. He’s going to disappear in a puff in a bit. No doubt
declaring victory as the door hits him on the ass.

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

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:28:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> > Op 22-nov.-2021 om 18:56 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>>>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@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
> >>>>> Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?
> >>>>
> >>>> Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>> I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what
> >>> difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He absolutely
> >>> disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We don’t know if he disagrees or not. You haven’t answered my questions
> >> about the pairs of events the delta-x’s and delta-t’s refer to. It could
> >> well be that you and I are talking about two different things . Let’s see
> >> what YOU say. If you don’t want to talk about it, then we’ll consider it a
> >> dead discussion fizzling out in noise from you.
> >
> > Surely you're not attempting to have *live* discussion with this
> > twerp???
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> Not for long. He’s going to disappear in a puff in a bit. No doubt
> declaring victory as the door hits him on the ass.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I've checked what I need to check to convince myself that I am on the right track once again. If any of you had answers to my objections you would have spared no time in providing the calculations to prove me wrong. You didn't. You couldn't. And no Townes, waving your arms around is not doing a calculation to demonstrate a unique time on the lab clock from both points of view. I've only lost here twice.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:28:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 18:56 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@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
>>>>>>> Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>> I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what
>>>>> difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He absolutely
>>>>> disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don’t know if he disagrees or not. You haven’t answered my questions
>>>> about the pairs of events the delta-x’s and delta-t’s refer to. It could
>>>> well be that you and I are talking about two different things . Let’s see
>>>> what YOU say. If you don’t want to talk about it, then we’ll consider it a
>>>> dead discussion fizzling out in noise from you.
>>>
>>> Surely you're not attempting to have *live* discussion with this
>>> twerp???
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>> Not for long. He’s going to disappear in a puff in a bit. No doubt
>> declaring victory as the door hits him on the ass.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I've checked what I need to check to convince myself that I am on the
> right track once again. If any of you had answers to my objections you
> would have spared no time in providing the calculations to prove me
> wrong. You didn't. You couldn't. And no Townes, waving your arms
> around is not doing a calculation to demonstrate a unique time on the lab
> clock from both points of view. I've only lost here twice.
>

There you go, little puff of smoke, declaring victory as the door hits you
on the ass on the way out. Hurried little footfalls down the damp alley,
around the dumpster and away.

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

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:28:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 18:56 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:00:52 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Op 22-nov.-2021 om 17:13 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@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
> >>>>>>> Alright Dirk, Okaaaaay. Then YOU give us your version of the sentiments expressed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why? Why would having well formed Dutch be of use on an English newsgroup?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was merely trying to be inclusive. You can see for yourself with what
> >>>>> difficulty Dirk attempts to explain relativity in English. He absolutely
> >>>>> disagrees with your version. This could be a language thing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We don’t know if he disagrees or not. You haven’t answered my questions
> >>>> about the pairs of events the delta-x’s and delta-t’s refer to. It could
> >>>> well be that you and I are talking about two different things . Let’s see
> >>>> what YOU say. If you don’t want to talk about it, then we’ll consider it a
> >>>> dead discussion fizzling out in noise from you.
> >>>
> >>> Surely you're not attempting to have *live* discussion with this
> >>> twerp???
> >>>
> >>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>
> >> Not for long. He’s going to disappear in a puff in a bit. No doubt
> >> declaring victory as the door hits him on the ass.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > I've checked what I need to check to convince myself that I am on the
> > right track once again. If any of you had answers to my objections you
> > would have spared no time in providing the calculations to prove me
> > wrong. You didn't. You couldn't. And no Townes, waving your arms
> > around is not doing a calculation to demonstrate a unique time on the lab
> > clock from both points of view. I've only lost here twice.
> >
> There you go, little puff of smoke, declaring victory as the door hits you
> on the ass on the way out. Hurried little footfalls down the damp alley,
> around the dumpster and away.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tom Roberts, Sylvia, Jan, rotchm, Paul A#1, euroHenry, Prokary, Shubba, are you all content to let Bodkin's & Dirk's pathetic response stand as sufficient reply for special relativity's inability to provide one, unique quantity for the elapsed time on the lab clock as calculated by both the muon and the lab scientists? If none of you can produce a calculation showing 4.4 microseconds from both points of view then I guess my mission here is complete and goes down as yet another victory.

Op 23-nov.-2021 om 11:17 schreef patdolan:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]

>> There you go, little puff of smoke, declaring victory as the door hits you
>> on the ass on the way out. Hurried little footfalls down the damp alley,
>> around the dumpster and away.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Tom Roberts, Sylvia, Jan, rotchm, Paul A#1, euroHenry, Prokary, Shubba, are you all content to let Bodkin's & Dirk's pathetic response stand as sufficient reply for special relativity's inability to provide one, unique quantity for the elapsed time on the lab clock as calculated by both the muon and the lab scientists? If none of you can produce a calculation showing 4.4 microseconds from both points of view then I guess my mission here is complete and goes down as yet another victory.
>

Blockheaded ignorance and stupidity are invincible,
specially when unconsciously conspiring. Boring.

Dirk Vdm

On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 13:55:58 UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Blockheaded ignorance and stupidity are invincible,

No, trash, you're not.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 5:35:12 AM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 13:55:58 UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > Blockheaded ignorance and stupidity are invincible,
> No, trash, you're not.

Relativity has finally become woke to it's third and heretofore hidden postulate, ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t. So take this sage advice from the 45th POTUS and winner of the 2016, 2020 and 2024 US presidential elections: "Everything woke turns to shit."

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 2:17:28 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> ...special relativity's inability to provide one, unique quantity for the elapsed
> time on the lab clock as calculated by both the muon and the lab scientists?

Again, taking c=1, the elapsed time of the point on the earth from E3 to E4 is (D/v)(1-v^2) = 1.1 usec, and the elapsed time from E2 to E4 is D/v = 4.4 usec. E1 (the creation of the muon) is simultaneous with E2 in terms of the earth's frame, and with E3 in terms of the muon's frame.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 2:17:28 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>> ...special relativity's inability to provide one, unique quantity for the elapsed
>> time on the lab clock as calculated by both the muon and the lab scientists?
>
> Again, taking c=1, the elapsed time of the point on the earth from E3 to
> E4 is (D/v)(1-v^2) = 1.1 usec, and the elapsed time from E2 to E4 is D/v
> = 4.4 usec. E1 (the creation of the muon) is simultaneous with E2 in
> terms of the earth's frame, and with E3 in terms of the muon's frame.
>

Couldn’t wait for the straightforward answer, as found in just about any
good book on the subject, could you, Pat?

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 5:35:12 AM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 13:55:58 UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>> Blockheaded ignorance and stupidity are invincible,
>> No, trash, you're not.
>
> Relativity has finally become woke to it's third and heretofore hidden
> postulate, ∆x'/∆t' = ∆x/∆t. So take this sage advice from the 45th POTUS
> and winner of the 2016, 2020 and 2024 US presidential elections:
> "Everything woke turns to shit."
>

Somehow, this is poetic. Maybe some bleach injected directly into the body
will cure it.
Better get to the grassy knoll and wait for JFK Jr’s return.

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

On 11/23/2021 5:17 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>> There you go, little puff of smoke, declaring victory as the door hits you
>> on the ass on the way out. Hurried little footfalls down the damp alley,
>> around the dumpster and away.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Tom Roberts, Sylvia, Jan, rotchm, Paul A#1, euroHenry, Prokary, Shubba, are you all content to let Bodkin's & Dirk's pathetic response stand as sufficient reply for special relativity's inability to provide one, unique quantity for the elapsed time on the lab clock as calculated by both the muon and the lab scientists? If none of you can produce a calculation showing 4.4 microseconds from both points of view then I guess my mission here is complete and goes down as yet another victory.
>
There he goes, little puff of smoke, declaring victory as the door hits
him on the ass on the way out. Hurried little footfalls down the damp
alley, around the dumpster and away.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 2:17:28 AM UTC-8, uber crank pat dolan wrote:
>
> Tom Roberts, Sylvia, Jan, rotchm, Paul A#1, euroHenry, Prokary, Shubba, are you all content to let Bodkin's & Dirk's pathetic response stand as sufficient reply for special relativity's inability to provide one, unique quantity for the elapsed time on the lab clock as calculated by both the muon and the lab scientists? If none of you can produce a calculation showing 4.4 microseconds from both points of view then I guess my mission here is complete and goes down as yet another victory.

Dear dumbestfuck Pattycakes,

From the POV of the muon, the proper time is equal to its coordinate time t=\tau=4.4us.
From the POV of the lab, the proper time \tau'=t'*\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}=4.4us.
Two lines of very basic calculations (that you are unable to do).

On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 15:10:57 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 2:17:28 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > ...special relativity's inability to provide one, unique quantity for the elapsed
> > time on the lab clock as calculated by both the muon and the lab scientists?
> Again, taking c=1, the elapsed time of the point on the earth from E3 to E4 is (D/v)(1-v^2) = 1.1 usec, and the elapsed time from E2 to E4 is D/v = 4.4 usec. E1 (the creation of the muon) is simultaneous with E2 in terms of the earth's frame, and with E3 in terms of the muon's frame.

Again, in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by The Shit GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:47:06 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote: '

> > "It (i) stands for the square root of negative one"

> This is wrong.
> > ... and there are thousands more, but at this point in time, I'm bored....

> No, you are incompetent and can’t read.

Here, watch this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo

.... and go ahead and skip to about 17:40 and watch for just a little while.... where you will learn that Euler was the first to label "i = the square root of -1"...

Paul Alsing wrote:

> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:47:06 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Paul Alsing wrote: '
>
>> > "It (i) stands for the square root of negative one"
>
>> This is wrong.
>> > ... and there are thousands more, but at this point in time, I'm
>> > bored...
>
>> No, you are incompetent and can’t read.
>
> Here, watch this...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo
>
> ... and go ahead and skip to about 17:40 and watch for just a little
> while... where you will learn that Euler was the first to label "i = the
> square root of -1"...

Fascinating video (thank you), as previously with Veritasium – apropos, his
video on gravity in general relativity is congenial¹ –, and I will check the
claim there that actually Euler defined 𝕚 this way.

But regardless whether and how *Euler* defined it *then*, that does not
change the mathematical facts that we know *today*:

√(−1) = ±𝕚,

and not just

√(−1) = 𝕚.

Because if you square the equation, then it is true for both signs on the
right-hand side:

[√(−1)]² = −1 = 𝕚²

and

[√(−1)]² = −1 = (−𝕚)².

The square roots of a number are defined as the numbers whose squares are
equal to the radicand (here: −1).

Therefore, 𝕚 is defined the way that I stated and three of your sources
confirmed, and *strictly* 𝕚 is defined as *a* number whose square is −1,
not (just) *the* square root of −1 (regardless of statements to the
contrary).

Because −𝕚 is the *other* number that is a square root of −1. So taking the
square root of −1 does not have only one solution. And this is true for the
square roots of all negative numbers, because every negative number is
actually implicitly defined (in an ordered field) as a product of −1 with a
positive number of the same magnitude.

It is *very important* particularly in physics to realize that this is so.
Complex/imaginary numbers do not only appear in quantum mechanics (as
mentioned in the video), but also in (modern) classical mechanics where the
equations of motion for a harmonic oscillator are differential equations,
too (in fact, that is why it is so in quantum mechanics; Schrödinger guessed
the correct equation based on what was already known).

For example, for simple harmonic motion, the restoring force F is
proportional to the displacement x from the equilibrium position:

F = −k x,

where the proportionality constant k is typically called “spring constant”,
at least when we are talking about a spring. Since

F = m a = m ẍ,

we can write

m ẍ = −k x
⇔ ẍ = −k/m x.

In introductory mathematics classes it is shown that and why the ansatz in
physics

x(t) ≔ C exp(λ t)

works to solve it. Simply assuming here that it works, we find

ẍ = C λ² exp(λ t) = −k/m C exp(λ t) = −k/m x,

and as C exp(λ t) ≠ 0 [exp(λ t) ≠ 0 is clear from its definition; C ≠ 0 is
a practical requirement, otherwise there would be no oscillation to speak
of]:

λ² = −k/m = (−1) · k/m

(as I said before). And here is where it becomes very important that the
square root of a negative number, in particular of −1, is NOT a single value
(that would be 𝕚), because

λ = √[(−1) · k/m] = √(−1) · √(k/m) = ±𝕚 √(k/m),

NOT just λ = 𝕚 √(k/m). This means that there are actually two solutions,
where one defines ω ≔ √(k/m) for brevity – and as you will see soon, that
makes physical sense, too:

λ₁ = 𝕚 ω,
λ₂ = −𝕚 ω.

Then the general (complex) solution of the ODE is (as every linear
combination of solutions is also a solution, as also mentioned in the video)

x(t) = C₁ exp(λ₁ t) + C₂ exp(λ₂ t) = C₁ exp(𝕚 ω t) + C₂ exp(−𝕚 ω t),

where C₁ and C₂ are arbitrary constants – NOT just

x(t) = C exp(𝕚 ω t).

This is important because, using a realization also indicated in the video,
namely *Euler’s formula*

exp(𝕚 x) = cos(x) + 𝕚 sin(x),

and equivalently

exp(−𝕚 x) = cos(x) + (−𝕚) sin(x) = cos(x) − 𝕚 sin(x),

we can *then* rewrite the actual solution to obtain the general *real*
(“real” as in “real number”, not “actual”) solution, and can see that it
actually describes an oscillating system:

x(t) = C₁ [cos(ω t) + 𝕚 sin(ω t)] + C₂ [cos(ω t) − 𝕚 sin(ω t)]
= C₁ cos(ω t) + C₁ 𝕚 sin(ω t) + C₂ cos(ω t) − C₂ 𝕚 sin(ω t)
= C₁ cos(ω t) + C₂ cos(ω t) + C₁ 𝕚 sin(ω t) − C₂ 𝕚 sin(ω t)
= (C₁ + C₂) cos(ω t) + (C₁ − C₂) 𝕚 sin(ω t)
= A cos(ω t) + B sin(ω t)
= C cos(ω t − φ),

where the maximum amplitude is C = √(A² + B²) and the phase is
φ = arctan(B/A).

We can see then that it makes sense to define ω = √(k/m) [and use that
letter] because it really is the angular frequency of the oscillation,
which is *real*-valued (as it should be).

[In quantum mechanics we find the above from the time-independent
Schrödinger equation Ĥ ψ = E ψ. For example, for a particle in a box,
we find the time-independent part of the wavefunction to be
ψ(x) = B sin(k x) – k there is the wavenumber – as the initial
conditions ψ(−a) = ψ(a) = 0, where the box goes from x = −a to x = a,
result in A = 0.]

Without considering the second solution for λ above [the one with √(−1) =
−𝕚] we would be left with a practically rather useless complex value, and we
would not get the correct (observed) equation of motion (or wavefunction)
for all possible initial conditions.

And notice: The video that you cite here says again that 𝕚 *is* a number
even though it is an imaginary number – contrary to what you claimed.

HTH

PointedEars
___________
¹ <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU>
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 6:11:26 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: '
> >
> >> > "It (i) stands for the square root of negative one"
> >
> >> This is wrong.
> >> > ... and there are thousands more, but at this point in time, I'm
> >> > bored...
> >
> >> No, you are incompetent and can’t read.
> >
> > Here, watch this...
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo
> >
> > ... and go ahead and skip to about 17:40 and watch for just a little
> > while... where you will learn that Euler was the first to label "i = the
> > square root of -1"...
> Fascinating video (thank you), as previously with Veritasium – apropos, his
> video on gravity in general relativity is congenial¹ –, and I will check the
> claim there that actually Euler defined 𝕚 this way.
>
> But regardless whether and how *Euler* defined it *then*, that does not
> change the mathematical facts that we know *today*:
>
> √(−1) = ±𝕚,
>
> and not just
>
> √(−1) = 𝕚.
>
> Because if you square the equation, then it is true for both signs on the
> right-hand side:
>
> [√(−1)]² = −1 = 𝕚²
>
> and
>
> [√(−1)]² = −1 = (−𝕚)².
>
> The square roots of a number are defined as the numbers whose squares are
> equal to the radicand (here: −1).
>
> Therefore, 𝕚 is defined the way that I stated and three of your sources
> confirmed, and *strictly* 𝕚 is defined as *a* number whose square is −1,
> not (just) *the* square root of −1 (regardless of statements to the
> contrary).
>
> Because −𝕚 is the *other* number that is a square root of −1. So taking the
> square root of −1 does not have only one solution. And this is true for the
> square roots of all negative numbers, because every negative number is
> actually implicitly defined (in an ordered field) as a product of −1 with a
> positive number of the same magnitude.
>
> It is *very important* particularly in physics to realize that this is so..
> Complex/imaginary numbers do not only appear in quantum mechanics (as
> mentioned in the video), but also in (modern) classical mechanics where the
> equations of motion for a harmonic oscillator are differential equations,
> too (in fact, that is why it is so in quantum mechanics; Schrödinger guessed
> the correct equation based on what was already known).
>
> For example, for simple harmonic motion, the restoring force F is
> proportional to the displacement x from the equilibrium position:
>
> F = −k x,
>
> where the proportionality constant k is typically called “spring constant”,
> at least when we are talking about a spring. Since
>
> F = m a = m ẍ,
>
> we can write
>
> m ẍ = −k x
> ⇔ ẍ = −k/m x.
>
> In introductory mathematics classes it is shown that and why the ansatz in
> physics
>
> x(t) ≔ C exp(λ t)
>
> works to solve it. Simply assuming here that it works, we find
>
> ẍ = C λ² exp(λ t) = −k/m C exp(λ t) = −k/m x,
>
> and as C exp(λ t) ≠ 0 [exp(λ t) ≠ 0 is clear from its definition; C ≠ 0 is
> a practical requirement, otherwise there would be no oscillation to speak
> of]:
>
> λ² = −k/m = (−1) · k/m
>
> (as I said before). And here is where it becomes very important that the
> square root of a negative number, in particular of −1, is NOT a single value
> (that would be 𝕚), because
>
> λ = √[(−1) · k/m] = √(−1) · √(k/m) = ±𝕚 √(k/m),
>
> NOT just λ = 𝕚 √(k/m). This means that there are actually two solutions,
> where one defines ω ≔ √(k/m) for brevity – and as you will see soon, that
> makes physical sense, too:
>
> λ₁ = 𝕚 ω,
> λ₂ = −𝕚 ω.
>
> Then the general (complex) solution of the ODE is (as every linear
> combination of solutions is also a solution, as also mentioned in the video)
>
> x(t) = C₁ exp(λ₁ t) + C₂ exp(λ₂ t) = C₁ exp(𝕚 ω t) + C₂ exp(−𝕚 ω t),
>
> where C₁ and C₂ are arbitrary constants – NOT just
>
> x(t) = C exp(𝕚 ω t).
>
> This is important because, using a realization also indicated in the video,
> namely *Euler’s formula*
>
> exp(𝕚 x) = cos(x) + 𝕚 sin(x),
>
> and equivalently
>
> exp(−𝕚 x) = cos(x) + (−𝕚) sin(x) = cos(x) − 𝕚 sin(x),
>
> we can *then* rewrite the actual solution to obtain the general *real*
> (“real” as in “real number”, not “actual”) solution, and can see that it
> actually describes an oscillating system:
>
> x(t) = C₁ [cos(ω t) + 𝕚 sin(ω t)] + C₂ [cos(ω t) − 𝕚 sin(ω t)]
> = C₁ cos(ω t) + C₁ 𝕚 sin(ω t) + C₂ cos(ω t) − C₂ 𝕚 sin(ω t)
> = C₁ cos(ω t) + C₂ cos(ω t) + C₁ 𝕚 sin(ω t) − C₂ 𝕚 sin(ω t)
> = (C₁ + C₂) cos(ω t) + (C₁ − C₂) 𝕚 sin(ω t)
> = A cos(ω t) + B sin(ω t)
> = C cos(ω t − φ),
>
> where the maximum amplitude is C = √(A² + B²) and the phase is
> φ = arctan(B/A).
>
> We can see then that it makes sense to define ω = √(k/m) [and use that
> letter] because it really is the angular frequency of the oscillation,
> which is *real*-valued (as it should be).
>
> [In quantum mechanics we find the above from the time-independent
> Schrödinger equation Ĥ ψ = E ψ. For example, for a particle in a box,
> we find the time-independent part of the wavefunction to be
> ψ(x) = B sin(k x) – k there is the wavenumber – as the initial
> conditions ψ(−a) = ψ(a) = 0, where the box goes from x = −a to x = a,
> result in A = 0.]
>
> Without considering the second solution for λ above [the one with √(−1) =
> −𝕚] we would be left with a practically rather useless complex value, and we
> would not get the correct (observed) equation of motion (or wavefunction)
> for all possible initial conditions.
>
> And notice: The video that you cite here says again that 𝕚 *is* a number
> even though it is an imaginary number – contrary to what you claimed.
>
>
> HTH
>
> PointedEars
> ___________
> ¹ <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU>
> --
> Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
> A: Sherlock Ohms.
>
> (from: WolframAlpha

You sure wasted a lot of time over essentially nothing!

i = the square root of -1... end of discussion.

https://www.livescience.com/42748-imaginary-numbers.html

"An imaginary number is a number that, when squared, has a negative result. Essentially, an imaginary number is the square root of a negative number and does not have a tangible value. While it is not a real number — that is, it cannot be quantified on the number line — imaginary numbers are "real" in the sense that they exist and are used in math."

Paul Alsing wrote:

> You sure wasted a lot of time over essentially nothing!

I did waste time as apparent *now*, because you want to stay ignorant,
and "right" instead of educated.
> i = the square root of -1... end of discussion.

Repeating nonsense does not make it true.
> https://www.livescience.com/42748-imaginary-numbers.html

Pop-sci.

PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Paul Alsing wrote:

> https://www.livescience.com/42748-imaginary-numbers.html
>
> "An imaginary number is a number that, when squared, has a negative
> result. Essentially, an imaginary number is the square root of a negative
> number and does not have a tangible value. While it is not a real number —
> that is, it cannot be quantified on the number line — imaginary numbers
> are "real" in the sense that they exist and are used in math."

There is no indication that the author, Elaine J. Hom, has even studied
mathematics or physics, let alone is a mathematician or physicist. Her
pop-sci opinion is irrelevant evidence.

As I have told you before, most people have no clue and publish mostly
bullshit on the Web.

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 Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 7:23:34 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > You sure wasted a lot of time over essentially nothing!

> I did waste time as apparent *now*, because you want to stay ignorant,
> and "right" instead of educated.

Well, I have university degrees in math, physics, and astronomy, so I don't consider myself to be uneducated... even if it was over 50 years ago...

> > i = the square root of -1... end of discussion.

> Repeating nonsense does not make it true.

If you think this is nonsense then I'm pretty sure I know who the uneducated guy here is. This very basic principle is in virtually every math textbook in print! Do you also think that math textbooks are just bullshit? I would wager that this is stated in *your* textbooks, too.

Like I said before, if you are convinced that I am wrong and you are right about this really basic definition, then you have a whole lot of sources to set straight because there are hundreds of thousands of them out there who still state that i is defined to be the square root of -1...