patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
>>>
>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
>>>
>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
>>>
>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
>>> the same two spacetime events:
>>>
>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
>>>
>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
>>>
>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2 microsecond flight.
>>>
>>
>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
>> transforms?
>>
>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
>> first?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
>

You seem to have missed the point.

What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
transforms?

You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
so the sideways impact should be less.

But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
understanding of relativity says?

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 4:35:49 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>> You combined mine and Python's words to make it look as if I typed
>>> them. Here is the evidence:
>>> "> > You have even lost Python: Why are you calling the same event with different names?"
>> Either you endorse Python's bewilderment over the event names or you
>> don't. If you don't, then it made no sense for you to pile on to his
>> statement. So, being charitable, I treated your piling on as an
>> endorsement, and asked you the same question I asked him, namely, what
>> single event do you think I have called by different names? If you don't
>> actually think I have, and you believe Python is just confused, then you
>> had no basis for disputing the facts presented to you.
>>
>> Again, the standard muon scenario you posed has been fully and clearly
>> explained. If you have any remaining questions about it, feel free to
>> ask. Otherwise, I accept your heartfelt thanks.
> I request a vote of this forum. How many believe that "Four Event"
> Townes has actually explained anything? Please cast your vote, yes or no.
>

It’s you. His account is fine.

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:31:42 PM UTC-8, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:11:30 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>> The lab clock reads the values T2, T3, and T4 at the events E2, E3,
>>>> and E4 respectively, and the elapsed times are T4 - T2 = 4.4 usec and
>>>> T4 - T3 = 1.1 usec. Likewise a clock riding with the muon reads t1 and
>>>> t4 at events E1 and E4 respectively, and we have t4 - t1 = 2.2 usec.
>>>
>>> I do find these two statements of yours incomprehensible:
>>>
>>>> "[the lab clock] indicates an elapsed time of 1.1 usec since the clock
>>>> read 7:00 minus 1.1 usec, which is when the lab was simultaneous with
>>>> the creation of the muon in terms of the muon frame." "Likewise a
>>>> clock riding with the muon reads t1 and t4 at events E1 and E4
>>>> respectively, and we have t4 - t1 = 2.2 usec."
>>>
>>> How do you explain this?
>> In the first statement we have readings of the lab clock T4 = 7:00 and
>> T3 = 7:00 - 1.1 usec, and hence T4 - T3 = 1.1 usec. We also have T2 = T4
>> - 4.4 usec, and hence T4 - T2 = 4.4 usec. We also have t4 - t1 = 2.2 usec.
>>
>> You need to distinguish between the reading of a clock and the sense in
>> which a clock indicates elapsed times. Elapsed times are not readings,
>> they are differences between readings. Your brain's inability to grasp
>> that distinction seems to be the cause of your difficulties.
>
> Interesting that you criticize my brain. My brain is capable of
> constructing ideas that can be communicated to, and represented in other
> brains. Your brain is unable to do this. Don't believe me? I dare you
> to map your four events E1, E2, E3, E4, your four times T1, T2, T3, T4
> and your distance D onto the times, places and objects of my original
> example. I say you don't have a brain that can accomplish this. I also
> say that you won't even try.
>

Oh, Pat.

I see your criticism of Townes is “If you cannot make it clear to MY brain,
then it is YOUR brain that is failing.”

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

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
> >>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
> >>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
> >>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
> >>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
> >>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
> >>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
> >>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
> >>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
> >>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
> >>>
> >>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
> >>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
> >>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
> >>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
> >>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
> >>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
> >>>
> >>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
> >>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
> >>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
> >>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
> >>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
> >>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
> >>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
> >>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
> >>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
> >>>
> >>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
> >>> the same two spacetime events:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
> >>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters..
> >>>
> >>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
> >>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1..1
> >>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2..2 microsecond flight.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
> >> transforms?
> >>
> >> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
> >> first?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> > cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> > congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
> >
>
> You seem to have missed the point.
>
> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
> transforms?
>
> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
> so the sideways impact should be less.
>
> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
> understanding of relativity says?
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2 microsecond flight.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
>>>> transforms?
>>>>
>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
>>>> first?
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>
>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
>> transforms?
>>
>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
>> so the sideways impact should be less.
>>
>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
>> understanding of relativity says?
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
>

No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?

(Where do you plan to look up this information?)

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

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
> >>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
> >>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
> >>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
> >>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
> >>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
> >>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
> >>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
> >>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
> >>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
> >>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
> >>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
> >>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
> >>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
> >>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
> >>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
> >>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
> >>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
> >>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
> >>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
> >>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
> >>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
> >>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
> >>>>> the same two spacetime events:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
> >>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
> >>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
> >>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2 microsecond flight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
> >>>> transforms?
> >>>>
> >>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
> >>>> first?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> >>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> >>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again..
> >>>
> >>
> >> You seem to have missed the point.
> >>
> >> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
> >> transforms?
> >>
> >> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
> >> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
> >> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
> >> so the sideways impact should be less.
> >>
> >> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
> >> understanding of relativity says?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
> > say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
> >
> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
>
> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper transverse motion it is derived from. Big Deal. Bodkin, this angle of attack will ultimately not work for you. Let me show you why. If an observer has a relative velocity relative to the earth such that gamma = 2 then what does that observer measure the rate of time to be on the earth relative to his own wrist watch.

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:23:18 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
> > >>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
> > >>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
> > >>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
> > >>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
> > >>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
> > >>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
> > >>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
> > >>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
> > >>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
> > >>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
> > >>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
> > >>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
> > >>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
> > >>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
> > >>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
> > >>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
> > >>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
> > >>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
> > >>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
> > >>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
> > >>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
> > >>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
> > >>>>> the same two spacetime events:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
> > >>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
> > >>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
> > >>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2 microsecond flight.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
> > >>>> transforms?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
> > >>>> first?
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> > >>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> > >>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> You seem to have missed the point.
> > >>
> > >> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
> > >> transforms?
> > >>
> > >> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
> > >> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
> > >> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
> > >> so the sideways impact should be less.
> > >>
> > >> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
> > >> understanding of relativity says?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
> > > say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
> > >
> > No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
> > about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
> >
> > (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper transverse motion it is derived from. Big Deal. Bodkin, this angle of attack will ultimately not work for you. Let me show you why. If an observer has a relative velocity relative to the earth such that gamma = 2 then what does that observer measure the rate of time to be on the earth relative to his own wrist watch.

Let me add Einstein's qualification that I am not asking what does the observer *see* with his vision. But rather, what does the observer *observe* once doppler shifts are transformed away with the proper SR equations.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2 microsecond flight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
>>>>>> first?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>>>
>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
>>>> transforms?
>>>>
>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
>>>>
>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
>>>> understanding of relativity says?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
>>>
>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
>>
>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
> transverse motion it is derived from.

No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.

(Where do you plan to look up this information?)

> Big Deal. Bodkin, this angle of attack will ultimately not work for you.
> Let me show you why. If an observer has a relative velocity relative
> to the earth such that gamma = 2 then what does that observer measure the
> rate of time to be on the earth relative to his own wrist watch.
>

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

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
> >>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
> >>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
> >>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
> >>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
> >>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
> >>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
> >>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
> >>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
> >>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
> >>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
> >>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
> >>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
> >>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
> >>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
> >>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
> >>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
> >>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
> >>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
> >>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
> >>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
> >>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
> >>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
> >>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
> >>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
> >>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
> >>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2 microsecond flight.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
> >>>>>> transforms?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
> >>>>>> first?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> >>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> >>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to have missed the point.
> >>>>
> >>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
> >>>> transforms?
> >>>>
> >>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
> >>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
> >>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
> >>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
> >>>>
> >>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
> >>>> understanding of relativity says?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
> >>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
> >>>
> >> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
> >> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
> >>
> >> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
> > LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
> > transverse motion it is derived from.
> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)

No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.
> > Big Deal. Bodkin, this angle of attack will ultimately not work for you..
> > Let me show you why. If an observer has a relative velocity relative
> > to the earth such that gamma = 2 then what does that observer measure the
> > rate of time to be on the earth relative to his own wrist watch.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
>>>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
>>>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
>>>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
>>>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
>>>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
>>>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
>>>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
>>>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
>>>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
>>>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
>>>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
>>>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
>>>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
>>>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
>>>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
>>>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
>>>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
>>>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
>>>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
>>>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
>>>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
>>>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
>>>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
>>>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
>>>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
>>>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
>>>>>>>> first?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
>>>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
>>>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
>>>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
>>>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
>>>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
>>>>>> understanding of relativity says?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
>>>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
>>>>>
>>>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
>>>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
>>>>
>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
>>> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
>>> transverse motion it is derived from.
>> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>
> No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.

Passive-aggressive arm-folding will get you nowhere.

Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler. Chapter on Lorentz transforms.

Let me make something really clear. If you get pouty-lipped and say, “I
don’t want to do ANYTHING on my own, I want you to feed me like a baby
bird,” I’m going to just let you sit there with your mouth open. Because
baby birds shouldn’t be posting on Usenet, right?

>>> Big Deal. Bodkin, this angle of attack will ultimately not work for you.
>>> Let me show you why. If an observer has a relative velocity relative
>>> to the earth such that gamma = 2 then what does that observer measure the
>>> rate of time to be on the earth relative to his own wrist watch.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
> >>>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
> >>>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
> >>>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
> >>>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
> >>>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
> >>>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
> >>>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
> >>>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
> >>>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
> >>>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
> >>>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
> >>>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
> >>>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
> >>>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
> >>>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
> >>>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
> >>>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
> >>>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
> >>>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize.. With the 1905
> >>>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
> >>>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
> >>>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
> >>>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time while riding the muon.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
> >>>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
> >>>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
> >>>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2
> >>>>>>>>> microsecond flight.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
> >>>>>>>> transforms?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
> >>>>>>>> first?
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> >>>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> >>>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
> >>>>>> transforms?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
> >>>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
> >>>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
> >>>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
> >>>>>> understanding of relativity says?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
> >>>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
> >>>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
> >>>>
> >>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
> >>> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
> >>> transverse motion it is derived from.
> >> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
> >> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> >
> > No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.
> Passive-aggressive arm-folding will get you nowhere.
>
> Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler. Chapter on Lorentz transforms.
>
> Let me make something really clear. If you get pouty-lipped and say, “I
> don’t want to do ANYTHING on my own, I want you to feed me like a baby
> bird,” I’m going to just let you sit there with your mouth open. Because
> baby birds shouldn’t be posting on Usenet, right?

Bodkin, I can tell by your choice of weapons (transverse velocity) that it is my ingenious method of using the earth's own time dilated rotation to put an upper limit on Smith's lab clock interval is the thing you believe you can invalidated. Fughedaboudit brah.

If you read this thread again you will find where the brilliant Townes Olsen who you have already acclaimed correct in this matter, has in fact calculated a 1.1 usec. interval. This man whom you account a great relativist and arithmatist surpassing even the likes of yourself, Dirk, Sylvia, Python, Dono, Jan, Prokary, rotchm, etc. planted his flag directly on top of the Smith scintillator at precisely 7:00 (his choice) at the moment of scintillation then calculated a 7:00 minus 1.1 usec interval for the muon. See his time stamp T3 calculation.

You have already said you would stand by this brilliant soul Olsen and his crystal clear exposition of my little conumdrum. I assume that also goes for Dirk, Sylvia, Jan, Python, Dono, rotchm, etc. So do you, or don't you stand by it?
> >>> Big Deal. Bodkin, this angle of attack will ultimately not work for you.
> >>> Let me show you why. If an observer has a relative velocity relative
> >>> to the earth such that gamma = 2 then what does that observer measure the
> >>> rate of time to be on the earth relative to his own wrist watch.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
>>>>>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
>>>>>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
>>>>>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
>>>>>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
>>>>>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
>>>>>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
>>>>>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
>>>>>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
>>>>>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
>>>>>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
>>>>>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
>>>>>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
>>>>>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
>>>>>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
>>>>>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
>>>>>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
>>>>>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
>>>>>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
>>>>>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time
>>>>>>>>>>> while riding the muon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
>>>>>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
>>>>>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
>>>>>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
>>>>>>>>>> first?
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
>>>>>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
>>>>>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
>>>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
>>>>>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
>>>>>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
>>>>>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
>>>>>>>> understanding of relativity says?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
>>>>>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
>>>>>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
>>>>> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
>>>>> transverse motion it is derived from.
>>>> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>>>
>>> No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.
>> Passive-aggressive arm-folding will get you nowhere.
>>
>> Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler. Chapter on Lorentz transforms.
>>
>> Let me make something really clear. If you get pouty-lipped and say, “I
>> don’t want to do ANYTHING on my own, I want you to feed me like a baby
>> bird,” I’m going to just let you sit there with your mouth open. Because
>> baby birds shouldn’t be posting on Usenet, right?
>
> Bodkin, I can tell by your choice of weapons (transverse velocity) that
> it is my ingenious method of using the earth's own time dilated rotation
> to put an upper limit on Smith's lab clock interval is the thing you
> believe you can invalidated. Fughedaboudit brah.
>
> If you read this thread again you will find where the brilliant Townes
> Olsen who you have already acclaimed correct in this matter, has in fact
> calculated a 1.1 usec. interval. This man whom you account a great
> relativist and arithmatist surpassing even the likes of yourself, Dirk,
> Sylvia, Python, Dono, Jan, Prokary, rotchm, etc. planted his flag
> directly on top of the Smith scintillator at precisely 7:00 (his choice)
> at the moment of scintillation then calculated a 7:00 minus 1.1 usec
> interval for the muon. See his time stamp T3 calculation.
>
> You have already said you would stand by this brilliant soul Olsen and
> his crystal clear exposition of my little conumdrum. I assume that also
> goes for Dirk, Sylvia, Jan, Python, Dono, rotchm, etc. So do you, or
> don't you stand by it?

On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 19:31:03 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
> relativity from the ground up?

Better learn it directly from the inconsistent mumble of an
idiot guru, violating his basic definitions.

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
> >>>>>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
> >>>>>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
> >>>>>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
> >>>>>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
> >>>>>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
> >>>>>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
> >>>>>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
> >>>>>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
> >>>>>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
> >>>>>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
> >>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
> >>>>>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
> >>>>>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
> >>>>>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
> >>>>>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
> >>>>>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
> >>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
> >>>>>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
> >>>>>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time
> >>>>>>>>>>> while riding the muon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
> >>>>>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
> >>>>>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
> >>>>>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2
> >>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
> >>>>>>>>>> transforms?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
> >>>>>>>>>> first?
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> >>>>>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> >>>>>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
> >>>>>>>> transforms?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
> >>>>>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
> >>>>>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
> >>>>>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
> >>>>>>>> understanding of relativity says?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
> >>>>>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
> >>>>>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
> >>>>> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
> >>>>> transverse motion it is derived from.
> >>>> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
> >>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> >>>
> >>> No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.
> >> Passive-aggressive arm-folding will get you nowhere.
> >>
> >> Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler. Chapter on Lorentz transforms.
> >>
> >> Let me make something really clear. If you get pouty-lipped and say, “I
> >> don’t want to do ANYTHING on my own, I want you to feed me like a baby
> >> bird,” I’m going to just let you sit there with your mouth open. Because
> >> baby birds shouldn’t be posting on Usenet, right?
> >
> > Bodkin, I can tell by your choice of weapons (transverse velocity) that
> > it is my ingenious method of using the earth's own time dilated rotation
> > to put an upper limit on Smith's lab clock interval is the thing you
> > believe you can invalidated. Fughedaboudit brah.
> >
> > If you read this thread again you will find where the brilliant Townes
> > Olsen who you have already acclaimed correct in this matter, has in fact
> > calculated a 1.1 usec. interval. This man whom you account a great
> > relativist and arithmatist surpassing even the likes of yourself, Dirk,
> > Sylvia, Python, Dono, Jan, Prokary, rotchm, etc. planted his flag
> > directly on top of the Smith scintillator at precisely 7:00 (his choice)
> > at the moment of scintillation then calculated a 7:00 minus 1.1 usec
> > interval for the muon. See his time stamp T3 calculation.
> >
> > You have already said you would stand by this brilliant soul Olsen and
> > his crystal clear exposition of my little conumdrum. I assume that also
> > goes for Dirk, Sylvia, Jan, Python, Dono, rotchm, etc. So do you, or
> > don't you stand by it?
> So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
> is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
> go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
> decided to change the subject.
>
> Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
> doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
> some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
>
> And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
> relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
> maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
>
> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
> relativity from the ground up?

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
> is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
> go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
> decided to change the subject.
>
> Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
> doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
> some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
>
> And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
> relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
> maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
>
> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
> relativity from the ground up?

Here’s something to help you reexamine your motives here.

You know deep in your heart that you are not REALLY disassembling
relativity after a century of deep examination by people better prepared
than you; that’s just a show. What you are really trying to do is have some
fun along the way to learn relativity, given that you’ve read NOTHING on
the subject, and by fun you mean poking and needling like you imagine
Socratic dialogue goes (which it doesn’t).

So why CAN’T you learn relativity from sci.physics.relativity?

The reasons are pretty basic:

You need to work examples set up BY OTHERS where YOU do the work of setting
up the equations, doing the numbers. You cannot learn otherwise. That’s why
EVERY instructional book has homework. And you’ll never be able to claim to
understand anything unless you’ve done homework, period. So the problem is,
nobody here is going to give you homework to learn from. You need that from
another source, like a book.

Second, there has to be some understanding of what you DO know as
prerequisite material. Like, do you understand what a reference frame is?
(Seto does not, for example, and so it’s pointless to discuss anything
about relativity with him.) Do you know what momentum is REALLY defined as?
(Hint: it’s not mv.) Do you know the basics of Newtonian physics?
(everythingisalllies does not, though he somehow thinks he does.) And
because this forum does not vet participants by some standard of
prerequisite knowledge, no one can safely assume what you already know.

Third, this is a text-based forum. Getting algebra in here, though some
people make the effort, is harder than the value obtained. But
understanding how to get from premise to conclusion can ONLY be sensibly
done with math. Understanding what things a theory predicts WILL happen in
nature and what things are predicted to NEVER happen in nature, involves
looking at the math. And because that’s too hard to represent well here,
you’ll never see that working.

Bottom line: sci.physics.relativity is a stupid venue to try to learn
relativity. But you need to learn some relativity to have any cogent
discussions, pro or con, about it.

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while riding the muon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
>>>>>>>>>>>> first?
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
>>>>>>>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
>>>>>>>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
>>>>>>>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
>>>>>>>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
>>>>>>>>>> understanding of relativity says?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
>>>>>>>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
>>>>>>>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
>>>>>>> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
>>>>>>> transverse motion it is derived from.
>>>>>> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
>>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>>>>>
>>>>> No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.
>>>> Passive-aggressive arm-folding will get you nowhere.
>>>>
>>>> Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler. Chapter on Lorentz transforms.
>>>>
>>>> Let me make something really clear. If you get pouty-lipped and say, “I
>>>> don’t want to do ANYTHING on my own, I want you to feed me like a baby
>>>> bird,” I’m going to just let you sit there with your mouth open. Because
>>>> baby birds shouldn’t be posting on Usenet, right?
>>>
>>> Bodkin, I can tell by your choice of weapons (transverse velocity) that
>>> it is my ingenious method of using the earth's own time dilated rotation
>>> to put an upper limit on Smith's lab clock interval is the thing you
>>> believe you can invalidated. Fughedaboudit brah.
>>>
>>> If you read this thread again you will find where the brilliant Townes
>>> Olsen who you have already acclaimed correct in this matter, has in fact
>>> calculated a 1.1 usec. interval. This man whom you account a great
>>> relativist and arithmatist surpassing even the likes of yourself, Dirk,
>>> Sylvia, Python, Dono, Jan, Prokary, rotchm, etc. planted his flag
>>> directly on top of the Smith scintillator at precisely 7:00 (his choice)
>>> at the moment of scintillation then calculated a 7:00 minus 1.1 usec
>>> interval for the muon. See his time stamp T3 calculation.
>>>
>>> You have already said you would stand by this brilliant soul Olsen and
>>> his crystal clear exposition of my little conumdrum. I assume that also
>>> goes for Dirk, Sylvia, Jan, Python, Dono, rotchm, etc. So do you, or
>>> don't you stand by it?
>> So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
>> is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
>> go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
>> decided to change the subject.
>>
>> Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
>> doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
>> some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
>>
>> And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
>> relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
>> maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
>>
>> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
>> relativity from the ground up?
>
> Bodkin, why do you kick against the goads? Wonderful Townes Olsen has
> confirmed a calculation of mine. Don't pout and cast aspersions because of this. Argue.
>
> Me *learn* relativity??? Bodkin, did YOU discover the conflict between
> Einstein One and Kepler Three? Did YOU derive the Lorentz Contraction
> Velocity formula? Did YOU break arithmetic? With the possible exception
> of Richard Hertz, I am one of the most informed relativists of all time.
>
>

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 11:09:55 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
> > is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
> > go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
> > decided to change the subject.
> >
> > Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
> > doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
> > some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
> >
> > And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
> > relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
> > maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
> >
> > Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
> > relativity from the ground up?
> Here’s something to help you reexamine your motives here.
>
> You know deep in your heart that you are not REALLY disassembling
> relativity after a century of deep examination by people better prepared
> than you; that’s just a show. What you are really trying to do is have some
> fun along the way to learn relativity, given that you’ve read NOTHING on
> the subject, and by fun you mean poking and needling like you imagine
> Socratic dialogue goes (which it doesn’t).
>
> So why CAN’T you learn relativity from sci.physics.relativity?
>
> The reasons are pretty basic:
>
> You need to work examples set up BY OTHERS where YOU do the work of setting
> up the equations, doing the numbers. You cannot learn otherwise. That’s why
> EVERY instructional book has homework. And you’ll never be able to claim to
> understand anything unless you’ve done homework, period. So the problem is,
> nobody here is going to give you homework to learn from. You need that from
> another source, like a book.
>
> Second, there has to be some understanding of what you DO know as
> prerequisite material. Like, do you understand what a reference frame is?
> (Seto does not, for example, and so it’s pointless to discuss anything
> about relativity with him.) Do you know what momentum is REALLY defined as?
> (Hint: it’s not mv.) Do you know the basics of Newtonian physics?
> (everythingisalllies does not, though he somehow thinks he does.) And
> because this forum does not vet participants by some standard of
> prerequisite knowledge, no one can safely assume what you already know.
>
> Third, this is a text-based forum. Getting algebra in here, though some
> people make the effort, is harder than the value obtained. But
> understanding how to get from premise to conclusion can ONLY be sensibly
> done with math. Understanding what things a theory predicts WILL happen in
> nature and what things are predicted to NEVER happen in nature, involves
> looking at the math. And because that’s too hard to represent well here,
> you’ll never see that working.
>
> Bottom line: sci.physics.relativity is a stupid venue to try to learn
> relativity. But you need to learn some relativity to have any cogent
> discussions, pro or con, about it.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Good ol' Bodkin, manifesting his typical "I've been beaten" tell. But I give you and Townes credit for at least putting on your armor and riding out to do honorable battle. Unlike the rest of the cowards. Maybe they are just wiser than you two. You two certainly look silly though; like Don Quixote and Poncho charging on a swayback nag and a donkey.

I we done here Bodkin? Or would like a postmortem as to how and why I defeated you again? This has really been one of the most stunning victories I have ever scored in this forum. Mostly silence except for you two. I remember a lot more Einstein ninjas jumping from the trees during Einstein One, Kepler Three.

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 11:12:06 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> while riding the muon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143..12 meters.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
> >>>>>>>>>>>> transforms?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
> >>>>>>>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
> >>>>>>>>>> transforms?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
> >>>>>>>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
> >>>>>>>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
> >>>>>>>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
> >>>>>>>>>> understanding of relativity says?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
> >>>>>>>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
> >>>>>>>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
> >>>>>>> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
> >>>>>>> transverse motion it is derived from.
> >>>>>> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
> >>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.
> >>>> Passive-aggressive arm-folding will get you nowhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler. Chapter on Lorentz transforms..
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me make something really clear. If you get pouty-lipped and say, “I
> >>>> don’t want to do ANYTHING on my own, I want you to feed me like a baby
> >>>> bird,” I’m going to just let you sit there with your mouth open. Because
> >>>> baby birds shouldn’t be posting on Usenet, right?
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, I can tell by your choice of weapons (transverse velocity) that
> >>> it is my ingenious method of using the earth's own time dilated rotation
> >>> to put an upper limit on Smith's lab clock interval is the thing you
> >>> believe you can invalidated. Fughedaboudit brah.
> >>>
> >>> If you read this thread again you will find where the brilliant Townes
> >>> Olsen who you have already acclaimed correct in this matter, has in fact
> >>> calculated a 1.1 usec. interval. This man whom you account a great
> >>> relativist and arithmatist surpassing even the likes of yourself, Dirk,
> >>> Sylvia, Python, Dono, Jan, Prokary, rotchm, etc. planted his flag
> >>> directly on top of the Smith scintillator at precisely 7:00 (his choice)
> >>> at the moment of scintillation then calculated a 7:00 minus 1.1 usec
> >>> interval for the muon. See his time stamp T3 calculation.
> >>>
> >>> You have already said you would stand by this brilliant soul Olsen and
> >>> his crystal clear exposition of my little conumdrum. I assume that also
> >>> goes for Dirk, Sylvia, Jan, Python, Dono, rotchm, etc. So do you, or
> >>> don't you stand by it?
> >> So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
> >> is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
> >> go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
> >> decided to change the subject.
> >>
> >> Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
> >> doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
> >> some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
> >>
> >> And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
> >> relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
> >> maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
> >>
> >> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
> >> relativity from the ground up?
> >
> > Bodkin, why do you kick against the goads? Wonderful Townes Olsen has
> > confirmed a calculation of mine. Don't pout and cast aspersions because of this. Argue.
> >
> > Me *learn* relativity??? Bodkin, did YOU discover the conflict between
> > Einstein One and Kepler Three? Did YOU derive the Lorentz Contraction
> > Velocity formula? Did YOU break arithmetic? With the possible exception
> > of Richard Hertz, I am one of the most informed relativists of all time..
> >
> >
> Self-congratulatory bluster does absolutely nothing to those who know
> better.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 11:09:55 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
>>> is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
>>> go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
>>> decided to change the subject.
>>>
>>> Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
>>> doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
>>> some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
>>>
>>> And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
>>> relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
>>> maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
>>>
>>> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
>>> relativity from the ground up?
>> Here’s something to help you reexamine your motives here.
>>
>> You know deep in your heart that you are not REALLY disassembling
>> relativity after a century of deep examination by people better prepared
>> than you; that’s just a show. What you are really trying to do is have some
>> fun along the way to learn relativity, given that you’ve read NOTHING on
>> the subject, and by fun you mean poking and needling like you imagine
>> Socratic dialogue goes (which it doesn’t).
>>
>> So why CAN’T you learn relativity from sci.physics.relativity?
>>
>> The reasons are pretty basic:
>>
>> You need to work examples set up BY OTHERS where YOU do the work of setting
>> up the equations, doing the numbers. You cannot learn otherwise. That’s why
>> EVERY instructional book has homework. And you’ll never be able to claim to
>> understand anything unless you’ve done homework, period. So the problem is,
>> nobody here is going to give you homework to learn from. You need that from
>> another source, like a book.
>>
>> Second, there has to be some understanding of what you DO know as
>> prerequisite material. Like, do you understand what a reference frame is?
>> (Seto does not, for example, and so it’s pointless to discuss anything
>> about relativity with him.) Do you know what momentum is REALLY defined as?
>> (Hint: it’s not mv.) Do you know the basics of Newtonian physics?
>> (everythingisalllies does not, though he somehow thinks he does.) And
>> because this forum does not vet participants by some standard of
>> prerequisite knowledge, no one can safely assume what you already know.
>>
>> Third, this is a text-based forum. Getting algebra in here, though some
>> people make the effort, is harder than the value obtained. But
>> understanding how to get from premise to conclusion can ONLY be sensibly
>> done with math. Understanding what things a theory predicts WILL happen in
>> nature and what things are predicted to NEVER happen in nature, involves
>> looking at the math. And because that’s too hard to represent well here,
>> you’ll never see that working.
>>
>> Bottom line: sci.physics.relativity is a stupid venue to try to learn
>> relativity. But you need to learn some relativity to have any cogent
>> discussions, pro or con, about it.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Good ol' Bodkin, manifesting his typical "I've been beaten" tell.

Ah, ok, so you’re not interested in physics after all. You’re interested in
the verbal jousting for its own sake, without learning one damn thing about
physics in the process. Ok then, good to have that down about you.

I’d also just want to mention that if you show up at a basketball pick-up
game, take the ball, throw it repeatedly over the backboard, walk around
with it tucked into your sweatpants, and ignore it any time it is passed in
your direction, and then declare that you have won the game 912-3 before
walking away, what do you think that will matter to the other people who
were there before you showed up and are still there after you leave?

I get the impression that you are under the age of 13, in which case you
should not be posting under your real name by COPPA regulations.

> But I give you and Townes credit for at least putting on your armor and
> riding out to do honorable battle. Unlike the rest of the cowards.
> Maybe they are just wiser than you two. You two certainly look silly
> though; like Don Quixote and Poncho charging on a swayback nag and a donkey.
>
> I we done here Bodkin? Or would like a postmortem as to how and why I
> defeated you again? This has really been one of the most stunning
> victories I have ever scored in this forum. Mostly silence except for
> you two. I remember a lot more Einstein ninjas jumping from the trees
> during Einstein One, Kepler Three.
>

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

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 11:12:06 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 10:31:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:28:07 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 9:03:15 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frisky Frisch will shrink hizself down to a sized sufficient for him to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comfortably ride a muon. He will also shrink a specialized Newton’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cradle impulse force measuring apparatus. His Newton’s cradle is set up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to precisely measure perpendicular impulse forces applied to the muon by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scintillator. While Smith moves their laboratory and scintillator to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the equator. But first they calibrate the Newton’s cradle for impacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Smith’s scintillator. The values are for a 1,000 miles per hour
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perpendicular impact and for a 500 miles per hour perpendicular impact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Earth’s speed of rotation at the equator (where Smith’s scintillator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now resides) is roughly 1,000 miles per hour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two icons repeat their iconic muon time dilation experiment with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Smith & scintillator in the lab at the equator and Frisch & Newton's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cradle riding a muon traveling at .867c (gamma = 2) relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth. Just as before, Smith measures 4.4 microseconds on his lab clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the elapsed time for Frisch and the muon to travel from an altitude of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1143.12 meters above the scintillator then scintillate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simultaneously at the point of scintillation Frisch measures an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous perpendicular impulse force equivalent to an impact of only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 miles per hour. Frisch concludes that the earth is rotating at only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half its rest frame speed. Therefore all the clocks on earth must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running at only half their normal rate, otherwise the earth’s solar day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the earth’s clocked day would no longer synchronize. With the 1905
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper as his authority, Frisch confidently concludes that during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight to the scintillator Smith’s lab clock could have only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticked off 1.1 microseconds of earth proper time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have three different and equally justifiable time intervals between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same two spacetime events:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Frisch’s measurement of 2.2 microseconds of elapsed time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while riding the muon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Smith’s measurement of 4.4 microseconds of elapsed time that it took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frisch and the muon to scintillate from an altitude of 1143.12 meters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Frisch’s instantaneous measurement of the earth’s reduced rotation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate in his frame of reference, leading to the conclusion that only 1.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microseconds elapsed on Smith’s laboratory clock during his 2.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microsecond flight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear. What does relativity say about transverse motion under Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t you think you’d do better learning what relativity actually says
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry Bodkin. That is why Frisch and Smith CALIBRATED the Newton's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cradle relativistic conditions BEFORE they repeated the experiment. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> congratulate your not giving up too easily. But you need to try again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What does relativity actually say about transverse motion under the Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>> transforms?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You made a claim that because every clock slows down under Lorentz
>>>>>>>>>>>> transform, then the sideways speed of the earth’s surface should also slow
>>>>>>>>>>>> down (because the earth’s rotation is slowed down) in the muon’s frame, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> so the sideways impact should be less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But is that what relativity ACTUALLY says, or just what your comic-book
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of relativity says?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, I say this is EXACTLY what relativity ACTUALLY says. What do you
>>>>>>>>>>> say relativity actually says in this case? Be specific or be quiet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No you do not say exactly what relativity says. What does relativity say
>>>>>>>>>> about transverse motion under the Lorentz transforms?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>> Relativity says that traverse motion does not cease to exist under the
>>>>>>>>> LTs and so has a magnitude and direction proportional to the proper
>>>>>>>>> transverse motion it is derived from.
>>>>>>>> No, it says something much clearer and more precise than that.
>>>>>>>> (Where do you plan to look up this information?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. It says that EXACTLY. Prove me wrong.
>>>>>> Passive-aggressive arm-folding will get you nowhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler. Chapter on Lorentz transforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me make something really clear. If you get pouty-lipped and say, “I
>>>>>> don’t want to do ANYTHING on my own, I want you to feed me like a baby
>>>>>> bird,” I’m going to just let you sit there with your mouth open. Because
>>>>>> baby birds shouldn’t be posting on Usenet, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, I can tell by your choice of weapons (transverse velocity) that
>>>>> it is my ingenious method of using the earth's own time dilated rotation
>>>>> to put an upper limit on Smith's lab clock interval is the thing you
>>>>> believe you can invalidated. Fughedaboudit brah.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you read this thread again you will find where the brilliant Townes
>>>>> Olsen who you have already acclaimed correct in this matter, has in fact
>>>>> calculated a 1.1 usec. interval. This man whom you account a great
>>>>> relativist and arithmatist surpassing even the likes of yourself, Dirk,
>>>>> Sylvia, Python, Dono, Jan, Prokary, rotchm, etc. planted his flag
>>>>> directly on top of the Smith scintillator at precisely 7:00 (his choice)
>>>>> at the moment of scintillation then calculated a 7:00 minus 1.1 usec
>>>>> interval for the muon. See his time stamp T3 calculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have already said you would stand by this brilliant soul Olsen and
>>>>> his crystal clear exposition of my little conumdrum. I assume that also
>>>>> goes for Dirk, Sylvia, Jan, Python, Dono, rotchm, etc. So do you, or
>>>>> don't you stand by it?
>>>> So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
>>>> is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
>>>> go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
>>>> decided to change the subject.
>>>>
>>>> Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
>>>> doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
>>>> some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
>>>>
>>>> And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
>>>> relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
>>>> maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
>>>> relativity from the ground up?
>>>
>>> Bodkin, why do you kick against the goads? Wonderful Townes Olsen has
>>> confirmed a calculation of mine. Don't pout and cast aspersions because of this. Argue.
>>>
>>> Me *learn* relativity??? Bodkin, did YOU discover the conflict between
>>> Einstein One and Kepler Three? Did YOU derive the Lorentz Contraction
>>> Velocity formula? Did YOU break arithmetic? With the possible exception
>>> of Richard Hertz, I am one of the most informed relativists of all time.
>>>
>>>
>> Self-congratulatory bluster does absolutely nothing to those who know
>> better.
>
> If you don't congratulate your self here, who will?

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 12:32:57 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 11:09:55 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So I see that when I pointed out that the problem you posed in this thread
> >>> is based on assumptions borne of ignorance, and I suggested where you can
> >>> go to correct that ignorance, you have passive-aggressively declined and
> >>> decided to change the subject.
> >>>
> >>> Now you are looking to see why an explanation posted by someone else
> >>> doesn’t make any sense to you while it makes sense to other people. And for
> >>> some reason, you think calling for a vote is useful for something.
> >>>
> >>> And nowhere in here does it occur to you that the problem is not with
> >>> relativity, not with other posters, but with you and your studious
> >>> maintenance of ignorance of the subject.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you think that yammering about relativity HERE is the way to learn
> >>> relativity from the ground up?
> >> Here’s something to help you reexamine your motives here.
> >>
> >> You know deep in your heart that you are not REALLY disassembling
> >> relativity after a century of deep examination by people better prepared
> >> than you; that’s just a show. What you are really trying to do is have some
> >> fun along the way to learn relativity, given that you’ve read NOTHING on
> >> the subject, and by fun you mean poking and needling like you imagine
> >> Socratic dialogue goes (which it doesn’t).
> >>
> >> So why CAN’T you learn relativity from sci.physics.relativity?
> >>
> >> The reasons are pretty basic:
> >>
> >> You need to work examples set up BY OTHERS where YOU do the work of setting
> >> up the equations, doing the numbers. You cannot learn otherwise. That’s why
> >> EVERY instructional book has homework. And you’ll never be able to claim to
> >> understand anything unless you’ve done homework, period. So the problem is,
> >> nobody here is going to give you homework to learn from. You need that from
> >> another source, like a book.
> >>
> >> Second, there has to be some understanding of what you DO know as
> >> prerequisite material. Like, do you understand what a reference frame is?
> >> (Seto does not, for example, and so it’s pointless to discuss anything
> >> about relativity with him.) Do you know what momentum is REALLY defined as?
> >> (Hint: it’s not mv.) Do you know the basics of Newtonian physics?
> >> (everythingisalllies does not, though he somehow thinks he does.) And
> >> because this forum does not vet participants by some standard of
> >> prerequisite knowledge, no one can safely assume what you already know..
> >>
> >> Third, this is a text-based forum. Getting algebra in here, though some
> >> people make the effort, is harder than the value obtained. But
> >> understanding how to get from premise to conclusion can ONLY be sensibly
> >> done with math. Understanding what things a theory predicts WILL happen in
> >> nature and what things are predicted to NEVER happen in nature, involves
> >> looking at the math. And because that’s too hard to represent well here,
> >> you’ll never see that working.
> >>
> >> Bottom line: sci.physics.relativity is a stupid venue to try to learn
> >> relativity. But you need to learn some relativity to have any cogent
> >> discussions, pro or con, about it.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Good ol' Bodkin, manifesting his typical "I've been beaten" tell.
> Ah, ok, so you’re not interested in physics after all. You’re interested in
> the verbal jousting for its own sake, without learning one damn thing about
> physics in the process. Ok then, good to have that down about you.
>
> I’d also just want to mention that if you show up at a basketball pick-up
> game, take the ball, throw it repeatedly over the backboard, walk around
> with it tucked into your sweatpants, and ignore it any time it is passed in
> your direction, and then declare that you have won the game 912-3 before
> walking away, what do you think that will matter to the other people who
> were there before you showed up and are still there after you leave?
>
> I get the impression that you are under the age of 13, in which case you
> should not be posting under your real name by COPPA regulations.

Yes, I'll admit to being young at heart. The next time you are in Seattle I'll introduce you to Chief Seattle's ggggrandson and show you around. But only after we spend half a day in front of the whiteboard teaching you some relativity. When in college, my friend stole the bronze bust of the Chief in Pioneer Square then demanded that mayor Ullman shave off his beard and mustache as ransom.

> > But I give you and Townes credit for at least putting on your armor and
> > riding out to do honorable battle. Unlike the rest of the cowards.
> > Maybe they are just wiser than you two. You two certainly look silly
> > though; like Don Quixote and Poncho charging on a swayback nag and a donkey.
> >
> > I we done here Bodkin? Or would like a postmortem as to how and why I
> > defeated you again? This has really been one of the most stunning
> > victories I have ever scored in this forum. Mostly silence except for
> > you two. I remember a lot more Einstein ninjas jumping from the trees
> > during Einstein One, Kepler Three.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables