On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 2:42:50 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:10:25 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:35:16 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:26:17 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:01:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:17:07 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:24:20 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:26:39 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:15:48 PM UTC-8, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> proceed...
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> said anything like that yet.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> especially you’re going to have to be careful.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and a coordinate form, v'.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Bodkin?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> measure it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (one more setup step to go)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
> > > > > > >>>>>>> trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
> > > > > > >>>>>>> respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
> > > > > > >>>>>>> needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
> > > > > > >>>>>>> of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
> > > > > > >>>>>>> plain v, if you like.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Bodkin, let me help you out of your quandary before it drives you mad.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
> > > > > > >>>>>> velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
> > > > > > >>>>>> must be thus for the LTs to work.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
> > > > > > >>>>> other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
> > > > > > >>>> Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
> > > > > > >>>> deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
> > > > > > >>>>> velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
> > > > > > >>>>> some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
> > > > > > >>>>> or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
> > > > > > >>>> in our private universe. Sound good?
> > > > > > >> Yes, see below.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Comprenez vous?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > > > > >>> Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
> > > > > > >>> example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
> > > > > > >>> all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
> > > > > > >> promised you’d do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
> > > > > > > Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
> > > > > > > Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
> > > > > > > us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
> > > > > > > Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
> > > > > > > has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
> > > > > > > Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
> > > > > > > great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bodkin, please examine and check your weapon at this link:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/einstein-velocity-addition/v/einstein-velocity-addition-formula-derivation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
> > > > > > derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
> > > > > > that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
> > > > > > rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
> > > > > > defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
> > > > > > Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
> > > > > > make.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
> > > > > Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > > Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P. Mathematically stated v' = v.
> > > We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
> > >
> > > Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
> > >
> > > Back to the proof...
> > >
> > >
> > > v' = x'/t'
> > >
> > > Now according to Sal
> > >
> > > x'/t' = g(x - vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
> > >
> > > x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
> > >
> > > we now make the substitution v = x/t. We could (will) use v = x'/t' which is also our premise.
> > >
> > > x'/t' = (x-x)/... = 0
> > >
> > > Hmm...dead end.
> > >
> > > This then is the first Bodkin Equality
> > >
> > > x'/t' = 0
> > >
> > > Maybe we will have better luck with the substitution v = -x'/t', which is after all the only premise we are premising.
> > >
> > > On to the second Bodkin Equality...
> >
> > v = -x'/t' (premised)
> >
> > x'/t' = g(x-vt)/g(t-vx/c^2)
> >
> > x'/t' = (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2)
> >
> > x'/t' = (x+[x't/t'])/(t+xx'/t'c^2)
> >
> > x't/t' + x x'^2/c^2t'^2 = x + x't/t'
> >
> > xx'^2/c^2t'^2 = x
> >
> > x'^2 = c^2t'2
> >
> > x'/t' = c
> >
> > Oh dear! another failure. We have failed to prove that v=v' or that even v=v
> V=-v
>
> In order for v=v you need to break the light barrier.
>
Correction duly noted Starmaker. You will also not that the derivation of the second Bodkin equality did in fact take the minus sign into account.
>
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:43:04 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:22:44 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:35:16 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:26:17 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:01:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:17:07 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:24:20 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:26:39 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:15:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we shall
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate time. We also know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper closing velocity v,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re measuring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said anything like that yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially you’re going to have to be careful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'.. So of course it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a coordinate form, v'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (one more setup step to go)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain v, if you like.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, let me help you out of your quandary before it drives you mad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'.. Indeed it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be thus for the LTs to work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in our private universe. Sound good?
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, see below.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comprenez vous?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
> >>>>>>>>>>> example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
> >>>>>>>>>>> all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
> >>>>>>>>>> promised you’d do.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
> >>>>>>>>> Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
> >>>>>>>>> Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
> >>>>>>>>> us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
> >>>>>>>>> Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
> >>>>>>>>> has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
> >>>>>>>>> Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
> >>>>>>>>> great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bodkin, please examine and check your weapon at this link:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/einstein-velocity-addition/v/einstein-velocity-addition-formula-derivation
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
> >>>>>>>> derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
> >>>>>>>> that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
> >>>>>>>> rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
> >>>>>>>> defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
> >>>>>>>> Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
> >>>>>>>> make.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
> >>>>>>> Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>> Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
> >>>>>> Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
> >>>>>> the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
> >>>>>> Mathematically stated v' = v.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
> >>>>> same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
> >>>>> take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
> >>>>> coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Back to the proof...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> v' = x'/t'
> >>>> No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
> >>>> referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
> >>>> x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
> >>>> particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
> >>>> is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
> >>>>
> >>>> Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
> >>>> proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
> >>>>
> >>>> At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
> >>>> variables even mean.
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was
> >>> doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object.
> >> No, he was not. He never used those words “coordinate velocity” and “proper
> >> velocity”. You are dreaming things. Furthermore, YOU are not using the
> >> terms correctly, mostly because you don’t know what they mean.
> >
> > Sure I am using the terms precisely and correctly. Don't believe me?
> > Then YOU use them correctly and demonstrate the proper use of v in the
> > LTs. If you can't or won't, then I stand victorious.
> Oh, come on you lazy buffoon. You can’t look up “proper velocity” in Google
> or even Wikipedia?
>
> Proper velocity (or celerity) is dx/dtau, where dx is the change in
> position of an object as seen by an observer NOT moving with the object,
> and dtau is the change in time on a clock that IS moving with the object.
>
> Note that proper velocity was NEVER discussed in Sal’s little video, and in
> fact the job remains for you to look up what “coordinate velocity” means.
>
> You aren’t going to accomplish anything if you don’t even know what the
> words mean. You’re just going to fling them around like chopped vegetables
> in a word salad.

On Monday, 10 January 2022 at 23:14:52 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> The idiot’s strategy for learning something on the internet is to say
> something completely stupid that reveals how little he knows, and then to
> wait for more knowledgeable people to give the right answer.

Oh, so your "meridians are straight lines in Euclidean sense"
was your strategy of learning something? I doubt.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:43:04 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:22:44 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:35:16 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:26:17 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:01:33 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:17:07 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:24:20 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:26:39 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 2:15:48 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin has accepted all the stipulations of the setup so far, with some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "carefully chosen" reservations that he hopes to employ later. But we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are all quite familiar with the Hermann Minchumpski quantities; proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length & coordinate length; proper time & coordinate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. We also know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about proper velocity and coordinate velocity from the Einstein velocity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addition formula which is applied to objects independent of two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observers--say the empty whisky bottle in Bodkin's and my universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin has already given his assent to the quantity we have named the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closing velocity, v, used in the LTs. Let us now focus our attention on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. As we turn the knob, what comes into sharp focus is the discovery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that v is not a unitary quantity, but rather, a paired quantity just like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other Minchumpski quantities: there is a proper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closing velocity v,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a coordinate closing velocity v'. Why wouldn't there be. After all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v is a composite quantity consisting of x & t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well that depends a little on what the two events are that you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a change in coordinate x for and a change in coordinate t for. You haven’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said anything like that yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same would go for change in proper x and change in proper t, and here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially you’re going to have to be careful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And x & t both have coordinate and proper forms x' & t'. So of course it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is natural that the closing velocity v should also have a proper form v
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a coordinate form, v'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not wave hands. What exactly do you mean by coordinate v? How would you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (one more setup step to go)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha! Bodkin, you blessed beluga. You have just set off my first booby
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trap...Here, let me stitch your head and arms back on so you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respond...there we go, you're looking much better...now stick this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needle in your arm until the bag is empty...type O, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I return a more fundamental question to you, my soon to be steaming bowl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of chump chowder, what exactly DO YOU MEAN by proper v? Or just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain v, if you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, let me help you out of your quandary before it drives you mad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we agree that the proper closing velocity and the coordinate closing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity must be identical; Mathematically stated v = v'. Indeed it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be thus for the LTs to work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not at all clear. Again, you haven’t specified what v means,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than it’s what you are pointing at in the Lorentz transforms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, if you could chastise and correct Lorentz regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deficiencies in his specifying the "v" in his transforms, what would that be?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to try to distinguish proper velocity from coordinate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity, then maybe you should define both in terms of x and t for say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some object. Then we can see if the two definitions make them equal or not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or whether the v in the transforms applies to one and not the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will do that Bodkin. In fact I will do it for two objects, you and me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our private universe. Sound good?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, see below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comprenez vous?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, just so there is no ambiguity, why don't you work a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example with each Lorentz transform for us. I will use your method in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that follows. That seems very reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I really don’t want to shift the focus from you doing what you’d
>>>>>>>>>>>> promised you’d do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, enough foreplay Bodkin. Time to fish or cut bait. As Dave
>>>>>>>>>>> Chappelle recently exclaimed, Let's Go--
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since you would not choose your weapon Bodkin, I have enlisted the great
>>>>>>>>>>> Sal "Genghis" Khan of Khan Academy to serve as our second and to provide
>>>>>>>>>>> us both a set of instructions for the proper use of the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>> Transforms. Yes, I am aware that Khan is no relativist of note. But he
>>>>>>>>>>> has been instructed by the greatest relativists of our time, perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>> Wheeler hizself, because of the huge responsibility Khan carries wrt the
>>>>>>>>>>> great unwashed minds of mush he is entrusted to educate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, please examine and check your weapon at this link:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/einstein-velocity-addition/v/einstein-velocity-addition-formula-derivation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you find your weapon satisfactory, Sir?
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well. It’s sad, first of all, that you had to go to Khan Academy to find a
>>>>>>>>>> derivation of the velocity composition rule, rather than being able to work
>>>>>>>>>> that our yourself. Especially since an alternative derivation of the same
>>>>>>>>>> rule was produced by Einstein himself in the 1905 paper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also note that delta-x and delta-t Sal Kahn just tossed out there without
>>>>>>>>>> defining any pair of events for which the deltas represent differences.
>>>>>>>>>> Without doing that, you’re likely to make mistakes that even Sal would not
>>>>>>>>>> make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But other than that, there’s not much wrong with the derivation.
>>>>>>>>> Excellent Bodkin, excellent! We have paced off our distance. I now turn and fire.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> Premise: there is only one, unique velocity v that can be use in the
>>>>>>>> Lorentz Transforms. That is to say, the proper closing velocities for
>>>>>>>> the B and P FoRs is the same as the coordinate velocities for B and P.
>>>>>>>> Mathematically stated v' = v.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We now endeavor to prove that the proper and closing velocities are the
>>>>>>> same. That is to say we shall prove that v' = v.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Step 1) we find v' using the LTs. Following Sal's method...oh...let's
>>>>>>> take care of that delta thing first. Assume that the origins of B and P
>>>>>>> coincide at t' = t = 0. Also assume that the x' and x axes are collinear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Back to the proof...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v' = x'/t'
>>>>>> No, that is not correct, and it is also not what Sal used. Recall that he
>>>>>> referred to a velocity u = (delta(x))/(delta(t)), where delta(x) means
>>>>>> x2-x1, where these are the x coordinates at two events 1 and 2. In
>>>>>> particular x/t is not the same as (delta(x))/(delta(t)). And likewise x’/t’
>>>>>> is not the same as (delta(x’))/(delta(t’)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also that Sal’s u is not at all the v used in the Lorentz transform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice also that he did not call this u EITHER a coordinate velocity OR a
>>>>>> proper velocity. Nor have you defined either one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, you are rather hopelessly muddled, not knowing what various
>>>>>> variables even mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, my boy, stop squirming. The knot is only tightening. Sal was
>>>>> doing coordinate and proper velocity of a third object.
>>>> No, he was not. He never used those words “coordinate velocity” and “proper
>>>> velocity”. You are dreaming things. Furthermore, YOU are not using the
>>>> terms correctly, mostly because you don’t know what they mean.
>>>
>>> Sure I am using the terms precisely and correctly. Don't believe me?
>>> Then YOU use them correctly and demonstrate the proper use of v in the
>>> LTs. If you can't or won't, then I stand victorious.
>> Oh, come on you lazy buffoon. You can’t look up “proper velocity” in Google
>> or even Wikipedia?
>>
>> Proper velocity (or celerity) is dx/dtau, where dx is the change in
>> position of an object as seen by an observer NOT moving with the object,
>> and dtau is the change in time on a clock that IS moving with the object.
>>
>> Note that proper velocity was NEVER discussed in Sal’s little video, and in
>> fact the job remains for you to look up what “coordinate velocity” means.
>>
>> You aren’t going to accomplish anything if you don’t even know what the
>> words mean. You’re just going to fling them around like chopped vegetables
>> in a word salad.
>
> Bodkin, what makes you think that I am not completely conversant in
> celerity, aka proper velocity w.
>
> What we have been investigating in this thread is the CLOSING proper
> velocity and the CLOSING coordinate velocity, which as I stated earlier
> is a completely new Dolotarian quantity,