Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.

1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat.. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.

2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.

3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.

Amen, Bodkin?

patdolan wrote:
> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
>
> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
>
> 2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
>
> 3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.
>
> Amen, Bodkin?

Why are you evading the FACT that you couldn't expose a contradiction
from Lorentz Transformation as you pretended Pat?

Attacking Odd won't help you much, you have made a fool of yourself Pat
Dolan.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
>
> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
> Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
> and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
> comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.

Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
measured in this frame will not be v.

But ok, let’s set that aside for now.

>
> 2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that
> Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In
> other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.

Yes.

>
> 3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in
> the Lorentz transforms.

Well, if we want to transform from the coordinates in which Pat is at rest
to the coordinates where Bodkin is at rest, that’s appropriate.

>
> Amen, Bodkin?
>
>
>

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

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> > Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
> >
> > 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
> >
> > 2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
> >
> > 3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.
> >
> > Amen, Bodkin?
> Why are you evading the FACT that you couldn't expose a contradiction
> from Lorentz Transformation as you pretended Pat?
>
> Attacking Odd won't help you much, you have made a fool of yourself Pat
> Dolan.

Python, I am starting that process right now.

Now finish your coffee and start typing Bodkin, while I have my coffee.

edit: since v is actually a vector (in deference to Gary) Bodkin and Pat agree on ||v||

patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>> patdolan wrote:
>>> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
>>>
>>> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
>>>
>>> 2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
>>>
>>> 3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.
>>>
>>> Amen, Bodkin?
>> Why are you evading the FACT that you couldn't expose a contradiction
>> from Lorentz Transformation as you pretended Pat?
>>
>> Attacking Odd won't help you much, you have made a fool of yourself Pat
>> Dolan.
>
> Python, I am starting that process right now.

As you've said for aged. I don't buy it.

> Now finish your coffee and start typing Bodkin, while I have my coffee.
>
> edit: since v is actually a vector (in deference to Gary) Bodkin and Pat agree on ||v||

In some equations v is a scalar in others it is a vector. If it is a
vector then ||v|| makes sense. "agreeing on ||v||" is a meaningless
statement, you are out of your mind.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
> >
> > 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
> > Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
> > and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
> > comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
> Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
> Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
> value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
> magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
> object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
> measured in this frame will not be v.
>
> But ok, let’s set that aside for now.

Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.

Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can be at most two observers and hence only two reference frames of consequence. Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames. Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames. So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.

Amen?
> >
> > 2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that
> > Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In
> > other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
> Yes.
> >
> > 3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in
> > the Lorentz transforms.
> Well, if we want to transform from the coordinates in which Pat is at rest
> to the coordinates where Bodkin is at rest, that’s appropriate.
>
> >
> > Amen, Bodkin?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:26:11 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >> patdolan wrote:
> >>> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries..
> >>>
> >>> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion, comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
> >>>
> >>> 2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in the Lorentz transforms.
> >>>
> >>> Amen, Bodkin?
> >> Why are you evading the FACT that you couldn't expose a contradiction
> >> from Lorentz Transformation as you pretended Pat?
> >>
> >> Attacking Odd won't help you much, you have made a fool of yourself Pat
> >> Dolan.
> >
> > Python, I am starting that process right now.
> As you've said for aged. I don't buy it.
> > Now finish your coffee and start typing Bodkin, while I have my coffee.
> >
> > edit: since v is actually a vector (in deference to Gary) Bodkin and Pat agree on ||v||
> In some equations v is a scalar in others it is a vector. If it is a
> vector then ||v|| makes sense. "agreeing on ||v||" is a meaningless
> statement, you are out of your mind.

Really, Python....I gave you more credit than this. That Bodkin and I should agree on ||v|| simply means that we agree on a number and its sign. Now please sit down and let the adults type a while.

patdolan wrote:
> So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.

Ah, the "Ken Seto syndrom" again. "Closing velocity between
a and b" is meaningless because it is underspecified.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:33:50 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> > So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
> Ah, the "Ken Seto syndrom" again. "Closing velocity between
> a and b" is meaningless because it is underspecified.
 Okay Python, I'll bite. How about YOU bringing the closing velocity up to spec.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:02:49 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
>
> 1) Bodkin, my boy,

"my boy" are unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently.

> consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin

Ok

>Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term

Unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently. Writing with such salad is that you are limited.

> in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other.

But these two objects do not know that one is going towards the other as per posited by you.
How can they know they are approaching each other?
Answer this before we continue.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:30 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:

> Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can be at most two observers

Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.

> and hence only two reference frames of consequence.

But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is nothing else but Bod & pat.

> Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.

Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
Doesn't this contradict your initial assumption that there is only two "objects", two entities?

> Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
> So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.

The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).

And so?

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:25:11 AM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:30 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
>
> > Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can be at most two observers
> Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
> > and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
> But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is nothing else but Bod & pat.
> > Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
> Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
> Doesn't this contradict your initial assumption that there is only two "objects", two entities?
> > Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
> > So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
> The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
> Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
>
> And so?
And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python. They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested in your objections Bodkin. What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:20:06 AM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:02:49 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> > Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
> >
> > 1) Bodkin, my boy,
> "my boy" are unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently.
> > consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and Pat. Bodkin
> Ok
> >Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term
> Unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently. Writing with such salad is that you are limited.
> > in motion wrt each other, and directly towards each other.
> But these two objects do not know that one is going towards the other as per posited by you.
> How can they know they are approaching each other?
> Answer this before we continue.

This is a fair ask rotchm. Bodkin and I meet first for a shot of whiskey. Lemesee...a bottle, two shot glasses...so now I guess there are 7 things in the universe. Anyway, while we are having our pre-argument toast we compare our meter sticks and agree to go off a few light years, nothing specific, then charge at the distance light we each see from the other's head lamp....9 things in the universe, unless you require that Bodkin and I be fully clothed too.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
>>>
>>> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
>>> Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
>>> and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
>>> comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
>> Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
>> Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
>> value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
>> magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
>> object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
>> measured in this frame will not be v.
>>
>> But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
>
> Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
>
> Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
> be at most two observers

Yes.

> and hence only two reference frames of consequence.

Nonsense. But as I said, we will set that aside.

> Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames. Bodkin and
> Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective
> frames. So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.

Well, ok but that’s not normally the usage of closing velocity in physics.
Again, we will set it aside. Keep going.

>
> Amen?
>>>
>>> 2) We shall denote the closing velocity as "v" and further stipulate that
>>> Bodkin and Pat agree on the numerical and dimensional units of v. In
>>> other words, Bodkin and Pat agree on |v|.
>> Yes.
>>>
>>> 3) Lastly, we agree that this closing velocity, v, is the same v used in
>>> the Lorentz transforms.
>> Well, if we want to transform from the coordinates in which Pat is at rest
>> to the coordinates where Bodkin is at rest, that’s appropriate.
>>
>>>
>>> Amen, Bodkin?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:25:11 AM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:30 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
>>
>>> Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
>>> can be at most two observers
>> Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
>>> and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
>> But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
>> nothing else but Bod & pat.
>>> Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
>> Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
>> Doesn't this contradict your initial assumption that there is only two
>> "objects", two entities?
>>> Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
>>> So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
>> The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
>> Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
>>
>> And so?
> And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
> They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
> think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
> in your objections Bodkin.

I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed.
But these are nuances. Keep going.

> What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
> you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
>

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

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:33:53 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:25:11 AM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:30 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> >
> > > Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can be at most two observers
> > Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
> > > and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
> > But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is nothing else but Bod & pat.

No rebuttal? So you agree that you introduced a contradiction in your setup.

> > > Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
> > Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
> > Doesn't this contradict your initial assumption that there is only two "objects", two entities?

No answer? So you agree that you goofed again in your own setup!

> And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python.
> They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can think of,
> including the use of the English language.

Nope. You first and there's only two things then you went on to say there are four things. Make up your mind.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:52:17 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:20:06 AM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:02:49 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:

> > "my boy" are unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently.

No comment? So you agree that you are a very bad writer?

> > >Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term
> > Unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently. Writing with such salad is that you are limited.

No review do? So you agree that you have a very limited mind?

The fact that you do not know how to write efficiently, that you cannot defend yourself, that you cannot solve simple math problems, all show that you are a crank. That you do not belong here. You do not have what it takes to discuss intelligently.

> > How can they know they are approaching each other?
> > Answer this before we continue.

> This is a fair ask rotchm.
....
> Bodkin and I meet first for a shot of whiskey.

And unnecessary sentence. Learn to write efficiently. When will you ever learn!

> Lemesee...a bottle, two shot glasses...so now I guess there are 7 things in the universe.

More word salad. So you are diverting cuz you have no sensible defense.

You are a crank and a troll. As such I will start reporting you as spam and start removing your posts.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:01:27 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:25:11 AM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:30 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there
> >>> can be at most two observers
> >> Correct, mainly them as posited by you. It is part of your setup.
> >>> and hence only two reference frames of consequence.
> >> But there cannot be any reference frames since you said that there is
> >> nothing else but Bod & pat.
> >>> Call them B and P for Bodkin's and Pat's reference frames.
> >> Okay so now your Universe contains four entities, Bod, pat, B & P, right?
> >> Doesn't this contradict your initial assumption that there is only two
> >> "objects", two entities?
> >>> Bodkin and Pat and their clocks are affixed to the origins of their respective frames.
> >>> So B and P also have a closing velocity of |v|.
> >> The notion of closing velocity requires a specified reference frame.
> >> Here, I assume you mean wrt B (and/or P).
> >>
> >> And so?
> > And so a little perspiration shows up on the brows of rotchm and Python..
> > They sense a trap and so are throwing every sort of objection they can
> > think of, including the use of the English language. But I am interested
> > in your objections Bodkin.
> I’ve only objected to your claims that there only two reference frames
> available and that the speed that P observes B to have is a closing speed..
> But these are nuances. Keep going.
> > What say you? Is this airliner ever going to reach take off speed or are
> > you going to activate reverse thrust and abort?
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Okay, I will. But give me pardon to dwell on rotchm's point for one post.

How can any observer accurately measure/ascertain the closing speed and coordinate length of an object? Are these two quantities knowable or not? Without them there can be no knowledge of that object's proper length and proper time rate.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:52:17 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 11:20:06 AM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:02:49 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote:
>
> > > "my boy" are unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently.
> No comment? So you agree that you are a very bad writer?
> > > >Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term
> > > Unnecessary words. Learn to write efficiently. Writing with such salad is that you are limited.
> No review do? So you agree that you have a very limited mind?
>
> The fact that you do not know how to write efficiently, that you cannot defend yourself, that you cannot solve simple math problems, all show that you are a crank. That you do not belong here. You do not have what it takes to discuss intelligently.
> > > How can they know they are approaching each other?
> > > Answer this before we continue.
>
> > This is a fair ask rotchm.
> ...
> > Bodkin and I meet first for a shot of whiskey.
> And unnecessary sentence. Learn to write efficiently. When will you ever learn!
> > Lemesee...a bottle, two shot glasses...so now I guess there are 7 things in the universe.
> More word salad. So you are diverting cuz you have no sensible defense.
>
> You are a crank and a troll. As such I will start reporting you as spam and start removing your posts.
No rotchm, no! Don't cancel me. I beg you. Learn from me. Ask Dirk and Prokary. I am the great Salishshore on Wiki. I devised the Lorentz contraction velocity equation. I discovered the Kepler 3/Einstein 1 controversy. Do you really want some future cyber archaeologist to uncover that you once cancelled the greatest relativist of his time? Well do you?

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
> >>> Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
> >>> and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
> >>> comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
> >> Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
> >> Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
> >> value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
> >> magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
> >> object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
> >> measured in this frame will not be v.
> >>
> >> But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
> >
> > Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
> >
> > Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
> > be at most two observers
>
> Yes.

No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:20:00 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
> > >>> Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
> > >>> and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
> > >>> comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
> > >> Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
> > >> Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
> > >> value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
> > >> magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
> > >> object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
> > >> measured in this frame will not be v.
> > >>
> > >> But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
> > >
> > > Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
> > >
> > > Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
> > > be at most two observers
> >
> > Yes.
> No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.

Starmaker,

Unless you mean God Almighty, this third observer intrigues me. I don't want to fly all the way to Sliver Springs. And he is probably quite drunk--I would be too if I were soaking in alcohol for 70 years. Will you deign to tell who this third observer might be?
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

patdolan wrote:
>
> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:20:00 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >>> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
> > > >>> Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
> > > >>> and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
> > > >>> comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
> > > >> Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
> > > >> Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
> > > >> value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
> > > >> magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
> > > >> object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
> > > >> measured in this frame will not be v.
> > > >>
> > > >> But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now.
> > > >
> > > > Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
> > > > be at most two observers
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.
>
> Starmaker,
>
> Unless you mean God Almighty, this third observer intrigues me. I don't want to fly all the way to Sliver Springs. And he is probably quite drunk--I would be too if I were soaking in alcohol for 70 years. Will you deign to tell who this third observer might be?

It intrigues because you know there is a third observer but you simply forgot who, what, where, when, why...and I don't mean God.

But I wrote "ask Einstein", or I'll even add Newton...

but don't ask me, I'm no Einstein.

> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

patdolan wrote:
> ... the closing speed [...] of an object?

Seto's symptom again. The syntagm is meaningless.

patdolan wrote:
> No rotchm, no! Don't cancel me. I beg you. Learn from me. Ask Dirk and Prokary. I am the great Salishshore on Wiki. I devised the Lorentz contraction velocity equation. I discovered the Kepler 3/Einstein 1 controversy. Do you really want some future cyber archaeologist to uncover that you once cancelled the greatest relativist of his time? Well do you?

Time for your pills Pat.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:51:50 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 12:20:00 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:15:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >>> Time to get down to brass tacks, Bodkin. But first some preliminaries.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 1) Bodkin, my boy, consider a Universe with only two object: Bodkin and
> > > > >>> Pat. Bodkin and Pat are what philosophers term in motion wrt each other,
> > > > >>> and directly towards each other. We shall stipulate that this motion,
> > > > >>> comprised of its direction and magnitude, is the "closing velocity" for Bodkin and Pat.
> > > > >> Well, Pat, you’re about to make a mistake. If we call this quantity v, then
> > > > >> Bodkin can find a value for Pat’s v relative to Bodkin, and Pat can find a
> > > > >> value for Bodkin’s v relative to Pat. These two numbers will agree in
> > > > >> magnitude. If, however, there were any other reference frame (not another
> > > > >> object) in which both Pat and Bodkin are moving, the closing speed as
> > > > >> measured in this frame will not be v.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But ok, let’s set that aside for now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, how 'bout 'dem reference frames? Let's get to that right now..
> > > > >
> > > > > Since Bodkin and Pat are the only two objects in this universe there can
> > > > > be at most two observers
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > No. There is a third observer. Ask Einstein.
> >
> > Starmaker,
> >
> > Unless you mean God Almighty, this third observer intrigues me. I don't want to fly all the way to Sliver Springs. And he is probably quite drunk--I would be too if I were soaking in alcohol for 70 years. Will you deign to tell who this third observer might be?
> It intrigues because you know there is a third observer but you simply forgot who, what, where, when, why...and I don't mean God.
>
> But I wrote "ask Einstein", or I'll even add Newton...
>
> but don't ask me, I'm no Einstein.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.
Okay. I'll try and puzzle it out. Perhaps the Universe itself is the third observer in some sort of Ernst Machian way. No, that can't be it. I'll try again...

I'm writing a narrative. So my own conscious participates as an observer. Not only mine, but also every reader of this thread. They will see as I see and only what I want them to see in my theater of the mind. They may attempt to project their own thoughts & concepts onto my screen. But my projector outshines all of theirs. These then are the auxiliary and captive observers in mine and Bodkin's Universe. However, it's not a clothing optional universe for them, especially in Dono's case.